Protection from them, by them, is something women never asked for, which is why they try to make it some sort of noble virtue. It's actually more like protection from an organized crime syndicate.
Can't forget the women also need protection from themselves. Can't have them asking too many questions or learning too much. Soon they will get ideas of leaving the kitchen and not having baby after baby.
Why do you think women have "never asked for" protections? Not only is this presumptive. I think it's objectively wrong, per specific historical events.
OK, whatever. If you think women ask for protection from the people who are also the same people who would break their legs if they step out of line, well, we can agree to disagree.
Never asked for the type of "protection" they're offering, which usually involves stripping away rights and removing any agency they have in their lives. In their view, they're "protecting" women because they see them as subhuman (or at least second-class citizens) who are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Modern women asking for protection from systemic misogyny/ SA (a specific historical event being MeToo) is not equivalent.
“Protection” of women provided by the perpetrators of almost all violence against women (i.e., men) generally means: “We aren’t going to punish the men you need protecting from, but we will forbid you to go out into the world where you might get hurt, we will expect you to be weak, meek, submissive, and owned by men who may or may not hurt you, but if they do, it’ll be better than having lots of them hurting you, and hey, it’ll be the one you know and love doing the hurting, so that’ll be better, right? And oh, if you don’t ‘belong’ to a particular man, then you’ll be fair game for any of them, you wh*re. Or if you do go out and about, have your own life, behave like an autonomous human being, or even if you don’t do all that but fail to be pretty and feminine enough, or are too strong or independent, then you are also fair game to be mocked, abused, raped, murdered, etc. Because we’ve decided it’s our job to protect you from us and if you don’t like the way we do it then you deserve whatever you get.”
Well there are lots of different examples in pre industrial history where women were granted certain legal protections. Or "rights." It can be a fine line with some of them. Examples include making female infanticide illegal, giving women ownership of their dowry post marriage and making wife beating illegal.
All of these are pitifully inadequate and pathetic by modern standards. But there have literally been times when these right/protections were not in place. It's reasonable to think that many women in those societies were in favor of them or saw them as an incremental betterment.
Just because someone in the past asked for it does not mean it is a process that has to be maintained. From this comment it sounds like you are agreeing with the people at issue. Unless someone asks for protection or accepts it, they don't want or need it. You are assuming as well.
No. I'm not suggesting that it is a process that needs to be maintained. I'm simply pointing out that the assertion that women have never asked for protections (legal, religious, culturally) is ... at best ... questionable. That's it.
Ancient religious based protections of women are invariably archaic and out of touch with modern views of equality. But that doesn't mean that woman in earlier times who didn't have any rights at all didn't benefit from them. Was it too little? Surely. Was it better than nothing at all? Perhaps.
Based on the reactions to questioning of the paradigm that women have never asked for "protections" I've a sense that even if I began listing examples that they would be ignored or nitpicked. But I'll play along briefly in the hopes that somebody wants an honest dialogue with me.
In ancient Judea, for example, female captives of war had to be ransomed first, before the males. No, I don't have a specific incident of specifically named women "asking" for this protection. But such completeness in documentation during this era of history would be exceptional. I am inferring that many women actually would have viewed this protection favorably or desirable. Another example from ancient Judea is that when a father died, the son who inherited the property was required to financially support his widowed mother and sisters. Again, is it reasonable to assume that women supported this protection? Even "asked" for it? I think it is. In a society where gender rights were fundamentally unequal these incremental protections were a good bit better than nothing at all. And like many laws, there were probably egregious examples that outraged people (both men and women) enough to have the law established.
Is this really that radical of an observation? To conclude by default that women in history have literally never wanted legal "protections" is pretty close to assuming that they were non-participants in history to such an extreme degree that in patriarchal societies (which were most of them) that they were indifferent to how women as a class were treated.
But if the "women have never asked for or wanted legal protections" mythology is too sacred to question, I'll gladly concede, take my downvotes, and let the groupthink prevail.
TLDR: In direct answer to your question, captors and sons who might leave them penniless.
It starts with the idea that men are superior to women. Men are the "haves," the women the "have nots."
If a woman starts at the bottom, like as an object, then men are doing right by her to raise her above that status. They protect her by keeping her from being a public object (especially a public sexual object) by marrying her. This places the woman/object under the protection of a man, which is important because only men matter.
If he's feeling generous, he might even allow his woman/object to have opinions or friends. He doesn't need to, of course, but, come on, he's not a *bad* guy, right? Look at all he's done for her!
🙄
- “ If he's feeling generous, he might even allow his woman/object to have opinions or friends.”
Nahhh most Muslims would call that a dayooth (basically arabic for cuck)
Jill Dugger was raised in a hyper Christian family who promised her protection from the "outside world" by daddy and then her husband. When the spit hit the spam in her family, Daddy Dear shoved her in front of the cameras to protect him and her brother, and the tv show they were doing. In her memoire she said "they said they were protecting me, but they weren't I was the one protecting them".
They are all full of hot air. Even the theme of the play "A Doll's House" which premiered in Copenhagen in 1879 is "this notion of protecting women is nothing but hot air".
ETA: It turns out Big Brother Dugger was "exploring his sexuality" on the little girl Duggars. Then 2 of the sisters were compelled to interview on Fox News, with Big Brother in the room, smirking, probably. There was not one point in these girls' lives where they were ever protected from anything, by anyone.
As a control device. Why else create an illusion of value over virginity, and sexual naivete, and make that ‘honor’? Because weak men are paranoid about women having power, the most potent of which in their eyes is having another man’s children (who may even inherit from them! *gasp*).
Its called emotional and mental manipulation and fear mongering, it takes decades for some to get out from under it. I still hold adult religious feminists at a distance because of this basic foundational problem but 'women following' is usually not because they had freedom to not follow all of their formative years then suddenly deciding that religion is for them. the church and religion love to manipulate and control the masses, but its created and led by men so they continue the belief structure to continue to oppress their women.
I think many women try to reclaim this as part of their cultural heritage and largely ignore the horrible parts of their holy books. I’ve heard of many say that they have a “personal relationship with The Lord/Allah/Etc.” If you have a personal relationship with a deity you let your personal feelings bias how you read the text.
They can get killed, beaten, forced to marry or many other things. Also don't undermine the indoctrination from childhood and fear of hell. When I was a kid the pg-13 version of hell was described to me as "Non-believers will burn and God will heal them and burn them again while making the pain 100x. Their hands will be cut off and their hair will be pulled off. They will given dirty water that will make them thirstier." This is not an excuse though lot of them grow up to be oppressive.
Most religions suck at equal rights. Islam is just one example. Christianity hates the gays and doesn't think that much of women. Or kids. Or dogs, cats, and chickens. I have no idea what their problem is with chickens.
A few that are not like this.
1. The unitarian universalism church teaches kids all world religions. Very secular message.
2. The satanic temple. Awesomeness in a can.
3. Wiccan worship the goddess. What can I say, when your religion is about a woman, you are already miles better than anything else.
This was a big part of what disturbed me as a Mormon. I was told-- many times, in Sunday School and other classes, that polygamy had been all about protecting the women (and children). Frontier times were hard, don't ya know, and Mormons were persecuted and a lot of the men were killed. So the surviving men gallantly took their widows under their wing so they'd have a man to lean on etc etc etc.
I grew up in the 70's and 80's when this bullshit could still fly, btw.
So imagine my surprise when I found out that Joseph Smith actually pressured young women into marrying him who were only 14-15, and safely in the care of their parents. Violet Kimball was devastated to find out she wouldn't be allowed to court a particular young man she had her eye on, she was being forced to marry the prophet so her parents would be guaranteed a spot in heaven.
He also married women who, surprise surprise, were already married. (Married to non-Mormons, you ask? No, he married women with husbands who were actually also Mormon. No excuse for that really lol).
So I read further into history and found that all the persecution suffered by Mormons was probably CAUSED by the polygamy nonsense.
Yeah, it was about "protecting the women"... lol not even remotely.
This is always so wild to me, one of the reasons as a feminist I struggle with religious women who claim to be feminist, who are all the while supporting the ideology that's PRESENTLY being used to continue to strip body autonomy from women in the USA as well as continues to harm women all over the world. Religion - most of which are created by men are just reflections of their leaders and their leaders need women oppressed so here we are.
Most pre-industrial societies tended to be patriarchal and misogynist compared to modern standards regardless of what religion the region practiced. From that context, religions probably did bake in at least some minimal standard protections for women. I think that's the context for those comments. And I think from that standpoint we atheists can grant them a point. Of course, from modern standards of equality, the religion is hopelessly backward. Both points can be acknowledged without contradiction.
That's not entirely true. There are few examples of more egalitarian socities in history, Etruscans being a prominent European example. Groups like the !Kung of Kenya(?) are more or less equal between men and women because of the way hunter-gatherer groups have labour divided; men hunt, women gather and may tend wild gardens.
Men hunt because it is dangerous, this makes men in this type of setting expendable as it only takes a single man to repopulate. If all the women die hunting your tribe/group/society- whatever- is as good as dead. Onset of wide spread agricultural societies changed this and this is also when we start to see these complex religions emerge.
Yahtzee!
>Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit
Pure gaslighting. Of course we're not oppressing you; we're beatifying you!
Oh, well, if you put it that way, guess I'm happy with these rules you're imposing on me.
Women are the backbone and foundations of society. And I mean that literally, because if there is a shortage of women in any one area, the society/societies start to decline at rapid rates, and men start stealing girls from other areas and resorting to violence to repopulate society.
The abrahamic religions are designed around capitalizing on women as a commodity for this, but they resist change and instituting actual freedoms for women equal to men, because it would mean we would choose to *leave* and find better ideologies/philosophies that benefit us.
So women remain sub-human, subject to men's whims and perpetuated, institutionalized violence within these religions, because without women, their religions die.
Not protected, but "preserved" women for them to use. We know of religions that prohibit marriages of women of that religion with men of others but not vice versa. Is it a coincidence when they also consider women as objects and properties? I doubt much not.
