# Why Do Religions Treat Women So Shabbily? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2004, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724 "2004-10-28T20:30:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/61 "2004-10-29T20:15:46Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The question I am addressing is whether these people could be characterized as “simply subsisting”. You seem to be stuck on this phrase that I used. Allow me to withdraw it. As I said in the same paragraph I used it, Please excuse my ignorance. I was not trying to say, really, that the activities of hunter gatherers required more time to subsist than modern people do. I was probably simply observing that much of the time hunter gatherers spend producing anything, goes toward producing things for physical survival. I probably said it badly, again, due to my ignorance. > [@](#): > > So far as I know, there is simply not a lot of evidence that shows this is an accurate characterization of that particular lifestyle. Insofar as it applies to HGs, it has been watered down enough to apply it to modern day existence, too, because the standards are rather relative to the society or culture. See, I’m not so sure this is the case. Maybe I’m missing your point. But it seems to me that even the poorest amongst us has many opportunities not available to even the most well off hunter gatherer. Books comes to mind as the most obvious. But I would also like to point out that life itself for most of us would not be possible if we did not live the way we do. From the article I linked to earlier. > [@](#): > > Almost the same thing can be said of the demographic constraints of hunting-gathering. The same policy of debarassment is in play on the level of people, describable in similar terms and ascribable to similar causes. The terms are, cold-bloodedly: diminishing returns at the margin of portability, minimum necessary equipment, elimination of duplicates, and so forth-that is to say, infanticide. senilicide, sexual continence for the duration of the nursing period, etc., practices for which many food-collecting peoples are well known. The presumption that such devices are due to an inability to support more people is probably true-if’ “support” is understood in the sense of carrying them rather than feeding them. The people eliminated, as hunters sometimes sadly’ tell, are precisely those who cannot effectively transport themselves, who would I hinder the movement of family and camp. Hunters may be obliged to handle people and goods in parallel ways, the draconic population policy an expression of the same ecology as the ascetic economy. and > [@](#): > > Above all. what about the world today? One-third to one-half of humanity are said to go to bed hungry every night. In the Old Stone Age the fraction must have been much smaller. This is the era of hunger unprecedented. Now, in the time of the greatest technical power, is starvation an in. situation. Reverse another venerable formula: the amount of hunger in. creases relatively and absolutely with the evolution of culture. This paradox is my whole point. Hunters and gatherers have by force of circumstances an objectively low standard of living. But taken as their objective, and given their adequate means of production. all the people’s material wants usually can be easily satisfied. The problem with this characterization (which I see you trying to suggest, **erislover** , please correct me if I am wrong) is that it plays fast and loose with the simple word “all”. What exactly does it mean to say that “all the people’s material wants usually can be easily satisfied”? The word does not mean the common sense meaning of “all the people”. It means “all of the people (who can live given that their material needs can be met with hunter gatherer techniques)'s material wants usually can be easily satisfied”. That is, anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a small group of hunter gatherers simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long. While it is certainly true that those who survive this cut live a pretty decent life. Everyone who is relatively healthy and able to keep up with the group has plenty of leasure time. I’m not really sure that this is not exactly what I said earlier. However, as I said, I am willing to withdraw the phrase and search for a better one. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/62 "2004-10-29T20:43:58Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > You seem to be stuck on this phrase that I used. Allow me to withdraw it. As I said in the same paragraph I used it, Please excuse my ignorance. I don’t believe it is a matter of ignorance, but simply a matter of not using your own customs and expectations to judge another’s, not because it would be invalid, but because, in this case, it is undefined. We do not marvel at primitive society by saying, “But how did they make microwave popcorn without a microwave?” > [@](#): > > I was probably simply observing that much of the time hunter gatherers spend producing anything, goes toward producing things for physical survival. What I don’t understand is why you think this still isn’t true. I work to survive. Hopefully I can enjoy more goods by a little luck and some more effort, but it is not like I am working for fun: if I do not work, I will die. This has not changed. > [@](#): > > See, I’m not so sure this is the case. Maybe I’m missing your point. But it seems to me that even the poorest amongst us has many opportunities not available to even the most well off hunter gatherer. Books comes to mind as the most obvious. Of course. I admit as much. Specialization brings a wide array of new opportunities. But it is not cost-free. > [@](#): > > But I would also like to point out that life itself for most of us would not be possible if we did not live the way we do. Obviously. **What form of society can this not be said of, though?** > [@](#): > > That is, anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a small group of hunter gatherers simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long. Analytically simple, universally applicable. Without a welfare system or other support structure, this is still true today. > [@](#): > > However, as I said, I am willing to withdraw the phrase and search for a better one. That’s ok. It’s a hijack anyway. