Is Christianity Inherently Misogynistic?- Part 2

In this part, let's have a look at the value of women in the bible further.

According to the bible (King James) women are a spoil of war- in the same category of donkeys, material goods or other possessions:
 "And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 72,000 beeves, And 61,000 asses, And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him . . . of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. And Moses gave the tribute..." (Numbers 31:32-41)

Once again (as in part 1) we see that the only valuable women are virgins. The word "booty" has made a re-entry into popular discourse in recent years- I wonder if Beyonce would be so quick to promote her "Bootilicious"ness if she knew it was likening herself to being nothing more than something to barter with?

This is not the only time a woman is traded as a commodity in the bible:
 ". . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." (Judges 11:30-39). What better gift could you give someone, than your daughter? [note heavy sarcasm] 

But if you happen to rape a virgin who was engaged to someone else, it seems this would ruin the value she had (and presumably what the family could gain from this commodity). So what's the solution for this- I know, she should be stoned to death!:
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of the city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Was it that no one was around to witness the cries, or that she was gagged, beaten or unable to cry out for other reasons? Doesn't matter, she's ruined now, just kill her... unless.. she's not engaged, in which case she should be forced to marry her rapist, for the appropriate price the family can gain:
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Interesting too, in the purchase of a woman (if not just giving them away) is what could be seen as an equal value item:
 "Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (I Samuel 18:27).

Unless you run an eyelid transplant or skin grafting business, what the fuck would you want with 200 foreskins? 200 foreskins from the corpses of your enemies as well, rotting and fly-ridden no doubt. Are there any alternate references to a woman's worth? Of course- it's best to be clear, but in general, around half of what a man is worth:

"... And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female,then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels." (Leviticus 27:1-7)

If you are not worth 10 shekels or 200 foreskins though, and are an undesirable (I assume sexually active, or one with an opinion, are the huge crimes a woman would commit to fit in this category), then the bible says they should be publicly degraded and humiliated by being made to expose your genitals and having a skin condition inflicted as a punishment.

"Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover bare their secret parts." (Isaiah 3:16-17)

So in this part we've seen women traded as a possession, raped, killed for being raped, being worth half of what a man is or equivalent to a pile of rotting foreskins. 

Gay, Atheist and other marriage

There has been a lot of buzz about gay marriage lately- both in Australia and overseas. While the issue is not new, it seems to bring all the zealots out of hiding to tout their "wisdom" loudly at the rest of us.

One of the most extreme condemnations of marriage equality was recently inflicted on the world by Paul Cameron. Cameron has long been an anti-gay hate campaigner, but in a radio interview he recently summarised the extent of his bigotry, and its religious origins, as such:

"..homosexuality is the one sin, or the one habit, that is 24/7. It is homosexuality all the time... Mark my words clearly; the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try. They will not rest until every one of our children at least gets to try, has the opportunity and maybe is forced to at least once experience homosexual acts. There is no retreating from that, they made it very clear earlier on—now they don’t take about it—but that’s what they want, they will not be happy until they get it, marriage is just a step along the way."

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/paul-cameron-suggests-obama-is-gay-demands-gays-be-imprisoned-before-they-rape-kids/

From a scientific standpoint, I hope that more start to speak out and discredit Cameron's ridiculous "evidence" against homosexuality soon. A good example beginning is:http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
I think the irrationality of the main arguments against these common, usually religiously based, conservative, right-wing diatribes against gay marriage was summarised beautifully, with humour and sarcasm, here: http://littlelioness.net/2009/11/12/ten-reasons-why-gay-marriage-is-wrong/

In many countries, until the 1970s (although still continuing in some), there were laws against interracial marriage, yet to those of us born in or after the 1970s, such racist views seem ridiculously outdated and almost unimaginable. In my own family, being born of white, western European descent, we have now welcomed Taiwanese, Persian and African American family members by marriage... shocking! *Gasp!*?... or- in reality, it barely gets a second thought, as it should be.

So WHY should anyone be so opposed to gay marriage? Perhaps it's Bible verses such as "Marriage by God’s design is the union of one man and one woman" (Genesis 2:18) that inspire it?

If it is for religious reasons, on the assumption that marriage "belongs" to for example Christians, then why not so vehemently oppose inter-theological unions? Or marriages of other theology groups, such as Buddhism, who do not follow a deity, or even those most evil of all folks- such as myself.... the Atheists? Or, for that matter, anyone who has ever had sex- after all, Deuteronomy 22:13-21 states that "A marriage shall only be valid if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed."

Good- yes.. let's embrace the hatred, and discourage the foundation of what most people associate marriage with these days: not the Bible, or tradition, obligations or fear of social retribution, but LOVE.

In having legislation such as the Marriage Act 1961 in Australia, Governments have bought in to being part of the arguement. Although the original design of the Act was from the dominant Christian influence on society at the time, this is not a reason to retain it in its outdated, dsicrimanatory state which does not reflect the views and needs of current Australians.

As for those like Cameron who will continue to pollute the world with their hateful rants- I'm all for people having differing opinions, but if you cannot find a logical, defensible evidence base other than ignorance and hate mongering, then ever so kindly, do shut the fuck up.

