In religion, women are second-class.

[Fiona]

Are you sure about that in relation to the Norse Picts and Celtic peoples, Hans?

ETA: Primogenture was not established until during the 12th century in Scotland and only then for royalty. Tanism was in place before that and it persisted after the royals adopted norman practice for some time. I do not know when the change was made amongst the norse

 

[blobru]

'Probably' Taoism? Can you put a figure on that probability, given that Taoism says very little really, but within the slim text that it is founded on you will find repeated exhortations to 'honour the feminine'. The 'yin', as in that cute yin/yang black and white tadpoles thing the cool kids appropriated. You'll have seen that about, perhaps? It expresses the awareness that the world is not neatly divided on a binary basis as so many western-trained thinkers believe. The masculine contains the feminine, the feminine contains the masculine and both are necessary. Different, but equal.

Which slim volume? There are other Taoist texts besides the Tao te Ching. And the yin/yang isn't quite so cute when you realize that all the "negative" forces are equated with the feminine (dark, low, cold) and all the "positive" forces are equated with the masculine (bright, high, warm). The point of Taoism is that there is good and bad, and the best path to follow is to balance them equally rather than being entirely yin or yang. So in a sense they are not equal in a value sense, but that they can balance each other out (and should) for best living.


ETA: I should point out that "good" and "bad" aren't moral valuations. Yin and yang aren't evil vs. good.

Another translation for yin and yang, rather than 'negative' and 'positive', would be absence and presence. Or change and stasis, chaos and order; becoming and being. Not stricly moral valuations, as you say. These are the most basic metaphysical categories. Yet in assigning feminine to yin and masculine to yang, Taoism does seem almost a template for every other religion I can think of.

The chaos that order arises from is typically (universally?) associated with the feminine (Eris in Greek mythology; Kali the destroyer in Hindu; Pele in Hawaiian; though Loki in Norse may be an interesting exception(?), have to check this). The feminine is the bringer of life, the base vitality (Nature) which if unchecked may destroy, that society arises from; the masculine is the bringer of rules, the ruler and defender of the institutions (Law) that define society. The prejudice of course is that while males define the rules, females are only defined by them, both the state's and nature's.

Thus God (or the head god in polytheisms), as the ultimate ruler, is always male; and his chief prophets always god-men. This prejudice extends to the traditional priesthood (with notable exceptions in agrarian religions, where the dependence on nature is strongest; versus the nomadic warrior traditions of the Hebrews and Greeks that the West's religious and even rational institutions stem from). It is the pre-modern gender relationship, women largely dependent on men for provision and protection, distilled into metaphysics; and then mistaken for necessity, when religions are reluctant to change with the times.

Where modern secular democracy is permitting the large-scale redefinition of gender roles, so that men no longer monopolize the ethics of the state, with women confined to the etiquette of the home, it is hard to find traditional religions that speak to the modern citizen. Some are begrudgingly easing gender restrictions to try to keep pace with social change and attract moderns back to devotion, but so far it is a losing battle: each week the pews are a little emptier. The stories that defined us for millenia don't seem to mean as much anymore, with their bipolar fierce and loving holy fathers raining hearts and fire from the sky. It seems fitting that democracy's most sacred symbol holds fire aloft for all to learn by, and is a woman.

 

[TimCallahan]

I Nial's saga (from Iceland) there is a divorce initiated by the woman and clear mentioning of women inheriting and owing land. It is not quite equality but I suspect that women's status went downhill with the appearance of christianity.

Yes, in old Norse society, as evidenced by both Njal's Saga and Laxdaela Saga (among others), and in Anglo-Saxon England, women could own property, initiate divorce procedings and bring suits in court. They were constrained from bearing weapons (although "Breches Aud" in Laxdaela Saga and Freydis in Eirik's Saga are notable exceptions), while pagan Celtic women sometimes did act as warriors and war leaders. It is notable that women bearing arms was banned by an Irish bishop some time after the conversion of Ireland to Christianity. So, some ancient cultures / religions did give women a fair degree of equality.

