As I discovered when starting my research, this is a huge subject. I had to decide what aspects to emphasise, what to assume everyone knows already and what to leave out. I started by using the internet, looking at historical 'sacred' texts of the Feminist movement. Then I looked at many of the sites belonging to the more liberal sects of the major religions, mainly Christian and Jewish, who afford women equality in all aspects of their religion and I grant there are many of these. I looked at a lot of Islamic sites where religious apologists argue that the injustices against women practised in Islamic countries are not because of Islam itself but because of local tribal customs. And I was almost fooled. Then I read a new book: 'Does God Hate Women?' and everything fell into place. In the essay below I have dealt with the subject under ten separate headings.

 

Religions haven't always denigrated women. The Greeks and the Romans had as many goddesses as gods and they were equally important. The Greek goddess Gaea represented the Earth. She was worshipped as the universal mother who had created the universe and borne both the first race of gods, and the first humans.

 

In Celtic mythology goddesses often enjoyed a wider distribution than the male gods and appear to date from an earlier period. Particularly popular was the triad of mother or fertility goddesses.

 

Before Islam the Arabs had about 50 gods. Atthar (the Sun) was a female divinity. The goddess El-Ozza was also held in high honour among the Koreishites and was offered human sacrifices.

 

In Indian mythology Ushas was a goddess who symbolised the dawn. The hymns addressed to her are among the most beautiful in the Vedas.

 

The Hindus worshipped Lakshmi, the wife of Vishnu and epitome of feminine beauty. She was the goddess of fortune and prosperity, her traditional symbol being a lotus.

 

Among the Incas, children were trained from an early age for the role they were to play in life. Girls, unlike boys, had a chance to better their social position, and any who showed any particular beauty or talent were selected as 'chosen women' to serve in the temples of the sun.

 

In some of the older civilisations women had acquired great liberty. A form of society existed at an early age known as Matriarchy or Mother Rule. Women, not men ruled in the social, political and religious scheme. The child bore its mother's name, tracing its descent from her. The father played no part in the family and remained a wanderer.

 

Long years elapsed before man as a husband and father, was held in esteem. The son, as child of his mother outranked the father. Blood relationship through a common mother preceded that of descent through a father in the development of society.

 

The Amazons were a nation of all female warriors in Classical and Greek mythology. They probably came from the area of modern Ukraine, Asia Minor or Libya. In some versions of the myth no men were permitted to have sexual intercourse with them or to reside in Amazon country.

 

But once a year, in order to prevent their race from dying out they visited a neighbouring tribe. Male children who resulted from this 'visit' were either killed, sent back to their fathers or abandoned in the wilderness. The females were kept and brought up by their mothers, trained in agricultural pursuits, hunting and the art of war.

 

Man's subjection to woman preceded by long ages that of woman to man.

 

There are a number of historical texts which modern-day feminists consider 'sacred' but I'm going to refer in detail only to those texts which deal specifically with women and religion.

 

One such text is the remarkable book by Matilda Joslyn Gage called 'Woman, Church & State' published in 1893. This was one of the first books to draw the conclusion that Christianity is a primary impediment to the progress of women as well as civilisation. She said that religious doctrine at that time was being used as a justification for the de-humanising of women, depriving them of civil, human, economic and political rights; perpetuating the archetype of the ideal woman as mother, wife and homemaker. She argued that inequality of women was a relic from the past when 'might was right' and saw this inequality as a hindrance to human development since half the human race were unable to contribute to society outside the home.

 

I am now going to quote at length from Matilda.

 

'The Patriarchate, under which biblical history and Judaism commenced, was a rule of men whose lives and religion were based upon passions of the grossest kind, showing but few indications of softness or refinement. Monogamous family life did not exist, but a polygamy whose primal object was the formation of a clan possessing hereditary chiefs ruling aristocratically. To this end the dominion of man over woman and the birth of many children was requisite... Not until the Patriarchate, were wives regarded as property, the sale of daughters a legitimate means of family income, or their destruction at birth looked upon as a justifiable act. … The theory of a male, supreme god in the interests of force and authority, wars, family discord, the sacrifice of children to appease the wrath of an offended male deity, are all due to the patriarchate.' She cites the stories of Abraham and Isaac and of Jeptha and his daughter as typical of the patriarchate's low regard for life and for women.

 

She continues, 'The double-sexed word Jehovah, too sacred to be spoken by the Jews, signified the masculine-feminine god. Lanci, one of the great orientalists says 'Jehovah should be read from left to right and pronounced Ho-Hi; that is to say He-She. Ho-Hi therefore denotes the male and female principles.'

