New York authorities threaten to shut down segregated bus run

[moderate libertarian]

I personally like sitting on front seats of a bus because bumps from speed breakers are much more pronounced on the back seats. But if a private party not funded by tax payers wants to run their own sharia bus route, does the City have the right to shut them down even it has segregation?



Published 14:32 22.10.11 Latest update 14:32 22.10.11

New York authorities threaten to shut down segregated bus run by Orthodox Jews
The Private Transportation Corp has come under criticism following publicity about its practice of making women give up their seats in the front to promote ultra-Orthodox customs of gender separation
By Reuters

New York City authorities said they will shut down a city bus service run by Orthodox Jews if the group doesn't stop making women sit at the back of the bus.

The Private Transportation Corp, which operates the city's public B110 bus under a franchise arrangement, has come under criticism following publicity about its practice of making women give up their seats in the front to promote ultra-Orthodox customs of gender separation.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/new-york-authorities-threaten-to-shut-down-segregated-bus-run-by-orthodox-jews-1.391390

[BucksforPaul]

I didn't know that orthodox Jews followed sharia. One learns something new every day so thank you for the edumacation.

[Cowlesy]

wtf, they make women sit in the back of the bus based on gender?

Where are all our leftist civil rights friends now?

*eyeroll*

[specsaregood]

To me it wholly depends on if they are taking any taxpayer monies.

[low preference guy]

To me it wholly depends on if they are taking any taxpayer monies.

racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moderate libertarian]

wtf, they make women sit in the back of the bus based on gender?

Where are all our leftist civil rights friends now?

*eyeroll*

Good question.




I didn't know that orthodox Jews followed sharia. One learns something new every day so thank you for the edumacation.

It seems to be a phenomenon not well known in the US but slowly creeping in the US also.



Published 00:21 05.10.11 Latest update 00:21 05.10.11

Court to rule on legality of Israeli ultra-Orthodox 'Taliban sect'

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/court-to-rule-on-legality-of-israeli-ultra-orthodox-taliban-sect-1.388187

[guitarlifter]

If the bus company is completely private, then I don't give a crap what they do. No one's captive on the bus or getting their rights violated. Their bus, their rules (so long as they don't hurt anyone).

[Invi]

If the bus company is completely private, then I don't give a crap what they do. No one's captive on the bus or getting their rights violated. Their bus, their rules (so long as they don't hurt anyone).

This. Pretty sure there's a public, city transit they can take if they don't like having to move. If there isn't a public transit, there are likely other private ones that don't make women give up seats. Silliness.

[PatriotOne]

To me it wholly depends on if they are taking any taxpayer monies.

Quasi public/private. The bus may be private but they operate on public roads so......

[kylejack]

Fuck sexism.

[specsaregood]

Quasi public/private. The bus may be private but they operate on public roads so......

They pay to use them I assume with their fuel taxes. Otherwise you are saying that yourself driving on the road is quasi public/private.

[PatriotOne]

They pay to use them I assume with their fuel taxes. Otherwise you are saying that yourself driving on the road is quasi public/private.

Yeah. Me paying taxes for the roads I drive on doesn't make the roads my private property. Hence quasi public/private.

[LibForestPaul]

The Private Transportation Corp, which operates the city's public B110 bus under a franchise arrangement...?

[moderate libertarian]

Yeah. Me paying taxes for the roads I drive on doesn't make the roads my private property. Hence quasi public/private.

Very good arguments from both sides, but this seems more compelling after thinking through.


There are google news on same issue today from Jersualem where crowd of radicals defending similar gender segregation turned violent today:

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/13062011/3520742/2_wa.jpg
Haredim assault officers with concrete blocks
Activists protesting against gender segregation in Mea Shearim driven out with stones, dirty diapers. Officers dispersing rioters sustain light wounds after being pelted with concrete blocks

Omri Efraim Published: 10.23.11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4137580,00.html


Quick google search shows that this could be bad idea. American women have been abused/beaten by similar groups for refusing to move to back of the buses in Israel by similar radicals. What is even more disturbing is that this may be happening on Public transportaion there that indirectly is funded by US tax payers aid starting from Clinton regime:


Naomi Ragen
July/August 2010
Israel’s Women Are Forced to the Back of the Bus

Back in 2003 I took a bus from downtown Jerusalem to my home in the northern suburb of Ramot, a mixed secular and modern Orthodox neighborhood. One stop into the ride, a large, sweating haredi man hung over me threateningly, demanding that I move to the back of the bus. My astonished refusal was met with a fusillade of disgusting verbal abuse almost the entire ride.

From then on, I took taxis.
Sex-segregated buses in Israel began in the 1990s when the Ministry of Transportation agreed to allow ultra-Orthodox in Bnei Brak to sex-segregate several lines in their municipality.

http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2010/08/Opinion-Ragen.html


Woman beaten on J'lem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Dec 15, 2006 ... Woman beaten on J'lem bus for refusing to move to rear seat ...

www.haaretz.com/woman-beaten-on-j-lem-bus-for-refusing-to-move-to-rear-seat-1.207251

[moderate libertarian]

The Private Transportation Corp, which operates the city's public B110 bus under a franchise arrangement...?

Good point. As PatriotOne noted, these are quasi public.

[heavenlyboy34]

If the bus company is completely private, then I don't give a crap what they do. No one's captive on the bus or getting their rights violated. Their bus, their rules (so long as they don't hurt anyone). +1

[angelatc]

wtf, they make women sit in the back of the bus based on gender?

Where are all our leftist civil rights friends now?

*eyeroll*

Can you imagine the outrage from the right if this bus company was run by Muslims?

[Patriot123]

Oh, please. I'm Jewish -- we don't follow sharia, what are you on?

This is a perfectly normal practice in Orthodox Judaism. Given, I'm a secular Jew, not an Orthodox Jew. But still -- this is just tradition. You go into an Orthodox Synogague, and there's parts of the temple that are for men and other parts that are for women and children during prayer. There's nothing wrong with it -- it's just our (or their) tradition. It's not sexist in the slightest, believe me. If you call it sexist you don't know a thing about Judaism -- the same goes for Islam. It's just culture. Moving on...

New York City needs to get their act together, lol.

[moderate libertarian]

Obviously "Taliban sect" and "sharia" are satirical references. But forcing the weaker gender to back of the bus is not "sexist"?

Something can be part of a religious tradition and still be sexist, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[moostraks]

Obviously "Taliban sect" and "sharia" are satirical references. But forcing the weaker gender to back of the bus is not "sexist"?

Something can be part of a religious tradition and still be sexist, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Sexist is a derogatory term and indicates a sense of distaste for the tradition and beliefs of the culture being criticized. Look the term up and most definitions show it to be indicative of some form of oppression. Some Amish and Mennonite churches have a strong value of specific gender roles. Depending on the group there will be separation of the sexes during church services and at various activities. There is not a sense of contempt for women but respect for the peculiarities of the different sexes.

[kylejack]

Oh, please. I'm Jewish -- we don't follow sharia, what are you on?

