That's awesome. I so would have been there.

Awesome? How? I'm not a religious person at all, but I try my best to be respectful of other peoples' beliefs, no matter what they may be. What those women did was show no respect at all for the beliefs of the monks, and was trespassing, to boot. Why is that something to celebrate? I don't approve of male-only priesthoods, but it's not my religion, it's not for me to say. And not for you, either. If you want to speak out against sexism in religion, there are other ways to do it.

Isn't there any real feminist news today? So far we've had creepy baby dolls, Playboy being Playboy, and religious intolerance.

I am certainly allowed to pass judgment on the religious beliefs and practices of others, BluePencils. I am not a relativist.
Based on religion's track record of oppressing women, I can't imagine a more appropriate event to be discussed on a feminist blog.
peace & love.

Reminds me of the time I sneaked into Notre Dame. The didn't want to let me in because I was wearing a tank top, so I went in the exit.

I am so with Loganberry on this one. Sexism is sexism regardless of what you choose to cover it with. Religion included.

There's a lot more to this story than women going into "sacred man-space", I think the bigger issue here is the seizure of land ... and the women went there just to be "in your face" about it. Like "you take our land? ha! we will throw your woman-ban in your faces!"

Being a feminist means confronting sexim. Religious sexism is the worst because it claims that GOD actually finds women offensive, unclean, inappropriate, and secondary.

Why should we tolerate religious sexism but not cultural, patriotic and economic sexism, or any other kind of holy ideology that oppresses a group of people while exalting another?

Being aware of the relativity of our own values is important. But if you are intellectually sophisticated enough to determine which are "universal" values (as opposed to relative), then you also ought to be able to stand up for them. Cultures with interal resistance, demonstrated here with women protesting, shows symptoms of relative values being upheld as universal. That needs to be fought.

Remember, their fight is our fight; our fight is their fight.

Umm, excuse me BluePencils, but did you even READ the full story?

First of all, these weren't just women who decided they didn't like the exclusionary practices of the monks. (Although, that being said, I would still have cheered them if they were)

There is, however, much more to the story.

From the article:

""If they are to take away our homes, then it might be better for us to go to prison, as we won't have anywhere else to stay," said Kyriaki Malama, spokeswoman for the Halkidiki citizens' movement.

"We are fed up and angry about this land seizure and the monasteries' demands. It was an effort to persuade authorities to take action," she told The Associated Press."

So as you can see, these women were actually trying to make a statement and win support for their cause. Women taking things into their own hands, defying convention and religious oppression and trying to help themselves? Sure sounds like feminist news to me!

And for a change, it's the good kind.

I'm with BluePencils to a point. This is no more appropriate than a gang of men charging over the gates of an all-female convent. Isolation by sex is their religious thing, fine, let them do it.

Plus, it's not clear whose land it is. Of course the lead protester said the church is in the wrong -- is there any evidence besides that? This isn't a feminist issue simply because a female is leading it.

hey,
so i am both a feminist and greek orthodox, which can be difficult at times since the church certainly has a policy of excluding women many places (they cannot go behind the alter for instance) but i too agree with bluepencils.
it is highly offensive to the church and a complete disregard for personal religious views to do this. i obviously cannot comment on the land dispute, i have no idea who's it is, but this was the wrong tactic to take.
i would love for the church to change it's stance on women, but monasteries are for monks, same as nunneries are for nuns. these people choose to live this way and even if you don't agree with the choice you should respect it.

This is horrible. If this was an abbey of nuns invaded by a bunch of men we would be horrified as well, because the entire point of an abbey or monastery is to be apart from the world and worldly desires, and part of that includes separation from those you might be sexually attracted to, including the opposite sex. It is their religious right and we should respect that.

The land seizure should have been fought. But this was NOT the way. I don't care if you dislike the church, I liken this to female guards at Guatanamo torturing Muslim men by touching them sexually and wearing unusually revealing clothing. It's emotional torture for them to be so violated. You don't think it's violation, fine. But to them, it is, and they feel it just as strongly as you would if a bunch of strange men broke into your home and went through your panty drawer (I know that's not what these women did, I'm simply saying the level of outrage and horror you would have would be equal to what these men must feel now).

