I realized these musings long ago. Interestingly enough, the only religion (if you can call it that) I can think of where women were considered the intellectual elite, was Celtic Druidism. That's until the Romans got through with them.

http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/

You go, Roger!! Tellin' it like it is.

This is a brave article. It's a shame more opinion makers do not attack the entrenched patriarchalism in our societies. If we could shift the discourse towards acceptance of greater equality, life would be immeasurably improved.

I've only been reading your blog for a few months but today I will stop reading you. I've loved your movie reviews and have fond memories of watching you and Gene with my dad when I was a kid. I had no idea you were an anti-Catholic bigot. The Catholic Church honours and respects women with deep admiration. I know this as a Catholic woman, a convert even. Today's objectifying, feminist society has totally destroyed any respect women have in the secular world. Good-bye.

Ebert: I tried my best to stay with facts. I will correct any errors you bring to my attention. I am far from anti-Catholic.

Excellent insights, Roger.

I remember my time in an evangelical 'non-denominational' church north of Brisbane, Australia. Sexuality is a powerful tool of control, both over men and women.

In the environment I spent my later teenage years in, 'marriage' was dressed up as a highly aspiring goal, an end game, for everyone, but particularly for women - the breeders of the group. It was only during my university years, highly sexualised in itself, that I cynically observed that the boom in marriages in people aged younger than 25 was down to hormones getting active in a religiously institutionalised system.

No marriage? No sex. The solution: get married, and get married quick.

I'm sure there may be a paralel situation in America, too. The 'devaluing of marriage' is more often than not happening within the institution itself, more than what Hollywood, homosexuals and feminists can throw at it.

As a woman, and a mother of two girls, I have been taught that I am capable of anything. And I teach that to my kids.

What I am hoping that I don't have to teach them, and what they won't have to learn, is how hard it is as a woman to do anything that I want to do, in a world where men still hold far too many of the cards.

Dear Roger, you really dropped the ball on this one.For example, most of us DO NOT know that Thomas was "the most beloved disciple," it was John, as is commonly asserted.Also, the Gospel of Philip was NOT found in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated BEFORE Christ, which then couldn't have included any "gospels" about Jesus. You are referring to the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which are another thing altogether (come on, altogether now, "which are another thing", in the spirit of the late Leslie Nielson).And for what it's worth, most scholars date the Gospel of Philip to the 3rd century, which makes for fine reading if future generations want to gain a first hand account on the life of Ebert, in which they deliberately choose a biography not published in 2010, but the year 2200.

Ebert: You are quite correct, and I have made some changes. Mea culpa.

Yes, men are bigger, stronger, and can kick the shit out of women, so they have the power. But, as you mention, there is always this notion of women as inherently "tempting", which suggests that they are sexually desired by men. The need for men to cover women's bodies, to keep them out of power and dominate them actually suggests that it is women who have power over men because men are eternally tempted, weakened, and made vulnerable by the female body and female sexuality. To counteract that, men need to be in control. Of course, this is far more complex, especially when it comes to gender, masculinity, "womb envy", male subjectivity and the female lack, the problem of female desire, etc., etc.
These ideas do, perhaps, seem to be born out of Eden, and Eve as causing Adam to be tempted, which causes the fall of man and so on. Some of these ideas, particularly witch burnings and misogyny in 16th century France, are dealt with in von Trier's Antichrist. The more I think about the film and dig deeper, the more I see religion, especially the Bible as being the originator of patriarchy, and our views on women. So it's not surprising that Hitchens asked that question about women and religion, and Blair couldn't really answer it.

Great post, Roger.

Roger,

Great post. However, I must disagree with your comment that "Indeed, if we study other primates we see that their cultures are also male-dominant, and presumably they've not arrived at this state after careful discussion."

Our closest primate cousins, the Bonobos, live in egalitarian societies and groups that more resemble a matriarchy (those this may be a misnomer, as bonobo society is not female dominated in the same manner that homo-sapient society is male dominated) where males and females have multiple sexual partners both for enjoyment and procreation and all bear equal responsibility for rearing children and providing food and protection.

Patriarchy most likely developed alongside agriculture, which Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) called "a mistake we have never been able to reverse" (I'm paraphrasing). With the advent of personal property, paternity became an issue for the first time and it is around this time that men asserted their dominance, presumably due to their physical superiority as you suggest. It is not coincidental that the advent of agriculture and patriarchy goes hand in hand with the development of the priestly class.

A very interesting essay. This inherent misogyny that seems to run through so much of life on Earth is one of the many reasons why I gave up religion altogether. One of my favorite movie quotations is the statement made by Chairman Mao in Kundun, where he says, "Religion is poison." Of course, Mao is the villain of that film so I may have to reconsider my allegiance to his belief. It seems kind of perverse.

Not all religions do consider women inferior, although admittedly the one that doesn't in most variants I'm familiar with — Wicca — is not what one would call mainstream, and in many instances developed precisely as a response to that...

Roger,

YES, Yes, yes!!!

In doing research for a paper recently, I quickly discovered (to an extent I had not realized before, even though I was raised Southern Baptist) that women make quick work of themselves.

When women have been convinced that strength comes from submission, there is little need for men to protect their status quo. So many women (especially the religious right) willingly hand over their equitable future.

Alana

Excellent post Roger. It covers one of the primary reasons I no longer am involved with religious practice, with the other being the blatant hypocrisy I became aware of as I grew up. Spiritual questions are still quite intriguing, and I have enjoyed your occasional raising of them. The ending question is the primary question of our age, and for everyone, not just those persuaded to follow one religion or another.

I have a small objection to your claim that in Islam, women must cover themselves because they are an affront to God. Actually, it's somewhat the opposite. The veil is protection from the lust and disrespect of weak men. It's that disrespect, and not anything inherent in women, that is the affront to God.
Mainstream Islamic thought has since its inception treated the woman and her body as "haram"--literally a "sanctuary" or "holy site." A woman's body is sacred and inviolable. God is not offended by them, but pleased. During the Hajj, the sacred pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, women not allowed to cover their faces. Every pilgrim enjoys absolute equality before God.
Of course, the reality of Islamic tradition's implementation throughout the world is much more grim, given the brutality of regimes like the Taliban. But that tends to be much more about the culture and politics of the region than basic tenets of the religion. The fundamental attitude toward women, the relationship between women and God, in Islamic tradition is vastly different than in Christian tradition. There is simply nowhere near the level of bald misogyny and gynophobia in the sacred texts of the former that pervade those of the latter.

Thank you for broaching the misunderstood subject of God's will towards women.
It is important to understand that the Word of God was subjected to the interpretation of monarchies that would twist scripture for their own political gain.Feudal Lords did everything they could to make believers labor and toil only to bequeath their every belonging to the Church in order to save their souls and their families.
Make no mistake. The Church belongs to God and our job is to wrestle it away from these creeps and take it back for the Lord.
How shall we do so? Love God above all else, Love our neighbor, and find the truth of the scriptures in the ancient writings.

I've gotten to thinking that there are as many religions in this world as there are human beings ... All variations on a theme ...

I've come to agnosticism, not only in religious matters, but in so many others ... No less a luminary than Mark Twain admitted that he was quite pleased to respond with "I don't know" when he really didn't know about something ...

I left organized religion about 27 years ago; I think one of the 'last straws' was when I caught my parish priest staring at my chest, rather than looking into my eyes, while we were (supposedly) in conversation ...

Through a dear friend who once was a "good Catholic" and has since left the institution and its dogma, I learned to revere the person of Jesus and his example of character --without the religious dross. I find much beauty in the readings and rituals of many traditions now ... and I suppose that if I was hard pressed to answer the question, "What is your religion?" I would respond like the Dalai Lama has: "My religion is kindness."

Thank you, Roger
:-)

"The irrational fear men have of women is one of the most tragic and evil things that has come about in all of human development. We will be a great species only when we can eliminate that fear."

---L'Ennemi

It always irks me to see people assent o HItchens et al's assumption that "religion" is a static unchanging unchangable thing, or even particular religions as static, unchanging, etc. Why have many (though not all, just the ones that Hitchens is aware of and mad about) considered women inferior? Because we've been bound in patriarchal societies, that's why. There's no reason religion has to remain patriarchal. The Quakers embraced gender equality long before the rest of the European world. That some or even many religions do insist on remaining patriarchal is their right, and our right to have nothing to do with them if we so choose.

I come from an orthodox Dutch Calvanist church in South Africa, which arguably has some dated views on many subjects. Despite being labelled the 'fuddy duddies' of the Dutch Calvanist enclaves our denomination has always been less dismissive of women to the point of contention. Arguably, there are some people in our denomination who hold views similar to those expressed above, but our church never espoused such levels of misogynist blather officially and has always fought against it. Paradoxically it held that while women were under men it was not because they were on some level evil, inferior and bad, but were equal.

Regarding Genesis (which few theologians in our church take as literal these days) the stance our church theology was that the whole thing with the Tree of Good and Evil was not the fault of Eve but of Adam (for various theological reasons) and that Christ was a second, better Adam because he did not succumb to the temptation of the devil like Adam and Eve did. Also, as you pointed out, the women in the Gospels were arguably better people than his disciples.

When I see "An affront to the eyes of God" I feel angry because it strikes me as a ridiculous stance to take, not just as a human being but as a Christian, and I feel most people I know would agree. It pains me that something so archaic (probably brought over from the Roman Empire, where woman few rights) could have lasted so long in modern culture.

Mr. Ebert,

Thanks for your interesting post. I agree that much misogyny exists in religion, but I have to take a minute to dispute your claim that "God has never wanted to look at women." This is just not true.

The Bible is full of stories where women are the central heros. It was women who first discovered the empty tomb. Jesus had a close relationship with not just Mary Magdalene, but also Lazarus' sisters Mary and Martha.

In the Old Testament heros are made of Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi, Esther, Rahab (a prostitute), Deborah and Jael (in Judges 4) and others. The fact that some of these women are included in the genealogy of Jesus would be very radical for the time. There is also an entire book (Song of Songs) that expounds on the beauty of sexual relation between a man and woman. The imagry in that book might not sound very explicit in today's language, but for the time it was.

Any misogyny present in historical or modern day Christianity is not because of any teachings or examples found in the original scriptures, but rahter is because of human misinterpretation of these scriptures and societal norms where as you say, "Men like it this way".

Thanks,
Miles

I would like to clarify that Wicca is one sect of what is more broadly known as Paganism. A friend's mother is missing my birthday party Saturday night because they're ordaining a new priestess in their circle. I find this, honestly, more reasonable than that her daughter is missing the party to go to Hanukkah with another friend's family, given that said daughter is not actually Jewish.

I was, as a child, an altar server at Saint Elizabeth's Church in Altadena, California. American Catholics have girls doing that, probably because there's only so many boys willing to do it these days and they want two for every mass. (We had something like seven of them for every Sunday, if you included 5:30 on Saturday evening, which was actually using the Sunday texts.) The late John Paul II was adamantly opposed to it, but I went to church every Sunday for years, went into the sacristy, and put the white alb and rope belt on. Even when it was Father Marty, who frankly terrified me.

I still didn't feel equal to the boys.

After all, there was Father Marty, the pastor. There were various other priests. There was the jolly Franciscan friar, Father Chris, who did the eight AM mass I usually served. And there were women doing the readings and holding the chalices at Communion. And Sister Dayleen, our plainclothes nun. And all those women were subservient even to Father Bernie, who was retired and vaguely senile. (Nice, but vaguely senile.) And I knew, knew, that if they had more boys, they wouldn't want girls in the job. I knew the Pope didn't want me there anyway. Oh, it could have been worse. I can name several sects where it would have been much worse. It still wasn't good.

I have read, incidentally, that the reason Marian devotion is as important to Catholicism as it is stems from all those people the Church was trying to convert who couldn't understand a religion with no female divinity. Mary isn't divine, but she did fill a gap in those people's minds which could only be filled by a sacred mother. Is this true? I don't know; I don't have a time machine. But based on a comparison of the Abrahamic religions versus what I know of European and Middle Eastern mythology outside those faiths, it certainly does make sense.

This is one of those pieces that indicates more about the mindset of the author than the target.

WWLND
(What would Leslie Nielson do?)

The flat-out (and somewhat suspect) misogyny of the medieval Catholic church--and which is not often allowed to be questioned, updated, or rewritten, by law, for the last 600 years--wasn't the main complaint of the Protestant Reformation against Catholic dogma, but boyyyy, we're aware of it.
(It's also refreshing to read a Catholic who's read enough to already KNOW Maggie wasn't a prostitute, and can extrapolate from there, even if he thinks he's the first on the planet to have found that out.)
For the record, some of the higher Protestants, like NE Lutherans, have no qualms whatsoever about women pastors in the church. You could ask my mom, for a start. :)

"Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?"

(Umm...Next time somebody quibbles about what "Begging the question" really means in a logical argument, [points] THAT'S it. Somebody's jumping to conclusions in a pair of Air Jordans.)

Religions don't think girls have cooties, religions where a select bunch of male humans in the back room have their own treehouse No Girlz Allowd club DO:
Wouldn't say it's "fear" so much as perpetual misunderstanding--as Shaw musically put it, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?"--as interpreted by those in unquestioned power who think they've got keys to the national political constitution: Some of the Muslim anti-female rhetoric would embarrass an Adam Sandler comedy for high-school neuroses...And when the medieval Church writers bring out "Eve's legacy is a hotbed of sexual lust", somebody's got a few personal issues that would give John Hughes or Tim Burton a run for their money.
The great dictatorships of Germany and France didn't exactly have "equal" feminism on their agendas either: Not so much for the fact that women, with more social viewpoints, tend to be the first activists--or even the obvious closet-gay or dumped-by-the-cheerleader sexual-frustration demons--but just that they don't like dealing with the Last Chaotic Element in the plan. Women always forgetting their purse as you're rushing out the door ain't nothing compared to women spoiling the Five Year Plan by never wanting to do what you had in mind for them.

REAL religion (sorry you didn't get the right one ;) )teaches us that being human itself is the major problem, and one that a bit of understanding, enlightenment, and following higher ideals and a little understanding can overcome. If you're not still bogged down in messy details, that is.

Nicola honey, you should look up some of those videos in which muslim women wearing a niqab, chadris and burqas go on about how it empowers them.

You seem like the type, have you considered alternative religions? They offer much more medieval packages for today's religious woman who simply can't handle all the benefits and freedoms of modern society.

Pfff, who needs her right Roger?

Off-topic query, Roger: How does one go about becoming one of your Foreign Correspondents?

Ebert: I invite them, but we're all filled up right now.

In my opinion...

Religion is all about control and uses a combination of fear and dangling carrots to achieve it. And akin to asking someone to the kiss the hand that beats you, it was created by self-serving men who set about establishing a system of control which they then enforced with sheer brute strength.

ALL Religions have had armies. Those armies consisted of men. Brains at the top, brute strength at the bottom. And women and children caught in the middle for thousands of years and told to suck it up or go to Hell.

Religion is not God. Religion is the devil dangling a carrot called heaven

Morality can be learned by simply observing the better part of nature and for possessing a brain sufficient in empathy to decern it. In nature, all the animals share the forest. They only kill to eat. Sometimes males can kill other males when competeting for mates - but that's often because - and DUH! - they're more muscle than brain. Ie: you don't see the Canadian goose, who mates for life, killing other geese in order to secure a date with Miss Goose. But the young male Sea Lion in his lust to mate, has been known to rape an out-of-season female or kill young pups out of sheer, sexual frustration at being denied access to the harem - The Trials of Life: Sir David Attenborough's series.

And here's the thing: if you have a brain, you get to PICK which animal you want to be. There's no law that says if you're a man, you have to be a selfish a$$hole. YOU get to choose; the Goose or the Sea Lion. Whereas Religion has always adopted the position that the God who made Nature didn't make it "good enough" to teach humans anything. No; that's Religion's job.

A self-made position. A male position. One lacking empathy and compassion. One blinded by ignorance and fear and hypocrisy.

Whenever I walk in the woods near my apartment, I study how things work. Some creatures are nicer than others. And the ones making life miserable for the little guy, often end up dead by the side of the road. Life does not reward the solitary predator. BUT...geese...both mummy and daddy are there helping their goslings find food and teaching them how to stalk Marie Haws and harrass her for bird seed and stuff; smile. And they return each spring to the same pond and do it all over again.

I believe in God because I've seen him, and he's not perfect - he makes mistakes (women get a period and men don't) but over all he's good chap. True, he invented spiders, but he also made kittens; so there you go. And if you focus on the nice stuff and see how well it works when you work together, if you observe what allows a garden to grow and thrive - if you use your brain instead of blind faith...you too can be Roger Ebert.

A man known to admire cleavage without grabbing it in public. A man known to read Playboy and likely dream about Loretta Young (smile) and feel whatever, but being a man aware of the opposite sex doesn't make him less of a human being or put him at risk of losing his soul.

And it's because he uses his BRAIN. Which isn't located in his pants.

He's a Canadian goose.

Not a sea Lion.

And it's not Religion he has to thank for that.

It's an education and the company of women. Which Religion only has contempt for - and I base that on how much time and effort has gone into the Church spreading ignorance in the wake of science. EX: Africa. AIDS. Don't use a condom. It might encourage people to have the sex they're already having.

I was raised Roman Catholic but I didn't find God until I met him in a garden. I saw the cycle of life and death - and it filled me with sorrow and empathy and and pity for all things tiny and smaller than myself. Nature has a way of engaging you directly and without fanfare. You come upon the carcass of a dead salmon or baby bird. And it inspires you to be kind - so as to distance yourself from the cruelty you've seen by way of not repeating it.

Unless you're a brainless animal, that is. And literally unable to learn from what you see or be inspired by it. And if so, why on earth should we let THAT run anything?

Let alone tell us what God is.

In my opinion, Religion is only good for Santa and the Easter Bunny and stuff like that.

The 'temptation' aspect has always implied to me that women are at felt when they are sexually assaulted.

Catholicism inherently places women as inferior to men by not allowing them to hold the same top ranking positions as men. I don't think there is a review for the documentary 'Deliver Us from Evil' on your site, about pedophilia perpetrated by Catholic priests, but one of its revealing moments shows victims convinced (by evidence) that pedophilia against girls is somehow more natural than that against boys.

Many Muslims will regard the sexes as equal, and I should hope so too. However, where I live, there is a growing trend for young Muslim women to voluntarily begin covering their heads. I've tried discussing much of this with women who have made this choice and one answer I got was, 'God created women as lesser beings to men'.

First of all, excuse my english. I'm a chilean fan that admires your career on film criticism and that just discovered this fun, interesting blog.

My two cents: This problem has nothing to do with God or religion itself. You are a intelligent person. You now that the Bible was written by humans and there wasn't a single word written with divine inspiration. It was just a reflection of the times. Horrid times.

The machismo (and, in some cases, even misogyny) that we can find in the Bible is next to child abuse, homophobia, pedophilia, genocides, torture and justification of slavery, to name a few. Of course these behaviors are now considered aberrant to say the least because our minds have evolved rapidly and we are not longer the savage idiots we once were. Just take a look to the "window to the past" that is called Saudi Arabia and you will know what i mean.

The good thing is, times are changing in most of the world, and our visions and concepts are too, regardless of what the holy books have to say. Just compare the jealous torturing machine of the Old Testament named "God", and the loving, caring father that does miracles and heals everyone (except amputees, of course) that is in the current christian minds. The same is happening to dozens of concepts, including women.

The bad thing is, time seems to stand still in some countries and they keep worshiping books written in darker times by darker men, in a literal way.

So, don't throw this problem to the catholics, Roger. Save them for a pedo-priests entry in the future. You know this is mainly an Islam issue and you should address it properly.

BTW, I always though you were and Atheist/Agnostic (being the Darwin fan that you are and such an intelligent individual) but now i have my doubts (because of your catholic background). Can i keep assuming it or i am sadly mistaken?

Ebert: My blog entry, "How I believe in God:"

http://j.mp/d7svGC

Hi Roger,

I don't think you're anti-Catholic and I am grateful that there is some sort of dialogue (reflective, genuinely probing) out there in the secular mainstream. It -is- a miracle the Hitchens-Blair debate occurred.

As a Catholic woman, though, I can't say that I agree with your post. I can't tell you why in a blog comment, but, as for the facts, Vincent was right to point that out about the gospel of Philip - I don't know whether you've ever looked into this, but interestingly a lot of 'lost gospels' appeared around the same time (including, interestingly, the gospel of Peter which is subtly in divergence on some key points with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). They tended to support some of the divergent arguments (heresies, you might say) early Christians had to resolve.

If I wanted anyone to read any book about womanhood it would be by Orthodox Jew Wendy Shalit, who doesn't mention God once but completely nails it. It's an incredible study of American (and Western) culture and the place of women.

Mea grandissima culpa! Wendy Shalit's must-read book is "A Return to Modesty".

Well written. I don't trust any religion that treats men and women differently. That doesn't leave a lot!

