Feminism and the faith

There are some beliefs in Zoroastrianism that are regarded as sexist, but they need not be so when properly interpreted. The first one is the belief that the primordial man and bull emitted seeds when dying, and from the man’s seed grew a plant whose leaves became the first human couple, while from the bull’s seed grew all beneficial plants and animals of the world (Cavendish, Richard; Ling, Trevor Oswald (1980), Mythology: an Illustrated Encyclopedia, Rizzoli). Now, this may be considered sexist because it shows life being created without female involvement, but that clearly did not literally happen, as proved by science.
Another Zoroastrian belief that is sometimes regarded as sexist is that after death people are greeted by either a beautiful, sweet-smelling maiden or an ugly, foul-smelling old woman, according to whether they are going to heaven or hell respectively (Mythology: an Illustrated Encyclopedia, and "Chinwad Puhl,” Encyclopaedia Iranica). This is considered to be sexist because it suggests that beautiful, sweet-smelling women are better than ugly, foul-smelling old ones, indicating that the most important thing about women is their outer beauty. I would suggest that in fact the two women’s inner beauty is what is being perceived by the person being guided to heaven or to hell (the one taking people to hell is presumably cruel, while the one taking them to heaven is benevolent). With this interpretation, the belief ceases to be sexist.
In regard to the Zoroastrian God being male, I note that a religion can worship goddesses while still being sexist (as we have seen with Hinduism allowing sati in the past, for example; Asher, Catherine B.; Talbot, Cynthia (2006), India before Europe, Cambridge University Press).
A religion can also worship one male God while being feminist provided it treats female worshippers equally and keeps in mind that God being male does not make human males, who are after all not Gods, superior to human women. This, Zoroastrianism can and should do.
Women became Zoroastrian priests as recently as 2011, but can perform only the lower-rung religious functions ("The jury is still out on women as Parsi priests,” Parsi Khabar, September 3, 2011). While this is indeed sexist, the fact that women were allowed to become Zoroastrian priests after centuries of not being permitted to join the priesthood shows that the rules concerning such things can change. Women can (and should) in the future be given full clerical powers in Zoroastrianism, and not be restricted to the lower-rung of religious functions.
In light of this, it is clear that Zoroastrians can be feminists, as they should be, because it is the right thing to do. Zoroastrianism can improve only when it has access to the full gifts of all of its followers, including women, which cannot happen as long as they are denied equal rights, for example as full-fledged members of the clergy. Also, women can better communicate the religion to women in many cultures where (unfortunately) women have been relegated to separate spheres.
LISA PETRIELLO
Lansdale, PA, USA
lisapetriello2@aol.com