I agree with Basiorana. It seems many of you believe that regardless of the land rights issue that it's a feminist statement to invade the monastery because somehow the monks are holding up the patriarchy by secluding themselves away with their pesky No Women Allowed policy.

The issue of sexism within the church is indeed an important one, but it simply doesn't benefit feminism in anyway to declare that monastic principles should be overthrown. As I understand it, monks seclude themselves from EVERYONE - by not asking the world to engage with them, they can pose no threat to women's rights by denying them access.

I'm not religious, and there are lots of things about religion that irritate me, but frankly I'm disappointed and vaguely embarrassed by the vigour with which some of you seem to be praising this 'activism'. Surely there are far greater things to be worried about. And yes, if a group of men invaded a nunnery, you would be up in arms about it.

If this were a nunnery and the circumstances behind the protest were similar (citizens felt that they were having land stolen from them) then I would cheer a mixed gender group of protesters just as much as I cheer THIS mixed gender group of protesters.

You all did see that both men AND women went into the "forbidden area" to protest right?

The group included men who felt wronged as well. To deny their sisters, wives, daughters and mothers the right to protest alongside them is abhorrent to me.

If these people genuinely feel that their land is being stolen from them by the church then who has the right to tell them they have to respect the rules of the Greek Orthodox Church? Obviously these protesters do not feel compelled to follow rules of this religion, and they shouldn't have to. I wish more people had their courage.

I don't see this as a feminist issue just because women were involved in the protest. I see it as a feminist issue because these women wanted their voices heard just as loud as the mens voices and were unwilling to let the barriers of religion or custom stop them.

@Ayla -- no, I could not find that in the AP report (although I admit it is vague).

"A group of female protesters ... entered the all-male Mount Athos monastic sanctuary in northern Greece... the small group of nearby villagers, including at least six women..."
It's not clear whether they were all women and the group was at least six, or whether it included some men.

Of course, this is the only source I have, so I'm open to other info :)

"...Of course, this is the only source I have, so I'm open to other info :)"

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=January2008&file=World_News2008010973031.xml

"Around 500 women and men from villages in the Halkidiki peninsula in northern Greece took a few steps into the territory of the self-governing community of some 20 monasteries before a police cordon stopped them, police and the organiser said."

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55839

"Athens, Jan. 9, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Guards have removed 500 protestors from Mount Athos, the Greek site known as the 'Holy Mountain.'

"The protestors-- 6 of them women-- were demonstrating against the law that bars entry to Mount Athos to anyone other than Orthodox males. The self-governing region, which is home to 20 different Orthodox monasteries, has lived under that restrictive law since 1045."

Ayla, forgive me - I missed that bit. Reading from Australia and it's Saturday morning...hangover fug clouds the issues.

I think the land protest thing is really interesting, and I definitely support the action to protest - in that respect, I find the idea of protesters breaching the monastery to be really powerful.

I guess I was really responding to some of the ideas above that seemed to separate the two issues and make it about sexism. Land rights aside, I don't think there's any feminist action to be made from invading a monastery.

But yes, in the context of the land rights dispute it's completely different.

The Greek government unjustly taking land is nothing new. Kudos to these women for taking a stand.

Thanks Mina!!!

Life is never easy is it?

So it is a land dispute and it is unclear whose land it is. I disagree with violating the church's space; it is just too extreme and wont lead to a better understanding with the church. I can see why they would take extreme action when their land is being taken away. Desperate times make people act out; hell, I don't have any better solutions for them.

I think that if their main goal was to get the public and authorities involved and force a decision they have accomplished it. I don't think it was the right way to go about it but they were brave.

...How badass was it for their spokeswoman to say that if they were arrested at least they would have a place to stay? :)

Life is never easy is it?

So it is a land dispute and it is unclear whose land it is. I disagree with violating the church's space; it is just too extreme and wont lead to a better understanding with the church. I can see why they would take extreme action when their land is being taken away. Desperate times make people act out; hell, I don't have any better solutions for them.

I think that if their main goal was to get the public and authorities involved and force a decision they have accomplished it. I don't think it was the right way to go about it but they were brave.

...How badass was it for their spokeswoman to say that if they were arrested at least they would have a place to stay? :)

Just because men did it too doesn't mean that they should have. The men should not have invaded the sanctuary without permission either.

