Women’s rights are under attack in Israel


by Ben Mitchell    
1:22 pm - December 15th 2011

      Share on Tumblr

“A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request, or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women.”

So said Israel’s Supreme Court Justice, Elyakim Rubinstein, in a ruling in 2010, in response to an outcry over gender segregation being enforced on Israel’s buses that served mostly ultra-orthodox areas of Jerusalem.

‘Voluntary segregation’, with passenger consent, however, is still permitted.

On these bus routes, women boarding from the back and staying there, is not an uncommon sight.

This issue was given extra prominence a couple of weeks ago when, in a closed lecture in Washington, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, voiced her concern over such practices taking place. Images of Rosa Parks and 1955 sprung to mind, an alarm echoed by Rubinstein in his judgement.

In recent years, a highly visible battle has broken out between Israel’s ultra-orthodox or Haredi community, making up around 9% of the population, and their predominantly secular counterparts.

The bus episodes are just one in a litany of other examples (£).

For the Haredi, the sights and sounds of women singing in public are seen as ‘impure.’ Women’s faces plastered on public billboards and buses are regarded as ‘improper,’ for they may arouse sinful thoughts. Instead, they are defaced or covered up.

During this year’s celebration of the festival of Sukkot, separate footpaths were designated for men and women. And in signs that these tensions have spilled out beyond the capital, there were reports that organisers of a military ceremony in October had forced male and female soldiers to sit apart.

According to Shira Ben-Sasson Furstenberg of the New Israel Fund, an equalities organisation, the Haredi’s impact is spreading, with them having more and more say over public life.

Her organisation fight against the “erasure” of women from public advertising, and have launched a “Women should be seen and heard” campaign. At one of its recent events, some of Israel’s most famous female vocalists were on show, in a unified display against the edict of those religious extremists who seek to outlaw women singing in public.

“Silence is not an option. I love my country and my Jewish heritage and I will not allow the equivalent of the local Taliban to humiliate us women,” said a defiant Ahinoam Nini, well-renowned Jazz singer.

Gershom Gorenberg, author of The Unmaking of Israel, believes it is a mistake to see the Haredi as one homogenous group, and points out that gender segregation has always existed within the ultra-orthodox community:

What we’re seeing is the actions of the most hardline elements. Within the community, legitimacy comes from how strict you are. So it’s hard for more moderate elements to openly oppose the extremists.

But what we’re seeing is an insistence on a more stringent interpretation and a stronger expression of that publicly.

Yet, rather than seeing this assertion of orthodoxy wane anytime soon, the opposite is more likely true. Orthodox Jews comprise 40% of the ruling coalition government, over 40% of new army recruits, and a birth rate more than double that of secular Jews.

In short, Israeli society, and those residents of Jerusalem, of which the ultra-orthodox count for more than one-in-five, is going to have to get even more used to such public spats.

Secular and women’s groups have their work cut out.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Ben Mitchell is an occasional contributor. He is a freelance political analyst providing commentary on current affairs. Blogs more frequently at Left Foot Forward and Ben Mitchell Writes.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Feminism ,Foreign affairs ,Middle East


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


No surprise . All conservative male religions hate woman. Islam, Christian, Jew. They are all the same.

You have a point sally.

Actually these groups sound like they have sexual hang ups.
Any way the rightist boys at harrys place will defend the lads

For the Haredi, the sights and sounds of women singing in public are seen as ‘impure.’ Women’s faces plastered on public billboards and buses are regarded as ‘improper,’ for they may arouse sinful thoughts. Instead, they are defaced or covered up.

So how do they feel about internet porn stars?

