Religion lies about women

[cleanhippie]

Religion lies about women

“The discrimination against women on a global basis is very often attributable to the declaration by religious leaders in Christianity, Islam, and other religions that women are inferior in the eyes of God,” former President Jimmy Carter said last week. Many traditions teach that while both men and women are equal in value, God has ordained specific roles for men and women. Those distinct duties often keep women out of leadership positions in their religious communities. What is religion’s role in gender discrimination?

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

--snip--

The truth is that the Abrahamic religions fear women and therefore go to extraordinary and sometimes brutal lengths to control them, constrain them, and repress them in every way. Show me a non-religious society that feels so threatened by the thought of female sexuality that it will slice off the clitoris of a young girl to ensure she can never experience sexual pleasure. Show me a non-religious society that feels the need to cloak women from head to toe and force them to experience the outside world through a slit of a few square inches. All three Abrahamic religions share the myth of Adam and Eve, the myth that it was through woman that evil was let loose in the world. They share the heritage of Leviticus, which declared a menstruating woman unclean, to be set aside, untouched, a revulsion that remains even today among some orthodox Jews, who will refuse to shake a woman’s hand for fear she may be menstruating. What kind of lunacy is this? It is the lunacy of a Bronze Age mindset fossilized by the reactionary forces of religion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/religion-lies-about-women/2011/04/13/AFDS9mXD_blog.html

[LAGC]

1. I've always wondered how anyone who truly believes women are equals to men...

Could excuse such misogyny and still call themselves a Jew/Christian/Muslim.

I mean, if you really desire spirituality that much, aren't there plenty of other better choices than the Big Three?

[jeepnstein]

2. There's more to it than just that.

Ephesians 5: 21-33 Instructions for Christian Households

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Nobody likes to talk about this part of the deal. Husbands are to give themselves to their wives completely and with no hesitation or conditions. Problem is when you look at it in this context it makes women look more like a vital part of a healthy marriage and less like livestock. Lifting only parts of Scripture out to prove a point is a recipe for disaster. Anti-Christians do it to grind their axes and some Christians do it to justify their bad behavior. Both are reprehensible.

[AlecBGreen]

4. +1

in the Gospels, Christ first reveals his role as Messiah to a woman (the Samaritan) and first reveals himself after the resurrection to a woman (Mary). While they can each perform different roles in a home and in a society, women and men are co-equals.

I always liked the way it was put in My Big Fat Greek Wedding: "Men are the head of the household but women are the neck. They can turn the head any which way they want." So true :) Any man who doesnt listen to his wife and respect her will soon find himself alone.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

7. 1 Timothy.2 And much more....

<8> I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
<9> In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
<10> But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
<11> Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
<12> But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
<13> For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
<14> And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
<15> Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


1 Corinthians 14:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 11:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.


Genesis chapter 17 God says:
This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

HOWEVER, note that God makes no mention of forming any sort of covenant with women.

other examples that we can find in the Bible:

In Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."
In John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, but a few verses later, is happy to have Thomas touch him.

In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.

In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.

And so on. There are many, many examples like these throughout the old and new testaments.

There are other, broader examples of misogyny that are readily apparent in the Bible as well:
Are any of Jesus' disciples women? No.
Are any of the elders in the book of Revelation women? No.
Are any of the books of the Bible written by women? No.


And many more

To assert that women enjoy any equality in the Bible is specious.

[cleanhippie]

8. Spot on

[darkstar3]

9. Exactly.

nm

[trotsky]

15. "To assert that women enjoy any equality in the Bible is specious."

The truest line typed on this thread.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

17. thanks :)

Sometimes I get it right :D

:toast:

[PassingFair]

20. That doesn't make it any better.

...and everybody "talks about this part of the deal".

"This part of the deal" doesn't make subjugation any better.

I'm sure some slave-owners loved their slaves.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

3. Kicking this to the Nth degree. Glad to see critique of the sacrosanct.

and in a public venue, even!

I have never felt comfortable with the "Big Three". The Bible never spoke to my heart--so much violence, so much fear, so much misogyny. Yecchh.

