Why Would God Make Rules Subjugating Women?

[Diogenes]

This subtopic takes as a given that all three major Abrahamic religions developed laws to control or subjugate women to a different or lesser status. That is taken as a given for the purpose of this thread. Anyone who doubts the Abrahamic religions have, historically, fashioned rules for men to control women is advised to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and ... _religions and start their own, separate topic for discussion, rather than argue that here.

The question for debate in this topic is "Why would God make rules that allow for the subjugation and control of women by men? The current example of such subjugation in its extreme form deals with the morality police in Iran, punishing and allegedly even murdering women for not 'properly' covering their hair with the hijab.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/21/11242372 ... ity-police
But historically similar rules have been endorsed by both Jewish and Christian scriptures as well.

[1213]

... "Why would God make rules that allow for the subjugation and control of women by men?...

Bible tells the reason is this:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” Yahweh God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” ... ...To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Gen. 3:12-16

[TRANSPONDER]

... "Why would God make rules that allow for the subjugation and control of women by men?...

Bible tells the reason is this:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” Yahweh God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” ... ...To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Gen. 3:12-16

Well there's the problem. Sure, you posted the event that allowed God to assign woman the subordinate role, but the OP asks why would God set it up that way? Just as it looks strongly like God (even with the idea that He hadn't planned it all out right up to the End before He even started wadding the Big Bang event together) wanted to be sure that Adam would sin so that God could impose sin - death that he had prepared all ready, otherwise he would have to keep T Rex on a grass diet when it didn't have the teeth for it. Why couldn't God have made woman first? Then he could have used the opposed didgit to make man "Henceforth, man shall be forever under thy thumb, as he came from thence." It was like he always intended woman to be the subordinate, and set it up to get what He wanted, just as he set it up to have the serpent talk Eve into disobeying so God would have an excuse to get rid of those serpent - legs.

While you're writing your post of faithbased dismissal, I'll just say that the obvious explanation is that it is a myth and of course written by men and thus puts woman just where man wants her to be - at the back with her head covered and silent until given permission to speak. And that makes it just one more reason to not credit a single page of the Bible as a reliable record.

Now, over to you.

[theophile]

... "Why would God make rules that allow for the subjugation and control of women by men?...

Bible tells the reason is this:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” Yahweh God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” ... ...To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Gen. 3:12-16

Well there's the problem. Sure, you posted the event that allowed God to assign woman the subordinate role, but the OP asks why would God set it up that way? Just as it looks strongly like God (even with the idea that He hadn't planned it all out right up to the End before He even started wadding the Big Bang event together) wanted to be sure that Adam would sin so that God could impose sin - death that he had prepared all ready, otherwise he would have to keep T Rex on a grass diet when it didn't have the teeth for it. Why couldn't God have made woman first? Then he could have used the opposed didgit to make man "Henceforth, man shall be forever under thy thumb, as he came from thence." It was like he always intended woman to be the subordinate, and set it up to get what He wanted, just as he set it up to have the serpent talk Eve into disobeying so God would have an excuse to get rid of those serpent - legs.

While you're writing your post of faithbased dismissal, I'll just say that the obvious explanation is that it is a myth and of course written by men and thus puts woman just where man wants her to be - at the back with her head covered and silent until given permission to speak. And that makes it just one more reason to not credit a single page of the Bible as a reliable record.

Now, over to you.

If you read Gen 1 where humankind is created you'll see we are made 'male and female'. No stated hierarchy or subordination whatsoever in God's original intent, which I think is extremely important context for Gen 2-3 and everything that follows in the bible on this subject.

When it comes to the Gen 3 passage cited above, I think we have to understand it not so much as God 'assigning' a new, subordinated role to women as you put it here, but rather as God declaring the consequences of the group's actions. There is a difference. i.e. we should read it more along the following lines:

• The serpent, because it showed lack of wisdom in its advice to Eve, now has to deal with the fact that humankind will no longer trust it, and will treat serpent-kind as an enemy.

• Eve, because she deceived Adam (whether willfully or not), will no longer be trusted by Adam, who will instead seek to control her and rule over her to prevent further mishaps in the future.

• Adam, because he now distrusts both his wife and the natural world (i.e., the serpent), will experience greater distrust in return. The earth, for example, will resist his efforts to cultivate it.

None of it, read this way, is God's doing. It is simply the logical consequences of their actions. And I would say again that the intention all along, per Gen 1, was that there be no such hierarchy or subjugation of women.

[Diogenes]

None of it, read this way, is God's doing. It is simply the logical consequences of their actions. And I would say again that the intention all along, per Gen 1, was that there be no such hierarchy or subjugation of women.

