Eso texto en español (sin fotos e peliculas de putaría): El machismo fue creado por las mujeres - Parte 6: Si las religiones son machistas, ¿por qué hasta hoy las mujeres son una minoría entre los no religiosos?, http://avezdoshomens2.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/el-machismo-fue-creado-por-las-mujeres-parte-6/ o http://avezdoshomens2.blogspot.com/2011/10/el-machismo-fue-creado-por-las-mujeres.html This text in English (without sex pics and movies): Machismo was created by women - Part 6: If religions are macho, why even today women are a minority among non-religious?, http://avezdoshomens2.blogspot.com.br/2011/10/machismo-was-created-by-women-part-6-if.html Texto original em português (sem fotos e vídeos de putaria): O machismo foi criado pelas mulheres – parte 6: se as religiões são machistas, por que até hoje as mulheres são minoria entre os não-religiosos?, http://avezdasmulheres.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/o-machismo-foi-criado-pelas-mulheres-parte-6/ ou http://avezdoshomens.blogspot.com/2011/10/o-machismo-foi-criado-pelas-mulheres.html
Abigail Pereira Aranha
Let's start with a feminazist text
Religion: men use God to subjugate women
For thousands of years woman lived in the shadow of the man, watching the unfolding of human history, unable to participate, without being consulted and respected. Was used as a commodity, bought, sold, raped, murdered and subjugated acording to the interests determined by men, powerful men. There was, by men, shame or pity to commit so many atrocities to one of its kind, being the woman subjected to their will at any price. In many countries, even today, a cow, a horse or a camel worth more than the life of a woman. The cruelty and neglect of the suffering of women is revolting, disgusting and is not only the submission imposed by men to women is disgusting. It is mainly the dead end street that religions give to women, because without being able to trust in a benevolent God, who can they trust? Without the support of husband, father and unable to rely on the laws, the woman delivers herself with all the faith to a God. She seeks in faith the strength to endure violence, abuse, humiliation that make her suffer so much. She delivers herself body and soul to God and calls for compassion. Trust in his goodness and kindness, be he Muslim, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, after all, is always a God. And is just there where the woman will find the dead end street for their spiritual life: in all religions, interpretations of divine messages follow strict male standards, driven to male interests. All major world religions are patriarchal and women are used by this "God" not to relieve their suffering, but to perpetuate the supremacy of man over woman. She will not find the relief she is looking for, only will find that men decided that they should receive in the spiritual field. And in the spiritual field, women, in all religions, don't have papers of great importance. This is because the man considers himself the stronger not only physically but spiritually. The proof of this is that few "Goddesses" are known, and only in Eastern religions, but always under of the supreme powers of a higher God-Man. "Gods" we find in all Western religions, which have as their principal serve the interests of those who created them: men. There is no major religion in the world founded or led by women. The "God" in all religions was conceived by men, viewed by them who also deserve receiving the prophecies or messages from beyond. Men have manipulated for thousands of years the religious field, to get easy money, social prestige and power. Religion is synonymous with power. And the power of using God in his own, men manipulate masterfully. But paradoxically are women who keep by their faith all religions of the world. It is interesting to observe how they are not heard, and lesser considered. They are considered only as believers in one God, without any power. With men is the power and the manipulation of religions using a deity as a shield to the abuse of power. In the last decade, we see the radicalism, fanaticism and fundamentalism returning to almost all religions of this planet. What would be the reason for this spiritual and philosophical backsliding? Well, in philosophical and spiritual grounds has absolutely nothing to justify it. What caused this backsliding was just the woman going to work, to the university, to factories, to commerce, after all, for life. For the eyes of the guardians of human faith of some religions on this planet, so much freedom was and is unacceptable. And with the need to control the steps of the woman, they imprison her again like a thousand years ago. The setback was and is total. But the most tragic and comic of all this religious absurdity is that everything is always done in the name of God!