So glad I'm a Buddhist, following the Lotus Sutra tradition, which alone among Shakyamuni's teachings, teaches the lesson that all people, including WOMEN, possess Enlightenment (the Buddha Nature, or Higher Self...whatever you like to call it.)

Later, in 13th Century Japan, the sage Nichiren Daishonin not only teaches the equal dignity of women and men, but is repeatedly seen to treat his female disciples with the same seriousness, compassion, respect and encouragement he gives to his male followers. Over and over again, he assures the women practicing his teachings that they are worthy, as important as men, and his actions are congruent with his words.

Shakyamuni's revelation in the Lotus Sutra and later, Nichiren's teachings were revolutionary, and in fact--particularly in comparison to the Abrahamic religions--still are.

[AndyTiedye]

5. We Tend to Abhor Monopolies in All Other Things

Why do we put up with it in our religion?

[cleanhippie]

10. +1

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. great question!

I never thought of it in those terms!

[freshwest]

13. Got it in one!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. Thanks for mentioning Buddhism.

I've been reading about it for over thirty years. I don't know if it's "true" or "correct" but it is logical and consistent. It also does not require belief in any gods.

When I started reading about it, there was not much in English other than Alan Watts writing about Zen. There was not any real systematic teachings in English, because in the sixties and seventies, English speakers started going to Asia and doing real study in Buddhism. That was a new thing the elder of the Baby Boomers did. The most famous of these people is Robert Thurman, who went to Tibet. Also, the Dalai Lama is prominent in the news.

Now there are new translations of the Nikayas from Wisdom Publications, except for the Numbered Discourses.

I like the fact that there are the Taras and Kwan Yin for feminine role models. I used to go to a Mahayana Temple that I liked a lot, that was dedicated to Kwan Yin. Now I unfortunately live far away from the city. For a while there was a guest lecturer there who had gotten his Ph.D. in Sanskrit under Robert Thurman at Columbia University. That was most interesting!!

I've run into Christians who do not understand the concept of an equal relationship between two adults. They think the man has to dominate and the woman has to submit, due to Paul's hatred of women.

Penis = Wisdom just doesn't work for me!!!

[Permanut]

6. Paul was a flaming misogynist...

and doesn't have universal support among the followers of the Christian traditions. Some of us are attempting to steer the church in another direction. I understand when people think that is like trying to steer the Titanic, but I grew up in the Christian tradition (very liberal), and not quite ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[onager]

12. The problem is: there ain't no baby in the bathwater.

As Richard Dawkins likes to point out, much more eloquently than myself.

I would have responded to this thread anyway, just to say how much I love Paula Kirby.

And some of you may enjoy this little evisceration:

Back in 2009, the annoying tone-troll Stephen Prothero dragged out the tired old charge that all atheists are Old White Men. And too snarky.

He said atheism needs more women because...gosh-darn it, women are so much NICER than men, and wouldn't instantly piss people off when they point out that thing about the baby missing from the bathwater.

Two years later, I bet Prothero still hasn't recovered from the Webular ass-kicking that Amanda Marcotte gave him:

I knew I was going to dislike it the second Prothero started to engage in gender essentialism, suggesting that the atheist movement needs more women, because women are too sweet and gentle to point out that there is no god, which seems to be the major crime of the meanie “New Atheists”.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/sexism_and_atheist_baiting_all_rolled_into_one/

[freshwest]

14. Thanks... K & R'd.

[struggle4progress]

16. Kirby, as usual, is somewhat careless in her "facts." Consider, for example:

The truth is that the Abrahamic religions fear women and therefore go to extraordinary and sometimes brutal lengths to control them, constrain them, and repress them in every way. Show me a non-religious society that feels so threatened by the thought of female sexuality that it will slice off the clitoris of a young girl ... Show me a non-religious society that feels the need to cloak women from head to toe and force them to experience the outside world through a slit of a few square inches. All three Abrahamic religions share the myth ... that it was through woman that evil was let loose in the world. They share the heritage of Leviticus, which declared a menstruating woman unclean

We might, at best, think Kirby a sloppy writer, rather indifferent to details, though the passage is so wretched it suggests deliberate intent to deceive

The Judaic texts exhibit signs of very ancient tribal customs, such as male circumcision and matrilineal descent.

The antiquity of some practices is easy to establish: there are old Egyptian murals depicting male circumcision, for example. Branches of the other main religions that lean on the Judaic texts (namely, Christianity and Islam) have adopted divergent attitudes towards various aspects of the ancient Jewish law, as have various branches of Judaism. The Christian sect appears to have definitively decided rather early that male circumcision was irrelevant. However, whatever Kirby's personal views on "Abrahamic religion" might be, Judaism seems never to have practiced female genital mutilation <FGM>, nor does such mutilation seem connected to any standard Christian belief. The World Health Organization has a map (see below) indicating the prevalence of FGM in Africa, where most FGM occurs: this map does not suggest that FGM is a consequence of "Abrahamic religion"

Menstrual "taboos" are also very ancient and were at one time common across the world. The old Jewish tradition requires women to take a ritual bath at the end of menstruation; as with most old traditions, this can be read in various ways -- but one possible reading is If you want to have sex with your wife, you have to allow her at least one bath every month

... Circumcision was widespread in many ancient cultures. Some of these also practiced female circumcision, which was never allowed in Judaism ...
Oxford dictionary of the Jewish religion ...
Editors in chief
R. J. Zwi Werblowsky
Geoffrey Wigoder
New York & Oxford
Oxford University Press 1997
Circumcision ...
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/

... not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek ... I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? ... Galatians 2


Female genital mutilation and other harmful practices
Prevalence of FGM
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/index.html

[LAGC]

18. And what does FGM have to do with how the Bible portrays women?

Instead of addressing the topic at hand, you seem to be deflecting and changing the subject.

How do you, as a liberal Christian, justify what the Bible says about women?

Are those selective parts all just "metaphor" whereas the Jesus parts are literal?

You wouldn't be cherry-picking verses just like the fundamentalists do now, would you?

[laconicsax]

19. *cough*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=112845&mesg_id=112952

[struggle4progress]

22. Gotta guess you're not a big fan of context

[laconicsax]

28. I love context when it's relevant.

Which is why I posted a link to your manifesto. It provides useful context for LAGC that may help answer the questions in response #18.

[trotsky]

43. LOL!

The playbook, in all its glory. LMFAO!!!

[struggle4progress]

21. I quoted from Kirby, then discussed the quote. That does not seem to be "changing the subject."

[LAGC]

23. So what do you think about how the Bible portrays women?

You seem to think Kirby was playing "fast and loose with the facts" (attack the messenger), so what is your opinion on the actual topic of the OP?

[struggle4progress]

24. "How the Bible portrays women" presumes that this collection of books, written over

a thousand years of so, represents a single view, without any tensions -- but there are all manner of tensions in the texts from the beginning of the compilation

[LAGC]

25. Indeed.

But when book after book of the Bible presents women in a negative light, can't a reasonable person begin to sense a certain pattern?

As Blanche stated in Post #7: "Are any of Jesus' disciples women? No. Are any of the elders in the book of Revelation women? No. Are any of the books of the Bible written by women? No."

At what point do you begin to ask yourself: "Gee, these people (who were supposedly inspired by God) didn't think very highly of women."

What does that say about God himself? (Who happens to be a "he", not a "she", I might add.)

[cleanhippie]

26. Apologists never cease to amaze me with their mental gymnastics they perform

in order to try and rationalize their beliefs.

[darkstar3]

27. "Women are painted as bigger antagonists than the Egyptians and Romans combined! It stinks."

I love that movie...

[LiberalFighter]

29. Is the wife submit to their husband just a NT thing or is it in the OT too?

If NT then I would submit that gospels were tampered. More specifically in the writings of Paul. A man that claimed that Jesus appeared to him in a great light.

[houstonintc]

30. It's a matter of perspective...

Abrahamic religions strive to control the individual and channel the individual towards higher communal needs and long term functionality.