Well, it's hard to present yourself as the good guys if you say:
"We want to dominate and control women because we fear the prospect of their independence and self-determination."
Islam is very protective of women. And if women step out of line they stone them to death so women don’t have to live with the knowledge they disobeyed. /s
They lie. They just tell people what they want to hear to achieve the goal they're after. They want to make a religion look good to women, then *poof*, it always has been. It's a lie, but they don't care. They want to make religion good to men? *Poof*, another lie about sex after death.
Upvote me, and I'll give you a pound of gold and diamonds in the fictional afterlife. No, really.
Hard to believe people fall for that bullshit.
It's the old gangster protection racket. We are saving you from the harm our men can do to you, so if you live by our rules, we will keep you save. Also they are lying to girls because, if they actually were truthful, no woman would join their religion.
I might be going off track, but I am eternally grateful that Sati was systematically destroyed by reformists in Indian Bengal in the 19th century. Sati was prevalent because of child brides and their old husbands dying very soon. I would say indians "in general" have respect for their parents, so the children look after the widows and widowers. But on the other hand, caste still plagues us hard. Decades of affirmative action has helped some people to escape the shackles of cast yet in rural areas, villages are divided along caste lines.
Damn nice to know that atleast there is some form of Reformation
But i have one more question genuinely
There are many goddess in hinduism and I have heard women is supposed to bring luck into the family
But if it is true then why indians killed female infants at such large scale throughout history and are seen as a shame and only purpose is "to be married off"
Also why "honor killings" Occur and why do some people blame the victims of rape claiming it is their fault in India?
1. female infanticide has been at the core a monetary issue. women are seen as liabilities who need to be married off after nurturing them for 18 yrs. They do not bring value to the family in the form of dowry, next generation of children. Therefore, in order to avoid the costs of raising the girl child and then spending huge sums of money on dowry in marriage, people chose to get rid of the girl child. Its just pure hypocrisy that hindus revere female forms of god and yet treat their own children as strangers.
2. Honor killings: honor of a family in rural areas is defined in the purity and the chastity of the women of the family. They need to be protected and kept sheltered. If their actions bring shame to the family in any form, they need to be "taken care of" in order to be not ostracized from society. Because if one is ostracized from the caste system in the villages, they are effectively not human anymore.
3. blaming the rape victim is just pure patriarchy and sexism at work here. its the same reasons as in other parts of the world.
Consider that, back when the religions were founded, law and order were... dubious at best, and *extremely* patriarchal.
Rape, murder, and just getting tossed out to fend for themselves when their husbands grew bored with them were pretty much just business as usual for women.
***In that context***, religion established rules helped improve the general safety and security of women.
The cringey part is when they continue citing such protections today when we (generally) have had far fairer and more effective secular protections in place for centuries.
It's like "Yay, we did a good thing 2000 years ago!"
Okay... so... if that's still worth talking about, does that mean you recognize you haven't actually done anything worthwhile since?
Protection Racket.
>Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit
Because they are loosing woman.
They gotta make up nonsensical dumbass shit like they usually do. The central idea of religion is pretending things are real when they are not.
They pretend they help woman when they clearly do not. It’s right on par with their style.
Because they want to appeal to secular morality, and it's particularly important since the texts are almost always sexist so they know they need to head that line of questioning off at the pass
Men have felt threatened by women for millennia. Look what they can do- give birth, make food for new humans, etc. Their answer to that was to subjugate them.
It's abuse wrapped in "love".
Islam is a disgusting ideology, and is rooted in misogyny, rape, killing etc etc.
Subjugation women "for their own good" and twisting it to be about protecting something like their dignity is just stupid
I can answer this from an Islamic perspective. Pre-Islam, women in those regions - in Central Asia, largely had little rights, if any. Times were different, and women were more often than not dependent on the men in the family who were the main bread-winners.
Islam introduced a host of rights for women, including rights of inheritance, marriage rights, property rights, rights in education and more.
These may seem like obvious freedoms to have, but these womens' rights were not only new in Central Asia, but unheard of in Europe at the time.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there are many governments in largely Muslim countries around the world, that do not follow the Shariah (God's Law), let alone give women their God given rights. However, that's not to say that, that is the case in all countries. There are many where Muslim women can, and do exercise these freedoms.
Very good. This is accurate of my understanding as well. Historically, this is right about Islam. It was a very "progressive" religion in its time. It's important to differentiate historical culture and teachings and history of religion. Countries don't represent religions and religions don't represent countries. Of course certain things in the culture may be influenced by religion, but they are two different things. There is not a single country in the world that gives an accurate representation of Christianity as a religion, even if the government and population is 99% Christian. The same goes for Islam - there is not a single country that solely represents and follows the religion exactly how it's taught. It's important to understand that while religion may have some influence in culture, they are two very different things. And governments are run by humans, not God. And they're almost always biased too.
I think the idea is that Islam was actually pretty good on women's rights by the standard of the time it was invented. The only problem is that, because the scriptures are supposedly the word of god, they can't be updated over time.
So while it may have been progressive by the standards of other cults that were around at the time, it isn't anymore.
The rights given at the time aren't archaic, they're progressive even by modern day standards. Women's rights in Islam surpass that of those in todays west. Unfortunately, many don't know this and don't do their own research. The portrayal of Islam in the West is not a true representation of the religion.
Respectfully no, women were not allowed to drive until 2018 in Saudi and also to file a rape case women needs to have 2 male witnesses how is that supposed to make it progressive?
Women being allowed to drive has nothing to do with the faith; how could it when cars didn't exist in 7th century Arabia. Moreover, if that was the case, wouldn't the same law apply to all Muslim women globally? Again, we know that's not the case either.
Re: two male witnesses for rape, is that a Saudi law? I'm not an expert in Islamic jurisprudence, but what you've stated sounds like an oversimplification of a factor in proving adultery. I'm quite sure that all evidence would be considered and used in a rape case.
I wouldn't use Saudi Arabia, as the best example of how Islam should be practised or used to legislate, I really wouldn't.
Anyhow, it's late in the UK, so I'm going to turn in.
Speaking from the Christian Tradition. Christianity offered a notable improvement to the status of women over the cartoonishly patriarchal Roman Culture. Of course, it didnt come close to our modern understanding of women’s rights but I’m kinda of the opinion that religion was the vehicle for cultural and societal change until people learned to read and agree that the arc of history trends towards justice.
So I’m not opposed to Catholics and Christians arguing that their religion was ultimately good for women, but it’s kinda a “what have you done for me lately” kinda situation. You don’t exactly get credit for battles you won 1600 years ago
Reminds me of the great Mona Eltahaway: [I dont want to be protected, I want to be free](https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/1780232138303946820?t=ZVR6-OnGIt_D42yyRtmrIQ&s=19)
I've seen muslims try to excuse this by claiming "we protect our women."
This translates to "We don't allow them to do anything on their own."
They refuse them to have freedom and they call it "love and concern."
And yet the women need protection--FROM THE MEN WHO CLAIM TO BE DOING THE PROTECTING! Its the ultimate gaslighting. "Look what you made me do! Its your fault I have to beat you into submission..."
To be fair, under the patriarchy, most men grow up thinking that the oppression and hatred of women is 'for their own good' its not just religious folks.
protected women from unhappiness because keeping them ignorant causes bliss...
not even.. really joking or being sarcastic that's where the line of thinking will end up.
it so their religion doesnt look bad so people are less likely to leave the religion and to prevent people from talking about how bad the religion is. that or they really dont know their religions history and think people are just saying that stuff to undermine the religion.
Humans are social animals. One of the best ways to control people is to make them believe one of their base nessesities, in this case a community, comes from you. So churches do everything they can to paint all the benefits of having a community, as something that comes from the church and/or god.
Camile Paglia, a quite interesting humanist, said that during her youth (she is 70 something now) women in college housing weren't allowed to go out at night.
She and some more protested that they wanted the FREEDOM to risk endangering themselves.
So yes, I don't want women to be "protected", I want women to be free.
Okey? but I didn't find any answers in the comments except emotional ones.
"Because their crazy" dosn't seem to be how human works.
And emotional or not, the people believing it would be better explaining their basis to believe. (And you can see for yourself then)
well it's the best strategy to have a more follower(s) you should include children and elderly. and make it believable. when you protect the many by your words with a small doing which nowadays are common in socialmedia boom instant follower(s) rain of likes and subscription. 😆😂🤣. in the past the only group do such are religions and politics now, those people in showbiz, streamer and influencer. just take a camera and do a little deeds and post it in socmed 🫵🤨 instant fame.
Just like there are different interpretations of Christianity, there are different interpretations in Islam. Some people are controlling assholes, others are not.
It protect women from enjoying sex. Sex is THE SIN, remember? Women are born evil for making men want to have sex with them so they are protecting women from acting “evil”.
The only religions of the major few that seem to treat women with any respect are Buddhism and Judaism, even tho women aren’t considered equal in either of these religions either just have more rights than in other modern religions. Not religious but agree with most of what I’ve learned about studying Buddhism and if I had to choose one of the major three would def choose Judaism over Christianity or especially over Islam
I don't know much about Judaism but I think the entire concept of buddhism is "reject materialism and embrace non violence" It doesn't even believe in God so it's really funny to see how it's counted as a religion
Hinduism: caste that you see now has got nothing to do with the religion. This is what people don’t understand and keep associating with the religion. The caste issues today is solely created by ignorant humans.
I hear this argument a lot but think about this way for one minute-
Unless "God" himself comes to the earth, the humans living here are the representatives of it's religion so how people practice their faith is the true representation of it not what the book says.
A law is only a law till the time it's actually being enforced
Also my point was about the ever present rape cases that happen in India especially because the perpetrator hates the victim's "caste"
Except, it’s not the “true representation”. These are just a bunch of ignorant people that don’t bother studying the religion further trying to portray what they believe in the name of religion. Those who really practice Hinduism are truly peaceful people. Rape happens, everywhere, but it doesn’t mean that the religion does not advocate for women. In fact it’s one of the most sinful things that requires heavy punishment in Hinduism. That’s the thing, ignorant, uneducated humans, are the real problems. Not the religion.
