Thursday, October 25, 2012

Why women are bad part II

I received this comment today on an old post about Malaysia's "Obedient Wives Club", an Islamic group which argues that most of the world's problems are the fault of women who don't know their place. Here we get a "Christian" perspective on the matter:

well, women are the main problems in this world. They want to be men's equals all of a sudden and they want power that is supposed to belong ONLY to men. In the bible, in Gensis, God said to Eve: "The man shall rule over thee, thou desire will be to be subject to thy husband" Therefore making men more dominant than women really is natural, and women have to back the hell off.

This is why I am becoming a social science teacher: because there are too many people in this world whose thinking process is severely faulty, and they need all the help they can get. It is a mental flaw that is extremely prevalent in the unquestioningly religious.

The logic of that comment is that men should be dominant over women because God said so. Case closed. That is, if you believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God and there has never been any embellishment or misinterpretation.

Who wrote the Bible? Men. Even if you do believe it to be God's word, it is nonetheless God's word as interpreted and retold by men. So, surprise surprise, it turns out that God favours men.

But then again, if you believe in talking snakes and that the first woman was created from a man's rib... perhaps critical thinking is a step too far for you.


  1. This does sound familiar. What's the economy like in the country? I remember reading a document about the feelings men had regarding women working during the Great Depression in the USA. "If they would just go back to being housewives this would never have happened. They are stealing our jobs." (Something to that effect.) Funny, since most women who worked did 'woman's work' ie secretary, housekeeper, and when the war came Rosie the Riveter but I can't recall reading about women taking up construction jobs or the likes.

    "But then again, if you believe in talking snakes and that the first woman was created from a man's rib... perhaps critical thinking is a step too far for you. "


  2. ehhhh. this supposedly 'christian' dude does not represent me!!!!! I'm Christian and every sermon I've heard on this passage emphasizes that men and women are EQUAL. I dunno which church this guy goes to or what silly translation of the bible he reads, but obviously it's not the same as mine.

    That line he quoted came *after* they had disobeyed God and eaten of the fruit of good and evil. i.e. It's kinda like, if you drink and drive, I will still love you but you'll probably suffer the consequences and get hurt. i.e. "The man *shall* rule over you" is not a statement of intention and does not mean "I will make the man rule over you". It's a statement of fact, "This is what is going to happen now that you've eaten the fruit that I told you not to: Men are going to rule over you, even though I don't want them to. This is why I told you not to eat it because I didn't want this to happen to you. But I still love you, and I will therefore provide a way out of this. I will send Jesus to die for you." Besides, it wasn't just Eve who had to face the consequences. Adam also had to suffer consequences (toil).

    Men ruling over women was NOT the original design. The original design was that men and women were created EQUAL because BOTH men and women were made in the image of God, i.e. both (plus the whole of nature) are expressions of who God is.

    The Hebrew word 'adam' means 'human beings', i.e. BOTH men and women. And in the verse where 'adam' is put to sleep and 'woman' is made, it describes the woman as an 'ezer', which means 'helper'. This word does NOT mean (inferior) 'assistant'. It's a word that appears elsewhere in the bible to refer to God as a helper. i.e. Ezer is an expression of God's nature as helper, comforter, shoulder to lean on, etc etc and not some inferior being to be lorded over. (

    It's the superficial patriarchal interpretation of the bible that is stupid. Also, as a Christian, the men with many wives in the bible has bugged me a lot. Recently I went through quite a bit of Genesis to find out what the deal was with this, and I was very surprised to find that every time a man treated a woman badly, it made God extremely angry. Not that men stopped treating them badly, but there were consequences to their actions. e.g. David's adulterous affair with Bathsheba (and murder of Bathsheba's husband) cost him the following: a prophet comes and tells David off for what he had done; his first baby with Bathsheba dies; later one son rapes one daughter (this made David very angry and according to the law he was supposed to punish this son, but he stupidly didn't, and so later suffered further consequences); another son kills the rapist son; this second son usurps David's throne; and this son was eventually killed. This grieved David a great deal, but he had to suffer the consequences. David was not exempt from paying for what stupid things he had done.

  3. and oh, i'm also a social scientist...just thought i'd add that for credentials' sake :p