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/63 "2004-10-29T20:52:42Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Honestly, I had to force myself to. I threw it across the room in disgust about three times. But I can pretty persistent about these things and I need to read the book to be able to point out all of the retarded parts to my more credulous friends. I couldn’t even start the second. The bad guys belong to Opus Dei? We’re supposed to be afraid of a bunch of old Italian grandmas? Okay, **I’m** afraid of old Italian grandmas (what sensible Catholic kid isn’t?) but it’s not like they are trying to take over the world. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/64 "2004-10-29T22:04:37Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The question I am addressing is whether these people could be characterized as “simply subsisting”. So far as I know, there is simply not a lot of evidence that shows this is an accurate characterization of that particular lifestyle. Insofar as it applies to HGs, it has been watered down enough to apply it to modern day existence, too, because the standards are rather relative to the society or culture. There are some historians who believe that humans got so good at hunting that the population grew. As the population grew they eventually had to supplement their diet with domesticated animals and crops and eventually switched to that as their primary source of food. There are plenty of examples of hunter gatherer type societies who cultivated wild plants to ensure they’d have a source of food the next time they were in the area. Marc ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/65 "2004-10-29T22:09:18Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I don’t believe it is a matter of ignorance, but simply a matter of not using your own customs and expectations to judge another’s, not because it would be invalid, but because, in this case, it is undefined. That’s fair enough. But it is important not to become guilty of the reverse. > [@](#): > > What I don’t understand is why you think this still isn’t true. I work to survive. Hopefully I can enjoy more goods by a little luck and some more effort, but it is not like I am working for fun: if I do not work, I will die. This has not changed. Because a vast majority of the things you have are not necessary for your survival. Think about it from the hunter gatherer’s point of view. How much or your work goes for food and the most basic necessities of physical survival. Cars don’t count. Houses don’t count. Clothes don’t count. Nothing which uses electricity or even metal counts. How much of your work goes to provide you with just the number of calories you need to survive until tomorrow. That’s what I mean by subsistence. That’s why I don’t think we live that way anymore. > [@](#): > > Of course. I admit as much. Specialization brings a wide array of new opportunities. But it is not cost-free. I hope I never suggested that it was cost free. I meant more that the costs are outweighed by the benifits. > [@](#): > > Obviously. **What form of society can this not be said of, though?** Many. There are many forms of society where the methods of hunter gatherers are not necessary to survive. Most, in fact. Anybody reading this know how to build a bow or arrow from the basic components? Without looking it up? > [@](#): > > Analytically simple, universally applicable. Without a welfare system or other support structure, this is still true today. No, it is not. Many people are able to earn their livings without needing to be able to run, hunt, or know which wild plants to eat and where to find them. Many of the qualities needed by participants in a hunter gatherer society are no longer a matter of life or death. Your statement may be true if we apply modern standards to it. But if we rewrite it as “[…] anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a modern industrial society simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long.” then it is true. But that means we are judging older societies by our standards, no? 😉 What I was trying to say originally, however, is not that life was harder 10,000 years ago, or that it is easier now. I’ll never let that stop me from parrying with you, however. It’s too much fun. 😉 I was more interested in **Sleel** ’s perspective on what role the increase in specialization has played in the problems women have had in modern society. Partially, I note that it was not possible to make much of a living if many women spent all of their time in camp preparing food gathered from outside camp. Most had to participate in the gathering of food on an ongoing basis. Over the last couple hundred years, that has not been the case. This difference, in my ignorance, seems to be a major contributor to the sexual role differences that we take for granted today. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/66 "2004-10-30T05:46:29Z")
You still insist on comparing the societies as if that was really what I was getting at. Yes, it does take a car for a lot of people to survive. It is true that any area can support some of its local population, but generally speaking we’ve specialized to the point where this does not generally hold. Yes, I have things that are not necessary for survival. This does not remotely suggest that I do not work to survive. Maybe the benefits outweigh the costs. Maybe we didn’t have much choice. Maybe most didn’t have a choice. Maybe some have resisted change at nearly every step. The analysis simply isn’t that simple. You said, _But I would also like to point out that life itself for most of us would not be possible if we did not live the way we do._ I suggested this could be said of all societies. It is why societies have sprung up the way they have: as a solution to the problems of surviving. We live the way we do because if we were to do otherwise, we would die. America can’t be hunter gatherers, and hunter gatherers can’t be accountants. People survive because they find a behavior appropriate to their surroundings. This directly impacts the next point. You said, _That is, anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a small group of hunter gatherers simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long._ I suggested this is still true, and you immediately interpret it as saying that people not fit to be hunter gatherers die. Of course I did not mean that, because I thought I’d already mentioned that we need to examine the circumstances surrounding existence to determine how to best understand that existence. People not fit to live in our society aren’t counted for long. They die. It happens. Has the implicit definition of “fitness” changed? Yes. Does this make the statement no longer a truism? No. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/67 "2004-10-30T07:58:47Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Basically, no religion treats women shabbily except the Christian religion, and that’s due to the misogynistic tendencies of the Catholics in particular. And then there’s Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/68 "2004-10-30T17:54:40Z")