By Tania Nienkotter Rocha - Book: Sexo sem Nexo
Translated from http://tanianienkotterrocha.blogspot.com/2009/10/religiao-os-homens-usam-deus-para.html
Possible feminists explanations will not give the answer of why women are religious
The conversation of Miss. Tânia is going very good, but there is one thing she said and not answered:
Are women who keep by their faith all religions of the world
Why, God? (Oh, I spoke a bad name) Possible lesbofeminist explanations:
- Social pressure, especially on women
- Pressure of husbands over wives
- Women were economically dependent on men
- Women could not get a husband or a source of income without being married if they not show that follow the religion strictly
Have I forgotten some option? All these assumptions make sense, and are up to something real, but do not explain. Because women have always raised their children, at least until one or two generations ago. And educate their children without their father around. While her husband was earning the daily bread, or partying with other men surrounded by sluts, they, the mothers, were alone with their children. Just because they were oppressed is why they should teach their children to stay away from religion, as well as all machismo. And that half of humanity, or ten percent of that half did not say to themselves: "I do not want my daughter go through what I'm going, I'll educate my son to respect women and my daughter to not be macho nor marry a macho man"? Any religion and all the machismo could end up in maybe 3 or 4 generations at most. But no, each generation of mothers has created another generation of fool women and stupid men.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 could even explain why women take men macho religion. But I will prove that not, using the 2000 Census of Brazil (in your country, surely data bring something similar). You can check in http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/populacao/religiao_Censo2000.pdf. I did a worksheet using these data. And as you will see in the research and as a Brazilian can see in the day-to-day, about three quarters of the population, and women, are Roman Catholics. Yeah, that religion that burned witches to repress women. And in the world, adding Catholicism that burned women and Islam that stones women, we have almost half of women worldwide. How can be explained this happening today?
Table of percentages of non-religious based on "Table 1.3.1 - Resident population by sex and place of residence, according to the religion - Brazil" from Brazil's 2000 Census
Overall Percentage: 7.35%
| Grand total | percentage of men in relation to | the population | 4.44% |
| the total number of non-religious | 60.36% | ||
| the total number of men | 9.02% | ||
| percentage of women in relation to | the population | 2.91% | |
| the total number of non-religious | 39.64% | ||
| the total number of women | 5.74% | ||
| Urban area | percentage of men in relation to | the urban population | 4.76% |
| non-religious in the urban area | 60.22% | ||
| non-religious in general | 52.52% | ||
| the total number of men in urban area | 9.81% | ||
| the total number of non-religious men | 87.01% | ||
| percentage of women in relation to | the urban population | 3.14% | |
| non-religious in the urban area | 39.78% | ||
| non-religious in general | 34.70% | ||
| the total number of women in urban area | 6.10% | ||
| the total number of non-religious women | 87.54% | ||
| Rural area | percentage of men in relation to | the rural population | 3.07% |
| non-religious in the rural area | 61.36% | ||
| non-religious in general | 7.84% | ||
| the total number of women in rural area | 5.85% | ||
| the total number of non-religious men | 12.99% | ||
| percentage of women in relation to | the rural population | 1.93% | |
| non-religious in the rural area | 38.64% | ||
| non-religious in general | 4.94% | ||
| the total number of women in rural area | 4.06% | ||
| the total number of non-religious women | 12.46% |
Conclusion: Women are a minority among non-religious people. And in general, 9.02% of men and 5.74% of women declared themselves without religion. And more: Roman Catholics men are 74.04% of men and Roman Catholic women are 73.12% of women. The only groups in which the percentage of women in the group in relation to the total female population is smaller than the percentage of men in the group in relation to the total male population are Roman Catholicism, non-religious and no statement of religion. And is that women are religious due to low education? No. Let's look at another table.
