The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

why patriarcial (sp?) religions hate women

So my lovely wife (who is a laxed Druid) and I were talking the other day, and we have been noticing that most if not all patriarchal religions (jebus-krispies, hebes, derka-derkas) have an absolute hatred and women and their bodies.

She has postulated and I agreed that is probably due to most religious laws being written by cantankerous old men who are impotent and in possession of a shriveled little penis that no woman would take seriously.
It is more of a system of 'sour grapes' than anything.

Their sub conscience must be saying to them 'well if I can't enjoy young, beautiful women, then I hate them and will make up a set of religious laws to bring them down and oppress them and make sure that no-one else can enjoy them and that they hate themselves.'

What are all your opinions on this?
Do you concur or am I an idiot.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Doherty Sr. on May 11, 2010 at 11:47am

I do appreciate your input, but what are your personal ideas on why the Torah/Koran/bible all relegate women to a second-class citizen at best, chattel property at worst (Koran)? Is it the result of patriarchal institutionalization, or something simpler?
I was looking for the perceived reasons that women 'had' to be dominated by men in the past and present. Is it a small-penis syndrome, or a stupid hyper-macho ideal?
My lovely wife (who used to spend alot of time with wiccans and druids) was wondering where the disconnect came from when women were the worshiped ones (the mother of the Vendol, Isis, Astarte, Kali) the ones who create life to end up in a 'shut up unclean woman and stay away from the alter of Men when you are bleeding' sub-human caste.
Also why this same system of misogyny still exists in parts of the middle east, Indonesia and Africa.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Doherty Sr. on May 11, 2010 at 12:22pm

So its all a form of 'might-makes-right'? That a simple Darwinian paradigm is the cause of so much suffering of women in the past and present?

I would think this idea would lend more credence to a man(kind)-is-an-animal and Creationism is bullshit argument.

I'm not sure I will bring up your point of what neo-pagan cults do to re-write mythologies (especially if I want to get some nookie tonight) to the wife.

Thank you for your ideas and viewpoint, I hadn't thought of it from that point of view.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Doherty Sr. on May 11, 2010 at 12:45pm

Ok, I agree that this was how things started, several thousand years ago.
But we have current religious and civil laws that still prejudice against women. You'd think that in the 21st century that hopefully we as a species would out grow this need to dominate one or the other gender.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on May 11, 2010 at 12:57pm

Neo-paganism has most likely niced itself up for contemporary audiences. It is more like an entirely new religion than a revival of an old religion, because most of the old traditions haven't been recorded well and people have made it up as they went along. In old paganism times, people were worried about things like fertility (of crops or themselves) but in modern times, neo-pagans are mostly concerned with themselves and their own wishes. Most likely ancient paganism had things like sacrifices, and probably were just as bronze-age as the other religions of the time.

But enough of that (hey, you don't have to tell your wife.) Religion isn't the only source of misogyny or any other prejudice, but once the prejudice is backed by a religion, it's much harder to eliminate. I think the reason for homophobia is b/c some person back then had the same "eww" attitude that homophobes have today, wrote it down in a bible, and it became backed by religion. It is the same with misogyny. Thinking about the area where the Big 3 religions began, it was a harsh desert climate, mostly, which I think influenced the worldview.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claire M Binkley on May 11, 2010 at 1:02pm

Patriarchal, although I'm skeptical you can't spell it, as ecce: we have been noticing that most if not all patriarchal religions...

I find it best to ignore those faiths and proceed with life in general, doing normal feminine deeds.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Doherty Sr. on May 11, 2010 at 1:06pm

I'm on my 4th vodka of the day, forgive me for my lack of spelling ability.

And I would ignore those faiths, if they didn't do their best to try to impress their ideas on me and my family.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claire M Binkley on May 11, 2010 at 5:39pm

I don't believe you can't spell, since you wrote in the initial paragraph of this post that word correctly spelled!

~~You and~~ Your family probably need a stronger sense of what's right and what's all bullshit in this world.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on May 11, 2010 at 6:41pm

I think he's more referring to the institutional sexism and other bigotries that we as individuals cannot pretend does not exist than any personal and direct effects like the neighbor asking how if he married her for her body or her cooking and cleaning skills.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Doherty Sr. on May 12, 2010 at 11:30am

Thank you Jennifer, that is basically what I'm asking.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on May 12, 2010 at 1:58pm

My bro-in-law is an anthropologist of some renown. He told me that, in a way, patriarchal is a misnomer in that it suggests that there would be such a thing as a Matriarchy - which was rare if you consider that female 'rule' isn't an 'archy' (not a top down command structure.) It basically goes like this:

1. Males participate in activities that work best with a hierarchy - hunting, warfare, etc. Hierarchies are top down because 'executive' decisions need to be made decisively and, often quickly, in these activities - coordinating the activities of the subordinate individuals in 'the trenches.' (see - executive branch)

2. Females participate in activities that work best with a more collective decision making structure since they do things of a more cooperative nature - gathering, cooking, etc. They divvy workload - one picks berries, one collects firewood, one guts fish, etc.

This is why pagan religions work so well for women in terms of power sharing since the pantheon of gods share power and there are female aspects of these gods.

Monotheism, on the other hand, is a total top down, hierarchical scheme with God on top, his Messiah or Prophet on earth and then a more or less organized infrastructure of officers to enlisted men - with women being on the rungs only higher than kids and then the rest of the lifeforms (on down to the scum - atheists. ;^) ).

Since the 'big three' are all, really, fronts for political power over an unquestioning population of pawns - even if the religion originated with a more even gender balance - the tenets have been twisted to serve the power elite - invariably men.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Agoraphobe on May 21, 2010 at 4:13am

I’ve been wondering how I should put this. My art history teacher had a theory about how female-goddesses were too big a threat to the political dominance of men (when taking into consideration that even while pagan religions were not quite matriarchal women were an integral part of worship, even having their own temples and rites forbidden to men). When we think of the Abrahamic religions, there is a common denominator: Eve is the wicked temptress who ate the apple first. Essentially you’ve got a system that has villainized women forever. So even now, thousands of years later, when ‘modern religious people’ exist, so long as you have any belief at all in any of these scriptures there’s no way you’re giving women a fair shot.

As for why, that’s the tough part. It is true that many of the laws these religions brought along were considered improvements on the conditions of women at the time, but when taking into consideration that Mohammed had nineteen wives (score, by the way) it can’t be a simple matter of sour grapes. If anything, I don’t think they hated women at all. I think they genuinely thought they were doing women a favour. When I look at psychotic Muslims like my mother, who has a PhD and is extremely intelligent aside from the whole Allah-is-real thing, I see that they truly believe Islam is kind to women and seeks to protect them. This isn’t in any way a modern belief, it’s a ridiculous marriage to a very old one that somehow endures in a time when women have so much more than religions like Islam have to offer.

Tiny wrinkled winkies? Maybe. But probably just the same arrogance that missionaries today bring to all those savage heathens they save.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by amer muhammad on May 22, 2010 at 2:48am

but when taking into consideration that Mohammed had nineteen wives (score, by the way) it can’t be a simple matter of sour grapes.
He was unable to re-marry untill his rich and influential first wife died. His prime years were gone by then. It was a bit psychological problem by then. He needed a son too, that also contributed.
If you study Islam in a little depth, you will come to know that most of verses relating women came in this period. it is quite evident that old man struggled to controll the "score" you mentioned. He needed the verses bringing angel to help him in the faimly affairs many a times. Many of verses directly start from "O the wives of prophet.........."