In case it makes a difference to anyone, I just want to point out that this group didn't exactly invade a monastery, which would, I think, be potentially more offensive. The entire peninsula of Mount Athos (on which a number of monasteries are located) is off limits to women. These people just crossed onto the peninsula, not into the space of a particular monastery (as far as I can tell). It's something to think about: this is a UNESCO World Heritage Site that no woman is ever supposed to see.

Hahahahaha!!! That's awesome!

Anytime ya'll wanna do that somewhere stateside, let a brother know.

Liazoe, you are Greek Orthodox and I am not, so I would defer. But the following is what I believe to be true about Mount Athos.

1) Mount Athos is almost an island - a peninsula impenetrable by land. While nominally part of the Hellenic Republic, it is under the direct administration of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It is a theocracy, without a doubt.

2. Female humans are not the only banned animals on this peninsula. Female dogs, goats and cows are also banned (I guess milk consumed on non-fast days is imported from Greece proper.) Women are not only banned from the monasteries but from setting foot anywhere on Mount Athos, without exception. No women, ever, may visit anywhere on the "island." Not on the street, not at the newsstand, nowhere.

3. Monastics who come to Mount Athos may automatically become Greek citizens, without further formality.

I as a non-Orthodox male would have a better chance of getting a visa from Constantinople to visit Mount Athos than a religiously observant elderly Greek grandmother. Somehow this seems wrong. The EU thinks it's wrong, too.

"1) Mount Athos is almost an island - a peninsula impenetrable by land. While nominally part of the Hellenic Republic, it is under the direct administration of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It is a theocracy, without a doubt."

So it's like Vatican City would be if that wasn't recognized as separate from Italy?

i didn't know the bit about automatic citizenship, the crab, that would be fishy except that becoming monastic is no small undertaking, you can't just decided to become a monk one day and visit mount athos to get citizenship. i don't know enough about it to be sure but i believe it takes years of study and discipline.
anyway, if you want an interesting overview of women in the orthodox church, this link gives a good description. http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_4/Nicolaides.htm

I don't get what everyone thinks is so awful. Sexism is sexism, whether it's sugar coated with religion or not. If people don't like it, tough. Protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable, it's the best way to get results. They should know that they are worshiping something that's misogynistic.

Aha, The Crab, as I was reading comments I wondered if this was the same Greek place mentioned in the novel Middlesex (the family in the novel is Greek) where the monks tried to remove any female creature from the entire area in an attempt to keep it "pure."

Aha, The Crab, as I was reading comments I wondered if this was the same Greek place mentioned in the novel Middlesex (the family in the novel is Greek) where the monks tried to remove any female creature from the entire area in an attempt to keep it "pure."

"I don't get what everyone thinks is so awful. Sexism is sexism, whether it's sugar coated with religion or not. If people don't like it, tough. Protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable, it's the best way to get results. They should know that they are worshiping something that's misogynistic."

I'm glad you said this, Liza. Some shit needs to be said.

Liza, I think what people find awful about this is that some of the comments in this forum seem to imply that the forceful violation of a person's religious practice is noble and right. Religious practice is deeply personal, and it affects the practitioners' feelings of self worth and their relationship to something they love, in this case a god. Forcefully making a person violate their religious practice can make them feel cut off from their god who is precious to them, make them feel worthless and unclean, and even damn them to everlasting punishment. It can cause a lot of psychological trauma. Certain interogation practices at Guantonomo Bay exploited these traumatic effects by arousing lust in the more devout detainees so that they would feel ashamed and guilty for betraying their god, who again, is someone they love. Many people would consider putting someone through this awful, torturous even. Now, what those women in Greece did was far from the torture seen in Guantonomo. They have every right to fight for their land, and given their circumstances, I think their actions were justified. But as for the many other monastaries and convents that lack the power to oppress people, I feel that their requests to be left alone should honored. Vows of chastity and separation are not inherently misogynistic, and I don't think feminists have anything to gain by storming monastaries and traumatizing monks.

There is a WORLD of difference between men violating a designated women's space, and women violating a designated men's space.

Women's spaces are created so that women can feel safe from the constant threat and discrimination that men impose upon us. They serve to alleviate, if only temporarily, the powerlessness and disenfranchisement that women are subjected to living under patriarchy.

