Does God Hate Women?

Five women buried alive for wanting to marry the men of their choosing in Pakistan, women in Afghanistan serving twenty year terms because they were raped, destitute widows in India, and the list goes on. Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom not only show evidence of how religion subjugates women throughout the world, but also discuss the problem with “multiculturalism.” There is no way to justify Muhammed taking on a nine-year bride by citing, “Well, that’s just what they did then.” Or the US Government refusing to speak out against abuse of women in Saudi Arabia because we are too dependent on their oil. Their book is a thorough and thoughtful exploration of why all gods in the Abrahamic religions (and most others) treat women as second-class. What clearer evidence do you need that these “holy” books were written by men for men. A great read.

Benson and Stangroom have authored a gem of a book. It is a clear-thinking and decisive critique of the misogynistic nature of world religions. They shine a spotlight on brutal anti-female practices under Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. In doing so, they expose the anti-woman assumptions undergirding these faiths. Whether it is describing the terrible treatment of widows in India or the horrors of female genital mutilation in Africa, the authors don’t back away from their essential thesis. They also take on the post-modernist reluctance to criticize these practices due to a misplaced sense of multiculturalism.A must-read for all freethinkers as well as anyone who cares about global feminist issues.

Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom very effectively point out how conservative religious doctrines on gender roles subordinate women.I got the book not just because of Benson and Stangroom's excellent reputation as no-nonsense skeptics, but because I wanted a single go-to source I can use or cite as representative of secular liberal opposition to conservative religious insistence on confining women to the domestic and reproductive realm. Does God Hate Women? works very well for this. Not only does the book capture the disgust religious subordination of women often provokes among secular liberals, but the philosophical background of the authors lets them develop a case that has more depth than just an elaboration of discomfort.The book does not do everything. For example, it will probably resonate little with readers who do not already take a secular liberal point of view. And its arguments opposing group rights and setting aside concerns for cultural integrity are cursory. They will not convince too many who do not already emphasize liberal individualism in their moral outlooks. But all this is not any criticism of Does God Hate Women?. Addressing all such concerns in detail is not the job the authors set for themselves. Instead, they appear (quite sensibly) to keep their argument short and to the point. If the very real suffering presented in the book will not move readers to stand more firmly against conservative religious demands to constrain the lives of women, little else will. A more in-depth analysis of multicultural views, for example, would of dubious relevance to that task.

A powerful and necessary examination of the role religious ideologies have played in the subjugation and abuse of women. The authors provide timely examples, and successfully place the horrors perpetuated against women in the proper historical context. Most enlightening are their discussions of how religions exploit the differences between men and women, the emptiness of the term Islamphobia, and the need to recognize and protect the rights of autonomous persons rather than faceless groups or ideologies. This book should open your eyes as to how much damage has been, and continues to be done, in the name of religion.

This book is an excellent overview of the ingrained hatred toward women found in Abrahamic religions. I've been waiting a long time to see a CURRENT book that doesn't mince words on the subject.While there is some mention of Hinduism and Buddhism, the focus is primarily on Islam, and rightfully so. I would have liked to have seen more focus on the fundamental Christian revival of the idea that women belong at home, etc... but given current realities, the focus is in the right place.I was especially reminded that the media pays no attention to the steady incursion of Sharia law into secular law. This is extremely dangerous to everyone, but especially to women. It's high time everyone wakes up and sees what's really going on. If women are going to be safe, respected members of American society, it is critical that this incursion be stopped here and in Europe.Read this book. Pass it on to someone else to read next. We are living in very frightening times for women, no matter what pollyanna politically correct BS would have us believe.Yes, the god the authors discuss hates women with a great and terrible passion. As they state, that god is a bully. Period. Christians and Jews should read this book too... both to be accountable for what misogyny exists in their traditional world views, and to see what is headed this way.For additional reading on this particular god and his hatred of women, see older works by the incomparable Mary Daly.

I think it would be very difficult, contemplating the historical, anthropological and sociological record, to answer the question posed by the title here in anything other than the affirmative.

This book is challenging, topical and really gets to the heart of a number of issues concerning women and religion. 5 stars all round because it challenged my thinking and was well written too.