In my viewpoint this discrimination against women has much to do with the social aspects of religion than the spiritual, and as such those following the religion must be courageous enough to question and to change it.

I am not Catholic - I was born Hindu, and Hinduism underwent radical changes from the inside as regards to challenging religious discrimination of women. In a traditionally patriarchal society, just in the 19th century, the concept of Sati, prevention of widows from remarrying and other such horrendous things were sanctioned by society by (ab)using religion.

But today, these aspects are no longer part of mainstream Hindu society nor its accepted religious teachings, mainly because of a radical revolution of the minds in society. Of course, a lot more needs to be done.

My point is, religion as a spiritual vehicle is fine, indeed it is advantageous to society. But once it encroaches into the social aspects, it has not always been good, and the treatment of women is a case in point.

To counter it, one need not question the spiritual aspects of religion, but one must question always the social ones.

Mr.Ebert, your post is about something that has disturbed me for a long time, devout believer that i am. Every religion, my Islam being no exception, seems to have been created for the benefit of man; women are not thought of as important, denied a thousand things, expected to conform to man's will, demanded of to adjust. It is not my desire to offend any religion, i respect them all and find things beautiful in each of them. But the concept of a man being allowed four wives and a woman only one man (Islam), the concept of a woman burning herself to death after her husband has died (Sattee, Hinduism), of a group of women being Jesus's wives and being denied sex forever (Catholics) etc etc.....all these just seem like rules that were made by a man, not God, because God, by definition, cannot be held guilty of prejudice. And prejudiced against women is what all religions seem.

That said, Mr. Ebert, you are rather fond of stirring up hornet's nests, aren't you?

A fascinating post. I'm glad it's out there. It *needs* to be out there.

A couple of things come to mind. Firstly, have you heard of the Gospel of Mary? Apparently, it's quite progressive and professes some of Jesus's more egalitarian, socialist teachings. It depicts, among other things, ideological struggles with Peter. Peter also comes across at as a wee bit jealous that Christ appeared to Mary after death.

Secondly, in terms of matriarchy in nature, it does exist in bees, ants and killer whales, among other species. As to whether or not it existed in human societies, while it is not proven (and difficult to prove as it would have occurred in prehistory), the theory is strongly supported by at least a few historians and archeologists, who believe that certain pagan societies might have been wholly matriarchal. Even to the point of sacrificing men to their deities once men had performed their "duty" of insemination.

To some scholars, the legend of the Amazons is a folkloric re-imagining of these societies. I'm not saying Amazons actually existed, but their story is believed to be representative of a society, or at least an ideal, the Ancient Greeks revered. Even Greek mythology, as we know it today, was altered from a more matriarchal narrative. Athena, not Zeus, used to be numero uno! He became integrated into the myth as her father when his cult gained momentum over certain parts of Greece. Even so, Athena's conception and birth are a rather violent event (he eats her mother then Athena pops out of his head), likely representative of the dueling ideologies. Before Zeus came into the picture, Athena was born of Metis through parthenogenesis: no male consort required.

The dominance of female deities in certain religions does not prove matriarchy, but we have to wonder what kind of patriarchal society would have accepted such a model, and what their relationship with it would have been.

All this to say the tradition of patriarchy is something we eventually adopted, where another tradition may well have been in place. But it is not - as many groups and sects and cultures would have us believe - a natural inclination. To paraphrase you, men's strength is not a reason for patriarchy, it's just a very cheap way to enforce it.

Ebert: I like your paraphrase.

Interesting article, but I don't really see your point. You are lashing out against organized religion, against patriarchal structures and even against stupid people. I don't disagree, but what is the real wrongness that you're trying to address?

Ebert: Perhaps that such attitudes often go unquestioned.

You should really watch documentaries by Terry Jones (ex Monty Phyton) he says that women were equal in Christianity and that Jesus had much more disciples than 12 and many were women. Not just that but Mary Magdalen was first to see Jesus resurrected and not one of the guys.
There are even theories by scholars that there was mrs. God in the Old Testament because God refers himself in genesis as we. And not just that but the first religions were matriarchal.
So what happened? According to some it was the iron age where masculinity was starting to be worshiped and according to some there is even exact that when mrs. God was erased from the Bible. Of course later on women were in some societies educated as men but then according to Terry Jones there was a plague in Middle Ages which cut human population drastically so women were to take same jobs as men and then after few decades when population arose that was a problem and according to Jones women were being demonised. First was Joan of Arc who was not killed because she was a witch but because she wore male clothes.
But on top of that religion was built on female symbols. Like for instance firs Communion in Christianity or bar mitzva in Jews are made from rituals for guys. Because unlike girls boys don't have natural symbol when they're entering adulthood so they go trough this rituals that symbolize first male menstruation. Like a cave art which represented the first temples (churches) in which guys would enter trough very narrow vagina like entrance trough a dark corridor after which he was spiritually reborn. Goddess is the one who brings this about. The second birth is through a spiritual mother. Notre Dame de Paris, Notre Dame de Chartres -- our Mother Church. We are reborn spiritually by entering and leaving a church.

There were the great female saints. Hildegarde of Bingen -- she was a match for Innocent III. And Eleanor of Aquitaine -- I don't think there is anybody in the Middle Ages who has the stature to match hers. One now can look back and quarrel with the whole situation, but the situation of women was not that bad by any means. Of course none of those saints would ever become pope because becoming pope, that's not much of a job, really. That's a business position. None of the popes could ever have become the mother of Christ. There are different roles to play. It was the male's job to protect the women. Which may seem like paternalistic view but women are booty, they are goods. With the fall of a city, every woman in the city would be raped.

Of course the other matter is how people see religion today. Like for instance Christianity where people are so obsessed with sin that they go in church because of fear of damnation which is wrong. People should go to temples, Churches because of spiritual uplifting and not fear of damnation.

From the Nun's Priest's Tale in the Cantebury Tales: "In principio, Mulier est hominus confusio," which, if I remember my lessons properly recalls the book Genesis and means, "In the begininning, Woman was the downfall of man."

From the book "Lamb", which is my favourite of the gospels, Levi, the narrator and childhood friend of both Joshua (Jesus) and Mary of Magdalene (a really cool chick) told his friend that if his father Joseph were to die, Levi would happily have Joshua's mother Mary as his concubine. Levi then tells the audience, "Never let anybody tell you that the Prince of Peace never slugged anyone."

Much of our troubles come from man's "interpretations" of God's will. Leave it to God, I say, if he's even there.

I'm not Catholic so I can't say much about your experiences growing up. A Catholic talk show host had this to say a couple of years ago: it's Catholic tradition and, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. That doesn't answer the question of how the Catholic church developed their view of women, especially when Jesus, Peter and Paul did a lot to empower women. Indeed, Peter asked the question of whether or not men are willing to die for the sake of women, "the weaker sex". (i.e. that childbirth, a very deadly business in ancient times, made women put their lives on the line for their marriage. Could men do less than the same?)

In general, a lot of trouble has been caused by the difficulty in translation from the ancient text. It is interesting how this issue is closely linked with these sparse, rare translation issues.

It is interesting that some women that I've meet actually like the arrangement since it puts them in a position of power and gives them an excuse to be lazy: e.g. "I'm just a woman so you can't expect much from me". An article this week pointed how how spousal abuse comes equally from women and men...and men are not likely to report it, because if a woman abuses a man, the man is supposed to take it.

A lot of people underestimate just how complex this issue is. I've researched this subject for 20 years and I've ran into a lot of different views. To make a full response would require a book or maybe two. And I've got to head off to work. But, in Christianity, at least, I don't think the issue is related to workings of men's minds. I, for one, have no inclination to treat women badly.

I was raised in a baptist church. I even attended Sunday School most of my young life. Most of my questions started in high school and college. While in graduate school I stated that if we are made in God's image and likeness I must look like God's wife. The teacher told me that isn't so because God does not have a wife. I thought it odd that humans in the bible (starting with Adam) have mates but not the creator.

Did you know that the book of Matthew traces Jesus' lineage from Adam to Joseph, not Mary? You know, all of the 'begats'. Maybe that's all part of the patriarchy we are supposed to accept without question.

Ebert: Can a woman begat? Just askin'.

Thank you, Roger. I knew that beneath your Playboy-reading exterior the heart of a feminist beat clear and strong.

I am a feminist, and I'm proud of it. If women won't stand up for their rights, men in general certainly won't. Being in favor of women's rights does not mean I hate men, either. I love men; in fact, I lust after many men. It's only the sexist things they do that I hate and despise.

Religious leaders will always claim that they love women and revere them. I'm certain that they believe this is true. However, we women don't WANT to be revered or put on pedestals; we just want the same rights and privileges that men have. We want to be able to wear the clothes we choose, to speak and interact with men and be able to shake their hands in business transactions. We want equal pay for equal work, and not to be stoned to death if we're caught outside of our "curfew" with a man or men. It's not so difficult. Why are so many opposed to it?

However, don't get caught into thinking that it's only religions that discriminate against women. Communist China certainly doesn't give women equal rights; if you don't believe that, just look at the killings of female infants by families only allowed one child. It's been part of society for thousands of years, whether or not it dates back to prehistoric humans.

What depresses me most is my daughter's generation. She's in college now, and although she fights fiercely for African-American rights and against anti-Semitism and for the rights of gays to marry, she thinks I'm too hardcore in my feminism. "We have all those rights now, Mom." No. You don't. You just haven't realized it yet, how prevalent it is through world society. Then, of course, there's the women who think feminism is watching Oprah and having a career, while at the same time wearing high heels and short dresses and being a perfect mother and sexual partner to her husband, who spends most of his time at the office. The Enjoli woman (anyone else remember those ads?). Men still won't do their share of raising children and taking care of housework. Why? Women won't ask them to, in part.

Yoko Ono said it best in 1968, and John immortalized it in song, which is one of the Lennon classics you won't hear on the radio because of THAT word:

"Woman is the nigger of the world."

"For example, most of us know that John was "the most beloved disciple," but a great many modern Biblical scholars believe that his name was substituted somewhere along the line for Magdalene's."

Good comments, and true in many cases, except for this. Who are these bible scholars? Being one myself, I don't know of any reputable ones who feel this way. There are, of course, no shortage of 'experts', but lets get real. Opinions or even headline grabbing comments do not an expert make. I know you do your research, that's why I read your column, but don't write off bible authenticity based on the ramblings of a few 'experts'.

Ebert: I'm no expert. I write an entry and then learn from experts like you. There is much discussion about the identity of the "beloved disciple:"

http://j.mp/eMq2Yx

I was thinking along similar lines the other day. I decided to perform an experiment. I Googled pics of Danica Patrick, the female Nascar driver. Virtually all of the pictures were of her in a bikini. I then Googled pics of Jeff Gordon and found pictures of his wife in a bikini. I'll let everyone interpret the implications for themselves.

Ebert: This is too good for words.

"Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?"

That's kind of a loaded, unfair question, isn't it? One can only judge superiority or inferiority by assigning value to certain roles. Certainly, if we decide that the roles of men are superior in value, then the only conclusion is that women are inferior. I think that's a flawed logic. And I believe Scripture is clear that God loves both men and women.

My conservative, evangelical church does not teach that women are an inferior form. It teaches that men and women are different, and are created by God in his image to carry out different, but equally valuable roles. Feminists like to get all up in arms about Ephesians 5:22, which calls for wives to submit to their husbands. No one ever notices Ephesians 5:21, which calls for us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. The "submission" is not a Rule-With-An-Iron-Fist type of submission, either. It's meant to be done with love and respect and selflessness. Also notice that the husband is instructed to "love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Again, selflessness and sacrifice is the key.

One can only believe that he/she is inferior if one makes the subjective decision that the work he/she does or the role he/she plays is not worth anything. I believe God thinks differently, and places more value on acting in accordance with his desires and less with our own.

God makes me nervous when you get him indoors. (Cousins)

Well written post, Roger, if a rather conventional point of view (we've been hearing this kind of stuff for almost 40 years now, and it's a little tired).

It may be, as you suggested, that the New Testament, Church faith, history and government, not to mention all the other faiths, are just structures designed by men to maintain their own power. It may be that religion is all about power. If so, I am put in mind of Puddleglum's speech in The Silver Chair: "Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one."

Have you considered that maybe one of the reasons God became a man, literally a "male," was to teach men how to use their power to empty themselves, protect the orphan and the widow, the marginalized and the suffering?

Perhaps it is as you say. I think of authentic Christianity (which, by the way, is not the sole preserve of the Roman Catholic Church--read some history) as the end of all power structures, beginning with the God who became powerless on the Cross.

In the past, I have thought of you as one of those unique people who could bridge the world of faith and the secular world. Unfortunately, you have now located yourself squarely in the secular camp (with statements such as "I am not concerned so much with Church teachings, but with the way men's minds work"), which makes you less interesting to read...

Thank you for bringing the Paycheck Fairness Act into this discussion. There are Christian churches that are much more progressive than what is discussed here - but the pervasiveness of a patriarchial society on every level, not just based in religion, must be brought to the light of day. I enjoy reading your posts.

Roger, I am a twenty eight year old, female memeber of the Catholic church who had questions about the non ordination of women to the priesthood in the past. I went in search of arguments both for and against and I came out on the the side of Church teaching.

The church is the bride of Christ and the priests represent Christ as the bridegoom. Since this is a spousal relationship it requires that only men be priests. It is a husband-wife relationship.

It is in fact impossible to ordain a woman to the priesthood in the religious/spiritual sense:
"Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him an indelible (permanent) spiritual character that makes him a priest, and since Christ and His Apostles chose only men to be priests, only men can validly become priests."
"http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm

Any priest bishop who claims to perform such an ordination is either mistaken or deceiving both himself and the woman supposedly receiving the orders.

While the church has been guilty of many grievous errors in the past including perhaps gender discrimination, the doctrine of only male priests transcends gender discrimination. It operates on a spiritual plane that transcends human laws. Just as God gave only women the ability to bear children he gave only men the ability to be priests (only a consecrated man can invoke the miracle that changes bread and wine into the Body and blood of Jesus Christ).

Your Aunt Mary was sadly mistaken in thinking that Christ needed to be spared the sight of her female self. This is a Church that reveres a woman (Mary, mother of Christ) to the point that it is mistaken for worship by other denominations. The Church has also raised up titans such as St Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liseux, Mother Teresa and countless others who loved the faith and saw it as a tremendous source of stength and abundant life. You too, if you did proper research into the true teachings of the church, might find similar benefits.

Great post Roger. It is just these kinds of attitudes that turned me off organized religion as a young woman - I couldn't figure out why I was a second class citizen just because some guys in supposed authority said so. There is so little actual spirituality in most religions - it's all about outward show and appearances of living a certain type of life that conforms to some arbitrary set of rules and not what's in a person's heart. Society twists religion to fit the norms it wants to enforce such as the Taliban and Islam, and of course other religions do the same thing but refuse to recognize or admit to it when they also do it.

Thanks, Roger, for another brave and thought-provoking column. The anecdote you led with, about your mother's pinning the Kleenex to the head of your aunt before entering the church, brought back many memories. It also reminded me of how much our world -- in which blatant misogyny was the norm --- has changed since our childhoods.
Your column also reminded me of what a struggle it is for intelligent, educated people to belong to any patriarchal church, especially Roman Catholicism, and still be mindful of its long history of bigotry, brutality, violence and marginalization --- not just of women, of course, but many other groups, including Native Americans, Jews, gays and lesbians. And then of course there's the shameful hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's bishops, cardinals and popes. It'd be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
The Vatican shows its utter arrogance in condemning the idea of women priests and in hounding those women brave enough to demand ordination.
Yet the Vatican's leaders continue to remain silent about their own complicity in the conspiracy to cover up sex crimes against children and in shielding the perpetrators from criminal prosecution. Nuns who've devoted their lives to living out the Gospels are threatened with excommunication for even daring to bring up the idea of a female priesthood. Meanwhile, child molesters and their protectors are rewarded and given safe harbor from the police.
Church leaders keep wondering why Mass attendance keeps falling, and why so many people of all ages leave the church every day. Like all patriarchal institutions, the Vatican has ultimately been blinded by its own arrogance and stupidity.

I think as far as society-standards are concerned, women and men should be treated with equivalent respect, especially with wages for equivalent work performed. To make sure that ideal is met is easier said than done.
We do have seeming conflict between freedom of religion and equal treatment of sexes under law. I think that religions cannot be forced to change their beliefs, so long as they do not break society's laws grossly and explicitly. Globally, views on women will not change so easily. We should work towards chipping away at male chauvinism in the non-religious sphere. With increased globalization, other societies will see capable women in executive positions. Hillary Clinton's role as secretary of state (as with Albright before her), should be inspirational to certain women who are involuntarily repressed. Then, views within the religions could change, even if only with subtle ways to begin with. In the United States, we have many, many admirable females to re-enforce our notion that women should be treated fairly. This is not so apparent to citizenry in other countries. And if one is sufficiently close-minded even in the United States, as so many people are in many respects, the knowledge that women are at least as capable of men may not be believed or be acted upon.

Excellent article. One quick note, the Catholic Church did officially reverse its position on Mary Magdalene in 1969, confirming she was NOT a prostitute.
Here's one small source, but you can find more. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005391-1,00.html

Ebert: Oddly enough, even before then she was popularly regarded as a saint. Chicago has a church named after her that was built i 1910:

http://j.mp/f4JcUQ

What a sad, sad affair this thing called religion is. It troubles me greatly that most people I hear talking still seem to think, "well how can we tweek religion." Instead, the world would be a better place without the coil of this religious snake constricting our intellectual or spiritual freedom.

The trouble is that people cannot think outside the paradigms that were set forth by them in their childhood, or those that have been passed down from the outdated moralities of the past, now chiseled in stone. Herein lies the nature of faith which by its very definition calls for an individual to reject logic, reason and the use of the rational mind, in order to think, act and live in intellectually questionable ways. This poses great danger in both religious and political spheres where people have real power over the lives of others, not just imaginary power in the realm inhabited by imaginary dieties. Surprise, surprise, you have the misguided treatment of women. It should be no surprise to anyone. How else can women acquiesce to such a corruption of the soul as is religion but by giving up the one true freedom that we all share. A freeedom that cannot be taken away even if they degrade us or abuse us. That is to say our freedom of a sentient reasoning mind which rejects this religous insanity that goes on all around. When people reject logic you can get them to accept anything. Women are victims of religion, Yes!. But by choosing to give up use of their rational faculties, they are willing accomplices as well.

My grownup christmas wish is that more women will turn to reason over faith and stand up to faiths henchman, a bully named religion.

Roger,

I was just settling down with a book on feminist theology (She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse) written by the Roman Catholic theologian Elizabeth A. Johnson, from Fordham.

Then I got a note that I needed to read this blog.

I'm a "freelance theologian."

I received my Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in Germany, taught as a professor in a religion department at a liberal arts school in SD, and now serve as a "religion professor for hire" of sorts, having a small study which provides space for people to come and ask the hard questions...some relating to factual matters (e.g., "What are different ways of reading this text?") or subjective experiences (e.g., "Where is God in suffering?").

Your comments about the role of sexism in the Church bearing upon sexism-at-large is indisputably true.

However, if I may be so bold, you betray a hint of sexism yourself when you make no reference to the powerful and manifold contributions of feminist theology.

Many feminist theologians (which include both women and men) believe that Jesus' maleness is quite helpful, because his life demonstrates a new way of being male. He demonstrated compassion, he forgave, he offered mercy, he broke boundaries, and, let us not forget, not only did he teach women--in public!--but he was also taught by them! Fantastic stuff.

The Spirit has historically been seen as a female presence, depicted so in both language and in art.

Even in Genesis, regardless of whether one sees the first and second tellings of creation in Chapters 1 and 2 as historical fact or mythological story, you see that God's initial hope was that of equality. In fact, in Hebrew, the original creature was not male, but "adam" meaning literally "earth creature," rendered from the Hebrew "adamah" (feminine word, by the way). It is only later that we hear the gender differentiation of "ish" (male) and "ishah" (female), as in "male and female he created them."

Much more can be said to make the point.

For now, I wanted to thank you for addressing the manifest sexism that is and has been evident in church history, while at the same time encouraging you to make manifest the contributions of feminists, not to mention women, that is and has also been evident in church history.

Peace.

Ebert: Okay, I'll sit down here in your study and discuss.

It seems to me that Jesus indeed teaches a new and better way to be male, but that in much of Christianity his lesson has not been well learned.

I've had feminist friends over the years, and one of them was fond of saying that the church allows only 3 roles for women: virgin, mother or whore.

I was going to bring this up, but Andres opened it anyway by commenting that the veil is to protect women from the lust and disrespect of weak men. I read a column by a prominent muslim cleric which argued the same thing, and I have a problem understanding this point of view.

If 4 women are walking down the street wearing bathing suits, odds are good that I'll find one of them more attractive than the others. Other men might reach the same conclusion, but we wouldn't probably agree.

