Why does religion hate women so much?

panda100

I've been working in All Hallows (Christian College) for the last few weeks.
Its a lovely college but its really opened my eyes up to just how patriarchal the bible is. Its got me thinking to what extent this is having an effect on womens place in society considering we are a Christian country and the bible is meant to be our moral compass.


The bible is full of men. All the prophets,important people, disciples that God chose were men. The few women that feature are either prostitutes or virgins. Its all refrences to Fathers and Sons and none to women.
The old testament is just heinous towards women. We are evil temptresses made from a mans rib. The old testament likens womens to tapeworms,that we will be punished for our sins through childbirth, that we should be submissive and listen to what men have to say.


My understanding of religion comes from a mainly Christain viewpoint as I was a Catholic,now atheist. However the patriachal tones of religion dont seem to stop at Christianity.
In Islam the main prophet is, suprise suprise, a man, and Islamic women do not share the same rights as men.
Hinduism is similar with female widowers having to shave their heads and live a live of chastisy, while a man widower can remarry to his hearts content.

And If we look at churches worldwide, from the pope in Rome to Rabbi's in Jerusalem, it is all men who dominate and lay down our moral guidance.

Considering that most women and men in the world are baptised at birth into a religion, is religion reinforcing the patriarchal nature of our society?

And If you do believe in A God? Is God a male God ? Why do we always envisage God to be a man? Does this reflect the inbred notions of male dominance over females in our society?


Just general musings I thought Id throw out there to hear other ladies views.....

smcgiff

Religious teachings through the bible, koran etc were written by men at a time when men were dominant over women, and these texts reflect this reality. It justifies women's treatment, and even better is accepted by a lot of women. :rolleyes:

There was an attempt within Catholicism with the nothing short of veneration of Mary, and she's practically on par with the other three* Christian gods. And, it does look like Jesus (the historical character) made an attempt to include women, but no chance. The subsequent patriarchs put them right back in their place.

It never ceases to amaze me that women remain the bed rock of most churches.

*I know Christians like to think of them as singular, but that doesn't mean everyone has to go along with the fallacy.

fatmammycat

Not this woman, it was crystal clear to me growing up that the church considers us second class humans, prone to sin, weak, and in need of onnership lest we go wild. Nowadays I just enjoy a pretty mild form of atheism and leave the religious patriarchal mumbo jumbo to those who need it.

rainbow kirby

fatmammycat wrote: »

Not this woman, it was crystal clear to me growing up that the church considers us second class humans, prone to sin, weak, and in need of onnership lest we go wild. Nowadays I just enjoy a pretty mild form of atheism and leave the religious patriarchal mumbo jumbo to those who need it.

Ditto, the church's attitude to women was one of the major factors in my becoming an atheist at a very young age.

Xiney

moved from tLL, since I think this discussion, while interesting, is better suited here.

fatmammycat

It is a shame it wasn't left in TLL, I would like to hear women's views on the subject, how as women we are affected by religion or religious upbringing. TLL ought to be more that just discussions on pubic hair and make up and things that make us smile/annoyed.

flyton5

Stop complaining and make my dinner.

Yes Woman had it hard in the Bible.

They were sent to war on behalf of god were thousands of them died. They were thieves They were beheaded, they were torchered . They were crucified .

Oh wait that was man .

smcgiff

flyton5 wrote: »

Stop complaining and make my dinner.

Another reason why this should have remained in TLL - You'd now be wondering why you can no longer post!

smcgiff

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Woman had it hard in the Bible.

They were sent to war on behalf of god were thousands of them died.

Ah yes, the 'Tally Ho Men' school of thought when it comes to war.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fatmammycat

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Woman had it hard in the Bible.

They were sent to war on behalf of god were thousands of them died. They were thieves They were beheaded, they were torchered . They were crucified .

Oh wait that was man .

What was your point? Men fought men, they battled each other over beliefs, power struggles, politics. And so what? Do you think women didn't suffer because men had different battles? Women were considered chattel, second place to men, no one is pretending men did not have it hard. Also this thread was not about men. Less kneejerk reactions might be better to address the issue.

smcgiff

smcgiff wrote: »

Ah yes, the 'Tally Ho Men' school of thought when it comes to war.

So you are saying if women were in charge there would be no wars ?

Have you seen what happen's when a women takes a text message up wrong ?

smcgiff

fatmammycat wrote: »

What was your point? Men fought men, they battled each other over beliefs, power struggles, politics. And so what? Do you think women didn't suffer because men had different battles? Women were considered chattel, second place to men, no one is pretending men had it hard. Less kneejerk reactions might be better to address the issue.

Not only that, but you can be sure that when men went to war, civilians i.e. women and children suffered also. Think famine, rape and enslavement.

smcgiff

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are saying if women were in charge there would be no wars ?

