Do religions endorse misogyny?

[Aimless]

And, if they do, how should/does a modern man who wants to lead a virtuous life (in accordance with his faith), deal with it? How do eg. people who hold the Bible in high regard handle the fact that Eve conspired with the Snake to lure Adam into pomuvory? Is it just a story/factual account or does it serve to illustrate a deeper truth about women?

I know there are a number of believers here, I'm just curious as to how you (and those you know) approach these issues

[CitizenCain]

How do eg. people who hold the Bible in high regard handle the fact that Eve conspired with the Snake to lure Adam into pomuvory?

So because one woman was an evil temptress once upon a time (or however you want to frame that allegory), all women must also be the same?

There are also plenty of examples of women in the Bible who were righteous/virtuous/good, you know.

[Aimless]

I realise this! At the same time, women getting good men into trouble also seems to be a popular theme! Could it not be that the Bible and its counterparts, with their stories, are trying to tell us things about life? Or at least that the stories end up subtly influencing the way many believers approach life?

[CitizenCain]

Could it not be that the Bible and its counterparts, with their stories, are trying to tell us things about life?

If not that, then what do you suppose the objective of a religious text is?

[Knux897]

If not that, then what do you suppose the objective of a religious text is?

Isn't the Old Testament full of early Israelite tribe rules? Stone gays to death, raped women must marry their rapists, no sex before marriage, the ten commandments, etc. Content-wise it seems to be nothing more than an explanation for how the world came to be, and early Israelite tribe rules used to make the tribe larger and more powerful.

[earthJoker]

But women get good men into trouble, not that it is really their fault. But "cherche la femme" works in real live often enough. It's not suprising that fiction uses inpiration from real live situations.

[Lewkowski]

And, if they do, how should/does a modern man who wants to lead a virtuous life (in accordance with his faith), deal with it? How do eg. people who hold the Bible in high regard handle the fact that Eve conspired with the Snake to lure Adam into pomuvory? Is it just a story/factual account or does it serve to illustrate a deeper truth about women?

I know there are a number of believers here, I'm just curious as to how you (and those you know) approach these issues

So as someone who believes in personal responsibility, Adam was 100% at fault for his sin. Eve was 100% at fault for her sin. Eve doesn't take the blame for Adam's sin, its all on Adam.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

So as someone who believes in personal responsibility, Adam was 100% at fault for his sin. Eve was 100% at fault for her sin. Eve doesn't take the blame for Adam's sin, its all on Adam.

and god was 100% responsible for his. Namely stupidity.

[Lewkowski]

Raped women must marry their rapists? I'd like to see the chapter and verse on that one.

[CitizenCain]

Indeed, the OT/Torah is essentially the tale of the Israelite tribes, but for those who view it as a "religious text," it is also a guide on how to live one's life.

EDIT:

Raped women must marry their rapists? I'd like to see the chapter and verse on that one.

He's probably referring to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV).

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Of course, no other English translation mistranslates the Hebrew (taphas and shakab) to imply forcible sexual conduct, so one might come to the conclusion that NIV is just a bad translation. Or if one has an axe to grind against the Bible, one might use it to say the Bible condones rape. <shrug>

[wiggin]

He's probably referring to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV).

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Of course, no other English translation mistranslates the Hebrew (taphas and shakab) to imply forcible sexual conduct, so one might come to the conclusion that NIV is just a bad translation. Or if one has an axe to grind against the Bible, one might use it to say the Bible condones rape. <shrug>

Well, it's actually an open question what is meant by u'tfasah in that passage. The verb itself means, roughly, 'grabbed' or 'took', with an implication just short of theft. So, he 'took' her and slept with her; what does that mean?

Clearly a man had sexual contact with an unmarried virgin. Clearly a reasonable punishment is to pay a 'bride price' (presumably because virgins fetched larger dowries), even if said sexual contact was consensual. Yet the question remains about the rest of the punishment and description 22:29; why must he marry her, and why can't he divorce her? It would seem from the context that she is considered 'damaged goods' and may be largely unable to find a husband. Thus, the law mandates he must marry her. Yet why can't he divorce? Well, it would be a simple matter for him to marry and then divorce her to circumvent the punishment. Nevertheless, it seems odd that consensual sex would result in such a steep price to the man without some cost to the woman as well.

That being said, it's hard to read this as consensual sexual contact. The second verse uses the term 'ina as the reason for his punishment. ('For he has done X to her', where X is the meaning of 'ina.) It's not very clear from its few examples in scripture what precisely this word means. It is used in the story of Dinah (Jacob's daughter) to describe what Shechem did to her; the common understanding is rape. In modern Hebrew, it's an (uncommon) term for rape. Yet in fact it's unclear whether it means that particularly. It does have a negative context - torment, torture, force, violate, etc. - but it's not entirely clear what it actually was supposed to mean. I have heard it speculated that 'ina means simply to 'deflower', or take away a woman's virginity, without the context of force. I was not convinced by the reasoning, but it's possible. Yet combining the context of u'tfasah and 'ina, it seems likely that this is indeed talking about a case of rape. It's not 100% clear, though, since it's a bit surprising that this only discusses rape of a virgin. I have seen it read both ways.

If that is true, it does seem horrifying that a woman would be forced to marry their rapist. However, a close reading of the verse actually would seem to indicate the opposite. The verse is directed as a punishment against the rapist - something along the lines of 'you break it, you buy it'. It does not, however, indicate that the woman is remotely forced to consent to marrying him - the rules are all directed at constraining the man's rights, not the woman's. I imagine in some societies a rape victim might wish to take the guaranteed option of marriage (with all of the rights that accrue to her) over a near-impossible attempt to marry someone else. It doesn't seem like she is forced to, though - it's just an option.

