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.

[Goat]

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.

Well, when it comes to the 'adam and eve' story, the word 'rib' has an alternate translation... and that is 'side'. Certain Jewish commentary says that this shows that man and woman cleave 'side to side' as co-equal.

On the other hand, the tribal cultures of that time period did tend to be very male dominated. The question should be should we move on from our more primitive state ? I say yes...

[McCulloch]

There is a theory that it has to do with ensuring the continuation of one's genes. For primates like humans and chimpanzees who are not strictly monogamous like the gibbons, there is always a matter of doubt for the male about whether the offspring that he is dedicating time and resources to help raise, is really his descendant. For the female, this is never an issue. Societal and subsequently religious rules about female chastity, against adultery and about male ownership of females, may have arisen to address this issue.

[Avariel]

There is a theory that it has to do with ensuring the continuation of one's genes. For primates like humans and chimpanzees who are not strictly monogamous like the gibbons, there is always a matter of doubt for the male about whether the offspring that he is dedicating time and resources to help raise, is really his descendant. For the female, this is never an issue. Societal and subsequently religious rules about female chastity, against adultery and about male ownership of females, may have arisen to address this issue.

Why is it an issue in the first place, for one? A more just solution to the problem would simply be to put the resources in the hands of the female and trace the lineage back through her instead of the male. This make more logical sense, yes? And many other cultures did this because it does make more sense.

But for Christians and Christian "countries" I should say, or nations that ruled with Christian principles governing their laws, it didn't work out this way. Why?

[Avariel]

Well, when it comes to the 'adam and eve' story, the word 'rib' has an alternate translation... and that is 'side'. Certain Jewish commentary says that this shows that man and woman cleave 'side to side' as co-equal.

On the other hand, the tribal cultures of that time period did tend to be very male dominated. The question should be should we move on from our more primitive state ? I say yes...

The tribal systems are actually an excellent point to bring up. A lot of anthropologists believe that men became responsible for certain roles, such as hunting and battle, simply because women, when pregnant, were not physically capable of performing these tasks, and as such the roles fell to the men, and women took care of gathering food and defending the homes while the men were away. This makes sense to me, of course, and these roles didn't define who was in a leaderhip position and who wasn't until much later when egalitarian societies started becoming more rulership/government based because of who controlled resources. Like meat, from hunting.

But I don't see how this justifies a sort of "ownership" or the sort of rulership that the Bible describes should be inherent in any marriage relationship. Why should gender roles define who's in charge? There's no logical connection between who fulfills what role in a household to who is more fit to rule over the other, or why anyone has to rule over the other.

[McCulloch]

There is a theory that it has to do with ensuring the continuation of one's genes. For primates like humans and chimpanzees who are not strictly monogamous like the gibbons, there is always a matter of doubt for the male about whether the offspring that he is dedicating time and resources to help raise, is really his descendant. For the female, this is never an issue. Societal and subsequently religious rules about female chastity, against adultery and about male ownership of females, may have arisen to address this issue.

Why is it an issue in the first place, for one? A more just solution to the problem would simply be to put the resources in the hands of the female and trace the lineage back through her instead of the male. This make more logical sense, yes? And many other cultures did this because it does make more sense.

But for Christians and Christian "countries" I should say, or nations that ruled with Christian principles governing their laws, it didn't work out this way. Why?

But all biological beings are striving to have their own genes continue in the next generation. That includes the males.

[Avariel]

There is a theory that it has to do with ensuring the continuation of one's genes. For primates like humans and chimpanzees who are not strictly monogamous like the gibbons, there is always a matter of doubt for the male about whether the offspring that he is dedicating time and resources to help raise, is really his descendant. For the female, this is never an issue. Societal and subsequently religious rules about female chastity, against adultery and about male ownership of females, may have arisen to address this issue.

Why is it an issue in the first place, for one? A more just solution to the problem would simply be to put the resources in the hands of the female and trace the lineage back through her instead of the male. This make more logical sense, yes? And many other cultures did this because it does make more sense.

But for Christians and Christian "countries" I should say, or nations that ruled with Christian principles governing their laws, it didn't work out this way. Why?

But all biological beings are striving to have their own genes continue in the next generation. That includes the males.

How does this justify rulership of one over another? All it does is justify why men should have children with women, if they so desire that sort of "immortality."

So in any case, they already are doing this simply by having children with someone. The issue with "ensuring" a woman has a man's child is usually brought up in inheritance issues, as well as lineage when it comes to nobility, royalty, etc, what have you, which is why I suggested what i did with a lineage being traced back through the woman instead of the man. It's easy to get someone pregnant and ensure your genes are carried on, barring impotence problems; and usually if it's merely a question of biology, if you can't get one woman pregnant than try another, right? Even if you wanted to ensure a child was yours, you'd simply carry on a monogamous relationship with a woman until she had your child. Done and done.