I seriously doubt, however, that there was ever any widespread matriarchy. In the patriarchal stories of Genesis there is a definite generational split between Rebekah, who chooses whether or not to go with Isaac, and her nieces, Leah and Rachel, who feel their father has sold them in marriage. In Greek myth the two most important generations, that of Heracles, Theseus and Atreus, and the next generation, the heroes of the Trojan War, seem to be telescoped versions of two ages, one in which Minoan Crete was the central power in the Aegean and the next, in which Mycenae has taken over that role. If this is the case with the two generations in Genesis - that of Rebekah, and that of Leah and Rachel - may also represent telescoped ages.

The biblical erosion of feminine rights notwithstanding, Assyrian records mention certan Arabic tribes as being ruled by queens. This might lend some support for a historical basis of the legend of the queen of Sheba.

For all that, the religious role and power of women in most societies seems to have been steadily eroded throughout written history. The Delphic oracle is a good example. Originally, the oracle seems to have belonged to male and female serpent deities, Python and Delphyne. However, it was co-opted by Apollo. The main oracle remained a priestess, the Pythia, but she was inthe keeping of male priests, who, if I am not mistaken, interpreted the Pythia's ethylene-induced ravings.

One minor note on covering or uncovering the head in church: At least in a Christian context, would seem to come from 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:3 - 7):

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head - it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Are you sure about that in relation to the Norse Picts and Celtic peoples, Hans?

ETA: Primogenture was not established until during the 12th century in Scotland and only then for royalty. Tanism was in place before that and it persisted after the royals adopted norman practice for some time. I do not know when the change was made amongst the norse

Ah. No, I explicitly qualified it as applying to the territorial extent of the Roman Empire and later HRE. Once you move outside that zone, that's of course no longer true.

In my defense, though, I was answering a message which didn't make any mention of celts.

For the Celts, sadly I don't know as much about their history as I probably should, so I can't make that kind of call.

For the Norse, though, that's where the rise of the Thane class started. So they're actually a little bit ahead of the curve in that aspect.

It should probably be mentioned though that the Norse also produced an incredible supply of mercenaries and pirates, which shaped the popular view of the Vikings. But those also aren't exactly peasants who were drafted as needed, but people for which being a sword for hire to some warlord or a pirate was their only available source of income. As only one son inherited the farm, the rest were basically kicked out in the street. And being a merc or a pirate was probably the easiest available option.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that the largest mass of the Norse population were slaves (thralls) and bondsmen. And I mean really chattel slavery at its finest

Also, IIRC the thanedom in Scottland is a bit of a different use of the word, so it's not necessarily easy to make a comparison. A norse thane was the lowest rung of the aristocracy, someone posessing 5 hides of land to support him as a professional soldier. (A hide being the surface unit a peasant familiy was supposed to work.) IIRC the Scottish thanes were a bit higher than that on the hierarchy pyramid. These were nobles and aristocrats.

 

[Fiona]

It is the pre-modern gender relationship, women largely dependent on men for provision and protection

Can you evidence that, Blobru? I do not have time to search it out but I seem to remember that this characterisation is not supported in present day hunter/gatherer societies (though there are very few of those, admittedly) nor by celtic mythology (though again it is hard to distinguish what is original from what is later editing by christians)

 

[blobru]

It is the pre-modern gender relationship, women largely dependent on men for provision and protection

Can you evidence that, Blobru? I do not have time to search it out but I seem to remember that this characterisation is not supported in present day hunter/gatherer societies (though there are very few of those, admittedly) nor by celtic mythology (though again it is hard to distinguish what is original from what is later editing by christians)

Well, I'm waffling between typical and universal, here. I don't think it's contoversial that men are typically, historically, the warrior class (with notable exceptions such as the Scythian "amazons" on whom the Greek legend may be based, the Briton warrior-queen Boudica, Joan of Arc, etc.); and historically the more-varied, -skilled and -lettered professional class as well (though women could earn their keep within a narrower purview of 'domestic' skills: weaving, baking, and the like). I think celtic mythology follows the 'taoist template', with the [yang] god of 'order' male (Dagda), and the [yin] chaos female (Morrigan). Prehistoric hunter/gatherer societies, as represented by present-day remnants, with almost every resource dedicated to survival (life, often associated with the feminine), would be an interesting case; not really an exception though, as one might expect such a group to be less abstractly legalistic (law, often associated with the masculine; balanced by life, aforementioned), more fluid job-wise, and so, oddly enough, distant precursors of modern democracies, which seek to balance the rights of the individual (life) with the the requirements of the state (law).