Table of percentages of non-religious based on "Table 1.3.7 - People aged 15 and older, by religion, by sex and groups of years of study - Brazil" from Brazil's 2000 Census
| Non-religious - Percentage in relation to | ||||
| the range of study time | non-religious | the total number of non-religious men / women | the total number of men / women in the range of study time | |
| No education and less than 1 year | 7.59% | 12.49% | - | - |
| 1 to 3 years | 6.98% | 15.95% | - | - |
| 4 to 7 years | 7.59% | 33.74% | - | - |
| 8 to 10 years | 7.15% | 17.59% | - | - |
| 11 to 14 years | 5.95% | 14.74% | - | - |
| 15 years or more | 6.66% | 4.66% | - | - |
| Not determined | 6.31% | 0.83% | - | - |
| Men | 4.50% | 63.63% | - | 9.26% |
| No education and less than 1 year | 4.91% | 8.07% | 12.68% | 10.14% |
| 1 to 3 years | 4.70% | 10.75% | 16.90% | 9.22% |
| 4 to 7 years | 4.93% | 21.93% | 34.46% | 9.87% |
| 8 to 10 years | 4.37% | 10.75% | 16.90% | 9.05% |
| 11 to 14 years | 3.53% | 8.75% | 13.75% | 7.95% |
| 15 years or more | 4.09% | 2.86% | 4.49% | 8.65% |
| Not determined | 3.95% | 0.52% | 0.81% | 7.76% |
| Women | 2.57% | 36.37% | - | 5.00% |
| No education and less than 1 year | 2.68% | 4.42% | 12.14% | 5.20% |
| 1 to 3 years | 2.28% | 5.20% | 14.30% | 4.65% |
| 4 to 7 years | 2.66% | 11.81% | 32.48% | 5.31% |
| 8 to 10 years | 2.78% | 6.84% | 18.81% | 5.38% |
| 11 to 14 years | 2.42% | 5.99% | 16.48% | 4.35% |
| 15 years or more | 2.57% | 1.80% | 4.95% | 4.88% |
| Not determined | 2.36% | 0.31% | 0.85% | 4.80% |
Conclusion: Women are almost twice less likely to be non-religious than a man with the same study time. Are more than two times less women without religion with more than 14 years of study with less than 1 (that's right, men too). And is that women are religious because of economic dependence? No, again. Let's look at another table.
Table of percentages of non-religious based on "Table 1.3.9 - People 10 years or older, occupied during the reference week, by religion, sex and status in employment in main job - Brazil" from Brazil's 2000 Census
| Non-religious - Percentage in relation to | the type of occupation | non-religious | the total number of non-religious men / women | the total number of men / women in the type of occupation |
| Employees (2) | 7.75% | 70.49% | - | - |
| Employers | 5.88% | 2.32% | - | - |
| Self-employed | 7.35% | 23.56% | - | - |
| Unpaid helping a household member | 3.44% | 1.87% | - | - |
| Workers for own consumption | 4.17% | 1.77% | - | - |
| Men | 5.46% | 74.62% | - | 8.78% |
| Employees (2) | 5.55% | 50.41% | 67.56% | 9.51% |
| Employers | 4.87% | 1.92% | 2.58% | 6.56% |
| Self-employed | 6.14% | 19.66% | 26.34% | 8.35% |
| Unpaid helping a household member | 2.24% | 1.22% | 1.63% | 4.68% |
| Workers for own consumption | 3.33% | 1.41% | 1.89% | 4.81% |
| Women | 1.86% | 25.38% | - | 4.92% |
| Employees (2) | 2.21% | 20.07% | 79.08% | 5.30% |
| Employers | 1.00% | 0.40% | 1.56% | 3.90% |
| Self-employed | 1.22% | 3.90% | 15.37% | 4.59% |
| Unpaid helping a household member | 1.21% | 0.65% | 2.58% | 2.31% |
| Workers for own consumption | 0.85% | 0.36% | 1.41% | 2.75% |
(2) Including domestic workers and unpaid apprentices and trainees
Conclusion: Women are about two times less likely to be non-religious than a man with the same type of occupation. 79.08% of non-religious women are employed, a percentage even higher than that of men (67.56%). But, for example, employer women are less than those working without pay helping a family member, the opposite of what happens to men. And the percentage of non-religious women who work in relation to the working population (25.38%) is smaller than the percentage of women among non-religious in general (39.64%). And could be not the kind of occupation, but the rent? No, again. Let's look at another table.