This is a perfectly normal practice in Orthodox Judaism. Given, I'm a secular Jew, not an Orthodox Jew. But still -- this is just tradition. You go into an Orthodox Synogague, and there's parts of the temple that are for men and other parts that are for women and children during prayer. There's nothing wrong with it -- it's just our (or their) tradition. It's not sexist in the slightest, believe me. If you call it sexist you don't know a thing about Judaism -- the same goes for Islam. It's just culture. Moving on...

New York City needs to get their act together, lol.
Of course making women sit in the back of the bus is sexist. It's meant to be.

[1836]

To me it wholly depends on if they are taking any taxpayer monies.

Yes, it does.

[moostraks]

Of course making women sit in the back of the bus is sexist. It's meant to be.

no it's not...it appears that it is intended to eliminate unnecessary mingling of opposite sexes. In order to do such, you will have 2 means to separate a bus- front to back or two separate sides. If you do two separate sides they are still side by side, technically speaking. One gender had to get the front. If I had a guess it was decided by placing women in the back where they are less likely to be visually "inspected" by each male entering after her, placing women furthest from the entrance for a security reason, or according to which gender used the transportation most frequently.

[PatriotOne]

This is a perfectly normal practice in Orthodox Judaism. Given, I'm a secular Jew, not an Orthodox Jew. But still -- this is just tradition. You go into an Orthodox Synogague, and there's parts of the temple that are for men and other parts that are for women and children during prayer. There's nothing wrong with it -- it's just our (or their) tradition. It's not sexist in the slightest, believe me. If you call it sexist you don't know a thing about Judaism -- the same goes for Islam. It's just culture. Moving on...


LOL. Sexism in Judism is a tradition in their culture. Seriously..have you read the Torah? Not picking on Judism exclusively since it's also "tradition" in Christianity.

[PatriotOne]

If I had a guess it was decided by placing women in the back where they are less likely to be visually "inspected" by each male entering after her, placing women furthest from the entrance for a security reason,

Hahahaha...God's chosen people can't control themselves from raping a woman so the women have to be protected by sitting in the back of the bus the furthest away from the exit? Well now THAT makes sense.

[Patriot123]

no it's not...it appears that it is intended to eliminate unnecessary mingling of opposite sexes. In order to do such, you will have 2 means to separate a bus- front to back or two separate sides. If you do two separate sides they are still side by side, technically speaking. One gender had to get the front. If I had a guess it was decided by placing women in the back where they are less likely to be visually "inspected" by each male entering after her, placing women furthest from the entrance for a security reason, or according to which gender used the transportation most frequently.

+1 rep. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's cultural -- it's by no means sexist. In fact, it's an attempt to prevent "mingling" of the sexes.

I really get the sense sometimes that the people on this forum just hate Jews. And I'm not playing the "you hate Israel so you're anti-Semitic" card, because I think that's like saying if you hate Obama you're racist. I just feel that way -- that people on this forum just hate Jews, and that... needs to change. Especially if this movement expects to broaden its base.

[Cowlesy]

Can you imagine the outrage from the right if this bus company was run by Muslims?

We'd probably declare War on Iran if that happened.

[moostraks]

Hahahaha...God's chosen people can't control themselves from raping a woman so the women have to be protected by sitting in the back of the bus the furthest away from the exit? Well now THAT makes sense.


Why so bitter? Society has become so overly sexualized I realize it may be hard to fathom a group which seeks to respect women and relationships rather than prostitute them. As for placing them furthest from the exit (in the case of buses with single exits) the men with be taking a protective stance not a disrespectful one.

[moostraks]

+1 rep. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's cultural -- it's by no means sexist. In fact, it's an attempt to prevent "mingling" of the sexes.

I really get the sense sometimes that the people on this forum just hate Jews. And I'm not playing the "you hate Israel so you're anti-Semitic" card, because I think that's like saying if you hate Obama you're racist. I just feel that way -- that people on this forum just hate Jews, and that... needs to change. Especially if this movement expects to broaden its base.

Most conservative groups seem to be along the same mindset so figured it was a safe guess, glad I didn't mislead. If it makes you feel any better in a misery loves company sort of way there seems to be contempt for religious conservatism in general here.

[moderate libertarian]

Sexist is a derogatory term and indicates a sense of distaste for the tradition and beliefs of the culture being criticized. Look the term up and most definitions show it to be indicative of some form of oppression. Some Amish and Mennonite churches have a strong value of specific gender roles. Depending on the group there will be separation of the sexes during church services and at various activities. There is not a sense of contempt for women but respect for the peculiarities of the different sexes.

I would agree that term can and often does have negative associations, that meaning is cultural and adopted in modern secular societies. However linguistic meaning just speaks to different attitudes regarding the two sexes:

Here is definition of sexism from dictionary.com :


sex·ism   /ˈsɛksɪzəm/ Show Spelled[sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun

1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted jobopportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.
Origin: 1965–70; sex+ -ism, on the model of racism
Related forms
an·ti·sex·ism, noun



Separation of gender roles/rights with varying degrees is common among almost all mainstream religions traditions, for example call on a woman to submit to her husband as she would to the Lord in Christianity. But modern secular societies have adopted more gender neutral attitudes especially in the "equal rights" paradigm. Just seeking non-mingling of the two genders at a social gathering in itself can be a non-sexist event in theory but in reality such an attitude often (not always) is married to other attitudes that tend to limit equal opportunities, free choice and rights for women. One gender forcing some limitation on the other would make it decidedly negative in almost all modern societies.

On a related note, while back some studies had claimed that primary/high school students in non-coed school environments performed better acadamically than in coed schools at same levels. But it was not conclusive as there were various other factors that were not accounted for.

[PatriotOne]

Why so bitter? Society has become so overly sexualized I realize it may be hard to fathom a group which seeks to respect women and relationships rather than prostitute them. As for placing them furthest from the exit (in the case of buses with single exits) the men with be taking a protective stance not a disrespectful one.

So do they beat them when they refuse to sit in the back of their bus for their own protection also?

http://www.haaretz.com/woman-beaten-on-j-lem-bus-for-refusing-to-move-to-rear-seat-1.207251

A woman who reported a vicious attack by an ad-hoc "modesty patrol" on a Jerusalem bus last month is now lining up support for her case and may be included in a petition to the High Court of Justice over the legality of sex-segregated buses.

Miriam Shear says she was traveling to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City early on November 24 when a group of ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men attacked her for refusing to move to the back of the Egged No. 2 bus. She is now in touch with several legal advocacy and women's organizations, and at the same time, waiting for the police to apprehend her attackers.

In her first interview since the incident, Shear says that on the bus three weeks ago, she was slapped, kicked, punched and pushed by a group of men who demanded that she sit in the back of the bus with the other women. The bus driver, in response to a media inquiry, denied that violence was used against her, but Shear's account has been substantiated by an unrelated eyewitness on the bus who confirmed that she sustained an unprovoked "severe beating."

Shear, an American-Israeli woman who currently lives in Canada, says that on a recent five-week vacation to Israel, she rode the bus daily to the Old City to pray at sunrise. Though not defined by Egged as a sex-segregated "mehadrin" bus, women usually sit in the back, while men sit in the front, as a matter of custom.

"Every two or three days, someone would tell me to sit in the back, sometimes politely and sometimes not," she recalled this week in a telephone interview. "I was always polite and said 'No. This is not a synagogue. I am not going to sit in the back.'"