Hmm... not sure if I've answered your question? (sorry)

 

[supercorgi]

I go along with the right brain/left brain theory, that says it was the evolution of religion to a book form that changed women's status, where they were dominant while it was still basically an oral tradition.
Women had a much more important role in the actual historical religion, more than are spoken of in the written form of that same history that we have had passed down to us today, meaning we are living a fraud by thinking only what is written is true.

I wouldn't entirely agree with this. There are a lot (or were a lot) of native societies, particularly in Africa (and probably other places) that practiced Animism where women were seen as unpure because of the whole menstruation thing. So ritually unclean and dangerous that they had to be isolated during their menses.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Actually, muslims see the burqa as a way to free women. Because with them women can't be identified or sexually lusted by men. Though the net result is the same.

Seems like a design flaw to me. God creates imperfect lustful men, realises his mistake and then throws a bit of cloth over it, the religous equivilant of sweeping your mess under a rug. It also suggests that men lusting after women and seeing them as nothing more than sex objects is fixed rather than worthy of removing from society. Why should the onus be on the woman?

 

[Fiona]

Well, I'm waffling between typical and universal, here. I don't think it's contoversial that men are typically, historically, the warrior class (with notable exceptions such as the Scythian "amazons" on whom the Greek legend may be based, the Briton warrior-queen Boudica, Joan of Arc, etc.);

Well yes in a way. What I am not so sure about is the notion that warrior classes are not more of a cause of the need for protection than a response to it. Given that most violence against women nowadays is domestic do you have any reason to suspect it was different in the past? Or is this just that the story goes back a long way? I am not asserting anything btw: I am genuinely asking. Your characterisation of what life was like may well be true: but to me it looks a lot like a just so story and in that way is no different from many others I also distrust. It is so very convenient you see

Or perhaps you mean protection from wild animals? Not convinced about that either, frankly. At least not after we developed fire. And on this story about gender women are at least as likely to keep the hearth: indeed if the men are out fighting this is necessarily so

and historically the more-varied, -skilled and -lettered professional class as well (though women could earn their keep within a narrower purview of 'domestic' skills: weaving, baking, and the like).

Depends on the type of society, I think. I have read that in present day hunter/gatherer societies the majority of the food comes from gathering. Gathering is not gendered so far as I am aware. So the picture of the "provider male" is not very convincing without some other reason to accept it. Of course that is usually countered by the notion of the "big hunt" as a source of protein. But in the agricultural societies I am familiar with, in hard times the protein more often comes from rabbits than from buffaloes: and again I cannot see that men are better equipped to capture rabbits at any level of technology.

I am being a wee bit naughty here ( what can I tell you? I am not sober): because you did not define "pre-modern" and so I took liberty to conflate your post with those who found on these "natural differences" which I have such trouble seeing as pervasive. So forgive me for that. But I am serious in saying that the period of history; geography and economics need to be specified before we can even think about this topic in terms of "typical", much less universal


<snip>

Hmm... not sure if I've answered your question? (sorry)

Not really, no

 

[blobru]

Well, I'm waffling between typical and universal, here. I don't think it's contoversial that men are typically, historically, the warrior class (with notable exceptions such as the Scythian "amazons" on whom the Greek legend may be based, the Briton warrior-queen Boudica, Joan of Arc, etc.);

Well yes in a way. What I am not so sure about is the notion that warrior classes are not more of a cause of the need for protection than a response to it. Given that most violence against women nowadays is domestic do you have any reason to suspect it was different in the past? Or is this just that the story goes back a long way?

Given their lack of rights in many societies in the past, I expect domestic violence against women was worse (classical legal records seem to bear this out). Women regarded as a class between slave and citizen, with little recourse, often little more than property, legally; men as "lord and master", obedient wives feeling dependent on the favor of husbands, led to a culture of abuse, of course.