Generally speaking none of the religions are geared towards an individualistic society. Womans liberation and Feminism is given more towards societies whose focus is individual needs and desires, not communal needs and desires. Orthodox Jews and devout Muslims and Christians are focused more on a communal need and a larger group and order within that group.

Obviously for the sake of social order, personal liberties and privileges will be curtailed. The things woman enjoy in western and secular society obviously would not be germane to that culture.

I'd say that Abrahamic faiths don't lie about woman, but it does give many examples of evil and some of these characters are women who do such evil acts. Lies? I'd say no, unflattering? Certainly. I'd say the story of Jezebel is not a lie, but it is unfortunate that the stories like that get more focus then say stories of Ruth ecteria...

[darkstar3]

31. So you're saying that feminism is destructive to community cohesiveness?

It sure sounds like that's what you're saying with your second and third paragraphs...

[houstonintc]

32. I'm saying anything could be...

Abrahamic religions being collectively oriented likely wouldn't be given to giving people great deals of individual liberty due to the outlook that people if left to their own devices will destroy one another.

Feminism grants half the population a great deal of liberties to choose to do the cultural and socially proscribed things to do, likewise men are also liberated to do many things more in line with ones own desires individually.

I would say that what I am saying is that generally granting any great deal of individual liberty possess some risk of social chaos... feminism would be included in that umbrella.

Feminism in it of itself is a noble idea within the context of an individualistic oriented society, not so much within one that is more collective driven in which running the risk that people won't "Due their duty" or Dharma or whatever that religion assigns is raised.

EXPANDED: Anything that allows people to due whatever their hearts desire could lead to social chaos.

[darkstar3]

33. So in other words, you have no idea what feminism is about.

If you think it's about individual liberty, or the ability to do whatever their hearts desire, then you haven't been paying attention.

Feminism is about equality, and equality is perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, in a cohesive community. Of course, equality is also anathema to subjugation...

[houstonintc]

34. Individual rights?

Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Equality requires granting of rights afforded to others thus allowing one to pursue their own goals. Equality does not always lead to communal cohesiveness if the individuals use their rights and liberties to ends that are not given to that cohesion.

Abrahamic religions of traditions, customs, and regulations governing how ones individual life is to be carried out and what they are to do. To quote Teyve the Dairyman "Everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do!".

[darkstar3]

35. Just...wow.

[Deep13]

37. So why does the burden fall most heavily on women?

I mean, if I were a skeptic I might conclude that men oppress women because they can. Men are bigger and stronger than women and are in a position to force them into servitude. So they did. This is in much the same way that richer, stronger men use their power to subjagate weaker, poorer ones. That's pretty much how tribalism and fuedalism work. The strong make the rules and one of those rules is that the strong are always right. Unfortunately, as John Lennon put it, woman is the n****r of the world and without strong ethical beliefs from men will always be a slave in her own home.

[houstonintc]

38. Why this why that?

If it fell more heavily on men would it change anything up?

I'd be more inclined to say that the life of a tribe or small group in the age before industry would be highly dependent on divisions of labor.

"Womens Work" and "Mens Work" likely grew out of a fairly natural grasping that woman were important and their unique ability to birth children was fairly important to the survival of any society. Were women really slaves to their home? Perhaps. However were not men slaves to their fields, their cattle, or the trades they were assigned? People act as if men in this time period had this foot loose and fancy lifestyle. In spite of the denigration of bronze age and ancient people in general, they were pretty intune with reality. Yes women were bared generally from many aspects of life like that of soldier, ruler (Often the same thing) and in many places religious vocations. In the case of ruler and soldier this is biologically sound... If most of the men die in battle and only a few survive they can repopulate much faster then if most of the women die and it's now mostly a male tribe. Also consider leadership and martial combat and fighting would have gone hand in hand for almost all of human history... this might explain that curious fact.

As for why men tended to be granted a lot of privileged rights, it might be a trade off... our lives were much riskier, much more labor intensive, and the likelihood of us even having descendent's was a lot less then that of the women of the tribe.

Were women hated? I'd say that is a huge leap to make as that assumes some nefarious plot behind the actions of ancient people. Nobody knows fully why a custom might arise.

