Of course the man was very male chauvinistic, but it was not yet proved that he is superior in any way, and there was no precedent; they were the first ones. The woman was very reluctant; she said she is going to sleep on the bed. The whole night they quarreled – the first encounter group, pillow fight and…and the next day God had to withdraw that woman. Since then the real woman has not existed.
To me, even a fictitious story can be used to search into the mind which created it. The real woman had to be withdrawn. Then Eve was created, but not as an independent being; she was created out of a rib taken from Adam’s body. Now she would be dependent. She would be just a part. The first woman was solely independent. There was no question that she was inferior and Adam was superior. But the second woman was inferior from the very beginning; she was just a small rib taken out of Adam – nothing more; just a part, not even a whole. From this point the degradation of woman starts. Adam’s fall may come later on, but woman’s degradation, slavery, starts with this: that God has withdrawn the real woman.
This God also has a male chauvinistic mind. Why could he not say that you are both equal, there is no need to fight? But he must have been really a Jew: he could not make a little bigger bed, where both could be accommodated. It is not only a question of a bed, remember. What I am trying to say to you is: God could not manage the equality of man and woman, could not manage their being accommodated in a coexistence, without anybody being on a power trip. He himself is a man: naturally, Adam is not withdrawn. The woman is withdrawn, is annihilated, is simply finished. And the second woman is only a false, pseudo woman. From the very beginning God manages the second woman to be a pseudo woman. This way the story proves that Eve is never going to be equal: how can the part be equal to the whole?
But when you put somebody in an inferior position, which is absolutely unfair and unjust, there is bound to be rebellion. The people who have invented this story may not have been aware what they were inventing. And nobody has interpreted it the way I am doing. The woman must have been carrying great anger. The woman must have been wanting to show God in some way that, “If you can be unfair, I can also destroy what you are trying to make.” She is going to revolt. In the story, Christians and Jews make the part of the serpent very important. That is only an excuse. The basic thing is, the moment you try to enforce slavery, inferiority, on anybody, you are sowing the seeds of revolution, revolt. It is a revolt.
Why could the serpent not convince Adam? – which would have been far easier, because man is thought to be more intelligent, more rational, more adventurous, more egoistic. And all these qualities would have been helpful for the serpent, the Devil, to incite Adam against God’s order – to provoke him to revolt, to disobey. And this seems to be absolutely logical, psychological, relevant.