Belgium outlaws the Burka.

[leviramsey]

And even if it is the case that the menfolk are forcing the women to wear the burqa, why does that then justify forcing the women to wear anything but the burqa?

And if it's a question of "Islam is murderous religion and they're all out to destroy us", then WTF does the burqa have to do with that? Will any Islamic extremists decide "Oh noes, we're not allowed to have our wives wearing the burqa! We've got to go back to wherever and not threaten the west!"?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think you are both misunderstanding me and misunderestimating this issue.

These men, on the whole, are the minority of Muslims. Thus they are and I have referred to them as sects.

This survey is old (2005) but it highlights the situation.

A survey by a university in Turkey has shown almost 40% support for the practice of "honour killing".

The results come days after a court in Istanbul gave a life sentence for the murder of a girl by her brothers for giving birth to a child out of wedlock.

Turkish law, which used to be lenient on "honour crimes", was heavily revised as part of the country's preparation for EU accession proceedings.

Turkey has started talks with the EU but is not expected to join for years.

The survey was conducted in the conservative south-eastern city of Diyarbakir.

Disfigured

It questioned 430 people, most of them men. When asked the appropriate punishment for a woman who has committed adultery, 37% replied she should be killed.

Twenty-five percent said that she deserved divorce, and 21% that her nose or ears should be cut off.

The survey group was small but the results are a reminder that "honour killing" - a practice where women are murdered for allegedly bringing shame on their family - still has significant support in parts of Turkey.

There are no reliable statistics on how many women die this way, but Turkey has made major strides fighting such violence.

Research panel

Since the penal code was reformed last summer a man can no longer claim he was provoked as his defence. That used to lead to light sentences.

But last Friday a court in Istanbul sent a man to prison for life for murdering his sister in her hospital bed.

He shot her for giving birth to a child outside marriage.

And there is evidence the authorities here are committed to taking the reforms further.

A commission has just been established in parliament to research the whole issue for the first time. Its 12 members are expected to report back in December.

This survey doesn't adress the question of clothing, granted, but it sheds a light on the scale of the situation regarding womens opression in one country. We don't know the full extent of honour killings, because the authorities lie about it. But trust me, it is a far greater problem than you or I could fathom.

Also, Levi i never suggested this is a question about Islam and I've never attempted to paint all Muslims with the same brush. Of course these men won't stop becoming fanatics and attacking the west simply because we ban these garments. Terrorism will be around long after you or I. I'm highlighting this issue specifically because it's come up in the news. I'd have the exact same stand point when it comes to opression of any one in any religon or society. They need to know where the line is drawn.

And Chindie, you are wrong. A full veil just isn't a 'step on' from conservative dressing worn by moderate muslims. These garments are attatched to a small, but significant, number of sects within Islam. I don't find anything wrong with women interpreting their faith as they see fit, but these sects don't allow the women a chance to interpret their faith.

If I ever come across a woman within these sects who has no influence, either from her family or her husband, and chooses to dress this way because she genuinely wants to, then I'll change my mind. I may be stubborn but I'm not a fool. But as I said, I have my reservations.

This issue goes deeper than whether or not it's ''right'' to allow people to wear these garments, and I think we all know it. Politically, I'm sure it's going along the same lines I've argued. It's less about allowing people to wear them, but more about sending a message.

It's also not a similar scenario to an abusive husband. Not at all. When family and religion gives a man a pedastal from which he can claim ownership over a woman, it takes on a whole new level. She can seek help, but like many women who try and leave that life behind they eventually get killed.

There was a documentary on C4 a long time ago, which went into detail about this (actually, I think it was based around the survey above...that was some time ago) and how the west misunderstimates the situation. There is a huge gulf between a moderate and conservative muslim, and a muslim belonging to these sects. It would be akin to a Catholic woman dressing conservatively because her faith says so, and a woman raped and beaten within small, isolated Christian cults. They are small in number, but they are there. And they need to know the line.

[leviramsey]

Right, but what does sending a message actually do?

Nothing.

If it's a problem than try actually **** doing something as opposed to sending a message.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It gives the women hope.

[Chindie]

I'm not wrong CED, you are, you're generalising to an insane degree, you ARE painting an awful lot of normal Muslim men and women as something little better than extremists, the normative notion of extremists.

I've met women who wear the veil of their own accord. Lots of people will have. In a previous debate on this The Rev mentioned similar to what I have - most do it because of an interpretation of their faith, and that is that.