Table of percentages of non-religious based on "Table 1.3.10 - People 10 years or older, occupied during the reference week, by religion, by sex and classes of nominal monthly income from all jobs - Brazil" from Brazil's 2000 Census
| Non-religious - Percentage in relation to | total (non-religious) | monthly income class (minimum wage) (1) | total number in the group | the total number of men / women in the group | the total number of men / women in the monthly income class |
| Up to 1/2 | 231,661 | 6.45% | 4.82% | - | - |
| More than 1/2 to 1 | 894,674 | 7.63% | 18.62% | - | - |
| More than 1 to 2 | 1,353,363 | 8.10% | 28.16% | - | - |
| More than 2 to 3 | 648,885 | 7.85% | 13.50% | - | - |
| More than 3 to 5 | 631,831 | 7.54% | 13.15% | - | - |
| More than 5 to 10 | 497,102 | 6.83% | 10.34% | - | - |
| More than 10 to 15 | 128,636 | 6.99% | 2.68% | - | - |
| More than 15 to 20 | 86,985 | 7.28% | 1.81% | - | - |
| More than 20 to 30 | 55,079 | 8.02% | 1.15% | - | - |
| More than 30 | 76,438 | 8.11% | 1.59% | - | - |
| Without income (3) | 201,335 | 4.02% | 4.19% | - | - |
| Men | 3,586,179 | 5.46% | 74.62% | - | 8.78% |
| Up to 1/2 | 149,216 | 4.15% | 3.10% | 4.16% | 8.09% |
| More than 1/2 to 1 | 605,584 | 5.16% | 12.60% | 16.89% | 9.44% |
| More than 1 to 2 | 994,880 | 5.95% | 20.70% | 27.74% | 9.97% |
| More than 2 to 3 | 509,401 | 6.16% | 10.60% | 14.20% | 9.44% |
| More than 3 to 5 | 516,335 | 6.16% | 10.74% | 14.40% | 8.78% |
| More than 5 to 10 | 396,297 | 5.45% | 8.25% | 11.05% | 7.85% |
| More than 10 to 15 | 96,954 | 5.26% | 2.02% | 2.70% | 7.58% |
| More than 15 to 20 | 67,467 | 5.64% | 1.40% | 1.88% | 7.75% |
| More than 20 to 30 | 42,633 | 6.21% | 0.89% | 1.19% | 8.30% |
| More than 30 | 63,869 | 6.78% | 1.33% | 1.78% | 8.31% |
| Without income (3) | 143,542 | 2.86% | 2.99% | 4.00% | 5.03% |
| Women | 1,219,811 | 1.86% | 25.38% | - | 4.92% |
| Up to 1/2 | 82,445 | 2.29% | 1.72% | 6.76% | 4.71% |
| More than 1/2 to 1 | 289,090 | 2.46% | 6.02% | 23.70% | 5.44% |
| More than 1 to 2 | 358,484 | 2.15% | 7.46% | 29.39% | 5.33% |
| More than 2 to 3 | 139,484 | 1.69% | 2.90% | 11.43% | 4.86% |
| More than 3 to 5 | 115,496 | 1.38% | 2.40% | 9.47% | 4.63% |
| More than 5 to 10 | 100,805 | 1.39% | 2.10% | 8.26% | 4.53% |
| More than 10 to 15 | 31,681 | 1.72% | 0.66% | 2.60% | 5.64% |
| More than 15 to 20 | 19,518 | 1.63% | 0.41% | 1.60% | 6.02% |
| More than 20 to 30 | 12,446 | 1.81% | 0.26% | 1.02% | 7.21% |
| More than 30 | 12,569 | 1.33% | 0.26% | 1.03% | 7.21% |
| Without income (3) | 57,793 | 1.15% | 1.20% | 4.74% | 2.68% |
(1) Minimum wage used: R$ 151,00 (at this year, about USD 70,00). (3) Including those who received only benefits
Conclusion: a woman is less likely to be non-religious than a man with the same income. The percentage of non-religious women by income range in relation to total number of non-religious is higher than for men up to 2 minimum wages. Almost 60% of non-religious women gets up to 2 minimum wages. The non-religious men who earn up to 2 minimum wages do not reach 50%. If women follow a religion because a pressure from her husband or because they live in macho cities, especially small towns, one would expect the opposite. More: are less non-religious women earning more than 15 times the minimum wage than without income (that's right, with men is also nearly so).