C’mon. According to the scriptures, the Israelites came to learn of what befalls those who succumb to treacherous allure of women:

1But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods:
1 Kings 11:1-4

”Women’s rights are under attack in Israel”

And should anyone outside Israel care? It is ”the Jewish state” and that’s what religious people are like.
And if we should care outside Israel, why exactly? There’s not much we can do about it.
There’s bigger issues for Israelis to deal with I’d have thought.
Like getting their collective boot off of the Palestinian’s necks for one.
The gender issues is something for people inside the country to concern themselves with IMO. Not people who don’t live there. We who don’t will invariably not really understand what is going on there and come up with simplistic responses.

damon: “And if we should care outside Israel, why exactly? There’s not much we can do about it.”

Surely the liberation of the women of Israel is as good a case as any for the next application of Tony Blair’s doctrine of Liberal Intervention.

Anyone opposing an invasion will get painted by the spin machine as an appeasing anti-feminist bigot. Demos will be organised accordingly. Besides, another stint of Liberal Intervention would help to divert public attention from the perennial austerity gloom which is depressing essential business investment.

9. So Much For Subtlety

1. Sally

No surprise . All conservative male religions hate woman. Islam, Christian, Jew. They are all the same.

How any sane person could describe Christianity as a male religion much less one that hates women is bizarre. But then it is Sally.

It is not hatred of women to suggest that sexuality is a powerful force that should be regulated and even contained.

The Haredis problem is that they have phrased their objections in their own language and not the language the Left respects. They should say they object to being sexually harassed. Which is pretty much what they are saying. If they were women, we would be falling over ourselves to agree with them. I don’t think there is much objective difference between being forced to see a bit of cleavage and being forced to listen to wolf whistles. For various definitions of “forced”.

3. ANGRY DAD

Actually these groups sound like they have sexual hang ups.

What a great example of Duck Speak – you’re able to judge and smear without the slightest evidence of engaging in rational thought at all. Impressive.

Any way the rightist boys at harrys place will defend the lads

I doubt it but if they do, so what? Why not?

Remember that when the New Statesmen and other Leftist groups hold public events they often enforce the same gender segregation. Why is it any worse when Jews do it? Oh wait, that’s a question that answers itself isn’t it.

5. Bob B

C’mon. According to the scriptures, the Israelites came to learn of what befalls those who succumb to treacherous allure of women:

Technically that is not a problem with the treacherous allure of women, but the treacherous allure of foreign women. His problem was not listening to women or even marrying quite so many women. It was that they were not Jewish.

10. Dear Old Ted

‘How any sane person could describe Christianity as a male religion much less one that hates women is bizarre’

Ha ha ha bonk *laughs head off*

11. So Much For Subtlety

9. Dear Old Ted

Ha ha ha bonk *laughs head off*

Alas, if only Ted hadn’t laughed himself to death, I would have asked him which surviving Church in the Western world is not totally dominated by women. Too late.

Even in the past the Church was mainly concerned with sexual misdeeds by men. Not so much by women. It was more interested in regulating male sexual behaviour than female. Whatever you can say about Islam and Judaism – although we know no one will dare to say much about the former – Christianity has just never fit the paradigm of a male dominated religion.

Sally: “All conservative male religions hate woman. Islam, Christian, Jew. They are all the same.”

But not Buddhism. In Tibet and Bhutan, there are continuing historic traditions of polyandry:

“Polyandry is often practiced in these communities. A woman can be married to more than one man at the same time. Sometimes the co-husbands are brothers. By using this system a family can pool its resources – one husband can be away on a trading mission whilst the other is able to help tend to the yaks at home, and the family land is not split up from one generation to the next.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/layap/index.shtml

The Inuit have a tradition of hospitality which includes wife sharing.

13. So Much For Subtlety

11. Bob B

But not Buddhism. In Tibet and Bhutan, there are continuing historic traditions of polyandry:

Yes, those well known beacons of women’s right, Tibet and Bhutan. In reality this polyandry is a direct response to the poor marginal agriculture of the region and nothing to do with women’s rights at all. Buddhism being just as bigoted in its attitude to women as any religion apart from Islam and Judaism.

The Inuit have a tradition of hospitality which includes wife sharing.

Most people might say that was Orientalising these days and not based on fact.

14. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 SMFS

“Alas, if only Ted hadn’t laughed himself to death, I would have asked him which surviving Church in the Western world is not totally dominated by women. Too late. ”

Uh, Catholicism? Many Christian churches, even Western ones, don’t even allow women to be officials beyond local volunteer duties.

“Even in the past the Church was mainly concerned with sexual misdeeds by men. Not so much by women. It was more interested in regulating male sexual behaviour than female. ”

Nnn… sort of. It depends what you mean by “concerned”. It’s true that old-school, OT Christianity thought male misdeeds were more important because it judged men as being more important. So female sexual transgressions were often considered mainly in terms of their potential effect on men. Women still had more rules to follow, though, and were at equal or higher risk of punishment if caught breaking them.

Chaise

sorry I can’t provide a link, but I do remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Church is largely run by women….. there being many more nuns than priests, more women catechists, more women in senior admin jobs such as directors of education etc.

There is though a glass ceiling – no female cardinals or popes.

@11
BB: The Inuit have a tradition of hospitality which includes wife sharing.
SMFS: Most people might say that was Orientalising these days and not based on fact.

Not so. Wife sharing in the traditional Inuit culture has been documented in many independent sources. There were academic studies posted on the web and even a fuzzy video clip on YouTube. The Inuit have a traditional hospitality culture which impells them for very pragmatic reasons of reciprocity to provide shelter in a home igloo to a passing Inuit out on a hunting trip seeking refuge from a blizzard.
All rather quaint and charming IMO.

17. THE TRUTHS 2011

I agree…Nice to see stuff like this being mentioned.

BUT HOLD ON!
How come LC suddenly gives a damn about women’s rights??!!
Never has done before when they are being killed, raped, tortured, sold, pimped, mutilated and imprisoned under Islam…from Afghanistan to London.

Oh right…because that’s Muslims and Islam and THIS is those pesky Jews!
Of course!
NOW you care.

18. So Much For Subtlety

13. Chaise Guevara

Uh, Catholicism? Many Christian churches, even Western ones, don’t even allow women to be officials beyond local volunteer duties.

I can’t really think of a Church that fits that mold these days. As most of the mainline Protestant Churches are run by women. As is the Catholic Church to all intents and purposes. Perhaps it is better to think of it as an alliance between people of a inter-sex gender working together with women and largely ignored by men. No Christian Church is popular among men – unlike Islam which is more popular among Muslim men than among Muslim women.

Nnn… sort of. It depends what you mean by “concerned”. It’s true that old-school, OT Christianity thought male misdeeds were more important because it judged men as being more important. So female sexual transgressions were often considered mainly in terms of their potential effect on men. Women still had more rules to follow, though, and were at equal or higher risk of punishment if caught breaking them.

I think that New School Christianity also thinks male misdeeds are more important. Not because men are more important but because of the Roman world’s assumption that women are sexually passive. So female sexual transgressions were and are ignored. Find a woman punished before the modern period for Lesbianism. Equal or higher risk of punishment? Come on. Even most people executed for being witches were men.

Christianity started out as a religion for women. It has mainly stuck to that over the years. It continues to be soft on women.

There are some strange comments here – SMFS – are you trying to justify hiding women’s voices and faces?

Angry Dad – there have been posts on HP critical of similar moves – one related to a girls’ school called ‘Hate Fest in Beit Shemesh’ for example, and there is a post up on HP now which also touches on these issues called ‘Another Reason why God is not great’.

Attempting to repost.

There are some strange comments here – SMFS – are you trying to justify hiding women’s voices and faces?

Angry Dad – there have been posts on HP critical of similar moves – one related to a girls’ school called ‘Hate Fest in Beit Shemesh’ for example, and there is a post up on HP now which also touches on these issues called ‘Another Reason why God is not great’.

I’m surprised that no one thinks women’s rights in Israel – or anywhere else – ought to be an appropriate focus for application of Blair’s doctrine of Liberal Interventionism, presumably with or without sanction by the UN security council.

