Is Abrahamism inherently sexist?
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)17:55:31 | 20 comments | 3 images
This isn't a shitpost, this isn't a flame-bait, this is a genuine question. If you look at society before and after the large-scale spread of Abrahamic belief, you notice a few peculiarities, in the West specifically. Before Abrahamism's wide-spread influence, you had people who largely worshipped a multitude of deities, many of which were female, you had female sexuality and sensuality being openly celebrated and expressed, or at least a lot more openly than post-Abrahamism.
In the Old Testament, you have a direct order from god to destroy one of the most prominent female goddesses statues, Deuteronomy 12:3: "Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire". This constitutes one of the few, rare circumstances in which the name of another deity is explicitly given. You also have other quotes such as:
Genesis 3:16: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in the family unit.
1 Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in general public society.
Numbers 27:8-11, and similar laws in Sharia regarding male heirs receiving double the share of female heirs, clearly demonstrating an economic model that favors males.
1 Corinthians 11:6: "If a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off." - Clearly demonstrates more overt denigration and subjugation of the female image.
Meanwhile, if we look outside of that, women in Babylonian society, under Hammurabi’s Code, could own property, engage in business, and initiate divorce. In Sparta, women controlled wealth and managed households while men focused on military affairs. In Mesopotamian cultures, sacred prostitution was tied to religious rites, and in Celtic societies, women could choose partners more freely.
What do you think?
In the Old Testament, you have a direct order from god to destroy one of the most prominent female goddesses statues, Deuteronomy 12:3: "Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire". This constitutes one of the few, rare circumstances in which the name of another deity is explicitly given. You also have other quotes such as:
Genesis 3:16: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in the family unit.
1 Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in general public society.
Numbers 27:8-11, and similar laws in Sharia regarding male heirs receiving double the share of female heirs, clearly demonstrating an economic model that favors males.
1 Corinthians 11:6: "If a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off." - Clearly demonstrates more overt denigration and subjugation of the female image.
Meanwhile, if we look outside of that, women in Babylonian society, under Hammurabi’s Code, could own property, engage in business, and initiate divorce. In Sparta, women controlled wealth and managed households while men focused on military affairs. In Mesopotamian cultures, sacred prostitution was tied to religious rites, and in Celtic societies, women could choose partners more freely.
What do you think?
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)17:59:10 No.17450955
>>17450947
The whole deal with Abrahamism is to be a vehicle for sexism. That's why you see a ton of tradcat incels; they aren't actually into God. They just wanna control women and have their little rapeslave fantasy.
The whole deal with Abrahamism is to be a vehicle for sexism. That's why you see a ton of tradcat incels; they aren't actually into God. They just wanna control women and have their little rapeslave fantasy.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:17:17 No.17450999
>>17450955
I wouldn't call it rapeslave fantasy, but I would definitely call it maledom fantasy.
I wouldn't call it rapeslave fantasy, but I would definitely call it maledom fantasy.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:22:12 No.17451011
You realise that the Attic Greeks and Mesopotamians tended to lock their women in the house, veil them in public, never let them near public office and so on and so on.
>but Temple Prostitution!!
LOL.
>but Temple Prostitution!!
LOL.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:26:51 No.17451022
>>17451011
Locking them in the house and veiling them in public was mostly exclusively held to the nobility class, and even then, it was nowhere near as strict as Sharia laws dictate. Women of the lower classes all worked outside and were not subject to the societal restrictions those women were. Women, even in Attic Greek society, also could act as priestesses, and participated in religious ceremonies.
As for Mesopotamians, women in Mesopotamia could own property, run businesses, and enter into contracts. Women like Enheduanna, a high priestess and the world’s first known author, demonstrate that women could hold positions of power and cultural influence in Mesopotamian society.
In short, get fucked loser, lmao.
Locking them in the house and veiling them in public was mostly exclusively held to the nobility class, and even then, it was nowhere near as strict as Sharia laws dictate. Women of the lower classes all worked outside and were not subject to the societal restrictions those women were. Women, even in Attic Greek society, also could act as priestesses, and participated in religious ceremonies.
As for Mesopotamians, women in Mesopotamia could own property, run businesses, and enter into contracts. Women like Enheduanna, a high priestess and the world’s first known author, demonstrate that women could hold positions of power and cultural influence in Mesopotamian society.