You could even marry her and maintain the monogamous relationship for the rest of your life and have many children. The point is, what does needing to biologically pass down your genes have anything to do with ruling your wife? With her will bending to yours? How is that even related?

[McCulloch]

How does this justify rulership of one over another? All it does is justify why men should have children with women, if they so desire that sort of "immortality."

No, it does not. It merely explains. The attitude cannot be justified in my opinion.

So in any case, they already are doing this simply by having children with someone.

Humans are unique in the duration of dependency of our offspring. Unlike other species, there is a significant survival benefit to having more than one parent involved in raising the young.

The issue with "ensuring" a woman has a man's child is usually brought up in inheritance issues, as well as lineage when it comes to nobility, royalty, etc, what have you, which is why I suggested what i did with a lineage being traced back through the woman instead of the man.

Brilliant idea. It might be a bit difficult to get it to catch on.

It's easy to get someone pregnant and ensure your genes are carried on, barring impotence problems; and usually if it's merely a question of biology, if you can't get one woman pregnant than try another, right? Even if you wanted to ensure a child was yours, you'd simply carry on a monogamous relationship with a woman until she had your child. Done and done.

As I said, human infants are notoriously helpless for a lot longer than any other species of primate. The birth of offspring does not necessarily ensure the survival of genes. For the male, the probability of the survival of his genes are significantly enhanced if he assists his mate in the raising of the young. For the female, the probability of the survival of her genes are significantly enhanced if she makes a good choice of a partner.

You could even marry her and maintain the monogamous relationship for the rest of your life and have many children. The point is, what does needing to biologically pass down your genes have anything to do with ruling your wife? With her will bending to yours? How is that even related?

A male pursuing a pattern of behavior that maximizes the probability of the survival of his genes will want to ensure the monogamy of his mate, not himself. Otherwise, he risks expending time and resources on someone else's genes.

[Avariel]

A male pursuing a pattern of behavior that maximizes the probability of the survival of his genes will want to ensure the monogamy of his mate, not himself. Otherwise, he risks expending time and resources on someone else's genes.

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 realize those aren't "your" words, and I'm not accusing you of thinking this way at all, but I'm bringing it up because that does tend to be the subconcious thought process when this biological-branching-into-social explanation is offered. While it's probably a very likely theory, it's not as logical as one might think, because if it were only about producing offspring we would follow similar mating habits as most wild animals species did; you'd simply mate with as many females as you can, and help your chosen mate for that season raise the young until they could take care of themselves. 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.

So even if in nature this "subvert the female" topology isn't really shown, then what is different about the human psyche that makes them try to control their "resources" I suppose? I like how Bakker put it in his novels, that man simply needs control over the source of his desires; he desires food, so he domesticates animals. He desires sex, offspring, a family, so...he domesticates his women?

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.)

Edit: I realize now that you said that humans demand a longer period of time devoted into caring for them and raising them, so I realize that some of my animal analogies may not be accurate; but the "mate-for-life" analogy in animals that do such is still valid.

[Goat]

A male pursuing a pattern of behavior that maximizes the probability of the survival of his genes will want to ensure the monogamy of his mate, not himself. Otherwise, he risks expending time and resources on someone else's genes.

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.)

On a gut, instinctual level. I can't find the reference right now, but I have seen a study where a child was able to be matched with the right father at a much higher percentage than a child was able to be matched with the right mother , using photographs. Gut instincts do often get in the way of common decency and common sense.

I realize those aren't "your" words, and I'm not accusing you of thinking this way at all, but I'm bringing it up because that does tend to be the subconcious thought process when this biological-branching-into-social explanation is offered. While it's probably a very likely theory, it's not as logical as one might think, because if it were only about producing offspring we would follow similar mating habits as most wild animals species did; you'd simply mate with as many females as you can, and help your chosen mate for that season raise the young until they could take care of themselves. 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.

So even if in nature this "subvert the female" topology isn't really shown, then what is different about the human psyche that makes them try to control their "resources" I suppose? I like how Bakker put it in his novels, that man simply needs control over the source of his desires; he desires food, so he domesticates animals. He desires sex, offspring, a family, so...he domesticates his women?

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.

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.)

Edit: I realize now that you said that humans demand a longer period of time devoted into caring for them and raising them, so I realize that some of my animal analogies may not be accurate; but the "mate-for-life" analogy in animals that do such is still valid.

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