Ever wondered why god is male? Yes, I know there are the new agey types out there who carry on like a pork chop how god isn't male or female, but those of us who were or are a member of one of the Abrahamic religions, should be left in no doubt that the monotheistic god of these religions is male. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are basically patriarchal religions. Anyone who knows a little of their history is aware of this. The word "patriarchy" derives from the word "patriarch" and the ancient books of the jews and consequently the christians are full of the deeds of the patriarchs. They were supposedly the male leaders of their clan or tribe. In other words, the head male honcho of each group.
So, there are patriarchs all over the Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures. The same story applies to the Islamic holy book the Quran, though I am not sure if they call their male leaders patriarchs, but the idea is the same. The guys supposedly get to rule, the guys are supposedly chosen by god, (who is inevitably male), to lead their people, the guys supposedly get the conversations with the male god which are then written into holy scriptures and women get to obey those words if they behave well enough so that they are not raped, sold into slavery or stoned to death. That's pretty well the gist of it. And I say fuck that shit. I don't think that the guys had a handle on what was going on at all. I think that they were basically ignorant, primitive tribesmen who concocted ideas as a means to explain the natural world. I mean, there were god stories all over the place, as the invention of a god was the common artifice used in order to explain anything they didn't understand. One more god didn't make much difference and probably seemed like the necessary thing to do if you wanted to galvanize the tribe into a common purpose.
The interesting thing to me is how and why religions became so obsessed with maleness. I have mentioned before the origins of circumcision and in this article I am going to discuss the mentality of these ancient people, why circumcision became a religious ritual and why the people of that time period created the concept of one male god who was the creator of all things and all life. As an interested observer of the bible I am struck by the language used to express concepts. One that is especially noticeable is the use of agricultural terms to express fertility and reproduction. If you do a search of the bible, you will see that the words "seed", "fruit" and "soil" are used in many occasions to describe human reproductive processes. This is understandable as these ancient people used words which were applicable to their time. There is no use of the words, sperm, ova, penis, uterus, foetus or embryo in the bible because those words were unknown. They were unknown to ancient people. The word "womb" is mentioned in the modern versions of the bible, but as the word originates from the old english word "wamb" (mid 5thC), one can assume that it wasn't the word used in the original text.
Need I add that in an agrarian mentality or culture that "tools that tilled the soil" were especially prized, and so fertility rituals were created which spoke of their importance. After all, if you have the belief that seed is produced exclusively by males and that women do not contribute genetic material in order to create new life, then you most probably create a ritual which symbolises the importance of this belief. If women and men were made from seed which man produced, then the male penis would take on special religious significance. I suggest that the ritual which was created to symbolize this male power was circumcision.
I am sure that ancient human beings understood the process of conception but nothing like the way we understand it now. So they probably twigged that they had to do the "wild thing" alright, but they didn't know that women produced half the biological material to create life. They had a common name for sperm which was "seed" and they had a common name for the finished product which was "fruit" but they had no common word for "ova". Why? Because the existence of ova wasn't considered until Reinier de Graaf. (1641-1673) That is approximately two thousand years after the creation of their penis cults. Reinier de Graaf was the first one to describe follicles, which he called "kleine bollekens", in the ovary which he called 'the female testicles' and he realized that a follicle contained an oocyte, which he called 'ovum'. Although he has never seen an oocyte; he deduced its presence from the observation of an ectopic pregnancy. Let that sink in for a moment. He considered the ovary to be "female testicles." This language explicitly demonstrates how little of the female reproductive system was known in the sixteen hundreds, let alone a couple of thousand years previously. But, as I am in the mood for being as matriarchal as the previous language was patriarchal, I shall henceforth refer to testicles as male ovaries.
Ova themselves were not EVIDENCED until 1827 by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer. See, I kind of go by what people DIDN'T know. I figure that people's beliefs are more than likely based on what they DON'T know, not so much on what they actually know. It's obvious that ancient man knew that his penis contained sperm which he called "seed". It is NOT obvious that they knew that women produced eggs which we now call ova. As it is NOT obvious that they knew these things it is extremely doubtful that they knew that women contributed 1/2 the biological material to create life. If they didn't know that women contributed half the biological material required to produce new life, then it is more than probable that they made some glaringly false assumptions. That they based their religions around these false assumptions is of no surprise to me either.