I am not asserting anything btw: I am genuinely asking. Your characterisation of what life was like may well be true: but to me it looks a lot like a just so story and in that way is no different from many others I also distrust. It is so very convenient you see

A just-so history: a vast oversimplification of the past to tease out very general trends to attempt to account for similarities in gender characterizations in different religions / mythologies. Not in any way as a convenient justification of those mythical and arguably historical gender roles. Its convenience is that it permits the hypothesis: that an historical, cross-cultural reality of more rigid gender roles underlies the metaphysics of many religions, part of the reason why traditional religions are failing in the west.

Or perhaps you mean protection from wild animals? Not convinced about that either, frankly. At least not after we developed fire. And on this story about gender women are at least as likely to keep the hearth: indeed if the men are out fighting this is necessarily so

Yes, I agree. Small prehistoric, subsistence groups necessarily had much less specialization, and likely much less rigidly-defined gender roles. Prehistoric religions, as near as we can make out from scattered modern survivals, were ancestor and nature worship, appeasement moreso than law enforcement. Their initiation rituals did discriminate between male and female, but mostly to facilitate courtship, vital to a small tribe. It wasn't that women were ever defenceless. But there was still the general problem of protection from enemies: aggressive suitors, criminals, enemy tribes. The sort of protection that became a male specialty in larger, more advanced pre-modern societies, as soldiers, police, judges, priests, etc.

and historically the more-varied, -skilled and -lettered professional class as well (though women could earn their keep within a narrower purview of 'domestic' skills: weaving, baking, and the like).

Depends on the type of society, I think. I have read that in present day hunter/gatherer societies the majority of the food comes from gathering. Gathering is not gendered so far as I am aware. So the picture of the "provider male" is not very convincing without some other reason to accept it.

I agree, mentioned above. Small primitive groups, necessarily less gender specialization, less discrimination between the [typically] physically stronger male and [typically] socially stronger female.

Of course that is usually countered by the notion of the "big hunt" as a source of protein. But in the agricultural societies I am familiar with, in hard times the protein more often comes from rabbits than from buffaloes: and again I cannot see that men are better equipped to capture rabbits at any level of technology.

Yes. And agrarian societies, as I mentioned in a previous post, would tend to honor the female more in their religions, as the principle of life and nature on which their survival depends.

I am being a wee bit naughty here ( what can I tell you? I am not sober): because you did not define "pre-modern" and so I took liberty to conflate your post with those who found on these "natural differences" which I have such trouble seeing as pervasive. So forgive me for that. But I am serious in saying that the period of history; geography and economics need to be specified before we can even think about this topic in terms of "typical", much less universal

I haven't said the differences are "natural", just perhaps broadly typical of a certain stage of social development. And you're right, the period hasn't been specified: I'm thinking of the time-frame where religions begin to take the form that has been passed down to us; where originary principles are being settled / inscribed for conformal transmission. The dates will vary from religion to religion; but the stage of social development and the gender roles prescribed therein are the important data.

Hmm... not sure if I've answered your question? (sorry)

Not really, no

Well, you're drunk. (But this is mostly wooly-mammoth-gathering, and no Joe Campbellstone I, so you're welcome to question and tear it to shreds; though it's not very lady-like, y' know).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That argument enrages me! It is breathtakingly misandrist for a start. But the real issue, for me, is that it is the classic reasoning of the abuser. "It's for your own good."

"I'm going to physically restrict you and identify you as a chattle rather than a human being, while at the same time performing a propaganda role for my hateful religion, but don't worry! It's for your own good."
....

Thank you for beating me to this reply.

Classic reasoning of the abuser is exactly what it is here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to play DA for a minute.
You talk of social conditioning - might not those women in Burqas see our western women as being exploited as chattels and/or being objectified by their men, in wearing (say) bikini's, skimpy clothes etc, through social conditioning?

If one only looked at bikinis, maybe so. But if you look at the whole social picture, there is no question who is being abused and who is as free as anyone in a society.


The problem arises in that women are not completely equal even in Western cultures. But we certainly are a lot closer to it than cultures where women are much more restricted by other peoples' choices rather than by the woman's own choice.

If you believe the vast majority of educated women in any culture willingly choose to be restricted in terms of dress and movement, then you need to get out more and see what the reality is, rather than what the excuses are for a culture's imposition on women.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes. And I think they have a point. It seems to me that western culture is in a period of transition as regards gender equality. We have yet to come to any coherent position. For now the best we can do is to allow more individual choice and try to see the consequences of those choices in all their messy complexity. We won't know for a while, I think

What the heck is this?

