Why does God and his subsequent followers hate women?

[Avariel]

I'll invite anyone to discuss this topic, even though it's mainly targeted to Christians.

Why are women targeted by the Christian bible as far back as the Creation story? Many argue that it was based on original sin, but apparently such subjugation goes even farther back; some claim that because Eve was created after Adam, and from his body, that this indicates she is somehow below or inferior to him in human heirarchy. Why would a just God who proclaims "love one another" in various texts, place one of his creations over another?

Explain to me why wives much be ruled over by their husbands, or discuss as needed.

[McCulloch]

So you think that because the male has less certainty than the female over whether or not the child is actually theirs, he'd have to subvert the female into a dominant-submissive type relationship in order to keep her from sleeping around like the whore she is? (while the may goes and sleeps around with whomever he wants, I might add.)

I'm not quite sure why you use the word whore. We have not brought into the discussion the economics of sex. Did you mean slut? It seems odd to me that when looking at other species, we can avoid using judgmentally loaded words. Gibbons are monogamous and are characterized by maintaining lifelong pair bonds. They are obligately monogamous, primarily because of the prolonged period of offspring dependence. The mated gibbons maximize their reproductive success through a large and specialized investment in their offspring. While the mother must carry and feed the infant for at least the first year, she has very little time and energy left for other activities, so the male is necessary to defend the territory. Without the male, the female would have to sacrifice taking care of the young for defending the territory, which would result in low reproductive success of the pair. ; Bonobos have a hierarchically promiscuous mating system; Gorillas can be classified specifically as female defense polygyny; Chimpanzees although promiscuous, most mating occur within the context of consortships, suggesting some degree of pair bonding; Orangutans display a mating system called overlap promiscuity, which means that individuals mate haphazardly with others within their home ranges. There is no lasting relationship or bond between males and females, and each individual has multiple mating partners.

Human anatomical factors combine to suggest that from a zoological standpoint the human animal has a reproductive strategy based at least to some degree on sperm competition and that females enhance their genetic reproductive success by making every egg a contest, and males by participating in as many contests as possible. While such a strategy was conducive to the cooperative competition and solitary bonds of tribal existence, in the face of carnal knowledge and the rise of culture, new more complex behavioral choices are seemingly superseding our physiology. If we were forced to classify humans according to our mating system, it would be difficult to say whether we are somewhat polygynous or somewhat monogamous. The precultural human mating system was a form of selective promiscuity. It is suggested that our precultural mating system is a continuing fundamental tendency within us that is being suppressed and modified by culture.

A few animals mate for life, and there's no subversion of the female in those species that I've ever read about. Actually, they're better examples of co-equal partnerships than most human marriages.

The problem is that human nature goes neither to promiscuity or to monogamy. If we were one or the other, co-equal partnerships would have more naturally emerged.

I'm still looking for an explanation as to why a just God would command that a woman be submissive to her husband, especially in light of all this discussion. (this is directed to any Christian who feels like responding.)

Ah, yes, the actual topic of debate. Thank you for getting us back. On this I may not be qualified. To me God is a construct of society. The JCI God encourages the inequity of a male dominated society, of the domestication of females and of male paternal rights. Perhaps someone who actually believes in the divine spirit being would care to answer.

[Avariel]

So you think that because the male has less certainty than the female over whether or not the child is actually theirs, he'd have to subvert the female into a dominant-submissive type relationship in order to keep her from sleeping around like the whore she is? (while the may goes and sleeps around with whomever he wants, I might add.)

I'm not quite sure why you use the word whore. We have not brought into the discussion the economics of sex. Did you mean slut?

It was a play on words to bring to mind the age-old mental thought process of claiming that women are sexually deviant and the weaker sex, and need to be "corralled" because they can't control their lusts, while males can exhibit similar appetites and draw no social stigma or subversion because of it. In this day and age, a woman doesn't have to be paid for sex to be called a whore, and I think you suggestion of a different word indicates you know what I meant

It seems odd to me that when looking at other species, we can avoid using judgmentally loaded words.