Have you seen what happen's when a women takes a text message up wrong ?

See my post to FMC above.

No, there may not be less wars if women were in charge (refer to Thatcher) - but to think that men were the only casualties of war is naive.

Let me put it to you this way - at what time in history would you rather have been a woman. And as we know Religious doctrine has been a major factor in how society behaved through history.

smcgiff

smcgiff wrote: »

Not only that, but you can be sure that when men went to war, civilians i.e. women and children suffered also. Think famine, rape and enslavement.

So your saying Men caused the Famine and raped and enslaved women , so men were portrayed worse then women ?

fatmammycat

smcgiff wrote: »

Not only that, but you can be sure that when men went to war, civilians i.e. women and children suffered also. Think famine, rape and enslavement.

I know, left to run farms, mills, carry water, raise children, take care of the old and infirm protect the family from interlopers and thieves and raids from tribes. But hey, they didn't have to go to 'war'. And when the men folk came back from war they could carry right on being pregnant and enslaved and second class citizens, those lucky wenches.

fatmammycat

Deleted User wrote: »

So your saying Men caused the Famine and raped and enslaved women , so men were portrayed worse then women ?

Define 'worse.'

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote: »

Define 'worse.'

You said you became an athiest because women were portrayed bad in the bible. I am putting up the argument that men were portrayed worse in the bible.

Delirium

Deleted User wrote: »

You said you became an athiest because women were portrayed bad in the bible. I am putting up the argument that men were portrayed worse in the bible.

You're forgetting that a man was cast as the saviour of mankind in the bible.

fatmammycat

You need to re-read what I 'actually' said before you go building strawmen to attack.

This has already been derailed by an attack of 'dear lord what about the men'
The point of Panda's original post was to ask how women feel they are affected by religion, not whether or not men had it 'worse' in the bible than women.

getz

i can foresee a a time when it will be against the law in any western country to discriminate against any sex, yes i am looking at you religion,modernize or get closed down

Dades

Deleted User wrote: »

You said you became an athiest because women were portrayed bad in the bible. I am putting up the argument that men were portrayed worse in the bible.

Isn't her disagreement more about how the bible's (and hence the church's) attitude towards women was flawed? Rather than who was portrayed 'better' or 'worse' in the bible.

fatmammycat

Dades wrote: »

Isn't her disagreement more about how the bible's (and hence the church's) attitude towards women was flawed? Rather than who was portrayed 'better' or 'worse' in the bible.

Dades, in my original comment I made no mention of the bible as being behind my atheism, but the conduct of the church I was brought up in.
Again I would say the original question posed was about how women feel religion affects them or how they feel about it. Not men vs women.

koth

koth wrote: »

You're forgetting that a man was cast as the saviour of mankind in the bible.

Yet who ordered the execution of "the saviour" ?

A man

Who nailed him to a cross ?

A man

Who stuck a spear, in his side ?

A man

homer911

I dont see any Nuns complaining!

Seriously though..

Does religion hate women? No
Does God hate women? No
Do all religions make women subserviant to men? No
Do some religions make women subserviant to men? Yes
Are some religions worse than others? Yes

Is there any basis for this? No, in my opinion - Men and Women are called to show respect and love for each other, and recognise each others strengths and weaknesses

Should we generalise? No

fatmammycat

That is a mass over simplification Homer. The three big religions all expect women to be second to her husband, he is head of the household, she is expected to take his name upon marriage, she is expected to reliquish control of the family decisions to him. I know this seems an extreme view and does not happen too often in Ireland,(apart from the name thing) but across the world it is happening and does happen on an enormous scale

Anyway, I have to get back to work,
laters.

Dades

fatmammycat wrote: »

Dades, in my original comment I made no mention of the bible as being behind my atheism, but the conduct of the church I was brought up in.

Fair enough - though they use the bible to justify their conduct!

fatmammycat wrote: »

Again I would say the original question posed was about how women feel religion affects them or how they feel about it. Not men vs women.

With respect - you can't ignore men's role in religion in a thread specifically about women in religion - though I'd agree Dre as in Dray is dragging this thread somewhere irrelevant. I thought the OP was looking for musings on why religion is so misogynistic

fatmammycat

Dades wrote: »

Fair enough - though they use the bible to justify their conduct!