It's also possible that we would find at least one of these women to be unattractive; and again we wouldn't likely agree on which one.

So, the thoughts that are considered lustful and disrepectful are happening in the mind of the man in question, and have everything to do with his perception and nothing to do with the actual appearance of the woman.

Yet islam insists on making the woman responsible for the thoughts happening inside the man's head. Some sects (Taliban, I'm looking at you) have taken this illogically so far as to create evil rules surrounding how women should dress, deport themselves, be educated, and whether they can be seen in public or not - and reacting to transgressions with punishments which violate and damage the flesh that they ostensibly consider "sacred" and "a temple".

This is like removing someone's freedom of speech because our society is under threat and "with our basic freedoms at stake, no response is too extreme". But what if that response costs us those basic freedoms?

At the risk of sounding like Bill Hays, I see organized mass religion as a sociological phenomenon that evolved from the changing environment caused by agriculture and the domestication of animals. Suddenly, large numbers of people were living in close proximity to one another, and a modus vivendi had to be found or there would have been violence. James cited Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" - in that book, Diamond notes his observations of modern-day subsistence (hunter-gatherer) cultures, in which population density is low, "head men" have no outward sign of their authority, and in at least some of these cultures when two people meet, they exchange information about their family bloodlines until they find an ancestory they had in common - because without that common tie, there's no reason for them to NOT kill each other. It is only when humanity begins to modify its environment through agriculture and husbandry that populations become dense enough to support specialization and ostentation. The result is that humanity needs some means of diffusing tensions - to quote Robert Heinlein, "Animals can be driven crazy by putting too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntary does this to itself."

Religion functioned, early on, as a means of ensuring that the suddenly burgeoning towns and cities of the ancient world would not devolve into mass violence. It provided a rule against violence, it provided a means of one person identifying with another independent of one's ancestry.

The rise of the nation-state should have made it possible to dispense with organized religion, but it has continued because religion has done its job too well, as it were, having used tradition, guilt and fear to enforce its will in the past, and uses them now to attempt to ensure its survival.

That being said, religion is not all bad. There are people who do good works who are inspired to do these works precisely because of their religion. Would they do these good works if they were agnostic? Who knows?

Religion's phobia toward women exists precisely because men have historically feared losing control - control of their minds, control of their bodies, control of their emotions - to women. You can see this in the writings of Augustine, which poisoned the well for all christian sects. I have found it interesting that, the more I study history, the more I find that history turns on the phobias, preoccupations, obsessions and world views of people who happen to be at the point of balance at one critical time.

any theology that considers sex to be impure will create problems for women. any theology that seeks to transcend the natural world and be "better" than human will create problems for women. any theology that is preoccupied with purity will create problems for women, as the very presence of women can encourage men to leave their "higher" frame of mind and be faced with their "lower" desires.

That Mr. Blair could not come up with an immediate answer to Mr. Hitchens’ comment about women does not mean there is no answer to be had. One meaningful answer is that Catholicism, at least, does not hold that women are inferior in the only respect in which equality, to the believer, ultimately counts; i.e. all souls, whether they belong to men or women, are equal before God; all else is, certainly not unimportant, but at least of far lesser importance.
Certainly the Catholic Church also teaches that women and men have different roles to play in this life. There are certainly differences that are hard to miss, i.e. in reproductive functions. That there are other differences as well that are significantly conditioned by one’s sex – in perceptions and approaches to life, say - also seem to be fairly evident to most people, though we may disagree on exactly what the differences are and how significantly they affect individuals’ capacity to play certain roles.
Secular society’s assessment of the differences between the sexes, and the importance of these differences in terms of the secular roles assigned to the sexes, can change and has constantly changed over time, and no doubt will continue to change - the secular world is after all ruled by fashion, including in ideas, and always will be. For the non-believer - that is, one for whom this life is all there is - such differences, or the current beliefs concerning them, may well take on absolute importance. For the believer they are of course important, but not all-important; only eternal life is. For the latter, seeking immediate social justice and eliminating any unjustified inequality is a goal to be sought, not because it is necessarily attainable (the poor, for example, will always be with us) but because to work for it is one way to do God’s will. For many non-believers (i.e. those who care about justice at all), I suppose any belief that puts anything at all ahead of absolute social justice right here and right now is to be condemned. This does not make understanding between the two positions impossible, quite, but it does make for difficult dialogue and a lot of talking at cross-purposes.
Such questions also do not lend themselves particularly well to the kind of public debate that Mr. Blair and Mr. Hitchens chose to indulge in. The enormity of the subject – the assessment of religions’ entire influence on history – makes it a matter of a lifetime’s, or more likely several lifetimes’, worth of study and reflexion. The only way a ‘debate’ of this sort might be even remotely useful would be if not only the debaters but also the audience were already extremely well versed in history. Otherwise any vote on who ‘won’ is really only either a reiteration of previous bias or a comment on which personality shone more in the affray.
As to how historically well-informed one can expect a general audience to be – well, let’s take an example of a relatively well-informed layman: yourself. In your July review of Amenabar’s film Agora, you uncritically accept as history the film’s countless anti-Christian fictions, beginning with the alleged burning of the Great Library of Alexandria by a Christian mob in 391. It never happened. Even a glance at Wikipedia could have set you straight on that (See the articles ‘Library of Alexandria’ and ‘Serapeum’), but I very strongly recommend you spend a few minutes reading a very well-written review by an actual historian (and atheist) debunking this and much else of Amenabar’s tendentious pseudo-history: the review appears on a site called Armarium Magnum (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html). An excellent read, and generally a salutary indication as to why we may look to movies for entertainment, sometimes for Art, now and then even for truths and insight, but for history – look elsewhere. The subtitle for your review of Agora should better have been: “Anti-Christian animus, one; historical accuracy, zero”.
Oh, and one more small point, but pertinent to the subject of the roles of the sexes: in your review of von Trotta’s Vision, about Saint Hildegard von Bingen, you write: “Although beatified, she was never elevated to sainthood, but is a saint for many feminists and holistic practitioners”. Am I correct in assuming you obtained this ‘information’ from the film itself? I ask because while it is true that she was never formally canonized (at the time of her death in 1179, and for some time afterwards, formal canonization procedures were still being developed) she was widely regarded locally as a saint shortly after her death and was listed as a Saint in the Roman Martyrology by the late 16th century, which pretty much settled the issue. You will find her under ‘Saint Hildegard’ in the online Catholic Encyclopaedia; her feast day is September 17. Formal canonization is now the only way to be elevated to sainthood, but it was not so previously; the apostles and the evangelists were never formally canonized either. I mention this because to my darkly suspicious mind all this coyness about the easily checkable fact that Hildegard is indeed a Catholic saint, and has been officially so for at least four centuries, has to me all the earmarks of a deliberate omission made to feed a sense of grievance.

i'm sorry that you have a bigoted view of islam. i think this can be easily solved. get out of the united states and go to malaysia. no i do not dress like that and in no way whatsoever do i feel my religion is demeaning women. i am muslim. and muslim women here are nothing like the ones you describe above. i just wished you try to do a bit more research than make a blanket statement like that.

Ebert: I intended to make it clear I was not speaking of all Muslims.

One other comment, if you don't mind: I had never heard of Catholic women covering their heads before entering the church. It reminds me of the kippot (aka "yarmuelkes") that Jewish men--and enlightened Jewish women, or women who conform to men's rules, depending on how you look at it--wear in shul (temple). Of course, Orthodox men wear them all the time. Orthodox women, however, wear wigs, which is just another big can of worms.

Ebert: From 1 Corinthians 11:3-10,16:

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head. It is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil."

I still blame Eve for everything.

Native Americans have a better way. Their spirituality seem to respect Mother Earth, all creatures, and women as well. Why do whites pretend to be better?

Re: "a Republican filibuster in the U. S. Senate prevented passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have added teeth to measures for equal pay."

Could it be there is another view?

Nothing has worked to close the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.... Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act have worked. None of the legislation pushed by pay-equity advocates works because the advocates continue to overlook this:

Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN August 2008 report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. This may or may not reflect an increase in the percentage of women staying at home. But if the percentage has increased, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women relentlessly for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs, and so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband.

If millions of wives can accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives can accept low wages, refuse to work overtime, refuse promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://preview.tinyurl.com/23qycq)— all of which lowers women's average pay. They can do this because they are supported by husbands who must earn more than if they'd remained single — which is how MEN help create the wage gap. (If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.)

See “A Male Matters Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcu

By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone. See http://tinyurl.com/yab2blv

As for men wanting to hold women back:

"A poll cited in a recent issue of Psychology Today claims that forty per cent of today’s women would prefer a return to the gender roles of the nineteen-fifties."
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/04/16/070416crbo_books_mead?printable=true#ixzz16mY77Awv

Mr. Ebert,

I think it is important to stress the point that theologically, woman was created after man, and from man. Woman was created because man needed a helper. This can be seen in Genesis 2:20b - 2:22.

The text is found here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:20%20-%202:22&version=NIV

Thank you so much for this article!

I think the thing is, as you say, that these issues have to be discussed. The role of religion (as seen in the Blair/Hitchens debate) and also the role of women. So often, I find that any mention of perceived sexism is shouted down, sneered at, as if it's no longer an issue. Like most prejudices, it IS an issue: like most prejudices, sexism has been entrenched in society for so long, sometimes we are not ourselves aware of it when it resurfaces. So we have to keep the debate going.

And feminism (for lack of a better word - perhaps "equalism" would be better) is so often met with a particular kind of derision, an assumption that it is based on man-hating (especially because of the notion that everything is equal now, so any complaint is merely rocking the boat). On the contrary, equality enriches both sexes. Patriarchy may be based on the historical power and strength of men, as is your starting point in the article - but the whole point of equality is the belief not only that women are just as important, but that men need not treat women as unimportant: that women are better than they are meant to be, and also that men are better than they are meant to be. I would be a man-hater only if I believed that men (and women) couldn't change, that we're doomed to always revert to this unequal state, as if we had no control over our own life philosophies and had not moved forward from the days of the cavemen.

As for religion ... I know a lot of people have abandoned religion/specific religions because of their stance on women (among other things), and can totally sympathise. However, while that is anyone's prerogative (I'm not religious myself, for a number of reasons), it also isn't right that anyone who disagrees with certain ideas should have to auto-exclude themselves from the rest of a faith they may believe in. My mother for example is a staunch Catholic, but she doesn't agree with most of what the Vatican says (and nor do many modern Catholics). This should not mean that Catholics should have to give up the rest of their faith - "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as she says - because of the regressive views of a bunch of celibate old men keeping themselves in power. Religion should really be a matter of whether or not you believe in a higher power (& its central message, in this case that of Christ) - nobody should be forced into it, or forced out of it, for external reasons. Progressive views shouldn't be cut off.

Surely (don't call me Shirley), there is room for change in organised religion as well? Only, however, if religions acknowledge the outdated parts of their own dogma, and recognise that these reflect and justify more the world they were written in, than the ideal spirit of the message they are supposed to convey. Certainly, since as you say patriarchy was based on the status quo when human society started (strength was everything and equality was nothing) and only later was it rationalised, legislated, made into ideology - an assertion I agree with - then we should now be recognising that (a) civilisation has fundamentally changed and (b) our ideology, whether secular or religious, can truly & fundamentally change with it.

Ebert:The Catholic Church is the longest surviving institution in human history. Many believe it has survived by not changing. If it began to rethink fundamental matters, it might be perceived as revealing weakness. That said, the celibacy of priests is a relatively recent tradition.

Mary Magdalene was the Apostles' Yoko.

In all seriousness, really enjoyed this post. While I still cling to hope that religion can be helpful to humanity, we need to see it for what it is instead of just brushing difficult issues under the rug or denying them and all the damage they do.

Yes, it is wrong that religions consider women as an inferior form. Most religions do. God doesn't.

In the Bible, there is a hierarchical chain, where God is above Christ, Christ is above man, and man is above woman. That's what it is: "a hierarchical chain". It does not undervalue women in any way, just like hierarchy in a business is only a reflection of an ordered system. Its just there for organizational purposes. In fact, sometimes the employee is capable of more things than the superior, that's how God's authority principle works.

However, he values women much more than many religions, even so-called "christian" religions do. In fact, Mary (her mother), Mary Magdalene and many other women, along with several men, have the great privilege of reigning with God's son from heaven over millions of men, here on earth.

This is just another field in which religions are plain wrong, undermining the faith of millions, and the very concept of a loving God.

I'm afraid I just don't see the value of doing what Hitchens does and trying to make some blanket statement like this about "all religions." It is simply not the case that all religions view women as inferior to men, and while it may be true that *most* religions view women as inferior to men, it is also true that most secular-based societies do this as well. Besides, if, as you argue, Roger, the subjugation of women actually predates society itself, then it also must predate the establishment of religions, so unless you're implying that there was some period of time after which humans had evolved when the archaic subjugation of women was abolished before religion came along to reinstate it, religion must have adopted this from the already existing hierarchy of human society rather than inventing it.

But putting aside the veracity of any of those claims, even individual religions change over time and adopt different attitudes. In antebellum America, most abolitionists were religious, often rabidly so, and a great deal of those rabidly religious abolitionists also held very radical (at least for their time) views about equality between the sexes. Of course, many religious people, some of whom were just as rabidly religious, also vehemently disagreed with the abolitionists. There's simply not a reasonable answer to the question "Is religion a force for good in the world?" except for, "Sometimes. Often not." But this is also true of secular thought.

I'm an atheist and have no desire to defend any religions, but if we start by reductively conceiving of religion as a single, monolithic entity about which the most simplistic and broad claims can be made, there's just not going to be much happening by way of useful debate.

I agree that the Catholic Church has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (especially since the only people who get to determine doctrine are those who have "made it" through rather than despite the hierarchy) and that it may be an admission of weakness to really change their stance ... However, the Church must be aware of how people perceive it, and indeed the Pope's recent comments about contraception acknowledge that there is some (even if infinitesimal) discussion going on, and therefore that there is a possibility of change. Despite the image they portray of the Church being totally static, it is comprised of people and followed by people, and In the interest of self-preservation they may have to move forward - indeed some may want to move forward, except they rarely get a chance to say so. Here's hoping, anyway. In many countries, it is the secular and mostly democratic society that sets the tone for change (and rightly so), but it would be nice if religions could also more often be a force for social progress and equality.

A woman's hair is her crowning glory. A man's crowning glory is his hat. Men remove their hats and women cover their hair before entering the church in deference to the Diety. We were expected to shed our vanity before entering the house of God. . Look who's coming down the Isle..

"The Pope might have been prudent to give as an example a grave crime like genocide that didn't make you think of priests."

Colonized peoples across the world would definitely see a connection between priests and genocide... if any of those people or their cultures still existed after eradication or forced conversion to Catholicism.

Have you by any chance seen the documentary Constantine's Sword? It is available to stream on Netflix. Quite disturbing and affecting.

Many defenders of religion make the fair point that patriarchy's real roots are in culture. However, they forget that by tying their worship to a static book written nearly two thousand years ago, they are maintaining a permanent link to the (misogynistic) culture which existed when that book was written.

It is not a coincidence that the most fundamentalist adherents to scriptural religions are also the most misogynistic.

Religion began as an oral tradition, which served the purpose of transmitting culture and values from one generation to another. Modern followers of scripture-based religion feel that their "holy book" is superior because it is fixed, and cannot be altered. I say the opposite: that it is the greatest flaw in the religion, because it is fixed, and cannot be altered. It resists culture advancement by its very nature.

While a particular religious group might move beyond the text, the text will always be revered, and will therefore always exert a force drawing people back to the past.

Thank you for using your public position for raising awareness of this our most important social subject. I have long been searching for the roots of this societal poison and in my comparative religious studies have come to a few interesting suggestions on the topic. Obviously the BIble's redactors had a very clear bias and I think that the whole creation of Adam and Eve story tells of a Hermaphroditic first human not unlike Shiva of the Hindu scriptures.This story was the bedrock on which the patriarchalists based their diabolical plan. Please keep it coming Roger because what it amounts to is truly spreading the love. Somehow men have to forgive women for something they imagine them to have done! Perhaps blaming them for being born into a dying world?

Why must the Catholic Church change with the times? While we're at it, why not change the Ten Commandments, too!!!

And if women feel so damn inclined to be priests, then why not be Episcopalian?

Even some of these moonbat liber- aah, "progressive" Christian churches believe God is actually a woman and Jesus was a homosexual.

Oh, so THAT'S why you find evolution a comfort, Rodge. I figure it spread in that comforting way in the 19th C, wildfire-without-proof, 'cuz people were outgrowing the repetitious fairy tales anyhow -- but hadn't outgrown superstitions against independent thinking.

Instead of "God" making men dominant for their big muscles and such, "Evolution" does? What is the difference? They're both saying "because _____ said, and you don't understand ______ , that's why." Then they plant the preferred comforting name over the unruly question. Don't you people poof out a bunch of "proofs" at me. They'll just lead back to the chosen Holy Nomenclature in that slot.

Pope? Darwin? How come my mares dominate the herd, as they're outnumbered by the males, each of whom are larger than they are? How come geese can bully goats around who are 6 times their size? How can little tiny sparrows chase away big hungry hawks? And on, and on and on. If "size doesn't matter" in the connubial bed, it matters much less in the daily course of an animal's life.

Tellin' yuh, it's all psychological before a muscle moves. More than the Celts were a matriarchal society, and there are various smaller ones existing today, plus even-steven societies arrogantly considered "primitive."

My favorite line out of the whole of the Nag Hammadi digs is in the Gospel of Thomas: "Do not do what thou hate." THAT Jesus makes me happy, if not those who think of themselves as powers-that-be.

Patriarchism has been crumbling glacially under our noses for a long time. We don't need it any more. Randy Master's great love for his imaginary Sarah Palin is an angstrom-unit of evidence in that wise.

If you put your ear to a glacier, you will hear the roar of its demise. So it is with the surface relationships between male and female of our species. It changes sooner than later for some, but won't be stopped in any case.

Aren't you ashamed you posted that ( fabulous) photograph a few posts ago? You know the one. We know why you chose, wisely. If we're going to objectify someone, pick the right one. Rock On, Rog!
Say 5 Our Fathers and 5 Hail Marys.
Thomas Cahill writes well about the equal roles of women in the early church. It was revolutionary then, like lots of things in the early tradition. It took 2000 years for San Francisco to catch up. And Jesus was better to women and children than anybody in the ancient world. Some historians would have us believe that childhood didn't even exist until the 1800s or thereabouts. That J guy was one cool cat, whoever and whatever he was, though his attitude toward Mom seems to have been a little ambivalent. Maybe they had their little in-jokes.

Re RAF:

If the priest is the "bridegroom" does that mean the men in the congregation are in a gay marriage? It's time to retire that metaphor.

It has always amazed me that a church that essentially prays to a woman for help, degrades women in a way that is totally acceptable to all the people who pray to a woman for help. Well, let me tell you, if I was that woman they were praying to and was watching them call women being ordained a "grave crime" I'd think twice about hearing any bullshit they prayed to me. Jesus was actually the first feminist. At the time, Jesus saying you should love your wife was anathema. Women were nothing but property and slaves of the lowest order, used for sex and procreation and nothing more. For Jesus to say that women should be loved was hard for even the apostles to hear! It was practically against their religion at the time! I'm amazed that any kind of idea of women's equality has even taken root in this world with so many religions fighting against it. If you look in the old testament, when God created man and woman, she was not considered his "property". She was considered his "mate". There to help him equally. It is only later that she supposedly became his "property" as punishment. So, if you look at when God created Eve and when his Son came to earth, both expressed intent that women were to be loved and to be equal. It makes you wonder where all the rest came into play. Religion has always been antagonistic to GOD if you look at it that way. Look at any country that allows women legally to be property and it's no surprise the vileness that comes out of countries like that. Many of them harbor terrorist. Is that surprising? They are never taught to love their mothers. They don't know the civilizing effect women have on society. Look what that engenders in a society. I think that speaks loudly as to how valuable women are to a civilized and peaceful world. One where children don't get blown up in buildings and planes.

Hey Roger,

There have certainly been religious traditions in which women have been venerated, and the degree to which those traditions were matriarchal is a matter of some historical controversy.

Many of our earliest artifacts that are probably of religious import are the goddess figurines known throughout Europe, which occur with great frequency in the Aurginacian culture. You've seen them, no doubt -- wide-hipped female statues like the "Venus of Willendorf."

There is arguably a continuous link between these cultures dating to the Upper Paleolithic (ca. 40,000 BC) and the goddess cultures that occur in Central Europe, in Rumania, Hungary, etc. Small agrarian settlements throughout that region, dating from around 7000 BC and persisting up until they were displaced by Indo-European settlers or invaders from the East, continued to evidence abundant goddess-type statues of substantially similar form. It has been argued by the profoundly influential archaeologist Marija Gimbutas that these societies were matriarchal, cooperative, non-hierarchical, and rooted in the distant Paleolithic.

