'God Hates Women'

God Hates Women
Feminism and religion do not mix
By Allison Kilkenny

Most religions have a creepy fixation with the eradication of women's vaginas. Some African cultures mutilate the clitoris and sew the vagina shut for the sake of maintaining virginal "purity." Other zealots don't like their saviors free-falling from the womb. In fact, ideological fanatics have done everything in their power to explain away the vagina. God impregnated Mary from his great big bachelor pad in the sky, fat little Buddha burst from his mother's side, and we know little of Amna, Mohammad's mother, let alone his actual birth, but we can assume the good prophet didn't sully himself in vaginal juices. Like the rest of the prophets, Mohammad probably materialized from the heavens. After all, a woman's body is a dirty, sinful thing, which is why women are taught from an early age to be ashamed of their bodies and to keep them covered always.

The belief in a divine creator aside, no rational person can seriously argue that feminism and religiosity can coexist. If you claim to be a religious person, you are not a feminist, nor if you believe men and women are inherently equals can you claim to believe in the fundamental beliefs of any religion. As far as I know, there is no religion on Earth that presents men and women as exact equals.

The most popular version of Christianity claims women are inherently subservient to men, since Eve came from Adam's rib. Meanwhile, Mohammad married at least 11 times during his life, and his favorite wife, Ayesha Bibi, was six-years-old when he married her. Sexy.

Here are some jewels from the Quran, the sacred text of Islam:

II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will...

I don't know about you, but if some dude walked up to me at a bar and said, "Hey, baby. Mind if I plow your field?" that man will receive my fist in his eye socket.

IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other ... As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.

Short and simple: Men are superior to women. Women are to be controlled, whether through violence or fear.

IV/15: (to women) If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ... confine them until death claims them.

IV/16: (for men) If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Homophobia aside, we see Allah, much like God, is all sunshine and puppy kisses, forgiving and loving, until you're a woman and you sin. Then, you're a whore in need of punishment.

In fairness to Mohammad, the God of the Christian bible is no better than the typical baby's daddy you see on an episode of COPS. Picture the big, white dude in the sky who orated this stirring tale:

Exodus 21:7-10 shows us that it is perfectly cool to sell your daughter into slavery and allow her master to rape her. Also in Exodus (22:16-17), if a man sleeps with a virgin (with or without her consent,) he must marry her. However, if her father refuses to allow her to wed, the man must then pay the father a dowry of virgins. How does the recently deflowered virgin feel about being treated like a piece of property? Well, funnily enough, we don't know. The Bible doesn't seem concerned about her feelings.

Leviticus chapter 12 reminds us that women are unclean. After giving birth to a boy, a woman is considered unclean for seven days. However, if she has given birth to a girl, she is unclean for 33 days. Regardless, the concept that a woman is somehow unclean after giving birth is ludicrous. Of course, all religions fear the vagina, so it makes sense that the scribes (along with all men) went into a complete tizzy after childbirth, which very much relies upon the vagina.

Leviticus 19:20-22 teaches us that a man can rape his female slaves and be forgiven, though the slave must be punished. Likewise, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reminds us that a man can rape a virgin, though he must marry her, and also pay her father 50 shekels.

The Bible is a weird, scary place. In case you needed further proof of that, along comes 1 Samuel 18:25-27 where Saul sells his daughter to David. Instead of wanting to be paid money for his daughter, Saul asks for ... are you ready? Saul asks for the foreskins of 100 Philistine men.

.... WHAT? There's a happy ending, though. David gives 200 foreskins, a profit of 100 foreskins for Saul to squirrel away for the winter. HUZZAH!

Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, leave no room for interpretation when it comes to the role of women: "By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent". (Laws of Manu, V, 147-8).

Women are subservient to men and inherently inferior, period.

What about Eastern religions?

Even Buddhism has been used to repress people (especially women), such as under Hirohito's rule and currently in Burma. The armies that began the horrible civil wars in Sri Lanka during the '50s and '60s were comprised of Buddhists.

The Theravadan Buddhists claim a woman could never become a Buddha. A popular belief in Buddhist countries is that negative karma results in a man being reborn as a woman. Again, the female gender's state is seen as a punishment, one filled with shame. Buddhism teaches that institutions like marriage must be regulated by society though social, political, and legal processes. This does not mean Buddhism is a progressive religion. Rather, it's sort of like passing the buck. We don't want to say women are equal to men, so we'll just let you figure it out. If you decide they're equal, fine. If you decide she's the social equivalent of a cow, and you can sell her for a dowry, that's cool too. I'll just be over here, under my Bodhi tree.

Jainism is frequently referenced as the one truly peaceful religion. They even cover their mouths whilst walking outside so they cannot accidentally inhale a defenseless bug. Surely they, the Jains, are enlightened in matters of gender. Think again. Jainism does not teach that women can gain ultimate spiritual liberation, though a woman could strive to become a man in her next life so she could then reach enlightenment.

