Incubators and Helpers.
Under the Guise of Spirituality - Part II: How religious doctrines are used to institutionalise and justify the subjugation and abuse of women.
... His sperm, his bloodline, his family, his name, his lineage. A woman is but a receptacle of the man’s precious, magical sperm. A mere incubator. A “helper”. A nothing.
There are a lot of men begetting other men in the Bible. A whole series of them. No woman is mentioned in that respect. No mother. No daughter. Lineages do not include them. The act of women birthing every single one of them is too insignificant to be mentioned. What matters is that “begetting” business. The inclusion of men where Nature has excluded them. Gaslighting all of us into thinking that life is about men. That what REALLY matters is fathers and sons.
From the perspective of religion, a man is the creator of life. Not the woman whose body pays the price from puberty. Who jeopardises her health, who carries the child for nine months, creates its bones and organs within her. Feeds it with her blood and her milk. Births it through her pain and then (who are we kidding?) raises it pretty much on her own, regardless of having a partner or not. No sir. What counts is the man’s one-second-long contribution. This is where the miracle resides! In that short-lived male orgasm of his. HE is the important one. His sperm, his bloodline, his family, his name, his lineage. A woman is but a receptacle of the man’s precious, magical sperm. A mere incubator. A “helper”. A nothing.
This is the reason behind the creation of patriarchal religions. And we get it. Why men needed to step in - and step on us. Why they couldn’t swallow the pill of their inadequacies and our power. Or allowing us to have choices when it comes to sex. Sex, for a woman, carries real, extraordinary and life changing consequences. Caution when it comes to it was (and is) a matter of survival, as well as a matter of autonomy. No wonder men - who have no control over their own bodies, hormones and horniness - had to come up with something complicated, violent and urgent to convince all of us that we owe it to them. The creation of religions that centred THEM as the creators of life, and as our “protectors” and therefore owners of our body (and rightful demanders of sex) through marriage solved all of it. (And offered us pageantry and “legitimacy” as a reward). It created a social construct that keeps a woman unnaturally tied to a man and all of his many needs. Dutifully disregarding her own needs - or any other woman’s.
In God’s eyes, she is told, her only redeeming quality is her surrender to men. And the birthing of sons. Daughters are insignificant according to priests and “Holy” men of any persuasion, as they are the carriers of “primordial sin”, the cause of the “Fall” of all mankind that justifies everything that will happen to them. Daughters carry Eve’s guilt and shame. They are tainted by association, you see. They are Satan’s mistresses, the great temptresses who use apples as their weapon of choice to fool innocent, pure men. But sons? Sons are the good offspring. The one that counts. The one addressed by God himself – who tellingly ignores His daughters. Sons are the infallible ones. (Unless women tempt them, that is. In which case it’s not really their fault. They are simply victims) Sons, unlike daughters, deserve lenience. Preparing them for a life of privilege and entitlement. Sons are the rightful vessels of legacies. The inheritors of properties. The carriers of names and bloodlines. The future leaders of all things. Because men are bigger. Physically stronger. That’s it basically: because they can hit a woman. Dominate her. Assault her. Rape her. Kill her. Because she is smaller. Not violent. Because it’s easy. Which must surely be a sign from God: a message from Him that it is their “right” to do all that!
Men are, for these God-prescribed reasons, owed gratitude, obedience, lenience, respect, fear, and, of course, sex. It’s all there in biblical texts and “Holy” Christian, Jewish and Muslim scriptures men have written as direct spokesmen of the God they have imagined: a male, woman-hating, angry Father God. Who creates the world without a woman. Who addresses His sons. Who always takes their side… It’s all there. It exists in all the religions that have institutionalised the subjugation and abuse of women for generations. In the words of Church fathers, apostles, prophets, Saints, great theologians, priests, pastors, muftis, rabbis: all patriarchal religions are centred around the evergreen theme of women’s inferiority, servitude and degradation. They are all in agreement that women ought to be stripped of their autonomy, treated as property by husbands and religious leaders, groomed - and if that fails, forced - to absolute obedience and sexual surrender.