I would just like to add that Hunter Gatherers were overall healthier and more well nourished than (early?) agrarian socieites. The lack of food variety and sanitary problems of settled life took their toll. The fossil record supports this. The problem with hunting gathering is the amount of land necessary to support this lifestyle. Eventually population growth would make it untenable. In other words no choice. Hunting was always more valued than planting or collecting plants… something that benefitted male status. Eventually War and conflict determined the fate of societies… and men had a leading role always. Women’s status fell and fell. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/69 "2004-10-31T03:14:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > To be honest I can’t tell if we’re agreeing or not. What the words were originally I don’t know. What they became (or what we’re familiar with) isn’t gender-neutral, that’s what I’m trying to say. It’s definitely people who are responsible, but it’s not just the people reading and interpreting them today. Oh, absolutely. In my posts here I try to look to before the scriptures take form, in the sense of, there was already a disadvantageous dynamics of power _before_ it was codified into the antecessors of the religions we now know. As others have pointed out, _relative to what was the norm at the time_, at times the compilers of the Torah, New Testament and Qur’an are moderates or even liberals _for the time and place_, but they definitely were creatures of that time and place. Which translates to many people getting a shabby deal a few centuries down the road, not because of something inherent in religion, but because of the foibles of the founders and prophets… and interpreters and followers. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/70 "2004-10-31T03:25:46Z")
In my unprofessional opinion, it is because the tribes and states were led by men, and as they grew larger, they simply kept the gender divide. Or maybe the women were too busy raising the children. 😉 I classify myself as pagan, some would classify me as Wiccan, though Wicca is a barely defined gathering of loosely-organized ideas based on semi-standardized ritual utilizing pre-existing gods and goddesses. In any case, women are held in fairly high regard (as noted previously, often ahead of men. I’ve been to some ceremonies where you were considered lucky to be there if you were a man). Mayhap monotheism has something to do with it? Going back to my off the cuff remark about the women raising the children, isn’t it interesting that, as far as my knowledge goes, Eastern religious monks were largely male, while women tended to other duties? Obviously there are many exceptions to this, and I know of many Eastern religions in which women play a prime role, but the tendancy does seem to be towards the males, and I think it is for a very primal reason. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/71 "2004-10-31T18:52:43Z")
> [@dotchan](#): > > One theory mentioned in both _Cartoon History of the Universe_ and _Cartoon Guide to Genetics_ is that female misogyny arised as men began domesticating animals and started realizing where babies came from. Men, being territorial and quite posessive, decided to start locking up their women so they would be sure that the kids were theirs. Also, the theory of conception that held sway for thousands of years was that only men were the “creators of life”- women were just carriers. When the Bible and other ancient texts refer to a man’s “seed” they weren’t being figurative- essentially it was believed that a man’s semen was the seed of a human being and that women were essentially the fertile ground- if a couple could not have children it was the woman’s fault because the man had done his part. When van Leeuwenhoek looked at sperm under a telescope this theory not only didn’t go away but in fact gained currency ([This 1694 drawing](http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/test_site/moore/images/p20007713g257001vpp.png) is what one early microscopist believed he saw- the head of the sperm was a perfectly formed _homunculus_ that would grow into the fetus while the tail would become the umbilicus, connect to the mother and be responsible for any physical resemblance to the mother.) This relegated women’s roles to less important than men AND also aided to homophobia (if a sperm cell is nothing short of a teeny weeny fetus, then every act of deliberately non-procreative sex is little short of abortion). It is amazing that the true process of [conception](http://www.lclark.edu/~seavey/images%20/sperm&egg.jpg) is more recent than the Declaration of Independence (discovered 1779 but not widely accepted until much later) and this was a major factor in reducing the role of women. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/72 "2004-11-01T00:57:13Z")
**erislover** , I agree with the general things you are saying. But I disagree with your interpretation of them. I understand what you mean when you say that “those who cannot live in a society die” is true for hunter gatherers as it is for our modern society. But there are absolute definitions for some of the words we are using, and your conclusions require that we make those words relative. for instance: > [@erislover](#): > > Yes, it does take a car for a lot of people to survive. This is not true. IF what you mean by survive is “find enough nutrients to continue living for another day”. If you mean anything else by survive, then it may be true, but simply to find sufficient nutrients from day to day does not require an automobile for anyone on the planet. > [@](#): > > It is true that any area can support some of its local population, but generally speaking we’ve specialized to the point where this does not generally hold. But this was not my point. My point was that we have also increased our population per area to the point that many techniques for living will not support us. In fact, this was my main criticism of the article I linked to. It specifically said that hunter