I completely agree, and that was sort of my point. There's nothing wrong with in imo no matter what species you are, yet we have an entire vocabulary that judges and criminalizes such behavior in us, even though every other creature on the planet does it.

Gibbons are monogamous and are characterized by maintaining lifelong pair bonds. They are obligately monogamous, primarily because of the prolonged period of offspring dependence. The mated gibbons maximize their reproductive success through a large and specialized investment in their offspring. While the mother must carry and feed the infant for at least the first year, she has very little time and energy left for other activities, so the male is necessary to defend the territory. Without the male, the female would have to sacrifice taking care of the young for defending the territory, which would result in low reproductive success of the pair.

But does the male subvert the female? I think what I mean by subvert is does he have an obviously domineering and commanding or controlling role over what the female does? We've gone over gender roles already, so we've established why different sexes are responsible for different things in a relationship. But why the control?

If we were forced to classify humans according to our mating system, it would be difficult to say whether we are somewhat polygynous or somewhat monogamous. The precultural human mating system was a form of selective promiscuity. It is suggested that our precultural mating system is a continuing fundamental tendency within us that is being suppressed and modified by culture.
The problem is that human nature goes neither to promiscuity or to monogamy. If we were one or the other, co-equal partnerships would have more naturally emerged.

I think that's the beauty of our species, though, in that we have that choice to engage in one or the other.

Ah, yes, the actual topic of debate. Thank you for getting us back. On this I may not be qualified. To me God is a construct of society. The JCI God encourages the inequity of a male dominated society, of the domestication of females and of male paternal rights. Perhaps someone who actually believes in the divine spirit being would care to answer.

LOL but thank you for bringing up the points you did, we've at least established a decent groundwork for debate now.

[Avariel]

It actually is a pattern in the animal kingdom, in the primate world in specifically. On the other hand, chimps, which were thought to be monogamous, they found that the female chimps whose offspring were not their official 'mate' was as high as 50%! They also found that pattern in songbirds that were thought to be monogamous. They used DNA analysis to make that determination.

Yet, there seems to be more 'on the side' activity on with the 'mate for life' animals than we initially thought. The urge to reproduce and produce a larger variety is strong throughout the animal kingdom. If you are interested, here is a paper on it

An excellent article; I sent the part about males with larger testicles as an indication of increased sexual competition and thus sexaactivitey to a friend of mine who raises rats; male rats are notorious for having huge hanging ****s.

The tagline? "Your male rat is a genetically tagged man-slut."

In all seriousness, while this is great in showing why species are monogamous or not, it doesn't really answer (at least for me) why it would be necessary for Christians (a monogomy pushing religion) to subvert a female or females in general.

[McCulloch]

I think that's the beauty of our species, though, in that we have that choice to engage in one or the other.

We are now in the apparently unique situation of directing our own social, cultural and perhaps even genetic evolution. I wonder what kind of choices we'll make?

[Goat]

In all seriousness, while this is great in showing why species are monogamous or not, it doesn't really answer (at least for me) why it would be necessary for Christians (a monogomy pushing religion) to subvert a female or females in general.

There is one thing I see about much religious behavior. One is that it allows people to rationalize their own inclinations. In my opinion, it isn't necessary, but since we are a social animal, it allows people to rationalize their behaviors away.

It is no coincidence that peoples view of God is a bigger and more powerful version of themselves. .. or at least how they wish to be able to be.

[msmcneal]

Interesting topic. I'm going to add a different spin on it. This isn't really much of a debate post, but I'm looking at it from a different perspective.

Now, during the advent of Christianity, most of society tended to be male-oriented. Look at two religions that are nearly identical to Christianity: Mithraism and that of Apollonius of Tyanna. The main difference between these latter two, and Christianity, was that the latter two completely rejected the allowing of women into their systems. Christianity, however, allowed women, at least as far as "salvation" is concerned. But, in order to keep to the male-oriented aspect, they were only allowed into the club, but not allowed to lead the congregations, lead the prayers, make the rules, etc. This ensured that Christianity would succeed where the other two failed.

