Ideas of inherent evil in the feminine and womanhood are especially peculiar to -- and deeply rooted -- in Mediterranean, Arabian and the cultures of the Indian subcontinent.

Indian culture was suffused early on with perceptions of women as “sensual, unintelligent, envious, unreliable, fickle, uncontrollable and in need of male supervision.” At the same time they were praised as obedient daughters and wives and as self-sacrificing mothers, especially as mothers of sons.” Early Buddhist texts placed spiritual liberation as attainable for all, “regardless of sex, class or caste,” but pre-existing social power structures prevailed. Thus women found themselves nonetheless subordinate. Even the “oldest most experienced nun” was expected to defer to the youngest of her male counterparts. In this ancient culture, women – presumably by their mere existence and presence -- were seen in India as threats to men’s devotion and discipline, especially for men vowed to be celibate (Kloppenborg 151-152).

A woman’s sensuality was seen as “the result of a lack of self-discipline” which a woman must fight to retain her virtue. In one parable, a nun is described as wandering for seven years in a quest to escape her desires, even to the point of contemplating suicide when faced with failure. A woman’s physical beauty and alluring personality were portrayed as evil temptations to men. One passage contains the solution that became ossified in Indian culture to this day. The woman acknowledges her inherent feminine evil, offering her obedient submission as penance, thus allowing her husband to partake of the pleasure she has to offer, so long as he dictates the terms (Kloppenborg 158-159).

In ancient Greece and classical Rome, a few women did hold religious positions of authority and were respected as priestesses and oracles, but were not offered citizenship and thus had no say in political affairs -- domestic or international. Celtic Europe held women in a different regard than did their close relatives in the pre-Christian northern Mediterranean. With considerable exasperation, the Roman Emperor Tacitus noted how his representatives sometimes faced Germanic, Gaulish, British and Irish women at the negotiating table and how his legions were challenged by forces occasionally under female command. There weren’t equal numbers of female leaders in these relatively simple societies, but the fact that the general population accepted their authority distinguished them indeed. Giving an indication of the future, the Romans noted that many in tribal Europe ascribed certain women with certain “divinatory powers” that were consulted before initiating major community decisions such as negotiating with [or waging war upon] outsiders (Green 94-97).

The importance of this will become clear when the old religions and the social structures they supported were successfully dismantled and replaced a few centuries later.

Dr. Fatmagul Berktay of Istanbul University argues that patriarchy and female subjugation are peculiar aspects of monotheistic religions. She also notes, however that these structures became established in ancient Mesopotamia (Berktay 9), which at that time practiced a polytheistic religion that also tolerated the other beliefs that outsider and subject populations practiced [including Judaism] (Wells 266-267).

Amongst the Semitic peoples [viz. the Hebrews and Arabs], there developed a conception that their childbearing capabilities actually make women inferior to men. While men “produce immortal cultural products,” women only produce mortal beings thus making them inferior. Men are further to be considered the mediators between the Divine and mortal and women must go through their men to attain spiritual contact. Being thus spiritually inferior and logically unreliable, explains Dr. Berktay, women’s sexual and reproductive power must then be under male control (Berktay 10).

It must be emphasized that such cultural mores predate the advent of Islam in the Mid-East. Although the Koran specifies that women are equal to men in the eyes of the Almighty, such pre-Islamic practices as holding women as property, female infanticide and polygamy ended up being folded into Islamic life, continuing in some parts to this day (El-Aszhary 109).

The concept of inherent female evil and inferiority requiring subordination was not held in parts of the world untouched by the cultural axis stretching from Mediterranean to the Indian subcontinent. Ancient Chinese social conventions held that there was a natural division of labor wherein “men were in charge of external affairs and women were in charge of internal affairs.” The ancient Chinese did not hold women in equal status to men, but such talk of feminine evil did not exist (Zhang ¶5).

In pre-Columbian America [viz. before European discovery and settlement], there was a wide variety of social structures, depending upon the main food source – hunting societies tended to place men at a higher status while gatherer/cultivator societies tended to be more equal, some even having female leadership. Some tribes, such as the Cheyenne and Iroquois considered the fact of their childbearing abilities to be reasons to exalt women as special beings requiring protection and deference (Allen 192-194).

As did every human society in the world, the earliest Europeans worshipped a plethora of entities symbolic of things that give and sustain life -- the Earth, the Sun, trees, water, crops, game animals as well as the archetypical man, woman and child (Green 24).

Such theology was completely unacceptable to the monotheists who worshipped the male god of Abraham. To these early evangelicals, every other deity was false and every other religion of the world was blasphemous because they had certainty that they and they alone – finite beings though they were – had knowledge of the infinite Almighty’s true nature and will (Larousse 437).

Once Rome became Christianized, the pre-existing female subordination in secular life was now strengthened by religious sanction. The deeply entrenched Celtic practice of having female leaders and feminine Divinity had to be eradicated if the monotheistic religion originating from the Mid-East was to take hold. The special divinatory powers ascribed to women that were already widely accepted in tribal pre-Christian Europe became problematic as Christianity spread northward and westward. The old European deities were thus characterized as demons and the priests and priestesses who led their worship were characterized as sorcerers and witches. Women were especially targeted, because unlike the men, their leadership roles could not be retained in the new religion – they had to adopt the social roles that were part of the imported theology (Hanegraaff 218-219).