But Shear, a 50-year-old religious woman, says that on the morning of the 24th, a man got onto the bus and demanded her seat - even though there were a number of other seats available in the front of the bus. "I said, I'm not moving and he said, 'I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' Then he spat in my face and at that point, I was in high adrenaline mode and called him a son-of-a-bitch, which I am not proud of. Then I spat back. At that point, he pushed me down and people on the bus were screaming that I was crazy. Four men surrounded me and slapped my face, punched me in the chest, pulled at my clothes, beat me, kicked me. My snood [hair covering] came off. I was fighting back and kicked one of the men in his privates. I will never forget the look on his face."

Shear says that when she bent down in the aisle to retrieve her hair covering, "one of the men kicked me in the face. Thank God he missed my eye. I got up and punched him. I said, 'I want my hair covering back' but he wouldn't give it to me, so I took his black hat and threw it in the aisle."

'Stupid American'

Throughout the encounter, Shear says the bus driver "did nothing." The other passengers, she says, blamed her for not moving to the back of the bus and called her a "stupid American with no sechel [common sense.] People blamed me for not knowing my place and not going to the back of the bus where I belong."

According to Yehoshua Meyer, the eyewitness to the incident, Shear's account is entirely accurate. "I saw everything," he said. "Someone got on the bus and demanded that she go to the back, but she didn't agree. She was badly beaten and her whole body sustained hits and kicks. She tried to fight back and no one would help her. I tried to help, but someone was stopping me from getting up. My phone's battery was dead, so I couldn't call the police. I yelled for the bus driver to stop. He stopped once, but he didn't do anything. When we finally got to the Kotel [Western Wall], she was beaten badly and I helped her go to the police."

Shear says that when she first started riding the No. 2 line, she did not even know that it was sometimes sex-segregated. She also says that sitting in the front is simply more comfortable. "I'm a 50-year-old woman and I don't like to sit in the back. I'm dressed appropriately and I was on a public bus."

"It is very dangerous for a group of people to take control over a public entity and enforce their will without going through due process," she said. "Even if they [Haredim who want a segregated bus] are a majority - and I don't think they are - they have options available. They can petition Egged or hire their own private line. But as long as it's a public bus, I don't care if there are 500 people telling me where to sit. I can sit wherever I want and so can anyone else."

Meyer says that throughout the incident, the other passengers blamed Shear for not sitting in the back. "They'll probably claim that she attacked them first, but that's totally untrue. She was abused terribly, and I've never seen anything like it." Word of Shear's story traveled quickly after she forwarded an e-mail detailing her experience. She has been contacted by a number of groups, including Shatil, the New Israel Fund's Empowerment and Training Center for Social Change; Kolech, a religious women's forum; the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC), the legal advocacy arm of the local Reform movement; and the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA).

In the coming month, IRAC will be submitting a petition to the High Court of Justice against the Transportation Ministry over the issue of segregated Egged buses. IRAC attorney Orly Erez-Likhovski is in touch with Shear and is considering including her in the petition.

Although the No. 2 Jerusalem bus where the incident occurred is not actually defined as a mehadrin line, Erez-Likhovski says that Shear's story is further proof that the issue requires legal clarification. About 30 Egged buses are designated as mehadrin, mostly on inter-city lines, but they are not marked to indicate this. "There's no way to identify a mehadrin bus, which in itself is a problem," she said.

"Theoretically, a person can sit wherever they want, even on a mehadrin line, but we're seeing that people are enforcing [the gender segregation] even on non-mehadrin lines and that's the part of the danger," she said.

On a mehadrin bus, women enter and exit through the rear door, and the seats from the rear door back are generally considered the "women's section." A child is usually sent forward to pay the driver.

The official responses

In a response from Egged, the bus driver denied that Shear was physically attacked in any way.

"In a thorough inquiry that we conducted, we found that the bus driver does not confirm that any violence was used against the complainant," Egged spokesman Ron Ratner wrote.

"According to the driver, once he saw that there was a crowd gathering around her, he stopped the bus and went to check what was going on. He clarified to the passengers that the bus was not a mehadrin line and that all passengers on the line are permitted to sit wherever they want on the bus. After making sure that the passengers returned to their seats, he continued driving."

The Egged response also noted that their drivers "are not able and are not authorized to supervise the behavior of the passengers in all situations."

Ministry of Transportation spokesperson Avner Ovadia said in response that the mehadrin lines are "the result of agreements reached between Egged and Haredi bodies" and are therefore unconnected to the ministry.

A spokesperson for the Jerusalem police said the case is still under investigation.

[moostraks]

So do they beat them when they refuse to sit in the back of their bus for their own protection also?

There are nuts in every segment of society, doesn't mean that all people of said group should be condemned for the actions of the individual with a screw loose.

[PatriotOne]

There are nuts in every segment of society, doesn't mean that all people of said group should be condemned for the actions of the individual with a screw loose.

Well she must of been riding the bus designated for all the nuts because it was a group of men who beat her and no one stopped them and blamed her for not sitting in the back of the bus. This whole argument of it being for her protection is absurd. Orthodox jews are a bunch of misogynist males trying to hold on to their perceived superiority as vested in them by the Torah and "god" and think the torah give them the right to treat woman as their property and slaves. The justifications is nothing but lipstick on pigs. Have you read the Torah? Copying and pasting someone else's work because I have to get some work done:

Genesis 3:16 Says that all women must suffer great pains during child birth due to Eve eating the fruit of knowledge. (As if it is somehow just that humans should pay for their ancestor's sins nor is a woman dying in labor some how befitting of a crime she did not commit.) The verse finishes of by saying a husband shall "rule" over his woman, stripping us off all power in between the sexes.

Genesis 38:16-24 Tells a very interesting story of a man named Judah whom lived with his widowed daughter in law. His daughter in law was grieving and wearing the veils of mourning which Judah (a rather stupid man) mistook for the clothing of a prostitute. He ended up impregnating his daughter in law and she left the city. On a later date Judah sees the young woman again and demanded she be burned for being a prostitute (I like how only the woman is punished when THEY BOTH engaged in the sexual act). It wasn't until Judah recognized the woman as his daughter in law and she was with his child, that he decided not to kill her. Basically, Judah can commit incest, use a prostitute (in his mistaken perception), and impregnate a MUCH younger woman, yet he thinks she is the one deserving of death.

Exodus 21:3-4 Says that if a male slave is given a wife by his master (regardless of how long they are wed, how much they love each other or if they have kids) he can not leave servanthood with his wife or children. The woman and children are merely property of the master and their personal happiness or sanctity of family doesn't matter.

Exodus 21:7 God not only sanctions selling ones daughter into slavery, but he also gives out laws on how it should be done.

Exodus 21:10 God ordains men taking several wives and even sets up laws as to how multiple wives should be handled.

Leviticus 12:1-8 Explains that a woman has to be purified after giving birth because she is "unclean". It goes on to say that birthing a male is cleaner then birthing a female, hence a mother must purify TWICE as long when having a daughter. This is BLATANT sexism from the point of birth. A woman is dirty simply for being a woman; this is obviously very biased and chauvinistic.

Leviticus 15:19-30 Explains that a woman having her menstruation must be avoided to the point of not even touching what she has touched.