In short, get fucked loser, lmao.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:30:35 No.17451034
>>17450947
>you had people who largely worshipped a multitude of deities, many of which were female,
Female deity worship did not translate to a more feminist or egalitarian society.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/07/06/why-did-the-patriarchal-greeks-and-romans-worship-such-powerful-goddesses/
>you had female sexuality and sensuality being openly celebrated and expressed,
Objectively false, women were property and their sexuality belong to their fathers and husbands. I'd ask what exactly do you have in mind when you say "expressed" and "celebrated", because ancient pagan men sure as fuck didn't want their women whoring around freely.
>Genesis 3:16: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in the family unit.
Pagan familial structures were also patriarchal, what do you think modern feminists have been bitching about?
> Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in general public society.
Same with pagan societies.
>Meanwhile, if we look outside of that, women in Babylonian society, under Hammurabi’s Code, could own property, engage in business, and initiate divorce.
Women in Christian societies could do the same, except for divorce, which men also couldn't do.
>In Sparta, women controlled wealth and managed households while men focused on military affairs.
We see the same in Christian Europe.
>In Mesopotamian cultures, sacred prostitution was tied to religious rites
I don't think you've looked up what sacred prostitution actually entailed, once a girl grew to a certain age, she was brought into the temple and forced to prostitute herself until one man came and had sex with her, at which point she could leave. Hardly feminist.
>you had people who largely worshipped a multitude of deities, many of which were female,
Female deity worship did not translate to a more feminist or egalitarian society.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2
>you had female sexuality and sensuality being openly celebrated and expressed,
Objectively false, women were property and their sexuality belong to their fathers and husbands. I'd ask what exactly do you have in mind when you say "expressed" and "celebrated", because ancient pagan men sure as fuck didn't want their women whoring around freely.
>Genesis 3:16: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in the family unit.
Pagan familial structures were also patriarchal, what do you think modern feminists have been bitching about?
> Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - This clearly demonstrates an overt patriarchal structure in general public society.
Same with pagan societies.
>Meanwhile, if we look outside of that, women in Babylonian society, under Hammurabi’s Code, could own property, engage in business, and initiate divorce.
Women in Christian societies could do the same, except for divorce, which men also couldn't do.
>In Sparta, women controlled wealth and managed households while men focused on military affairs.
We see the same in Christian Europe.
>In Mesopotamian cultures, sacred prostitution was tied to religious rites
I don't think you've looked up what sacred prostitution actually entailed, once a girl grew to a certain age, she was brought into the temple and forced to prostitute herself until one man came and had sex with her, at which point she could leave. Hardly feminist.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:31:36 No.17451038
>>17450947
>>17451034
Anyway, here are two videos explaining how Christianity grew in the Roman Empire due to Roman pagan men being too misogynistic to reproduce with their women, and even when they had children, if the baby was a girl it was seen as perfectly fine to kill her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKuyDCgrmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0kMoqsr7w
>>17451034
Anyway, here are two videos explaining how Christianity grew in the Roman Empire due to Roman pagan men being too misogynistic to reproduce with their women, and even when they had children, if the baby was a girl it was seen as perfectly fine to kill her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:44:50 No.17451065
>>17451034
>female deity worship
The presence of female deities often reflected a recognition of women’s roles in key societal functions like fertility, nature, and creation. While not directly translating to egalitarianism, these societies often granted women more respect and autonomy compared to societies with exclusively male gods.
>women were property, and their sexuality belonged to their fathers and husbands
WRONG. Already shown above. Under Hammurabi's code, you are just patently, laughably, stupidly wrong. Jesus you're dense. Same with ancient Egypt, and even Rome to variable degrees. In Norse society, women had MUCH more sexual freedom, with virtually no stigma attached to pre-marital sex and divorce being relatively easy to achieve.
>Pagan familial structures were also patriarchal, what do you think modern feminists have been bitching about?
Less-so than Abrahamic familial structures. This can be objectively seen, and there is zero disputing it.
>Same with pagan societies.
Wrong, women held positions of religious influence in dozens, hundreds of societies and cultures in non-Abrahamic society, along with the ability to own and run businesses.
>Women in Christian societies could do the same, except for divorce, which men also couldn't do.
This is largely to do with Roman legal rights being pertained shortly after the fall of Rome. Gradually, over time, those rights began to evaporate as Feudalism took hold and became the dominant economic structure.
>We see the same in Christian Europe.
While women in Christian Europe did manage households and could sometimes control wealth, the degree of economic power and societal autonomy enjoyed by Spartan women far exceeded that of women in most Christian European societies. Around 40% of all land in Sparta was controlled by women. That is a far cry from the level we saw under Christian Europe, and is just one example.