I'm not sure exactly how this plays into the OP, but, at least in my mind, it has some bearing on the debate at hand. However, I could be completely wrong.

[Centaur]

Perhaps the problem with the discussion regarding "ruling over the woman" stems from the fact that there are quite a few men today who do not read their whole Bible. The Bible is clear that, yes, Adam was placed over Eve in Genesis 3, yet notice that the headship of the man was established after Adam and Eve sinned. God intended for man and woman to be equal and helpful to each other.

The headship mandate is also, in itself, a bane to men as well. In 1 Peter 1, we find that our sin nature was "received by tradition from your fathers," and elsewhere in Scripture, that we sinned through Adam, our figurehead. The man, as head, is also held responsible for sin.

God's intent for marriage is not a domineering husband over a humiliated wife. Paul makes it clear that husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives, and that they are to esteem others better than themselves - which includes their wives first and foremost. Men are called to protect, defend, and cherish their wives, because they are one flesh, and he is charged to care for his wife as he cares for his own body. The calling of a man to be a husband is a serious call: we should take it very seriously.

[McCulloch]

Perhaps the problem with the discussion regarding "ruling over the woman" stems from the fact that there are quite a few men today who do not read their whole Bible. The Bible is clear that, yes, Adam was placed over Eve in Genesis 3, yet notice that the headship of the man was established after Adam and Eve sinned. God intended for man and woman to be equal and helpful to each other.

The headship mandate is also, in itself, a bane to men as well. In 1 Peter 1, we find that our sin nature was "received by tradition from your fathers," and elsewhere in Scripture, that we sinned through Adam, our figurehead. The man, as head, is also held responsible for sin.

God's intent for marriage is not a domineering husband over a humiliated wife. Paul makes it clear that husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives, and that they are to esteem others better than themselves - which includes their wives first and foremost. Men are called to protect, defend, and cherish their wives, because they are one flesh, and he is charged to care for his wife as he cares for his own body. The calling of a man to be a husband is a serious call: we should take it very seriously.

But the apostle Paul teaches that as Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of women. You might want to put some patronizing words about taking that responsibility very seriously, but the Christian Biblical teaching that women are more easily deceived and are therefore to be lead by men is insulting and demeaning.

[Centaur]

Perhaps the problem with the discussion regarding "ruling over the woman" stems from the fact that there are quite a few men today who do not read their whole Bible. The Bible is clear that, yes, Adam was placed over Eve in Genesis 3, yet notice that the headship of the man was established after Adam and Eve sinned. God intended for man and woman to be equal and helpful to each other.

The headship mandate is also, in itself, a bane to men as well. In 1 Peter 1, we find that our sin nature was "received by tradition from your fathers," and elsewhere in Scripture, that we sinned through Adam, our figurehead. The man, as head, is also held responsible for sin.

God's intent for marriage is not a domineering husband over a humiliated wife. Paul makes it clear that husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives, and that they are to esteem others better than themselves - which includes their wives first and foremost. Men are called to protect, defend, and cherish their wives, because they are one flesh, and he is charged to care for his wife as he cares for his own body. The calling of a man to be a husband is a serious call: we should take it very seriously.

But the apostle Paul teaches that as Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of women. You might want to put some patronizing words about taking that responsibility very seriously, but the Christian Biblical teaching that women are more easily deceived and are therefore to be lead by men is insulting and demeaning.

Whoa, hold on: the Bible states that the woman was deceived (statement of fact as to what happened), not that women are more easily deceived as a categorical statement. I would further argue that the story of Eve being deceived is not very patronizing of Adam, since it says she gave the fruit to her husband "who was with her." Why he didn't act, I have no clue: not very patronizing.

