Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ feminism

The new Jesus and Mo strip is called “altar”, with the artist commenting, “And there have been lots of cover versions.” It’s not just religionists, of course, who “sacrifice the rights of women” because of religious beliefs. Many feminists do, so long as it’s Islam that abrogates those rights. And among them are atheists, who in their osculation of Islam have given up not just their concern for women’s welfare, but also their disdain for faith.


  1. Randall Schenck
    Posted December 6, 2017 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    When the atheist gives up disdain for faith there is no longer an atheist.

    • Blue
      Posted December 6, 2017 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      Exactly, Randall.


      • Blue
        Posted December 6, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink
        = a hero of mine: Ms MATILDA JOSLYN (Gage):

        “Women, Church and State was one of the first
        books to draw the conclusion that … …
        Christianity is a PRIMARY impediment to the
        progress of women, as well as civilization.”

        … … published y1893.


        • Simon
          Posted December 7, 2017 at 4:28 am | Permalink

          Which strikes me as thoroughly wrongheaded. Christianity recognises the value of the individual, which is arguably the basis of the Western recognition of individual rights. It also created an environment in which scientific discovery was allowed to flourish and the blips along the way don’t negate that. The European enlightenment has led to ever increasing standards of living which have freed a lot of us from the shackles imposed by nature and made life safer. It is that which has enabled the erosion of gender roles, far more than feminism. Feminism claims for itself gains that were happening anyway snd projects misogyny onto men as a group which is really unwarranted. Most men do not want to see women limited, but that is inconvenient to feminist narratives which require oppression to justify themselves. Perhaps there are dimensions in which women have it worse, but the assumption that men are somehow blessed with the keys to life and their issues don’t count is pathological. As is often said, feminism is always claiming that X > Y yet vehemently resists any attempt to measure Y. If any measuring is to be done at all, it has to be done within a feminist framework, which is one of countless examples of stunning hypocrisy given the cries of “shut up and listen”, “mansplaining” and “it’s not about you” should a man dare to try to contextualise women’s experiences.

          I don’t believe that most women would call themselves feminists if they understood the real history and actual manifestations of feminism. To me, feminism is a form of toxic femininity, a pathological manifestation of the negative aspects of female traits in much the same way that (real) toxic masculinity represents extremes of negative male traits. The difference being that one is embraced and the other is despised, which should give one an idea of whose interests society really cares about.

  2. Posted December 6, 2017 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    Ah – Time Person(s) of the year methinks

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted December 6, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Please notice way down in this article it states – The EEOC declared Sexual Harassment a violation of TITLE VII of the civil rights act in 1980. Just as with most of the act, making the law was the easy part. But do not think that everyone did nothing back in the 80s because some did.

  3. busterggi
    Posted December 6, 2017 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    They ain’t no Buck Ownes and Roy Clark.

  4. Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Religion is just a mechanism of patriarchy, it is not the cause. Scripture were written that way by men. And it doesn’t matter the religion or the culture, men oppress women. Nobody seems to know why this is, but in my opinion it must involved a pretty major psychological lever. My best guess is fear. Women can birth new humans who can grow and become threats to established humans, both make an female. This is a real power and to cede political power on top of that could easily make men (and “other,” aka less powerful, women) work to establish male cultural dominance.

    There is no biological or logical reason for this widespread oppression of women, but, it has to stop. Now, would be a good time.

    • Posted December 6, 2017 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      I’m pretty sure whatever testable claims are buried in your theory, won’t be supported by evidence.

      For instance, you assert that some aspect of the human condition (male oppression of females) is both universal, and occurs for “no biological reason” – it’s really hard to see how both claims could be true.

      Also, if men felt that women were upsetting the established order by giving bith to new humans, and somehow wanted to stop women doing this, it’s rather hard to make sense of men, *particularly* the most powerful men, being so keen on becoming fathers and producing heirs.

    • Posted January 27, 2018 at 2:43 am | Permalink

      I think there is pretty clear biological reason for the oppression of women, and it is that men are physically stronger.

  5. nay
    Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Jesus & Mo: Instead of “it NEVER gets old”, how about “it’s TRADITIONAL!”

  6. Blue
    Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    +1, Mr Ruis.

    Ms Steinem and Historian Dr Rosalind Miles
    inside her Women’s History of the World state
    exactly the same deal: when male humans
    finally figured out that something .from
    them. made the “already existing” – babes
    jump down outta the vapors and ethers at
    their treetops and climb in to, specifically,
    o n l y female humans’ uteri … … did
    male humans .begin. their oppressions and
    their dehumanizations.

    Fear of, instead, of respect for her … …
    the same respect they ‘d had for themselves.

    Religion is oppression’s / dehumanization’s
    m e a n s. Only, therefor, a tool.

    I have believed this a long, long time: human males do not themselves believe a scintilla of religions’ fairy tales. It is just a means and a tool to keep humans who are the female ones … … down: ” it doesn’t matter the religion or the culture, men oppress women.”


    • Simon
      Posted December 7, 2017 at 5:31 am | Permalink

      LOL, wut! Brings to mind the Jungian generalisation that men’s subjective representation of a women is an individual woman, while a woman’s subjective representation of a man is all men. The idea that men as a group suppress women is pure projection on the part of people who themselves think in collectivist terms and reduce everything down to group power dynamics.

  7. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted December 6, 2017 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Interestingly, many creative artists have done depictions of one sort or another of crucified women as a protest against Christianity’s treatment of women.

    One of the best-known in Australian novelist/artist’s painting “The Crucified Venus” which was partially the subject of the film “Sirens” in which a prudish Anglican priest objecting to the picture was played by a young Hugh Grant(!!). I reproduce the real version here.

    The most authentically feminist portion of the canonical Bible is probably the story of Susannah and the Elders, omitted from Protestant Bibles, but included in the longer version of Daniel in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. It is a strong condemnation of what today we call “slut-shaming” and sexual harassment on the part of lecherous older men.
    Like “The Rape of the Sabine Women”, it is a frequent subject of painting.

    The story was the basis of an opera by Carlisle Floyd which moved the action from ancient Israel to Kentucky, and merged the older men into a traveling street revivalist preacher.


    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted December 6, 2017 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      The artist is Norman Lindsay whose name I unaccountably removed.

%d bloggers like this: