Theoretically, yes. But for all practical purposes, women are subjected to subordination in the Abrahamic religions as well as others. http://www.humanreligions.info/women.html
I wasn't saying that women aren't subordinated. My point is that the clothes we wear are not the cause.
Actually, I think the covering up part is part and parcel. People can place different spins on it, but when a woman has to, or is expected to (same thing), cover her face or hair, then she is being diminished. She is expected to display modesty whereas the man does not. Stated differently, she is not to tempt men with her womanhood. If that should happen, it would her fault, which is why, rather than have men exercise better restraint, she must cover herself. However, you look at it, women are subordinated in religion, and it is even reflected in dress codes among fundamentalists.
Well that's certainly the case most of the time, but I don't agree it HAS to be that way. On a side note I see that Mencken believed in elitism, attacked intolerance, fundamentalist Christians and had a rather low opinion of both blacks and Jews. I supposed you'd have to call his idea of so called tolerance...selective tolerance. Not easy to judge by just a photo of course, but he looks like a real asshole to me.
And men here are expected (have to) wear pants not dresses, even though in certain climes the dress might be more practical. Does this subordinate men? Women here have to wear something over their tits, are they being subordinated? And before you say, "yes, stop making women cover their tits!", consider that we may not want to see some womens' tits. ; )
Discuss religion often enough and you'll discover that invariably no matter how you present your argument against any aspect of the religion, it will be perceived as an attack. The only variability in the defensiveness boils down to the level of adherence to the religion that the defender maintains. Even when done humorously and in a good natured way. This is one of those situations where you simply don't catch more flies with honey. That may be the case. But a lot of dickheads say some brilliant things that transcend their person, personality and ideologies. The words attributed to Jesus are some of the most brilliant things of all time. And that's whether you believe in him or not. Imagine if we all followed what he said during the sermon on the mount?
You're making this much too complicated. My wife is fairly religious and attends church regularly. If she and the other congregants are treated well at church and she and her/our children are treated well at home, that's what forms her judgement about the church, home and other things in her life. She's interested in the here-and-now as much as she's interested in the hereafter. She's not ignorant of the bible or the history of the church, but she doesn't obsess on it either. Most women are more pragmatic than you give them credit for.
I don't know if I would call it pragmatic. It's actually either willful ignorance or that they managed to interpret things favorably. Both old and new testament maintain a subordinate position for women that is difficult to get around. The overused "Deborah" defense is virtually impossible to harmonize with the rest of the bible. In any event, I get what you are saying overall about it boiling down to treatment. Many women are quite content with how they are viewed by religion and embrace the typical and historical role. There's nothing inherently wrong with the traditional role of women. But the trade off for women, known as carrot and stick, is that in accepting the traditional role, they will receive the characteristic of being "godly" and "virtuous." And as per the religion, that is something to be esteemed.
i think that is true but you should ask your wife if she found out the company she works for had a written policy that precluded women from some positions and told them they were a source of evil in the world,would she be ok with it?