What happens when so-called feminists create alliances with religion?

You get police-sponsored Iranian fashion shows with women dressed in different colored Hijab. Viva La Revolucion! What better way to freely express creativity, passion, and art than in the free world of fashion?

The liberated, passionate world of art, music, and fashion cannot coexist with a regime that maintains these guidelines for women's dress:

Conditions of Islamic Dress Code

1. Clothing must cover the entire body, only the hands and face may remain visible (According to some Hiqh Schools).

2. The material must not be so thin that one can see through it.

3. The clothing must hang loose so that the shape / form of the body is not apparent.

4. The female clothing must not resemble the man's clothing.

5. The design of the clothing must not resemble the clothing of the non-believing women.

6. The design must not consist of bold designs which attract attention.

7. Clothing should not be worn for the sole purpose of gaining reputation or increasing one's status in society.

Sounds chic, doesn't it? But hey, Allah never said he wanted fashion shows. He said: "Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty ; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof. "

Now get into your burka, and shut up. It's sad and embarrassing when feminists try to rationalize their religiosity, say with Iranian fashion shows. It's not tolerance. It's hypocrisy, illogical and downright silly. It's a bit like watching a black person try to explain why they vote Republican. Essentially, there is no way to reconcile the rational hope of all genders peacefully coexisting with irrational dogmas. Modern feminists desperately attempt to reshape their religions into something that looks vaguely modern and tolerant, but at their cores, all religions are sexist and repressive.

If the only proof of a religion's dictated guidelines to morality are their religious texts, then we must believe that the Bible, Quran, and Buddhist sutras, vinaya, and abhidharma all represent the core beliefs of their religious sources. If we are to believe they are not truly reflective of their religious roots, then why did God dictate incorrect information to his scribes? If the errors of the texts are man's folly, why has God not corrected them or made his true beliefs known? God is, after all, the supposed creator of the cosmos. Surely, he could have given us a Bible 2.0 by now. Perhaps a Bible XP?

No, we must assume these texts are truly reflective of their religion's ideologies. With that assumption firmly cemented, we see that there is no room in religion for feminism, the doctrine advocating the equality of rights, social and political, with those of men. For feminism to work, it must exist outside of the constraining margins of religion. It must operate outside of the assumption that women are inferior to men, which is a foundational belief of the major theologies. Or, feminists must attempt to rationalize their religious ideologies to reconcile them with their desire for social equality, which is an impossible order. You end up changing the definition of your religion by rejecting their sacred texts or you change the definition of feminism so it says: I want to be equal always, except when it comes to your religion that says I am inferior, and I accept that.

Either you are a feminist and you reject religion, or you are a worshiper and you reject the concept that the genders are equal.


http://www.buffalobeast.com/121/godhateswomen.htm

Organized religion doesn't much tolerate questioning, or free-thinkers. It's all about control....

Religion is a construct of human society. Humans need to make sense out of their spiritual inklings, and therefore religious beliefs fills the void of the unknown. Spirituality is about the unknown, and humans need religion to make sense of it all. However, the people who are in charge of a particular human society are also in charge of making the religion.

Those who have the power want to keep their power. One way of keeping their power is by manipulating belief systems to glorify themselves, to portray themselves in a light that they are favored by the supreme being.

Religion is man-made.

Spirituality does not necessarily follow religion. I mean, it does for some people, who process their spiritual events through the filter of pre-conceived religious beliefs.

And religion is the bane of human kind. Just think how civilized we would be without religion. How many wars would not need be fought. Why we might even have universal health care in this country.

nt

Much better than I have ever been able, what I believe about religion and it's treatment of women.

Edited to add -- funny how most religions the world over have admitted their religion was wrong about the keeping of slaves - males slaves anyway.

Religion is toxic to females. Period.

Certainly the liberal religions that I know of profess to believe in gender equality.

And some new age religions seem to have a distinctly feminist tone, for instance, goddess worship.

No desire to argue, but am interested in opinions on this.

but they certainly acknowledge the divine feminine. Patriarchal religions and cultures developed out of the fight for "scarcity". When populations increased and the more people used the natural resources around them, society moved from an agrarian society to that of war. A natural, although unpleasant part of humanity. As we have evolved consciousness we can begin to understand a much more egalitarian world.

Pagan and other new age religions/philosophies give women equal, if not greater power than the male (in some cases) but both genders are very very important to life. That is nature.

It IS weird, all that stuff....

states that Mary was still a virgin after the birth so he apparently found another way out. Maybe he teleported, placenta and all.

He certainly didn't seem to go through one of those nasty, smelly old vaginas.