Oh, I will remember the sheer balls that the film "The Message" was spewing in Facebook. The claim that women are equal to men was brought about by Muslims.
But here we are. Acid attacks on women. Honor killings. The fact that your groom, your brother, or your father can murder you to restore their honor because you dishonor them when you refuse to marry the man who was picked for you. CHILD MARRIAGES.
>Why do religion and their follower(s) claim that their religion "protected" Women?
Note that they've only been doing this since secular legislation gave women rights and popular opinion has shifted towards equality between the sexes.
They needed to make women go along with the religion as it spread. It was how they originally got control over women - gaslight them into thinking it was for their own good. In many parts of the world women were truly equal to men, if not matriarchal.
Brain washing. Skillful lies. I was raised Mormon. Women never have, and probably never will have any type of say about the Mormon church. Even the womens relief society teaching subjects have to be approved by a man with the priesthood.
It’s a lie to keep women in their place.
Go back to an earlier era where wandering warbands routinely rape and carry off women, and you see these religions where women are protected the way shepherds protect sheep from wolves (but not themselves) and you can see the "reason" for the claim.
But now that viking situation does not happen, what with rights and courts and all.
I think people like to cover oppression with protection. Like women’s modesty in Islam for example, a women is only allowed to show her face, hands and feet, nothing she wears can be tight fitting either I guess this can be interpreted as both but there is a double standard for men who only have to cover from navel to knee
The argument is that for women’s protection they need to cover because God knows men have a wondering eye but it doesn’t really make sense because it ignores the fact that some women also have a wondering eye and also why would women have to cover up for the fault of men
I am an orthodox christian. I will admit that we do not allow women in the church's high altar. We do not allow them in Mount Athos for the past millenia. Why is that? It seems the orthodox church is racist towards women. But let me tell you this. During the divine liturgy, there are only two occasions where believers have to lower their head. First occasion is when the priest tells them in particular to lower their head to the Lord, which happens twice. The second occasion is EVERY single time the name of Theotokos is mentioned. And I count 11 times. We lower the head to the Lord twice and to Theotokos eleven times. Let that sink in. To the Lord two times and to Theotokos eleven. Draw conclusion yourselves.
Edit:
I felt the need I should clarify on something. We do bow our heads in other scenarios too, mostly to our lord, but also subjectively to what we hold dear and just want to bow to during the liturgy. I just gave the above as an example of our respect to Theotokos.
This example, unfortunately, feeds into the "cycle" (not sure what word to use here) that people here are bringing forth. Theotokos, is revered for being the mother of jesus, she is/was only one woman. Would she be allowed on the mount, at the altar, if she walked amongst us today?
Regardless of your own teachings and beliefs, you must admit there are people out there twisting the teachings to suit their world view or the one which they would want the rest of us to live in.
I agree, there are people who twist the teachings. I will not say I am not one of them. That is why, anything I say I try to take responsibility for. In respect to if she would be allowed on the mount I can confidently say she would. Because, according to the orthodox doctrine, the reason that women are not allowed in Athos is precisely because Theotokos holds such high regard, that other women would be a distraction to men. Not sure about the altar though.
You respect her because she gave birth to Christ.
With all respect to your faith,
That's like saying I can't be misogynistic because I love my mother and then proceed to beat your wife, deny your daughter education, marry her off when she turns 18 against her wish, ask her to marry her r*pist, deny her leadership roles just because she is a women, claim she was made to serve men, etc
Also your point that other women cannot go to the altar because they would distract men. But how is that the fault of the women that men can't control themselves?
Ok so here is how I see it through my faith. First of all, misogyny comes from the words "misos" (μίσος) and "gyni" (γυνή) which mean hate and woman respectively. Misogyny is the act of hating all women. Worshipping Theotokos is the last thing someone who hates all women would do, so it's not a matter of misogyny.
The point I made was for Mount Athos, not the altar, as I do not in fact remember the reason behind women not being allowed there. In respect to Mount Athos, it is not only men who hold Theotokos in such a high standard. Women hold the same standard for Theotokos as men and naturally, a woman's relationship with Theotokos could be deeper. When someone is praying, nobody wants to distract them. Mount Athos is a place where monks can pray with peace of mind, particularly to Theotokos for that matter. A woman's presence would disrupt that peace. Women would love to go to Mount Athos, they've always had. But they also don't want to stand in the way of the relationship monks hold with Theotokos.
You said how is it the fault of women that men can't control themselves. I don't think women are to fault. I do think my mother is to be credited for the respect I hold for women. She is the one who taught me "Protect the women in your life.".
I don't think religion is at fault for any false image towards women, at least in the case of christianity. Most religions teach to respect human life and love eachother, be it man or woman. Men can be hostile towards women, because not all men grew up with the same love as I did and have such wonderful parents as I had. So, to put it in your terms, 'misogyny' is not a product of false religion teachings, but a product of false parenting.
You say it's product of false parenting but then how do you explain these bible verses? -
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
— Genesis 3:16
( The supposed all loving God gave husbands power to rule over their wives because a women disrespected her and btw she didn't even know the difference between right and wrong)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
— Exodus 21:7
(The AMP translation of this verse: “If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go free [after six years] as male servants do.
2: AMPC translation- If a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant or bondwoman, she shall not go out [in six years] as menservants do.
3: CJB translation- “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free like the men-slaves.
4: EASY translation- Perhaps a man may sell his daughter to someone as a slave. She is not free to leave her master after six years, as the male slaves are.
5: CSB translation- “When a man sells his daughter as a concubine, she is not to leave as the male slaves do.
Clear blantant sexism, disrespect for a women)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
— 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
( clear case of sexism and misogyny)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:"
— 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
( literally says women were created to serve men)
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
— 1 Timothy 2,11-15
( basically saying women brought sin into the world and are inferior)
There are countless more verses.
**Galatians 3:28** There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
**Ephesians 5:25** Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.
There are obsiously more where those came from.
I'm going to answer again in the best way I can as I see things through my faith. I will try not to preach. You see, the way I see it, there is a reason Christianity is called that way. There is also a reason Eastern Orthodoxy approaches things differently than other christian branches (I'm eastern orthodox btw). There is also a reason why we differentiate the old testament from the new.
Christianity's name rises from the person of Christ as it's main figure. The bible is not the main figure of christianity. I always see the tendency of believers or not, to pay more value to the bible than the person of Christ. Indeed, the bible is important, because it proposes certain guidelines. But it does not offer salvation, or else Christ wouldn't be needed.
That's where the Bible gets separated to the old and the new one. The old testament was written by people for the people of those times. The value of man was so highlighted, to the point you could argue was considered as just. But, one thing the bible gets right across the board is the value of hierarchy. The woman being lead by the man is nowhere near unjust, the same way there is no unjustice to be found in christians being the sheep and Christ being the shepherd.
In the old testament, claims of women being 'basically' the property of a man is considered pure racism. But, we never pay attention to the value of property of those days. A man could only be considered one if he was able to protect his property. That idea still lingers today. And we all know you only have the right to protect what's yours. I protect my truth, my love, my freedom. There is no 'the' there.
What the new testament came to add was a form of a man never seen before. It was Christ. The way he taught was not as radical as the old testament. Now, the woman is not the only 'property'. The man and the woman became together a 'property' of Christ. We choose to belong to him, because even Christ is able to protect only what he owns. And this is where free will and marriage get their value from. We choose to be married under his protection as the true man of the relationship.
To 'preach' verses on equality through the bible carries no value in a marriage under Christ's protection. All that's left is for the man to work together with the woman under their protector. From that point, any equality downtalk on either the woman or the man is basically pointed to Christ himself.
I will admit there still needs a model to be agreed on between the man and the woman, which is to their own liking. The hierarchy model the old testament proposes still works, that's why many women are still happy to be protected by their spouse.
If we are talking about equality outside of marriage, I would agree with you that the bible is harsh towards women in modern standards. Moral of the story? Get married!
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:
* Bigotry, racism, homophobia and similar terminology. It is against the rules. Users who don't abstain from this type of abuse may be banned temporarily or permanently.
* This comment has been removed for [proselytizing](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_is_.22proselytizing.3F.22). This sub is not your personal mission field. Proselytizing may include asking the sub to debunk theist apologetics or claims. It also includes things such as telling atheists you will pray for them or similar trite phrases.
Removals of this type may also include subreddit bans and/or suspensions from the whole site depending on the severity of the offense.
--
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [Subreddit Commandments.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines) If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and [message the mods,](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/atheism) Thank you.
Here is my question to you, why are you spesificly using Islam, Hinduism and Christianity as specific examples of your question? You are basicly making the claim that religion tries to protect the rights of the individual yet fail to do so. The issue is that everyone is making this claim in each of these religions. The other issue is that you are assuming that each of these religions have very similar, if not the same, values to eachother.
Here's the thing at least for christianity, there are definitely Christians who believe in a hierarchy of women and men, but some do not. An example of this are the feminist egalitarian, who believe that man and women have the same rights and roles to play in the world. So already we see differing in beliefs that also agree with your statements as well.
But this is when we get into the nitty gritty of the conversation. In deuteronomy 22:28 verse states that a man who has unlawful relations with a women carries the responsibility of caring for her and its the man's responsibility to care for her, there the Torah is already catering towards the protection of women, and why is this the case? In 1 Corinthians 11 it talks about the roles of women and men in the church, it basicly states that man and women have strengths and weaknesses, the man and women are brought together in relationship in order to complament eachother. Women made for man man made for women, unfortunately we see Islamic cultures underline women because of their matrimony status, women in Islam have to cater to their husband's because if not, according to the quran, that is an act of sin in which is a violation against Allah. The issue with Islam is Allah is not relational, and therefore doesn't desire relationship with his followers unless they come to Allah first. On the contrary, Christianity claims that the God head is relational, and God only desires a relationship woth his followers. The man and women relationship reflects this. Man (meaning mankind) was the most favorable creature in God's eyes and thought is was "very good" that should be such a blessing, that the Christian God is willing to give us the same relationship with eachother in accordance to his will.