 

Still quoting from Matilda ... with 'The Christianity of the ages, teaching the existence of a superior and inferior sex, possessing different rights under the law and in church, it has been easy to bring man and woman under accountability to different codes of morals. For this double code the church is largely indebted to the subtle and acute Paul, who saw in the new religion but an enlarged Judaism that should give prominence to Abraham and his seed from whom Christ claimed descent. His conversion did not remove his old Jewish contempt for woman as shown in his Temple service, the law forbidding her entrance beyond the outer court. Nor could he divest himself of the spirit of the old morning prayer which daily led each Jew to thank god that he was not born a heathen, a slave, or a woman.'

 

Matilda tells us that Paul also brought into the new dispensation of the Christian church 'the influence of the old ceremonial law which regarded woman as unclean. The Jewish custom of banning a woman who had just given birth to a son for 40 days from even the outer court of the sanctuary and of twice that period, or 80 days, if a daughter had been born, was terminated in both religions by a sin-offering in expiation of the mother's crime for having, at the peril of her own, brought another human being into life. This Old Testament teaching degraded the life-giving principle exemplified in motherhood, and in a twofold way lessened the nation's regard for womanhood. First, through the sin-offering and purification demanded of the mother; second by its doubling the period of exclusion from the temple in case a girl was given to the world.'

 

In Leviticus ch. 15 it states that discharge of any sort from either a man or a woman is considered unclean. It seems a little unfair to equate discharges such as weeping sores with the natural discharge of menstruation, but there you are! So, of a menstruating woman, Leviticus says 'Everything she touches and everyone she touches becomes unclean'. The Jews did used to be a bit obsessed with cleanliness but nowadays only ultra-orthodox Jews take this extreme view. Some Muslim sects still ban menstruating women from saying their daily prayers and from fasting, and some even make them stay apart in a special place for the duration. It seems to me that sometimes religious hang-ups can work in women's favour. Why complain about a practice which gives you a bit of a rest once a month? And hopefully a bit of synchronised menstruation will mean that the other womenfolk you live closely with will be under the same restrictions so you'll have a bit of company.

 

Another aspect of the way in which association with women has been considered somehow 'unclean' is the Roman Catholic emphasis on celibacy. Catholic priests were allowed to marry until in the 12^th century Pope Innocent the Second completely banned them from marrying, partly for financial reasons to do with inheritance. The result was that many innocent women and children endured great hardship and suffering. Wives were forced to desert their husbands, and if they resisted they were termed harlots and their children bastards. They were regarded as under the direct control of Satan himself as beings who iniquitously stood between their husbands and heaven.

 

Gradually Canon Law gained full control over Civil Law .The Church had always maintained that divorce was sinful but it had been allowed by civil law. Now it was banned. Woman was entirely at the mercy of men, the canon law maintaining that the confession of a guilty woman could not be received in evidence against her accomplice although it held good against herself, and the punishment due to both was made to fall on the woman alone.

 

Through the practice of hearing confession 'the priesthood gained possession of all family, social and political secrets, thus acquiring information whose power for evil was unlimited. The most debasing influences fell on the woman, who through fear of eternal damnation made known her most secret thoughts to the confessor, an unmarried and frequently youthful man. It soon became a source of very great corruption to both priest and woman. ... With the conviction of woman's supreme wickedness increased through the formal recognition of celibacy as a dogma of the church, with the establishment of auricular confession, and the denial of the Bible to the laity, the persecution of women for witchcraft took on a new phase.'

 

I read much more about the corruption and the debauchery that went on in the Catholic church, and how it was hushed up and condoned. For me it put into perspective the behaviour of some of those priests in Ireland at this very time being sought and prosecuted for crimes against children in their care.

 

In a more light-hearted vein, I found these stories from Oceanic mythology about the origins of the different sexes. In the creation myth of the Palace Islands the first man was created by the god and the first woman by the goddess, and they formed the primeval couple. According to the legends of the Banks Islands, the first man was moulded in clay and the first woman woven in basketwork. And among some Queensland tribes man was made from stone and woman from boxwood.

 

Another author of a modern day feminist 'sacred' text writes about the creation stories in Genesis and how the one more advantageous to preserving the status quo was given centre stage. The Woman's Bible by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a revising committee, which was published in 1898, was one of the first attempts by a woman to evaluate the Judeo-Christian legacy and its impact on women through history. Stanton concluded that 'the Bible in its teachings degrades women from Genesis to Revelation'. However, she did find much to admire in the Bible, particularly some of the Old Testament women.