One more try. Could non-religious women be often married to non-religious men, and were influenced (and supported) for them? It really happens. But it seems that this doesn't explains too much difference. For non-religious men married to non-religious women should be those earning more than 3 minimum wages. And the other men, who are half of non-religious, are them single or separated? It's pretty hard. And rich women, are they wives of rich men? Today, not so much. And the percentage of non-religious women in relation to women in the same range of income are all smaller than the percentage of non-religious men in relation to men in the same range of income.
So, when women have more autonomy they become more religious, not less? Now it got difficult, right? Well, now I will stop delaying and I will try to give an answer.
Religion is irrational
Cute, if you believe in God, do not be upset. I also have very dear friends who are religious and like Claudia Leite, hehehehe. But religion is the greatest absurdity that mankind has invented. Even somebody made a joke saying that God has all the characteristics of things that does not exist: incorporeal, immaterial, invisible,... The God of justice is a farce. The proof of that is that there was nothing decent that mankind achieved not fighting against who said his delegate. Then the wise God also goes to drain.
And since poor of spirit women hate the truth, not only about themselves, hate Logic and Science (except when it suits). A woman can even be a scientist or "thinker", but usually it's more for status than for love of science and truth. Anyone who has participated in a forum where participates a masculinist male (not necessarily a forum about feminism or masculinism) has seen that participation of women is almost always unfortunate, when a woman responds to the masculinist rarely is not to quote a questionable or misinterpreted information or make personal attacks. Have you noticed how is wonderful to them what "Science does not explain"?
But this is still little to explain.
Do women really think macho oppressive religion is that bad?
There is a text about Islam by Daniel Coelho: “Mulher Submissa, Vítima do Machismo” (Submissive Woman, Victim of Machismo), http://www.coelhovoador.net/filosofia/html/20100112MulherSubmissa.html. The text is macho, idiot, those conversations of rough old men who have no courage even to study the Bible and think that if they flirt a bitch with short to the height of the groin they will take her to bed, but because they have moral principles will leave the chance to do so for fuck his wife fat, ugly, bad in bed and full of ill will. But this text says some things very enlightening:
Some months ago, I think it was an exhibition of a photographer in Ibirapuera on women in the world, I marked the words of a Muslim woman asked about how she felt to be so submissive to her husband, be required to wear the burqa... she said she did not bother to use the burqa, and she did not consider himself submissive, she just respected and loved her husband, as he loved and respected.
What the Muslim woman wins in exchange for not showing his face or go to street alone? First, a male provider in that awful place that is the Middle East. And also the pleasure of THE OTHER WOMEN do not show their face. Can you imagine if in those horrible streets with that plenty of ugly women appears a beautiful woman with long dress, and with her face uncovered?
 (Source: http://www.usaid.gov/stories/iraq/fp_iraq_womencenter.html) |  Do you want to see more? |
 (Source: http://www.mercycorps.org/countries/iraq/23338) |  Do you want to see more Sunny Leone? |
Seeing the history of feminism, you will see that it only arose in the middle of the nineteenth century. Millions of slaves got freedom in almost entire America, countries gotta be separated from anothers, absolutism ended up, Protestantism and the Enlightenment rocked the Catholic Church, even Brazil was no longer a colony of Portugal, and half of humanity living as a dog were quite quiet? How could it be?
In the Bible, the neighbor's wife is no fatter, and still is a pretty bitch
(There is a saying in Brazil that "the neighbor's chicken is always fatter") The woman in the Bible is the temptation, is the Viper, is the traitor, is the reason for the fall of man, will say the feminists. Not always. The pretty, good body and horny women were, and was the stumbling blocks of the men of God, as Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39: 7 to 20). But the Bible also has some good women. An example of a women that is temptation, evil, snake: Proverbs 7
1 My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee.
2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.
3 Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart.
4 Say unto wisdom, Thou [art] my sister; and call understanding [thy] kinswoman:
5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger [which] flattereth with her words.
6 For at the window of my house I looked through my casement,
7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
8 Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,
9 In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night:
10 And, behold, there met him a woman [with] the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
11 (She [is] loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:
12 Now [is she] without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)
13 So she caught him, and kissed him, [and] with an impudent face said unto him,
14 [I have] peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows.