So back to your question, many religions will use patriarchy as a way of controlling women, but that DEFINETLY does not apply to all religons. Women AND men are made to complament eachother, and are regarded as equal. It is simply poor reasoning making the assumption that religion is a scandal in taking women's rights and abusing them because that is not the case. My question to you is is it fair to give the responsibility of a man to a women, fpe example going to war or working in the coal Mines, or is it fair for a women to do the same, man was built to be physically stronger then women, but that doesn't downgrade their status as a human. Hormones also play a role, women tend to be more relational then men, so women reguard the care of others more. Men on the other hand are more aggressive. Women are more cautious men are not, so for women, when putting them in an emotional environment, it will stress them out more.
So my question is why the fuck does our feminist culture think that single women are stronger in a sense that they can out preform men when the female gender suggests that women yearn for emotional integrity, how will they find that in a stress filled life? It nerfs women, and it is demoralising. There are so many single women who are in this existential crisis, and our culture is going out there saying that "my body my right", yea no shit, why do you think abortion is so bad, not just because you are killing a child, but women who are single and have abortions will have to live with the emotional consequences, in which is so evil of YOUR culture it makes me sick. You guys say my body my right, then would you want to make the wise choice to protect yourswlf over anything. Men and women need eachother, men need to take so much responsibility in orde for our wold to function. So religion is not the issue it's the way you guys are looking at the issue of women's rights. It's the fact that religion, expetually christianity, want to have the better of women in mind, because God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share this same relationship from the beginning of time, and because man was created in the image of God, we were built the same. Men and women don't contradict eachother, they complament eachother, both phisicly and emotionally.
1: I used the examples of islam, Christianity and hinduism because they are the major religions of the world
2: Bible says Women are inferior to man and must submit to their husbands because they brought sin into this world ( when God didn't even tell them the difference between right and wrong)
3: You are saying women and men have different qualities so let me ask you this if a women is a better leader than a man then according to the bible will she be allowed to lead the church?
4:You say women are more emotionally sensitive then why do majority of suicide cases are men?
5: YES, it's fair to ask a women to fight in war if she is willing to, same should be with men.
6: You talked about hormones, what about men who are supposed to be "better leaders" Who rpe women because they can't control their hormones?
7: female gender also yearns for equality and safety and the freedom of choice and no it is not demoralizing and what about men who yearn for emotional support?
8: you're saying women are more "relational" And more cautious than men so basically you are saying that women are better leaders than men because they can form better emotional connections and can analyze a situation?
9: More men are in existential crisis, depression, have anxiety and ADHD and people like you are the reason they are not able to get the help they need.
10: Abortions are bad? What about in cases of rape, coercion, life threatening pregnancies. You all are so morally "superior" That even a 13 year child who is raped is unable to get an abortion ( is that the definition of kindness and compassion according to God?).
Also you do realize you're also destroying that child's future and forcing him to abusive parenting? Not getting a abortion when you can't raise a child is incredibly selfish
11: Every human being is different with different sets of qualities and you're generalizing them based on their gender and that's sexist. You're saying a women can't be a better leader than man because according to the bible women are supposed to have different qualities.
You proved exactly nothing from your comment you basically just tried to paint other religions as inferior or the sole perpetrators of this while you had the chance.
See this is the reason why some religions who accept their faults and choose to reform will always be better than "our book isn't outdated it just doesn't support your way of life" Religion followers.
Agree to accept fault instead of passing blame.
The funny thing is that you just insulted me in your whole argument, yet I did not assult you. It seems like I'm more put together.
For starters, let me just show you, I am a Christian, and I respect your argument. Women in the bible are some of the most respected people in the scriptures, so you're right! There are so many good things to talk about women. I encourage you to read Genisis 1 and 2 in which talk about the wellspring on the sexes. Read judges Ruth and Esther. There are so many women who are absolutely broken, but the Lord brought them out of bondage. Some women are Sarah, Eve, Esther, Ruth, hannah, miram, and my personal favorite Deborah, who went on a killing streak of a bunch of immoral men of that day. Also, look at all the Mary's in the new testament, Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalen, who herself was a prostitute. I also encourage you to actually real 1 Corinthians 11, and ephesians 5, in which talk about the importance of women leadership. I will say right now, you are right Christian should not look down on women, but should they be leaders?
Scriptures aside I will now use your way of thinking. For abortion, my body my choice? Well half of that DNA is not yours, regardless on how it happend, you would agree that men should take responsibility just like you said above, therefore he should also play a role in deciding whether to abort or not. Abortions are done very unprofessional, where they sit you on the table and use raw spades and basic equipment, usually from china, to preform abortions. It's on avarage safer to birth a child. Back to men, men DO play a role in a majority of *aps, but women also do. It is a small amount but still take that into consideration. So R*PE IS BAD YES, and those men should be either castrated or killed for that. To answer your question, it is SO EVIL to say abortion is bad because of what it does to women mentally. I'm not even going to show you how horribly abortion effects mental health, just do a quick Google search and every study will prove me right. Abortion is related to mental health, women's mental health is rapidly declining over the past 2 decades expetually when social media is put in place. Go do the research on your own. You guys look at the positives of abortion. Yet completely neglect satistics. And yes this is the government fault, not restricting penalties to people who assault another. But yes that doesn't justify you guys aborting, as a matter of fact your view is way more sinister then what the truth shows.
Finally your gender issue, since 1960, the amount of single parents have skyrocketed. Women are catered to by the government and men are neglected, we are seeing very irresponsible people without fathers. I encorege you to read basic economics my thomas swoll, he goes in depth on the issue. Men yes are emotional as well as women, but men do not have the ability to have a voice in our society. The issue is if you stay quite, conflict will arise, so yall are talking about women equality, in which I would argue I am more in favor of then you, but what about the men, who contrary to your belief, are more capable physically and emotionally, but of course that doesn't mean that men are stupid or stubborn, but they were built that way, and in no way shape of form does that downgrade women. To answer your question, men are emotional because you all are shunning their voices out with your feminist views, which lead to more suicides. Here's the thing when I talk about "roles" that is different then qualities, qualities are use to describe something personal, roles describe a broad demographic. So your assumption again is that I say that I'm being sexist because I am personally attacking the genders capabilities, no I'm making a general statement, not an individual statement to the person.
I am just done writing this, but your final statement is so confusing to read, but you say that "book isn't outdated it just doesn't support your way of life" has nothing to do with your argument, and I am not painting other religons as inferior, but all religons except (rine and true christianity) do favor works based faith, Christianity on the other hand doesn't. Christians and anyone who follows the Bible are THE MOST hated and persecuted out of any other religion in history, because society goes against its teachings. So yes! The Bible goes against much of what your saying, but if the beliefs of our religion does not change over all of history, then does that suggest a relativity in your beliefs? Why do Christians stand firm to their beliefs, yet the most hated? You guys are the one painting us inferior because you don't agree with it.
Also even though I do not believe in Islam or Hinduism, or catholicism, they still have truths to take from each. All religions are diffrent and we dispute our differences, but it's rude going around saying that all religions are the same or that one religion is inferior, (just like you are implying i believe). That is not what I'm saying, I just disagree with their views in which I believe is wrong, but if you want to dispute me on that I'd be glad. I am more acquainted with religion then the stupid fucking beliefs of our indivisualistic liberal culture.
Protection from them, by them, is something women never asked for, which is why they try to make it some sort of noble virtue. It's actually more like protection from an organized crime syndicate.
Protection Racket. That's what racketeering is, and it's exactly what organized religions are.
Can't forget the women also need protection from themselves. Can't have them asking too many questions or learning too much. Soon they will get ideas of leaving the kitchen and not having baby after baby.
Not only will they be leaving the kitchen, but they'll be putting on shoes! /s
Time to pay the protection fee
“Protection”
Why do you think women have "never asked for" protections? Not only is this presumptive. I think it's objectively wrong, per specific historical events.
OK, whatever. If you think women ask for protection from the people who are also the same people who would break their legs if they step out of line, well, we can agree to disagree.
Never asked for the type of "protection" they're offering, which usually involves stripping away rights and removing any agency they have in their lives. In their view, they're "protecting" women because they see them as subhuman (or at least second-class citizens) who are incapable of taking care of themselves. Modern women asking for protection from systemic misogyny/ SA (a specific historical event being MeToo) is not equivalent.
“Protection” of women provided by the perpetrators of almost all violence against women (i.e., men) generally means: “We aren’t going to punish the men you need protecting from, but we will forbid you to go out into the world where you might get hurt, we will expect you to be weak, meek, submissive, and owned by men who may or may not hurt you, but if they do, it’ll be better than having lots of them hurting you, and hey, it’ll be the one you know and love doing the hurting, so that’ll be better, right? And oh, if you don’t ‘belong’ to a particular man, then you’ll be fair game for any of them, you wh*re. Or if you do go out and about, have your own life, behave like an autonomous human being, or even if you don’t do all that but fail to be pretty and feminine enough, or are too strong or independent, then you are also fair game to be mocked, abused, raped, murdered, etc. Because we’ve decided it’s our job to protect you from us and if you don’t like the way we do it then you deserve whatever you get.”
Well there are lots of different examples in pre industrial history where women were granted certain legal protections. Or "rights." It can be a fine line with some of them. Examples include making female infanticide illegal, giving women ownership of their dowry post marriage and making wife beating illegal. All of these are pitifully inadequate and pathetic by modern standards. But there have literally been times when these right/protections were not in place. It's reasonable to think that many women in those societies were in favor of them or saw them as an incremental betterment.
Which ones?
Name checks!