Leviticus 18:19 Goes onto say that even LOOKING at a menstruating woman is wrong.

Leviticus 19:20 Says that if a man has sex with a slave or betrothed woman he must then "scourge" her. Scourging is a term for a severe flogging or whipping. I find it quite curious that the woman shall be punished to the point of a beating for such an occurrence, yet the man gets to go free for the deed.

Leviticus 21:9 Explains that unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. What about his unchaste sons?

Leviticus 27:3-7 God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men.

Numbers 1:2 Is the basis for the sexism that remains rampant today. In this verse Moses takes a poll of all the men who are able to fight in war, women aren't even counted in the census. Apparently back then, just like today, us women are considered the weaker species and unable to battle. (Let's not forget that during the time the Pentateuch was written women in Pagan cultures were FEARED and revered as the more powerful species. It is because of this patriarchal religion and it's offshoots that we have been reduced to cowering sub-humans.)

Numbers 30:3-16 A woman can't make a vow unless her husband allows it.

Numbers 31: 14-18 Moses tells his men to kill all the males, non-virginal women, elderly and children of the Midianite tribe. Of course, the virgin women are kept for raping. Ifyou read later down in the scripture God states that the Jews can not even marry a midianite woman (with exception to Moses). Hence these women who were captured were repeatedly raped and impregnated and they weren't even allowed a marrital status in which to protect them.

Deuteronomy 20:13-15 Kill all the men and boys in the cities that God "delivers into your hands," but keep the women for raping.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 If you see a pretty woman among the captives then just take her home and "go in unto her."

Deuteronomy 22:5 Women that wear men's clothing are an "abomination unto the Lord."

Deuteronomy 22:13-22 Women, be sure to keep the tokens of your virginity. Otherwise the men of your city may stone you to death. This does not apply to men though, of course. What is interesting to note here is the actual wording, it says : "that if a man hateth his wife he may say she did not have the tokens of her virginity". Since there is no way a woman can truly prove she had a hymen upon marriage the word rests on the husband and she can be disposed of simply when he tires of her.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is one of the most cruel and sexist passages of the Torah. It says that women who are raped and fail to "cry out loud" in a populated area are most likely enjoying the attack should be killed.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 A rapist must buy his victim from her father for 50 shekels. Is this supposed to be some type of retribution? What about the victim here, what if she doesn't want to marry a pig who raped her? All that matters is her father receives payment for his "property".

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Says that we must cut off a woman's hand if she touches the "secrets" of a man who is fighting with her husband…"And thine eye shall not pity her." Once again, there is no punishment for the man she touched, only the woman.

[moostraks]

Just seeking non-mingling of the two genders at a social gathering in itself can be a non-sexist event in theory but in reality such an attitude often (not always) is married to other attitudes that tend to limit equal opportunities, free choice and rights for women. One gender forcing some limitation on the other would make it decidedly negative in almost all modern societies.

Equal opportunities, free choice, and rights of women limited how? Children are either their parents responsibility or the states property. Adults are free to make their own decision to be part of the community or move on. So force is the perception of those who disagree with those who believe in gender differences and/or modesty rules.

[moostraks]

Well she must of been riding the bus designated for all the nuts because it was a group of men who beat her and no one stopped them and blamed her for not sitting in the back of the bus. This whole argument of it being for her protection is absurd. Orthodox jews are a bunch of misogynist males trying to hold on to their perceived superiority as vested in them by the Torah and "god" and think the torah give them the right to treat woman as their property and slaves. The justifications is nothing but lipstick on pigs. Have you read the Torah? Copying and pasting someone else's work because I have to get some work done:



I'm not Jewish just offered an opinion from knowledge of similar religious belief system regarding gender roles. I guess you are right, all of them are out to get women. Secular society has proven to have improved the lot of all women. :rolleyes:

[moderate libertarian]

Equal opportunities, free choice, and rights of women limited how? Children are either their parents responsibility or the states property. Adults are free to make their own decision to be part of the community or move on. So force is the perception of those who disagree with those who believe in gender differences and/or modesty rules.


If it is equal opportunity, why are women not enoforcing such a segregation and telling men where they should sit in the bus?
It's obviously a violation of equal rights the way it happens. Women who are not "trained" to be submissive and accept male orders (ala "god") and try to sit where they chose will face verbal assaults and in some cases physical assaults. The more I learn about this enforced segregation, the more it looks primitive and oppressive. Very similar implementation in Israel by same radical religious groups have led to attacks on women, riots against schools for girls, "jews only roads" and other forms of systemic discriminations.


Controversy Erupts Over Sex-Segregated Brooklyn Bus

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
October 20, 2011

It's been a few decades since Americans were engaged in a back-of-the-bus controversy. Now a popular bus route between two New York City neighborhoods is reviving the issue.

Last Wednesday, Melissa Franchy boarded the B110 from Williamsburg to Boro Park, two Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn. She was accompanying her friend, Sasha Chavkin, a reporter for The New York World, a Columbia Journalism School publication. Their mission: Find out what would happen if Franchy sat at the front of the bus.

At first, nothing happened. Then she was approached by another passenger, a Hasidic Jewish man.

"And he said, 'OK, you should sit at the back because women sit at the back on this bus and men sit in the front.' And I looked at him and said, 'OK, why?' And he said, 'Well, that's the rule because this is a private Jewish bus.' "

Franchy asked the driver if this was permitted. He didn't speak enough English to respond. Then she noticed two Hasidic women at the back of the bus.

"One of them was rolling her eyes; the other one said, 'Just move, I mean, that's the way it is. You don't ask.' And then the man said, 'When the Lord gives a rule, you don't question it.' "

The rule, says Shulem Deen, who spent the first 29 years of his life as a Hasidic Jew, is steeped in ultra-Orthodox tradition.

"Essentially, it's based on the idea that men and women should generally be separate, should inhabit different spheres of life in public in particular," Deen says.

Deen, who is editor of Unpious.com, says Hasidic men and women don't socialize or casually mix in public; many believe it is wrong to look at a woman outside the house. Deen says in recent years, he's noticed an upsurge in gender separation.

"It's become more codified," he says. "Now you have signs on the streets, telling you, 'Women, please step aside from men,' whereas in the past, that never would have been necessary."

But the tradition is running afoul of New York's civil rights laws. True, a private, company, Private Transportation Corp., owns the bus. But the company was awarded the route from the city. Therefore it can't discriminate — a point Mayor Michael Bloomberg reiterated on Wednesday.


http://www.npr.org/2011/10/20/141559320/controversy-erupts-over-sex-segregated-brooklyn-bus

[PatriotOne]

And then the man said, 'When the Lord gives a rule, you don't question it.'

The rule, says Shulem Deen, who spent the first 29 years of his life as a Hasidic Jew, is steeped in ultra-Orthodox tradition.

Hey, that's what I said....just a little differently...lol.

Orthodox jews are a bunch of misogynist males trying to hold on to their perceived superiority as vested in them by the Torah and "god" and think the torah give them the right to treat woman as their property and slaves.

[PatriotOne]

I'm not Jewish just offered an opinion from knowledge of similar religious belief system regarding gender roles. I guess you are right, all of them are out to get women. Secular society has proven to have improved the lot of all women. :rolleyes:

What similar religous belief system? I'm taking bets that those gender role traditions are based in their religous writings that woman are inferior and property also.

[moderate libertarian]

Hey, that's what I said....just a little differently...lol.

Orthodox jews are a bunch of misogynist males trying to hold on to their perceived superiority as vested in them by the Torah and "god" and think the torah give them the right to treat woman as their property and slaves.

It would be a safe guess generally and is common to religious fundamentalists of other religions also besides jewish. "Supreme authority" is deployed to squash such modern impulses as freedom of choice especially by the weaker sex or children.

[PatriotOne]

It would be a safe guess generally and is common to religious fundamentalists of other religions also besides jewish. "Supreme authority" is deployed to squash such modern impulses as freedom of choice especially by the weaker sex or children.

True. Almost all major religions ancient writings deem woman as little more than property and slaves of men. Christianity not excluded.

btw...calling women "the weaker sex" is offensive or were you being sarcastic?

[moderate libertarian]

True. Almost all major religions ancient writings deem woman as little more than property and slaves of men. Christianity not excluded.

btw...calling women "the weaker sex" is offensive or were you being sarcastic?


I forgot to use quotes, I meant "weaker sex". There are biological and other differences between the two sexes but in totality they are equal.
If women were endowed generally with more physical muscles than men, I'm certain "god" would have appointed women as the enforcers of societies various boundaries.

[PatriotOne]

If women were endowed generally with more physical muscles than men, I'm certain "god" would have appointed women as the enforcers of societies various boundaries.

I wonder if things would have been different had that been the case or if the "might makes right" rule would of still of been applied by women and the men oppressed. Guess I better do some research on ancient societies ruled by women.

[libertybrewcity]

If the Jewish women cared enough they would take one of the thousands of other bus routes/shuttles/subway that are offered in New York City.

[kojirodensetsu]

Private company: Don't care
Public bus: Do care

[kylejack]

Why so bitter? Society has become so overly sexualized I realize it may be hard to fathom a group which seeks to respect women and relationships rather than prostitute them.
The group is called feminists.


As for placing them furthest from the exit (in the case of buses with single exits) the men with be taking a protective stance not a disrespectful one.
Yes, men protecting women is what the patriarchy teaches.

[moostraks]

If it is equal opportunity, why are women not enoforcing such a segregation and telling men where they should sit in the bus?
It's obviously a violation of equal rights the way it happens. Women who are not "trained" to be submissive and accept male orders (ala "god") and try to sit where they chose will face verbal assaults and in some cases physical assaults. The more I learn about this enforced segregation, the more it looks primitive and oppressive. Very similar implementation in Israel by same radical religious groups have led to attacks on women, riots against schools for girls, "jews only roads" and other forms of systemic discriminations.




Search matriarchy societies. Orthodox Judaism is a patriarchy. Parents are either responsible for their children or state property. So either the parents or the state decide how the children will be raised and with what values. We either have religious choice or state mandated guidelines. Which side you are on is relevant to your political views...

[moostraks]

What similar religous belief system? I'm taking bets that those gender role traditions are based in their religous writings that woman are inferior and property also.

I figured as much...this is a religious bias perpetrating the hatred.

"...Ignorance breeds misunderstanding. Misunderstanding breeds fear. Fear breeds contempt. Contempt breeds hatred – which ultimately triggers violence..."

http://firelink.monster.com/training/articles/9547-ignorance-is-the-enemy?page=1

Decent article on bias that you and apparently the abusive Jewish men need to view. The cultural practices of patriarchy societies are not abusive, individuals are. Women have had their life changed through "equal rights" but in many ways it has been for the worse. If I wanted to flood the forum and take this totally off topic I could cite case after case of non-religious abuse of women. I could begin in my own life where the "men" in question were all non-religious.

Women aren't property in all religious systems nor are they inferior, they are different. As such a group makes decisions as to how they will govern themselves, and how the individuals bring the best of themselves to further the needs of the group. There are numerous ways of doing this and patriarchy societies are but one facet of the coin. In America, at 18 one can feel free to move on if the situation warrants it.

As for the original article, if it is city sponsored then they need to separate from the city and be solely private instead of quasi-private...

[moostraks]

I forgot to use quotes, I meant "weaker sex". There are biological and other differences between the two sexes but in totality they are equal.
If women were endowed generally with more physical muscles than men, I'm certain "god" would have appointed women as the enforcers of societies various boundaries.

read some other texts sometime:


Hunter-gatherers

One of the most studied cases of hunter-gatherers are the San (!Kung) of Kalahari desert in Botswana and Namibia. They are egalitarian to the extreme. No aggressive behaviour, exercise of power, or accumulation of wealth are tolerated. Autonomy of individuals is highly valued. Like all aboriginal people, their culture and traditional economy are threatened by the global economy and local government's "development" efforts. About their fight for survival see for example:

http://www.survival-international.org/news.htm
http://www.firstpeoplesworldwide.org/

Examples of very similar cases are the Hadza in Tanzania, the Huaorani and the Cuiva in South America, the Chukchi of Siberia, the Nayaka, Hill Pandaram , Paliyan, and the Andaman Onge in India, the Agta and Batak in Philippines, the Batek in Malaysia, the Pintupi, Warlpiri and Cape York peoples in Australia. (See the Cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers. Cambridge University Press. 1999)

North Africa

Berber peoples

When Arabs first attacked 'Tunis' in 683, the Berber resistance leader Kosaila, a woman, defeated them but was killed in a battle three years later in 686. She was succeeded by another woman of Jerawa tribe, whom the Arabs called Kahina (= sorcerer), an old widow who lived 127 years according to the legend. Even today, the Berber peoples of North Africa set great store by prophesies that reveal the future. It is not unusual for these prophesies to be made by a prophetess who is assumed to have supernatural powers.

The Tuareg (Twareg)

"It is highly unusual in the history of writing in that it is confined to women. Tuareg society is in fact matriarchal, and there, as elsewhere, literacy represents power." (Jean, Georges. Writing, the story of alphabets and scripts. 1992)

Among the Tuareg, women enjoy freedom of choice in sexual involvement and actively pursue romantic preferences. They may have male visitors when their husbands are absent. Women also retain custody of their children after divorce. Children are the financial responsibility of their fathers but they are considered by nature and by custom as belonging to their mothers. The tents and their furnishings are the personal property of the women. When a woman wants a divorce, she takes her bed (the only bed in the tent) to her mother's place. If she is real serious, she takes the tent as well and the husband has no place where to sleep, he must find shelter with his mother.

The Saharawi from the Western Sahara respect experienced women. In most Muslim cultures, a divorced woman becomes a social pariah. But in Saharawi culture she is both more respected than an unmarried virgin, and more alluring. "Clearly, a woman who already has experience is better than a woman who you have to train in matters of relations with men," a newly married third husband explains. Divorce is not usually acrimonious in the Sahara, the couple usually agree it is no longer working and the husband will leave. Three months after the divorce, the ex-wife will hold a party tocelebrate her new-found single status. But it does not last for long. A new suitor usually presents himself at the party. It is the result of years of nomad life, when men went off to wonder and women assumed responsibility for the camps. "In Saharawi culture we don't regard there as being any difference between girls and boys in childhood." Saharawi women also take an active role in their political struggle. In old Saharawi tradition it is women who take responsibility. They can be ministers and ambassadors.
See the whole story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/3227997.stm
(Published: 2003/10/30)



West Africa

Bijagós islands off the coast of Guinea Bissau have a matriarchal family structure; that is, the woman is the head of the family and has the right to choose and divorce her husband at will. The husband has no claim to the children and they bear their mother's last name. The bush and the sea are predominantly the domain of the men, while the entire area of the village, the education of children and spiritual matters are the main responsibility of the women. The Bijagós are known for their elaborate religious rites and ceremonies, cosmogony and sculptural art.

