The three "great" monotheists faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have exerted such an influence on their flocks over the centuries that even when the faithful hear themselves being denigrated by them, they're devotion only scantly wavers, if at all.
Specifically, this is the case with monotheists who appertain to the aforementioned faiths who also fancy themselves "feminists".
What is a feminist? Frankly, if you don't know, you probably should not be reading this blog, but since my ego simply won't tolerate losing a potential reader, I'll take a moment (and I do mean a moment) to educate you.
Feminism is basically the idea that men and women are equal. Of course, so many philosophies, religious and non, assert the same, but their definitions of equality seldom agree with each other. When feminism says "equality", it means that there should be few, if any differences between men and women in a social context; to achieve a world in which none say "they can't do that, they're a -insert gender here-". It is called "feminism", because the first proponents of these ideas were of the feminine gender, which has, historically, been the gender to receive the end of the stick that is least appealing, and thus, their ideas, and the ideas of their successors, seek to both promote, and defend the female human.
In fact, if you were born sometime in the 80's, there's a great chance you've actually been a feminist all you're life. It's practically the standard these days.
So, what's so weird about feminists identifying as members of these patriarchal faiths? Aside from patriarchy, that is? Well, why don't we see what these faiths have to say about women? Starting in chronological order of appearance:
(the following are all from non Jewish translations of the bible, but 9 times out of 10, the plain meaning is the same anyway)
JUDAISM
Example 1: Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 22:28-29 "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Here we're introduced to how the "Torah" (the five books of Moses, or Chumash) views women: as property. Judaism, and especially Jewish feminists, like to invoke the power of the Torah Sh'ball Peh, or "Oral Torah"--a non-material piece of legislation that has supposedly been around since the giving of the Torah at Sinai whose antiquity, by its very nature, can neither be proven nor disproven--to tap dance around the misogynistic nature of the plain written text. This is done by carefully twist...er, "examining", the text through the light of stories, alleged textual and linguistic nuances, and selective logic.
Try as they might, they can never erase the pshat, or "plain meaning" of the text. Which, in this case, for all intents and purposes, seems to outright say the following: "Women have no say over who they decide to marry, as they are property of the dominant male at the time; eg, the husband, father, brother, etc. And, as such, better the foolish male who raped the obviously uncaring, inept female, be forced to keep that bag all his life instead of wasting a nonetheless valuable male life for simply forcing himself upon a less important female, who was not even married, and, therefore, not adultery".
Did I mention that? That's right Christian women who think your cheating husband is committing a mortal sin, according to "God's law", he's not! But you are, should you ever decide to have an extra-marital liason. Oh well, guess you're glad to be free of the law under the new covenant huh? But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The Bible, or Tanakh, never explicitly defines adultery as such, but all a discerning reader need do is examine all the laws in the Torah dealing with adultery to see that the defining factor is indeed the marital status of the woman, not the man. There is always an adulterer and an adulteress that is put to death, but if a married man has an affair, he gets a slap on the wrist, as opposed to the married woman who does the same, and is killed.
What else?
Example 2: Dvarim 21:10-14 "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Looks like the pro feminist master of the universe approves of rape, so long as its not a member of the chosen people. Oh well, the other gods of the time probably wouldn't have considered the feelings of the victim, and allowed her the permission to mourn for a month (because everyone knows you're done with the memory of your murdered parents by that time) and permitted her to obtain freedom later...provided the man "loses his liking" of her. That's something, right ladies?!
Anything else?
(lots in fact!) Example 3: Shemot (Exodus) 21:7-11 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
This further establishes the mentality of Israelite men toward their womenfolk, and indeed, all of the feminine gender: as pleasurable property, bound solely to them. This seems like a nice, fair passage to someone not familiar with Israelite "Torah" law, but allow me to put it in context:
The beginning of the verse "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are", refers to the year of Jubilee, or Sabbatical year, in which most debts are annulled, and everyone starts over. Pursuant to the written law of the Bible, all slaves are freed...except for the females...
Why? Obviously, from the text, because women have a different role than men--namely, to please them--and this role supercedes all else, even "The Lord's Release", as it's often called in scripture.
Hooray for equal opportunities!
Example 4: Bamidbar (Numbers) 5:11-31 " Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “theLord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”
‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her [l]and cause bitterness. The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.
‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’”
What exactly is the point of this long, drawn out ritual? To discipline possibly disobedient property by humiliation, degradation, and possible death through the use of black magic (which the Torah is supposed to be against) for no other reason than the owner is paranoid. According to Halacha (Jewish law) the woman then stands outside the temple for days in the raiment of what they consider to be harlot-like (Egyptian thread, because the Egyptians were so much more evil than the Israelites) where people are free to mock her. Of course, the "oral law" also says the woman has the right to decline to take part and can divorce her husband right then and there if she wishes (unlikely, since elsewhere in Halacha, only the man can initiate a divorce, though the wife can "sue", a lot of good that likely did), but there is no way to prove one or the other that this is the way it went, so we'll just let both slide.