I own my own home, run my own business, make more money than my ex and choose what I am going to wear. I do not live in a country that demands I wear a costume or uniform. I don't live in a country that dictates I need a male with me to venture outside or to drive a car.

Do women in my country truly have equal rights? No. But we are darn sure closer to it that Muslim countries which restrict women with a gazillion arbitrary rules.

I used to have mixed feelings about this issue because I've always been cognizant of respect for different cultures. But I'm older and wiser now, and it is more clear to me than ever what is abuse and what is just different culture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure they were that different, actually.

Childbearing being "sacred" appears in Christianity too, for example.

Christianity, regardless of it supposed worship/respect of childbearing, is a misogynistic religion. This professor was talking about further back in history when the gods were more female gender than not.

But were the other major ancient cultures that different?

E.g., the Athenians for example paid major lip service to Athena, the goddess of wisdom and learning. You'd think they appreciate a woman's intellect, right? In practice a woman, regardless of class and status, was not even permitted to talk in court in her own defense. 'Cause they're too dumb for that, see? And, again, I'm not even talking about becoming a lawyer or a judge, but what we'd now consider the basic human right to defend oneself. If you had a husband or father, he'd do the talking for you, 'cause he's a man and all. If not, only the other side would do all the talking.

E.g., a lot of tribal cultures were described as matriarchal... by ultra-patriarchal Europeans in the Renaissance and then Victorian era. In practice those had no qualms with stuff like kidnapping women and raping them, and in fact it was a major reason for raiding each other. And virtually all decisions were taken by men anyway. But they let their women talk back! Even in public! Why, that's almost like being ruled by women! They're that uncivilized and savage, that they don't even know how to put their women in their place, see? Thank goodness we Europeans were around to civilize them

As for childbearing, I'd say that the realization that men are involved too, came pretty early. At the latest, when animal husbandry entered the scene. Even in more primitive cultures, virtually all did figure out there is _some_ link between sex and pregnancy. Even if for some it wasn't a clear cause-effect relationship, but more of a case of "sex helps too". I mean, heck, some tribes even figured out contraception. They're smart humans too.

And from there it was just a small step towards the more mainstream ancient world view that the man provides all the seed, and the woman is just a sort of flower pot where it grows. Well, in the civilized parts at least. That idea was so hard to let go that in 1694 someone even invented seeing little homunculi in the sperm cells under a microscope, and some even argued that they observed behaviours in the homunculi or animaliculi in those cells. And the resulting spermist theory would be the dominant theory during the 18'th century.

But it wasn't invented then. For an earlier description of the same theory (minus the microscope part, of course), see, for example, Pythagoras. Same idea: the father contributes the parts that count, while the mother just contributes a mere material substrate, much like a pot contributes to a flower.

So, anyway, sure they acted all in awe of childbearing, because they wanted offspring and even more importantly they wanted sex. They had to pack that "that's your role, woman" in some mystical and religious (and occasionally philosophical) mumbo-jumbo, lest those gals started asking "why?"

Basically, if I started acting all in awe of the woman's ability to cook food, it might just mean I want her to cook me a meal

Perhaps awe of childbearing was a remnant of the older religions as the transition to male gods occurred.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The guide responded,
"It's amazing to see what can happen when a woman stops talking".

You forgot the tomato tossing smilies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I have a friend whose second cousins Aunty reckons that fundy families dogs get fed better than the women that feed them. They must all be so oppressed - we really should do something.

Your bigotry seems to be shining through under your guise of "I'm only joking, really."


Funny story, I was in the Dominican Republic many years ago. I went with a group of young people into the countryside where we had a big picnic and spent the day at one of the kid's family farm. There was a gender division of labor. The women cooked all day in the kitchen while the men played dominoes outside.

But when it came time to eat, turns out all the meat from the soup was missing. The women had already feasted before serving the men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Class is complicated and it is relevant IMO. Let me throw some more generalisation and speculation into the mix.