I don't think I can make it much clearer. There are Muslim men who honour kill and force their wives to wear the veil, of course, that I've acknowledged. But is it that big of a problem, by which I mean is a widespread and common issue? Almost certainly not. Is the story of the majority of veil wearers a spouse forcing it on them? No. To think otherwise is fundamentally wrong, imo.

And the rhetoric that it is helps no-one.

[leviramsey]

Hope that we'll be better slavemasters than the extremist Muslims?

Some hope that is.

There are parties in this issue that view Muslim women as less than human: one of them is the Muslim extremists and one of them designs eyebrows.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

If you believe that I see muslim women as less than human then you are beyond reasoning, and in fact I believe you are blinded by your own 'libertarian' views, both of you, to realise the problem.

I don't give a **** about Britain, or France or even **** Belgium, they can sort their own houses out. If they want to ban it then so be **** it. At least it makes a point. Does it fall on deaf ears? Probably. Yeah it probably **** does. But as long as it helps one woman realise that she doesn't have to be a slave then it's done some good. If you can't see that then I feel sorry for you.

My issue is not 'is it right or wrong to wear a **** veil' and it's sad that you can't look beyond your own prejudices agaisnt whatever the **** it is, and see that it is not what I'm getting at.

There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of women (who are not in the majority, as i have said repeatedly but you seem to fail to pick up on that) outside the comfort zone of our own society. And we can do **** all to help them. Maybe, a few hundred years in the future there will be a real change within those societies. I hope the **** there is. But that's too late for the hundreds of women that will be murdered in cold blood, in the name of nothing but pride and jealousy.

Enjoy arguing over the morality of wearing a **** veil, but it really makes no difference to the people that **** matter.

[snowychap]

If I ever come across a woman within these sects who has no influence, either from her family or her husband, and chooses to dress this way because she genuinely wants to, then I'll change my mind.

Is that at all likely to happen? Do you spend much of your time moving around and through 'these sects'?

I think your comment is an attempt to paint your position as reasonable when it isn't.

But as long as it helps one woman realise that she doesn't have to be a slave then it's done some good.

By that reasoning, if it persecutes one person who isn't allowed to wear an item of clothing that they want to wear then it's done some bad.

[leviramsey]

If you believe that I see muslim women as less than human then you are beyond reasoning, and in fact I believe you are blinded by your own 'libertarian' views, both of you, to realise the problem.

Extremist Muslims, generally, in my experience, tend to justify the restrictions on the freedom of women to wear what they want by arguing that if the women didn't wear a burqa that they would be raped and thus the burqa is necessary for their own safety (ignoring the issues of widespread unpunished rape in and sanctioned by various conservative Muslim cultures and communities).

The likes of you, generally, in my experience, tend to justify the restrictions on the freedom of women to wear what they want by arguing that if the women did wear a burqa they'd be oppressed by the men in their lives and subject to honor killings etc. (ignoring that banning the burqa will in all probability have zero effect on honor killings etc.)

In either case, you view the women in question as unable to make free choices or fend for themselves, thus it's up to us privileged menfolk to make those choices and protect them.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Security is a genuine concern with the burka , let us not forget. Although this law was passed with a greater intention of sending out a message to the 'extremists' to use their term and less due to security concern , the threat still remains.

I do not know about you people but I find it quite hard to tell whether it is actually a woman inside that thing. There are tall women , short women , fat women. There are tall men , short men and fat men too. Which one of those is inside the whole garb , without the face being revealed, is an extremely difficult task at best and near impossible at worst. So if a potential bank robber walks in wearing a Burka and bulky black clothing, hiding a weapon inside , the security personnel have no means of verifying a potential threat.Many other scenarios come to mind where the burka can be abused by people with criminal intentions.

I also value personal freedom more than anything but you have to at least accept there is a genuine security issue. In an ideal world , we all could wear(or not wear) whatever we want, but idealism was never a practical philosophy.

[kidlewis]

The Burka itself is a sign of intolerance. Whether they like it or not, they don't want anyone else looking at them in public. Fine, don't go out in public then.

As WeedGrass says in an ideal world we should be allowed to wear what we like, hell why not allow people to wear balaclavas in the winter to keep themselves warm, or wear face scarves and hoodies when out and about?

I don't think it matters if it's a minority of people to force women to wear the burkha and treat them as humans beneath men, but I think it's enough to do something about it.

[JulieB]

As far as I am aware Islam does not teach that it's OK to treat a woman badly it is how some men have interpretated the Koran to use it

to what they perceive to be their advantage to control women.