With respect - you can't ignore men's role in religion in a thread specifically about women in religion - though I'd agree Dre as in Dray is dragging this thread somewhere irrelevant. I thought the OP was looking for musings on why religion is so misogynistic

You're right Dades, apologies. I would just hate to see an interesting topic turn into the usual men vs women thing. The idea that in biblical time life was easy for men is ridiculous and hardly the point of the topic. But that religion has certainly made it a whole lot easier to justify certain behaviours.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fatmammycat

I don't believe there's anything out there. In the same way I don't believe in horoscopes, faith healers, 'psychics' animal telepaths, reiki, Joe Coleman, the 'spinning sun' +virgin or any other supernatural panacea. As to why there are few women promoting atheism, I could not say. But people are becoming more open and vocal about being atheist, so I am sure that will change over time.

getz

in the anglican church the vicar reading the marriage vows no longer says obey, ,

doctoremma

I'm not sure I care about whether someone labels their imaginary friend "he" or "she"

Dades

getz wrote: »

in the anglican church the vicar reading the marriage vows no longer says obey, ,

Not to mention the fact that you can have a female vicar!

GLaDOS

I feel a lot of Religion is about control, in this case conserving and expanding mans power over women so that women themselves beleive it is right. As with many other things, some people have been using the utterings of this silly book ever since to further their own agenda.

time42play

getz wrote: »

in the anglican church the vicar reading the marriage vows no longer says obey, ,

When I got married (Catholic ceremony) I deliberately chose all the "wives obey your husbands" and such readings as a joke.

Wasn't there supposed to have been a female pope once who was edited out of history by the men in power at the time the bible was put together? I think that the Catholic church spends too much time talking about women's "special position". I think their definition of special means second class.

robindch

panda100 wrote: »

The old testament likens womens to tapeworms,that we will be punished for our sins through childbirth, that we should be submissive and listen to what men have to say.

The NT is little better. Paul says in one or other of his letters that women can only "redeem" themselves through having kids, that they should stay silent in church, can't teach and much else besides.

panda100 wrote: »

And If we look at churches worldwide, from the pope in Rome to Rabbi's in Jerusalem, it is all men who dominate and lay down our moral guidance. Considering that most women and men in the world are baptised at birth into a religion, is religion reinforcing the patriarchal nature of our society?

I think it's perhaps more accurate to say that religion reflects the patriarchal nature of pre-industrial societies which evolved a set of religious rituals and codes to enforce male privilege and status.

Some of the more recently-evolved religions (evangelical christianity, for example) are less misogynistic, at least in theory if not in practice, if the case of Sheri Klouda is anything to go by.

I haven't read it yet, but Amazon did deliver a copy to me the other day of Does God Hate Women, a book which documents the way in which religion has been used down through the years to subjugate women. There's a review here.

994

time42play wrote: »

When I got married (Catholic ceremony) I deliberately chose all the "wives obey your husbands" and such readings as a joke.

Wasn't there supposed to have been a female pope once who was edited out of history by the men in power at the time the bible was put together? I think that the Catholic church spends too much time talking about women's "special position". I think their definition of special means second class.

No, the legend of Pope Joan was an anti-Papal satire.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is it? Adam and Eve is just one story, and from Genesis it's pretty clear that Adam made no attempt to stop her and is just as culpable. Also, some think that Adam's "rib" was actually his pubic bone - it was a Just So Story to explain why all animals except humans have a pubic bone. There are evil women in the Bible, yes, but there are also many evil men (Herod, the Pharoahs, Judas, Pilate,...) and good women too.

Turtwig

***I'm putting a warning at the beginning of this post because I did a quick google and couldn't find anything, so it may all be a myth. I still think it's worth mentioning though because, I think, it's an interesting take and hopefully someone else might remember reading or hearing something similar***


I remember reading somewhere before that it wasn't really religion that was mainly at fault for the negative attitude towards women. It wasn't until the 1800s (?) when the female sex cell was discovered and society realised that females shared an equal role with males in reproduction. Until that time, the female was viewed as having a inactive role in the creation of life (the male did all the effort) and everything else was inspired and supported by that supposed fact.
Religion merely reflected the cultures at those times.

Zillah

Malty_T wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere before that it wasn't really religion that was mainly at fault for the negative attitude towards women. It wasn't until the 1800s (?) when the female sex cell was discovered and society realised that females shared an equal role with males in reproduction. Until that time, the female was viewed as having a inactive role in the creation of life (the male did all the effort) and everything else was inspired and supported by that supposed fact.
Religion merely reflected the cultures at those times.

You are absolutely correct about the view of women and reproduction. Most cultures have assumed that a woman is merely an oven in which to bake the man's bun, if you will. This doesn't take the blame away from religion however. It is a chicken and the egg scenario; a male-dominated culture influences doctrine, doctrine influences culture and around we go. Regardless of how it started, it is an inescapable observation that modern religions have anachronistic misogynistic beliefs that their adherents obey, or at least use them to rationalise or justify their sexism.

the_syco

Depends on the religon. A few of the older pagan religons that I've come across, women are seen to have power, mainly as babies popping our were seen as "magical". It seems that the male orientated religons were made up to surpress the religons where the female were seen as the dominant ones, and replace them with men. Having no baby-popping magic, the only thing most of these gods had were that they were that they were the sons of God.