Many historians of religion have traced a continuous lineage from those goddess traditions through the Stone Age, into Central Europe, and then on into aboriginal religious traditions of the Near East and Mediterranean. The pre-Greek religious culture of Crete and the mainland prominently depicted goddesses who may have been embodied in the polity by prominent women. This tradition continues on in the from of Aphrodite, Demeter, and other goddesses, and arguably on through the modified form of the Virgin Mary down to the present day.

My main point is that it may be the case that women had a central role in both religious and social life for longer than they have been systematically marginalized. It is easy and tempting to think of early cultures as more primitive, and early societies as more driven by violence and forceful domination than contemporary society, but this does not appear to have been the case. Prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in Central Europe, for example, there are few weapon artifacts to be found.

I don't think it's a miracle that the Hitchens-Blair debate took place. I think it's a miracle that anyone outside Canada noticed.

And to Adam Higgins, that is simply not true. The creation myth is a bald-faced lie, and you know it. You merely use the lie to justify brutal oppression, and you know that too.

Hi Roger,

Your post came across as slightly anti-Catholic to me but I could relate to a lot of thigns. I'm a 21 year old college student and I'm actually in RCIA right now. I admit, I used to be anti-Catholic and anti-religion in general. The way I saw things, religious doctrine contradicted with science, reality, and common sense in general. I considered myself too much of an academic thinker to be caught up in all the blind faith bogus belief stuff.

What's funny is that my conversion has been more due to intellectual than spiritual reasons. One of my best friends goes to a Catholic university and is considering becoming a nun. She is writing her senior thesis on the role of women in the Catholic Church and it's been so interesting to have thoughtful conversations with her about this topic and many others. When we talk about God and faith and the Church, it's as intellectually stimulating as a discussion I might have in an English class, if not more so.

A few things I've picked up: The fact that women cannot be ordained as priests in the Church is a really controversial topic. I don't even know if I'm at peace with it yet. However, something to keep in mind is that being a priest is not to be thought of as a "status symbol" or some type of reward for being an extra-good Catholic. Lay people can be just as holy as priests! The priestly vocation is something that men are called to by God. Also the type of leadership that being a priest entails is different than what people may think. It's not a priest's job to "rule over" their parish. Priests are there to serve their congregation and I've found that the best priests are often those with such humility and genuine love for God and their parish.

Their have been bad popes, especially long ago. But what's important is that no matter how sinful they were, they didn't attempt to change the Church to suit their personal lifestyle or wishes. King Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he created the Anglican Church. The Catholic Church and its key positions have stayed constant despite having unholy men occupy those positions. That's pretty powerful if you think about it.

People often underestimate the role of Mary. If you think about it, God entrusted the most important task in the world to......a woman! When God wants things done, he chooses women for the task. Like you mentioned above, the first person to see Christ resurrected was a woman! If you check out a lot of women in the Old Testament there's a lot of bad-assery going on there:) Mary is what all of mankind should aspire to be in that she was so humble (there's that virtue again) and fully trusted God and submitted to his will.

Lastly, I think many fail to remember that God the Father transcends gender. Jesus came down and was both fully God and fully man, but God in heaven has no sex. Any distortion regarding which gender is superior to the other has come from men on Earth, not God.

As I continue my education in all things Catholic, I continue to thirst for more knowledge and understanding and I continue to be amazed. I understand the frustration that people have with the Church for so many reasons because I've been there, but I find that as I learn more about the Church, I understand things a lot better.

Best Wishes

I really like your statement that patriarchy happens because men can beat women up. I believe that thanks to advances in technology and social structure in the last hundred years that permit women to avoid getting beaten up, the erosion of patriarchy was and will continue to be inevitable.

I hope I worded that right; I'm kind of new at this caring-about-gender-equality thing. I used to think that most feminists were spewing PC hysteria, simply because I had never encountered any sexism myself. There was never any doubt growing up that I was as good as a boy, or that I could do anything I set my mind to, and it took me a long while to understand that fifty years ago most girls would not be raised with this mindset, and that there are still many, many girls in the world who still aren't. Is religion at fault? I don't think so. I think it's more a case of "God said only boys can be priests, and if you don't agree, we'll beat you up."

I was under the impression that the Celts and other cultures were matrilineal, but still patriarchal, and that truly matriarchal societies are very, very rare. Correct me if I'm wrong? Anthropology 101 was a long time ago.

I love how feminists don't give a damn about how women are treated in Islam, but have no problems attacking fundamentalist Christians and Catholics. Last I checked, there is AT LEAST a billion Muslims on this planet. What about women's rights in Saudi Arabia? Iran? Or parts of Asia? etc. etc. etc.

Hi Roger! Don't always agree with everything you write, but truly love your writing and thoroghly enjoy your blog and movie reviews. Just a minor point on the article above...you refer to 12 'disciples' (followers), when I believe you are referring to the 12 'apostles' (ones who are sent). The disciples of Jesus number much more than twelve, and are increasing all the time! As you mentioned there may be some debate as to whether or not Mary Magdelane should be considered an 'apostle', but she has certainly always been considered a 'disciple'.

Roger:

I grew up attending a Presbyterian Church in northern Kentucky, just outside Cincinnati. At the church I attended, we were taught that men and women are equal in the sight of God.

Women regularly participated (and still participate) in the worship services at my old Presbyterian Church. My mother, in particular, was an active participant. She and other women at the church occasionally served as "Congregation Leader" during the Sunday church service.

The Congregation Leader in our church is the person who stands alongside the Pastor at the Altar during the church service. At various points in the service, the Congregation Leader leads the audience in prayers (such as the Lord's Prayer), reads Scripture passages, helps to collect the offering, etc. Both male and female members of the church serve as Congregation Leaders from week to week.

Also, in my church, women (including my mother) regularly serve on the Session (governing committee) as Deacons and Elders.

In recent years, my mother has been an active agent for the Cincinnati Presbyterty. She has served as an "Installer" for the Presbytery, going around to various churches in transition in the Cincinnati area, and helping to install new pastors at these churches. Some of the pastors that she has helped to install have been female.

Yes, I know, the traditional attitude of many religions and religious institutions towards women has been that they are inferior to men. But that description shouldn't be applied to all religions or denominations. Some churches are progressive in their thinking, and have realized that flexibility is required, and that acceptance and participation of all people, male and female, as they are, is needed if we are to truly obey the essential teachings of God.

(In short, by "essential teachings," I mean things like, "Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, the REALLY important stuff.)

Thanks, Mr. Ebert, for another thoughtful read.

What's interesting is to read the New Testament with an eye for how different books treat women. My (admittedly limited) reading about its history indicates that the early Church did actually have women in a (relatively) equal position. Indeed, Acts indicates that Peter's wife did as much Papal work as he did. In general, the Epistles of Paul which demand the subservience of women are, based on internal evidence, later forgeries. In the early Catholic Church, men and women actually were equally able to serve God as leaders of their religious groups.

And, yes, the first Pope was married. I don't remember when priests were first expected to be celibate, but it was centuries after the Church began. And for perhaps a thousand years after that, a blind eye was generally turned to a certain amount of clerical fooling around.

The problem is the cafeteria model of history. People want to pick and choose what aspects of it they're going to believe as How Things Have Always Been. After seventeen or eighteen hundred years, it's easy to believe that men have always been the only priests, but it simply isn't true. This is one place where the Church would be well served by going back to its roots.

Oh, and "Notre Dame" does not refer to Mother Church. It's "Our Lady," a traditional Catholic term for the Virgin Mary. Marian devotion again.

Roger,

Here's my question for you: When are you going to write an article about sexism in the sciences? or the arts? or even journalism?

My guess is you have no plans to do so, because it's trendy to attack religion.

Religions are made up of flawed sinful people. Just like company's, Boy Scout troops, and hospitals. To imply that religions are worse then these other flawed groups is bigotry, plain and simple.

I had a crisis of faith as a Buddhist a while ago when I read Zen Women by Grace Schireson, here in the west it seems no one wants to say that Buddhism is patriarchal, and a few have claimed that Buddhism is so wonderful for women, so I really had no idea that women were often considered incapable of becoming enlightened, and nuns were treated as inferior to monks. It seems completely contrary to the belief that all beings have buddha nature. The issue is that religions reflect the ideas of its creators, and sadly people become dogmatic and don't debate whether it is true or not. Buddhism fortunately does encourage independent thought,

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

And yet, even in a religion that should be against fanaticism, we have fanatics who won't question an old book that says women can't be buddhas.

Although I should count my blessings, overall Western Buddhism does seem to want to embrace feminism.

Hey Ebert,

Joseph Campbell says that many prehistoric cultures appeared to revere the mystery of birth and fertility, and the idols that remain to us from this time period are fertility symbols. He suggested that these cultures may have even been led by female religious figures.

The Bronze Age brought about new technology, permanent settlements, and male superiority. This is reflected in the mythology of that period, where a new order of dominant male gods supplanted the old female fertility gods now depicted as beasts and monsters (Marduk vs. queen bitch Tiamat, and the like).

Of course, some of us still revere the old fertility symbols--ahem-- I refer of course to your Playboy blog entry.

I have issues with the second video wherein the man refers to abuse by priests as "homosexual acts."

Priests do not abuse because they are homosexuals.
They abuse because they are abusers of power or pedophiles, because they are manipulative and harmful, not because of an evil gayness within them.

Thanks for this post Roger, and thanks to the commenters, both agreeing and not agreeing. It is a breath of fresh air to read an honest discussion of ideas without the personalizion/demonization that goes on in most of our society anymore.

As a gay person, I have engaged in significant introspection concerning my feelings about religion and whether I am simply trying to make "excuses" for who I am. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible has very little to say about homosexuality (in the New Testament) and that where it is mentioned by Paul in Corinthians, the words he used in the original Greek referred to temple prostitution and "softness". The original Greek had many words for homosexuality which were not used. The use of a word for soft, however... took me straight (pun intended) to the point of Roger's post.

In ancient Greece, homosexuality was not particularly looked down on... unless you were the "woman" in the relationship. Those participants were, if not reviled, definitely looked at askance. And that is what I came away with from my "Bible study".

I think the Bible (and most religions) are simply anti-woman. The man is "of God" but the woman is "of man" thus must cover her head in church and not speak or question in church, rather, ask her questions to her husband at home. See, Paul in Corinthians. And it bleeds out into society at large. Men pay big money into porn sites that show two women going at it (in a totally unrealistic fashion) and that is a *huge* turn-on, but two men... well that is *disgusting* and worthy of inciting physical violence. And my only way to reconcile those two very disparate reactions on the part of the viewing straight male to homosexual activity is that with male homosexuality, either or both people are being sexual as, and accepting the role of being (aghast) ... a *woman*... fate worse than death!

Anyway, Roger. Thanks for the post. And thanks to all who commented in thoughtful, open ways. Refreshing.

"The Catholic Church is the longest surviving institution in human history."

I think marriage is, right?

Ebert: Not the same kind of institution.

Zulaikha: no i do not dress like that and in no way whatsoever do i feel my religion is demeaning women. i am muslim. and muslim women here are nothing like the ones you describe above. i just wished you try to do a bit more research than make a blanket statement like that.

Ebert: I intended to make it clear I was not speaking of all Muslims.

There are so many Muslims... the only thing they all have in common are the memory of Allah's Apostle, Mohammed, and the writings...

Let me share one of them:

Hadith (shari harkari)
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 597:
Narrated 'Urwa bin Az-Zubair:

A lady committed theft during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle in the Ghazwa of Al-Fath, ((i.e. Conquest of Mecca). Her folk went to Usama bin Zaid to intercede for her (with the Prophet). When Usama interceded for her with Allah's Apostle,

the color of the face of Allah's Apostle changed

and he said, "Do you intercede with me in a matter involving one of the legal punishments prescribed by Allah?"

Usama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Ask Allah's Forgiveness for me."

So in the afternoon, Allah's Apostle got up and addressed the people. He praised Allah as He deserved and then said, "Amma ba'du ! The nations prior to you were destroyed because if a noble amongst them stole, they used to excuse him, and if a poor person amongst them stole, they would apply (Allah's) Legal Punishment to him. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad stole, I would cut her hand."

Then Allah's Apostle gave his order in the case of that woman and her hand was cut off. Afterwards her repentance proved sincere and she got married. 'Aisha said, "That lady used to visit me and I used to convey her demands to Allah's Apostle (end)

'Aisha was one of Mohammed's wives.

So, the former Moon God named "ALLAH" handed down a "Legal Punishment" and Mohammed wanted to make sure it was applied equally.

Mohammed said, if Fatima stole, I would cut off her hand.

So, the woman's hand was cut off.

In America, we have a view of religion. We think Sarah Palin is religious, or Christian. Islam is something different. Islam is not "religion" as Americans define the word.

Under Islam, Allah (a Moon God who got a promotion, when Mohammed decided to kill anyone who worshipped OTHER idols) said a thief's hands should be amputated. The universal Muslim belief that God has given them a rigid set of rules... applies to ALL Muslims.

More research. Fewer blanket statements.

"Allah's Punishment" applies to ALL Muslims. Yes or no? Because that seems to be what Mohammed was saying.

Hey Roger!

I'm a little surprised that you didn't mention any Asian examples in your article. I'm taking a class in Vietnamese history and I was very surprised to learn that Vietnam was originally a matriarchal society. The earliest fossil evidence that we have concerning Vietnamese culture shows women being in a position of superior power to the men. Even their creation myth involves a female deity.

It was only after the influence of Chinese society began to pervade Vietnam (in the form of...well...you know...invasions) that the patriarchal model of society became widespread. This was primarily due to Confucian teachings.

Key in Confucianism is the five relationships:
(1) ruler to ruler
(2) father to son
(3) husband to wife
(4) elder brother to younger brother
(5) friend to friend

Central to Confucian teaching is that the first is superior to the second. The first must be benevolent to their inferior paring, and the second must give their devotion to their superior.

Notice that "husband to wife" relationship? It literally helped establish the idea that women were inferior as a mainstream societal default.

This of course spread throughout Asia, reaching all the way to Japan. It is believed that it is one of the key reasons why Asian society became so paternalistic.

Changing the subject...I can't speak for Catholics, but as a Protestant I can bear witness to how faith affects the women in my life. All of my female family members see their faith as a source of empowerment.

Roger, I have a bone to pick with this statement you wrote above: "The Catholic Church is the longest surviving institution in human history. Many believe it has survived by not changing. If it began to rethink fundamental matters, it might be perceived as revealing weakness."
Actually, you're right, and you're wrong. Yes, it is true the Roman Catholic Church has survived by projecting an image of immutability. But as even a casual reading of its 2,000 year history will reveal, the Roman Catholic Church is also remarkably flexible on many, many matters, both theological and practical. In sum, its adaptability is probably the major reason for its survival over 20 centuries.
After all, for the first half of its existence, the Catholic Church permitted a married clergy, as well as openly gay priests. (See the groundbreaking research by the late Yale historian John Boswell). Abortion was not banned until the 17th Century. At first the Vatican condemned the heliocentric theory of the solar system, causing poor Galileo many sleepless nights, as well as the works of many other eminent thinkers and scholars, from Copernicus to Darwin and beyond. Eating meat on a Friday used to be a terrible offense, while the hatred of Jews was actively promoted in many Catholic dioceses by bishops and senior clergy, particularly in Germany and Eastern Europe.
What's more, the doctrine of indulgences once was a central feature of Catholic practice, until it became terribly abused during the Renaissance, helping catalyze the Protestant Reformation. It still exists, but it has faded almost entirely from the lives of most modern Catholics.
Another basic part of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and up through the mid-1800s was the Inquisition. It did its job --- suppressing dissent and publicly punishing witches heretics --- very well indeed. But when the publicity turned ugly, the Vatican quietly shut the door on it and carried on as if 600 years of institutionalized torture, imprisonment and murder had never occurred.
On the topic of slavery, especially in the New World, the Vatican switched back and forth, condemning it, then turning a blind eye, but never intervening to end this most profitable of activities. In any event, during the American Civil War, Pope Pius IX publicly supported President Jefferson Davis over that wretched scourge of liberal modernism, Abraham Lincoln. How's that for betting on the wrong side?
Yes, the Catholic Church can change its mind on many things, but only as a last resort. Which is why I predict that in our lifetimes we will see an end to the Catholic Church's bans on married priests (a doctrine with big loopholes anyway -- look at the Lutheran and Anglican priests who become Catholic priests yet remain married) and artificial contraception. Just don't be surprised if, in rescinding these bans, the Catholic Church acts as if everyone has amnesia and pretends they ever existed in the first place.

Tony Blair might have responded to Hitchen's loaded question thus: It's okay to regard women as inferior, as all the world's religions do, as long as they regard men as inferior too.I'm surprised Hitch himself didn't say so.

Hey, Roger!

Haven't commented in a bit, but this piece is about my gender, which I hold dear, and echos some thoughts I've been having lately.

The way humans (Males to a great extent, but females too) cling with an absurd and painful grip to the idea of male superiority makes me think that, among other things, female gender and its accoutroments are the last remnant of fetish magic in modern, Western society.

Try this as a thought experiment (or a real life one, if you can find a willing subject.) Select a heterosexual American/Canadian male between the ages of 25 and 40. He should be of relatively "middling" views on equal rights for gender--that is, he doesn't condsider himself either especially anti or pro female rights.

This person's assignment, for one week, is to go about his or her daily life--work, socalizing, home life--wearing a skirt.

I am not talking about drag or full female dress. The rest of his clothing--shirt, jacket and tie (if he wears them to his job), undergarments, socks, and shoes--will remain the same. This is important--the skirt is not a costume or a dare, it is his regular, everyday dress for the week.

The skirt will not be overly sexualized--not a mini, no slits, no sequins. It should be knee length, a neutral shade, and cut so the subject can sit, stand and walk comfortably.

This man must basically live his life in his normal way--no staying inside or ordering groceries online or going on a trip to where people don't know him. He is not allowed to explain his skirt in any way besides the phrase "I'm wearing a skirt today". He can't tell his buddies it's an experiment and not real and he'll be back in his dockers next week. He goes to his job in the skirt. He runs errands in the skirt. He goes to his kids' school in the skirt. He deals with snow and rain in the skirt.

How many men do you think would fulfill these conditions for the entire week? If you can't think of any, why not? If you can, why?

The skirt, in and of itself a regular, nonpartisan piece of clothing, viewed by everyone in the country and reqiring no explanation when worn by a woman, suddenly will become the most important focal point of this man's week, I promise you. The fact that a man has discarded his gender's clothing for the distaff side will not go unremarked. Plenty of men may feel they cannot do this in the interests of personal safety--a man in a skirt will be so threatening other people in their neighborhood (men and women) may attack them. Many men may attempt the experiment but find they must give up before the end of the week--they simply cannot deal with the cognitive dissonance a man wearing a single piece of female clothing stirs up, both in the eyes of others and his own psyche. Many men may try but find themselves rearranging their lives to "put off" certain tasks until Skirt Week is over--not going, say, to the bar on Friday, or their child's soccer game.

The skirt becomes a symbol of the feminine not when women wear it, but when men do. It layers an energy over the traditonal masculine one we accept/revere in North American society--a strange one that we have belittled or outright crushed at every turn, and now a man has chosen to don it! Why? Would the man feel stronger at the end of the week, or weaker? Relieved the experiment was over? Open to new thoughts about himself? How would his peers react, both during the week and afterwards? Scared? Angry? Envious?

I don't think I'll ever meet a man willing to do it, but it would be fascinating.

Roger,

Long ago I wrote a column in the ol' college paper stating that the world would be better off without religion. A fellow student engaged me in conversation defending religion, then proceeded to bash "the Catholics." She did a nice job of making my point.

Later, with wife and kids, started returning to church. Stuck to Catholicism because it was familiar. Thought of church as providing a "moral rudder" for the kids.

Then as the child-raping priest scandal grew and grew, and the church continued to stonewall and defend these monsters, I lost what little faith I had left in the church. The hypocrisy of defending these horrible criminals was just too much. And then to declare that women acting as priests is a sin on the same level and raping children? Seriously?

In Christian circles today (protestant evangelical) the roles of men and women in relationship are typically described as "different but equal". A husband is the head of the family, but only an unwise man would disregard the opinions of his wife.

The verses you quote from Corinthians speak to the cultural norm of that day. It's an open-handed theological issue and not one that should result in disension among belivers.

Offenses against women (or anyone be they gays, immigrants..."those people" of whatever particular stripe) are the failings and sins of man, not God.

In Christian circles today (protestant evangelical) the roles of men and women in relationship are typically described as "different but equal". A husband is the head of the family, but only an unwise man would disregard the opinions of his wife.

The verses you quote from Corinthians speak to the cultural norm of that day. It's an open-handed theological issue and not one that should result in disension among belivers.