I'm sorry, but does this sound like a feminist religion so far?
Final (at least here anyway) Example: Lest we forget, the timeless tale of Adam and Chava (Eve) the one that set the standard for the rest of the bible:
Bereshit (Genesis) 3:1-16
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ”
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”
The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.
I've heard rabbis from the "Conservative"( which is still a about the most liberal thing on earth when compared with christian sects) movement feebly try to defend this passage as pro-woman by saying things like "It only said Eve, nothing about her female descendants being punished"...logical idiocy aside, its still a pretty weak argument.
Actually, at first glance, this seems like a fair deal: Eve was the first to "sin", and therefore, the impetus for the rest of the "fall", what with convincing her husband and all. So it seems fair that she should receive the most severe punishment
So why mention this as one of the Hebrew Bible's myriad misogynistic passages?...
Because this sets the tone for the rest of it all. Take a look; part of Eve's punishment is that her husband should "rule over her"--gotta establish that all-sacred, deity-ordained male dominance early in the game, don't we? And the story itself; with Eve being the one who made all the wrong choices...are you seriously going to tell me that a patriarchal desert tribe didn't look at this and say "women are stupid, evil, inferior, just look at what the first one did"? Or that they didn't concoct that particular aspect of the story for the express purpose of establishing the male gender as the superior one?
Now let's look at the second monotheist (allegedly) faith, Judaism's bastard child...
Christianity
This is, admittedly, a short list, but not because christianity is lax in the misogyny department; no, quite the opposite. Just as this tiny collection of books written by Jewish heretics and Greco-Roman usurpers manages to pack in more antisemitic propaganda than the Talmud, a work comprising (and, these days, condensing) hundreds of books, managed to pack in anti "goy" sentiments; the "New Testament"'s stance on women encapsulates all of Judaism's distrust, fear, and even hatred of women, and then some...in just a few words.
Example 1: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
Actually, at first glance, this seems like a fair deal: Eve was the first to "sin", and therefore, the impetus for the rest of the "fall", what with convincing her husband and all. So it seems fair that she should receive the most severe punishment
So why mention this as one of the Hebrew Bible's myriad misogynistic passages?...
Because this sets the tone for the rest of it all. Take a look; part of Eve's punishment is that her husband should "rule over her"--gotta establish that all-sacred, deity-ordained male dominance early in the game, don't we? And the story itself; with Eve being the one who made all the wrong choices...are you seriously going to tell me that a patriarchal desert tribe didn't look at this and say "women are stupid, evil, inferior, just look at what the first one did"? Or that they didn't concoct that particular aspect of the story for the express purpose of establishing the male gender as the superior one?
Now let's look at the second monotheist (allegedly) faith, Judaism's bastard child...
Christianity
This is, admittedly, a short list, but not because christianity is lax in the misogyny department; no, quite the opposite. Just as this tiny collection of books written by Jewish heretics and Greco-Roman usurpers manages to pack in more antisemitic propaganda than the Talmud, a work comprising (and, these days, condensing) hundreds of books, managed to pack in anti "goy" sentiments; the "New Testament"'s stance on women encapsulates all of Judaism's distrust, fear, and even hatred of women, and then some...in just a few words.
Example 1: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Here, Paul (a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus), the supposed author of these words, tells, in no uncertain terms, what he thinks about women leading the church, or having any authority in religious matters whatsoever: "that sh*t don't fly!"
You'll recall what I said earlier, about how its simply obtuse to not think the creation narrative is meant to place a halo around men? Looks to me like Paul's justification for this is just that. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression".
And yet, despite this, you still hear a myriad stories and countless tv programs (if you're unlucky) where a woman is the pastor, at least in the case of protestant denominations. Although, I think there's a good case that nuns of both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations who take it upon themselves to teach other females are in "transgression" of Paul's little paradigm, seeing as how they are "teaching".
Don't worry girls, just keep ignoring this one, after all, even an infallible guide for living authored by the supreme master of the universe has to have some flaws, right?
There's only one example left in Christianity's record, at least on this blog...but oooh, boy, is it a doosy!
Example 2 1 Corinthians 11--"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Example 2 1 Corinthians 11--"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."
Here, Paul is says, outright, that men are superior to women. Never mind what he says in conclusion on the subject, about "If anyone wants to be contentious, we have no such law, etc...", Paul's statement prior expresses his true views concerning women, what the ideal of womanhood (or lack thereof) is, and, in all likelihood, stems from his own religious upbringing.
But even so, even Judaism had the decency to speak in a general and indirect way about the inferiority of women, always to have "sages" of all stripes come doesn't and add more positive or negative connotations to old dog tricks, and always with a cryptic, poetic flourish. Christianity comes along and spells it all out for those too dumb to still think women are equal to men in the eyes of scripture.