“Women must serve men, just as men serve God.” Is the one true golden rule that all religious men respect. The one they accept wholeheartedly, as it centres THEM at the same time as it demeans women, putting them in their place: at men’s feet. And on top of that, making it clear that this business of theology, spirituality, divine communion, priesthood is a man’s domain. A woman’s duty is to serve her man. That’s it. End of story. She shouldn’t concern herself with too complex for her tiny little brain theological questions or bother the God/Father with her female nonsense. God can only be served by men; He only speaks to His sons after all. This should have tipped her off. All she has to do is serve them, shut up and be fucked.
Sadly, women are still being spoon-fed the same cruelties: about the necessity of adhering to traditional forms of femininity, about the costs for violating expectations attached to their sex, about having a deadline, about the importance of prioritising men and their sexual needs, about motherhood being a woman’s single greatest achievement, about never denying sex to husbands. This is why marriage – that prototype of Patriarchal rule - still survives. Why it is still celebrated as a woman’s greatest accomplishment. Regardless of whom she marries. (Any man will do, frankly. As long as she is not single, it will count as a female triumph! Because a man’s value is self-evident!) This is why the wedding day takes such monumental importance in a woman’s life: because it is used as a way of “honouring” her surrender. As a way of rewarding her for not resisting.
It’s a recipe that worked for thousands of years, which was created within the context of religions. (And was the reason why religions were created in the first place) The steps are clear and trusted. Such scenarios still have a hold on us, affecting generation after generation of women and men alike. They are replicated and reinforced even today by contemporary women and men in varying degrees: within religions and cults or outside them, everything that abases women becomes a compliment. Everything that takes away their agency becomes “protection”. Everything that destroys their sense of self becomes a “privilege”. Everything that causes them pain becomes their “duty”. Everything that causes humiliation becomes “sex-positivity”.
In cultures saturated by religion (like the US is these days) where performative piety can boost popularity and gain followers, where public prayers by politicians, athletes and celebrities, and their random offhand references to God and their “personal relationship with Jesus”, can earn votes and sell tickets, the links to Patriarchy appear to be as strong as ever. Prove once more how such things are related. Which is why the control of women’s reproductive rights and the open misogyny of politicians is not seen as that shocking as it would be in, say, Europe and the UK, for example, where 46% of the population identifies as atheists / religiously unaffiliated. (Nor would the selling of Bibles by the president ever be seen as a perfectly normal thing to do!)
If religion didn’t have such a hold on American culture, the misogyny of megachurches, the unspeakable sexism of cults, and the fast-disappearing separation between State and Church would not be so easily accepted and allowed to flourish. Within this context, American politicians talking about “under-babied” families and “cat ladies” who pose a danger to society simply because they are financially independent (and therefore owe no loyalty and servitude to men) seem perfectly acceptable to a large portion of the population.
And so is the resurgence of anti-feminism / anti-Votes for women narratives, “Men’s Rights” groups, rampant homophobia, panicking about the “male loneliness epidemic”, (which is another name for the scapegoating of single / childless women) , but not panicking about femicide, domestic violence, paedophilia, pornography and the rape culture.
Or the way incels, tradwives and the manosphere phenomena take up so much cultural space.
Or how the phenomenon of cheerleaders has actually survived to this day: the sexualisation of schoolgirls in skimpy outfits who are jumping up and down for the sole purpose of cheering big men from the sidelines (talk about symbolism…)
Or the “purity culture” that asks mostly teenage girls to sign “abstinence pledges” and offer them to their fathers (!).
Or the cruel anti-abortion laws that force the victims of rape or even little girls who were the victims of incest to give birth (even when it would literally kill their tiny bodies) and even grant parental rights to their rapist!
Or the forcing of women living in Abortion Ban states to face significantly greater risk of death during pregnancy and childbirth.
Or the fact that child marriage is still legally allowed in 33 US States!
Or indeed, the revelations about a large paedophilic sex cult that was created to enable the molesting of girls causing almost no impact and no urgency for retribution.