>>17451038
>proceeds to cite a blog and the laughably retarded "Based Camp" vlog
Yikes, lmao.
>female deity worship
The presence of female deities often reflected a recognition of women’s roles in key societal functions like fertility, nature, and creation. While not directly translating to egalitarianism, these societies often granted women more respect and autonomy compared to societies with exclusively male gods.
>women were property, and their sexuality belonged to their fathers and husbands
WRONG. Already shown above. Under Hammurabi's code, you are just patently, laughably, stupidly wrong. Jesus you're dense. Same with ancient Egypt, and even Rome to variable degrees. In Norse society, women had MUCH more sexual freedom, with virtually no stigma attached to pre-marital sex and divorce being relatively easy to achieve.
>Pagan familial structures were also patriarchal, what do you think modern feminists have been bitching about?
Less-so than Abrahamic familial structures. This can be objectively seen, and there is zero disputing it.
>Same with pagan societies.
Wrong, women held positions of religious influence in dozens, hundreds of societies and cultures in non-Abrahamic society, along with the ability to own and run businesses.
>Women in Christian societies could do the same, except for divorce, which men also couldn't do.
This is largely to do with Roman legal rights being pertained shortly after the fall of Rome. Gradually, over time, those rights began to evaporate as Feudalism took hold and became the dominant economic structure.
>We see the same in Christian Europe.
While women in Christian Europe did manage households and could sometimes control wealth, the degree of economic power and societal autonomy enjoyed by Spartan women far exceeded that of women in most Christian European societies. Around 40% of all land in Sparta was controlled by women. That is a far cry from the level we saw under Christian Europe, and is just one example.
>>17451038
>proceeds to cite a blog and the laughably retarded "Based Camp" vlog
Yikes, lmao.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:53:22 No.17451084
>>17451065
>While not directly translating to egalitarianism, these societies often granted women more respect and autonomy compared to societies with exclusively male gods.
I don't know of a single society that worshipped exclusively male gods.
>Under Hammurabi's code-
Not every pagan society was ruled by the fucking Hammurabi code, you fucking retard.
>Less-so than Abrahamic familial structures.
How? Husbands were as much the property of their wives as wives were the property of their husbands, and their bodies belonged to each other, also neither men nor women could unilaterally choose to divorce, and female babies could not be killed. Roman pagans would recoil at these ideas.
>Wrong, women held positions of religious influence in dozens, hundreds of societies and cultures in non-Abrahamic society, along with the ability to own and run businesses.
Which was also true of Abrahamic societies.
>While women in Christian Europe did manage households and could sometimes control wealth, the degree of economic power and societal autonomy enjoyed by Spartan women far exceeded that of women in most Christian European societies.
Source? And what about the rest of the pagan world? Did they all have the same rights as in Sparta, according to you?
>That is a far cry from the level we saw under Christian Europe, and is just one example.
It's quite weird to compare a single city-state to an entire continent, don't you think?
>While not directly translating to egalitarianism, these societies often granted women more respect and autonomy compared to societies with exclusively male gods.
I don't know of a single society that worshipped exclusively male gods.
>Under Hammurabi's code-
Not every pagan society was ruled by the fucking Hammurabi code, you fucking retard.
>Less-so than Abrahamic familial structures.
How? Husbands were as much the property of their wives as wives were the property of their husbands, and their bodies belonged to each other, also neither men nor women could unilaterally choose to divorce, and female babies could not be killed. Roman pagans would recoil at these ideas.
>Wrong, women held positions of religious influence in dozens, hundreds of societies and cultures in non-Abrahamic society, along with the ability to own and run businesses.
Which was also true of Abrahamic societies.
>While women in Christian Europe did manage households and could sometimes control wealth, the degree of economic power and societal autonomy enjoyed by Spartan women far exceeded that of women in most Christian European societies.
Source? And what about the rest of the pagan world? Did they all have the same rights as in Sparta, according to you?
>That is a far cry from the level we saw under Christian Europe, and is just one example.
It's quite weird to compare a single city-state to an entire continent, don't you think?
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:54:22 No.17451087
>>17451065
>>proceeds to cite a blog and the laughably retarded "Based Camp" vlog
It's two more sources than the ones you've cited so far, which are zero.
>>proceeds to cite a blog and the laughably retarded "Based Camp" vlog
It's two more sources than the ones you've cited so far, which are zero.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:04:06 No.17451097
>>17451087
>two more sources than the ones you've cited
Amateur sources do not count as legitimate citations, so you have just as many as me, which is zero.
