https://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_women.html
By Vexen Crabtree 2025
Buddhism "is radically liberating for women" because of the basic Buddhist ethics of compassion and thoughtful action which prohibits vulgar male behaviours, and "one can find within the Buddhist tradition women who prefigure modern feminism by two and a half millennia"1. But just as in traditional religions, the religious hierarchy in Buddhism is male-dominated, causing ongoing gender discrimination2,3 both in monasteries and in wider Buddhist society4. Buddhist texts sometimes "equal the worst anti-women polemics of any religion"1.
Although the dry theory of karma and the Eightfold Path are gender-neutral5, Buddha was still reluctant to create a model for female ordination, saying three times that "if women go forth under the rule of the Dharma, this Dharma will not be long-enduring" and it would be like a blight descending upon a field of sugar cane. Eventually he relented, however, nuns were to remain subordinate to monks6.
Initiates must be ordained by senior monks or nuns of the same gender, and it happens that in history that the female lineage was broken and lost in Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, leaving women permanently unable to progress as Buddhist clergy. Even where it can be done (and some workarounds have been implemented), they still struggle to find equality due to opposition from male-dominated Buddhist authorities7,8, and few rise through the ranks.
#buddhism #gender_prejudice #religion_and_women
Moojan Momen, who is devoted to writing positively about religion, must admit that the status of women in Buddhism began badly. "Even in Buddhism, where Buddha himself gave permission for the setting up of an order of nuns, the Buddhist scriptures represent him as having been very reluctant to do so [...three times] saying, "If women go forth under the rule of the Dharma, this Dharma will not be long-enduring". He said that it would be like a blight descending upon a field of sugar cane. Eventually he relented, however, and allowed an order of nuns. However, the nuns were to remain subordinate to the monks in all ways"6.
#australia #buddhism #christianity
The ordination of monks and nuns is part of a tradition that ties teacher and student relationships into a long line, purportedly going all the way back to the Buddha himself8. Men and women had different chains. Although the male line was enthusiastically preserved, women's inferior role7 led to Theravada, Tibetan and some other traditions "losing" (or simply never adopting) the women's lineage, meaning that novice monks simply could not progress any further because there is no ordination process for them8,4.
Some Theravada communities accept a lesser kind of ordination for female monks8. Mahayana schools of Buddhist did not have this specific problem, however, for cultural reasons women "rarely reach high positions in religious life"8. This is the way by which, for long times, many Buddhist societies mirrored the conditions of women in the other cultures, resulting in men having more effective influence, power and stature.
Lama Choedak Rinpoche explains a little of the current situation in an article celebrating his organising of an ordination event for female Buddhists in Australia:
“The controversy surrounding female ordination is not a problem restricted only to Christianity. Even though ordination of women in Buddhism occurred during the life of the Buddha, his initial reluctance to ordain women seems to have been misinterpreted by many people. This misinterpretation has left a legacy of doubt and indecision among the orthodox Buddhist leaders. Some Buddhist countries did not even introduce the Bhikhuni ordination while others who did could not sustain the lineage for long. The Bhikhuni ordination was never introduced to Tibet even though there are hundreds of nunneries there. Theravadin tradition lost the lineage that they once had and initiatives to revive the tradition in Thailand have faced stiff opposition from the mainstream Buddhist leadership.
Tibetan Buddhists proudly claim that theirs is the complete form of Buddhism, but it would be hard to maintain this if Bhikhuni ordination is not established. It is said that in order to say that there is Dharma in a land there should be Sangha consisting of four members, including fully ordained Bhikhunis. Whatever are the reasons, there are miserably few female teachers in Tibetan Buddhism and a few seem to be in that position because of the merit of there being sisters or daughters of well known male teachers. Nunneries do not have qualified female teachers and even countries, which have a Bhikhuni ordination system, are reluctant to have female Buddhist teachers.”
"The First Bhikhuni Ordination in Australia" (2007)9
Ken Jones in "The Social Face of Buddhism" (1989) concludes that in Buddhist social communities that "particularly urgent is the need to find ways of ending sex discrimination and the admission of women on equal terms with men to all monastic sanghas"2.
Some authors such as Rita Gross, are positive about the relationship between Buddhism and women. She says that "a reconstructed authentic core of Buddhism reflects and supports feminist values, in so far as it is 'without gender bias, ..., and that sexist practices are in actual contradiction with the essential core teachings of the tradition'"3.
Given the actual historical relationship, how can she hold to this view? Well, she adds two caveats. Firstly, presumably when she says "core teachings" she defines it in a way that removes social teachings, and secondly the caveat in the middle of her statement (replaced by an ellipsis, above) adds: "whatever the practical record may reveal". Unfortunately, even if Buddhist philosophy was gender-neutral, it is only the practical side that has any meaning! There is no difference between being denied equality and standing by someone who backs it up with a proper understanding of their own religion, and, being subjugated by someone who backs it up with an improper understanding of their own religion. Either way, the religion's teachings ought to state gender equality, especially as no text has been written in times when misogyny and patriarchy have not been infamous. Nonetheless Rita Gross's position is further undermined "when she starts generalizing that all religions were originally non-patriarchal until they were subverted by men" (Hawthorn 2011)3, and other historians have criticized her approach as "unhistorical"3.