15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved [works], with fine linen of Egypt.
17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.
19 For the goodman [is] not at home, he is gone a long journey:
20 He hath taken a bag of money with him, [and] will come home at the day appointed.
21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
22 He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;
23 Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it [is] for his life.
24 Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth.
25 Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths.
26 For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong [men] have been slain by her.
27 Her house [is] the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.
But the Bible also has good women. Examples:
- Abigail (1 Samuel 25: 2 to 42). The lewder woman of the Bible. Just kidding, hehehehe. Intelligent and beautiful woman married to a fool (which even his name, Nabal, meant that). Disobeyed her husband to help the future King David, and thus saved the life of the family. The man died and future king summoned her to be his wife (another, but was the wife of the king).
- Esther (for those who do not know the Bible very much, is the second book before Psalms). Beautiful woman (saying what is in the Bible, because I am a woman), which was in place of the Medo-Persian queen Vashti, who was removed from circulation to prevent an uprising feminist (Chapter 1). Delivered the Jewish people from be exterminated.
That is, Bible does not speak bad of women, speaks bad of OTHER women. No woman who goes to church want to be Eve, Potiphar's wife, Jezebel. Some can even get close, but being a notorious Viper no one wants. Even a girl that everyone knows she's bitch is pretending it is not. Women which Bible talks bad about are or seem completely different from women who say that follow it. Have you seen how many women who fear the Lord, which are unfriendly, unhappy, stupid, narrow-minded and most very ugly?
The Bible is not feminist, but appreciates the woman
- Ruth, king David's great-grandmother, was Moabite. The Moabites were enemies of the Jews. Funny that centuries later a white person was ashamed to say that he had a black ancestor. But besides the lady Ruth not to be forgotten was the only person from these people which the Bible speaks of something good.
- Proverbs 31: 10 to 31, about a virtuous woman.
- Proverbs 14: 1: “Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands”. And at a time when they said it was better to burn the law to teach it to a woman, imagine if it was not.
- 1 Peter 3: 7: “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
The Bible has passages that diminish the value of women? It has. But what about these? If the Bible had only misogyny, women would not want to, right?
There was a time when women were worshiped (literally)
And why do women have accepted the religion of man so far? Guess why: convenience. Times of greater religiosity in any country were the times of highest illiteracy, more delay and more hard work. The time of the iron coal, wood stove, walk over an hour to go to work and back, work without safety equipment was a time when in Brazil the percentage of people who were not Catholic were less than non-religious today. Some women talked about not getting married then? Hardly, right? Then the man, who could even be a scroundel, died of work (sometimes really died on the job), the woman cared their children and the house, maybe he had one lover giving some good sex, both enjoyed the fruit of his work and everyone was happy. It is hard homework and take care of children? It is. But who knows what is working in the fields can see how the mediocre women think that only they have to complain.
And women who was spanked by the husband liked it? Of course not. But what about back to Dad's house or play place in the labor market without favor (sometimes even prejudice against) to work like a man to earn her livelihood? Until now there are wives who divorce from their husband and are panicked because they never had a job in life.
But it was not always so. There once was a time when women were goddesses - and neither had Natura.
Worship of the Goddess in ancient myths
The many myths in the past to represent the genesis of the universe, nature and human beings can be divided into four categories, according to leading scholars, like Joseph Campbell. These categories reflect the level of human consciousness, and that, surprisingly, have correspondence with the four Cosmic Ages of our race: Golden Age, Silver Age, Copper Age and Bronze Age. Today we passed the last of the Bronze - Sanskrit named Kali Yuga.
The first corresponds to an age of high spirituality and respect for both male and female principles of divinity and society. The second a little less, in the third we see the myths discriminate maternal-feminine element and the last level - Kali Yuga - totally segregate matristic cosmogonic myths.
The interesting thing to examine is that the more humanity is removed from the spirituality, the more the myths put aside the worshipping of maternal/women aspects of God.
