Clear as mud. I am not familiar with the Koran but am with the Bible, specifically the Hebrew Bible and I do not recall anything about females not being allowed to interact with male tradesmen.
Maybe you will recall the documentation I had submitted to you :
http://www.orthodox-jews.com/jews.html#axzz3DOQJeCsp
Jewish women are seen as wives and mothers. They are considered the heart of the Jewish home and not many of them work outside the home. In some communities, sex segregation is heavily practiced. Local streets have women walking on one side of the street and men on the other. In public and social situations, men and women do not interact.
Which you have dismissed based on you having read the Hebrew Bible and being "familiar" with it as if that constitutes evidence that you are fully equipped to render a correct interpretation of the texts which I must remind you that Orthodox Jews study such text in its original language, meaning Hebrew.(mind you the difference between studying and just reading with the addition of reading a version in English versus studying a text in its original language).
As to the "tradesmen" remark, if I suspect such Orthodox Judaic females will have a brief moment of interaction with a male employee when paying for groceries or asking the butcher for a specific cut of meat etc..., most people are fully aware that riding a cab entails an extended period of time in an enclosed environment and in this case the said female being alone in the presence of a stranger male in that specific environment.
How does anyone's recognition that the SheRides company is accommodating SPECIFIC women with a SPECIFIC religious profile to eliminate their discomfort in social interactions with stranger males, supposed to signify being supportive of the ultra conservative branches of 2 religions notoriously known for treating females as inferior human beings?
Just to clarify - SheRides is not limited to extremely conservative religious women but to any woman who either doesn't want to ride with a man or doesn't want to drive a man. None of it changes the fact that it is a highly discriminatory business.
Your claim has been that such business is motivated by "hating men". Which you need to know that aside from your pattern of accusing anyone of "hating men" or being "radical feminists", you have pathetically failed to demonstrate that females, whether it be from a religious motivation or non religious one, their choice to prefer a same gender cab driver has anything to do with "hating men" or being "radical feminists".
Is my recognition of the ACTUAL motivation based on an accommodation ( as I specifically detailed it above) to be justifiably interpreted as meaning that I support the tenets of ultra conservative Judaism and Islam? Be very careful as to which intentions you will attribute to my recognition.
I think you believe discrimination against men is a good and progressive thing in general.
You did not reply to the specifics of my question, possibly because you are still rushing to click on reply without taking the time to insure you understood those specifics. I will then rephrase my question while retaining its semantic meaning to give you another opportunity to address it :
I have recognized (meaning being aware) that when it comes to those religious females, an accommodation is provided based on their religious practices and beliefs. How does such awareness on my part signify that I am somehow supporting or embracing the tenets of Ultra Conservative Judaism and Islam?
Further and based on your reply above, considering the actual meaning of my question and within the context of those specifics, what type of rationally constructed reasoning could support your conclusion that my being aware or recognizing implies that I "believe discrimination against men is a good and progressive thing in general" ? That would also apply to feminists who generally will recognize or be aware that both religions conservative branches exhibit the traits (and documented traits) of sex segregation. To also add that such awareness or recognition of those traits as being existent in those conservative branches of Judaism and Islam cannot be confused with embracing or supporting the patriarchal cultures which introduced sex segregation. Feminists of all trends in the US are certainly not individuals who embrace the existence of patriarchal cultures.
Are you prepared to defend your claim in the Religious Discussion Forum?
Why should I? I was not one making that claim, but some Biblical scholars are.
Once more, clicking on that reply without paying much attention to the intended meaning of what was communicated to you. Once more, I have to spend my time and energy explaining, detailing why you would have to defend your claim. To my relating that the authorship of those ancient documents which still today direct a variety of practices to include sex segregation, such authorship was the product of a patriarchal culture dominated by males, you provided a reply pointing to a claim made by some that "some of the books are thought to have been authored by females". Within (again) the specific context I had brought up the reality of the association between male authorship and patriarchal culture, you relied on a claim made by "some" of female authorship as if such claimed female authors were representative of male dominance in a patriarchal culture and would somehow be the originators of sex segregation. Most people do understand and acknowledge the reality that patriarchal culture implies a male dominated society where males are the party making the rules.