You are correct to say that higher class women are "above" lower class women in some dimensions. That says nothing at all about how they stand in relation to men of the same class, however. And that is not a simple matter. Upper and middle class women ( in the traditional situation; we are in the middle of a transition so it is harder to see what is happening now) were certainly inferior to men. They were chattels. They had no right to own property; no right to employment once married; rape within marriage was not recognised etc; and although you say that more men then women were consigned to the "underclass" I do not think you are correct. Women took their class (and their nationality and their name) from their husbands. If they were not married they took it from their fathers and/or other male relatives. An upper or middle class woman was "above" a working class woman in her own mind and in the mind of the broader society: but this was at a peculiar cost of dependence and subservience to her "owner"

Working class culture was quite different. Women in that class did work, and although they were subject to the same laws the absence of capital made a significant difference. The man's right was less real than theoretical. Working class women worked outside the home and therefore had income. Some areas depended on certain kinds of manufacturing which had relatively well paid jobs for skilled female workers. That financial opportunity tended to equalise their positions compared to that of higher class women and you can still see the legacy of that in places like Manchester and Hawick.

Of course the values of the wider society ( as defined by the upper classes) meant that generally speaking women's wage were lower. Thus the working class situation was a shadow of the higher class position but it had a little less substance. Although women had to take time out from work because they had children, the experience of having an income and of having skills which could command an income had its effect. But that is not all. The social structure of working class life was profoundly different. In these times of class confusion people often say the boundaries are blurred and so they are. But one definition of "working class" was quite interesting to me: it was said that the working class are "those who live near the wife's mother and are happy with that". It is glib but it does point to a real difference. In the middle and upper classes the woman joined the man's family: in working class areas the man more often joined the woman's. This was for very practical reasons and it is subtley recognised in all those jokes about mothers in law (almost exclusively from working class comedians from victorian music hall on; because they don't make sense in the context of higher classes though women's experience with their mothers in law were presumably at least as problematic if we are to judge from the indian experience).

The same thing is seen in your own example: there was an expectation that a man would support his family and that he would do so fairly. Thus " I woudn't like to go home to her with a broken pay" is another of those jokes which reflect that expectation (and at the same time bows in the direction of reality).

All of this seems to me to show that the working class woman was in many ways of higher status than her higher class counterparts. And all of this is to do with economics and not to do with gender differences per se. It really depends on what you consider important in thinking about these things: different focus produces different conclusions. Our traditional understanding is very largely informed by those who write the history and they are almost always from the middle and upper classes

I have really only touched on post industrial UK, but the picture is different again before that. In a feudal society most of the working class, men and women, are chattels and so the gender is less important in these terms. Similarly with slaves. But once again that is not true in the ruling class where the preservation and transfer of property is central.

I am necessarily using a broad brush because this topic is far too big, but what I am trying to say is that the interaction between class and gender is not monolithic even within one society at one time. Religion reflects the society it operates in: like the narrative of a whole society its main story is informed by the class structure; but also like that wider society, it has sub-texts.

"Separate but equal" does not have great track record, for very obvious reasons. I am surprised if you are using that as a justification for anything really, but if you wish to do that I think you will have to make a case which shows how and why that model produces equitable results. It is in fact my aspiration in a certain sense: but I cannot see a case in history where it has been any more than a fig leaf for oppression. I think that is not necessarily the outcome but for me avoiding that requires that the concept is not applied to an outgroup, but to all of us. Talking in terms of "an obvious difference" bodes ill for that reason

But are the women within each class so discriminated against by their peers?

Of course rich and poor are not equal. But you are comparing apples and oranges here.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If you believe the vast majority of educated women in any culture willingly choose to be restricted in terms of dress and movement, then you need to get out more and see what the reality is, rather than what the excuses are for a culture's imposition on women.

Please don't misinterpret my position on this.
The "DA" stands for "devils advocate", I was not making a point trying to validate burqas or defend the "excuses for a culture's imposition on women".

I absolutely believe in equal rights for women.
If a man deserves a punch in the nose for his lip, why not the same for a woman?

I'm kidding.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In religion, women are second-class.

Even in Wicca?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Casual insult does not discriminate either. I usually tell the difference because one is funny and one is not. I need to revise my criteria, clearly

Or rent a sense of humor.