[CitizenCain]

Well, it's actually an open question what is meant by u'tfasah in that passage. The verb itself means, roughly, 'grabbed' or 'took', with an implication just short of theft. So, he 'took' her and slept with her; what does that mean?

Enh, well, there are a couple other verses in that chapter which clearly regard rape, and death by stoning, which use different Hebrew words. (As well, those particular words are used in other passages which are translated in the sense of "have sex with" not "rape.") If "rape" was what was meant, then I'd think the wording would have been more clear, and that the NIV translation wouldn't be the only English translation to use "rape" in that passage.

Of course, as mentioned, it's all complicated by the fact that women didn't actually have a choice in it anyway - they were their father's property, and married whom he dictated, which was nigh impossible if they weren't a virgin. Hence the monetary damages and the ~"you break the hymen, you're responsible for the woman so long as you live" thing.

[Knux897]

That being said, it's hard to read this as consensual sexual contact. The second verse uses the term 'ina as the reason for his punishment. ('For he has done X to her', where X is the meaning of 'ina.) It's not very clear from its few examples in scripture what precisely this word means. It is used in the story of Dinah (Jacob's daughter) to describe what Shechem did to her; the common understanding is rape. In modern Hebrew, it's an (uncommon) term for rape. Yet in fact it's unclear whether it means that particularly. It does have a negative context - torment, torture, force, violate, etc. - but it's not entirely clear what it actually was supposed to mean. I have heard it speculated that 'ina means simply to 'deflower', or take away a woman's virginity, without the context of force. I was not convinced by the reasoning, but it's possible. Yet combining the context of u'tfasah and 'ina, it seems likely that this is indeed talking about a case of rape. It's not 100% clear, though, since it's a bit surprising that this only discusses rape of a virgin. I have seen it read both ways.

If that is true, it does seem horrifying that a woman would be forced to marry their rapist. However, a close reading of the verse actually would seem to indicate the opposite. The verse is directed as a punishment against the rapist - something along the lines of 'you break it, you buy it'. It does not, however, indicate that the woman is remotely forced to consent to marrying him - the rules are all directed at constraining the man's rights, not the woman's. I imagine in some societies a rape victim might wish to take the guaranteed option of marriage (with all of the rights that accrue to her) over a near-impossible attempt to marry someone else. It doesn't seem like she is forced to, though - it's just an option.

You seem to be over analyzing this and taking it out of context. As Cain said, women were essentially property in the Bible. Women actually had no rights, and were of little importance besides giving birth for men. Every time a child is born, it is always male in the Bible.

[GGT]

You seem to be over analyzing this and taking it out of context. As Cain said, women were essentially property in the Bible. Women actually had no rights, and were of little importance besides giving birth for men. Every time a child is born, it is always male in the Bible.

And yet, even the Old and New Testaments (written by male scribes in paternalistic cultures) couldn't erase or minimize the importance of women. Every time a child is born, it's borne from a woman. Even if it's an "immaculate conception".

[Knux897]

And yet, even the Old and New Testaments (written by male scribes in paternalistic cultures) couldn't erase or minimize the importance of women. Every time a child is born, it's borne from a woman. Even if it's an "immaculate conception".

Right because this is seen as the only thing women are good for in the Bible... again women are treated as property.

"...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 14:34-35"

Women aid the Israelite tribe by providing more soldiers... it's a bit barbaric for this century don't you think? Retroactive continuism doesn't change the context.

[CitizenCain]

And yet, even the Old and New Testaments (written by male scribes in paternalistic cultures) couldn't erase or minimize the importance of women.

You know, I thought about trying to correct the crazy, but then I thought... "why bother?"

[Steely Glint]

I imagine in some societies a rape victim might wish to take the guaranteed option of marriage (with all of the rights that accrue to her) over a near-impossible attempt to marry someone else. It doesn't seem like she is forced to, though - it's just an option.

I don't think we're talking about societies and an era where choice was a massive feature of women's lives in the first place. I read that passage, even with a very uncharitable interpretation, and I don't think the author sat down intending to say 'woman should be forced to marry their rapists'. Rather, I think that it simply never occurred to him that the woman would want or should have a choice in the matter. As you say, it reads like the author thinks he's doing a victim a favor.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/wo...reform.html?hp

[GGT]

Okay, so from that perspective women were a protected group as a means to an end. More women meant more babies, which meant the possibility of more future soldiers...and the ability to fight and kill rival tribes for xyz. Ancient Egyptians treated certain women with a reverence and idolatry, but it didn't convey to all women. Being a royal slave was once considered a historical honor, but by today's definition that might be considered misogyny. Or at the very least, exploitation based on gender.

[Knux897]

Okay, so from that perspective women were a protected group as a means to an end. More women meant more babies, which meant the possibility of more future soldiers...and the ability to fight and kill rival tribes for xyz. Ancient Egyptians treated certain women with a reverence and idolatry, but it didn't convey to all women. Being a royal slave was once considered a historical honor, but by today's definition that might be considered misogyny. Or at the very least, exploitation based on gender.

Where in the world do you get this from? If you have machinery in a factory, you obviously want to protect it so it keeps producing goods. Women in Israelite tribal society had less status than animals. And you completely pulled your opinion on Egyptians out of nowhere. The ancient Egyptians were known to be an exception in the ancient world when it came to women; people married out of love and passion and women generally had more freedom and rights and even power which you just don't see in most of the other ancient civilizations.

[Steely Glint]

Nevertheless, I don't want to derail the thread further, so feel free to respond but I'll try to refrain from giving a counter response.

Why, though, when the tangent is more interesting than the OP.