Religiously, men claimed women were sent from the devil to lead men astray. What does this tell us about men's cultures

I remember at University doing an archaeology/anthropology course on hunter gatherers past and present. One of the essays I wrote was 'were hunter gatherers egalitarian?' and as I recall the conclusion was that those that were completely nomadic were far more egalitarian than those that were more settled.

This tallies with the understanding that 'patriarchy' or women's oppression - the very idea of women as property starts around the same time humans developed agriculture and started to settle down in one place.

That makes sense - because suddenly they had homes that were 'theirs', they were built to last more than the winter season and they would be staying in them full time not leaving it behind. Having a house suddenly had value. Similarly land, which had been shared between the people who lived in large groups as they foraged for what the earth gave them, was suddenly cultivated and growing crops they wouldn't normally grow. This took effort. The crops could be eaten - therefore the land also held value.

As humans start developing the idea of personal property, they are also faced with questions like - who cultivates the land when I am too old to do so? Who gets all this when I am dead? And the obvious answer is -your children. So the children become a commodity in themselves - an investment in the future. And in order to have control of your own tribe of children to care for you and inherit - you need to control a woman.

Men used their superior strength to control women.

But when you're keeping and adult human being as property, perhaps raping them, perhaps beating them, forcing them to bear your children - possibly killing them in the process - well you have to do some really nimble thinking to allow yourself to not be the bad guy. To keep seeing yourself as a fundamentally decent sort of chap.

So men start spinning tales about how women are basically just bigger children, incapable of looking after themselves - so its OK to enslave them. They tell each other that women are seductresses, that not only will they use their wiles on you, but they will use them on any man - get pregnant with any man - so it becomes OK to keep them in the house and limit their freedoms - because these deviant women will go out of the way to be the downfall of upright men. So it's probably her fault if she's crying as you rape her - because she has led you on. They decide that women's biology means they are better suited to nurturing and therefore are incapable of more in depth thinking - so women don't get to be 'elders' - so they don't get to help create the laws and customs as society advances - so the whole thing goes on and on until -patriarchy.

There is a gap of 6000 years between the beginning of farming and the writing of the Old Testament. The OT only sets in stone what has already been happening for generations and generations. It turns patriarchy into a code of conduct and creates an all knowing, omnipotent God as an authority to appeal to - telling people this way of life must be so. It is how the creator of the universe designed it. And of course the people writing the story make it so it benefits them. The people making this story up are the elders who are all men because of what men have been doing for the past 6000 years. Hence you can own a slave, rape your wife - force her to abort a child if you suspect it is not your own, have more than one wife, keep slave girls as not quite wives etc etc.

Religion is a tool of misogyny and patriarchy. Not the root of it.

Not all religions. Islam doesn't blame Eve for their exit from heaven. Satan is blamed for leading astray both of them.

Coming late to this thread, but can I just thank Lass for her wonderful Scots presbyterian god in her first post telling Adam and Eve to "dae what ye're telt". I can just imagine how much my mum (Edinburgh presbyterian upbringing and staunch atheist as a result) would have laughed at this.

(Incidentally, have you heard the one about the Edinburgh minister arriving at the pearly gates? St. Peter looks at him quizzically and says "well, you can come in, but you won't like it here...")

"Maybe because (historically and evolutionary speaking) it was in a women's interest to have a man stick around after impregnating her to help provide for her and defend her and her newborn off-spring when she would be unable to. And man would just want to spread as much seed and his genes as possible. While it would be in his interest to defend his children, his chances of having as many healthy children as possible would be limited by women requiring him to stick around."

except the human child is alot more helpless than other mammals so the man would need to stick around alot longer than after newborn stage, in most cultures for 18 or so years to raise them to adulthood. religion inhibits/pacifies men in various ways to get them to stick around that long. controlling womens sexuality especially the emphasis on virginity pre marriage or on chastity after marriage is one device: hijabs/veils/purdah/ etc to convince the man that the offspring he is labouring to protect/clothe/feed are actually his offspring. because a woman cant mistake the child of her womb from another child but a man would not know the child of his loins from another child.

whowould I think that’s a pretty good point.

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do to them.

We're the mushrooms nice OP?

Just some rambling thoughts:

Maybe because (historically and evolutionary speaking) it was in a women's interest to have a man stick around after impregnating her to help provide for her and defend her and her newborn off-spring when she would be unable to. And man would just want to spread as much seed and his genes as possible. While it would be in his interest to defend his children, his chances of having as many healthy children as possible would be limited by women requiring him to stick around.

Maybe as some religions actually encouraged and require men to form stable monogamous relationships, the man finds himself in the position of resenting the woman he ends up with as he cant get away in a socially acceptable manner without being damned.