Offenses against women (or anyone be they gays, immigrants..."those people" of whatever particular stripe) are the failings and sins of man, not God.

Given the comments, it appears the nicest creature in the world is a Wiccan bonobo.

Then again, ask Anderson Cooper what he thinks of these finest of primates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsUHuurFLXM

(Note that the ape's trainer/attendant/acolyte? is a woman. An affront to Cooper!)

"Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?"

Mr. Hitchens ethnocentrism thoroughly irks me. Sikhism believes in the equality of all persons, race, caste, creed gender. It also believes in the equality of all religions and the universal nature of God. It, unlike other religions, believes that there are multiple pathways to God, and that no one religion holds a franchise on salvation. He could do himself some good by broadening his horizons.

Accordingly, his statement is patently false. He may argue that sikhism is too small of a religion to matter, but it is the world's fifth largest.

I do not have a problem with the message of religion, I have a problem of the zealots who co-opt the the religion for their own personal power. And I suspect Hitchens argument should be directed towards the co-opters and not the message.

"I believe the world is patriarchal because men are bigger and stronger than women, and can beat them up".

Fortunately we have brave folks who are willing legislate and moralize against this injustice. Interesting that one rarely sees bigger and stronger women with smaller boyfriends and husbands. If pairing were random, perhaps a third or more of the time this would be so. Another poster mentioned 'patriarchy' and the 'revisionist' work, Germ, Gun and Steel (Where western medicine doesn't wipe out small pox from the Earth, but wipes out non-whites, and women probably too, with small pox). . . The definition of patriarchy is inheritance from father to the eldest son. In Western society inheritance nominally goes to a surviving wife (being women now live 9 years longer than men).

As for mention of the veil. Supposedly women wear the veil as a sign of modesty. Supposedly in nations like Turkey, where some wear and others do not, the most attractive girls are more likely to wear. Just in case you are vacationing.

Alright, I'll have a go.
The charge is that the Catholic Church, in both dogmas and behaviour, is sexist and retrograde. It is true that many theologians in the Church, both ancient and new, had an undeniable streak of misogyny. This is true.
However, the suggestion seems to be that women priests aren't allowed due to a patriarchal, old fashioned view that simply wishes to exert dominance over women in order to protect itself. I don't think the issue is as simple as that.
OR it could be because the role of a priest in the Mass has a hell of a lot more significance than a useful man who can hand out the Eucharist and give a good homily now and then. It could be that the priest represents the figure of Christ in the liturgial pattern, this following on from the Israelite view.
Why did the Israelite's have exclusively male priests? Were male priests exclusive at that time? Nope. The male priests reflect the Jewish idea of God as male- a creator God that enters creation from without, an impregnates it.
In addition to this, it should be remembered that the Christian Faith, the Catholic Church is based upon revealed religion; God's search for man. God sets the agenda, and the most perfect expression of God in the form of Jesus Christ saw fit to ordain 12 male diciples in the style of the Judaic system. If He was willing to say things so heretical it would eventually crucify him, he might as well have ordained women priests at the same time. The Greco-Roman world wasn't exactly lacking in them, but he didn't, and neither did the apostles or their succesors, though there has been some controversy around that area. Nonetheless, Christ, the Word, the Incarnation of God, didn't think it a great notion.
So there's that.
When the Church says they don't have the authority to ordain women priests, they're right. That would be turning against the revealed word of God in both tradition and scripture. Like it or not, getting rid of an exclusively male priesthood because the World (which isn't exactly spoken of glowingly in the Bible) demands it is rejecting a significant part of orthodox Christianity.
So there's that, too.
Women are to be treated equally the same as men- this is taught in Scripture ("There is neither Greek nor slave...nor male or female..." as St.Paul tells us) and dogma, as your Catechism will tell you (paragraph 371 tells us that Man and Women were made for one another).
Also, the thing about women's ordination and pedophilia being treated as morally the same I don't think is true. I remember there was a furor in the Catholic online world about the press twisting the documents words, but I'm having trouble getting some good articles. I'll post anything if I can find it.
You also accuse Christianity of being so disturbed by the fact that women have sex that Mary is made into a virgin out of fear. I don't get it. In the Old Testament sex is both quite visible and quite frank. Because Mary was a virgin doesn't her any less feminine. Motherhood is an exclusively female thing, the last time I checked. And if the sight of Mary really was an affront to the eyes of God in his Church I doubt he would have told his Church to make her an extremely important part of His peoples prayer life, to the extent that others accuse the Church of actually worshipping her.
The Church doesn't dissaprove of the dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, they're very useful for apologetics in showing that several of the Church's Holy books (i.e Tobit, Sirach) not accepted by Protestants or Jews actually have deep roots in Jewish history.
Also, Hitchens suggests that all Religions treat women terribly. I would wish to point out that a blanket statement like that is excellent rhetorically but on closer examination isn't an easily defensible statement. Women have generally gotten a rotten deal everywhere, and i doubt a stone age caveman who was miraculously an athiest would behave any better. The suggestion that both Islam and the many, many strands of would Paganism both treat women as inferior beings is ridiculous, as is the thought that every system of metaphysical thought that has ever existed is morally the same.
But in the end it all comes down to the reasons given for the position of women in the Church- everything boils down to dogma and the reasons given for dogma, because ultimately truth matters. One cannot say "Patriarcy!" and wish the Church's explanation away, the same way I cannot say "Childhood trauma!" and thus explain away everything Richard Dawkins has said about religion. I have to listen to him and Christopher Hitchens, their reasons for what they say, and then decide on my own opinion.

The Buddhist woman quotes certain Sutras that do not represent all teachings of Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra indicates that all people, including women, are capable of becoming "Buddhas." Shakyamuni, the first teacher of Buddhism, according to what history we can cobble together, taught many lesser teachings for years, because he perceived that people didn't have the capacity to accept and understand the real teaching. He later called the early teachings "provisional." In the Lotus Sutra, he clarified his teachings, indicating that all people, equally, have the capacity for enlightenment, or "Buddhahood." This teaching was codified later by Tien Tai, and clarified by Nichiren Daishonin, a priest in 13th century Japan.

Today, the SGI International practices this Buddhism. While it has only a fraction of the world's Buddhists (around 13 million) it is practicing more in accord with the spirit of the Lotus Sutra than any other sect. It is a loosely structured lay organization with no priests. Where other sects, including the large ones, are esoteric, Nichiren Buddhism as practiced by the SGI is completely inclusive. Women, men, gays, straight, all races. Everyone can attain enlightenment just as they are. And enlightenment is just a state of knowledge, where a person is aware of her/his own value/power, and therefor aware of the value/power of others as well.

A minor point, but perhaps the reason that:

"Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?"

went unanswered is because, as a question, it bears a certain resemblance to "have you stopped beating your wife?" There's no way to answer it if you don't agree with the premise.

In any case, blaming religion seems a fool's game to me. You yourself talked about primates and prehistorical societies tending to patriarchial societies. And certainly there are religions today that oppress women and see them as inferior...as there are religions that don't. And unsurprisingly, you tend to get the most oppressive religions (or versions of a religion) in the places that are socially the most oppressive of women, and vice versa.

Mr. Ebert, you asked another reader for what might be considered anti-catholic. I wish to give a couple of insights.

St. Mary Magdalene - No Catholics are held that she must be a prostitute. Many have considered her possibly to have been one. That's because seven demons were cast out and seven being the number of 7 deadly sins and lust as one of those 7 its possible that she was afflicted by a lustful demon, but no one is held to that belief. What I find offensive is that you left out that she is a canonized saint! That sir you are held to, but didn’t mention! I would be equally offended if you mentioned St. Augustine's womanizing but left out his conversion.

Mary the Mother of God - For Catholics the highest ranking human in heaven is a woman! Mary, Queen of the Universe! Mary, Queen of the Apostles! No, she was not a priest. She was not at present at the Last Supper when the priesthood was established. Why did Jesus not include women in the priesthood? That you will have to ask him. Probably the same reason men can't be nuns. we could be nuns, but make terrible wives. Just as women could make great priests but terrible husbands.

Legal code - please check the Illinois laws. What is the level of infraction for impersonating a police officer? what is the level of infraction for molesting a child? I would guess that they are both a felony. Does this make them the same morally?

Women in the Gospels - If men are uncomfortable with women and changed the Gospels accordingly then they forgot some key texts. Such as the fact that all the men fled the cross and the women stayed. Or that women were the first to proclaim the Risen Christ while the men disbelieved. Yet these are the accepted Gospels that men are so supposedly afraid of. While the rejected books such as the Gospel of Thomas have as their ending line that women will be completed in heaven and turned into men.

What the Church can and cannot change - individual celibacy (as opposed to universal celibacy) is indeed a discipline of the Church that was promoted by Jesus and St. Paul, but is subject to change. Male Priesthood is the history of the Church given to us by Christ which we have no power to change. As the Pope says in his latest book even if he wanted to he can't. It is a matter of obedience to the structure of the Church created by Christ.

hope some of that helps.
Fr. joshua

I am a practicing Catholic of the liberal variety, and the Church is what it is and is certainly run by men. One would like to think in a positive manner that it continues to grow and be more progressive year by year and that eventually the ordination of women will be accepted and commonplace. But it is run by men, and one man in particular (the Pope) pretty much has all the power. Western Democratic governments though, like ours, with elected officials are supposedly run by the voters that put these people in charge. And we the people actually put up with a government that does not allow bills calling for equal pay for women, and does not allow something like "don't ask don't tell" to immediately go away. That is much more disturbing to me than the fact that the Church changes so slowly.

Men's rights groups claim men gain custody of their children only 4% of the time. That's hardly 'patriarchy'. Presumably, mothers gain custody around 90% of the time, numbers, coincidentally, about the same as the male/female ratio in prisons. . and also the same ratio as deaths on the job. They also say men make up over 90% of those killed at work.

In his recent review of 'Made in Dagenham' Roger Ebert writes, "they thought they should be paid as much as men". Does he really think women who work an hourly wage, get paid less per hour, than men who work the identical job? Aren't there lawyers of journalists on that? Must be too afraid of corporate evildoers.

Perhaps Mr. Ebert just has a more subtle understanding of the issues. I would concede there are few female priests or politicians. I would also concede that female garbage collectors should be paid exactly the same as their male counterparts. Oh wait, there aren't any.

I'll be expecting Mr. Ebert to speak on this important issue too, soon.

Roger,
One example of Christ's encouragement of women as disciples is read loud and clear once each year from the gospels of Luke ( Ch. 10, 38 - 45): when Martha complained that Mary was listening to Jesus' teaching rather than helping in the kitchen, Jesus told her that Mary had "chosen the best part, and it will not be taken away from her." Funny how no one ever seems to acknowledge the implication of that.
One other indication of the non-recognition of women by the Church is that former directive to do no labor on the Lord's Day. Right. The big, expected, formal Sunday Dinner wasn't considered "labor".
Thank you for dealing with this issue.

My God, I've had a REVELATION!!! Thank you, thank, you THANK you, Roger, for writing this, because while reading the comments, a REVELATION was given unto me!

Revelations don't always come easily. For instance, my revelation about why we have circumcision came when I got my wang caught in my zipper a couple years ago. Painful it was, but I thank God nonetheless. Now I know.

On the other hand, it took just a little thinkin' for my revelation on how it could be that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, until they were chucked out of the Garden of Eden and there had been all these other people all along. Easy: so far as its authors were concerned, Adam and Eve were the first REAL people. Boy, does that make sense, especially when we regard the bashing of "Tea Partiers," who, apparently, aren't real people.

So now. Thunderous drum roll! Let an Angel, with Hair like Wool and tongue like a sword of fire unroll the scroll: The reason women had to cover themselves in church was so men wouldn't get all horny during mass. The Angel spoke further: Those little doilies that became popular centuries later didn't do a damn thing.

Perhaps Omer will have a revelation about why Islam women must cover themselves like that outside church, too. I suspicion his would be similar.

I thought the Coptic Church was older than the Roman Catholic church. And, isn't the Eastern Orthodox Church also older? Or, who split from whom?

Roger, you write the most eloquent and thought provoking blog posts on the web - no doubt. Another terrific one here, with several topics to opine on from women to evolution to Republicans.

I always marvel in your religion threads at how different your experience is from my regarding church. Vastly different. As different as the Catholic Church is from Evangelical Protestantism.

My father was a Southern Baptist preacher, starting young in Kentucky and then moving us to Illinois. SBC churches are very local church oriented, with a much weaker structure above the local church. Much different that the Catholic hierarchy. Both doctrine and worship style are quite a different than your experience.

"Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?"

Well, I'll have to take exception to Hitchens's statement. My particular church denomination respects women.

As an adult, I have joined the Church of the Nazarene International as a member for 22 years or so now. Our denomination was an offshoot of the United Methodist church about 100 years ago or so. Women were instrumental in church building throughout those years and are respected in our church. We ordain women as ministers in our denomination.

We do not have a Pope. We have a superintendency structure. Local church, districts, general church. At the top of our structure sits 6 General Superintendents, each with a responsiblity for 1/6th of the world. One of our recent General Superintendents was the very capable Mrs. Nina Gunter, who I respect very much and have met when our district was under her leadership. Meet Dr. Gunter:

http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/bios/gunter/display.aspx

I think Hitchens's question was too broad-brush.

Yes, there is continual sexism throughout the book. The winners get to write the history. It is also important to use what is written to shape the next stage of the debate. That is, if you know the end-game, you set up the pieces of 'evidence' to create the justification. I don't remember Saul/Paul traveling with any women. That might provide a clue.

You understand that the sacred texts were hid behind the curtain (movie metaphor time) and read to the crowd from a window the day before the Sabbath. At the moment of HIS death, the curtain was rent. There was absolutely no separation of the Lord from the people. HIS life was not intended to create worship of HIM, but of the Lord. He wasn't particularly fond of people tugging on HIS robe, but HE understood their desire to seek the Lord. (And those miracles were intended to make you ask questions, little boy.)

In order to return to a 'God-ordained' oligarchial power hierarchy, it was necessary to limit access to HIM, HIS words and especially concepts. HE was decreed (voted actually) divine, and then the re-interpretations began. Pick the books. Tell people the words don't mean what the words say. Demonize other interpretations. The very weight of re-educated populous thought over history creates such a philosophical inertia that people embrace rituals and traditions, tug on HIS robe, rather than truly seek the Lord.

Shirley, you must cover your head in that building. The Lord can't possibly exist outside of there. Not true? Then cover yourself all the time, the Lord's eyes can't penetrate cloth.

Let us not forget that Eve and Jesus were thousands of years apart and were not conceived as counterparts to one another. As for the oft-cited bull that Eve ate the fruit first and tempted Adam and is therefor more full of sin, that always seemed like a joke reason for why men consider themselves superior. I couldn't believe people really saw it as valid! It's like the kind of excuse a little boy makes when he and a friend have been caught doing something wrong. "Eve ate it first! She made me do it!" So what if Eve did it first? Father told you not to eat the fruit, yet you ate it of your own free will. You have earned your punishments equally. And why did anything Adam and Eve did matter? To be punished for something that happened thousands of years before your birth and that you had no control over is ludicrous!

Thought provoking post.

I'd like to point out that the way Jesus treated women was countercultural in patriarchal Jewish society just as it continues to be countercultural in our misogyny plagued churches. Jesus respected women, treated them with dignity and kindness. Take the case of the bleeding woman in Mark 6. Under the law, she was totally impure; any rabbi would have been well within his rights to ignore her or to humiliate her, calling attention to her shame in a crowd of people. But Jesus called this woman "Daughter," in front of many witnesses, praising her faith and effectively restoring her both physically and socially.

This is only one example of many that shows Jesus' love for women. Misogynists who wear the label Christian have no true defense for their views within the framework of God's plan to restore ALL people to himself through the person of Jesus the Christ.

It seems to me that we are far too quick to point the finger at the Catholic Church as the primary oppressors of women through history when the subjugation of women seems to be a fairly broad cultural phenomenon.

There is a parallel in the issue of slavery. Yes, many Christians owned slaves and defended the idea of slavery, St Paul writes about slaves (he does say you should treat them well), and I've heard many a critic of Christianity say that these truths are evidence of Christianities general abomination. I am not a cultural relativist, but it does seem a trifle unfair that we should condemn St Paul for approving slavery when he was living in a socio-economic context that depended on it. Though slavery existed in one form or another in virtually every culture ever, it was only abolished in one: a Christian culture. I think that is a far more important detail than St Paul's tacit approval of slavery two thousand years ago.

LIkewise, on the issue of the inequality of women, it is in western, Christian, cultures that have seen the greatest advances in equality. That's not to say that the Church is perfect, but I think it's pretty difficult to sustain a prosecution based on an inequality that shows up in just about every culture in history.

On a more practical note, Roger, you mention the false comparison between women priests and pedophilia made by the vatican earlier this year. Though you do point out that the comparison between the two issues was drawn by the media and not the vatican, you still seem to imply the comparison is an accurate reflection of Church teaching. Essentially, you are citing what is an example of very bad PR (and it was very bad PR indeed from the vatican that they opened themselves up to such comparisons; in a lot of ways they brought it upon themselves) as a demonstration of the Church's views on women. The document itself was a general pronouncement on canon law, and those two issues came up. Saying one is like the other is like picking up a text book on criminal law and saying this book says murder is the same as stealing an apple.

It's worth making an all to brief on the complicated and grossly misunderstood issue of women's ordination to the Catholic priesthood. As far as the Church is concerned, making it an issue of equality completely misses the point of what the priesthood is. Saying women should be priests is like saying men should be able to give birth. It's a physical impossibility. I know that probably sounds ridiculous to a lot of people, and it is if you think of the priesthood as a job. But it's not a job like being an accountant, it's not even a job like being a protestant minister is. It's a divine spiritual calling of the whole person. Anyway, I would have to write a lot more to get into the theology behind why women can't be priests, suffice to say as far as the Church is concerned, equality has nothing to do it.

Mr. Ebert (once we become friends I'll use 'Roger' ;),

I just wanted to say how very impressed I am that you read all or most of the comments and respond to several. It's also a big compliment to you that almost all of your commenters are thoughtful and insightful (ON THE INTERNET, no less). Kudos.

On topic: I have been reading a book about the science of the male sex drive. It interestingly points out that many entirely monogamous species have no size differentiation between genders (penguins, for example). Typically, males are larger than females when they are required to fight each other for the right to mate. Sexual selection is also a factor. Perhaps men are bigger because women like to mate with bigger men. (My response to a constant stream of female friends asking "Why are the men I date assholes?" is "Because you're attracted to assholes.")

This is a long winded way of saying that there are two sides to every coin. Many women eagerly participate in patriarchal society. I am constantly frustrated by women who aspire to be a _____'s assistant (fill in the blank with doctor, dentist, etc) instead of a _____.

Also, religion often makes me sick, but it's simply a reflection of its members. I can't be mad at it for being sexist.

Yep, spot on. Men are in charge because they're huskier and can beat women up. There is no other reason for it. Woman are smarter, more level-headed, more evolved emotionally, and they live longer. They also control all birth (theoretically) and every single human being ever emerges from them. That they are not in charge makes absolutely no sense - unless you consider that there's another, brutish sex on the planet who demand to drive even if they don't know where they're going.

I want to be one of your foreign correspondent. I'll move to Turkey (but not Java) if that'll make it happen.

This is a lovely essay and I appreciate it sincerely. But religions are only one of the misogynistic aspects of society, along with--alas--every other aspect of society. You could just as well ask "Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as the film industry does?" No, it isn't good, but this isn't a good argument against the film industry. Ads for alcoholic beverages are offensively misogynistic, and yet this is not a reason to support prohibition.

When I said to my father that Mary is the anti-goddess, he looked puzzled. She is a silent vessel, subservient and faithful to the end.

This was during the Dan Brown Da Vinci code heyday. I had read The Mists of Avalon a few years earlier.

Like many girls who grew up in a Christian church, I had a crush on Jesus as a young teenager. In my imagination he would have looked a lot like the guy in the Jesus Christ Superstar movie:)

I stopped using the figure of speech "rule of thumb" when I learned its origin. English is a hideously anti-female language.

The power dynamic between men and women has always been fundamentally in the man's favor because of his physical strength and thus his necessity to the survival of the tribe, or the family. Meanwhile, the woman can go through pregnancy and give birth. The idea of "society" has always been something built by, and therefore, subconsciously, FOR men. Women, as a general social group, have never been a typically "powerful" class, simply because they are too busy giving birth and raising children in order to compete. Also, in the most basic sense, a person's capacity for power is equal to their capacity to inflict pain or unpleasant circumstances. The oldest and most basic form of this is physical strength. Combine all "men" as a single social group, compare them to all "women" and you clearly have one side more powerful than the other. These are the circumstances regarding male/female relations that we as a species have evolved with, thereby solidifying them pretty firmly in our collective and individual psyches. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution didn't bring about deep psychological makeup that will suddenly dissolve just because we have some notion of "equality."