Turkey is a case in point - you hardly ever see a woman in public at all - the ones I did meet were not wearing Muslim dress or covering their hair but they just didn't seem to be allowed out on the streets hardly at all, maybe it's different in Istanbul & places but certainly in Southern Turkey, the absence of women in public is quite striking.

Men don't need a particular code of dress to treat women as 2nd class citizens if that's what their society tolerates as acceptable. Might be wrong but that's how it is. In like manner women get abused in Western households without the matter of a particular dress being bought into the argument.

[kidlewis]

As far as I am aware Islam does not teach that it's OK to treat a woman badly it is how some men have interpretated the Koran to use it

to what they perceive to be their advantage to control women.

Turkey is a case in point - you hardly ever see a woman in public at all - the ones I did meet were not wearing Muslim dress or covering their hair but they just didn't seem to be allowed out on the streets hardly at all, maybe it's different in Istanbul & places but certainly in Southern Turkey, the absence of women in public is quite striking.

Men don't need a particular code of dress to treat women as 2nd class citizens if that's what their society tolerates as acceptable. Might be wrong but that's how it is. In like manner women get abused in Western households without the matter of a particular dress being bought into the argument.

but the burka IS a visual sign to many of that oppression, regardless of whether it is or not. It's just how western society views burkas, it's not going to change.

just as I doubt we will see pubs and night clubs cropping up in Saudi.

[snowychap]

there is a genuine security issue

The only 'genuine security threat' is that people exist.

[snowychap]

but the burka IS a visual sign to many of that oppression, regardless of whether it is or not. It's just how western society views burkas, it's not going to change.

So does the banning of it attack or deal with that oppression or does it just deal with the apparent visual sign (i.e. make it so that others don't have to put up with seeing it)?

Apart from the liberal argument put forward in the article Levi posted and the argument that Levi has put forward about replacing one apparent oppression with a statutory oppression, there is a practical argument that, rather than signalling society's disapproval of oppression, it signals society's acceptance of that oppression (just as long as its kept behind closed doors).

[Risso]

but the burka IS a visual sign to many of that oppression, regardless of whether it is or not. It's just how western society views burkas, it's not going to change.

So does the banning of it attack or deal with that oppression or does it just deal with the apparent visual sign (i.e. make it so that others don't have to put up with seeing it)?

Apart from the liberal argument put forward in the article Levi posted and the argument that Levi has put forward about replacing one apparent oppression with a statutory oppression, there is a practical argument that, rather than signalling society's disapproval of oppression, it signals society's acceptance of that oppression (just as long as its kept behind closed doors).

There are lots of things that you aren't allowed to do in public that are perfectly OK behind closed doors. Burkas are a hideous form of opression, and they should quite rightly be banned.

[snowychap]

...it signals society's acceptance of that oppression (just as long as its kept behind closed doors).

There are lots of things that you aren't allowed to do in public that are perfectly OK behind closed doors.

:?

What a thoroughly bizarre thing to say in response to what I wrote.

[Glarmorgan]

The whole debate of whether a woman can or cannot wear a specific cloth over her face is nice, but a bit naive. If you wish to ensure the freedom of the women in Muslim society, you should dig a bit deeper than what she's wearing. I agree that the Burqa represents a bigger idea, but I am quite positive that no other actions will taken to solve this situation.

There is a problem with women rights in the extreme Muslim society. Here in Israel we had numerous cases of brothers killing their sisters for dating someone and no matter how hard you'll try - you will not find Burqas here. This brought the entire system to try and get to the roots of this behavior and to try and change things from there. I am not sure how good this worked (as all I know comes from seeing the news), but this is the way to bring a change.

[Brumerican]

As far as I am aware Islam does not teach that it's OK to treat a woman badly it is how some men have interpretated the Koran to use it

to what they perceive to be their advantage to control women.

Turkey is a case in point - you hardly ever see a woman in public at all - the ones I did meet were not wearing Muslim dress or covering their hair but they just didn't seem to be allowed out on the streets hardly at all, maybe it's different in Istanbul & places but certainly in Southern Turkey, the absence of women in public is quite striking.

Men don't need a particular code of dress to treat women as 2nd class citizens if that's what their society tolerates as acceptable. Might be wrong but that's how it is. In like manner women get abused in Western households without the matter of a particular dress being bought into the argument.

All the Abrahamic religions are anti-women.

Women in the Bible

Author:

Voula Papas

The vast majority of people are bible illiterates. They only hear the palatable verses from the pulpit and blindly accept that the bible emanates goodness and is the word of God.