She most likely did it alone, too, since there's no mention of a midwife, and the Bible usually mentions midwives, as they were revered women. The traditional stories and Gospel accounts are clear that Mary gave birth. Virginity was about having intercourse, not that nothing ever entered or passed through the vagina. Tradition has it that Joseph was an older widower with kids. When he found out Mary was preggers, he almost put her away to live with family (not get stoned, in other words), but he had a dream that she was pregnant with God's Son and that he was to marry her anyway. He did, and tradition says that he didn't sleep with her after that. By the time Jesus started His ministry, Joseph had died and left Mary in charge of his family.

To fulfill the prophecy, He had to be born in the usual way of a woman, and she had to have pain like a normal woman.

The birth was miraculous, pain free, and Mary remained virgin afterwards.

Needless to say, we wiseass rebel Irish kids who knew how babies got here had a lot of fun speculating on the mechanism.

As Athena sprouted from Zeus's forehead, miraculous births occur every single way but vaginally. According to the myth, Jesus's birth was no different.

I don't know what church you grew up in, but that's the party line from the Irish Catholic church I got stuck with.

That's what I learned in my religion classes at our Nazarene college, and that's what's in our best basic theology book in the Eastern Orthodox Church, The Orthodox Way.

I remember we would have debates in the dorms on whether she felt pain or not, but when I asked one of our religion profs, he confirmed that, in order for the prophecy in Genesis to be true, Mary would have had to have a painful and normal birth.

churches can't agree with each other, much less with all the Protestant sects.

You'd think we'd be better at getting along, given the base of our beliefs. Humph.

"Either you are a feminist and you reject religion, or you are a worshiper and you reject the concept that the genders are equal."

My own faith (Luciferian Satanism) teaches that Lucifer is both male and female and both and neither, depending on preference at the time. Thus, the genders are equal.

Who is he? Just askin'.

Yes, what about wicca? In my impression, wicca is mostly spiritual. Not a lot of societal requirements, actually, wicca does best with subtlety (or under cloak and coven, LOL), and not people saying "where were you Sunday?" Women who feel spiritual, yet who don't really buy into the misogynist doctrines of their churches, might be compelled to do their own worship, on their own terms. And that is not to be trusted! A woman doing anything on her own terms is suspect, at best.

LOL, I've drank a lot of wine tonight, so I'm PUI Posting Under the Influence.
That's just my opinion.

Why must my avatar be female?

Kindly reply when you are sober.

And no, your avatar mustn't be female. As long as you are sure of yourself as a woman.

You are the first and only person to ever ask me who my avatar is.

If you are asking me if I am actually a woman or not, it would be better for my blood pressure if you were straightforward about it. Do some searching on my username and draw your own conclusions.

I believe in a Spirit. I even believe a HUMAN BEING (not a supernatural virgin birth) walked the earth named Yeshua/Jesus. I believe that women WERE an integral part of his 'revolution' within Judaism. I believe that Mary Magdalene was the money behind that revolution, or one of the people who provided money. I only accept the 4 Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels . . . I do NOT accept such books as Timothy, Corinthians, Revelation - as they don't contain the words of Jesus - just Johnny Come lately's like St. (excuse me while I throw up in my mouth) Paul. I believe women SHOULD be Pastors (I have to accept that - I'm a UU). I also believe that without an acknowledgement of the Goddess (the Yin/Yang of the Spirit) our world is denying itself of the Divine Feminine. That's why I hang out with Wiccans and people who practice 'Earth Religions' - they tend not to be afraid of the feminine aspects of the God/Spirit.

Now, I'm a feminist.

My beliefs make perfect sense to me. When you strip Christianity of it's Mithra trappings, and dig into the ultimate Goddess of that time - Osiris - to see how eerily similiar the 'Rising of the Killed Male Partner' is to the chapters of John where Yeshua shows himself to the Magdala/Black Madonna . . .

It's real easy to:

Remain Spiritual/Religious
Reject the Trinity and the Virgin Birth
Be a feminist


The author left out animism, Native North American religions, Native South American religions, the Wiccan practices of the Celts and Gallics, and the beauty of the Cult of Isis. When we turn to those - there's Soul Gold in them 'thar hills.

on Mithracism and the Cult of Isis . . . Cult of Isis was definately a much more 'threatening' religion to the Romans than Mithra (a males only kind of thing) but not as threatening as Christianity. Seems to me like the Romans covered all bases.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/isis.php

They covered their bases so well that we always place religious discussion in the context of Pauline Christianity and use what a hateful man dictated after persecuting and murdering Jews. . . as a reason to reject the wonderful part of Judaism and the life and times of Yeshua. It's ironic - in that we know it was a very appealing message to women and the last the least and the lost - it's just that something happened on the way to the forum and the Council of Nicacea to destroy it.