The Hausa areas of West Africa were ruled by a dynasty of queens, 17 in all until around 1050 CE when it split into seven states. Later a conqueror queen of Zazzau state, Aminatu (ruled 1536-1573) expanded her state. According to the legend, she took a new lover in every town she conquered and the man was beheaded the next morning. At present time, Hausa women are subordinate to their husbands.

K. Anthony Appiah wrote in NY Times in Dec 1999: "My uncle, the king of Ashanti, died earlier this year, but I can attest that the ceremonial at his funeral and at the installation of his successor was a vast, impressive occasion (…). This time, however, the people of Ashanti were able to review the royal candidates for succession on television, before the queen mother made her choice."

In Togo, women are in charge of much of the trade. The political power rests with men, but women act as religious leaders.

Arabia

The Bedouins

The Finnish explorer C.A.Wallin traveled widely in Egypt and Arabia in the 19th century. He tells how Bedouin women in the town of Dôfi, northern Arabia, "henpeck cruelly their menfolk, sit unveiled among men, quibbling and smoking their short pipes." Before the time of Prophet Mohammed, women could freely choose their husbands, even have several husbands if they wished. Yemen had several significant female rulers, the most famous of which is Belqis, Queen of Sabah. There were two important ruling queens still in Islamic times, Malika Asma and her daughter-in-law Malika Urwa.



The Ancient Mediterranean

Women in ancient Egypt seem to have enjoyed the same legal and economic rights as men.

Diodorus of Sicily, who had visited Egypt some time between 60 and 56 BCE, writes that the Egyptians had a law "permitting men to marry their sisters" and adds that "it was ordained that the queen should have greater power and honour than the king and that among private persons the wife should enjoy authority over her husband" (Book I, 27). Power in Ancient Egypt descended through the mother's side of the royal family. The queenship was a mortal manifestation of female power and the feminine prototype, while the pharaoh represented the power of the male and the masculine prototype. The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities.
For an on-line discussion of the subject, see the site Images of women in ancient art
See also:
Barbara S. Lesko, Women and Religion in Ancient Egypt:
http://www.stoa.org/diotima/essays/

Some women assumed the power of pharaoh, the most important of them queen Hatshepsut, who ruled from 1503 to 1483 BCE. She undertook large construction projects, and developed trade and agriculture. Her rule was known as a prosperous period, but her successor Tuthmosis III let destroy many of her statues and remove inscriptions which commemorated her deeds - or replaced her name with his own or her predecessors'. During the Ptolemaic period, Egypt had two important queens of Greek ancestry, Arsinoë and Cleopatra.

The great Meroë civilization South of Egypt, south of Nile cataracts in Nubia. from around 300 BCE till 2nd century CE had many women leaders, so many that it was believed there were no male rulers at all. Egyptians called the land Kush. The third ruler was the huge queen Bartare 284- 275 BCE, whose tomb in a pyramid has been found.

The Etruscan society

The Etruscans were "native" to Italy, and their kingdoms flourished before the Roman expansion. Contemporary accounts and their art indicate that Etruscan women held equal status with men, and they were allowed to socialize freely. Later the stress was on the married couple and their union.



The Pacific

Vanatinai of Sudest island in the Coral Sea: they are an egalitarian society without chiefs or dichotomic gender ideology, male and female tasks overlap greatly. Children belong to a matrilineage, and gardens belong to women. Women figure prominently in traditional exchange activities where women have equal opportunities of access to the symbolic capital of prestige derived from success in exchange. Lepowski has published "The Fruit of the Motherland" about the Vanatinai.

Nagovisi of Bougainvillea (a separate article)

Samoa and Tonga

Traditionally, girls and women of rank enjoyed almost godlike veneration. It was not only through their prestige that they had great influence over their husbands and relatives and through them, over affairs of state, but titles and offices, even the throne were open to them. The four highest titles in all Samoa, traced through female ancestral connections, once came under the rule and authority of one person who was a woman, Salamasina, AD 1500, held these titles. Normally, there are many more male chiefs than female. In order for a titleholder to be politically influential today, he must keep the support of his sacred sister. Her veto power within the descent group's affairs still makes her a political ally or foe. Politics is the arena for men, and religion for women. Sisters had a higher status than their brothers, moreover, young boys prepared the food for old men.

Hawaii (a separate article)

Marquesas islands

The Polynesian societies were highly stratified chiefdoms where the aristocracy and commoners had very different rights. They were known for the sexual freedom and elaborate ritual practices, for example the kapu, taboo system of avoidance and sacred. On the Marquesas (site in French) some women, mainly of high rank, had a primary husband vahana haka'iki and, in addition, one or more secondary husbands, pekio, who were to some extent domestic servants. Cases of polyandry were varied: There were political marriages of chiefly women to infant husbands or; Men who had been the woman's partners during adolescence remained with her when she married an older and more wealthy man or; Two men sometimes jointly offered themselves to a woman, who chose one as vahana haka'iki and the other as pekio.



Asia

India: Kerala state

The matrilineal system in Malabar is based on the Tarwad-house, where all the matriclan lives. It is managed by karanavan, who is usually the eldest male; but in absence of a capable male, a woman could be a karanavan; his duties include economic management and ceremonial duties. Respect for elders is strong. "In Malabar society there was a preponderance of female celebration. The Tarwad always bestowed greater attention to the females ..." There has been speculation about the starting of a matrilineal system, but according to the present knowledge it can be traced back as early as historical records exist. Even now women in Kerala occupy very important positions in all walks of life, in fact women in Malabar enjoy equal rights and privileges with men.

India: Lakshadvip islands and Minicoy

The origin of people and language of these small islands is supposed to be in Kerala. Population is originally Hindu but Islamic since many centuries. Descent is traced through the mother and property is divided equally among the children of a woman. The matrilineage Taravad is exogamous. Birth in a Taravad gives a member the right in share of the Taravad property consisting usually of land, trees, boats and buildings. This right passes through female members; a male member has only usufructuary rights over the Taravad property. Pattern of residence is duolocal: husband makes night-visits to his wife.
The women on the Minicoy island -site

India: The Khasi and Garo, a separate article and pictures

The Tibetans

Tibetans traditionally practised polyandry where one woman had more than one husband. The marriage could have many forms: either two or three brothers married the same woman, and the eldest brother was the head of the household; or a heiress took more than one husband to live in her house in which case she was the head of the household. Also monogamy was possible.