Any honest, thinking person reading through the bible cannot ignore the blatant misogyny and barbarity towards women. The eminent ‘men of God" who wrote the bible were the product of patriarchal, tribal, violent, intolerant, monotheistic society. They reflect the ignorance and brutality of that society and at the dawn of a new millennium, fundamentalists insist that we should all abide by biblical law.

It is no accident that from the very beginning the bible cements women's inferior status. In 1Timothy 2:11-15 we are told that women are not permitted to have authority over men and that they must be silent because Adam was formed first then Eve.

Consider this: when God created all the animals he made male and female together. Then he created Adam. Adam was alone in the Garden of Eden, so God puts Adam to sleep, extracts one of his ribs and out of that single rib creates Eve. Even before the fall woman is accorded inferior status by deliberately being created after Adam instead of being created together. Why would an all-knowing God create man first then woman, shouldn't he have known that Adam would need a partner?

Anyway, God places Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and permits them to eat the fruit from all the trees but one - the tree of "knowledge"! The serpent, a wise and knowing creature approached Eve and suggested that she eat from the forbidden tree. When Eve saw that the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it - it is no surprise that Abrahamic religions value ignorance as a virtue for women. Adam is exonerated from sin since it was the woman who led him astray.

Perhaps Adam would have been better off with an inflatable doll rather than a real, thinking woman!

Calvin declared: "Woman is more guilty than man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading to all perdition. It is necessary that woman recognize this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. This is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame."

Eve was punished severely for her attempt to gain knowledge, for disobedience and for exerting independence from her husband. I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing... Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16. In accordance with God's command, some fundamentalist sects forbid painkillers during childbirth.

Some years ago I had a heated discussion with a Greek Orthodox woman regarding the subject of women priests. She claimed that women should not and could not become priests because of their monthly unclean state - they would defile the altar. Her view summed up the biblical contempt for women's bodies and natural functions (also shared by Islam and Judaism) There are several verses in the bible that emphasise women's uncleanness.

"A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. She is to bring two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." Leviticus 12: 1-8

If a woman gives birth to a girl she is unclean for twice as long.

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. … If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days..." Leviticus 15:19-32.

"Man born of woman. Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!" Job 14:1-4

In some denominations women are still considered unclean during their menses. E.g. in the Greek Orthodox church women who have given birth attend church forty days after the birth to make amends for their uncleanness and be declared clean by the priest. Young women are still exhorted by their mothers and mothers in law to bow to this insulting and demeaning ritual.

The words whore and harlot are used frequently in the bible to describe women who deviated from the double standards sexual moral code. Women's bodies were not their own but the property of fathers and husbands. Virginity and chastity were mandatory for women and any woman breaking the double standard moral code was put to death. Under Mosaic Law men were permitted many wives while women were permitted only one and were subject to a test for unfaithfulness - Numbers 5:11-31. Men could divorce their wives on a whim - Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Women's main role was to bear male children and infertile women were scorned. In the bible it was always the women who were sterile, never the men.

"If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

Cultures, which demand virginity and chastity in women, have as their bedrock the double standard morality code. If men are encouraged to view women as depreciative chattels they will never regard them as human. And if women are not regarded as human, then all kinds of atrocities and injustices are permissible against them!

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

"women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..."1 Corinthians 14:34

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18

Polygamy still exists amongst fundamentalist Mormons and certain sects. A fundamentalist group in America instructs women to call their husbands MASTER and to practice the art of being a SLAVE. Various fundamentalists exhort wives to submit and obey and have embarked on a chastity crusade targeting young women.

Today the religious right still uses the bible as a manual for the enslavement of women and persecution of homosexuals. Not only is the bible infested with sexism, but violence and obscenity also abound. Under the guise of "family values", the religious right is fighting to reverse all the gains made by women: the right to own property, the right to tertiary education, the right to work, the right to childcare, the right to vote, the right to plan their families, the right to equal wages, the right to enter politics and above all the right to sexual autonomy.

In the Roman Catholic tradition the Virgin Mary is held up as a role model for women. She symbolizes female "virtues" such as obedience, submission, chastity and silence. In fervent Catholic countries, Catholic women are encouraged to emulate her.

In fact the more women submit and self-efface themselves the more they are praised for being "good" Christian women. The Roman Catholic Church glorifies one woman while it rubbishes all the rest.

The "glory" of motherhood is constantly drummed into women with the intent of preventing them from doing anything else. At the same time the bible emphasises women's uncleanness after childbirth, and states that we are all born sinful. Even Mary had to make a sin offering after the birth of Jesus.

Women should beware of campaigns to enshrine "God's Law" and "family values" into secular law. Whenever "family values" and "god's law" are mentioned, the little alarm bells inside my head start ringing loudly!