It must be re-emphasized that the patriarchal strictures in Indian Buddhism and in Mid-Eastern Abrahamism [viz. Judaism, Christianity and Islam] were already strongly emplaced in these societies. They are not essential parts of these religions and are instead of a social and political nature and as such subject to questioning, review and – in time – revision. In other words, if you are comfortable practicing one of these religions, I am certainly not making the case for you to abandon your faith.

There is a secular element to this phenomenon as well however, that must also be dealt with. This aspect is more personal. As a man I’m glad to have the opportunity to explore this subject. Struggling with the ramifications of male/female relations with respect to any inherent feminine evil, I have come to the conclusion that it is incumbent upon us men to make some concessions. It is therefore appropriate that a man be the one to articulate what form such concessions should take.

Are women beguiling and bewitching us men with their behavior and beauty? Well, in Taliban Afghanistan, women were not only required to cover themselves from head to toe, they also couldn’t speak to strangers lest their feminine voices stir the souls of men. Your VOICES alone are enough to send chills up our spines, ladies! [This writer must confess to being particularly susceptible to any sort of feminine sensory input. Pitiful.]

Does this mean then that women must be silent and cover themselves up lest they be held responsible for what men may think or do? This may be the dominant view in most world cultures, but I say it is not only wrong -- it causes misery for all concerned. I’ve read a few pieces by Muslim women who say that they happily choose to cover themselves, explaining that they can then be regarded for who they are, rather than their looks. That point is well taken and women certainly should be free to choose to cover themselves up, but not be required to.

We men must take responsibility for how we react to any and all external stimuli. If we can be successfully trained to ignore bullets whizzing past us as we charge forward on the battlefield, then we can find a way to let a woman be beautiful in our presence and simply enjoy it without making nuisances of ourselves. We men cannot fairly blame women for what thoughts they may inspire. How can women be considered evil because of what we think or do in response to their existence?

Research on finding a more natural and mutually fulfilling male/female dynamic has borne little fruit from authoritative sources. An intriguing perspective is offered in a little piece called “A Married Woman’s Guide to a Happier, More Fulfilling Relationship” by an anonymous writer online. What is suggested is extremely radical, and I don’t necessarily endorse everything recommended, but…

According to the author, the traditional dynamic of men lording over women’s sexuality makes neither party happy, because it is essentially unnatural. The author notes that a relationship starts out fine and everybody is happy, because there is courtship and pursuit – bringing flowers, being attentive and complimentary, etc. Once the relationship is established, familiarity sets in and the man becomes bored because he knows he already has his woman and no longer courts her (Anon pt. 1).

Apparently this is wrong. In order for a relationship to be fulfilling, the courtship should never stop. The author argues that the woman must be the one who decides when and under what circumstances physical intimacy must take place. Only if the man is required to “expend considerable effort” in an ongoing pursuit will he value what he has attained. Further, he will enjoy it more (Anon pt. 5).

Although love remains unconditional, the woman must make romance conditional and uncertain. In order to make this effective women must then develop the self-confidence necessary to assert such a role. The author explains that every woman has “the essence to attract, captivate and hold sway over men.” It is not a matter of youth or beauty. Women, the author goes on, tend to be much harder on themselves with respect to physical appearance then are men. It’s really a question of attitude and men are naturally disposed to accept such female assertiveness whether we realize it or not (Anon pt. 6).

Now the author is not saying that the woman should be in sole charge of the family or even the relationship -- those things are still negotiable. What is being argued is that given a woman’s cyclic needs and certain realities [she risks childbirth, not you], the physical aspect should be up to her. This could be exciting and fun. The author argues that a man should learn to enjoy such things as brushing his woman’s hair or giving a massage without the expectation of it leading to anything else. A woman should know that she could permit such events without feeling an automatic obligation to go beyond. The author goes further to say that a happy relationship demands that the fulfillment of the man's needs should be made conditional upon the woman's approval and the satisfaction of HER needs first. [THAT was tough to clean up!] (Anon pt. 7-8).

Does this sound frustrating for the man? Perhaps, but judging from the testimonials from the men that were attached to the essay, none were complaining. In fact, they were quite enthusiastic.

So are women inherently evil? Hardly. We need to re-assess our perspective towards ourselves and each other, looking for the true essence of what is man and what is woman, based upon objective reasoning rather than the artificial dogma that has become only too familiar.

  REFERENCES

Dodson PhD, Betty. Orgasms for Two: the Joys of Partner Sex. Harmony Publishing Company, 2002.

Kloppenborg, Ria. “Female Stereotypes in Early Buddhism: The Women of the Therigatha” Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions Kloppenborg, Ria and Wouter J. Hanegraaff, ed. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers 1995.

Hanegraaff, Wouter. “The Image of the Witch in Neopaganism” Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions Kloppenborg, Ria and Wouter J. Hanegraaff, ed. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers 1995.

Green, Miranda J. The World of the Druids. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997.

Berktay, Fatmagul. Women and Religion Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1998.

Wells, H.G. The Outline of History. Garden City, New York: 1949.

El-Azhary Sonbol, Amira. “Rethinking Women and Islam.” Daughters of Abraham: Feminist Thought in Judaism, Christianity and Islam Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck and John L. Esposito, ed. University Press of Florida, 2001.

Zheng, Jin-Sheng. “Female Medical Workers in Ancient China.” Traditional Chinese Medicine Online. Beijing: 2000. 

Allen, Paula Gunn. The Sacred Hoop. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986.

Larousse Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions. Goring, Rosemary and Dr. Frank Whaling, ed. Edinborough: 1994.

Anonymous. “A Married Woman’s Guide to a Happier, More Fulfilling Relationship” http://www.geocities.com/toyboy101/