The only rational inference is that women are not considered important enough.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 17 SMFS

[Apologies if this is a double-post; LC crashed when I tried to submit it the first time.]

“I can’t really think of a Church that fits that mold these days.”

Catholicism again.

“As most of the mainline Protestant Churches are run by women.”

It’s kind of hard to take this seriously when the next comment is…

“As is the Catholic Church to all intents and purposes.”

…a claim that the Catholic Church, of all things, is female-dominated. All its priests are male. Its entire upper heirarchy is male. Its leader, who is considered to have borderline God-like abilities to declare what is right and wrong and true and false, is male, has always been male and is chosen by males.

I don’t have the structure of the Church in front of me, so I don’t know exactly how high in the pecking order women (real ones) are allowed to sit. Mother Superior first sprang to mind (a role that puts you in charge of women and children, not men), but I wouldn’t be surprised if women run some initiative or distribute funding in certain areas and therefore have a decent slice of de facto power. They’re not in charge, though.

“Perhaps it is better to think of it as an alliance between people of a inter-sex gender working together with women and largely ignored by men. No Christian Church is popular among men – unlike Islam which is more popular among Muslim men than among Muslim women.”

I find that extremely unlikely. Even if I assume that women are more likely to be religious, more attracted to Christianity and/or more likely to actually show up on Sunday morning – and you’ve yet to demonstrate any of that – there are just so many Christian churchs that the law of averages says at least some must be mostly male.

As religions generally run in families, I’d be surprised to find a big gender difference anyway.

“I think that New School Christianity also thinks male misdeeds are more important. Not because men are more important but because of the Roman world’s assumption that women are sexually passive. So female sexual transgressions were and are ignored. Find a woman punished before the modern period for Lesbianism. Equal or higher risk of punishment? Come on. Even most people executed for being witches were men. ”

Fair point. And there also seems to be this feeling among many homophobes that male gay sex is worse than female gay sex. I’ve even heard people specifically denounce “male homosexuality”. Male gay sex is seen as depraved/disgusting, female gay sex is seen as irrelevant/hot.

“Christianity started out as a religion for women. It has mainly stuck to that over the years. It continues to be soft on women.”

Christianity started out a religion for everyone (which is to say, anyone who had been told about it “should” follow its rules). It didn’t start out as a religion for women, that’s ridiculous. The extent to which it’s soft on women is debateable, mainly depending on how you define “soft”, plus which version of Christianity you’re talking about.

Chaise: “The extent to which it’s soft on women is debateable, mainly depending on how you define ‘soft’, plus which version of Christianity you’re talking about.”

Christianity as characterised by the Sermon on the Mount and Christ’s relationship with Mary Magdalene is certainly soft on women as compared with the Old Testament. Compare this from Deuteronomy 22:20-22

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel

Where Cameron was thoroughly superficial was in not recognising that the Christian religion as practised has been a continuing cause of social division and conflict at least since the time of the Reformation and, arguably, long before then. The Crusades in the Hold Land were characterised by extensive brutality, not compassion.

There were Protestant then Catholic martyrs of the 16th and 17th centuries, the Spanish Inquisition, the 30 Years war in Europe 1618-48, the flight of James II in 1688 and the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, the outcome of which is still celebrated by those Orange Order annual sectarian marches in Glasgow, the Gordon Riots in London in 1780, right down to the abuse of the young by Catholic clergy during recent decades and the current rift in the Anglican church over gay clergy and women bishops. The Catholic church only exonerated Galileo in 1992 for publicising his heretical theory that the earth moves round the sun. What are we supposed to deduce about Christian values from all that?