It is time women saw the bible for what it is: a man-made, primitive "revelation"! No woman with a shred of self-esteem would want to demean herself by bowing to such tyrannical and self-effacing absolutes. Every time a woman submits to such demotion she throws away her sell-worth. Women's self-worth is anathema to fundamentalists who accuse women of being selfish and ungiving.

Some Christian apologists claim that sexist biblical verses are a reflection of Hebrew society of that time and that Jesus Christ was a reformer who endeavoured to improve the status of women. They point to Proverbs 31:10-31 describing the virtues of a good wife - hard working, intelligent while implying that such women are so rare that their price is more than the price of rubies. On the other hand, fundamentalists invoke sexist verses in order to deny women their rights. In the US, Reconstructionists dream of doing away with the constitution and enforcing their own version of "God's law" based on the Old Testament. They advocate the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft, blasphemy, unchastity and sacrificing to "false gods".

Despite apologists' attempts to "white-wash" the bible with a litany of excuses, it does not change the fact that the bible is anti women.

I urge you not to take my word for it but to check it out yourself. Here are some more biblical "gems" to look up:

GENESIS

2:22 Eve created from Adam's rib.

3:16 Cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.

4:17 Cain marries sister?

4:19 Man marries two wives.

12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.

19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.

19:26 Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.

19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk. (So much for "family values"!)

20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife - again.

25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

EXODUS

20:17 Wife as property.

21:4 Wife and children belong to master.

21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex.

Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set "free" without payment of money.

22:18 Kill witches.

LEVITICUS

12:1 Childbirth a sin, Women unclean after childbirth.

15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.

20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.

21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.

21:9 Burn daughters.

21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not "used" woman.

NUMBERS

1:2 Census lists only men - women do not count.

5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.

30:1-16 Woman's vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.

31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.

CH 12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

DEUTERONOMY

20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.

22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.

22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.

22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim's father compensated for depreciation of his property.

25:11-12 Cut woman's hand for touching foe's penis.

24:1-5 Man can "send" wife from HIS house. Man must not marry "used" woman.

28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed - eclectic "pro-life" verse!

JUDGES

5:30 Women are spoils of war.

14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.

16:1 Samson visits prostitute.

CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.

21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.

21:21 Abducted girls for wives.

RUTH

Ruth shags Boaz.

1 SAMUEL

15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.

22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.

21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.

2 SAMUEL

5:13 David took many wives and concubines.

CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.

16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines.

6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.

1 KINGS

11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 KINGS

9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.

2 CHRONICLES

15:13 Put to death unbelievers.

11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.

ESTHER

CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting "bad" example to all other women.

PSALMS

51:5 Sinful since conception.

127:3 Sons are heritage from god.

137:9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.

PROVERBS

CH 5 Beware of wicked women!

CH 7 More of the above.

6:24 As above.

31:3 Do not waste strength on women.

ISAIAH

3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.

4:4 Filthy women.

13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.

19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)

EZEKIEL

9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.

CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity...

CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters - reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren't told this story at Sunday school!

HOSEA

13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another "pro-life" verse!)

NAHUM

3:4... wanton lust of a harlot... prostitution... witchcraft.

3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!

3:13... Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)

MATTHEW

5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?

CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.

LUKE

2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.

2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.

I CORINTHIANS

11:2-10... Woman created for man.

14:34 Women must be silent in churches.

EPHESIANS

5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.

COLOSSIANS

3:18 Wives submit to husbands.

3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.

I TIMOTHY

2:11-15 Woman must not have authority…she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.

5:9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints' feet.

1 PETER

2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even masters who are harsh.

3:1 Wives submit.

3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.

REVELATION

CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.

14:4...they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Oh no Brumerican, prepare yourself for a dissertation involving various contradicting quotes opposing your view that those religions are anti-women.

I think anti-women is the wrong term though, they still like the taste of the ladyfolk. But it's the old patriarchal ways of women being less than a man. When in fact the opposite is true, a woman is worth more than a man. But men are full of greed, of jealousy and of instabilty. They need women to submit to them because they need to feed their inner desire to be more than they actually are. They can't handle when a woman decides upon another man or decides to live her own life, but instead of reasoning and letting it go, they kill. If they don't submit to them then they don't submit to anyone.

Religion just gave them a ''justifiable'' reason to enslave women for thousands of years, no one can argue against that. And if they did they are foolish, or blind.

So aye, anti-women is probably the wrong term. They wanted power and this was (and still is) their means to attain it.