Why a fixation on menstrual blood as unclean? Well to a culture that considers blood unclean and the eating of bloody things unclean, it's not that far of a leap to make. Was it some direct "We hate women were gunna get 'em with this"? Probably not.

[Deep13]

39. Yeah, why?

"If it fell more heavily on men would it change anything up?"

It would make the discrimination harder to explain.

"I'd be more inclined to say that the life of a tribe or small group in the age before industry would be highly dependent on divisions of labor."

Yes, I know you're more inclined to say that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is patriarchal.

"Also consider leadership and martial combat and fighting would have gone hand in hand for almost all of human history... this might explain that curious fact."

Right, men are stronger and are able to impose their will. By the way, the idea that war is men's business (one writer observed that anything so idiotic would have to be) is nonsense. As Tolkien noted, those who do not wield swords can still die on them and women and children did regularly. They were the prizes of a victorious campaign in the form of rape and slavery or victims of starvation in the case of pillage.

"As for why men tended to be granted a lot of privileged rights, it might be a trade off... our lives were much riskier, much more labor intensive, and the likelihood of us even having descendent's was a lot less then that of the women of the tribe."

What rights were women granted for the risks of child birth? Oh, that's right, it's divine punishment for the sin of Eve.

"Were women hated? I'd say that is a huge leap to make as that assumes some nefarious plot behind the actions of ancient people. Nobody knows fully why a custom might arise."

I actually didn't say women were hated, just that they were regarded as property. It's hard to talk of individual emotions when speaking about a population, but the writings of the Bible and church teachings indicate a profound fear of female sexuality. I suspect that it arises from the evolutionary urge of males to reproduce their own genetics and to prevent any other males from taking that prospect away.

"Why a fixation on menstrual blood as unclean?...."

Don't know, but it's beyond the scope of my response.

One thing that seems pretty clear from your responses is that Biblical gender rules are the product of Middle East tribalism and not any sort of divine plan. So we agree on that.

[houstonintc]

40. Lives and legacies..

Yes, I know you're more inclined to say that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is patriarchal.

Would a matriarchy be any more fair? I'd say in the age before a lot of technology men ruled because they incurred great risk in life, the risk being only slightly higher then womens in that there was even less of a gaurentee their lives might have any lasting meaning or impact.

Right, men are stronger and are able to impose their will. By the way, the idea that war is men's business (one writer observed that anything so idiotic would have to be) is nonsense. As Tolkien noted, those who do not wield swords can still die on them and women and children did regularly. They were the prizes of a victorious campaign in the form of rape and slavery or victims of starvation in the case of pillage.

I'll agree to this, actually I think my words were ill refined on that point.

What rights were women granted for the risks of child birth? Oh, that's right, it's divine punishment for the sin of Eve.

According to the Talmud both man and woman are guilty. A deeper aspect of the story of Adam and Eve is that both refused to accept responsibility for disobeying God. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the snake. Another factor is Adam didn't explain to Eve properly why the apple shouldn't be eaten. There actually far more to the story then one might think. It is not in my view the fault of the text that some took it to mean something more simplistic.

I'd say considering the time period, the reward might be whole armies of men whose lives are nearly expendable to attempt a defense against... as Tolkien put it... them dying by the sword.

I actually didn't say women were hated, just that they were regarded as property. It's hard to talk of individual emotions when speaking about a population, but the writings of the Bible and church teachings indicate a profound fear of female sexuality. I suspect that it arises from the evolutionary urge of males to reproduce their own genetics and to prevent any other males from taking that prospect away.

All peoples were regarded as property to someone. Of course men want to ensure they pass on their genetic material. Biologically that is our sole purpose in life, without it honestly does our life have any real lasting meaning or impact? Did we matter at all? Religion being all about legacy and meaning would of course be apt to ensuring men had some security in the thought that our life had some sort of meaning, however abstract.