What actions did they take that made God command:

For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 1st Corinthians 11:6

What did women do that made God decree any of the long list of commands Miles mentioned in post #10? Why would God command women to wear the hijab? Why are these commands "logical consequences" and how?

The answer seems obvious, that these commands do not come from any god, but are the works of men trying to control women. Why should a brilliant scientist take orders from a doltish man, just because she is a woman? What divine purpose is served by such nonsense?

[TRANSPONDER]

... "Why would God make rules that allow for the subjugation and control of women by men?...

Bible tells the reason is this:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” Yahweh God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” ... ...To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Gen. 3:12-16

Well there's the problem. Sure, you posted the event that allowed God to assign woman the subordinate role, but the OP asks why would God set it up that way? Just as it looks strongly like God (even with the idea that He hadn't planned it all out right up to the End before He even started wadding the Big Bang event together) wanted to be sure that Adam would sin so that God could impose sin - death that he had prepared all ready, otherwise he would have to keep T Rex on a grass diet when it didn't have the teeth for it. Why couldn't God have made woman first? Then he could have used the opposed didgit to make man "Henceforth, man shall be forever under thy thumb, as he came from thence." It was like he always intended woman to be the subordinate, and set it up to get what He wanted, just as he set it up to have the serpent talk Eve into disobeying so God would have an excuse to get rid of those serpent - legs.

While you're writing your post of faithbased dismissal, I'll just say that the obvious explanation is that it is a myth and of course written by men and thus puts woman just where man wants her to be - at the back with her head covered and silent until given permission to speak. And that makes it just one more reason to not credit a single page of the Bible as a reliable record.

Now, over to you.

If you read Gen 1 where humankind is created you'll see we are made 'male and female'. No stated hierarchy or subordination whatsoever in God's original intent, which I think is extremely important context for Gen 2-3 and everything that follows in the bible on this subject.

When it comes to the Gen 3 passage cited above, I think we have to understand it not so much as God 'assigning' a new, subordinated role to women as you put it here, but rather as God declaring the consequences of the group's actions. There is a difference. i.e. we should read it more along the following lines:

• The serpent, because it showed lack of wisdom in its advice to Eve, now has to deal with the fact that humankind will no longer trust it, and will treat serpent-kind as an enemy.

• Eve, because she deceived Adam (whether willfully or not), will no longer be trusted by Adam, who will instead seek to control her and rule over her to prevent further mishaps in the future.

• Adam, because he now distrusts both his wife and the natural world (i.e., the serpent), will experience greater distrust in return. The earth, for example, will resist his efforts to cultivate it.

None of it, read this way, is God's doing. It is simply the logical consequences of their actions. And I would say again that the intention all along, per Gen 1, was that there be no such hierarchy or subjugation of women.

My feeling is that nobody should trust Adam as he just did what his wife suggested, thus his punishment should logically have been that she rule over him. And having learned good and evil, they should not trust God as he didn't tell the truth and the serpent did. They would not die. But of course you will say that it means something other than dying. No more immortality. But how are a few ignorant, frankly, eternal humans part of God's plan? It has to be part of God's plan that it goes this way, so God is punishing them for carrying out His plan anyway. The old game of God doing it as he wants and blaming man for it.

Unless, like me, it is just a myth, written by men from the male point of view. If woman gets a raw deal, it was her own fault for eating the fruit.

But you argue apologetics ably, so you go ahead and do it, even though I probably won''t buy it.

[theophile]

None of it, read this way, is God's doing. It is simply the logical consequences of their actions. And I would say again that the intention all along, per Gen 1, was that there be no such hierarchy or subjugation of women.

What actions did they take that made God command:

For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 1st Corinthians 11:6

What did women do that made God decree any of the long list of commands Miles mentioned in post #10? Why would God command women to wear the hijab? Why are these commands "logical consequences" and how?

The answer seems obvious, that these commands do not come from any god, but are the works of men trying to control women. Why should a brilliant scientist take orders from a doltish man, just because she is a woman? What divine purpose is served by such nonsense?

A few points.

1. I'll be the first to say that the bible was written by men and that many of them probably had patriarchal biases if not intentions. Further, I think the bible itself plays with this fact, and intentionally pushes us to be a bit more discerning of what's being said, who is saying it, and why.