Furthermore, Christ as head of the church, and man as head of woman: this is, again turning to my point, not a license of domineering. Christ could have come and forced every Christian to follow Him strictly, reprimanding us for every mistake and jerking the chain when we attempt to disobey Him, but He didn't do that, because He wants our love willingly, not a lot of hostages. Man as head does not have to be - and shouldn't be - a domineering relationship, but one of mutual respect.

[asp59]

Does the Bible Discriminate
Against Women?

TERTULLIAN, a third-century theologian, once described women as the devils gateway. Others have used the Bible to portray women as less important than men. As a result, many people feel that the Bible discriminates against women.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a 19th-century pioneer for womens rights in the United States, felt that the Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of womens emancipation. Of the first five books of the Bible, Stanton once said: I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of woman.

While some today might hold such extreme viewpoints, many still feel that some parts of the Bible support discrimination against women. Is such a conclusion justified?

How Women Are Viewed in the Hebrew Scriptures

Your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you. (Genesis 3:16) Critics point to this as a judgment of Eve by God and as divine approval of womans subjection by man. However, rather than a declaration of Gods purpose, this is an accurate statement of the sad consequences of sin and rejection of Gods sovereignty. Abuse of women is the direct result of mankinds fallen nature, not Gods will. Wives in many cultures have indeed been dominated by their husbands, often in very harsh ways. But this was not Gods purpose.

Both Adam and Eve were made in Gods image. Moreover, they received the same mandate from God to become fruitful, fill the earth, and subdue it. They were to work together as a team. (Genesis 1:27, 28) Clearly, at that point neither was cruelly dominating the other. Genesis 1:31 says: God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.

In some cases Bible accounts do not indicate Gods view on a matter. They may just be historical narrative. The account of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites is related without moral commentary or judgment by God.*"Genesis 19:6-8.

The fact is, God hates all forms of exploitation and abuse. (Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 27:19; Isaiah 10:1, 2) The Mosaic Law condemned rape and prostitution. (Leviticus 19:29; Deuteronomy 22:23-29) Adultery was prohibited, and the penalty was death for both parties. (Leviticus 20:10) Rather than discriminate against women, the Law elevated and protected them from the rampant exploitation common in the surrounding nations. A capable Jewish wife was a highly respected and esteemed individual. (Proverbs 31:10, 28-30) The Israelites failure to follow Gods laws on showing respect for women was their fault, not Gods will. (Deuteronomy 32:5) Ultimately, God judged and punished the nation as a whole for their flagrant disobedience.


Is Subjection Discrimination?

Any society can function well only when there is order. This requires the administration of authority. The alternative is chaos. God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace."1 Corinthians 14:33.

The apostle Paul describes the family headship arrangement: The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) Every individual except God submits to a higher authority. Does the fact that Jesus has a head mean that he is being discriminated against? Of course not! The fact that men Scripturally have been assigned to take the lead in the congregation and the family does not mean that women are being discriminated against. To prosper, both the family and the congregation need women and men to play their respective roles with love and respect."Ephesians 5:21-25, 28, 29, 33.

Jesus consistently treated women with respect. He refused to follow the discriminatory traditions and regulations taught by the Pharisees. He talked to non-Jewish women. (Matthew 15:22-28; John 4:7-9) He taught women. (Luke 10:38-42) He protected women from being abandoned. (Mark 10:11, 12) Perhaps the most revolutionary step for his time was that Jesus accepted women into his inner circle of friends. (Luke 8:1-3) As the perfect embodiment of all of Gods qualities, Jesus showed that individuals of both sexes have equal value in Gods eyes. In fact, among the early Christians, both men and women received the gift of the holy spirit. (Acts 2:1-4, 17, 18) For those anointed, who have the prospect of serving as kings and priests with Christ, there will be no distinction of gender at all once resurrected to heavenly life. (Galatians 3:28) The Author of the Bible, Jehovah, does not discriminate against women.[/color][color=gree[/color]n][/color]