Why no female authors of scriptures

[iceaura]

So the question is why among humans it is typically the females that wear sexy clothing, accentuate their breasts, wear jewelry and paint their faces with cosmetics. The display situation seems to be reversed from most other species

The peculiarities of Western culture, or modern industrial civilization, should not be extrapolated uncritically into evolutionary time and planetary scale. This would included the conventional blind spots of Western cultural evaluation:
http://www.mrporter.com/daily/how-to-dress-like-the-rolling-stones/771
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys...12&fit=max&s=3e7b7faf384dad05ab7d11f176f3f6e2
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69203000/jpg/_69203928_164077988(1).jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/my_world_perspective/2544296310/
https://uncomelyandbroken.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/f0000279ixt1.jpg
http://cmsimg.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...ocal/2014/07/05/2014-oneida-pow-wow/12251647/
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/kids/images/Indian.html
http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/images/chilkat-dancers.jpg
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2007/images/5985.jpg

 

[exchemist]

Which culture? Which period? Have you seen much of fashion through the ages?http://www.sirclisto.com/cavalier/costumes.html
And clothing is relatively recent: before it became the norm, men scarified their bodies, painted their faces, wore elaborate headdresses... and still do! http://creativefan.com/tattoo-ideas-for-men/ Besides, physical decoration isn't the only sexual display. Most birds have to win a home-site and many must build a nest, before they can even go courting. Bison and moose, elk and mountain sheep all fight one another for the privilege of mating; felines and canines all have to prove dominance over their male competitors and defend a territory; simians have to be smart as well as powerful. From age 5 or even younger, human males show off to human females, in season or out, whether the female is receptive or not.

The latter part, yes, possibly ... though I'd like to posit that it was in larger part due to intelligent co-operation.
In either case, there is no essential difference between the competitive displays and behaviours of humans and other social animals: it's about reproduction, as well as power, status, a better chance than the next family, the next clan, the next tribe, the next nation, at personal survival and genetic continuity.


Most of this activity would have been directed at the advancement of the individual in his own tribe (status, privilege) and also the ascendancy of one's own tribe over its rivals on all sides. Women's necessary contribution to this effort was aid and comfort for the ambitious husband and the production of lots of little peasants and soldiers.
Remember: until very, very recently, all this intellectual activity was restricted to something like 1% of the males; the rest were engaged in manual labour and had very little autonomy; few had the opportunity to display their mental attributes.


It's that most of them never had a spare minute to devote. A very few high-born ladies of several different cultures did indulge in intellectual and artistic pursuits, and were accomplished in various fields. I'm inclined to agree, though, that they were probably less competitive and secretive and clubbish than their male intellectual equals; more likely to share information and innovation with their community than to hoard it for reward.

The largely Jesuit-driven European educational agenda of the last 600 years before, and most of the way through the Industrial Revolution deliberately obfuscated the names of accomplished women in all areas of endeavour. Which, of course, brings religion back to the fore. The one most of us are familiar with has been actively misogynist from its inception.

Erm, the Jesuits were only founded less than 500yrs ago, by which time the Reformation was already under way. (Henry VIII of England had already broken with Rome before the order was even founded.) So it seems a little unlikely that the Jesuits would have been able to dominate European education in the way you suggest.

The Industrial Revolution started (in Britain) about 250yrs ago, by which time the whole of Northern Europe was Protestant - and virulently anti-Jesuit.

So blaming it all on the Js strikes me as rather absurd.

 

[Jeeves]

OK , I got the numbers wrong: just guessing. The Calvinists were quite misogynist enough, as are the modern fundamentalists.
The tradition that inspired them goes back to Paul, and before him, the Hebrew patriarchs.

 

[Hapsburg]

Why...

You already answered your own question. Society was--and in many respects, still is--patriarchal.

Lilith?

Figure from Jewish folklore that only later came to have a prominent place in some Second Temple literature, including Biblical apocrypha. And even in that literature, figure is not mentioned as an author--which is what the OP is about--or even as a protagonist of any sort.

 

[Seattle]

God is gay. His son was "immaculately" conceived. God doesn't dig the chicks.

 

[mtf]

I don't believe writing a scripture is a male pastime. If it is, then Up don't see how or why the writings would be called scripture.

Also, men and women have their general roles in any society. That does not mean that men are better, or worse.

"Women must be honored and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers‑in‑law, who desire their own welfare. Where women are honored, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honored, no sacred rite yields rewards. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honored, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek (their own) welfare, should always honor women on holidays and festivals with (gifts of) ornaments, clothes and (dainty) food." (Manu Smriti III.55-59)

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/women_in_vedic_culture.htm

Mhm.

-“…woman has no independence, because they cannot keep their independence---it is not possible.”
-“By nature they are weak…”
-“In the Western countries, the women are given freedom like man, but that is unnatural.”
-“So, woman—the conclusion is that women are weak.”
(SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/30/73)

-“Independence for women means they become like prostitutes.”
-“Women cannot do anything independently. To give them independence means to create some trouble.”
(SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 5/19/72)

-“Women are inferior to men, and… men are given full charge of the women.”
-“Women are supposed to be less intelligent.”
(TLK 5)

-“Women should not be given freedom. Like a child, she is not given freedom.”
(SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 7/11/74)

-“It is found that the brain substance in man is found up to 64 ounce. They are very highly intellectual persons. And in woman the brain substance is not found more than 34 ounce. You’ll find, therefore, that there is no very great scientist, mathematician, philosopher, among women. You’ll never find because their brain substance cannot go.”
(BG lecture, Hawaii, 2/3/75)

-“Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man.”
(SB 1.7.42, purport)

-“According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy.”
-“As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation.”
(BG 1.40, purport)

-“Now, in the ‘Manu-samhita’ it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men.”
(BG 16.7, purport)

-“Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man.”
(SB 1.7.42, purport)

-“A woman’s attachment to her husband may elevate her to the body of a man in her next life, but a man’s attachment to woman will degrade him, and in his next life he will get the body of a woman.”
(SB 3.31.41, purport)

-“It is understood that the sexual appetite of a woman is nine times greater than that of a man.”
(SB 3.23.44, purport)
/.../
https://sites.google.com/a/iskconme...please-stop-misusing-srila-prabhupadas-quotes

 

[mtf]

So the question is why among humans it is typically the females that wear sexy clothing, accentuate their breasts, wear jewelry and paint their faces with cosmetics. The display situation seems to be reversed from most other species.

One answer is that it is the social norm to do so: that women must doll themselves up in order to appear as worthy human beings at all; based on the conviction that a woman is by default ugly/worthless, and must undo that or at least hide it. Women dolling themselves up may have nothing to do with the display of sexual prowess per se.