China: The Mosuo

Some groups of the Mosuo (also called Moso, classified by the Chinese as Naxi, or Na-shi) living in the hills of Yunnan province have matrifocal residence where the lover only makes night-visits to his "wife". Children stay with their mothers, and have a close relationship with their uncles. Also adult men work on their mother's land. Property is inherited through female line. The eldest or most competent woman in the house is the head of the household, "dabu". She keeps the purse strings for all family members, and makes all economic decisions. See pictures!
An enchanting life story of a Mosuo woman is told in "Leaving Mother lake. A Girlhood at the Edge of the World." by Yang Erche Namu and Christine Mathieu. Little, Brown and Company, 2003.

Read more about the Mosuo.



Indonesia, Sumatra: Minangkabau

The Minangkabau are the largest and most stable matrilineal society in the world today. Numbering some 4 million people in West Sumatra, the traditional homeland of their culture, the Minangkabau are the fourth largest ethnic group in the archipelago. They are a proud people well known in Indonesia for their literary flair, democratic leanings, business acumen, and "matriarchal" ways. The matrifocality in Minangkabau society means that families live in matrilineal longhouses and all ancestral property goes to women. Women are the guardians of economy, they keep the key to the rice house.

Young boys and divorced husbands sleep in Mosques. Men leave their homes when married but a woman cannot leave her house. A woman stays in the place where she was born and upholds adat, the traditional law. Women are considered to be weak and that is the reason why they must be given rights. The moral responsibility resides in women. Men are in fact proud of their independence. Men deal with formal political matters and act as village leaders. Matrilineage and household are conceived as the centre of power. The legends tell about a queen, Bundo Kanduang, who is a central figure in the folklore but her historicality is unclear.
To read more, see: Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy

Evelyn Blackwood has published Webs of Power: Women, Kin, and Community in a Sumatran Village where she argues that the Minangkabau women have wide-ranging power in their lineages and communities.

Japan: Ryukyu islands

In the Ryukyu kingdom, on Okinawa, women were religious leaders as shamans and priestesses, presiding all ritual life except mortuary rituals. Secular power was devided between the king and male officials, and corresponding female officials. The samurai envoys from the Japanese island of Kyushu got very annoyed when they had present their credentials to the women of the court in 1666. Women priestesses still function today in Ryukyu villages.



America

Mexico: Tehuantepec Zapotec

The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol 7 refers to "the notorious power of isthmus Zapotec women" who call themselves Tehuanas. Women are heads of households, control the purse and represent the community to outsiders. Only women go to the market. "In the isthmus bantering in the marketplace is the most notorious pastime of Tehuanas, and one which causes much laughter, especially if the object of fun is a man." The writer is offended by use of nicknames like crabfoot, turtle, city woman, marimba teeth, little pig, big testicles.
There is strong solidarity among all the women, and elders are highly respected. The majority of native curers are women. There are some clues that the culture was already strongly matrifocal before the Spaniards arrived. In 1553 Princess Magdalena, the daughter of the ruler Cosijopii, donated to the Dominicans "the salt beds of Tehuantepec, her fields, a fruit orchard half a league in length, her recreational baths consisting of crystal springs which water the orchard." At that time, Magdalena's father and two brothers were still living. During the Tehuantepecan Insurrection 1660, women were reported to take actively part.

Juchitán women in 2005, photo by Ricardo Coler.

North America: Cherokee

The Cherokee were matrilineal with a complex society. Cherokee women had many rights and privileges other than domestic duties. Not only did married women own property, such as homes, horses, cattle and fields of growing crops and fruit trees, but they also participated in both the fighting of wars and the Council of War, and sat with the Civil Council of Peace. Lineage was traced through the women's clan.

The Women's Council was influential having for example power over captives' lives.Their female warrior chief had the title of Beloved woman. The last Beloved woman, Ghighau, Nancy Ward, resigned her office in 1817. She had earned her title by taking the weapons of her deceased husband and participating into a battle. She was the head Beloved Woman of Chota, the oldest, "mother" town of Cherokee, and in this position she tried to negotiate and maintain peace with the whites, which proved impossible. It took 170 years before the Cherokee again had a female supreme chief, Wilma Mankiller, who was elected in 1987.

Canada: Innu (Montagnais)

The Innu of St. Lawrence Valley who were called Montagnais-Naskapi by the missionaries caused head-aches to the Jesuits. Let brother Fr. Paul Le Jeune report of his troubles: "the women have great power.. A man may promise you something and if he does not keep his promise, he thinks he is sufficiently excused when he tells you that his wife did not wish him to do it." "Men leave the arrangement of the household to the women, without interfering them; they cut and decide to give away as they please without making the husband angry. I have never seen my host ask a giddy young woman that he had with him what became of the provisions, although they were disappearing very fast." "They endure in the least those who seem desirous of assuming superiority over the others, and place all virtue in certain gentleness or apathy." "They imagine that they ought by right of birth, to enjoy the liberty of wild ass colts, rendering no homage to anyone whatsoever, except when they like. They have reproached me a hundred of times because we fear our Captains, while they laugh at and make sport of theirs. All the authority of their chief is in his tongue's end, for he is powerful insofar as he is eloquent; and even if he kills himself talking and haranguing, he will not be obeyed unless he pleases the Savages."



North America: The Iroquois and Huron

The Iroquois consisted of five groups whose own collective name was Haudenosaunee (= the Longhouse). "In each clan, each individual and distinct matrilineage ohwachira has one person who acts as representative for it. The women choose them and are often in this position themselves." The bestowal of an office was not irrevocable; the women retained the right to replace a leader who failed to meet their expectations. One of the matrons in each ohwachira presided over her kin group and with counterparts from other longhouses constituted the female leadership of a clan segment.

One could see a gender division of political labor: women were dominant within the village and its surrounding fields while men dealt with the outside world. But in fact, the Iroquois lived in a democratic near-anarchy which a late 17th century Mohawk leader summarized to the officials at Albany: "Brethren you know that we have no forcing rules or laws amongst us." (List of sources about North America)

North American Southwest: The Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni

These societies are characterized by high status and economic independence of women, and matrilineal and matrilocal residence.
Pueblo: "Power among tribal people is not perceived as political or economic, though status and material possessions can and often do derive from it. Power is conceived of as being supernatural and paranormal. It is a matter of spirit involvement and destiny. Woman's power comes automatically, by virtue of her femaleness, her natural and necessary fecundity, and her personal acquaintance with blood." Paula Gunn Allen
Zuni: Men need inititation ceremonies into religion but women initiate themselves through the sacredness centered in their bodies: through menstruation and childbirth they apprehended the mysteries of life and death at their source. The Zuni refer to earth as mother, corn plants as her children and game animals as fathers. They believed that they lived in the center of the world.

"Navajo culture, which is matriarchal, gives women a sense of power and independence." "In Navajo religion and culture, there is an emphasis on how you relate to everything around you. Everything has to be measured, weighed and harmonious. We call it nizhoni - walking in beauty." Dr Lori Cupp



Europe

The Saami, reindeer herders of Lapland
"In the traditional Saami society, the way of grandmothers dominate. In the reeindeer economy it is very clear that an elderly woman holds the household together and decides what should be done. She decides particularly the marriages and clothing." N-A Valkeapää, Saami writer and singer

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matrifoc.html

The genders are different. How one chooses to embrace and capitalize on these differences is what matters. Modern American society under the pretext of "equal rights", generally speaking, is exhausting women and destroying families.