That being said, women are relatively equal to men in America today, when compared with other places in the world, and other times in history. Now, more than ever, women can feel free to express themselves and their sexuality without fear of being stoned to death or being beaten by her husband. And women are being accepted into the professional and academic world openly and with great results.

However, underneath the veil of pleasantries and civilized discourse, there will always be the deeper, archaic sexual stirrings within when a man and a woman encounter one another, always the questioning of whether or not they would be fit mates. Men and women are necessary to one another, and they know it, and their bodies know it. And, during certain times in history, certain religious leaders knew it, and didn't like it. Thus, masculinity -- not femininity -- won the battle for control over our minds and our societies. Another victory for the men.

Along with many other interesting ideas at The Joseph Campbell Foundation, there is this illuminating essay, relevant to the topic of this blog.

Ann Levingston Joiner

We need a new metaphor or myth that can bring us all together in a state of cooperation rather than one of competition. We need a metaphor or myth that embraces diversity. We need a means to end patriarchal dominance, not replacing it with its opposite, a matriarchy, but with what Riane Eisler in The Chalice and the Blade calls a “gylany,” a partnership society. What we need to do is to marry the masculine and feminine elements into an integrated whole.

http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php?categoryid=37

I'm a devout Catholic and Christian, but I take most of the Bible with a grain of salt and most Papal directives with an entire shaker. Anyone who's ever played "telephone" knows how things get misinterpreted over time. Add agendas to the mix and you've got the myriad Bibles we have today.

Love God above all, and love other people more than yourself pretty much covers what Christ said. I do, however, love the story where He busted up the temple and mouthed off at the religious asses of His time, the Pharisees.

Placing blame upon religion is just a way for mankind to distance itself from different evils. If religion did not exist, wouldn't some other form of the same thing exist? If the Catholic Church (for example) is abusing the power it has, then wouldn't some other awful group arise? In season 10 of their series: South Park, the creators had an episode where one of the characters went to the future where there was no longer religion. Instead, three athiest groups fought over who should have power. Each thought that they had scientifically found the 'right answer'. It is mankind that has evil in it, not just religion.

Religion is the EXCUSE to treat women this way.
If any males have any doubts about this NOT being demeaning and uncomfortable, wear a burqa, niqab and hijab for a month . . .a week, a day. you won't last. And why hasn't someone made a documentary yet about doing this?!?

Religion is an excuse for racism and sexism, and to wield power over more than half the world's population. It's allll made up, people, yet armed men are ready to rape and kill over fairy tales, even one written by L Ron Hubbard.
But at least, this too, shall pass, although not fast enough, and not in my or our daughters' lifetimes.
My favourite quotation: 'The Great God Ra/Whose shrine once covered acres/ Is filler now/For crossword puzzle-makers.'

Great entry Roger. I'm glad you wrote about this topic. It's something I often have conversations about this topic with family and friends, both religious and non-religious. The criticism I have regarding those who write or speak about religion harming society because it creates inequality, etc, is that the word 'religion' is used as if it is all encompassing, representing all faiths, when in reality the individual is referring to the major religions - Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc. I'm 20 years old, far from being able to associate myself with an entire religion's beliefs. However, I have been raised as a Sikh, and Sikhism is a religion that is often misunderstood an thus misrepresented. A much younger religion than most, it benefits from tha gathere wisdom of many generations and different, older religions. When Sikhs enter their temple, a Gurdwara as it's called, it is not just the women who must cover their heads. I'm certainly no expert, but I think we could all benefit from broadening our minds to 'minor' religions such as Sikhism, simply in order to gain the hope that humans can evolve and men can, just maybe, learn from these mistakes.

I agree with plenty of this essay, EXCEPT...the Paycheck Fairness Act would have been a disaster for businesses, and benefited no one but lawyers. Some women run companies, Roger! We aren't all damsels in distress looking for the government to rescue us.

I listened incredulously to Fr. Arellano's dogma. His logic is exactly why the Catholic Church is dying in countries that allow freedom of thought.

I noticed that there are some comments here that support the Church's view of women but it seems to me that they are all from areas where there is laxity in enforcing the doctrine of the Church. Tow the Pope Benedict line and you might as well be in the eighth century. (One of Fr. Arellano's arguments for keeping women from being ordained is tradition. It was also once tradiation to beat your children and servants, to have slaves and to use outdoor plumbing. Fortunately those traditions are no longer observed.)

I was raised Roman Catholic. One of the reasons I left the Church was because I realized that my daughter would never be considered as good as a boy no matter how smart or devout she was, solely because of her sex. I didn't want to put that kind of self-esteem burden on her.

I'm not anti-Catholic. Just anti-stupid.

Kristin:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/

That's the page for Peggy Reeves Sanday, a feminist anthropologist who spent some time looking for genuine, living, matriarchal cultures, and apparently, found one, the Minankgabau of Indonesia.

The Hitchens/Blair debate had some good points, and some 'cute' points (Hitchens has used that 'celestial North Korea' line approximately 89 bajillion times already). I liked Blair's (one) point about religion not having any monopoly over evil, though it's probably also worth mentioning that it has none over goodness, decency and compassion either.

It's particularly irritating how Tony Blair has been involving himself in a tepid stream of softball media encounters recently, with all that blood from an illegal war still on his hands, yet still no crack of conscience. So I'm not sure how fair it is to have the war criminal defending the position of faith. I'm also not sure how useful it is to have Hitchens, who supported that war with great phlegm and bile, defending the position of reason.

The horrific failure in catechesis of the 20th century rears its ugly head yet again. What your mother and aunt told you (assuming that your recollection is accurate and not shaded by the passage of time and your deep bias) is 100% inaccurate. Women veil themselves before the Blessed Sacrament because we are the visible reminders of the nuptial love between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His bride. We are the BRIDE. Therefore we are HONORED with the veil. They had it completely and totally wrong. How unspeakably sad, both for them and for you.

I attend a Tridentine Latin Mass parish (FSSP) and I can report that the only time during the week that I really feel like a woman is the two hours when I am at Mass and am wearing the veil. During the week I am a single, mid-30s uber-successful commodity broker and consultant. In every room I walk into I am the man. I am the responsible provider. I am the one with all of the answers. I am the source of knowledge, strength and encouragement to those around me. I could give you one of my balls and still have two left. And you know what? It gets old. I'm not a man. I'm a woman, and I like being a woman, and the only Man who treats me like a woman is Our Blessed Lord. So keep your cotton-picking fingers off of my veil, if you know what's good for you, buddy. See - there I go being a man again.

I hope this helps, or at least spurs a little bit of thought beyond the objectively erroneous and painfully superficial.

Can you say "Unreliable Narrator'?

Face it, at the bottom of the Judeo-Christian "tradition" is a well of lies.

Wonderful essay, Roger.

Had I agreed with my wife as often as I agree with you, we'd still be married. Great woman . . . we just didn't see eye to eye on anything. On the other hand, I agree with EVERY Ebert essay. In fact, before I started this comment, I tried to recall an entry with which I disagreed. I don't remember one.

Roger, have you got any single sisters?

I've been pondering matriarchal societies of late and was thinking our cousins, the Bonomo, may have gotten it about right. After being coerced into seeing BURLESQUE, I've changed my mind.

Hmm.

All the Catholic discussion made me think back to the conversion process as a teenager. How did the ultra-evangelical church I came from compare to the Catholic church I joined in terms of feminism? I remember the evangelical church having five or six pastors that would all parade onto the stage every Sunday morning. Only one was female - the "Children's minister". How appropriate. I joined a church that, yes, does not ordain female priests. But my teacher with the RCIA program was a woman. Most of the readers and Eucharistic ministers each Sunday were women. Even now, thirteen years later, the same nun stands outside the front door each Sunday morning before mass to greet everyone as they come in. I guess I always focused on the good I saw instead of the bad.
Perhaps I'm writing this because I've never wanted to be a priest. Can't envy what you don't want! I don't understand the reasoning behind it all - if there is any - but seems to me they'd do better to allow women to become priests. There's always that allure and challenge of the forbidden, after all. Tell a person very specifically that they CAN'T do something they are capable of doing and, well, you've got a problem.
As for equal rights in the workplace - well, absolutely! While they're at it can they give me equal rights at home too? Can I come home from working all day (which I in fact do) and play on the computer like him instead of cooking or cleaning or making dinner? After all, my husband cooks better than I do :)

Roger, I think you're brilliant, witty and insightful, but I Hitchens' question is built on a premise of prejudice. There are millions of religious people who have discarded the paternalistic perversions of earlier manifestations of their faiths as historical artifacts. Just as the pastor at our Lutheran church -- she'll tell you. This is Hitchens M.O.: Set up a straw man and knock it down, typically by attacking the most backward and least educated factions within a faith an pretending he has attacked the faith itself. Showing Falwell or Robertson to be the bigots they are says absolutely nothing about the millions of American Christians who find their pronouncements offensive bastardizations of the faith. Pointing to Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan does not say all Republicans are stupid. Pointing to Hitler and Goebbels does not say all Germans are evil. Pointing to the KKK and Steve King does not damn all white people.

Instead of letting his question hang in the air at the end, which seems to give it your endorsement, I wish you had said what Blair did not -- and what you and Hitchens both know: Not ALL religions consider women inferior.

I visited a mosque here in town (Santiago, Chile). I had met the President of the mosque at a gas station and he gave me his card and invited me over. He was a young man and very pleasant. I'm a Christian missionary, but I've had wonderful discussions with folks of all faiths. There's always lots to learn.

He showed me the sanctuary, and pointed out that the women worshiped at the same time, but up on the second floor. I asked him why they were segregated. He said it was because the men were there to worship Allah, and it was good not to be distracted.

I thought he had a good point.

I have no personal words for comment on this article. It is too personal, I am a woman. One song running through my head as I read through your article, Roger, I quote as follows:

"You'd better love loving and you'd better behave
You'd better love loving and you'd better behave
Woman in chains
Woman in chains
Calls her man the great white hope
Says she's fine She'll always cope
Woman in chains
Woman in chains
And I feel
Lying and waiting is a poor man's deal
A poor man's deal
And I feel
Hopelessly weighed down by your eyes of steel
Your eyes of steel
Well it's a world gone crazy
Keeps woman in chains
It's under my skin
But out of my hands
I'll tear it apart
But I won't understand
The greatness of man"

Woman in Chains by Tears for Fears

Written by a man (or men) and sung beautifully by the men and a woman

Your words are so direct, I'm sure they hit close to the bone for many, in fact, maybe all of us. I can't think of anything else, except a big Thank-You, and Bless You.

If this is a duplicate comment, I apologize. Thought I hit send hours ago, but walked away from computer and tried to hit after some period of time.

I have come to see Mary, she of the virgin birth, as the anti-goddess. Silent, subservient, a vessel. Perhaps the best framing of that premise can be found in The Mists of Avalon.

English is an anti-female language. I had to stop using the figure of speech "rule of thumb" after learning its origin. Hard to insult a man without impugning his mother :)

Enjoyed the post, Roger.

I'm surprised that in all of your time in Chicago, you haven't learned more about the Baha'i Faith. The equality of women and men is a basic tenet. When you get a chance, you might peruse this page: http://info.bahai.org/article-1-7-0-6.html. Best wishes, and I love your musings!

I was trying to avoid responding but I find I cannot help it. I grew up going to Churches of Christ in Australia. You have them in the USA but under a different name I think - they are similar to Baptist, so pretty theologically conservative. Nonetheless, here is a brief list of things I do not believe and was never taught or encouraged to believe:
- women are worth less than men
- women are more sinful than men
- women are any more responsible than men for sexual sin
- Eve was responsible for Adam's sin
- Mary Magdalene was a prostitute
- it would have mattered if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute
- Jesus' divinity would have been diminished if he had married

Women's roles within the church and the home were a bit more controversial, but individual family practices were never challenged and a number of the churches I went to had female ministers.

The Bible teaches pretty clearly that God made humankind in his image, to be his friends. I do believe that God created men and women differently, to complement rather than compete against each other, but I doubt he would have bothered creating any women if he didn't think they are worth being friends with. Jesus undoubted love (of whatever sort) for Mary Magdalene underscores this pretty emphatically.

I love my own fiancee (who is not a Christian), and I completely support and endorse her lifestyle and career choices without feeling that they diminish me as a man or taint me as a Christian.

The genius of religion is in its not turning anything into a religion.

Wow Roger, what an amazing essay. I was a smart little girl when I was growing up in the fifties and I remember asking my mom why there were no female ministers or priests. Her answer: "well that wouldn't be very nice."
What made her brief explanation worse is that my code phrase for having to go to the bathroom back then, as she taught me to say, was "mom, I have to go not nice."

What you should have asked your mom and aunt is, "If you want to spare God the sight of you, how is putting a Kleenex on top of your head going to do that?"

Burkhas, veils, and such are to prevent men from impure thoughts, and not to repress women, eh? Here's another solution: why don't those men wear blindfolds? Since they're the ones who're "sinning", they're the ones who should have measures imposed on them. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight?

But man, that'd sure be an inconvenience to those powerful menfolks. Might even be humiliating. Can't have that.

Reply to: Your post came across as slightly anti-Catholic to me but I could relate to a lot of thigns. I'm a 21 year old college student and I'm actually in RCIA right now. I admit, I used to be anti-Catholic and anti-religion in general.- Nina

21 years old?

Nina, you're the victim of brainwashing.

Jesus was an ordinary human being. He never predicted a Kingdom. That part was added AFTER Jesus died.

The Romans burned down the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD. With their
symbol of power gone, the Jews were afraid their children were going to
join the Emperor Cult and worship Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and
some future Emperors as their primary gods.

So, some frustrated Jews created a story about Jesus (which was like
"John Smith" at the time) where Jesus was actually the "son of God" instead
of Augustus Caesar.

Everything, with a few exceptions, in the Catholic Church is based on lies.

I think Jesus protested against the Romans who had taken over the Temple,
and were stealing the tithes through a scam where the High Priest bought
the right to the title.

The opinion of Jesus on women? Pretty much like any man in that time period.

Women didn't know how to read. If you grew up in a society where women
never learn to read... well, unless you do, you have NO IDEA how women
existed in the eyes of Jesus.

Let me give you an example:

Nina:People often underestimate the role of Mary. If you think about it, God entrusted the most important task in the world to......a woman!

That's a complete lie. The part about Mary having "the son of God" was
invented after Jesus died, as part of a myth about Jesus. Having a
virgin birth came from many kings who rewrote their own parentage.

Everything you discuss with your friend... that you consider so intellectual... is
based on lies and myths, not truth.

When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that

Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo.
[Suetonius, Life of the Deified Augustus, Chapter 94]

There are other stories about the divine parentage of Romulus and Remus, and Alexander the Great....

... but the important part is, IF you accept that Mary had an important role "becasue God chose her to be mother to the son of God," you are simply revealing that you have never studied what actually happened in those days.

It's ALL a lie. Peter wanted revenge for Jesus' death, the Jews were afraid their children would accept the Roman Emperor as their god... and they invented stories to turn Jesus into a deity EXACTLY as the Roman
emperors used "divus" to describe themselves.

(The font in this new comment window is microscopic. Typos MAY occur.)

Roger-
Great essay. Father Arellano's discussion reminded me just why I am no longer a Catholic, and also why I am much happier as a Presbyterian. My six year old daughter has asked me why there are no priests in the catholic church, and I really have no good answer for her. Also presbyterian ministers can be married, have kids, and lead perfectly normal lives. Thanks for stimulating an interesting discussion, and I really love your blog. -Brian

Interesting perspectives so far, this blog always brings out the best. Here's my take: There are going to be essential sex differences between men and women. We are a dimorphic species. A dimorphic species has to have gender interaction to reproduce. Women, innately I believe, are the grander sex. But males are stronger and assert power to a far greater extent than women. This holds true across all humanity. I think the misogyny in the Catholic Church is but an expression of this human peculiarity. And I hope we address the matter at its innate source, instead of playing Whac-A-Mole with every manifestation.

One more bit of evidence that Patriarchy didn't arise merely because men can beat women up: Duane Bobbit.

So we'll have to start over.

"Priests do not abuse because they are homosexuals. They abuse because they are abusers of power or pedophiles, because they are manipulative and harmful, not because of an evil gayness within them".

They're also not 'pedophiles', either, the normal label used in the media. At least, not if they are actually having sex with teenagers or teenage boys.

"And I hope we address the matter at its innate source, instead of playing Whac-A-Mole with every manifestation"

Actually Roger makes a good point, that men are just stronger than women. Author Esther Vilar, who is about as anti-woman, and I would have to say, as anti 'roger ebert', as one could possibly be, she pointed out that during the Vietnam War, Americans were fighting soldiers, in war, that were weaker than the average American housewife - basically trying to put aside the notion that women couldn't work tough jobs/needed special laws and protection, or really needed any man to protect them. She felt men needed protecting - from conniving/shirking women, and those who enforce their bidding.

The rest of what Roger said was, in my opinion, anti-reality blather. But it is a good point that men are, on average, stronger than women. They are very likely still to be after we address these matters at their 'innate source'.

It's interesting that so many Catholics put so much effort into proving that something is "anti-Catholic", and therefore "bigoted".

Are they saying it is impossible to criticize the Catholic Church without being bigoted? Such an assumption masks the underlying assumption that the Catholic Church MUST be good, and hence any criticism of it cannot possibly be valid, hence it must be bigotry.

It is incorrect to assume that all religions hold women to be inferior, or that God hols woman with contempt. In the Bible yes, woman is of man, and yet, man is also of woman (if woman committed the first sin, man was not far behind). The Apostle Paul says a woman ought not teach, and yet he also says the husband should be subject to his wife. God does not love man only, because he was the crown of His creation; He loves man and woman equally because they are both His creations. Man is not complete without woman, indeed creation itself is not complete without her.

Woman's role is to help man, but it is a misconception of this idea that most people hold to. This does not mean that woman is man's slave and cannot be in charge of anything. It does not mean she cannot be strong. Look at Psalms 31:10-31. A strong, industrious woman is praised. Look at the books of Ruth and Esther. Look at Rahab. All of these cared for their families and were essentially heads of them. Jesus also had many female followers, and it was to them it was first revealed He was risen--not the disciples. By contrast to all these strong, good, women, there are comparatively few evil ones in Scripture (such as Athaliah and Jezebel). On the whole, woman, as is all humanity, is seen very clearly in Scripture. She was created perfect, became imperfect through sin, and yet, with man, is the pinnacle of creation.

If the Catholic Church (for example) is abusing the power it has, then wouldn't some other awful group arise?

(Hey: We, the Other Group, are not that awful. Except for maybe the Methodists.) ;)

You also accuse Christianity of being so disturbed by the fact that women have sex that Mary is made into a virgin out of fear. I don't get it.

It's simple: Misogynism necessarily has to take two forms--The condescendingly kissup symbolic-glorifying of what women "should" be, while simultaneously throwing rocks from a safe distance at what it believes women "are".
The former is the reason, for example, why James Cameron always has Sigourney Weaver brandish maternally-enraged machine guns and sling feminist-avenging dominatrix barbs at Paul Reiser, and the reason why Tim Burton made Mia Wasikowska only find social self-discovery by dressing up in Joan of Arc armor. (And the reason why gays have Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" memorized, while laughing uproariously at Lindsay Lohan.)
The church founders couldn't sling the, er, somewhat personally skewed "Eve was the first harlot slut!" demonizing around for very long without balancing the argument of what women "should" be: Everybody's dear, patient mother, put in safe charge of the entire universe, and holding sweet lil' uncomplaining religion in her very hands, seeing as apple pie hadn't been invented yet.

Father Arellano's discussion reminded me just why I am no longer a Catholic, and also why I am much happier as a Presbyterian. My six year old daughter has asked me why there are no priests in the catholic church, and I really have no good answer for her. Also presbyterian ministers can be married, have kids, and lead perfectly normal lives.

It is, after all, a JOB, as it was meant to be--Catholicism believes that religion has to be in the hands of qualified, highly-trained representatives to speak for you, because God didn't want to talk to you personally--An idea that makes most Protestants go "....Hahh? 0_o? "
Jesus opened his ministry to anyone who would follow and keep following, and spread the word in a crowd. Protestantism, which has no miracle saints and simply recognizes those who did their job well, teaches that if the person in your community can keep the church going, maybe you can too....Catholicism is monarchic, but Protestantism is democratic.

Religion is one of the most evil things to ever come from man. Religion is not required in the slightest to make a connection to yourself or to other people and to be a good person. That comes from kindness, self-respect and courage. Anyone who says otherwise is a dolt. I do not have to be empathetic - they are stupid. Muslim's kill, rape and humiliate their women - what is it about women? You'd understand more if they tried to PROTECT them from other races? Like the whole black things - don't sleep with the white girl! Wow, black people are more racist than white people. Anyone who says otherwise is a dolt. I have read the Koran and the Bible several times and the more I do the more I realise it is a man made tool to corrupt your own self-respect. The Chruch looks the other way at peadophiles - no one religion is 'good' for anyone. Why can;t people juts respect themselves - why are they pussy to need something? It's scary that I live in a world with so many mad people.