Things that shit me #12- Doctors for the Family

In the news this week, a group who call themselves "Doctors for the Family" have been noted to be campaigning against gay marriage.

http://www.doctors4family.com.au/

The listed aim of the site is: "highlight the health aspects of marriage and family and ensure a healthy future for our children".

This site, and every release which has come out quoting them has been incredibly anti gay. I consider them a hate-group. Aside from the basics, like having absolutely no credible evidence other than "I'm a doctor and I say so" and other such self-aggrandising crap (which only really evidences their over-inflated senses of self-importance, nothing more), let's have a think about their position.

The website lists its leader as the recently vocal Dr Lachlan Dunjey- a Perth GP and a right-to-life campaigner who has run as a Senate candidate for the Christian Democratic Party in multiple elections.

As a GP, Dr Dunjey is well qualified to diagnose the difference between laryngitis and tonsilitis, to prescribe medication for high blood pressure, and to write referals to specialists for more complex conditions. He is neither a psychologist, capable of assessing in depth psychological outcomes. Neither is he a sociologist who studies the patterns of people interacting in society in a way which would enable him to determine the long term trends and outcomes of peoples varying social circumstances, such as performance in school, psychological or emotional wellbeing, happiness, future income, etc. even if he were, to extrapolate someone's income, overall health etc as a measure of having had any circumstance other than hetero biological parents is absurd.

What about adopted children? Those raised by their grandparents, extended family or a single parent? Or even my own situation- being raised by my biological, heterosexual parents who remained married to each other for the duration of my childhood, yet managed to fuck me up substantially? Clearly, according to Dr Dunjey, an abusive-biological-and-marital-relationship-containing-two-traditional-genders must be better than sexuality or gender diverse parents who love and care for their children.

Dr Kerryn Phelps, former Australian Medical Association president, was quoted on www.abc.net.au/news as so beautifully describing his position as "extraordinary" and having a "breathtaking lack of reason".

Dr Kuruvilla George, of Victoria's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, has also signed a petition supporting the Doctors for the Family anti-gay-marriage campaign. Seemed somewhat more than slightly incongruous to me- Human Rights activist AND massively right wing bigoted hate campaigner...hmmm. The Victorian Attorney-General has defended his right to lobby against gay marriage, and this may be the case- he does have a right to voice an opinion.

It's the flawed logic (aside from the human element of treating people as equals blah blah) that's bugging me- how is gay marriage in any way directly related to someone's parenting worth? If gay marriage is his objection, then why extend this to parenting? Is he also insinuating that unwed parents in a long term stable union with a biological chil are also unfit parents? Somehow, the signing on the dotted line of a legal marriage contract and perhaps supplementing this activity by placing a circular band of alloyed metals around a digit must impass some power, deeming said individuals capable of great and powerful thing, my preciousssss?

Anyhow, my ranting begins to descend into ever-decreasing circles, but I think my point has been made, so I'll leave it here: A child needs love and support, it does not matter what combination of genitals the parents have.

Is Christianity Inherently Misogynistic?- Part 1

A Christian friend recently found herself once again disapointed with her own faith after sitting through a misogynistic ceremony at a wedding, and started pondering the prospect that Chrisitanity is  founded on a strong woman- hating basis. These are some of her thoughts and mine on the subject:

Firstly, I can't go past the following as a good start to exploring the subject:  http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/women-bible

There is much obsession in these texts of women being objects, possessions or not having a right to self-determine any activities, especially if they are related to their sexuality. An extreme example of this is:

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

So not only if a woman is not a virgin, but if she cannot prove that she is a virgin, she will be deemed guilty (of what? being raped is apparently still considered committing adultery if you're female) and killed. So what does this teach us- that the only value a woman has is a disused vagina? Apparently so:

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he [Moses] asked them.... "Now ... kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV)

Despite all these Biblical quotes, however, the Bible as a text was written largely 1500+ years ago, and has undergone edits, modifications and translational changes, but reflects the society at the time. Many Christians view it as that- the historical interpretation of "God"'s teachings, in the context of society at the time. Others do not.

What's interesting is to see what effect Christian teachings have on current-day attitudes. One such example online is the recent "Modesty" survey.
http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/

This survey contains items such as "The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block", with 50% of respondents agreeing, and 24.9% strongly agreeing. Open ended statements included "True. I have seen girls walking in a rather titillating way, but I would have to say that this type of immodesty can only be deliberate. It is more the obvious intention that gives the effect." and "Manner of walk can appear seductive, though most girls who walk in such a fashion probably do it intentionally.".

Have these people not considered:
a) that the wider hip angle caused by the change in bone structures in puberty caused by being female will alter a woman's gait involuntarily
b) some things just are, they are not done for or directed at you
c) you're a dirty bastard who can be turned on by anything and that is YOUR problem, not that of every female on the planet.

Another survey item: "The lines of undergarments, visible under clothing, cause guys to stumble.". The deference of responsibility in the way this is phrased (and the whole survey) is on two premises:   - that males are not capable of controlling themselves, nor should they be expected to; and,
- it is the way a woman moves, acts, dresses, speaks or exists that causes the "problem".

I am not trying to label all Christians as woman haters, or all segments of Biblical teachings as wrong, but the discussion is worth opening up and exploring further as it's far from being baseless.

As a parting thought, I leave you with some Richard Dawkins on the topic of gender bias:  http://boingboing.net/2011/06/18/richard-dawkins-sex.html