Indeed, I would not be shocked if "Misogyny for Idiots" has this very passage as it's central premise.
As with it's ideas of salvation vs damnation, Christianity is far more severe in its belittlement of the feminine gender than is Judaism. Though most of Christianity lacks the draconian, compulsory laws of Judaism, it posits that if people reject it's views, they will spend eternity in a place of never ending torment--a prospect that would likely make even the vain, self serving god of the "Old Testament" balk. And where Judaism makes it a point to place women at the bottom of the social ladder, the "New Testament" makes woman out to be nothing more than a sentient tool.
And finally we come to...do I really need to talk about Islam? Chances are most people who read blogs have access to news reports. So I'll just let the records speak for themselves instead of engaging in redundancy.
*****************************************************************************
Now, despite all of this, there are still ardent feminists among all three of these faiths. How can such a contradiction exist? Well, keep in mind that we are dealing with just that--the mind: something for which the laws of physics are but a bad dream.
And that's where shopping-cart-religion comes in. what is "shopping-cart-religion"? It is, quite simply, when someone follows a certain religion, usually a dogmatic one, and attempts to make it more liberal by picking and choosing what rules to follow, what parts of the religion to believe in, and how it should be believed in, interpreted, and practiced. Many people who do this (pretty much all sane Christians) also enjoy integrating different ideas form other religions in with their own, despite their primary religion absolutely forbids this.
Most people who do this have no problem with what they do, as they, mysteriously, find nothing contradictory in it. At least, not at first. When people continually bring up their hypocrisy, they begin to get scared, and tend to seek comfort in others of similar religious proclivities. Fortunately for them, this latter group comprises the bulk of monotheists in the west.
And then, there are, of course, those headstrong, self assured individuals that honestly see no contradiction in what they do, and stand little chance of being made to see. These people, in my experience anyway, are compassionate, reasonable, decent people; but this does not, in any way reflect on the religion they practice. Rather, they do not let their own goodness become tainted by the folly, prejudices, and superstitions of dogmatic religion.
It is this last group, that proves, once again, that, despite what our priests, pastors, rabbis, and imams tell us; "god" needs man to subsist, not the other way around.
Here, Paul is says, outright, that men are superior to women. Never mind what he says in conclusion on the subject, about "If anyone wants to be contentious, we have no such law, etc...", Paul's statement prior expresses his true views concerning women, what the ideal of womanhood (or lack thereof) is, and, in all likelihood, stems from his own religious upbringing.
But even so, even Judaism had the decency to speak in a general and indirect way about the inferiority of women, always to have "sages" of all stripes come doesn't and add more positive or negative connotations to old dog tricks, and always with a cryptic, poetic flourish. Christianity comes along and spells it all out for those too dumb to still think women are equal to men in the eyes of scripture.
Indeed, I would not be shocked if "Misogyny for Idiots" has this very passage as it's central premise.
As with it's ideas of salvation vs damnation, Christianity is far more severe in its belittlement of the feminine gender than is Judaism. Though most of Christianity lacks the draconian, compulsory laws of Judaism, it posits that if people reject it's views, they will spend eternity in a place of never ending torment--a prospect that would likely make even the vain, self serving god of the "Old Testament" balk. And where Judaism makes it a point to place women at the bottom of the social ladder, the "New Testament" makes woman out to be nothing more than a sentient tool.
And finally we come to...do I really need to talk about Islam? Chances are most people who read blogs have access to news reports. So I'll just let the records speak for themselves instead of engaging in redundancy.
Now, despite all of this, there are still ardent feminists among all three of these faiths. How can such a contradiction exist? Well, keep in mind that we are dealing with just that--the mind: something for which the laws of physics are but a bad dream.
And that's where shopping-cart-religion comes in. what is "shopping-cart-religion"? It is, quite simply, when someone follows a certain religion, usually a dogmatic one, and attempts to make it more liberal by picking and choosing what rules to follow, what parts of the religion to believe in, and how it should be believed in, interpreted, and practiced. Many people who do this (pretty much all sane Christians) also enjoy integrating different ideas form other religions in with their own, despite their primary religion absolutely forbids this.
Most people who do this have no problem with what they do, as they, mysteriously, find nothing contradictory in it. At least, not at first. When people continually bring up their hypocrisy, they begin to get scared, and tend to seek comfort in others of similar religious proclivities. Fortunately for them, this latter group comprises the bulk of monotheists in the west.
And then, there are, of course, those headstrong, self assured individuals that honestly see no contradiction in what they do, and stand little chance of being made to see. These people, in my experience anyway, are compassionate, reasonable, decent people; but this does not, in any way reflect on the religion they practice. Rather, they do not let their own goodness become tainted by the folly, prejudices, and superstitions of dogmatic religion.
It is this last group, that proves, once again, that, despite what our priests, pastors, rabbis, and imams tell us; "god" needs man to subsist, not the other way around.