You'd better be especially the bit about involving the Bible when I made a clear reference of Qu'ran. Let me forewarn you that we do have a couple of scholars who frequent our GRD Forum. I will start a thread in GRD in the near future bringing up your claim and you'd better be prepared to quote and document your sources. Especially when applied to Qu'ran.
Bullshit. I made no claims about the Koran and I only said that some people think some of the Biblical books have been written by women, not that I think that.
Since you "do not think that" why attempting to invalidate what I had developed on regarding the patriarchal aspect of the cultures which were male dominated and rules made by males, same cultures reflecting their patriarchal traits via the male dominated authorship of ancient religious texts, whether it be the Bible or Qu'ran. Why even mentioning a claim formulated by "some" as if such claim would invalidate the association between patriarchal and male dominated and rules made by males?
And religious women subjected to long term and from a generation to generation indoctrination which was initiated by MALES is supposed to be including "radical feminists" who live in 2014 USA? Are you kidding me?????
Yeah, it's all men's fault.
I suppose you are not familiar with the power of indoctrination and brainwashing over a succession of generations, reducing those generations to abidance and repeating the same motions and practices. I stated that it was "initiated by males" and it is historically documented that the original cultures, male dominated and males making the rules, were patriarchal ones. Again, how many radical feminist movements in the US embrace such perpetuation of traits typical of and in patriarchal cultures? In case you still do not understand or cannot understand what patriarchal implies, I will make one last effort demonstrating why indeed males were the party fully responsible for formulating restrictions applied to women, restricting their access to education, restricting their access to voting, restricting their access to a multitude of functions relying on a gender role based divide and one which persistently exhibited the belief (especially within religion) that females are the "weaker vessel", females are inferior beings, etc etc....
And some feminists, like for example Naomi Wolf, do support hijabs and the like.
How does her advocating the rights for Muslim women to speak for themselves is to be concluded as meaning she in any way shape or form embraces the tenants of the conservative branches of Islam?
http://naomiwolf.org/2009/09/let-muslim-women-speak-for-themselves/
Aside but I strongly argued against the ban of the wearing of the veil in public spaces in France because it eliminates the right for this minority of veil wearing French Muslim women to make their own choice to wear it or not wear it. And I am in no way connected to Third Wave Feminism.
You keep attributing to a variety of folks motives and intentions they do not have. To include in this very thread the motive of "hating men" or being "radical feminists" to females who for ,either religious reasons or secular ones, prefer a person of the same gender for whichever service they will pay for or service they will provide. Do you equally and for the sake of consistency believe that males who prefer a person of the same gender, it is because "they hate women" or they are Mra related?
You are (once more) SPECULATING. You have been observed by multiple members as polarizing your outcries of sexism (at the drop of a hat) declaring it motivated by hatred of men. As if the customers and drivers of SheRides are looking for an accommodation of their religious beliefs based on "hating men".
While the app could be used by religious fundamentalist women the primary purpose is just to avoid men, for whatever reason a woman wants to do that.
You have claimed an association between their preference and "hating men" and "radical feminists". You have in no way demonstrated your speculation to be correct. While somehow expecting that such speculative conclusion on your part is to be greeted by an agreement on the part of this thread participants.
There is a consensus that the creation of that business catering specifically to females results in a discriminatory effect. That is NOT what I am challenging here. What I am challenging and exposing is your observed long term pattern of drawing conclusions based on speculating as to the motive and intentions. Such speculative conclusions always reflecting the character of "hating men" and mentions of "radical feminism".
If a man didn't want to be driven by a female cabbie he'd be called misogynist.