The bible uses the kind of "sexual language" that one would expect from an ancient agrarian society that associates male sperm with "seed", the woman's womb with "the soil" and the result as "fruit". I think that ancient men believed, because of a LACK of knowledge about human reproduction and a lack of knowledge about ova, that they were the instigators of life through their "seed" and that women were the "soil" which bore their "fruit." I am sure that men viewed themselves to be powerful because of this. Powerful men sired powerful sons. Weak men sired women, who were necessary, but not as important as males who exclusively produced seed. In an agrarian mentality, seed is the focus of life. No seed equals no crops. Even if you have no soil, you can always take your seed with you and fight for new soil. This works from an agricultural point of view and also a human reproductive point of view.
Now, this is where it gets even more interesting. From an agrarian point of view, if men were responsible for holding the seed to life in their penis, then a more powerful man must be responsible for the creation of all life. This is working from the agrarian mentality based on false assumptions. It had to be a male who was responsible for life because human males considered themselves to be the responsible for sowing seed to create new life. But how would this mysterious all-powerful male create all life? Well, if he was all-powerful, he wouldn't need a penis to transfer seed and he wouldn't need a woman's body to act as soil. (I suppose he might have had an invisible penis, but the ancients seem to have steered away from this concept, except for the offering of thousands of bits of penis skin to their male super deity. Perhaps it was a form of sympathetic magic whereby they hoped that by giving their male entity lots of bits of their "powerful organ" that he would bless them with fertile sperm and multitudinous fruit. Anyway, this all-powerful invisible dick in the sky didn't seem to need a woman's womb in order to create children, nor did he need visible sperm. He was all-powerful after all.)
But who created the first male? Seed is needed to create another male, or, a male is needed to create a male. So it must have been a superdooper male who created the first human male. This is where the agricultural mentality kicks in again. The powerful supernatural male creates life in the way that an ancient male would expect him to. He doesn't use his seed to impregnate a female; he uses his breath as an invisible being would use something invisible. Genesis 2:7- " the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." He doesn't need a woman; he uses the soil of the earth in exactly the same way that women were considered to be soil in which seed could be planted. So, the soil, clay, dirt is the symbol of the female and the almighty male god only has to breathe into it to create a male. This is the explanation that ancient men came up with to explain not only why they believed that they were biologically more important, but also to explain how a male was produced without the need of a female. So what came first in the chicken and the egg story? In the case of ancient man and his knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the male and his seed came first, (pardon the double entendre) and the female or human potting mix was created secondly.
So it must have been a superdooper male who created the first human male. And amazingly, to match the ancient agrarian thinking, this superdooper male made a man out of dust, clay or soil. Seed goes into soil you see. But the superdooper male god didn't have to use "seed" like an ordinary human male. Oh no, he was SO powerful and so invisible that his invisible breath was enough to fertilize the soil. Then having created a man out of dirt, he went on to create a woman FROM man, because that is what the ancients believed, that women originated from men, from their seed. “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.”1 Corinthians, 11:8 They believed that all humans came from a man's seed and where no visible seed was available that it was invisible seed in the form of a male's breath.. And that has been the fairytale for a few thousand years. Groan.
Thomas Acquinis (1225–1274CE) does not recognize the existence of any biological material suppled by the female. "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power." - Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Theological', Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1 They didn't KNOW that women contributed half the biological material required to create life. They saw THEMSELVES as the ones who provided all the biological material that was necessary. They believed that they held the spark of creation. Little wonder that they went on to create religions which put them and their seed at the top of the pyramid and the soil or the potting mix at the bottom.
I consider these religions to be basically penis cults. They chop a bit off here and there and offer it up to their male god as a token of their esteem for him. Perhaps the supposed coat of many colours is actually made up of dried out old foreskins. Who knows? It wouldn't surprise me at all. They are just political organizations based on guys having an excuse to worship their own pee pees and the invisible pee pee who lives in the sky and who apparently watches them while they have sex with their pee pees. It appears to be basically a voyeuristic male entity who, at least from its inception, required foreskin sacrifice and who nodded approvingly at the snip of each organ..
Now, I know that men are basically fascinated with their penis from birth. Let's face it, it is a dangly toy a little like the mobiles which we dutifully hang above their cribs. They hold it when they sleep, unless they have been traumatized into thinking it is dirty, and they hold it when they are in danger and when they die. I don't have a major problem with the fact that they find their penis to be endlessly fascinating, except to say that I do not feel compelled to worship their penis with them, nor to worship their almighty invisible penis which has magic breath and lives in the sky. I am sure they find it absolutely enthralling but they really should move onto to other pursuits like being able to multi task or being able to count their golf scores honestly. After all, their penis isn't all-powerful no matter to which religious myth they ascribe. I intend to remind the more penis cult minded among them of that often.
Grease 2: 'Reproduction Song'
reproduction science fertility religion circumcision foreskin penis penis cult cult bible creation genesis agrarian agriculture soil seed fruit biblical creation satire comedy