 

She points to the fact that the Creation story in Genesis is actually two different contradictory stories.

In Genesis ch.1 v27 and v28 it states that god created man and woman at the same time and both had dominion over everything equally.

'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And god blessed them and God said unto them 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'

 

But in Gen ch.2 v21-23 we find the traditional story of woman being created after man, almost as an afterthought because Adam was lonely. In ch.3 v16 the woman is cursed for eating the forbidden fruit.

 

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee'.

 

Stanton thinks that the second story was manipulated by some Jew in an attempt to give 'heavenly authority for requiring a woman to obey the man she married’.

 

Stanton also points out the Jews' use of the terms 'the sons of god' to refer to men and 'the daughters of men' to refer to women. She cites this as evidence that the Jews believed males the superior sex.

 

During her examination of the New Testament she says that the doctrine of the virgin birth as something higher, sweeter, nobler than ordinary motherhood is a slur on all the natural motherhood of the world.. She said 'Out of this doctrine... have sprung all the monasteries and nunneries of the world which have disgraced and distorted and demoralised manhood and womanhood for a thousand years.'

 

I would now like to mention a unique Christian group called the Shakers. They fled persecution in England, arriving in America in the 18^th century. They believed that their founder, a woman called Ann Lee, was the second coming of Christ. They believed that god had both male and female aspects, and practised equality of men and women at all levels in their organisation. They were one of the first churches in America to integrate their congregations, involving Blacks and Native Americans from the very start. If you think all this sounds too good to be true, you're right. They practised celibacy, not procreating children themselves. Instead they adopted or converted children who, at the age of 21 were free to go or stay. The Shaker movement went into a long decline during the 20^th century.

 

I will now move on to the subject of Women and Religion in modern times and will be referring to 'Does God Hate Women?' However, before that I would like to mention an article in the New Statesman in 2008. It reported that according to official figures 17,000 women in Britain are subjected to 'honour' related kidnapping, sexual assault, beatings and murder every year. And the crime is not limited to older, first-generation immigrants. Parents are passing on customs they brought with them to their children. The article states that 'honour killings are a direct result of forced marriage and have nothing to do with Islam. For many Muslims Islamic ideals are subservient to tribal custom. Among certain tribes in Asia 'honour' is associated with women. Izzat, as honour is called in Urdu is quite literally located on the female body. Thus women have to be guarded, protected and passed on to another member of the tribe. A woman dishonours her family and tribe if her body is violated, even by force.

 

I expect some of you saw an article at the weekend on the Guardian website entitled 'Turkish girl,16, buried alive for talking to boys'.

 

'Does God Hate Women?' by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom was published last year and is a very powerful and well-researched book. The first chapter, 'A God of bullies' is a harrowing catalogue of cruelty and injustice towards women some of which is still going on. They cite real examples such as young women in Pakistan being buried alive for attempting to marry men of their own choosing. They talk about Pakistan's Hudood Ordinance, introduced by General Zia ul Haq in 1979 as part of his programme of Islamisation. Under this ordinance a woman making an accusation of rape had to provide four Muslim men of good standing as witnesses to the crime. If she failed to do this she would be charged with zina, for which the prescribed punishment was flogging or stoning. 'Zina' is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other, irrespective of whether one or both are married to someone else. Although such punishments were never actually carried out in Pakistan, thousands of women were imprisoned as a result of unsuccessful charges of rape. The result was that rape could be committed with impunity in Pakistan. In spite of strong opposition from religious groups, Musharraf's government passed the Protection of Women Bill in Dec. 2006. The bill placed rape laws under the penal code and did away with the four male witnesses etc. Religious groups held protests throughout the country when the bill was passed.

 

They talk also about the 'Modesty Police' in Jerusalem, a group of ultra-orthodox young men who have declared a crusade against violations of Halachic Law and what it views as 'unchaste' behaviour, using intimidation and violence. In Jerusalem in 2008 a young divorced woman was beaten up by some of these young men for having been seen in the company of married men. In 2006 a woman was beaten by men on a Jerusalem bus who demanded that she move to the back of the bus where women traditionally sit. When she replied 'No, this is not a synagogue. I am not going to sit at the back', several men assaulted her.