I have no issue with a market supply driven by demand which supports a business catering only to males. And contrary to your assumption, I do not view such as being the product of misogyny.Never do I assume or speculate that my agency(my employer) accommodating the gender preference of our clients for home health services such as companion/respite/homemaking as being the product of misogyny or misandry. And that what motivates the same gender preference from either male or female clients is because they "hate men" or "hate women" or are related to "radical feminists" or related to Mra.
Same with a cabbie who didn't want to pick up women. But if women do it, it's ok.
You have and continue to ignore the number of times some posters have deployed efforts, time and energy detailing for you how the SheRides system functions. You now have simplified it to a misrepresentation via " a cabbie who didn't want to pick up women" as if it is a valid analogy to the SheRides system which was several times explained to you.
They represent a demand within the market of supply and demand which requires an accommodation based on religious beliefs/practices. The accommodation being about the discomfort they would experience if there were no alternative for them but have to have social interactions with stranger males. As a result a business is created for the purpose of supplying that specific market driven demand.
Again, these religious women are not the totality of their projected customer base. And even for them, I do not see why their desires should trump anti-discrimination laws any more than desire of a Muslim man not to be subservient to a woman should cause the company to only put him answerable to male managers. If you live in US you should show some flexibility.
Actually, informed US citizens and legal alien residents in the US should be aware that flexibility in accommodating religious preferences is protected under your own Constitution.Since you brought up "flexibility" as if I am the party here who has been arguing against accommodating conservative religious females. When you are the party who went as far as dismissing the existence of the conservative practice in Orthodox Judaism of sex segregation.
Do you *think* that as a female I would engage in outcries of sexism motivated by hatred against women when barber shops and designated as barber shops respond to the specific demand of a male clientele which excludes female clientele? Do I pull a drama while speculating that barber shop owners exclude a female clientele because they hate women?
If you didn't mind a haircut that's within their skill set I do not see them rejecting your business. But hair cutting places do specialize because average male and women's haircuts are different. Cab rides are not. If a male cabbie refused to give you a ride you'd have a good case of sexism.
Contrary to you, I do not spout speculating conclusions that sexism is always the motivation/intention behind a person's choice to refuse service to a person of the opposite gender. Nor have I been known on IIDB, FRDB and now TFT to engage in outcries of "hating" one gender or the other or engage in outcries of "radical" one group or the other as you have been known and observed engaging in for a very long time. I am not you, Derec. I do not think and draw conclusions as you do.
Well, it appears your outrage is misplaced and not as justified as you believe it to be.
Wrong.
What evidence can you provide supporting your outcries of "hating males" and "radical feminism" in this thread? You have none. You are persistently drawing conclusions based on speculating as to motives and intentions from the said business, their employees and their clientele.
Let alone you producing such absurd replies mentioning the alleged female authorship of"some books" in the Bible while I had mentioned Qur'an. And by the way, any time you discuss Judaism, be aware that the actual terms used by adepts of Judaism regarding their sacred scriptures are not "The Bible" but the Torah and the Talmud.
I mentioned the Bible because I know more about it than the Koran. And Bible, specifically "Hebrew Bible" (I omitted the adjective "Hebrew" because it was clear from the context), is perfectly valid name for it. Torah and Tamud are not. Torah is only one part of the Hebrew Bible, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy only.
As usual, I will give more credibility to the description of details and specifics regarding content and purpose to Judaic scholars themselves than your simplistic description since you are NOT a Judaic scholar:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Written_Law.html
Talmud is a collection of writings not part of the Bible at all.
Once again, from Judaic scholars, a far more elaborated detailed description of content and purpose emphasizing the ultimate IMPORTANCE of the Talmud for practicing Jews:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html
The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life.
Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible.
Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.
At your convenience, you can participate in a thread I will create in GRD expanding on the above where I am certain, our member Sheshbazaar, both a Hebrew Scholar (educated in ancient and modern Hebrew) and a scholar on Judaism will be able to comment on my having underlined the importance of the Torah and the Talmud as being the terms practicing Jews refer to rather than "Bible". That said it now closes the need to discuss it in this thread in the PD Forum since it will be carried over to GRD.