Sorry for going on and on - but I'm passionate on this topic. :-)

http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/supplements/74/index.php?sid=5028



Of course the Tao is often poluted by Confucianism ...

They are very different.

Spiritualism does NOT equal religion, btw.

if a little rude.

then you are a total loser. You already know that women don't like you.

".... but..but...but... Jesus/Mohamed/name your own prophet raised the status of women!"

Yeah, assuming that they existed outside of myth, they might have. Women had a pretty degraded status in the ancient world, going by anthoprological textbooks, not mythology. Any improvement would be a gain, no matter how minuscule or how ridiculously cruel it may be seen today.

Example: You are unclean for 7 days after the birth of a son, 33 days after the birth of a daughter.

What did new daddies want to do as soon as a daughter is born? Get mommy pregnant ASAP with a son, that's what. Never mind that there is a new baby to breastfeed. She breastfeeds and she's not fertile for six months, Mommy is forbidden to breastfeed so Daddy can get a son as soon as possible. Oh NO another girl. Keep bearing, woman, until Daddy has his son. Oh by the way, we moderns know that sex so soon after birth is bad for the mom, most OB/gyns will tell new moms not to have sex for six weeks. That's 42 days, even longer than the 33 days after the birth of a girl. With this "uncleanliness", mom gets a break so she can breastfeed the girl she has. The girl and the mom have a better chance of living. It was phrased in such a way to make it palatable to the men.

So what this means is that women get slightly better treatment, but that's where they stay. It's codified into the holy writ and therefore, no woman is ever allowed to progress. Men can continue to do what they want.

Original story of Genesis: Men cursed to work the earth, women cursed to bear children in pain. OB/gyn was held back for centuries, and only in the 20th century was childbirth no longer the number 1 cause of female death. That's the 1900s. The nine-teen fucking hundreds. That's what religion has done to us.

Men on the other hand were allowed to use tools and to choose careers other than farmer. Men made the rules and wrote the books and threw out any rules they didn't want to follow any more. But to pretend piety, they enforced the rules on women even harder.

Religion does not raise women's status. Never has, never will. May have at the dawn of a new religion, but that's where it stays, no matter which religion.

(Sorry about the judeo-christian examples, I am not as knowledgable about the other religion's texts.)

On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries are much more egalitarian than any others. I wonder if it's because of the ancient religion encouraging the men to go off and get themselves killed so they can serve as warriors in Valhalla. No such heaven existed for women, so they ended up taking care of the future and letting themselves live to a ripe old age. Just a theory.

of Scandinavian heritage, without weird sexual taboos, where people wear underwear around the house. We don't have to wear a stupid scarf on our hair for "modesty". I am so grateful that my family background values scientific discoveries over superstitions and backward religious practices.

This author ruins the germ of an interesting idea by wildly overstating her claims.

Specifically, she makes the mistaken (or, at least, sufficiently controversial that it needs to be dealt with explicitly) assumption that a) that religions exist in platonic forms, and b) that these platonic forms are those practiced by their more conservative adherents.

It *is* certainly true that many religions as interpreted by most of their adherents present women as inferior to men, and also that those who try and interpret their religion in other ways almost always end up looking rather foolish, as a result of reverse-engineering.

There is a great deal of interest to be said about that, but this article largely devalues itself by making the ludicrous assertion that it's not possible to be both religious and a feminist. One can make true statements quite a lot like that one, but that statement itself is clearly false.

I can't know that for sure, and neither can you. O8)

One can be relatively feminist, in a religious environment. It depends on the circumstances. However, it does seem that the feminist is always at odds with the church / religion, does it not? Nobody at church likes the uppity woman.

If a woman knew she was stuck in a religious background, I suppose she could be really brave and stand up for herself!

I'm just extremely lucky that I was born into a non-religious, Scandinavian family.

True, many don't like "uppity women," but surprisingly many are fine with it and expect it. I even sat on a panel in chapel (it was required attendance three times a week) before the 1998 election and argued that abortion shouldn't be such a hot-button voting issue in front of the whole college. So, yes, you can stand up for yourself and others. It's not impossible.

My family is mostly agnostic. Not atheist, because we're weird that way. We are spiritual, just, not religious.
I have never been close, or even been friends, with a devout Christian. I always seemed 'weird'.

God made Eve, Vagina and all and saw that it was good.

Over the centuries man has killed and enslaved his fellow man in the name of religion. Just because some are able to corrupt it does not mean that the baby must be thrown out with the bath water.

Religion = politics and it's all corrupt, patriarchal and oppressive, and always has been. There's no "some" about it.

It has always been a very important part of how they oppress women. Most religions do not deviate from this basic message and practice. Religion is ALL about the politics of keeping us down.

It is devious as it co-opts and exploits the human need for community, love and spirituality. It is perverse in how it appeals to women in these ways, while shaming and oppressing them.