So men need women to procreate but resent the society that says they must only stick with one.

I am not religious in anyway, but is that what you are getting at?

Yes , great post Icant

icant bravo! Thorough entertaining and informative post! Loved it 😂

I agree with @MrsTerryPratchett religion is more of a symptom. Misogyny is rife across many religions and cultures, even those with no religion, it didn't come from religion, it was just woven into it the same way it infiltrates many aspects of society

The thing that surprised me about the Adam and Eve story when I actually took the time to read it in an actual bible is a) there are 2 completely different stories that put the order of creation differently. In the first one the two unnamed people are made at the same time on the sixth day. In the second Eve is made of Adam's rib. In order to explain this scholars made up the idea of Lilith, the first wife who always wanted to have sex on top and so argued over dominance. She flew away from the garden (with those wings that women used to have) and then sat by a river murdering babies. Even though at this time there were no babies and there was no death because Adam and Eve were still in the garden.

As hilarious as the backstory to Lilith, who's only actual appearance in scripture is 'so God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female', is; It's interesting that they took this time to explain this discrepancy. There are way more discrepancies between the two versions than this. in the second version of the story (the version with Eve) you lose the whole days structure and the little man is created before the plants and the animals.

Why did scholars spend so much time coming up with a backstory for the original woman, explaining how she did exist but then disappeared, but neglected to do the same for the original trees and elephants?

b) In the version that Eve appears in, God gives his instructions about which fruit Adam can eat before he creates Eve. He does not seem to go back and reissue his commandments once all interested parties are in attendance. Yet somehow the almighty, omnipotent omnipresent creator of the universe manages to blame this brand new woman for his pretty shocking oversight.

c) As lass pointed out - God really does set them up to fail. Mostly by putting the tree smack bang in the centre of the garden and then drawing attention to it. But also: This is the tree of knowledge - understanding of good and evil, right and wrong. Before they eat from the tree - they don't know right from wrong - so how does God expect them to know that it's wrong to not obey him? He's supposed to be all knowing. He's a fucking idiot!

d) How did the omnipresent, all knowing God manage to miss Eve eating the fruit? There are literally two people on the planet. He can see everything at once. This is the first thing that has ever happened. And he misses it.

E) There is nothing in Genesis that claims the snake is the devil. In the old testament Satan is still good buddies with God, playing with Job's life. It's only the book of revelation, which refers to the devil as 'the ancient serpent' that started this whole 'the snake was the devil' falsehood.

F) God cursed the snake to crawl on his belly as punishment for tricking Eve. Meaning that the snake in the story had feet. Not only could he talk - he could dance! All pictures depicting the garden of Eden should be updated to portray snakey mcsnakeface's feet. (I wonder if all animals in Eden could talk or just the snakes? And whilst striking the snake dumb might seem adequate punishment, why did God pick on the rhinos as well? Or did the animals lose their ability to talk somewhere else? If it was just the snakes, why the snakes? And if all animals can talk and think, why are people the boss? )

Basically the whole thing is just a terrible written story from start to finish, with glaring plot holes you could drive a bus through and demonstrates nothing other than that men have been hating and blaming and mistreating women for their own misdeeds for thousands of years.

Patriarchal religions are misogynistic shocker! I agree with everyone that religion is a tool that misogynistic men use to uphold their own supremacy - it is not the root of the misogyny itself.

Back in Medieval times the church used to teach that men were the true image of God and women were literally deformed men, not a thing in and of themselves, but a bastardisation of God's form. It would be nice, seeing as how science has since proved that is the Y chromosome that is the mutation, if the church could apologise or that nasty little bit of slander.

I think misogyny in religion comes from misogyny socially. Not the other way around. Because people invented religion, not the other way around.

Do you want a discussion of where misogyny came from? Because I have some theories about that as well. But religion is a symptom.

yep - think it was Augustine who pretty much said "that nun walking past - if you look really carefully you might see an ankle because she's trying to seduce you" - very very influential in the church. Grim

Have you been sniffing a prit-stick op?

This is the second quasi religious thread I've seen from you, OP. I'm not really sure what you're trying to discuss, or achieve, with them.

So, what AssassinatedBeauty said at the start of the thread: misogyny and patriarchy.

It's a somewhat strange argument you're putting forward, and some of the historical preference for sons was because they went out to Work and were physically stronger etc, many cultures and religions were very of course very sexist, I would be more interested in hearing what relevance you think those ancient scriptures hold today. Women struggle and are oppressed, abused and ignored. I don't think you've hit on the holy grail of reasons why though

What you describe is misogyny. I don't know why you reject that description.