[kylejack]

Search matriarchy societies. Orthodox Judaism is a patriarchy. Parents are either responsible for their children or state property. So either the parents or the state decide how the children will be raised and with what values. We either have religious choice or state mandated guidelines. Which side you are on is relevant to your political views...
That's right, Orthodox Judaism is a sexist patriarchy. And their sexist views shouldn't be permitted on a route that was awarded by the city.

[BlackTerrel]

Can you imagine the outrage from the right if this bus company was run by Muslims?

I doubt it. As long as it was Muslims practicing their customs with other Muslims I doubt most people would care. In fact I'd be very surprised if similar stuff didn't occur in Muslim society here.

The difference is that if it was Muslims the reaction on RPF would be less hostile - that's for sure. And probably the OP and the MSM publication would be accused of being Islamophobic.


+1 rep. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's cultural -- it's by no means sexist. In fact, it's an attempt to prevent "mingling" of the sexes.

I really get the sense sometimes that the people on this forum just hate Jews. And I'm not playing the "you hate Israel so you're anti-Semitic" card, because I think that's like saying if you hate Obama you're racist. I just feel that way -- that people on this forum just hate Jews, and that... needs to change. Especially if this movement expects to broaden its base.

Probably. Although if it was Christians they'd be just as maligned.

[limequat]

Fuck sexism.

Yeah! Bitches hate that.

[PatriotOne]

I figured as much...this is a religious bias perpetrating the hatred.

As for the original article, if it is city sponsored then they need to separate from the city and be solely private instead of quasi-private...

You have shown yourself a coward by not telling me which religion you were eluding to so I can search their texts for sexism AND an idiot for thinking a bus system can become solely a private business. A bus needs public roads to operate on ya know :rolleyes:.

[moostraks]

You have shown yourself a coward by not telling me which religion you were eluding to so I can search their texts for sexism AND an idiot for thinking a bus system can become solely a private business. A bus needs public roads to operate on ya know :rolleyes:.

lol...my religion is none of yer business but I was pretty clear on how I worded the response, "I'm not Jewish just offered an opinion from knowledge of similar religious belief system regarding gender roles." read very carefully again...

You will insert your bias and nastiness into whatever text or philosophy you can get your hands on it seems because you are hell bent on spreading some hatred. I ain't into that.

As for your belief that a bus needs public roads...please illuminate us as to why we shall bow to your wisdom on how all peoples and modes of transportation are to be maintained in a manner set forth by religious bigots?

[jmdrake]

I doubt it. As long as it was Muslims practicing their customs with other Muslims I doubt most people would care. In fact I'd be very surprised if similar stuff didn't occur in Muslim society here.

Really? So you missed this thread?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286380-Debunking-the-latest-sharia-scare&highlight=sharia+arbitration

Oh wait a minute, you participated in it. ;) All of the sharia "fearmongering" that's been going on has really been over how Muslims treat each other. Then you have the cops taking away everybody's religious freedom, but that's got nothing to do with sharia.

Here's another "We've got to worry when Muslims impose sharia on each other" thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284287-Did-Sharia-Law-Just-Work-It-s-Way-Into-a-Florida-Court&highlight=sharia+arbitration

Edit: And in this case Mosaic law is being imposed on a bus owned by the city of N.Y. That's not a problem for you?

[moderate libertarian]

Really? So you missed this thread?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286380-Debunking-the-latest-sharia-scare&highlight=sharia+arbitration

Oh wait a minute, you participated in it. ;) All of the sharia "fearmongering" that's been going on has really been over how Muslims treat each other. Then you have the cops taking away everybody's religious freedom, but that's got nothing to do with sharia.

Here's another "We've got to worry when Muslims impose sharia on each other" thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284287-Did-Sharia-Law-Just-Work-It-s-Way-Into-a-Florida-Court&highlight=sharia+arbitration

Edit: And in this case Mosaic law is being imposed on a bus owned by the city of N.Y. That's not a problem for you?

Good points you make.
This would have been framed as "Ground zero sharia bus service" and major Fox , Drudge , CNN headline if muslims were running similar gender segregated bus service in NY, that's how they make money.

[BlackTerrel]

Really? So you missed this thread?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286380-Debunking-the-latest-sharia-scare&highlight=sharia+arbitration

Oh wait a minute, you participated in it. ;) All of the sharia "fearmongering" that's been going on has really been over how Muslims treat each other. Then you have the cops taking away everybody's religious freedom, but that's got nothing to do with sharia.

Here's another "We've got to worry when Muslims impose sharia on each other" thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284287-Did-Sharia-Law-Just-Work-It-s-Way-Into-a-Florida-Court&highlight=sharia+arbitration

Edit: And in this case Mosaic law is being imposed on a bus owned by the city of N.Y. That's not a problem for you?

This isn't a law. Are women who refuse arrested and tried under Mosaic Law? From the OP:


Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a news conference on Wednesday that gender separation is "obviously not permitted" on public buses.

The DOT said the public bus has been franchised to Private Transportation Corp since 1973 and is not subsidized by city money. No exemptions have been granted to the company to comply with the city's anti-discrimination standards, it said.

Deborah Lauter, director of Civil Rights for the Anti-Defamation League, said in an e-mail to Reuters: "We oppose the practice of gender-segregation on public buses as discriminatory and unlawful. If a community feels it needs gender-segregated buses, then they should not involve the city."

I am curious in the reaction of some on this forum to anything that involves Jew or Christianity.

[kuckfeynes]

A road is not a bus. Saying a bus needs roads therefore it is partially public is as asinine as saying the road is partially private because it needs cars.

[kylejack]

This bus company was awarded this particular route by the government. If they want to have stop markers in the public's right of way then they need to play by the government's rules, which includes a ban on discrimination.

[kuckfeynes]

Oh is that all this is about? A bus lane? Guess I should read slower. In that case I have no objection (besides the meta objection to government monopolies). I still think it is stupid and unnecessary, but obviously within their grounds to enforce.

[jmdrake]

This isn't a law. Are women who refuse arrested and tried under Mosaic Law? From the OP:

Oh come on! Mosaic law is the basis for the segregation. Did you even bother clicking on the links I posted? One was a thread where people were concerned that Sharia law was being used in binding arbitration even though both parties agreed ahead of time to be bound by Sharia law. Nobody was "tried" in that case either. In this case women on a publicly owned bus are being told to go to the back on the basis of Mosaic Law. This is worse than the Sharia law case you were worried about.



I am curious in the reaction of some on this forum to anything that involves Jew or Christianity.

Well I am a Christian and often defend Christianity on the religion sub-forum, so what's your point?

[BlackTerrel]

Oh come on! Mosaic law is the basis for the segregation. Did you even bother clicking on the links I posted? One was a thread where people were concerned that Sharia law was being used in binding arbitration even though both parties agreed ahead of time to be bound by Sharia law. Nobody was "tried" in that case either. In this case women on a publicly owned bus are being told to go to the back on the basis of Mosaic Law. This is worse than the Sharia law case you were worried about.

The Sharia Law case I was worried about was people being arrested for handing out literature on a public sidewalk outside of a festival. I never had any concern about what you were referring to.