3rd August 2012

“When we talk about religious fundamentalists being anti-women, they are not anti-women as such; they are anti women's autonomy and control of their own sexuality and in favour of patriarchal heterosexuality.”

Ayesha Imam

9 Responses to “3rd August 2012”

  1. R J Says:

    sounds pretty anti-women to me

  2. R J Says:

    sounds pretty anti-women to me

  3. archaeopteryx Says:

    They want women to be puppets.

  4. TIGERLILY Says:

    Are there any mono theistic religions that are not misogynist?

  5. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Being a woman hater is counter to my orientation, but then so is being a believer in the supernatural.

    When I examine my orientation to life, I simply can’t find any space to hate women and/or believe in the supernatural.

    Rather, I find an appeal in the concept of Mother Nature. That love has nothing to do with Jesus or any other man, love naturally originates in the relationship between Mother and child.

    That man, and men in general, would not know love if not for women.

    The idea that love would originate with man, or a male god, has to do with a fundamental fear, an inadequacy, it is egotistical.

    Religious men are supplanting reason with faith to deny that love is a women’s gift to the life experience, not god’s. They can’t face facts. They can’t admit that the act of “loving”, the supreme human expression, is not a product of men. Men learn to love, they learn it from women. Men will always be second to women on life’s supreme expression and that’s OK.

    We don’t have to create fantasy stories about supermen that create everything, have sons to inferior human women that are in fact themselves, or any other mindless simpleton garbage.

    We should just appreciate women and nature.

  6. Jeff Says:


    Well thought out, but, having set your foot squarely in the middle of the eternal battle, you’ve managed to come out with your shoes smelling of excrement.

    While conceding the moral high ground to the distaff side of the fight might be an excellent genetic strategy in these modern times, by branding yourself a S.N.A.G. (sensitive New-Age guy) you have created a situation in which you might well get the opportunity to spread your genetic material widely, but have no ground to stand upon should you follow the male biological imperative and do so. Far better to accept the fact that romantic love is a female contribution to the human mythos, primarily in furtherance of their biological needs in the reproductive area within a male dominated society.

    BTW, I REALLY appreciate women, but I still have to look at the sociological and biological evidence.

  7. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    More mommas boy than SNAGer but if the shoe fits…

    Thanx Jeff!

  8. Kittie Aldakkour Says:

    Maybe love is just a fortunate but necessary by-product of the evolutionary process? When my first was born, I was expecting and waiting for that undescribable love romantically written about and depicted in the movies/tv… didn’t happen. Lots of hormonal stuff going on when manufacturing a human – long story short – I got there, but it wasn’t instantaneous. Now, having learned all this with the first one – when my son was born, the love process was much shorter.
    I think Paul had serious issues with women and that should be the subject of some critical study on christianity.

  9. The Heretic Says:

    Paul was a misogynist. Unfortunately, that perversion was sewn into the Bible. Nothing like a good holy read where men are in charge and influenced by a misogynist. I do believe the world would have done better had the Goddess been left in charge.