Here's how myths are in the four Ages of the World: the first Age, or Yuga, the world is created by an androgynous God, at the same time Father and Mother. In the second, this world is created by a god or a couple androgynous creator, or by a chorus of gods, which are divided into "male" and "feminine" to create the universe. In the third, a male god either takes power of the goddess or create the world over the body of the primordial Goddess. Finally, the last step, a male god created the world alone.
These four steps that follow are also chronologically eternal witnesses of the transition from matricentric step of humanity for his patriarchal phase.
(...) According to anthropologists, Mesopotamia, seen as the cradle of civilization, had much more prominent predecessors in Çatal Hüyük, organized on social patterns and belief systems completely different from what we have been taught that a society should be structured.
Dated at around 6700 BC, Çatal Hüyük had a refined cultural and technological standard. The city does not have fortifications or walls, which presumably should not be necessary, thanks to its peaceful stance.
Their maximum divinity was the Great Mother of All. Her representation consisted mainly of a fat woman with large breasts and flanked by two leopards.
(...) In Australia were found the remains of an ancient matriarchal society, among the inhabitants of the east and south, while in the north and west were patrilineal. Societies in Tasmania (whose population was wiped out by the British and disappeared altogether in 1876) and other regions with Cylindrical Hatchet culture, as well as the tribes of the Diera and loritja in region of Victoria and New Wales, had matriarchal structure, with form of relationship through the maternal line.
In this society women were of great importance and played big role in the economic field: they were who exclusively devoted themselves to the task of gathering food and agriculture. The woman could hold the position of chiefs.
Also in Australia, says Claude Levi-Strauss: "The matrilineal societies have a southern distribution. Occupied massively the southeast (southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria) and east of the southern province, and also a small coastal area southwest of the western province.
What can be deduced is that some of these people worshipped to two Twin Sisters Goddesses, Yirritja and Dhuwa, the Creator Duality called Yuankaj, as Mothers of humanity: Dhuwa Goddess, Mother of dhuwa (duwuae, one of the halves in which the community is divided) and goddess Yirritja, Mother of yirritj (half giririta, both form the whole, thus hermaphrodites).
(...) In all these cultures where women lead their people, dominate mythic beliefs that consider humanity as the exclusive work of the Ancestral Mother.
Translated from http://www.gnosisonline.org/mulher-gnostica/adoracao-as-deusas-nos-mitos-antigos/
Indeed, they were societies in which women were exalted just because they were women and their egos had been inflated. Is this well-known?
Returning to Mrs. Tania's text:
There is no major religion in the world founded or led by women.
Guess why. See where societies were matriarchal in the text above: America before European colonization, Oceania before European colonization, Egypt and Mesopotamia before become the Islamic world. Moral of the story: came much more technologically advanced nations, lesbians tribes needed science and technology, they rolled up in matriarchal societies, led strong men as slaves and fucked women (some of then literally). Since we spoke about women with Nobel Prizes in those days, how many women won the Nobel Prize in Physics? (2 in 192) In Chemistry? (4 in 161) In Physiology or Medicine? (10 in 199) Machismo? Try to look for a high school girl who wants to follow a course of Physics or Civil Engineering (without make vestibular to an easy school before). Indeed, speaking in that three women with Nobel Prizes, I talked about it in A Vez das Mulheres de Verdade ("Por que as três mulheres que ganharam o Prêmio Nobel da Paz é uma boa chance pras feministas ficarem CALADAS" - Why the three women who won the Nobel Peace Prize is a good chance to feminists remain silent), but let's see a statement of the committee:
"We can not achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women get the same opportunities as men to influence the development at all levels of society." ("Prêmio Nobel da Paz em 2011 fica com trio de mulheres", Folha de São Paulo, 07/10/2011, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/986631-premio-nobel-da-paz-em-2011-fica-com-trio-de-mulheres.shtml)
That is, women probably got 3 of the 44 awards because of pure manginity (mangina: man who flatters women only because they are women).
I spoke on non-religious back. How many of them are atheists? Most people who claim no religion in truth are unchurched religious. Mostly Christians. There, between the Christian and non-religious women (men too, but the text is for the females) you will find these types:
- Those who say "my religion is God", or something like that.