Men's spaces like this island, on the other hand, were historically* created on the basis that women are lesser beings and therefore deserving of exclusion. They serve to reinforce the patriarchy - to MAINTAIN power they obtained illegitimately and by force (power they stole from women).

Ask yourself, what if this were a religious group that thought black people were "unclean" and so didn't allow them in? Then ask, why the fuck should we "respect" sexism any more than we would racism?

*I'm not talking about male bonding drum circles here

curiousdude, I still maintain that sexism is sexism, and covering it with religion as a way to make it "sacred" or "personal" is no excuse. I think it's sick when women are required to cover themselves, avoid education, not talk to any man but their husband, not hold jobs or office or any position of authority, or serve as nothing more than breeding machines. Holding it on a different plane because it's religiously based just fuels the misogyny.

derrp: "Women's spaces are created so that women can feel safe from the constant threat and discrimination that men impose upon us. They serve to alleviate, if only temporarily, the powerlessness and disenfranchisement that women are subjected to living under patriarchy."

"Men's spaces like this island, on the other hand, were historically* created on the basis that women are lesser beings and therefore deserving of exclusion. They serve to reinforce the patriarchy - to MAINTAIN power they obtained illegitimately and by force (power they stole from women)."

Thank you for explaining it this way, e.g. women were considered ritually unclean due to menstruation, or considered not worthy due to lacking traditionally male qualities. I didn't used to get it.

I am not religious, but the religious aspect of this story considers to bother me, despite believing the protesters were right.

A male, I didn't used to get it either - patriarchal conditioning will do that to ya!

derrp: Men's spaces like this island, on the other hand, were historically* created on the basis that women are lesser beings and therefore deserving of exclusion. They serve to reinforce the patriarchy - to MAINTAIN power they obtained illegitimately and by force (power they stole from women).

in orthodoxy, women are not considered lesser beings, just have different purposes than males and that is not the reason they are not allowed on the island. and who said they stole the power from women in the first place?

I have read your previous comments, and take note of your religious concerns. My old denomination has tradition based (note I do not say "biblical") articles of faith I do not agree with, which was one reason I could not continue attendance. Life is not as "simple" as giving my life over to the will of God.

Missionary Church 2006
http://www.mcusa.org/about.asp?pi=388&ps=389

What is the "purpose" of women, according to the orthodox church; and why are female animals including humans, not allowed onto the peninsula?

Liza, I agree that sexist religious principles are not beyond reproach, and it does seem that motivations for the banning of women on the island are hateful. But I don't think that a monastary is inherently a sexist institution. I think that chastity vows are driven more by a disdain or mistrust of sex and sexual desire than a hatred of women. So I don't think that women invading a monastary is a feminist statement in of itself. Invading someone's private space and threatening their sexual freedom, which in this case is to abstain from sexual desire, is oppressive. So in response to your question, that's why I think some people would view the monastary invasion as awful. Does this make sense? What are your thoughts on this?

"Invading someone's private space and threatening their sexual freedom..."

OTOH, how private is the space that got "invaded"? As The Crab noted above,

"...Women are not only banned from the monasteries but from setting foot anywhere on Mount Athos, without exception. No women, ever, may visit anywhere on the 'island.' Not on the street, not at the newsstand, nowhere..."

Meanwhile, now I'm wondering about the land in the land dispute. From the article:

"...'If they are to take away our homes, then it might be better for us to go to prison, as we won't have anywhere else to stay,' said Kyriaki Malama, spokeswoman for the Halkidiki citizens' movement..."

If the monks win the case then would her home become part of the male-only zone?

For those who are still angry at this, remember that the women did not storm a monastery like you may be picturing. They went on a peninsula/island that has monasteries, and a ban on women. The island is a World Heritage Site, and a tourist site for men, and women are never able to see it.

Curiousdude, I don't think that people have a right to abstain from sexual desire when it means regulating where other people can go. Granted this is just one island in the whole world, but that same line of logic has banned women from going to school, from working, or from even leaving their homes. We can't accept that as tolerable in any way. Besides, if it was really about sexual desire and not about hating women and thinking we're unclean and wrong then the ban wouldn't extend to dogs and other animals.