I respectfully beg to differ with Mr. Hitchens. All religions don't:

"All should know … Women and men have been and will always be equal in the sight of God."

"When all mankind shall receive the same opportunity of education and the equality of men and women be realized, the foundations of war will be utterly destroyed."

"The woman has greater moral courage than the man; she has also special gifts which enable her to govern in moments of danger and crisis."

"If it is not possible, therefore, for a family to educate all the children, preference is to be accorded to daughters since, through educated mothers, the benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused throughout society."

~ The Baha'i Faith

In Janeane Garofalo's stand-up, as she talks about this very subject, partial quote from wikipedia:

"That's the main gist of all religions because we're scared of the vagina. Somehow it all leads to fear of the vagina."

And Catherine Breillat, about her film "Anatomy of Hell", in an interview she said that "hell has an anatomy and it is the woman's body." In another interview about the film, which I'll paraphrase, she says that at first a man is terrified of the vagina, in which it is something he slowly comes to have affection for: kind of has to practice at it.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that there might be something to what Janeane Garofalo said, and also what Brooke said:

"brooke | December 1, 2010 10:48 PM | Reply

Yes, men are bigger, stronger, and can kick the shit out of women, so they have the power. But, as you mention, there is always this notion of women as inherently "tempting", which suggests that they are sexually desired by men. The need for men to cover women's bodies, to keep them out of power and dominate them actually suggests that it is women who have power over men because men are eternally tempted, weakened, and made vulnerable by the female body and female sexuality. To counteract that, men need to be in control. Of course, this is far more complex, especially when it comes to gender, masculinity, "womb envy", male subjectivity and the female lack, the problem of female desire, etc., etc."

Me again.

A lot of "objectified" women, like pin-up girls or I'll just say Elvira, will use this very same logic to say that THEY actually empower themselves through this and whatnot, such as by making men do things for them or being a kind of ethereal symbol of aspirational success.

Anyway, dress up as a vagina for halloween, kids, and scare the crap out of many boys and even some men.

Oh, right this is America, where we call you gay if you are scared of vaginas.

And then there's group-think among the gay community as well; there are crazies in every group holding sway, unfortunately.

@Tom Dark

"One more bit of evidence that Patriarchy didn't arise merely because men can beat women up: Duane Bobbit.

So we'll have to start over."

If the preceding was not meant with complete irony, it is probably the dumbest thing you have ever posted. No offense.

You should try being rational and maybe respond to criticism with a reasoned defense rather than snark.

If you are talking christianity you should stick to the bible I think, and not obscure writings of obscure origins. And yes for you to believe in God is to submit. Man or woman. There are several Marys in the bible ,sometimes it's easy to get confused, but read on Ebert , even if for the wrong reasons, there are great treasures in the bible and one can always learn.

i appreciate your blog and your bravery. as a child i wondered why my church (along with my father) believed that women couldn't be deacons of the church, let alone ministers. i argued this and many other questions with my father and sunday school teachers. i am now an adult woman who thinks that religion is a curious crutch, not only to our society, but to our entire world. i have finally come to the conclusion that i am agnostic; i believe that even if there was a higher power, there is no possible way for any human to know or understand it. i cannot fathom why in 2010 we haven't evolved past organized religion, and even build our government around it. at the same time, i am fascinated by it like the proverbial train wreck one can't look away from. anyway, thanks.

Roger,
I have been a avid reader and viewer of your film critiques for decades, and have been deeply moved with your incorporation of philosophy and the arts in your views. After the Esquire article which strongly implied that you are an aetheist, I researched various sites for more input of the article's spiritual conclusion, but only became more confused on the issue.
In a multitude of your writings I see a strong thrust towards the belief and inspiration you have from God. I presume that you are no longer practicing the Catholic religion, but you are Catholic in philosophy. I enjoyed your recent article and agree with your tenants of the outdated (and perhaps never realistic) views of the "powers" of the Church on the role of women. There should be women priests in the Catholic Church, and should have been for past centuries.
You and I are the same age, I was born on March 24, 1942 in Dubuque, IA, and film is our intellectual life pursuit. I was raised with Catholic fears and guilt. In high school I realized that the viewpoints and teachings were not from God, but from old men out of touch with Christ's teachings of love.

For fifty years I searched for meaning and peace in Catholicism, and finally found it in 2005 when a local priest here in Davenport, Iowa, comforted me and helped me through serious open heart surgery. My wife, who never had a formal religion, joined the Catholic religion shortly after that.

I have a graduate degree from the University of Iowa, and have taught film - as well as critical thinking, composition, and literature - from 1966 to 2002. I was inspired by my students every day of my teaching career, and through my teachings inspired students indirectly in a similar way that you do in your writings.

I am asking you a favor that means much for me in the total understanding of your work and philosophy, - Do you believe in a loving and gentle God, much in the way that he is seen in the parishes here . I lived for 20 years in the Los Angeles area and briefly in the Mass. Berkshires - but I fully feel that God is with me and my wife now. Do you have similar feelings?

Please send me an answer because you in many ways, Roger, are an intellectual and spiritual model for my thinking.

Carl DeMaio

The African societies were matriarchal before the encountered the Europeans. I know primitive societies did not have the science and biological knowledge we have today, but women have been proven to be superior to men.

After conception, we are all female until the (16th?) week, a male gets his intelligence from the mother, but females get it from both parents, the hemispheres of the brain are closer together in females which is why they can multitask better than we can, childbirth has been proven to strengthen their bodies, and they live longer than we do. If nothing else, males have nipples and we can't breast feed. Think about that one.

The Guy that called you a religious bigot needs to see the movie Religilous and to do a little research. Great article by the way. I've often wondered would women be better kinder world leaders if they conquered men. After looking at our world history, it couldn't be worse.

Sincerely,

rcd

Just a thought: o.k., let’s say society is patriarchal because men are physically stronger, and dominate women just because, well, they can. Tell me, on what strictly Darwinian basis could you judge that there’s anything wrong with this? If patriarchy promotes, or at least does not hinder, reproduction and successful competition with other species – and it doesn’t seem to have, far from it - what Darwinist could object to it, and on what (scientific) grounds?
Of course one can raise a religious, more specifically Christian, objection, i.e. that it is morally wrong for the stronger to oppress the weaker or some-such, but that’s just that preachy, moralising old religion again. I’m enquiring after a scientific basis to condemn this situation. Any ideas?

Ebert: You're on the right track. Evolution is completely amoral. It has no purpose, and knows not what what it is evolving toward. Once our minds evolved, and we began to think about what was right or wrong, morality came into the picture.

True, women are considered inferior in the dominant religions. But how much does that affect the day to day lives of the average person in a non-extremist country? I would argue that in America attractive women have the best lives. I grew up with an attractive sister, and people certainly held the door open for her a lot more than for me. How many beautiful women out there are living in big houses they didn't pay for, driving cars paid for by jobs earned with degrees they never studied for, wearing jewelery they just received as a gift?

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I'm a pretty conservative (read: orthodox) Catholic who likes Pope Benedict and loved JPII. I love holy priests and holy nuns and people who talk Catholicism seriously. OK, that being said, I have to admit that I found Roger's starting anecdote completely alien to my experience as a Catholic. God doesn't want to look upon women? What the ...? To paraphrase Truman, "That ain't the way I heard it." But then again, I was born after Vatican II, so ...

As for all that stuff about Mary Magdelene being Jesus's girlfriend, it's my pleasure to disagree with Roger here. I say pleasure being even though I don't buy into what I suspect is Mr. Ebert's liberal views, I really like his wriings and I imagine I would like the man himself if I met him.

I find these discussions of theology very interesting and enlightening. I, too, was born and raised Catholic and find myself very similar in thought as you, Roger, after reading your "How I Believe in God". I am humanist as well, but am I secular? It makes me wonder if Catholicism has promoted critical thought to the point of its own demise.

I see so many different viewpoints and see much of the same variety in organized religions. A Baptist woman I dated once said to me, "We believe this..." I came to the conclusion that she and her religion cannot speak for everyone who claims their religion as their own belief. The Catholic church says you cannot use the Pill but how many practicing people of Catholicism believe that is right for the reasons given by the Church? One Baptist may believe in Rapture but do they ALL? If not, are they no longer Baptist even if in all other respects, they are?

One cannot say "WE believe this". One can only speak for themselves and say "I believe this". This made me realize that one's religion and one's faith is really a private matter between you and your god (if you have one). One CHOOSES to believe as they do based on what they are told and how they personally analyze it. You have your own relationship and your own beliefs that you do not need to defend nor catagorize.

Cheers, Roger. Well done.

It's fun watching Roger bulild a fire. Creationism, homophobia. It's like that "Have you had enough wine?" scene from Caligula.

So here's my little blood and wine to spill down over the page:

"There is only one woman in the world. One woman, with many faces."
Nikos Kazantzakis

I've often wondered if Kazantzakis meant this to be another devlish lie or if it was one of the many little truths Satan used to make the other temptations more plausible. The older I get, the more I lean toward the latter.

How about you, Roge? Doesn't this set some little truth bell ringing in your innermost soul?

I keep responding to this. . 'Men are stronger than women and can beat them up'. . . Mr Ebert is basically providing an excuse for the 'patriarchy' he so loathes (and I would say woefully misinterperets), both in the dark terrible times in history and today. Women must be protecting from anything that is considered bad or damaging. The only thing that has changed is what is considered bad or harmful. Ever 'good' person, does everything they can to prevent women, and only women, from coming to any kind of harm. As always, completely regardless of how much harm comes to men. Mr. Ebert provides unintended proof of this in his utterances.

It was feminists who insisted men and women were the same, up to the point where this idea could cause discomfort to women?

RE: Norman Duern

"One meaningful answer is that Catholicism, at least, does not hold that women are inferior in the only respect in which equality, to the believer, ultimately counts; i.e. all souls ... are equal before God."

I have an invisible pot of endless gold which I will give you, if in return I can have your services as a slave for a year. Deal? I believe in the pot of gold even though I can't see it, so therefore my offer is meaningful - to me.

In other words, your definition of meaningful and mine are worlds apart. To me, you are giving a circular argument and calling that meaningful.

Why did this comment get to me so much that I felt someone had to respond? I guess because it was one more instance of the main thing that bothers me about humanity: how easy it is for us to close our minds by forming our beliefs into an endless loop of (supposed) self-confirmation, and ignore a universe full of evidence.

What I find interenting is that the comments from this board from those somewhat anti-religious seem to all believe that mysogeny was a product of religion. If we assume that all religions are wrong and we are just evolved monkeys, then what Roger is saying is that humans created mysogeny just like they created God. Thsi is not an anti religion message, more of an anti nature message. If apes are male dominated, and we are apes, then the religious part of this is irrelavant. If humans never created God, or gods or whatever, it would appear that a male dominated society would have naturally occured anyway. Don;t blame God....blame Darwin.

Please indulge me, Mr. Ebert.

First, unrelated to the post, on the heels of my Thyroid cancer this summer, I’m awaiting results of a prostate biopsy. I was feeling sorry for myself and remembered you had one bout after another. . . I hope I deal with the results, however they are, with the same class as you have.

As the father of a young daughter, I know she will never be considered “eligible” to be the pastor of a mainstream Southern Baptist church, though she would be welcomed into the clergy of the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopal Church. And this troubles me to no end.

Because while they do see her as inferior with respect to church leadership, she is considered an equal made in the image of God.

In Black Baptist churches, the role of women is even more oppressed, as women are expected to cover their heads, would never be allowed to stand in a pulpit (though they have no problem with them holding subservient roles - i.e. singing in choir, teaching Sunday school).

I’ve come to care a lot more about right and wrong over Right and Left. In the end, I look at the alternatives and have decided that a religious life is better than a secular one, because of morality.

I hear Atheists who grew up Catholic or Protestant claim that you can be moral through reason, and there are many good people who are Atheists, there is no question. However, oftentimes the morals they hold are, in fact, religious ones, in secular dressing. They hold them because of their Catholic upbringing (I cite the numerous times that you, sir, have stated your belief in the Social Gospel, even as your Catholicism has become somewhat lapsed.

According to my Upper West Side friends, the “enlightened” thinking is that superstition (belief in a God who is the source of our morality) is replaced by reason and reason leads to the moral good.

The post-Christian West produced considerably more evil than the Christian world had.

No mass cruelty in the name of Christianity approximated the vastness of the cruelty unleashed by secular doctrines and regimes in the post-Christian world.

The argument against religion that more people have been killed in the name of religion than by any other doctrine is false propaganda on behalf of secularism.

The amount of evil done by Christians — against, for example, “heretics” and Jews — in both the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity was extensive, as was the failure of most European Christians to see Nazism for the evil that it was.
But there were never any Christian Auschwitzes — systematic genocides of every man, woman, and child of a particular race or religion. Nor were there Christian Gulags — the shipping of millions of innocents to conditions so horrific that prolonged suffering leading to death was the almost inevitable end.

The anti-religious crowd offers two responses to these facts. The first is that modern technology made the Nazi and Communist murders of scores of millions possible; had the church been technologically able to do so, it would have made its own Auschwitz and Gulag. The second is that Nazism and Communism were religions and not secular doctrines.

The response to the first is that technology was not necessary for the Communist murders of over 100 million innocent people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere. In Cambodia, millions were murdered with hammers, in Rwanda, with machetes.

The response to the second is that Communism and Nazism were secular movements, and to deny that is to tell a gargantuan lie. Even if one argues that Nazism and Communism were religions, they were nevertheless secular religions.

That too many Christians morally failed when confronted with Nazism is true but irrelevant to the fact that Nazism was in no way a Christian movement.

And now the post-Christian world is getting worse.

The moral news about the world in which we live is almost unremittingly negative. Russia, for example, is devoid of a moral values system. Whatever moral role the Russian Orthodox Church played was largely extinguished during the seven decades of Communist suppression of religion.

Today, pockets of religious morality notwithstanding, Russia is essentially a nihilistic state.

Where does that leave me with my daughter? I’m not 100% sure.

But I want her to grow up to be first morally good, and a very close second, happy.

And that cannot be an affront to the God I worship.

Ebert: Here's something to think about: The lives of most people in the developed world, socialist or capitalist, are indirectly controlled by amoral corporations.

Roger, the Paycheck Fairness Act would have been a nightmare for employers, and a bonanza for trial lawyers. Remember the ADA (American Disabilities Act)? Certainly it was passed with the best of intentions, but it has turned into a cash cow for lawyers and plaintiffs who specialize in finding small businesses that are mildly out of compliance - say, a bathroom countertop that is an inch too high - and suing them.

The poster child for this behavior is attorney Scott Johnson in California. He has file over 1000 lawsuits against various businesses for what are often very minor compliance problems, and made millions of dollars in doing so. He's not the only one who does this; he's just one of the more egregious abusers of the ADA.

Who knows how many businesses have closed due to this kind of harassment? Many small businesses cannot conveniently shell out even a few thousand dollars to fix the "minor" problems cited in such lawsuits - especially when construction permits often require much more extensive changes to bring older buildings into code compliance. That businesses HAVE been forced to close as a result of such lawsuits, or lay off employees, or delay or abandon plans to expand, is a plain fact. Type the keywords 'ADA lawsuit' in any search engine and you will get an eyeful.

Was that the intent of the ADA – to shut down businesses, and put people out of work? No, but there are always unintended consequences.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Fairness Act would have resulted in a similar barrage of lawsuits. Any perceived "unfairness" in pay could result in a lawsuit, whether the discrepancy was real or not. The cost to employers to fight this kind of thing could be astronomical.

Could the Act have resulted overall in more equal pay for women? Perhaps – but at what cost to businesses and consumers, because of the collateral damage from unwarranted lawsuits? Would the overall benefit has justified the cost?

An employment contract is an agreement between employee and employer: You pay me this much money, and I"ll do this particular work. If that is not satisfactory, I'll leave. It is not my employer's responsibility to either provide me job, or pay me exactly what they pay someone else. I've never known how I was paid in comparison with my co-workers, and I don't want to know.

I'll leave you with Matthew 20:1-15, the parable of the laborers who grumbled when others were paid the same for an hour's work as for a whole day's work. "But he (the owner) replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?'"

If someone else posted the same, sorry about the duplication....

evidence is pretty strong that the Mary Magdalen of the Gospels was not originally a prostitute; misogyny over time turned her into one as the story was retold.

Another thought or two...

From a secular perspective women are attracted to the "best" mates as they see them, as are men. The ideal mate as a cultural norm and will vary across peoples, countries, etc. but in general stronger/smarter/better providing men are closer to the "ideal mate" prototype regardless of culture. Of course "smarter/stronger" can be defined in many ways - that's a given.

Likewise attractive, talented/capable women are seen as the ideal of their sex. The arena in which their talents and capabilities reside are important to the men who share the woman's culture/subculture.

All that said, churches and other human organizations cannot realistically exist outside the influences of that social construct/biological imperative. Even when human instincts and intentions are filtered through the sieve of religion we will still always end up with something similar to the cultural norm for the society in which the religion was born or resides. Human action colors the issue. We cannot perfectly realize God's truth. Discounting religion due to the failures of those who participate in them seems foolish to me - of course anything built by man is imperfect. Theology (what we think and say about God) is our attempt to understand God's truth, not necessarily truth itself.

Thanks so much for your blog, Roger. You're brilliant.

I listened to the video you posted from EWTN about women's ordination. Between that and reading some of the comments here, I am reminded that I don't believe holding the BVM up as an example of the church's respect for women is fair. Mary is revered, "the most sacred of creatures," according to the clip. But that doesn't translate into respect for women. It does the opposite, because no woman could be like Mary. The Immaculate Conception kinda cemented that.

As a Catholic woman, I don't want to be revered. I don't want to be told about how I have a different role to play, and I certainly don't want to be told that being a woman makes me better or more special because, to quote something a Catholic man once told me, "you can give birth!" It seems like men are seen as the default, and women are somehow, for better or worse, the variant. I just want to be treated as a person. I'm a PERSON.

And Mr. Ebert, if you're an anti-Catholic bigot, then the definition of bigotry has changed since I last looked. Anyone reading your blog can see the warm feelings you still have for the faith.

God isn't religion. Organized religion is always going to be a human thing and will contain the same corruptions all human-made things contain.

Organized religion is just people (mostly men) using God's name to abuse others (mostly women and children). Organized religion attracts people who have a need to control others, to push them around, to tear them down.

I grew up Catholic and saw the utter contempt the Church held for women, from my grandmother, who was blamed and held responsible for her own beatings at the hands of her husband, to my mother who was forced to go through a humiliating "purifying" ceremony after peforming the filthy act of giving birth, to myself who was horrifyingly abused at the hands of a Catholic organization. The Catholic Church trots out their concept of Mary -- the ever-pure, ever-virgin who did what she was told by the big masculine god-figure -- to support their recent claim that they've always been "pro-women", but it's all just pretense.

I think organized religion is for abusive personalities and weak-minded wimps, but I don't get it confused with God. They're not one and the same. God doesn't need organized religion, but organized religion desperately needs the rest of us to believe its one and the same as God Himself.

I understand your argument, but when you say your article is not concerned with the Church's teachings as much as with the way men's minds work, I do not understand. Surely your article is arguing for the infiltration of the "way men's minds work" into a religion that is supposed to be for all races, nationalities, and sex.

I notice, especially in the New York Times, that the press tends to treat the Catholic Church as a legislative power run with the fuel of the faith of millions. But I think it is more of a faith in an all-loving God with men who make sure this faith can be celebrated around the world. As for the politics of the Vatican, they have nothing to do with church teachings, and are just as victimized by the follies of men as are every other political organization in the world. Woman's right to vote came less than a century ago. Surely you can't expect the Catholic Church to shift its politics so quickly.

The teachings are what matter, and I feel that when the press treats the Catholic Church as just another conservative lobbying organization. No, it is a faith. It is a dogma that preaches the mystery and greatness of God. As with every man, all organizations of men have their faults. But the faith and teachings of the church cannot be equivocated to the credibility of the flaws men that find their way into every part of every sect in every land in every mode of thinking since man first learned to reason.

I enjoy reading your blogs on religion, especially on the Catholic Church. I am not a practicing Catholic, but I was raised as one. And I can relate to your frustration with the religion growing up. But the religion is not the answers given to you by those who have no scholarly conception of it. The religion is the belief in a Higher Power that allows for salvation of the soul. It is a belief in mysteries, one of these mysteries being a complete, perfect, and unconditional love.

I think what I'm getting at is that Catholicism has allowed many people to find happiness, and if the press (including you, I'm afraid) acknowledged this, blind, unfounded resentments toward the Catholic Church may ebb, and these people with anger towards the Church for the physical crimes its physical representatives have done against them and others, then perhaps they can find faith again and become happier than they were without this anger.

