Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not even if they wanted to move me to hoity-toity class with lobster and champagne and a gorgeous hunky young specimen of all masculine beefcake singing sweet nothings in my ear and feeding me strawberries dipped in chocolate and whipped cream. ( .... was I insensitive to say that about beefcake?......)
For me it's the principle of the thing. I've been standing up to gender discrimination and bullying my whole life (yes, even as a very little girl), long before the women's lib movement became publically acknowledged as a happening thing, and I have always held my ground even when I knew I was at the losing end of the stick. To stand down out of politeness because some man doesn't want to sit next to me as if I'm a piece of contagious stinking filth is unthinkable, that would be more than taking a step backward, it's a huge flying leap backward.
That old Jewish lady did move to another seat, but it was only out of politeness and I imagine at her age (in her 80's) probably because she didn't want to make a public spectacle of herself by refusing. But she says she felt very uncomfortable and angry about the airline's policy of asking women to discommode themselves for religious men. So that's why she took that airline to court and won her case and I say good for her.
The way I feel about it, is if those kinds of ultra religious people, either men or women, make the choice to not tolerate to be in mixed company because it offends them and their gods then they should not be going out in public at all and they should not be using any kind of transportation that the public is using. They are the ones who need to accommodate the public in order to solve a problem of their own creation because of their religious beliefs.
.
I don't disagree with that last line. And that is what the vast majority of religious people have been doing since the prairies were first plowed. What is actually at issue, is the inability of secular people to tolerate obviously religious people in public.
And without religious freedom, there is ultimately no freedom. And women are not such children that it needs to be assumed that they can't think for themselves. They may not have had the ability to choose their religion in their country of origin but they learn soon enough in Canada that they have options. That option can include keeping their religion or having no religion at all.
And yes, in the multicultural society that we are, that means that more often than not, religious groups are the ones who end up adapting to the secular world. But there is nothing wrong in asking and there is nothing wrong in refusing. But I wouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion that people are actively trying to offend someone.
Interesting though that the pronography industry is tolerated. It's hard not to see this as being not about women's rights and more about what men have agreed to allow women to have since there is so little interest in taking the beam out of our own eyes.
Makes me want to say, "Yes, dad. Whatever you say, dad."
Well, it may be a coincidence but the rise of pornography has gone almost hand in hand with the rise of the women's movement.
Back when men controlled and dominated everything, access to pornography was much more restricted.
Well, it may be a coincidence but the rise of pornography has gone almost hand in hand with the rise of the women's movement.
Back when men controlled and dominated everything, access to pornography was much more restricted.
That could be because after centuries of ankle covering, there was a point to be made in bra burning. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and there may be a point to be made in covering one's ankles. The point being that as a woman I will wear what I damn well please.
Wow!!! WOW!!! I'm shocked that a Jewish woman wouldn't have moved to another seat to accommodate his beliefs. Wow.
I'm Jewish. I would have moved. If the man were [insert different religion here] but wasn't allowed to sit next to a woman, I would have moved for him too. I'm not religious AT ALL, but I respect the beliefs of others as long as it doesn't harm me.
So if a person's religion was adamantly against interacting with gay people and assumed the person next to them were gay, and ask to have that person change airline seats, you're fine with that?
However you would be insisting a clerk who doesn't believe gays should be married, do her job and put aside her religious beliefs?
That's what I would do. That's actually the only way to get along in the world.
And speaking of women's rights, I can't even begin to tell you how many times I, in the running of this farm, have been brushed aside by equipment dealers or other farmers because they think they have to talk to the man of the house. And I am actually the person who takes care of and decides everything. And it's a rural thing, not a Mennonite thing. And sometimes, depending on the circumstances, I will step aside for the sake of the man's discomfort, and let him talk to my husband who tells them to talk to me. And sometimes, as when I have been working in the barn at -30 wearing my fur coat, and some man has dropped by and wants to talk to my husband about a farm-related matter, I just tell him he will have to talk to the trophy wife. (I was proud of that one )
If it weren't for people pushing back on societal and religious restrictions, we wouldn't have inter-racial marriage. It was actually illegal in the US until 1967. Or have something as mundane as shopping on Sundays.
I suppose different people have different tolerant levels of what they are willing to give up. I for one don't budge one bit it has anything to do with me giving up any of my dignity or self-worth. It's the other person's problem.
I wouldn't move. If some man's religion disallowed him to sit next to me because I'm a woman then HE is the one who needs to move to another seat, not me. It's his problem to deal with, not mine. I'm all for respecting other people's beliefs but I won't accommodate them if their beliefs are manipulating and inconveniencing me for their benefit.
It's against my religion.
.
LOL
Exactly and whose religion trumps the others? Or whose religious beliefs trump a non-religious persons's belief.
In the bigger picture, who is the better human? The one that accepts all humans as equals and treats all with respect, or the one that clings to thousands year old writings that won't let them sit next to a fellow human being?
We'd need to define "secular people" and also what it means to be obviously religious in public.
Apparently clothing and Hsadic Jews. I'm assuming Hutterites probably fit in there. I'm assuming a Christian cross as a "cultural" symbol wouldn't count. And I'm assuming people make assumptions that people dressed normally are secular or not obviously religious. Which might be wrong but assumptions often are.
Exactly and whose religion trumps the others? Or whose religious beliefs trump a non-religious persons's belief.
In the bigger picture, who is the better human? The one that accepts all humans as equals and treats all with respect, or the one that clings to thousands year old writings that won't let them sit next to a fellow human being?
Well first of all, religious people put their beliefs first so usually they wouldn't be putting themselves in the way of conflict with those beliefs. And secondly this is very what-if since religious people not wanting to sit in public forums next to the opposite sex isn't something we hear about much.
Exactly and whose religion trumps the others? Or whose religious beliefs trump a non-religious persons's belief.
In the bigger picture, who is the better human? The one that accepts all humans as equals and treats all with respect, or the one that clings to thousands year old writings that won't let them sit next to a fellow human being?
Also, obviously Hsadic Jews believe that their practise trumps all other practises, and Hutterites believe their practise trumps all other practises (damn, I hate using the word 'trump') and devout Catholics believe their practise trumps all other practises. What religion trumps another religion is something agnostics and atheists worry about. The religious people think they have it figured out.
ETA: and the miracle of all that is the in the US and Canada people have been making that work since our beginnings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And sometimes, as when I have been working in the barn at -30 wearing my fur coat, and some man has dropped by and wants to talk to my husband about a farm-related matter, I just tell him he will have to talk to the trophy wife. (I was proud of that one 
)
