If I infer correctly you are holding up the following as an example supporting your religion is hate thesis.
For most of human history this was a necessary reality if the human race was to continue. When child and maternal mortality was in significant double digits women had little choice if they were to get their 2.3 replacement offspring to puberty but to provide for the man who was providing external resources to the family, keeping the home sanitary, feeding the family, and educating the children to be productive citizens of their community.A radical feminist quoted:You know what? She needs to be working on breakfast. She needs to be working on lunch. She needs to be working on dinner. She needs to be working on homeschooling the children. And teaching them, and cleaning, and that’s enough work. "Pastor Anderson"
As late as the early 20th century my own grandmother had 7 children two of which were stillborn, and died in childbirth with the 7th. The family was well off and well-educated, so four of the five surviving became productive adults. The two women although independent, well-educated feminists were still relegated by their society, not their church, to homemaking. The fifth was incapacitated with childhood diseases and became a ward of the family.
I am not arguing that modern medicine and contraception have not changed the equation and that religion should drag itself into the modern world, but religion is very conservative, and a significant portion of the world population is still locked in the septic, hidden estrus world that is our genetic heritage.
You may rail from your position of privilege that religion should be changing. That is what positions of privilege are good for. I have done my share from my position of privilege, but accusations of hate, misogyny, and bigotry as if that is all there is, are in my opinion counterproductive.