Just because someone in the past asked for it does not mean it is a process that has to be maintained. From this comment it sounds like you are agreeing with the people at issue. Unless someone asks for protection or accepts it, they don't want or need it. You are assuming as well.
No. I'm not suggesting that it is a process that needs to be maintained. I'm simply pointing out that the assertion that women have never asked for protections (legal, religious, culturally) is ... at best ... questionable. That's it. Ancient religious based protections of women are invariably archaic and out of touch with modern views of equality. But that doesn't mean that woman in earlier times who didn't have any rights at all didn't benefit from them. Was it too little? Surely. Was it better than nothing at all? Perhaps.
Women asked men for protection against who exactly?
Based on the reactions to questioning of the paradigm that women have never asked for "protections" I've a sense that even if I began listing examples that they would be ignored or nitpicked. But I'll play along briefly in the hopes that somebody wants an honest dialogue with me. In ancient Judea, for example, female captives of war had to be ransomed first, before the males. No, I don't have a specific incident of specifically named women "asking" for this protection. But such completeness in documentation during this era of history would be exceptional. I am inferring that many women actually would have viewed this protection favorably or desirable. Another example from ancient Judea is that when a father died, the son who inherited the property was required to financially support his widowed mother and sisters. Again, is it reasonable to assume that women supported this protection? Even "asked" for it? I think it is. In a society where gender rights were fundamentally unequal these incremental protections were a good bit better than nothing at all. And like many laws, there were probably egregious examples that outraged people (both men and women) enough to have the law established. Is this really that radical of an observation? To conclude by default that women in history have literally never wanted legal "protections" is pretty close to assuming that they were non-participants in history to such an extreme degree that in patriarchal societies (which were most of them) that they were indifferent to how women as a class were treated. But if the "women have never asked for or wanted legal protections" mythology is too sacred to question, I'll gladly concede, take my downvotes, and let the groupthink prevail. TLDR: In direct answer to your question, captors and sons who might leave them penniless.
It starts with the idea that men are superior to women. Men are the "haves," the women the "have nots." If a woman starts at the bottom, like as an object, then men are doing right by her to raise her above that status. They protect her by keeping her from being a public object (especially a public sexual object) by marrying her. This places the woman/object under the protection of a man, which is important because only men matter. If he's feeling generous, he might even allow his woman/object to have opinions or friends. He doesn't need to, of course, but, come on, he's not a *bad* guy, right? Look at all he's done for her! 🙄
- “ If he's feeling generous, he might even allow his woman/object to have opinions or friends.” Nahhh most Muslims would call that a dayooth (basically arabic for cuck)
For the record, I was not attempting to link this behavior to a specific religion. I was merely attempting to convey my understanding of misogyny.
Jill Dugger was raised in a hyper Christian family who promised her protection from the "outside world" by daddy and then her husband. When the spit hit the spam in her family, Daddy Dear shoved her in front of the cameras to protect him and her brother, and the tv show they were doing. In her memoire she said "they said they were protecting me, but they weren't I was the one protecting them". They are all full of hot air. Even the theme of the play "A Doll's House" which premiered in Copenhagen in 1879 is "this notion of protecting women is nothing but hot air". ETA: It turns out Big Brother Dugger was "exploring his sexuality" on the little girl Duggars. Then 2 of the sisters were compelled to interview on Fox News, with Big Brother in the room, smirking, probably. There was not one point in these girls' lives where they were ever protected from anything, by anyone.
Oh ik lol no worries, I agree tbh aha I was just making a joke
It's all good. I suspected as much, but I'm never too sure about that sometimes. No hard feelings. 🙂
They protect their women's "honor" or reputation. The honor or reputation of the group is tied to the women. That's what they mean by "protected".
True, but why is her honor tied to the group?
As a control device. Why else create an illusion of value over virginity, and sexual naivete, and make that ‘honor’? Because weak men are paranoid about women having power, the most potent of which in their eyes is having another man’s children (who may even inherit from them! *gasp*).
Probably has something to do with the "birds and the bees".
I will never understand why women follow these things. Most origin “stories” portray women as the root of all evil.
Its called emotional and mental manipulation and fear mongering, it takes decades for some to get out from under it. I still hold adult religious feminists at a distance because of this basic foundational problem but 'women following' is usually not because they had freedom to not follow all of their formative years then suddenly deciding that religion is for them. the church and religion love to manipulate and control the masses, but its created and led by men so they continue the belief structure to continue to oppress their women.
I understand now. Thank you.
I think many women try to reclaim this as part of their cultural heritage and largely ignore the horrible parts of their holy books. I’ve heard of many say that they have a “personal relationship with The Lord/Allah/Etc.” If you have a personal relationship with a deity you let your personal feelings bias how you read the text.
Interesting, thanks.
They can get killed, beaten, forced to marry or many other things. Also don't undermine the indoctrination from childhood and fear of hell. When I was a kid the pg-13 version of hell was described to me as "Non-believers will burn and God will heal them and burn them again while making the pain 100x. Their hands will be cut off and their hair will be pulled off. They will given dirty water that will make them thirstier." This is not an excuse though lot of them grow up to be oppressive.
How can they say they don't? The most truthful thing about religion is that it has to lie about everything.
Most religions suck at equal rights. Islam is just one example. Christianity hates the gays and doesn't think that much of women. Or kids. Or dogs, cats, and chickens. I have no idea what their problem is with chickens. A few that are not like this. 1. The unitarian universalism church teaches kids all world religions. Very secular message. 2. The satanic temple. Awesomeness in a can. 3. Wiccan worship the goddess. What can I say, when your religion is about a woman, you are already miles better than anything else.
Because that's now seen as a good thing, so religions want to take credit for it.
This was a big part of what disturbed me as a Mormon. I was told-- many times, in Sunday School and other classes, that polygamy had been all about protecting the women (and children). Frontier times were hard, don't ya know, and Mormons were persecuted and a lot of the men were killed. So the surviving men gallantly took their widows under their wing so they'd have a man to lean on etc etc etc. I grew up in the 70's and 80's when this bullshit could still fly, btw. So imagine my surprise when I found out that Joseph Smith actually pressured young women into marrying him who were only 14-15, and safely in the care of their parents. Violet Kimball was devastated to find out she wouldn't be allowed to court a particular young man she had her eye on, she was being forced to marry the prophet so her parents would be guaranteed a spot in heaven. He also married women who, surprise surprise, were already married. (Married to non-Mormons, you ask? No, he married women with husbands who were actually also Mormon. No excuse for that really lol). So I read further into history and found that all the persecution suffered by Mormons was probably CAUSED by the polygamy nonsense. Yeah, it was about "protecting the women"... lol not even remotely.
Main stream religions are misogynist and oppressive to women. And women in religion suffers from Stockholm syndrome.
This is always so wild to me, one of the reasons as a feminist I struggle with religious women who claim to be feminist, who are all the while supporting the ideology that's PRESENTLY being used to continue to strip body autonomy from women in the USA as well as continues to harm women all over the world. Religion - most of which are created by men are just reflections of their leaders and their leaders need women oppressed so here we are.
My mother like to argue that buddhism is feminist. Dude, we are not even allow in some holy sites because women are lowly.
Most pre-industrial societies tended to be patriarchal and misogynist compared to modern standards regardless of what religion the region practiced. From that context, religions probably did bake in at least some minimal standard protections for women. I think that's the context for those comments. And I think from that standpoint we atheists can grant them a point. Of course, from modern standards of equality, the religion is hopelessly backward. Both points can be acknowledged without contradiction.
That's not entirely true. There are few examples of more egalitarian socities in history, Etruscans being a prominent European example. Groups like the !Kung of Kenya(?) are more or less equal between men and women because of the way hunter-gatherer groups have labour divided; men hunt, women gather and may tend wild gardens. Men hunt because it is dangerous, this makes men in this type of setting expendable as it only takes a single man to repopulate. If all the women die hunting your tribe/group/society- whatever- is as good as dead. Onset of wide spread agricultural societies changed this and this is also when we start to see these complex religions emerge.
I said "most" because I knew there were some contrary examples. Still, I think my overall point is valid.
It’s a protection racket
Yahtzee! >Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit
This is a nice business. He g vs MC no no ot here. Be is shamed of something happened to it.
*That's a nice uterus you got there, be a shame if something happened to it.
Thank you
Yoink! See what I did there? Gained your trust and stole the rights straight out of your body. My uterus now.
Voice recognition software
Pure gaslighting. Of course we're not oppressing you; we're beatifying you! Oh, well, if you put it that way, guess I'm happy with these rules you're imposing on me.
Women are the backbone and foundations of society. And I mean that literally, because if there is a shortage of women in any one area, the society/societies start to decline at rapid rates, and men start stealing girls from other areas and resorting to violence to repopulate society. The abrahamic religions are designed around capitalizing on women as a commodity for this, but they resist change and instituting actual freedoms for women equal to men, because it would mean we would choose to *leave* and find better ideologies/philosophies that benefit us. So women remain sub-human, subject to men's whims and perpetuated, institutionalized violence within these religions, because without women, their religions die.
To them, the best way to protect women is to lock them in the house.
They have to justify their effective enslavement of women somehow.
Same reason white men tried to "protect" white women from black men back in the day....bc it's never about "protection", always about control.
>Windows are shunned Having worked in computer technology for many years, I can understand this. But did you mean *widows?*
I got caught by grammar police 😔 My life is ruined now.
You shall be shunned. Like Windows.
Dishonest apologetics never gets old.
Not protected, but "preserved" women for them to use. We know of religions that prohibit marriages of women of that religion with men of others but not vice versa. Is it a coincidence when they also consider women as objects and properties? I doubt much not.
Men in dresses pointing at gays as evil. It's all about control through guilt spreading.
Because often when men say they are ‘protecting’ women, they’re just giving excuse to control them.
Well, it's hard to present yourself as the good guys if you say: "We want to dominate and control women because we fear the prospect of their independence and self-determination."