Instead of providing a reasoned analysis of a subject which deserves to be examined in depth Ophelia Benson has written a rant against religion. The backdrop to her piece is the murderous abuse of females by some Islamists. That such abuses exist is beyond question and that Benson provides stark examples of such abuses is incontrovertible. Yet her rant is hypocritical. From the outset she notes - but tends to ignore - the difference between tribal traditions of 'honour' and the theology of defined behaviour. Consequently, she blames 'religious authorities and conservative clerics' for worshipping 'a wretchedly cruel unjuust vindictive executioner of a God.' She claims, 'they worship a God who thinks little girls should be married to grown men...who looks on in approval when a grown man rapes a child because he is 'married' to her....who thinks a woman should receive 80 lashes with a whip because her hair wasn't completely covered." Yet Benson herself is an avowed atheist for whom God does not exist. If she is right then she has no case for blaming God for anything.Benson's evangelistic atheism shows no respect for facts. In reference to 'honour' killings, Benson avoids placing the practice within specific cultural context, denies its geographical perspective and opines, 'religion gives traditions a backbone and a veneer of justification that make it easier to defend traditions and protect them from criticism.' She really should re-read Machiavelli to understand the meaning of realism. Her billious outpourings completely miss the point. Writing 'honour is between the legs of women' Benson refers to 'men who love religion and a putative deity and hate women enough to murder them, even (or rather especially) when they are their own wives, daughters, sisters, mothers'. She blames this on the unseen God and the way in which women are treated as worthless. Her conclusion is based on manifest ignorance. Sociological studies have established that Islamic leaders in rural Pakistan use religion to justify honour killings but that the killings themselves are a cultural phenomenon. In China baby girls are killed for economic and cultural reasons unconnected with religion. They were killed because the culture expected it.Benson does not offer a meaningful solution to the situation. Her plan is to get rid of "the God who hates women" although, in her mind, such a God does not exist! Getting rid of abuses against females will not be achieved by showing sensitivity towards traditional cultural norms but by changing those norms. To imagine it is easy is foolish. Dowries were abolished in India in 1961 but still exist and will continue to do so until those with the power to change cultural attitudes become part of the process of social change. The colonial experience revealed how ingrained attitudes were when attempts to outlaw female genital mutilation (FGM) were absorbed into the nationalist cause against the foreign 'oppressors'. In many places in Africa that is still the case. It is the countries which practice FGM and endorse 'honour killings' which must change those practices and attitudes. It is countries where immigrants continue the practice that better standards must apply as happened in the USA in 2006.Benson seeks to blame God and religion for the oppression of women but can only do so by logical gymnastics. FGM pre-dated Islam, Christianity and has no basis in Judaism. Benson claims "that the assertion that FGM predates Christianity and Islam is rendered almost empty by our lack of knowledge of its origins and development." In fact, there is plenty of relevant knowledge and Benson's claim to the contrary destroys her credibility on the subject. She knows Muslim scholars disagree over the question of whether FGM is permitted in Islam, claiming such disagreement proves, "there is no justification for the pretence that it is a settled issue," but fails to see that this undermines her case that it is a practice authorised by a God who hates women. In Africa it is practiced by different ethnic groups and it is not practiced by all Muslims. Benson twists the evidence to reach a pre-determined conclusion stating, 'most people who practice FGM are Muslims; some people who practice FGM are non-Muslims; and many Muslims do not practice FGM." From this she disingenuously concludes, "it follows that the fact that non-Muslims practice FGM and many Muslims do not practice it, does not rule out a causal link between Islam and FGM." She compounds this illogical nonsense by ignoring the fact that many Muslim clerics have publicly demanded the practice be banned.Benson's commitment to atheism leads her to adopt what she calls a "modern secular rights-based liberalism, that no one should ever be prevented from being fully human; no one should be stunted and limited from birth". This is neither new nor exclusively modern. In nineteenth century liberal Britain cultural attitudes, often fuelled by secular anti-religious groups, encouraged the double standard which sought to ensure marriages took place between virginal females and experienced males. It was the campaigns of the non-secular Josephine Butler which changed social attitudes leading to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts and the raising of the age of consent from twelve to sixteen. Unlike Benson she relied on evidence not rhetoric.Benson's criticism of Karen Armstrong's writings on Islam as "tendentious, incomplete and patronising" is equally applicable to her own caricature and dishonest interpretation of Islam. She dismisses the connection "between God and love, theism and compassion," as a modern invention. Clearly she has never read l Corinthians 13 and has made no attempt to distinguish between individual believers and the political structure of organised religion. This is not surprising as she writes as an evangelising atheist rather than an enlightened rational human being. Does God hate women? There's no reason to suppose so. Do some men use religion to excuse murder? Yes - and they, not God, hate women. Benson's tirade is a disservice to women and two stars is being generous.