When referring to Muslims, the actual reference is to Koran or Quran or Qur'an. Not "the Bible".
I wasn't referring to the Koran as the Bible.
However, you rushed to a reply which totally omitted my mention of Qur'an and an important one since the existence of SheRides will also accommodate Muslim women (either as a cab driver or client) who fall under the category of abidance to conservative religious practices upholding sex segregation.
Further, a point you do NOT even have, is that the existence of a private business responding to a market driven demand accommodating a SPECIFIC group, in this specific case conservative branches of Judaism and Islam female members, results in males throughout N.Y city to be able to get a cab or get employment with a cab company. I sincerely doubt that there are substantial numbers of N.Y city males residents who are pulling a drama queen over the existence of SheRides claiming that it deprives them of finding a cab/taxi or they cannot find employment as a cab driver throughout the city.
Just because a sexist, discriminatory business gets customers doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
Just because there is non-sexist competition doesn't mean that the company runs afoul of anti-discrimination legislation.
You seem to be absolutely convinced that sexism can only be the motivation and intent of any business which is going to supply based on a demand where one gender represents that market demand. Again, you have not presented any evidence that whether it be female cab drivers or/and female clients , their motivation derives from "sexism". Let alone anything related to "hating men" or being related to "radical feminists".
Such "drama queening" would echo the outcries of folks who were outraged at a fast food chain in the UK and Ireland accommodating a market driven demand of serving only Kosher Food in some of their facilities.
It wasn't a market driven demand, but PC driven one, given that in those neighborhood vast majority was still non-Muslim.
I will note that it is not uncommon for folks who are members of an ethnic/cultural majority to not give a rat's behind about the specific needs of ethnic/cultural minorities and expect those needs to not be met based on the status of being a minority or extreme minority. As a reminder, in that very thread, some of us deployed great efforts explaining over and over again why food preparation in the same locale involving both non Kosher and Kosher foods and ingredients present very complex logistics. How all of that is still be misrepresented as a "PC" motivated move on the part of the fast food chain denotes a dismissive response to what was clearly detailed and explained. Such dismissive response of course in that thread (and seemingly still going on now) perpetuates a self imposed sentiment of victimhood and injustice despite of the fact that it was (once more) a storm in a tea cup.
When the number of those said facilities was so low compared to the existing number of that fast food chain facilities and could not be perceived as depriving non Kosher eating customers from access to an abundance of non Kosher foods facilities.
Doesn't change the fact that banning non-Kosher meals is PC run amok.
Are you part of the members of an ethnic/cultural majority who dismisses the specific needs of cultural/ ethnic minorities based on the fact they may be extreme minorities in their demographic representation? To add how many efforts were deployed in that thread topic to explain why the logistics of food preparation and use of ingredients in the same locale is so complex. You call your interpretation of "PC" motivated as a "fact". Like the "race card", the "sexism card" if not the "misandry card" or/and "misogyny card", the "PC card" is often pulled at the drop of a hat.
Instead your Op is one more ranting outcry further escorted with mentions of radical feminism and hatred against men.
Again, the business discriminates against men twofold - as customers and as employees. That is not ok.
If discrimination is your actual motivation to have started this thread, any reason why you never, I mean never pipes up about instances of discrimination affecting members of the female gender, let alone showing any outrage?
In fact your outrage regarding discrimination consists in one specific group being the victims while other groups are dismissed by you. I usually recognize individuals who are genuinely concerned about discrimination, when the individual presents a variety of groups affected by discrimination, whether it be gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs or lack of, origin, sexual orientation, physical ability/handicap etc... Unfortunately for you, your long term observed history of "outrage" polarizing its attention on males while dismissing all other groups is certainly not indicative of a consistently applied concern for discrimination in general.