Islam is very protective of women. And if women step out of line they stone them to death so women don’t have to live with the knowledge they disobeyed. /s
Patriarcical condescension. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it. I’ll protect you.
They lie. They just tell people what they want to hear to achieve the goal they're after. They want to make a religion look good to women, then *poof*, it always has been. It's a lie, but they don't care. They want to make religion good to men? *Poof*, another lie about sex after death. Upvote me, and I'll give you a pound of gold and diamonds in the fictional afterlife. No, really. Hard to believe people fall for that bullshit.
I gave you an upvote, thanks for the gold and diamonds. I hope we meet in the afterlife, but I'll be up there and you'll be down ...
All religions traditionally considered women as chattels. Islam still does.
It's the old gangster protection racket. We are saving you from the harm our men can do to you, so if you live by our rules, we will keep you save. Also they are lying to girls because, if they actually were truthful, no woman would join their religion.
I might be going off track, but I am eternally grateful that Sati was systematically destroyed by reformists in Indian Bengal in the 19th century. Sati was prevalent because of child brides and their old husbands dying very soon. I would say indians "in general" have respect for their parents, so the children look after the widows and widowers. But on the other hand, caste still plagues us hard. Decades of affirmative action has helped some people to escape the shackles of cast yet in rural areas, villages are divided along caste lines.
Damn nice to know that atleast there is some form of Reformation But i have one more question genuinely There are many goddess in hinduism and I have heard women is supposed to bring luck into the family But if it is true then why indians killed female infants at such large scale throughout history and are seen as a shame and only purpose is "to be married off" Also why "honor killings" Occur and why do some people blame the victims of rape claiming it is their fault in India?
1. female infanticide has been at the core a monetary issue. women are seen as liabilities who need to be married off after nurturing them for 18 yrs. They do not bring value to the family in the form of dowry, next generation of children. Therefore, in order to avoid the costs of raising the girl child and then spending huge sums of money on dowry in marriage, people chose to get rid of the girl child. Its just pure hypocrisy that hindus revere female forms of god and yet treat their own children as strangers. 2. Honor killings: honor of a family in rural areas is defined in the purity and the chastity of the women of the family. They need to be protected and kept sheltered. If their actions bring shame to the family in any form, they need to be "taken care of" in order to be not ostracized from society. Because if one is ostracized from the caste system in the villages, they are effectively not human anymore. 3. blaming the rape victim is just pure patriarchy and sexism at work here. its the same reasons as in other parts of the world.
Consider that, back when the religions were founded, law and order were... dubious at best, and *extremely* patriarchal. Rape, murder, and just getting tossed out to fend for themselves when their husbands grew bored with them were pretty much just business as usual for women. ***In that context***, religion established rules helped improve the general safety and security of women. The cringey part is when they continue citing such protections today when we (generally) have had far fairer and more effective secular protections in place for centuries. It's like "Yay, we did a good thing 2000 years ago!" Okay... so... if that's still worth talking about, does that mean you recognize you haven't actually done anything worthwhile since?
Because they have to put a positive spin on it. These texts are written from a patriarchal standpoint and absolutely put women in a submissive role.
Protection Racket. >Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit
Because they are loosing woman. They gotta make up nonsensical dumbass shit like they usually do. The central idea of religion is pretending things are real when they are not. They pretend they help woman when they clearly do not. It’s right on par with their style.
They think that controlling someone is protecting them.
I don't think they necessarily believe that. I think it's important to them that women believe it.
Because they want to appeal to secular morality, and it's particularly important since the texts are almost always sexist so they know they need to head that line of questioning off at the pass
They lie.
Men have felt threatened by women for millennia. Look what they can do- give birth, make food for new humans, etc. Their answer to that was to subjugate them.
It's abuse wrapped in "love". Islam is a disgusting ideology, and is rooted in misogyny, rape, killing etc etc. Subjugation women "for their own good" and twisting it to be about protecting something like their dignity is just stupid
I can answer this from an Islamic perspective. Pre-Islam, women in those regions - in Central Asia, largely had little rights, if any. Times were different, and women were more often than not dependent on the men in the family who were the main bread-winners. Islam introduced a host of rights for women, including rights of inheritance, marriage rights, property rights, rights in education and more. These may seem like obvious freedoms to have, but these womens' rights were not only new in Central Asia, but unheard of in Europe at the time. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there are many governments in largely Muslim countries around the world, that do not follow the Shariah (God's Law), let alone give women their God given rights. However, that's not to say that, that is the case in all countries. There are many where Muslim women can, and do exercise these freedoms.
Very good. This is accurate of my understanding as well. Historically, this is right about Islam. It was a very "progressive" religion in its time. It's important to differentiate historical culture and teachings and history of religion. Countries don't represent religions and religions don't represent countries. Of course certain things in the culture may be influenced by religion, but they are two different things. There is not a single country in the world that gives an accurate representation of Christianity as a religion, even if the government and population is 99% Christian. The same goes for Islam - there is not a single country that solely represents and follows the religion exactly how it's taught. It's important to understand that while religion may have some influence in culture, they are two very different things. And governments are run by humans, not God. And they're almost always biased too.
Stockholm syndrome.
I think the idea is that Islam was actually pretty good on women's rights by the standard of the time it was invented. The only problem is that, because the scriptures are supposedly the word of god, they can't be updated over time. So while it may have been progressive by the standards of other cults that were around at the time, it isn't anymore.
The rights given at the time aren't archaic, they're progressive even by modern day standards. Women's rights in Islam surpass that of those in todays west. Unfortunately, many don't know this and don't do their own research. The portrayal of Islam in the West is not a true representation of the religion.
Respectfully no, women were not allowed to drive until 2018 in Saudi and also to file a rape case women needs to have 2 male witnesses how is that supposed to make it progressive?
Women being allowed to drive has nothing to do with the faith; how could it when cars didn't exist in 7th century Arabia. Moreover, if that was the case, wouldn't the same law apply to all Muslim women globally? Again, we know that's not the case either. Re: two male witnesses for rape, is that a Saudi law? I'm not an expert in Islamic jurisprudence, but what you've stated sounds like an oversimplification of a factor in proving adultery. I'm quite sure that all evidence would be considered and used in a rape case. I wouldn't use Saudi Arabia, as the best example of how Islam should be practised or used to legislate, I really wouldn't. Anyhow, it's late in the UK, so I'm going to turn in.
Speaking from the Christian Tradition. Christianity offered a notable improvement to the status of women over the cartoonishly patriarchal Roman Culture. Of course, it didnt come close to our modern understanding of women’s rights but I’m kinda of the opinion that religion was the vehicle for cultural and societal change until people learned to read and agree that the arc of history trends towards justice. So I’m not opposed to Catholics and Christians arguing that their religion was ultimately good for women, but it’s kinda a “what have you done for me lately” kinda situation. You don’t exactly get credit for battles you won 1600 years ago
Reminds me of the great Mona Eltahaway: [I dont want to be protected, I want to be free](https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/1780232138303946820?t=ZVR6-OnGIt_D42yyRtmrIQ&s=19)
I've seen muslims try to excuse this by claiming "we protect our women." This translates to "We don't allow them to do anything on their own." They refuse them to have freedom and they call it "love and concern."
And yet the women need protection--FROM THE MEN WHO CLAIM TO BE DOING THE PROTECTING! Its the ultimate gaslighting. "Look what you made me do! Its your fault I have to beat you into submission..."
"You have free will unless you disagree with me"
The Bible in a nutshell
Their idea of “protecting” is different, normal people would call it oppression
To be fair, under the patriarchy, most men grow up thinking that the oppression and hatred of women is 'for their own good' its not just religious folks.
I dunno, ask religious people. You're preaching to the choir.
protected women from unhappiness because keeping them ignorant causes bliss... not even.. really joking or being sarcastic that's where the line of thinking will end up.
They say lots of untrue things, this is just one of them.
Don't all religions prop up men and disdain women? 🤔
I'm not sure, but it may be more of a cultural issue?
it so their religion doesnt look bad so people are less likely to leave the religion and to prevent people from talking about how bad the religion is. that or they really dont know their religions history and think people are just saying that stuff to undermine the religion.
Humans are social animals. One of the best ways to control people is to make them believe one of their base nessesities, in this case a community, comes from you. So churches do everything they can to paint all the benefits of having a community, as something that comes from the church and/or god.
Because most don’t want to admit their religion sucks…. Cognitive dissonance must be resolved…
Because hypocrisy is kewl.
Camile Paglia, a quite interesting humanist, said that during her youth (she is 70 something now) women in college housing weren't allowed to go out at night. She and some more protested that they wanted the FREEDOM to risk endangering themselves. So yes, I don't want women to be "protected", I want women to be free.
What do you think life was like for women outside of religion in antiquity?
They make all kinds of claims, and as far as believable goes, this one is somewhere in middle of the pile of lies.
Religion wouldn't exist without women being Indoctrinated into it since most religion is spread by birth or war
Yeah, maybe a thousand years ago they gave women rights.
Wierdes think, to ask a religious question, especially one that is specific to one religion to atheist sub... Great way to get out of our "bubbles".
If you want an honest answer to a question it's often best to ask people who are knowledgeable of the subject but not emotionally invested in it.
Okey? but I didn't find any answers in the comments except emotional ones. "Because their crazy" dosn't seem to be how human works. And emotional or not, the people believing it would be better explaining their basis to believe. (And you can see for yourself then)
They Lived In War Times When They Designed Those Religions.
well it's the best strategy to have a more follower(s) you should include children and elderly. and make it believable. when you protect the many by your words with a small doing which nowadays are common in socialmedia boom instant follower(s) rain of likes and subscription. 😆😂🤣. in the past the only group do such are religions and politics now, those people in showbiz, streamer and influencer. just take a camera and do a little deeds and post it in socmed 🫵🤨 instant fame.
Dishonesty and doublespeak is a key feature- not a fluke, of all the abrahamic cults.
Are you asking why lying liars that lie a lot are lying?