>>17451084
>I don't know of a single society that worshipped exclusively male gods.
Abrahamism, retard.
>Not every pagan society was ruled by the fucking Hammurabi code, you fucking retard.
So you have no rebuttal against it? Good to know.
>How? Husbands were as much the property of their wives as wives were the property of their husbands, and their bodies belonged to each other, also neither men nor women could unilaterally choose to divorce, and female babies could not be killed. Roman pagans would recoil at these ideas.
BAAHAHAHAHA
1 Corinthians 7:4 - "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."
The idea that husbands were "as much the property of their wives" is ahistorical. In Christian societies influenced by Roman and Germanic law, wives were often legally subordinated to their husbands, for instance, the legal doctrine of coverture in medieval and early modern Europe treated a married woman’s legal identity as subsumed under her husband’s. She couldn’t independently own property, sign contracts, or initiate lawsuits without her husband’s consent.
>Which was also true of Abrahamic societies.
Women's duties under Judaism is primarily confined to keeping the sabbath and maintaining religious rituals in the home. That was it. Women could not achieve any sort of priest-hood, same with Christianity and Islam. There are some protestant organizations which did away with this, but they are in the minority, and that is relatively recent, as in, within the last few decades.
>source?
https://www.chs.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/women_property_hodkinson.pdf
Page 3, at the bottom, under the citations, attributed to Aristotle.
>two more sources than the ones you've cited
Amateur sources do not count as legitimate citations, so you have just as many as me, which is zero.
>>17451084
>I don't know of a single society that worshipped exclusively male gods.
Abrahamism, retard.
>Not every pagan society was ruled by the fucking Hammurabi code, you fucking retard.
So you have no rebuttal against it? Good to know.
>How? Husbands were as much the property of their wives as wives were the property of their husbands, and their bodies belonged to each other, also neither men nor women could unilaterally choose to divorce, and female babies could not be killed. Roman pagans would recoil at these ideas.
BAAHAHAHAHA
1 Corinthians 7:4 - "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."
The idea that husbands were "as much the property of their wives" is ahistorical. In Christian societies influenced by Roman and Germanic law, wives were often legally subordinated to their husbands, for instance, the legal doctrine of coverture in medieval and early modern Europe treated a married woman’s legal identity as subsumed under her husband’s. She couldn’t independently own property, sign contracts, or initiate lawsuits without her husband’s consent.
>Which was also true of Abrahamic societies.
Women's duties under Judaism is primarily confined to keeping the sabbath and maintaining religious rituals in the home. That was it. Women could not achieve any sort of priest-hood, same with Christianity and Islam. There are some protestant organizations which did away with this, but they are in the minority, and that is relatively recent, as in, within the last few decades.
>source?
https://www.chs.harvard.edu/wp-cont
Page 3, at the bottom, under the citations, attributed to Aristotle.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:07:46 No.17451106
>>17451011
Well Abrahamism emerged out of the Mediterranean. These are Mediterranean religions. European (which is polytheistic) and Asian (which is animistic) religions have never been as strict or dehumanizing towards women.
Well Abrahamism emerged out of the Mediterranean. These are Mediterranean religions. European (which is polytheistic) and Asian (which is animistic) religions have never been as strict or dehumanizing towards women.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:11:14 No.17451120
>>17451097
>Abrahamism, retard.
Abrahamic religions only believe in one God and God is beyond gender.
>Amateur sources
One of them is a scholar currently working in his PhD.
>The idea that husbands were "as much the property of their wives" is ahistorical.
>The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1 Corinthians 7:3-4
> She couldn’t independently own property, sign contracts, or initiate lawsuits without her husband’s consent.
I thought you just said that women could do all of those things in pagan societies. Make up your fucking mind, will you?
>Women's duties under Judaism-
We're not talking exclusively about Judaism.
>attributed to Aristotle
So wrong then, got it.
>Abrahamism, retard.
Abrahamic religions only believe in one God and God is beyond gender.
>Amateur sources
One of them is a scholar currently working in his PhD.
>The idea that husbands were "as much the property of their wives" is ahistorical.
>The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1 Corinthians 7:3-4
> She couldn’t independently own property, sign contracts, or initiate lawsuits without her husband’s consent.
I thought you just said that women could do all of those things in pagan societies. Make up your fucking mind, will you?
>Women's duties under Judaism-
We're not talking exclusively about Judaism.
>attributed to Aristotle
So wrong then, got it.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:14:33 No.17451131
>>17450947
>niqab prevent proper oxygenation of the brain
>you inherit intelligence from your mother
Many things are explained by these two facts.