 

They talk about how widows in India are faced with both destitution and social abandonment. They are considered bad luck or inauspicious as well as a financial burden. In traditional Hindu society a widowed woman is expected either to commit suicide or to go into an ashram or religious hermitage, to live alone for the rest of her life. Sati, i.e. when a woman is burned to ashes on her dead husband's pyre, is illegal in modern India, as it is 'glorification', but widows still undergo ritual humiliations after their husbands die. The widow is stripped of her bridal ornaments, her head is shaved by a barber, and she puts on a plain white sari so that she will not 'arouse' other men. The sindoor, the red smear that a married woman wears at her hairline, is exchanged for a vertical ash smear from the top of her forehead to the top of her nose. Her presence is considered so inauspicious, that even her shadow may not fall on a married woman.

 

They cite more examples of real cases of forced marriages, many involving very young girls forced to marry much older men. They discuss the problem of fistula, which is incontinence, often brought on by young girls in forced marriages giving birth too soon after puberty.

 

In Ch. 2 'Religious Apologetics, Islam and caricature', they counter the arguments of those religious people who argue that misogyny is not an inherent part of their religion but simply a matter of the customs and traditions of a place. They cite the work of Karen Armstrong, a one-time Catholic nun. She argues that Mohammed's original message included a commitment to the emancipation of women. But this book argues that you have to consider the fact that Mohammed's favourite wife Aisha was only 9 years old when she was 'betrothed' to Mohammed and that the marriage was consummated once she reached puberty. He also had a concubine called Mariyah who had a child by him. Religious apologists claim that all this behaviour was normal at that time and can't be used to criticise modern day Islam. However, Mohammed is meant to be considered exemplary. Armstrong herself says, 'Muslims seek to imitate Muhammad in their daily lives in order to approximate as closely as possible to this perfection.... The sunnah taught Muslims to imitate the way Muhammad spoke, ate, loved, washed and worshipped...'

 

Armstrong is very quiet about Islam's treatment of the question of male sexual access to females. Mohammed is cited in the Ahadith as denying that a wife has the right to refuse her husband's sexual advances. This is echoed in the Koran, which contains the following verse, 'Women are your fields, so go into your fields when you please'.

 

Benson and Stangroom claim that Mohammed's marriage to Aisha is very important for understanding modern Islam in that the practice of child marriage is widespread in the Islamic world. Islam is not necessarily the cause of this but is a factor.

 

In this book there is much discussion about FGM (female genital mutilation) and its tribal origins. There are those who argue that FGM has nothing to do with religion but this book points out that 'it is absurd to think that a practice so bound up in symbolism, myth and ritual, one that is explicitly part of a discourse of purity, virtue and virginity and that is prevalent almost exclusively in societies notable for high levels of religiosity, might somehow be hermetically sealed off from the influence of religion'.

 

I can't hope to do justice here to all the arguments in this book and suggest you read it. But I am going to finish by quoting some of the closing words in the final chapter 'Lipstick on a pig'.

 

'This is the trap of religion. Religion doesn't necessarily originate ideas about female subordination and male authority, but it does justify them; it does lend them a penumbra of righteousness, and it does make them 'sacred' and thus a matter for outrage if anyone disputes them. It does turn reformers and challengers into enemies of god.'

 

'Religion in the hands of the literalist defenders of God's putative will, is in the business of dressing up what would otherwise obviously be tired old prejudices and hatreds and plain exploitation, and making them seem vaguely respectable. Religion is the whited sepulchre, the warthog in a party dress, the dictator in a pink uniform plastered with medals, the executioner in white tie and tails....

 

It is possible to imagine a god who is a friend to the despised and downtrodden, a lover of fairness and equality and hope, a champion of rights and of our better natures. But that's not the god we have. It's a contingent fact but it is a fact that the God we have in the big three monotheisms is a god who originated in a period when male superiority was absolutely taken for granted. This god could have changed as human ideas about male superiority and female inferiority changed- and to some extent and in some sects, this god has changed- but on the whole, and especially in the more conservative religions it hasn't.

 

The rigid god may be secretly kind and sympathetic in the victims' hearts.... but in terms of the rules and laws and expectations, that god holds women in contempt. And that god, unfortunately is the one who puts his imprimatur on all those tyrannical laws. That is the god who makes cruelty holy and sacred and pious. That is the god who looks on approvingly when young girls are married off and raped, when women are whipped for showing a little hair, when men throw stones at a crying teenage girl until she's dead. That god is a product of history, but taken to be eternal, which is a bad combination.'

 

In conclusion, it is my opinion that many women in the world still endure extreme inequality with men. The hopelessness of their situation is compounded by the fact that entrenched patriarchy, inherited tribal custom, and religious beliefs about the inferiority of women, all work together to maintain the status quo, sometimes attempting to dissociate themselves from each other in order to shift the blame when criticised.