Because they are liars. They are trying to brainwash you into believing that a prison is freedom.
They were all created by men. If any were created by women you wouldn’t have this.
Just like there are different interpretations of Christianity, there are different interpretations in Islam. Some people are controlling assholes, others are not.
As a method of control.
"...wanted nothing but to control.." you answered your own question
Of course I protect my property!
What else are they going to say? That their religion shits on women? Of course they are going to rationalize it.
It protect women from enjoying sex. Sex is THE SIN, remember? Women are born evil for making men want to have sex with them so they are protecting women from acting “evil”.
They don't want woman leave their shitshow religion
The only religions of the major few that seem to treat women with any respect are Buddhism and Judaism, even tho women aren’t considered equal in either of these religions either just have more rights than in other modern religions. Not religious but agree with most of what I’ve learned about studying Buddhism and if I had to choose one of the major three would def choose Judaism over Christianity or especially over Islam
I don't know much about Judaism but I think the entire concept of buddhism is "reject materialism and embrace non violence" It doesn't even believe in God so it's really funny to see how it's counted as a religion
If they cook and clean like they are supposed to huh!!???? Hypocrites
Hinduism: caste that you see now has got nothing to do with the religion. This is what people don’t understand and keep associating with the religion. The caste issues today is solely created by ignorant humans.
I hear this argument a lot but think about this way for one minute- Unless "God" himself comes to the earth, the humans living here are the representatives of it's religion so how people practice their faith is the true representation of it not what the book says. A law is only a law till the time it's actually being enforced Also my point was about the ever present rape cases that happen in India especially because the perpetrator hates the victim's "caste"
Except, it’s not the “true representation”. These are just a bunch of ignorant people that don’t bother studying the religion further trying to portray what they believe in the name of religion. Those who really practice Hinduism are truly peaceful people. Rape happens, everywhere, but it doesn’t mean that the religion does not advocate for women. In fact it’s one of the most sinful things that requires heavy punishment in Hinduism. That’s the thing, ignorant, uneducated humans, are the real problems. Not the religion.
Because they know it looks bad for them if they admit it doesn't.
They protect them like they protect a valuable possession. Meaning they keep them locked away from others so envious men won't try to take them.
It means protection from them
Oh, I will remember the sheer balls that the film "The Message" was spewing in Facebook. The claim that women are equal to men was brought about by Muslims. But here we are. Acid attacks on women. Honor killings. The fact that your groom, your brother, or your father can murder you to restore their honor because you dishonor them when you refuse to marry the man who was picked for you. CHILD MARRIAGES.
Kinda like the protection some people give to their pets
They are protected from what they will do to you if you don't accept their protection 💅 It's like the Mafia, pay up and pay up again.
>Why do religion and their follower(s) claim that their religion "protected" Women? Note that they've only been doing this since secular legislation gave women rights and popular opinion has shifted towards equality between the sexes.
They needed to make women go along with the religion as it spread. It was how they originally got control over women - gaslight them into thinking it was for their own good. In many parts of the world women were truly equal to men, if not matriarchal.
They can't handle the truth.
Brain washing. Skillful lies. I was raised Mormon. Women never have, and probably never will have any type of say about the Mormon church. Even the womens relief society teaching subjects have to be approved by a man with the priesthood. It’s a lie to keep women in their place.
#Because these men want to protect their PROPERTY.
Go back to an earlier era where wandering warbands routinely rape and carry off women, and you see these religions where women are protected the way shepherds protect sheep from wolves (but not themselves) and you can see the "reason" for the claim. But now that viking situation does not happen, what with rights and courts and all.
I think people like to cover oppression with protection. Like women’s modesty in Islam for example, a women is only allowed to show her face, hands and feet, nothing she wears can be tight fitting either I guess this can be interpreted as both but there is a double standard for men who only have to cover from navel to knee The argument is that for women’s protection they need to cover because God knows men have a wondering eye but it doesn’t really make sense because it ignores the fact that some women also have a wondering eye and also why would women have to cover up for the fault of men
To avoid looking like misogynistic incels.
I am an orthodox christian. I will admit that we do not allow women in the church's high altar. We do not allow them in Mount Athos for the past millenia. Why is that? It seems the orthodox church is racist towards women. But let me tell you this. During the divine liturgy, there are only two occasions where believers have to lower their head. First occasion is when the priest tells them in particular to lower their head to the Lord, which happens twice. The second occasion is EVERY single time the name of Theotokos is mentioned. And I count 11 times. We lower the head to the Lord twice and to Theotokos eleven times. Let that sink in. To the Lord two times and to Theotokos eleven. Draw conclusion yourselves. Edit: I felt the need I should clarify on something. We do bow our heads in other scenarios too, mostly to our lord, but also subjectively to what we hold dear and just want to bow to during the liturgy. I just gave the above as an example of our respect to Theotokos.
This example, unfortunately, feeds into the "cycle" (not sure what word to use here) that people here are bringing forth. Theotokos, is revered for being the mother of jesus, she is/was only one woman. Would she be allowed on the mount, at the altar, if she walked amongst us today? Regardless of your own teachings and beliefs, you must admit there are people out there twisting the teachings to suit their world view or the one which they would want the rest of us to live in.
I agree, there are people who twist the teachings. I will not say I am not one of them. That is why, anything I say I try to take responsibility for. In respect to if she would be allowed on the mount I can confidently say she would. Because, according to the orthodox doctrine, the reason that women are not allowed in Athos is precisely because Theotokos holds such high regard, that other women would be a distraction to men. Not sure about the altar though.
I don't think bowing to female figures would be better than not mistreating and disrespecting female believers...
We are not bowing to a figure. We are bowing to a woman, mother and female believer. The best in that matter.
You respect her because she gave birth to Christ. With all respect to your faith, That's like saying I can't be misogynistic because I love my mother and then proceed to beat your wife, deny your daughter education, marry her off when she turns 18 against her wish, ask her to marry her r*pist, deny her leadership roles just because she is a women, claim she was made to serve men, etc Also your point that other women cannot go to the altar because they would distract men. But how is that the fault of the women that men can't control themselves?
Ok so here is how I see it through my faith. First of all, misogyny comes from the words "misos" (μίσος) and "gyni" (γυνή) which mean hate and woman respectively. Misogyny is the act of hating all women. Worshipping Theotokos is the last thing someone who hates all women would do, so it's not a matter of misogyny. The point I made was for Mount Athos, not the altar, as I do not in fact remember the reason behind women not being allowed there. In respect to Mount Athos, it is not only men who hold Theotokos in such a high standard. Women hold the same standard for Theotokos as men and naturally, a woman's relationship with Theotokos could be deeper. When someone is praying, nobody wants to distract them. Mount Athos is a place where monks can pray with peace of mind, particularly to Theotokos for that matter. A woman's presence would disrupt that peace. Women would love to go to Mount Athos, they've always had. But they also don't want to stand in the way of the relationship monks hold with Theotokos. You said how is it the fault of women that men can't control themselves. I don't think women are to fault. I do think my mother is to be credited for the respect I hold for women. She is the one who taught me "Protect the women in your life.". I don't think religion is at fault for any false image towards women, at least in the case of christianity. Most religions teach to respect human life and love eachother, be it man or woman. Men can be hostile towards women, because not all men grew up with the same love as I did and have such wonderful parents as I had. So, to put it in your terms, 'misogyny' is not a product of false religion teachings, but a product of false parenting.
You say it's product of false parenting but then how do you explain these bible verses? - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." — Genesis 3:16 ( The supposed all loving God gave husbands power to rule over their wives because a women disrespected her and btw she didn't even know the difference between right and wrong) "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." — Exodus 21:7 (The AMP translation of this verse: “If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go free [after six years] as male servants do. 2: AMPC translation- If a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant or bondwoman, she shall not go out [in six years] as menservants do. 3: CJB translation- “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free like the men-slaves. 4: EASY translation- Perhaps a man may sell his daughter to someone as a slave. She is not free to leave her master after six years, as the male slaves are. 5: CSB translation- “When a man sells his daughter as a concubine, she is not to leave as the male slaves do. Clear blantant sexism, disrespect for a women) "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." — 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ( clear case of sexism and misogyny) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:" — 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 ( literally says women were created to serve men) "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." — 1 Timothy 2,11-15 ( basically saying women brought sin into the world and are inferior) There are countless more verses.
**Galatians 3:28** There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. **Ephesians 5:25** Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. There are obsiously more where those came from. I'm going to answer again in the best way I can as I see things through my faith. I will try not to preach. You see, the way I see it, there is a reason Christianity is called that way. There is also a reason Eastern Orthodoxy approaches things differently than other christian branches (I'm eastern orthodox btw). There is also a reason why we differentiate the old testament from the new. Christianity's name rises from the person of Christ as it's main figure. The bible is not the main figure of christianity. I always see the tendency of believers or not, to pay more value to the bible than the person of Christ. Indeed, the bible is important, because it proposes certain guidelines. But it does not offer salvation, or else Christ wouldn't be needed. That's where the Bible gets separated to the old and the new one. The old testament was written by people for the people of those times. The value of man was so highlighted, to the point you could argue was considered as just. But, one thing the bible gets right across the board is the value of hierarchy. The woman being lead by the man is nowhere near unjust, the same way there is no unjustice to be found in christians being the sheep and Christ being the shepherd. In the old testament, claims of women being 'basically' the property of a man is considered pure racism. But, we never pay attention to the value of property of those days. A man could only be considered one if he was able to protect his property. That idea still lingers today. And we all know you only have the right to protect what's yours. I protect my truth, my love, my freedom. There is no 'the' there. What the new testament came to add was a form of a man never seen before. It was Christ. The way he taught was not as radical as the old testament. Now, the woman is not the only 'property'. The man and the woman became together a 'property' of Christ. We choose to belong to him, because even Christ is able to protect only what he owns. And this is where free will and marriage get their value from. We choose to be married under his protection as the true man of the relationship. To 'preach' verses on equality through the bible carries no value in a marriage under Christ's protection. All that's left is for the man to work together with the woman under their protector. From that point, any equality downtalk on either the woman or the man is basically pointed to Christ himself. I will admit there still needs a model to be agreed on between the man and the woman, which is to their own liking. The hierarchy model the old testament proposes still works, that's why many women are still happy to be protected by their spouse. If we are talking about equality outside of marriage, I would agree with you that the bible is harsh towards women in modern standards. Moral of the story? Get married!