gatherers could find enough food for “all people”. But this is only true if you kill off the others which modern society supports which would not be able to live that way. > [@](#): > > Yes, I have things that are not necessary for survival. This does not remotely suggest that I do not work to survive. Of course not. But it does indicate that saying we work harder than hunter gatherers may be comparing apples and computers. > [@](#): > > Maybe the benefits outweigh the costs. Maybe we didn’t have much choice. Maybe most didn’t have a choice. Maybe some have resisted change at nearly every step. The analysis simply isn’t that simple. Sorry if I left the impression that any analysis of this question is simple. I did not mean to. > [@](#): > > You said, _But I would also like to point out that life itself for most of us would not be possible if we did not live the way we do._ I suggested this could be said of all societies. It is why societies have sprung up the way they have: as a solution to the problems of surviving. We live the way we do because if we were to do otherwise, we would die. America can’t be hunter gatherers, and hunter gatherers can’t be accountants. People survive because they find a behavior appropriate to their surroundings. This directly impacts the next point. > > You said, _That is, anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a small group of hunter gatherers simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long._ I suggested this is still true, and you immediately interpret it as saying that people not fit to be hunter gatherers die. Of course I did not mean that, because I thought I’d already mentioned that we need to examine the circumstances surrounding existence to determine how to best understand that existence. People not fit to live in our society aren’t counted for long. They die. It happens. Has the implicit definition of “fitness” changed? Yes. Does this make the statement no longer a truism? No. Quite correct. The statement is a truism. But it only by interpreting the word “survive” relatively that you can compare the amount of wealth owned or the work performed by a hunter gatherer and a modern denizen of New York. And it is only by interpreting such phrases as “all people” in this same relative way that we can come to the odd conclusion that any costs of modern life might not have been worth the benifits. Allow me to insert a personal anecdote. I work with the SCA in my area. One of the nicest bunch of people it has ever been my pleasure to associate with. However, “_The SCA is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of pre-17th-century Europe._” This to some participants is akin to “pining” for the simpler life of that time. The fact is, however, that we can only “pine” for such a life as a hobby. To attempt to live in that way would mean death for a great many of us. I don’t object to “pining” for the freedom from responsibility that hunter gatherers enjoy. I do so myself quite often. But I do object to suggestions that hunter gatherers enjoyed anything like a better life than we do under anything like an objective measure. The fact is that life in general was harsh, short, and unpleasant by most measures. It may be true that hunter gatherers do not toil for as many of their waking hours as we do. But it is also true that they do not have nearly the number of choices of how to spend their leasure time as we do either. Having said all this, on re reading your first paragraph, it seems I may have missed what you were “getting at”. Perhaps you could sum it up for me. I’ll stipulate that any such post will be the last word on this subject here. ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724/73 "2004-11-08T08:19:55Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Basically, no religion treats women shabbily except the Christian religion, and that’s due to the misogynistic tendencies of the Catholics in particular. Um… WRONGO! > [@](#): > > 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansingher by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for 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." Ephesians 5:25-31 However, it is true that wives are to submit to their husbands, but… and this is important… a truly christian husband will raise his christian wife up to the level that she deserves. Generally, (if she’s christian) she deserves to be raised up very high, much higher than the husband. The feminist movement won because the country was full of non-christian men. The relationship of huband and wife is all about trust. The woman has GOT to exhibit trust in her husband that he won’t dominate her. And he has got to be worthy of that trust. (Oh, an interesting new interpretation on Genesis I heard recently.) After Adam and Eve ate from the tree God spoke to them… > [@](#): > > 16 To the woman he said, > > “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; > with pain you will give birth to children. > Your desire will be for your husband, > and he will rule over you.” > > 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ > > “Cursed is the ground because of you; > through painful toil you will eat of it > all the days of your life. > 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, > and you will eat the plants of the field. > 19 By the sweat of your brow > you will eat your food > until you return to the ground, > since from it you were taken; > for dust you are > and to dust you will return.” Sin caused this. The interpretation said that **because of sin** Adam will rule over Eve. In other words, “because Adam is now sinful, he will be selfish and exhert his power over you. He will rule over you because he is sinful, not because you are being punished.” And I would like to point out this fact, man is supposed to protect the woman in his life. While the serpent was tempting Eve, where was Adam? Was he out picking berries and talking to God? Nope. > [@](#): > > When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, **who was with her** , and he ate it.Genesis 3:6 He was right there, watching the whole freaking thing. Why didn’t Adam step in and keep Eve from sinning? The Bible admits that Adam was there and sinned as much as Eve. So the Bible is obviously not against women because she caused original sin. So, following this interpretation, it is sinful to “rule” over your wife. But you should raise her up and make her #1 in your life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religions-treat-women-so-shabbily/271724.md?page=3)