In mid 18th century, an essay by David Hume showed that we don’t need to base our morality on religion – I’m surprised that the course on ethics in Cameron’s PPE degree at Oxford evidently passed him by:

“All moral duties may be divided into two kinds. The first are those to which men are impelled by a natural instinct … which operates on them, independent of all ideas of obligation, and of all views either to public or private utility. Of this nature are love of children, gratitude to benefactors, pity to the unfortunate. … The second kind of moral duties are such as are not supported by any original instinct of man but are performed entirely from a sense of obligation, when we consider the necessities of human society, and the impossibility of supporting it, if these duties were neglected. …. We shall only observe, before we conclude, that though an appeal to general opinion may justly, in the speculative sciences of metaphysics, natural philosophy, or astronomy, be deemed unfair and inconclusive, yet in all questions with regard to morals, as well as criticism, there is really no other standard, by which any controversy can ever be decided.”
http://www.constitution.org/dh/origcont.htm

From my perspective, Cameron is looking ignorant and silly.

@1

No surprise . All conservative male religions hate woman. Islam, Christian, Jew. They are all the same.

Pretty much on the money.

22
Unfortunately, there is no concensus amongst philosophers with regard to the nature of humans, Hobbes would disagree that there were any natural ‘duties’ which impelled individuals to act in any way other than blind self-interest.
Humanism tends to be the ‘softest’ of all moral theories.

@24: “Unfortunately, there is no concensus amongst philosophers with regard to the nature of humans, Hobbes would disagree that there were any natural ‘duties’ which impelled individuals to act in any way other than blind self-interest.”

Try psychologists and with empirical experiments for insights instead of philosophers reflecting on where our sense of morality comes from.

By the age of 4 years, most children can speak grammatically without knowing the rules of grammar. How come? Can babies distinguish “good” from “bad” by intuition?

Try: The moral life of babies
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

It rather looks as though Hume was right about humans having a “natural instrinct” about morality, which isn’t altogether surprising after tens of thousands of years of evolution of the species in social contexts with natural selection.

A BBC Horizon programme showed an experiment being conducted at the Yale University Infant Cognitive Centre by Prof Bloom and his wife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W72vC48kWyo

We are not absolved from moral responsibility as individuals from making choices about which religious faith to follow and about which moral code to adopt and apply. The question remains as to what are we to deduce about Christian values from the ways that Christians behave?

Cameron is plainly out of touch both with philosophers thinking about ethics and with the research into the cognitive development of infants by psychologists.

Chaise, you are intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate. So Much For Subtlety is a tedious, trolling ballbag. Don’t waste your time.

The suggestion that the Catholic Church is “to all intents and purposes… run by women” is the most brazenly stupid thing I’ve read, since… well, the last time I bothered to read one of his pig-ignorant, longwinded, contrarian screeds.

26
Interesting articles but It is very difficult to make an analysis about the meaning of behaviour just by observation, unless we can question the motivation of actions we can only interpret them by our own subjective values.
I tend to like the idea that humans are innately good or, at least, are a blank sheet.

29. So Much For Subtlety

20. Sarah AB

There are some strange comments here – SMFS – are you trying to justify hiding women’s voices and faces?

Not exactly. Although some parts of the Left is perfectly willing to do so these days. If the Ultra-Orthodox phrased their objection differently it would require a lot more thought for most people to justify their objections in return.

21. Bob B

I’m surprised that no one thinks women’s rights in Israel – or anywhere else – ought to be an appropriate focus for application of Blair’s doctrine of Liberal Interventionism, presumably with or without sanction by the UN security council.

The only rational inference is that women are not considered important enough.

Most people would say that a tiny minority of women in an otherwise extremely liberal society, who have democratic means of redress, and whose problems are in the process of being peacefully resolved, are not an appropriate target on any doctrine of liberal intervention. Not when, for example, so much Female Genital Mutilation is going on. But then most people are not obsessed with Jews and so don’t think Israel deserves harsher treatment than Somalia.

22. Chaise Guevara

Catholicism again.

I don’t think that is true at all. The Catholics don’t allow women to be priests – and so they do not allow women to hold a whole range of roles that require you to be a priest. But they do not lock women out of the hierarchy. In fact if you look, you will notice the Church is especially dominated at the lower levels by women, but actually at higher levels too. There are women all the way through the Church. They just can’t be priests.

It’s kind of hard to take this seriously when the next comment is…

Why?

…a claim that the Catholic Church, of all things, is female-dominated. All its priests are male. Its entire upper heirarchy is male. Its leader, who is considered to have borderline God-like abilities to declare what is right and wrong and true and false, is male, has always been male and is chosen by males.

Indeed. And Britain has a Female ruler. That does not mean we are a matriarchy.

I find that extremely unlikely. Even if I assume that women are more likely to be religious, more attracted to Christianity and/or more likely to actually show up on Sunday morning – and you’ve yet to demonstrate any of that – there are just so many Christian churchs that the law of averages says at least some must be mostly male.

Do you? You may find some fringe Churches that are more heavily male but I doubt it. Do you count the Mormons as Christian? Charismatics may be more balanced. But perhaps we could ask everyone reading this to go to their local Church and count the men. Men simply do not go to Church in large numbers any more. Well, outside Northern Ireland and America. You forget that if a man goes to Church, his wife and children almost certainly will too. But if a woman does, it does not follow her husband or her children will. Thus the chances of any Church having a male majority is slim.

Fair point. And there also seems to be this feeling among many homophobes that male gay sex is worse than female gay sex. I’ve even heard people specifically denounce “male homosexuality”. Male gay sex is seen as depraved/disgusting, female gay sex is seen as irrelevant/hot.

Britain did not even punish it until recently. Lesbianism that is. I would be surprised if the Mediaeval Church gave it much thought at all. Women can always rely on the “my boyfriend/husband/father made me do it” excuse and if not that, just claim to be seduced. It is a profound bias in Western law.

Christianity started out a religion for everyone (which is to say, anyone who had been told about it “should” follow its rules). It didn’t start out as a religion for women, that’s ridiculous. The extent to which it’s soft on women is debateable, mainly depending on how you define “soft”, plus which version of Christianity you’re talking about.

No it isn’t. You look at early converts. They did best among women and to some extent the urban poor. You only have to read the Acts of Martyrs to see how many of them involve women who become Christians over the objections of their menfolk. Christianity has always appealed to more women than men. It is not debatable in any meaningful sense. It just is. And it hardly matters – older versions tend to be tougher on women. Newer versions that are tougher on everyone are tougher on women – but they are probably not singling women out. Traditional mainstream forms, especially Protestant forms, simply no longer condemn women for anything. Men, yes. Women, no.

29
I’m rather confused about the following sentence – ” Britain did not punish it until recently. Lesbianism that is. …….women can always rely on my boyfriend/husband/father made me do it.” Are you suggesting that there are a number of lesbians who have claimed this as some sort of ‘excuse’ for being a lesbian and, if so, where is your evidence?

31. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“In fact if you look, you will notice the Church is especially dominated at the lower levels by women, but actually at higher levels too.”

If you’ve already looked, share your experience. How is the Church dominated by women at higher levels? Considering that all it’s highest authorities are men?

“Why?”

Because claiming that an extremely male-dominated system is female-dominated indicates that you’re biased.

“Indeed. And Britain has a Female ruler. That does not mean we are a matriarchy.”

Look, did you read my post? I didn’t say “the Pope’s a man, therefore the Catholic Church is male-dominated”. If I wanted to make such a stupid point I would have pointed out that God is male. I said that the whole upper structure is male, and that the Pope is always male, not only this one.

“Do you? You may find some fringe Churches that are more heavily male but I doubt it.”

Like I said, law of averages. With any big church, one with a good few centuries’ history and followers in at least six figures, I reckon the difference would be minor. But where they’re small enough to show a difference, the rational assumption, lacking evidence to the contrary, is that it’ll swing both ways.

“Do you count the Mormons as Christian?”

Well, yes. Why?

“Charismatics may be more balanced. But perhaps we could ask everyone reading this to go to their local Church and count the men. Men simply do not go to Church in large numbers any more. Well, outside Northern Ireland and America.”

You’re playing No True Scotsman. We weren’t talking about hours spent at church, we were talking about membership/faith.

“You forget that if a man goes to Church, his wife and children almost certainly will too. But if a woman does, it does not follow her husband or her children will. Thus the chances of any Church having a male majority is slim.”

Irrelevant, but I’d love to see the reasoning for this one.

“Britain did not even punish it until recently. Lesbianism that is. I would be surprised if the Mediaeval Church gave it much thought at all.”

I always heard that this was because Queen Victoria refused to believe that women would do such a thing. Although I admit that this sounds like a bit of a tall tale.

“Women can always rely on the “my boyfriend/husband/father made me do it” excuse and if not that, just claim to be seduced. It is a profound bias in Western law.”

Sorry, what? Homosexuality is legal in most Western states, if you hadn’t noticed. Where’s the bias? And what’s all this “X made me do it” stuff?

“No it isn’t. You look at early converts. They did best among women and to some extent the urban poor. You only have to read the Acts of Martyrs to see how many of them involve women who become Christians over the objections of their menfolk. Christianity has always appealed to more women than men. It is not debatable in any meaningful sense. It just is.”

Show me the bloody data, then. You realise that a woman defying her man to worship Christ would make a much better story at the time than the same thing with the roles reversed, given who was in charge? Like how the story of a child defying their parents is more dramatic than that of parents defying their child? Good stories get repeated; obvious ones don’t.

“And it hardly matters – older versions tend to be tougher on women. Newer versions that are tougher on everyone are tougher on women – but they are probably not singling women out. Traditional mainstream forms, especially Protestant forms, simply no longer condemn women for anything. Men, yes. Women, no.”

Sure, there’s two sides to this coin in the modern context. Some go with old-fashioned, anti-female gender roles. Others buy into the idea that sexuality is bad and only men are really sexual. Swings both ways.

What a great example of Duck Speak – you’re able to judge and smear without the slightest evidence of engaging in rational thought at all. Impressive.
problem with women eh boy, hence so many posts

Any way the rightist boys at harrys place will defend the lads

I doubt it but if they do, so what? Why not?
No reason but don’t have go at muslims for the same crime.

Remember that when the New Statesmen and other Leftist groups hold public events they often enforce the same gender segregation.
When ?

I believe Respect and Stop the War have held gender segregated events.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Sara LBA

    Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/nxB2CDZw

  2. Lambeth NUT

    Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/nxB2CDZw

  3. Flo Fflach

    Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/nxB2CDZw

  4. Johnny Boy

    Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/nxB2CDZw

  5. Alastair Gordon

    Gender war in Israel, time to stand up to the ultra-orthodox bigotsRT @libcon Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/FgSsY9Lt

  6. Ben Mitchell

    Women’s rights are under attack in Israel | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6p3H0MKk via @libcon

  7. HaywoodsLocalVoice

    Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/nxB2CDZw

  8. Nigel Walker

    Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/nxB2CDZw

  9. john baker

    Women’s rights are under attack in Israel | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/N4SqucGs via @libcon

  10. Linda Rothstein

    Women’s rights are under attack in Israel | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/aZ3y32yi via @libcon

  11. TheLawMap

    Women’s rights are under attack in Israel | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/nGCYow2g via @libcon

  12. Jonathan Taylor

    Worrying RT @libcon: Women's rights are under attack in Israel http://t.co/Kx0jy5Bg

  13. Stevie Modern

    @AgendaFM @bannedartists @Deeyah_fuuse @FeministPhils @ihavea_voice More on issues #womensrights in Israel: http://t.co/usW9ZhmW #equality

  14. New Israel Fund | Seit über 10.000 Jahren Erfahrung in Versklavung

    [...] Women’s rights are under attack in Israel (liberalconspiracy.org) [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.