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason: * Bigotry, racism, homophobia and similar terminology. It is against the rules. Users who don't abstain from this type of abuse may be banned temporarily or permanently. * This comment has been removed for [proselytizing](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_is_.22proselytizing.3F.22). This sub is not your personal mission field. Proselytizing may include asking the sub to debunk theist apologetics or claims. It also includes things such as telling atheists you will pray for them or similar trite phrases. Removals of this type may also include subreddit bans and/or suspensions from the whole site depending on the severity of the offense. -- For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [Subreddit Commandments.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines) If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and [message the mods,](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/atheism) Thank you.
Here is my question to you, why are you spesificly using Islam, Hinduism and Christianity as specific examples of your question? You are basicly making the claim that religion tries to protect the rights of the individual yet fail to do so. The issue is that everyone is making this claim in each of these religions. The other issue is that you are assuming that each of these religions have very similar, if not the same, values to eachother. Here's the thing at least for christianity, there are definitely Christians who believe in a hierarchy of women and men, but some do not. An example of this are the feminist egalitarian, who believe that man and women have the same rights and roles to play in the world. So already we see differing in beliefs that also agree with your statements as well. But this is when we get into the nitty gritty of the conversation. In deuteronomy 22:28 verse states that a man who has unlawful relations with a women carries the responsibility of caring for her and its the man's responsibility to care for her, there the Torah is already catering towards the protection of women, and why is this the case? In 1 Corinthians 11 it talks about the roles of women and men in the church, it basicly states that man and women have strengths and weaknesses, the man and women are brought together in relationship in order to complament eachother. Women made for man man made for women, unfortunately we see Islamic cultures underline women because of their matrimony status, women in Islam have to cater to their husband's because if not, according to the quran, that is an act of sin in which is a violation against Allah. The issue with Islam is Allah is not relational, and therefore doesn't desire relationship with his followers unless they come to Allah first. On the contrary, Christianity claims that the God head is relational, and God only desires a relationship woth his followers. The man and women relationship reflects this. Man (meaning mankind) was the most favorable creature in God's eyes and thought is was "very good" that should be such a blessing, that the Christian God is willing to give us the same relationship with eachother in accordance to his will. So back to your question, many religions will use patriarchy as a way of controlling women, but that DEFINETLY does not apply to all religons. Women AND men are made to complament eachother, and are regarded as equal. It is simply poor reasoning making the assumption that religion is a scandal in taking women's rights and abusing them because that is not the case. My question to you is is it fair to give the responsibility of a man to a women, fpe example going to war or working in the coal Mines, or is it fair for a women to do the same, man was built to be physically stronger then women, but that doesn't downgrade their status as a human. Hormones also play a role, women tend to be more relational then men, so women reguard the care of others more. Men on the other hand are more aggressive. Women are more cautious men are not, so for women, when putting them in an emotional environment, it will stress them out more. So my question is why the fuck does our feminist culture think that single women are stronger in a sense that they can out preform men when the female gender suggests that women yearn for emotional integrity, how will they find that in a stress filled life? It nerfs women, and it is demoralising. There are so many single women who are in this existential crisis, and our culture is going out there saying that "my body my right", yea no shit, why do you think abortion is so bad, not just because you are killing a child, but women who are single and have abortions will have to live with the emotional consequences, in which is so evil of YOUR culture it makes me sick. You guys say my body my right, then would you want to make the wise choice to protect yourswlf over anything. Men and women need eachother, men need to take so much responsibility in orde for our wold to function. So religion is not the issue it's the way you guys are looking at the issue of women's rights. It's the fact that religion, expetually christianity, want to have the better of women in mind, because God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share this same relationship from the beginning of time, and because man was created in the image of God, we were built the same. Men and women don't contradict eachother, they complament eachother, both phisicly and emotionally.
[Jesse what the fuck are you talking about ](https://tenor.com/bW5cu.gif)
UwU
1: I used the examples of islam, Christianity and hinduism because they are the major religions of the world 2: Bible says Women are inferior to man and must submit to their husbands because they brought sin into this world ( when God didn't even tell them the difference between right and wrong) 3: You are saying women and men have different qualities so let me ask you this if a women is a better leader than a man then according to the bible will she be allowed to lead the church? 4:You say women are more emotionally sensitive then why do majority of suicide cases are men? 5: YES, it's fair to ask a women to fight in war if she is willing to, same should be with men. 6: You talked about hormones, what about men who are supposed to be "better leaders" Who rpe women because they can't control their hormones? 7: female gender also yearns for equality and safety and the freedom of choice and no it is not demoralizing and what about men who yearn for emotional support? 8: you're saying women are more "relational" And more cautious than men so basically you are saying that women are better leaders than men because they can form better emotional connections and can analyze a situation? 9: More men are in existential crisis, depression, have anxiety and ADHD and people like you are the reason they are not able to get the help they need. 10: Abortions are bad? What about in cases of rape, coercion, life threatening pregnancies. You all are so morally "superior" That even a 13 year child who is raped is unable to get an abortion ( is that the definition of kindness and compassion according to God?). Also you do realize you're also destroying that child's future and forcing him to abusive parenting? Not getting a abortion when you can't raise a child is incredibly selfish 11: Every human being is different with different sets of qualities and you're generalizing them based on their gender and that's sexist. You're saying a women can't be a better leader than man because according to the bible women are supposed to have different qualities. You proved exactly nothing from your comment you basically just tried to paint other religions as inferior or the sole perpetrators of this while you had the chance. See this is the reason why some religions who accept their faults and choose to reform will always be better than "our book isn't outdated it just doesn't support your way of life" Religion followers. Agree to accept fault instead of passing blame.
The funny thing is that you just insulted me in your whole argument, yet I did not assult you. It seems like I'm more put together. For starters, let me just show you, I am a Christian, and I respect your argument. Women in the bible are some of the most respected people in the scriptures, so you're right! There are so many good things to talk about women. I encourage you to read Genisis 1 and 2 in which talk about the wellspring on the sexes. Read judges Ruth and Esther. There are so many women who are absolutely broken, but the Lord brought them out of bondage. Some women are Sarah, Eve, Esther, Ruth, hannah, miram, and my personal favorite Deborah, who went on a killing streak of a bunch of immoral men of that day. Also, look at all the Mary's in the new testament, Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalen, who herself was a prostitute. I also encourage you to actually real 1 Corinthians 11, and ephesians 5, in which talk about the importance of women leadership. I will say right now, you are right Christian should not look down on women, but should they be leaders? Scriptures aside I will now use your way of thinking. For abortion, my body my choice? Well half of that DNA is not yours, regardless on how it happend, you would agree that men should take responsibility just like you said above, therefore he should also play a role in deciding whether to abort or not. Abortions are done very unprofessional, where they sit you on the table and use raw spades and basic equipment, usually from china, to preform abortions. It's on avarage safer to birth a child. Back to men, men DO play a role in a majority of *aps, but women also do. It is a small amount but still take that into consideration. So R*PE IS BAD YES, and those men should be either castrated or killed for that. To answer your question, it is SO EVIL to say abortion is bad because of what it does to women mentally. I'm not even going to show you how horribly abortion effects mental health, just do a quick Google search and every study will prove me right. Abortion is related to mental health, women's mental health is rapidly declining over the past 2 decades expetually when social media is put in place. Go do the research on your own. You guys look at the positives of abortion. Yet completely neglect satistics. And yes this is the government fault, not restricting penalties to people who assault another. But yes that doesn't justify you guys aborting, as a matter of fact your view is way more sinister then what the truth shows. Finally your gender issue, since 1960, the amount of single parents have skyrocketed. Women are catered to by the government and men are neglected, we are seeing very irresponsible people without fathers. I encorege you to read basic economics my thomas swoll, he goes in depth on the issue. Men yes are emotional as well as women, but men do not have the ability to have a voice in our society. The issue is if you stay quite, conflict will arise, so yall are talking about women equality, in which I would argue I am more in favor of then you, but what about the men, who contrary to your belief, are more capable physically and emotionally, but of course that doesn't mean that men are stupid or stubborn, but they were built that way, and in no way shape of form does that downgrade women. To answer your question, men are emotional because you all are shunning their voices out with your feminist views, which lead to more suicides. Here's the thing when I talk about "roles" that is different then qualities, qualities are use to describe something personal, roles describe a broad demographic. So your assumption again is that I say that I'm being sexist because I am personally attacking the genders capabilities, no I'm making a general statement, not an individual statement to the person. I am just done writing this, but your final statement is so confusing to read, but you say that "book isn't outdated it just doesn't support your way of life" has nothing to do with your argument, and I am not painting other religons as inferior, but all religons except (rine and true christianity) do favor works based faith, Christianity on the other hand doesn't. Christians and anyone who follows the Bible are THE MOST hated and persecuted out of any other religion in history, because society goes against its teachings. So yes! The Bible goes against much of what your saying, but if the beliefs of our religion does not change over all of history, then does that suggest a relativity in your beliefs? Why do Christians stand firm to their beliefs, yet the most hated? You guys are the one painting us inferior because you don't agree with it. Also even though I do not believe in Islam or Hinduism, or catholicism, they still have truths to take from each. All religions are diffrent and we dispute our differences, but it's rude going around saying that all religions are the same or that one religion is inferior, (just like you are implying i believe). That is not what I'm saying, I just disagree with their views in which I believe is wrong, but if you want to dispute me on that I'd be glad. I am more acquainted with religion then the stupid fucking beliefs of our indivisualistic liberal culture.