Are religions unfair to women?

Post Reply New Topic

I've never met a priest so I don't know.

Yes, but why assume religion is exclusively a group activity? I'm still a Christian whether I'm at work, at church, or at home. Besides, the privilege (as opposed to the right--my wife COULD tell me to stop) to grab a handful isn't tied to religion at all as far as my wife and I are concerned.

Anyway…it's been fun, but with everyone "snorting up" on here I've gotten bored with the topic. LKL did mention something about a horse, and if mods hadn't spanked me about animal p0rn before I'd link up a lovely youtube I found once that involved a horse and a donkey. You can look it up if you like…it's a snippet from some Japanese language documentary.

In the Amazon, there are still some people who never got that memo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubKS4_mM3bo

Before the Missionaries got to Tonga, Tongan women dressed like this

http://www.davidsongalleries.com/subjec ... -22149.jpg

http://www.beachcomberpete.com/travelog ... -17931.png

Now, they dress like this



Even the English gave up Victorian fashions a long time ago. But not the Tongans.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9NXEv6m6pY[/youtube]

*SNORT* [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CYwNWHZuT0[/youtube]

Actually, there is one area where the ladies do enjoy a distinct advantage.

According to the Torah, two men enjoying genital contact together represents a capital offense. Just as bad as picking up sticks during the Sabbath.

However, the Lesbians get a free pass. Apparently Yahweh is cool with Lesbianism.

Since Yahweh gets to watch all of us 24 hours per day, full time, He probably likes watching the girl-on-girl action as much as I do, but doesn't care for the man-on-man stuff.

You forgot to *snort*. It's only true if you say "snort."

*snort* Again, you may wish to investigate what sorts of activities are taking place at your church's Women Society meetings. Particularly now that it has transpired that the group has been infiltrated by a Feminist cell.

The feminists will send in spies in the local churches and plant perfume bombs in the churches the perfume in the bombs will contain pheramones that will cause all the ladies to rebel against god and burn their bras and rally around the churches protesting that god is sexist and is patriarchy! It is a liberation from religion movement!*snort*

Since when is submitting to an all-powerful male overlord a male fantasy? I know it's not one of mine...

How does demonizing strength benefit men? (See David vs. Goliath.)

Yeah, but you forget something: I draw my own conclusions. I'd never attend a church if I believed that the purpose was to do all my thinking for me. Baptists have been that way for a long time. You really have no idea what church life is like for some of us.

Besides…are you so sure that I'm not a male conspirator who might have played a small part in helping a Feminist cell establish itself there? It might also explain why a certain WP female is so smitten by me, though I myself don't pretend to fully understand the reasons why.

Oh, almost forgot…*snort*

*snort* Aha! *snort*

Oh, and on the subject of female victims, how about the fanfare over putting women in air-combat, submarine and special forces roles. We haven't taken big losses of sub crews since WWII, nor of air crews since Vietnam. Delta Force doesn't have to go out every day, and they don't have to do unloved grunt work when they're not fighting. The places that we *haven't* put them are the only two that matter: on draft registration forms, and in front-line infantry. The latter makes up only about 10% of total deployed forces but takes about 60% of casualties, and that's been pretty much constant since the second world war.

I'm impressed with the Russian women in WWII who actually flew combat, but those aren't the women who I hear complaining. It's coddled white girls from rich G20 nations.

In my home state, we crack down of sex trafficking, but *not* labor trafficking. The ratio (of arrests and convictions) is close to 100:1 in favor of looking the other way when girls break the rules and exploit people (like domestic slaves) while hunting men like animals. That's not due a higher difficulty of catching the women. If anything, it's easier to prosecute labor trafficking because it's usually long-running, frequent, tied down to a specific location, and exposed to third-parties (like kids who blab, neighbors, or other employees). If you can't bust girls, it's because you don't want to.

How is that equal?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihJCnNSD5-8[/youtube]

Being in air combat, on submarines, and in special forces 'doesn't count' because there haven't been "big losses," but not being subject to draft registration does count despite the fact that there is no draft? As far as being on the front lines:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 6/2434911/
This decision by the Pentagon isn't so much "allowing" women onto the front lines, as it is officially recognizing the work that women already do on the front lines.

All of which obscures the fact that feminists clamor for the opportunity to let women serve their country equally, and it's usually the most chest-beating of MRA-types who insist that women shouldn't be in the Armed Forces at all, much less in combat.


Complaining about what?

Evidence, please, that law enforcement turns a blind eye to labor trafficking? That they don't prosecute women who enslave people? You know that we just had a major diplomatic blow-up over arresting a diplomat for unfair labor practices, right? And that said diplomat happened to be female?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/politics/ ... -diplomat/

Besides which, your entire post is a hijack of a thread only distantly related to your subject. There are plenty of other feminism threads on PPR if you want to flog this dead horse any further.

Sure: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms- ... 0final.pdf

That's state government data, covering 2005-2011. 2006 is the only year with any labor-trafficking charges at all (one) and there were 989 sex-trafficking charges. Of those, there were 424 convictions. There were no labor-trafficking convictions. Other years are similar.



Well, you didn't reply to my gentler, on-topic post earlier, so that makes two of us.



The only way that I can make sense of your last statement is to assume that you see no difference between support and infantry duty, and think that women are already doing everything that men do, just without the title. If that's not what you're saying, then how would opening up other roles after the end of hostilities do anything to recognize women who did convoy duty during the war? If I've guessed right, then re-read the post that you're disputing: (1) Front line infantry (where the US currently places no women, and won't until after we've withdrawn from all current wars) usually make up around 10% of a force and take around 60% of the casualties. (2) That's been unchanged since WWII (meaning that it applies to the recent wars which you refer to). That works out to a ten-fold higher risk for front-line men. Do you have better data?

My grandfather turned down a purple heart recommendation after being shot because the wound was trivial. He thought that it cheapened the medal. One of his cousins flew supply aircraft over Burma ("the hump") and I can't imagine him saying that it was just like combat in everything but the title (although it was freaky-dangerous). Have you asked any female soldiers how they want their work described? Do you know any?



Some numbers might help you:

Losses of US sub crews were 23% in the second world war, which is the last war in which there was submarine warfare. That's almost one-in-four killed. Presently, the biggest risk to sub crews is running into other subs. (I'm actually not joking.) So no, they don't count toward the argument that women bear equal risk.



I take issue with that. Even in peacetime, not registering is a felony. Not notifying the Selective Service every time you move is a felony. I can be thrown in prison and lose my right to vote. I registered just before the 9/11 attacks. Back in 2001-2003 it looked like we'd be dragged into a large war in the Mideast.

It also shows up in people's positions. Are you opposed to depleted uranium rounds? I've always had to balance any fear I might have of long-term radiation against the possibility that I might not make it home alive. If you were bearing the risk equally, you'd have a lot of sympathy for that.



That's internally contradictory. If you "let" women serve, then it's not equal. Consent matters.

What fact? Where is this clamor? A women who was old enough to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified would be 115 years old today. A women old enough to be fertile when Roe v. Wade was handed down can collect Social Security today. You've had half the vote for almost a century. If you were clamoring, you'd be there by now.



One moment you declare yourself independent from traditionalist men, calling them oppressors, and now you hide behind them? How has that dwindling minority stopped you?