- Those who believe that Jesus Christ had a child with Mary Magdalene, but the Catholic Church censored this part in memory of the jealousy of an apostle handpicked by the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Those who believe that Jesus Christ did away with the machismo of the Law of Moses, though Moses did not write the law through his head and Jesus said that did not come to abolish the law.
- Those who believe that the basis of Christianity is love of neighbor, as if Jesus was just a great teacher.
- Those who believe the biblical rules that despised women were only customs of the time and do not make sense now (but this does not detract from the value of the Bible).
- Those who believe that no woman is worse just because is not a woman for one only man, but for them, sex is only for the husband or boyfriend.
- Those who accept the divorce, although the Bible is against.
- Those who believe that Jesus Christ had much value but it was not God.
- Barely lesbians, although the Bible condemns homosexuality.
That is, the religion of God or of the macho men turned to custom product to so-called intelectuals. Where is God in this hour?
But this mess is only until the religion of the women back. The men did a lot of junk, but did just about everything that makes the world be decent today. Until now, women followed the macho religions, teached their children in these religions and even defended these religions because these religions gave them providers husbands, isolated the other women of their husbands and combined with their lack of nobility of spirit and intelligence. Now, these mediocre women will take what men made good and get a foot in their ass, as they have done more, to make their religion. And if you think God was a son of his mother, he did not have PMS.
The two largest religions in the world today worship a woman
And speaking of worship of the goddess, which the largest church in the world? Roman Catholic Church. Venerates a woman: Mary. Based on what? The girl was only the surrogate mother of Jesus Christ. She did not appear much in the Bible. In the Bible, she never received any authority, nor of Jesus Christ himself. She was a good pupil, but like any other good. The last time she is mentioned is in Acts 1: 14. But the girl turns virgin for whole life (the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13: 55 were cousins), also had a miraculous birth announced by an angel and furthermore ascended to heaven more or less as the child. All of this based on parallel material. To give you an idea, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is since 1950. But the populace was forbidden to read the Bible, only knew the Bible what the priest was reading in the Mass (in Latin), then did not even know that Madona had nothing to do with Mary.
But Mary Mother of God, rather than the submissive girl, was better for unhappy and illiterate women, right? It was a move equal to the carnival, to leave half the population quiet and still defending the Church. Did you realized that even today people most active and more advocates of church Christianism are usually grandmas, horribles and pseudointelectuais or merely ignorant?
There is a book called "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, showing how Catholicism came from Babylonian religion. You can read (in English) at http://whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_TWO_BABYLONS.pdf.
And what is the second largest religion in the world? Islamism. It also speaks of Mary. Look at:
16 And mention, [O Muhammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.
17 And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man.
18 She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allah ."
19 He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."
20 She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"
21 He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.' "
22 So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.
23 And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten."
24 But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream.
25 And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates.
26 So eat and drink and be contented. And if you see from among humanity anyone, say, 'Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful abstention, so I will not speak today to [any] man.' "
27 Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented.
28 O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."
29 So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?"
30 [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.
31 And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive
32 And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.
33 And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."
34 That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute.
Quran, surah 19 (Máriam), verses 16 to 34
Oh, and does it also that have to do with us having no atheist woman in the level of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins?
Finally, a difference between macho and masculinist
Machoes want to return to the 60's or worse. They think that every woman who is not a fanatical devout, or at least one woman who does not know what is social life because is tied to a man, is a whore who fucks to a thousand men. But masculinists did not judge the woman by the number of sexual partners, they even think that women should be proud of having sex with a man for pleasure and give pleasure, not wanting to link him at a wedding. The masculinist think marriage is an unjustifiable idiotness, exactly the opposite of that macho thinks. The masculinist think that values are more than fighting other people's religion, or other people's lack of religion, have a horror of dick for the women or have a horror of pussy for men and preserve the family, usually a thick band of alienated without anything in special which are together by chance. Exactly the opposite of what macho thinks. The macho always defend the religion. Masculinists when they talk about religious beliefs, always declare themselves atheists or agnostics.
From who else have you heard what you hear (or read) of macho? Noticed that a macho, even if he call himself masculinist, seems to her butt ugly semi-literate grandmother talking?
But what is even the title of this series?