Or how many women these days - with no knowledge of history, (or sense of irony), no self-awareness or self-preservation - actually say: “I’m not really a feminist”)
Or how many young women think that prostitution is “empowering”, or at the very least, a job like any other. Instead of the last horrifying, violent stop in a life that has already been destroyed by molestation, incest and unspeakable horrors.
Or how gay men are using women’s bodies as surrogates, treating them with the arrogance, entitlement and dehumanising contempt of any other male woman-hater: as service providers. As pieces of meat. As pieces of machinery, in an assembly line that ought to manufacture what they need and meet the specificity of their “quality standards”.
Or how many women support the Trans movement, turning against those of us who are still clinging to reality. Not because it is an act of “kindness” as they claim, but because deep down they recognise that it is all about men’s sexual needs / fetishes. And they know better than to disrespect such all-important things.
Such phenomena would have no place in a society where organised religions were not as powerful as they are, where the extreme religiosity they inspire (and the misogyny and the prioritising of male needs and perspectives that come with it ) was not a reality. I’m not, of course, claiming that other places around the world have gotten rid of religiosity, misogyny and patriarchal rule. Only that the influence of organised religions has left a disproportionately large mark on contemporary American culture, and we all ought to be asking why it was allowed to happen.
What was the purpose? Who is benefiting? Who is losing?
This is a very complex issue, and one that certainly cannot be replied to or explained in just one article or comment.
I myself have Jewish roots from my mother side. They were expelled from Spain hundreds of years ago. I have studied the Torah and it is clear to me that the Torah, as well as other religions, were utilised as building blocks of stability to keep groups of people or tribes intact before the entire idea of the nuclear family was invented.
It definitely does keep men and women trapped in different roles (imagine even being a gay male/woman and forced to marry), and while unfair (I definitely agree that it is very unfair), was the way our ancestors tried to survive. As time went by, because people did not know much about science, men only had rights via their "might." This was definitely wrong too, and religion was definitely used as a means of control, not only over women, but other men.
This kept people poor, barely surviving, and dependent, just like today. Not only that, but when religion was removed from the equation, the "elites" as we call them, had to find another way to keep everyone barely surviving (the economy has been manipulated many times since then). But at the same time, look at women today.
While many of us are advancing, some are willingly choosing to remain entrapped in religion and want/desire men. I was raised in an almost cult-like religious upbringing, but I escaped from that on my own. I am the only woman (aside from my sister), who didn't have children either. But then I get very discouraged when I see how women behave today. Many of them lust over men, desire sex with men all the time, and want to have children. They talk about marriage all the time, and how "their man" is different. It disgusts me as well, how some women (the majority probably, not just some), still worship men as being some type of "god-like" figure.
It is indeed very tiring. I wish I could write more, but I don't want to write a long, cumbersome reply. Thanks for the thought-provoking article.
I think that is a critical part of the revolution and as you say, probably how it starts. But I want us to own the legislature, and the means of enforcement, the development and application of law, and the police and military. These institutions built by men protect men and harm women and children. So even as women do the hard grass roots stuff, change our lives, we remain vulnerable to male instutional power, and it rarely works in our best interests as of course you know. Globally, women and children make up something like 75% of trafficked peoples, for example. The Taliban can impose what they have in Afghanistan and our national sports organisations and politicians still engage with excuses and bullshit. I know you know this stuff, but until we own the legal levers, we are putting out local bushfire, while arsonists follow us with matches and petrol. The stuff you are describing is the critical groundwork required to prepare western women to change thier relationships with men, and each other, and for men to understand, as you say, just how much of their comfort and happiness has been built on unproven superiority. It is only their physical strength and their proximity to power that sustains it. But they have proven that they cannot willingly let go of their control. It must be taken. That's where I'm at. Not in a radicalised fashion. Like I said, I'm interested in a long- term plan to make it happen. The idea of writing a book about it is really just a way to explore the possibility in detail. Sorry for the long post!