Someone may have mentioned this before, but I feel like it's understandable that I haven't read every comment. Anyway, here's the way my Christian theology explains the subordination of women:

A husband is the head of the family. It is his duty to organize the family, bring home a paycheck, and watch out for the family. The wife is second in command, her duties being to take care of the children while the husband is at work, clean around the house (since the husband is at work), and cook supper. I'm not going to try to say that the ideal relationship provides equal opportunity to both males and females, because that's not true, and it doesn't have to be. Women have as many responsibilities as men, they're just different responsibilities.

The fact that women are considered second to the men is because the men are intended to care for them and ensure that they're not harmed and there's always food to eat. It's just how this kind of thing naturally works for us humans. The Bible encourages this kind of relationship and so does evolution itself. Ever since the days when we were hunter-gatherers, the men did the hunting and defending while the women took care of children, made meals, and watched the children.

To try to challenge that sort of natural order doesn't make sense to me. The fact of the matter comes down to this: Women are NOT men. We are different. Because of that, our roles in life are different. EVERY animal on this planet follows that model, whether the female is the dominant sex or not, there is ALWAYS a dominant sex. It comes down to physical evolutionary differences.

If a woman is living on her own, of course, she would certainly have to take on the roles of both the male and female, and in some marriages the woman takes the more typically male role while the husband takes the female role, but you never find two people in a marriage that both take the male or female role.

The reason I oppose modern feminism is because women are not equal to men. Understand, however, that when I say modern feminism I mean the idea that women should be treated the same in every single way. I'm all for equal rights (as in legislative rights), equal pay, and equal employment. I do want to say that in many cases women are paid less at blue collar jobs because they are physically less capable than men, however, this is only because that is the trend! Certainly there are women who can lift the same weight a man can, and they should be paid just as much as the man next to her in the assembly line, but when you have an average woman trying to lift the same weight the average man lifts, it becomes immediately apparent why women have a harder time getting jobs in blue collar and getting equal pay.

I feel that women SHOULD be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by employers and paid proportionately to the work they do in an equal proportion to that applied to male workers.

I hope I've gotten my point across!

Nonetheless, here is a brief list of things I do not believe and was never taught or encouraged to believe:
- women are worth less than men
- women are more sinful than men
- women are any more responsible than men for sexual sin
- Eve was responsible for Adam's sin
- Mary Magdalene was a prostitute
- it would have mattered if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute
- Jesus' divinity would have been diminished if he had married

Well, actually, that last one was already covered by Nikos Kazantzakis and Martin Scorsese, and we'll give them credit for pointing that one out, although the rest are pretty well theologically debunked:
It was not Jesus' role or mission to be married, have kids, and grow old into his forties spending his weekends mowing the sand--He was born to die because nobody else was. That's not to say priests should follow the exact same pattern; they weren't personally appointed into the role. (One was enough.)

On a side note, that's also one of the main problems with Catholicism and many of the red-state fundamentalist sects: They seem to have this complex with thinking that the Crucifixion was "wrong" and that it just shouldn't have happened ("You can't pick on MY pal!"), and like the Catholic anti-Semitism or Mel Gibson's "Passion", seem intent on fixing guilt to redress the "wrong", and/or finding someone to blame for it.
Uh, it was supposed to happen, Braino; He only mentioned it a few hundred times during his last few months...It's part of the Gospels that the other apostles don't seem to be picking up on the idea (modern interpretations and the Gospel of Judas aside), and try to show their "loyalty" by defending him, like Peter picking up his sword against the Roman guards--To which Jesus would usually reply with a variation on "You just don't get it, do you?"

Thank you, thank you, thank you! What a wonderful surprise to see yet one more eloquent, talented person take on the issue of religious and ideological misogyny face-on.

I am glad that you've noticed- and pointed out- that Blair skipped on the point that Hitchens brought up about women. If you become accustomed to such debates, you will find that this question returns again and again but never gets properly covered by the religious side. Sadly, women's rights and dignity as human beings will NEVER be equally upheld as long as they come second to traditions, cultures and religious sensitivities. Or, putting it another way, people love fighting for women's rights as long as nobody's religion, culture or feelings get hurt in the process.

As a woman, I have made it rather well in the world. Right off the bat, I was simply lucky to have been born in one of the very few corners of the planet where I am not regarded as garbage outright. But raising a daughter, I am wondering how I will answer her questions and explain why her kin has almost no representation in 'official' history, classical arts or science, why there is an genocide still going on against people like her (with two x chromosomes) and especially why it is STILL tolerated at all in any place, shape or form...

That said, Roger, if you enjoyed the Blair/Hitchens debate, I recommend the debate called Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry v.s. the Catholic Church (unless you've already seen it). You shall see the same question about women go unanswered, of course, but it is a fantastic discussion nonetheless. Hitchens/Fry are a formidable team.

"Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?"

All religions, Christopher? I'm fairly sure that if I made a statement ending "as all atheists do", Mister Hitchens would provide me with a spare rectum at no extra charge. While I love and respect Christopher Hitchens, am I the only person who finds his taste for "I'm right, and you're not only wrong but stupid and EVIL" hyperbole disturbingly similar to the more toxic class of evangelical preachers?

I love reading these comments, as much to read the comments from the people who disagree. Almost to a man (and woman - talk about word constructions being sexist as well!), they read like bitter, angry people. However, I read Fr. Richard Rene's reply here with interest - it was not bitter, or angry, but well-reasoned. Seminary school teaches you the power of words and (in my opinion) philosophical hairsplitting and faulty logical conclusions, e.g. if you disagree with some aspects of the church, you disagree with the church in toto; or if you think that human concerns should supersede religious concerns, you are a secularist. That kind of reasoning has always grated on me. I have always admired the ones who questioned - not people like my Aunt Norma, who had a bumper sticker on her car: "God said it / I believe it / and that settles it." Even at a young age, that bumper sticker raised more questions than it answered (where did God say it? When? In which language did God say it? In what language was it written?) Keep questioning Rog!

Dagney says, "I am the responsible provider. I am the one with all of the answers. I am the source of knowledge, strength and encouragement to those around me. I could give you one of my balls and still have two left. And you know what? It gets old. I'm not a man. I'm a woman, and I like being a woman,..."

I also am a responisible provider. I am the one with all of the answers. I am the source of knowledge, strength and encouragement to those around me. I am a woman who is proud to be smart and capable and I like being a woman. I don't have to be helpless to feel like a woman.

1 Corinthians 11:4-10

A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering. A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God's image and reflects God's glory. And woman reflects man's glory. For the first man didn't come from woman, but the first woman came from man. And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.

It seems to me wearing a veil is not about being a blushing bride, submitting to authority...something that men aren't required to do. Being subservient does't make me feel like a woman. I also don't think it's shameful for a woman to shave her head...maybe it's just me.

There is an interesting book "Does God Hate Women?" http://www.amazon.com/Does-Hate-Women-Ophelia-Benson/dp/0826498264

Also here is wikipedia concerning Atheist feminism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_feminism

The tragedy is, I'm pretty sure that at least the New Testament isn't nearly as anti-women as English translations suggest. In all of those verses where Paul was writing about women needing to cover their heads and be silent, he was addressing that specific church-- a port town where pagan sailors would dock and have sex with "temple prostitutes," who wore long hair and sang siren-like enchantments to entice men into their pagan temples. Many women in the Christian church were former temple prostitues, and pagan men would often interupt Christian church services in search of their favorite, erm, worship tool. Paul instructed the women to cover their heads and not speak so that sailors looking to get laid would realize that they'd wandered into the wrong church. He was trying to keep them from falling back into their pagan practices, and also trying to teach them self-respect. I'm pretty sure that Paul would be horrified if he knew that these verses had been blown out of context and were being used to oppress women in every Christian community throughout the ages.

I confess I'm not a Christian and I don't have any particular loyalty to the Bible. But all of what I've written above is easily accessible at any local library, in any exegetical book concerning the social and political culture of the first-century Middle East (expect, perhaps, the one at Bob Jones University). I researched it one day in an attempt to get to the bottom of what I believed would be Paul's bigotry, and I was surprised at this revelation. Paul, certainly, might have been a bigot (he seems to be anti-gay and pro-slavery), but I came away doubting that he was as big of a sexist as many of his critics believed he was.

So: What we're seeing today is simply what you're talking about, Roger: Men are bigger and stronger than women. We can beat them up. So we come up with excuses to keep them supressed and, since so many of us in this country are Christians, the Bible will do. Context? We don't need to stinking context.

Dagney says, "I am the responsible provider. I am the one with all of the answers. I am the source of knowledge, strength and encouragement to those around me. I could give you one of my balls and still have two left. And you know what? It gets old. I'm not a man. I'm a woman, and I like being a woman,..."

I also am a responisible provider. I am the one with all of the answers. I am the source of knowledge, strength and encouragement to those around me. I am a woman who is proud to be smart and capable and I like being a woman. I don't have to be helpless to feel like a woman.

1 Corinthians 11:4-10

A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering. A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God's image and reflects God's glory. And woman reflects man's glory. For the first man didn't come from woman, but the first woman came from man. And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.

It seems to me wearing a veil is not about being a blushing bride, submitting to authority...something that men aren't required to do. Being subservient does't make me feel like a woman. I also don't think it's shameful for a woman to shave her head...maybe it's just me.

One of the main theological problems with forcing the "agenda" of making Mary the positive virginal role model for lustful unmarried women into the somewhat unrelated idea of Christian redemption, I think was brilliantly summed up in the Catholic joke you've heard a hundred times, about Jesus at the public stoning:
"Let whoever among you is completely without sin cast the first stone...(pause)...Mother, put down that stone!" :)

It's a simple tweak, but like all great jokes, it perfectly encapsulates a real basic incongruity: To just exactly WHAT theological purpose does it serve to put Mary not only above Christ, but above the shortcomings of all humanity as well? Jesus himself never personally sinned, and yet was the Ultimate Sinner himself, since he was appointed to be the "replacement" for the entire rest of the world's. Mary never got her hands dirty, literally or figuratively.
Catholicism keeps wanting to take the common man out of the equation, tell him sin is his own darn problem, and keep the elite away from the sins of the hoi polloi. And yet Christ's own teachings not only reached to those the elite were putting the blame on, He would have been against the "hypocrites" of the very Vatican itself if it had existed. (Although back in his time, they were called Pharisees, and enforced catechismic Hebrew dogma about what you ate on Fridays.)

Roger, So what is the news here? Many posters jumping on the "let's criticize religion" bandwagon. What? The church has not always done things right? People have worked for their own interests? Men have served themselves?
Christian scripture and tradition from the beginning have said that the world is good and beautiful, and more importantly for this discussion, that humans are also good, created in the image of God, BUT suffer from a sickness called sin from which we all, every person needs healing. It affects all creation. St. Paul talks about creation itself groaning like a woman giving birth, waiting to experience freedom, (Ro 8.18ff) because it too is experiencing sickness as creatures explore their independence from a God that grants them freedom- freedom to do wonderful things, but freedom to also do terrible things, freedom to exercise their independence apart from God's plans and purposes. Even freedom to disbelieve his existence. But Christian theology says that people and creation will be set free from this bondage to decay, brought to wholeness. St. Paul also writes that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3.28) The New Testament describes a vision and expectation of the world healed from the sin that corrupts the mind/heart and all creation. Christian's have wrestled with these issues for 2000 years. That people make bad choices, and that systems and cultural norms, even religious expressions are flawed is no surprise to Christian teaching or teachers. The opposite. It explains why when we look out at the world, it is not as we think it ought to be. And it explains it better than any competing system in my eyes.
For example, you write in your original blog-
"To put it bluntly, I believe the world is patriarchal because men are bigger and stronger than women, and can beat them up. The earliest archaeological evidence we have for human family development indicates patriarchies preceded written language. Indeed, if we study other primates we see that their cultures are also male-dominant, and presumably they've not arrived at this state after careful discussion."
How does the person who does not believe in the biblical affirmation that humans are created in the image of God and that sin accounts for the brokenness of the world, argue that it OUGHT to be any other way? If we are in a patriarchal society because of evolution, that men are bigger and stronger, why should it be any other way? What is the reason if evolution brought us to this point? Furthermore, if we were to find ourselves in a matriarchal society, what would be any sort of compelling reason to try to change it? Evolution has shaped us this way. And, there is no credible reason to think that a world based upon purely secularist principles will actually function any better at bringing about a more equitable society, that women and men will in principle be considered equals. What is sure, is that whoever is in power will use it to their own advantage. That is shown to be true in history. (Christian theology explains that too.) But minus a belief in the Glory of human existence, we are simple pawns of evolution and those in power (which is part of how we evolved).
To be sure, the patriarchs that you and others malign were imperfect and did not always live up to the vision of the kingdom which Jesus inaugurated. We can critique them for not practicing what they preach. But I don't see how secular visions of reality have any chance developing a better world, not only in practice, but certainly in principle. If evolution produced patriarchal societies, why criticize? Or, who is to say where evolution will take us in the future, and by what criteria will we judge that society and its cultural foundations? Societies come and go, ours will too. It is the kingdom of God which alone bears the weight and right of critique, that judges the rightness or wrongness of people and societies that aspire to goodness or not, that gives a vision of the future of the world in harmony with God's plans and purposes for creation and creatures, that show a future built on love and self-giving among people with the creator. In this kingdom, humans are not simply animals, but have the stamp of divine glory, men and women.

Poor Nicola, don't you realize that withdrawing from the conversation does you no good?

For instance, I strongly disagree with Roger's praise of Hugh Hefner and Playboy, a large part of the porn industry that degrades women at least as much as any organized religion does. Indeed, I find this post, full of empathy for women's plight to be rather ironic in the light of that earlier post.

Reducing sex to a pastime and women to a necessary piece of apparatus for same is much more demeaning than requiring women to cover their heads in church, although it plays into the same patriarchal structure that Roger so laments in this post.

And yet I respect that Roger thinks and writes about these things, even though I don't always agree with him. I'd rather argue with him than insult him and leave, as you're doing.

Unless we engage each other with respect, nothing good and lasting will ever be accomplished.

Hitchens' question may have gone unanswered because it begged another question: "Do all religions consider women to be inferior?" Hitchens was rather lazily lumping all religions together, and certainly combining all of Christianity into one amorphous blob--many Christian denominations do not ordain women (and by extension treat them as inferior), but in the Episcopal church women have all the same roles as men. This is one of the reasons I joined the Episcopal Church. So no, all religions do not consider women to be inferior.

Hitchens' unnuanced blanket statements can get pretty tiresome.

The more you look in the Bible, the more you see the truth. My Bible Study is near the end of our study of 1 Samuel. It begins with the story of Hannah, who is the pivotal character in the story: without her seeking an answer to her most desperate questions - and getting one that she didn't expect - a rather important string of events do not happen. We are to learn from her example. Her sacrifice is powerful and even heroic.
Later in the book, we come to a story about David, Nabal, and Nabal's wife, Abigail. Abigail is described as "intelligent and beautiful," in that order. She is smarter than her husband and also David in this situation. Her intelligence and explanation to him of the full scope of the situation keeps David from sinning. Keep in mind that David is "a man after God's own heart." For the writers of the Bible to include any story in which a woman is the source of his aid is remarkably telling, given the customs of the time. These are two clear examples from what I happened to be reading. The Bible is full of them. It's also pretty clear that men and women are equally worthy of salvation. A woman's soul is no less worthy than a man's. Gender does not determine worth. These are not fringe-views.

In his excellent book "The Gift of Fear", Gavin de Becker uses this expression: men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them.

@ Laur replied to comment from Marie Haws...

"It's Canada Goose, not Canadian Goose. FYI. But I like your comments about religion."

Chuckle; ever type something the correct way - only to then stare at it, wondering why it looks wrong? Leading you to second guess yourself, until finally saying - "aw, screw it" - at which point you mentally toss a coin?

There ya go. :-)

As for Religion and nature and geese...

Are you a member of the Ebert Club..? I ask because lately, we've been showing live-action/animated shorts - part of French series called "Minuscule" and which feature the daily lives of lady bugs and bees and spiders and such. As with watching a silent movie, the stories play themselves out by way of observation and not the spoken word; like Charlie Chaplin or Harold Lloyd films. Here's one...

Minuscule - the bee prisoner

Two creatures, a bee and a fly, as many differences between them as not, encounter one another and it leads to an extraordinary moment; an unselfish gesture - empathy and kindness.

Where is religion in that? Nowhere. You don't need religion to "get it" - you simply need a heart; the one God gave you - not religion.

Nature also tells the truth in a way Religion won't. Truths revealed by way of science and evolution...

"Evolve or die."

Evolution favors the strong - and the ability to change and adapt is a strength, not a weakness. And women have been at the forefront of such change - not men.

I'm currently watching a BBC series called "Garrow's Law" which draws direct inspiration from actual court cases still on record from the Old Bailey in London...

"Sir William Garrow (1760 - 1840) was a British barrister, politician and judge known for his indirect reform of the advocacy system, which helped usher in the adversarial court system used in most common law nations today. He introduced the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", insisting that defendants' accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in court." - wiki

I mention it because in the process of watching the series, you'll hear how men of supposed intellect and learning, of rank and privilege - and faith in God, either stood by so as to allow it or worse, performed the deed themselves:

Men and women were often punished differently for the same crimes. In some cases, punishment was death and led to hanging; for men. But for women... they would be burned alive.

It was England in the 1800's. Not the stone age. And yet despite everything available to them at the time, including advancements in science, it was still considered okay to burn a woman alive. Or brand them in an open court room with scalding iron for having stolen bread.

And all of it enabled by Religion blindly pointing a dirty finger; for it was Religion that empowered men to hold a woman's life in a tighter grip - and by way of establishing both her place in society and any mercy she was to be shown.

What eventually changed the law, then? Why don't we continue as we began?

Empathy for others.

The ability to see beyond their surface, to the human being underneath. And it started in part with William Garrow's efforts - a man who'd arguably embraced a more enlightened view of the world. He had evolved beyond the constrains of Religion because his mind was not trapped by it.

"Garrow made much use of jury nullification to limit the punishment for his convicted clients, in a time when many crimes carried the death penalty. In 1784 a pair of women were arrested for stealing fans worth 15 shillings, meaning a conviction would result in the death penalty; Garrow convinced the jury to convict the women of stealing 4 shillings worth of fans, therefore changing the sentence to twelve months of hard labour." - Sir William Garrow: His Life, His Times and Fight for Justice.

"During the period when Garrow worked as a barrister, the sugar planters of the West Indies held large amounts of power in Parliament, allowing them to maintain a monopoly on the marketing of sugar in England that brought great profits. This industry was profitable only due to the use of slave labour, to which Garrow had long been opposed; when the sugar planters offered him a job managing all of their legal and political business, he replied that "if your committee would give me their whole incomes, and all their estates, I would not be seen as the advocate of practices which I abhor, and a system which I detest." - Sir William Garrow: His Life, His Times and Fight for Justice.

Every social change for the better has started with empathy for another and for seeing them as your equal.

It's not that you can't find a William Garrow today. His kind exist. Rather, that it takes many hands to build a house and only ONE to burn it to the ground. You don't need a lot of selfish, ignorant, homophobic, misogynist-minded men to make life miserable for everyone on the planet if they're empowered to act out of self-interest, more so than not.

You just need a few in positions of power and protected by it. That's all. You need wealth - as that equals the power to force or employ weak-minded or desperate minions to do your dirty work for you.

And when I gaze out at the world, and look upon places where misery can be found, I find it only too easy to trace it back to Religion.

A male definition of God, the Universe, and our place in it. A male definition of humanity. Of right and wrong. A soul with gender, not shared equality.

William Garrow was a man, yes. But he lived life like a person, first. And I think God can be found in that approach, whereas Religion would try to subvert it.

The fact that a man like Garrow existed in the 1800's proves that men are not bound or trapped by the initial building-blocks of their biology. You can pick the animal you want to be. And the most enlightened decision a man can make, is to embrace his own continued evolution.

Note: it's a really good series, that Garrow's Law. :-)

Important matters, but you are mistaken about human nature and its primate origins. You write,

"The earliest archeological evidence we have for human family development indicates patriarchies preceded written language. Indeed, if we study other primates we see that their cultures are also male-dominant, and presumably they've not arrived at this state after careful discussion."

This is false. Chimps and bonobos are the two non-human primates most closely related to Homo sapiens. Chimps are, as you suggest, male-dominated. Bonobos, on the other hand, are female-dominated. A male bonobo's status is determined mainly by his mother's place in the female hierarchy. An understanding of bonobo behavior is essential to any discussion of how primates relate to human origins.

All this is discussed in our book, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality (HarperCollins, 2010). I'd be more than happy to have a copy sent your way if you happen to see this and are interested in knowing more.

Here's a recent review: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/12/02/131727213/favorite-books-of-2010-peter-sagal-on-sex-at-dawn