Women are given a biologically guarantee of something, a child is certainly theirs if it came out of them. Each one is assured some lasting legacy that goes on long after their death. By virtue of biology, woman is assured a lasting legacy, however small a token reward that is, it is something men can not have. Why would ancient cultures become patriarchal and place various regulations on sexuality and especially female sexuality? Probably for the sake of giving the male life some semblance of purpose and lasting importance. Without it... one might ask "Why live? Why build? Why harvest?" Our biological reason for being would not be met, and in the primal parts of our mind despair and a dereliction might arise.

I am hesitant to attach some nefarious purpose to these customs, rules and cultures.

Don't know, but it's beyond the scope of my response.

One thing that seems pretty clear from your responses is that Biblical gender rules are the product of Middle East tribalism and not any sort of divine plan. So we agree on that.

In my view as a history buff of sorts, the gender roles of the bible were fairly common even in non-biblical societies. In some sense I think many religions and culture arose to suit the times and biology.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

41. Menstrual blood is unclean, but the symbolic blood of Christ is not?

I'm baffled. But then Christianity is completely non-logical and non-original.

[houstonintc]

44. Christianity was...

A fairly clean break from Jewish traditional custom and understanding. Thus why many Jews never converted and continue to remain Jewish.

Though the blood of a sacrifice might be viewed differently. Sacrificial offerings were a part of Ancient Temple Judaism (Minus the idea of human sacrifice). Unfortunately menstrual blood was not seen as sacrificial, a likely reason being that it is a naturally occurring process.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

45. and Jews for jesus is a front group for Southern Baptists.

jewsforjudaism.com explains that.

[Deep13]

36. Religion pretty much lies about everything.

Why should this be any different?

[dimbear]

46. To me the interesting part is how the males got the power in the first place.

It takes a lot of sifting the chaff to find that out, but the historical fact is that the land of Israel had two strongly contending religions before the Babylonian captivity, namely the adoration of Asherah and the adoration of Yahweh. It appears that Asherah was far ahead, if you judge by the archaeological evidence. Asherism was, it appears, the peoples' (folk) religion, while Yahwism was more or less an elite group. Those are the facts in the ground according to archaeologists with shovels, not Bibles.

Then came the return from Babylon, and somehow the Yahwist priests convinced everybody that they should be in charge. This part of the story is told in the Bible, centering around feminist heroine Queen Jezebel, may her name be honored.

How did the priests grab control? Why were the women so feeble and yielding? Breathless to know? IMHO, the problem was they (women) couldn't read. It's hard to keep folk in line without holy writs, and hard to appreciate them without literacy.

In comparison, women in the pagan world could read with a far higher statistical probability. Go figure.

Moral there somewhere.

[houstonintc]

47. Jezebel is a feminist hero?

Why? Didn't she lie and manipulate people and get at least one innocent person killed to acquire their land?

I would hope that isn't a hero to anyone.

[dimbear]

48. Inferentially, she should be. Remember the story you cite

is the one told by the men who cheered on her destruction. What really happened was doubtless much different.
At any rate, she seemed to be the turning point, the last stand for the rights of women in Israel. What happened after her was just a long slow slide..........

An early Betty Davis type.

[houstonintc]

49. Well there is one account of Jezebel that I know of...

I personally doubt anyone had "rights" in Israel at that time. Rights for individuals are very much a modern conception. So I doubt women had rights, considering nobody had rights in a society ruled by obligation, responsibilities and tradition. Women can't have rights in a world where individual rights is a fairly alien concept.

The story of Jezebel as told by the only source in existence is that she was a fairly nasty, manipulative, and murderous person. I mean I would hope she isn't the poster child for feminism now. She was hardly a Betty Davis, since she did get a man murdered to take his land since he refused to give it over willingly to have a palace built.

If anything Jezebel is an abusive upper class tyrant contributing to the oppression of her own people, well her husbands people anyway.

EDIT: I'd prefer a Boudicca as far as female leadership. Fair, Firebrand and definitely looking out for their interests over oppressive rulers. Jezebel was the oppressive ruler.

[dimbear]

50. Too bad we don't have her diary. Just that slanted stuff in the Book.

What really happened? Hard to know, but we can be pretty sure she fought to keep up the old religion, the worship of Asherah and Ba'al, and paid a terrible price for it.

Sources for the time are practically nil.