>niqab prevent proper oxygenation of the brain
>you inherit intelligence from your mother
Many things are explained by these two facts.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:16:46 No.17451134
>>17450947
I wanna marry her
I wanna marry her
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:30:52 No.17451162
>>17451120
>Abrahamic religions only believe in one God and God is beyond gender.
God is referred to as "The father" and he made man "in his own image", but sure, whatever coping excuses you need.
>One of them is a scholar currently working in his PhD.
A scholar of what? Either way, the idea that they "outbred" pagans is largely unfounded, and that video actually makes several claims which challenge that claim itself, and it's more of a discussion, not a thesis. Overall it's more realistic and probable that they out-converted pagans, along with other minor factors such stopping the abandonment of children (leaving babies/children in the wild), and making abortion unacceptable, as in Rome it was largely not even considered, as women used Ecballium elaterium, Pennyroyal, and Silphium as abortifacients.
>I thought you just said that women could do all of those things in pagan societies. Make up your fucking mind, will you?
Can you not fucking read? I literally just said it was "ahistorical" and provided you with the context on why that is, using the bible quote in contrast with the practiced law of the period.
>We're not talking exclusively about Judaism.
Which is why I also mentioned Islam and Christianity, dipshit.
>So wrong then, got it.
Ah, so you're butthurt and arbitrarily dismissed it with zero claim, despite scholars and historians agreeing that Aristotle's estimates were accurate? Nice scholarly response there, asshat.
>Abrahamic religions only believe in one God and God is beyond gender.
God is referred to as "The father" and he made man "in his own image", but sure, whatever coping excuses you need.
>One of them is a scholar currently working in his PhD.
A scholar of what? Either way, the idea that they "outbred" pagans is largely unfounded, and that video actually makes several claims which challenge that claim itself, and it's more of a discussion, not a thesis. Overall it's more realistic and probable that they out-converted pagans, along with other minor factors such stopping the abandonment of children (leaving babies/children in the wild), and making abortion unacceptable, as in Rome it was largely not even considered, as women used Ecballium elaterium, Pennyroyal, and Silphium as abortifacients.
>I thought you just said that women could do all of those things in pagan societies. Make up your fucking mind, will you?
Can you not fucking read? I literally just said it was "ahistorical" and provided you with the context on why that is, using the bible quote in contrast with the practiced law of the period.
>We're not talking exclusively about Judaism.
Which is why I also mentioned Islam and Christianity, dipshit.
>So wrong then, got it.
Ah, so you're butthurt and arbitrarily dismissed it with zero claim, despite scholars and historians agreeing that Aristotle's estimates were accurate? Nice scholarly response there, asshat.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:34:36 No.17451168
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:37:30 No.17451172
The reason why Middle Eastern men don't love their women? Because their women don't love them. It's that simple. European women loved their men because their men were fairer. You need to let the other be free and have its viewpoint if he or she is to fall in love.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:38:37 No.17451173
>>17451162
>and he made man "in his own image"
So was woman.
>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27
But I guess God is intersex or whatever.
>A scholar of what?
Classical studies
>Can you not fucking read? I literally just said it was "ahistorical" and provided you with the context on why that is
You said that women in pagan societies had rights, then you said women in Chirstian socieites had less rights, and then you said that they had less rights because Christians took it from the Romans and Greeks.
>Which is why I also mentioned Islam and Christianity
Not here:
>Women's duties under Judaism is primarily confined to keeping the sabbath and maintaining religious rituals in the home
>and he made man "in his own image"
So was woman.
>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27
But I guess God is intersex or whatever.
>A scholar of what?
Classical studies
>Can you not fucking read? I literally just said it was "ahistorical" and provided you with the context on why that is
You said that women in pagan societies had rights, then you said women in Chirstian socieites had less rights, and then you said that they had less rights because Christians took it from the Romans and Greeks.
>Which is why I also mentioned Islam and Christianity
Not here:
>Women's duties under Judaism is primarily confined to keeping the sabbath and maintaining religious rituals in the home
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:42:52 No.17451178
>>17451173
>>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
It specifically doesn't say she was created in the image of God.
>>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
It specifically doesn't say she was created in the image of God.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:53:40 No.17451201
>>17450955
What's so sexist about Judaism?
>>17451011
Damn, so muslims were ass backwards even in the 7th century? LOL
What's so sexist about Judaism?
>>17451011
Damn, so muslims were ass backwards even in the 7th century? LOL