DeCoR18

panda100 wrote: »

that we should be submissive and listen to what men have to say.

Sorry I don't see the problem with this?

I do however see the underlying misandry in your post to be deeply offensive.

Its men that brought you out of the stone age, protected you from predators, provided food for you to eat and shelter to keep you from the elements, established civilisation and all modern comforts and now that is established you have some sort of problem with male leadership?

Well isnt that convenient? Tell me why women didn't want to rebel against the mystical patriarchy in pre history? I'll tell you because its a morally destructive, impractical ideology.

Maybe you should consider some gratitude towards men in future perhaps?

rainbow kirby

DeCoR18 wrote: »

I do however see the underlying misandry in your post to be deeply offensive.

I find the blatant misogyny in your post deeply offensive, tbh.

Turtwig

DeCoR18 wrote: »

Sorry I don't see the problem with this?

I do however see the underlying misandry in your post to be deeply offensive.

Its men that brought you out of the stone age, protected you from predators, provided food for you to eat and shelter to keep you from the elements, established civilisation and all modern comforts and now that is established you have some sort of problem with male leadership?

Well isnt that convenient? Tell me why women didn't want to rebel against the mystical patriarchy in pre history? I'll tell you because its a morally destructive, impractical ideology.

Maybe you should consider some gratitude towards men in future perhaps?

Men and Women are 50/50 now and that's the way it should have always been too.
As a Christian you should know Jesus was at least one philosopher who encouraged better status for women.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

***I'm putting a warning at the beginning of this post because I did a quick google and couldn't find anything, so it may all be a myth. I still think it's worth mentioning though because, I think, it's an interesting take and hopefully someone else might remember reading or hearing something similar***


I remember reading somewhere before that it wasn't really religion that was mainly at fault for the negative attitude towards women. It wasn't until the 1800s (?) when the female sex cell was discovered and society realised that females shared an equal role with males in reproduction. Until that time, the female was viewed as having a inactive role in the creation of life (the male did all the effort) and everything else was inspired and supported by that supposed fact.
Religion merely reflected the cultures at those times.

Well of course it came from the culture of the time. Where else could it have come from? God???? *snigger*

DeCoR18

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I find the blatant misogyny in your post deeply offensive, tbh.

Uh that was the point?

DeCoR18

Malty_T wrote: »

Men and Women are 50/50 now and that's the way it should have always been too.
As a Christian you should know Jesus was at least one philosopher who encouraged better status for women.

Why do you believe it should have always been that way?

I don't buy into the concept that womens social status has been enhanced through feminism, women were always the most important members in society as they gave birth to the children and were the maintainers of family and communal bonds. I mean how much more important can you get than that?

I in fact believe feminism has decreased womens social status through the destruction of these vital social pillars.

Women ironically are now no better than men :rolleyes:

Dades

DeCoR18 wrote: »

I don't buy into the concept that womens social status has been enhanced through feminism

Of course you don't, given you believe a woman's status is earned by keeping to her role of a child-bearing community figure.

It speaks volumes that you imply women are better than men - as long as they push out the children and rear them. A compliment given with the back of your hand, as it were.

Galvasean

DeCoR18 wrote: »

Its men that brought you out of the stone age, protected you from predators, provided food for you to eat and shelter to keep you from the elements, established civilisation and all modern comforts and now that is established you have some sort of problem with male leadership?

Ah but you forget, the women took care of our children so the species could continue to prosper in subsequent generations, tended to the wounds we suffered in battle, took care of us when we were sick, made the clothes we wore to stop our balls freezing over during the ice age. We men owe a lot to those cavewomen.
Of course, not that you bringing up how things went down in neolithic times have anything to do with the question at hand; modern religions' attitudes toward women.

Galvasean

fatmammycat wrote: »

It is a shame it wasn't left in TLL, I would like to hear women's views on the subject, how as women we are affected by religion or religious upbringing. TLL ought to be more that just discussions on pubic hair and make up and things that make us smile/annoyed.

Agreed. If anything the thread move will only serve as fuel to the (misguided) fire that women only want to talk about clothes and makeup, while leaving discussions about important/complicated matters to the men.

panda100

robindch wrote: »

I haven't read it yet, but Amazon did deliver a copy to me the other day of Does God Hate Women, a book which documents the way in which religion has been used down through the years to subjugate women. There's a review here.

Oh that book looks great.
I like this bit :
'The first – especially beloved of the Vatican and Islamists – is that women are not being treated worse, just “differently”. They claim that it accords a woman special “dignity” to trap her in the home. But this is an abuse of language. As the authors note: “Permanent consignment to a limited and lesser role in the world is not what ‘dignity’ is generally understood to mean . . . The smallness and intimacy and relatedness of home are fine things, but not if one is confined to them permanently'

Some of the comments left after by religious people are quite funny.:)