2. Related, I think there is a hierarchy of biblical texts. Not just that Genesis is more important than all the rest (being the OT of the OT, so to speak), but more that there are certain speakers in the bible in whom we should put more trust. Notably, I would say that any direct quotations of God in the bible should be taken way more seriously and to heart than anyone speaking on God's behalf. I'm not saying direct quotations were authored by God versus men, or anything like that, but only that they have a special significance, and help us work through some of the challenges identified in (1) and our discernment of who or what to trust. (For example, I give way more credence to God's words in Gen 1 than I do Paul's words in 1 Corinthians on the intended status of women...)

3. I'm not going to analyze all the verses cited, but I think it's extremely important to understand that everything post Genesis 3 in the bible is in the context of a fallen world. Hence (1) and the need to be more discerning of what is being said, because not just the writers but the very characters in the bible (e.g., Moses, Joshua, etc.) have been crafted as such to convey fallen biases and intentions as part of playing this meta-narrative out, i.e., from fallenness to the redemption of man. Hence (2) and the need to give more credence to God's direct words to sort through what is really going on...

So probably not the clearest of responses, but the overall point is that I don't think we can just boil the answer down to "it was written by men trying to control women". There is way more going on than that, and layers of bias we need to sort through when dealing with any particular verse. Some of them intentional and part of the very craftsmanship of the bible to strengthen our discernment and to incite us to call them out. Others perhaps intentional for more nefarious reasons as you suggest, and which I would hope have mostly been weeded out. And perhaps others yet (which I would think more common than the last) where unintentional biases slipped through the cracks.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4]

Jesus is God, so of course Mary is not above God.

Men and women have stations in the kingdom of God. Men are the preachers. It has nothing to do with being greater, and it is not a rule that subjugates women. Being a Nun is voluntary just as being a priest is. So nothing in those stations can be rules subjugating women.

What actual rules subjugate women?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #17]

You know as well as I do, and because I said so in a post yesterday, that women wanted to be ministers, preachers and even bishops. There was quite the usual rearguard battle about it but is now accepted. Except by the Vatican, which still applies the Rules. And i need hardly labour the problem with the various excuses I hear, justifying this denial of the rights of women to do whatever they feel capable of doing, from preaching, administering a see, flying an airliner, going out to work, and I have never bought the excuses (even sold to the women as enablers) that they like covering their heads, value the traditionalgender roles and fully accept the way things are in God's kingdom. It is one of my problems with religion that it facilitates wrongs, restrictions and abuses by appeal to God's authority.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #17]

You know as well as I do, and because I said so in a post yesterday, that women wanted to be ministers, preachers and even bishops. There was quite the usual rearguard battle about it but is now accepted. Except by the Vatican, which still applies the Rules. And i need hardly labour the problem with the various excuses I hear, justifying this denial of the rights of women to do whatever they feel capable of doing, from preaching, administering a see, flying an airliner, going out to work, and I have never bought the excuses (even sold to the women as enablers) that they like covering their heads, value the traditionalgender roles and fully accept the way things are in God's kingdom. It is one of my problems with religion that it facilitates wrongs, restrictions and abuses by appeal to God's authority.

Having men be preachers and not women, is not a rule that subjugates women.

Subjugate: bring under domination or control, especially by conquest.

A rule that says Men can be preachers and Women cannot doesn't somehow subjugate women any more than it subjugates men that are not preachers.

[1213]

Well there's the problem. Sure, you posted the event that allowed God to assign woman the subordinate role, but the OP asks why would God set it up that way? ...I'll just say that the obvious explanation is that it is a myth and of course written by men and thus puts woman just where man wants her to be - at the back with her head covered and silent until given permission to speak. And that makes it just one more reason to not credit a single page of the Bible as a reliable record.

Why do you ask, if you have already locked the "only possible" answer?

I don't have any good reason to believe your claim is correct.

But it is interesting to look at the Adam and Eve case. It looks like Eve was guided by the desire to get higher status and she didn't care about Adam at all, otherwise she would not have tried to make him also do the same mistake. So, it seems Eve was selfish, proud didn't care about God or anyone else. And Adam on the other hand was not interested to become powerful and higher in status. Adam ate because he wanted to please the woman. I think this is why Adam was made higher. It is always better, if the people who mostly desire power and high status are subordinate to those who love others and do good for others. In Biblical point of view, it goes like this:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

How often you hear women saying she wants to be a leader, because she wants to serve others? Mostly they seek power because they want to rule others and be admired. And that is not a good reason to give any power to the person. Men may also seek power, but their reason is often if not always to please some woman.

In any case, I think it would be best, if high positions would be given by the principle in Mat. 23:4-12. Worst leaders are always those who want the position the most. And better are those who don't want it, because they understand the position requires them to serve others more.