Where is the 100% complete outrage for this treatment?

[efhmc]

Women ride in back on sex-segregated Brooklyn bus line. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2145795&mesg_id=2145795

If you do not see this as blatant discrimination, then you think discrimination is okay. In your imagination please place any other group of people as sitting in the front of that bus, make them move to the back of the bus and then see what you think is right. Do you think that practicing religion prejudice in a public area is legal and allowable because it's just about women. (A private company does not have the right to discriminate, especially when they are using public roads.)Would it be okay if a Christian group made all the Jews or Muslims move to the back of the bus because that is what their religion dictated? How about a religion based on discrimination against African-Americans? American Indians? Visiting Chinese? The overt, covert and prevalent discrimination against women is so deeply rooted in the US that I don't think it will ever be eradicated. This needs to be fought.

[Arugula Latte]

1. Disgusting and outrageous.

You are right. If these religious extremists made African Americans (or gawd forbid, Christians!) ride in the back, there would be hell to pay.

This is yet another example among millions of religion breeding stupidity and oppression. And religion is NOT exempt from criticism or ridicule, in spite of what many DUers insist.

[efhmc]

4. Yet as usual, there is no outcry of discrimination. After all

religions precluding rights for anyone without a penis is their right, even in a society that supposedly practices nondiscrimination of all of its citizens. Shirley Chisholm said often that she always met more discrimination being a woman than being black.

[tblue]

2. Ok. Who unrec'd this?

This 2nd class citizenship is a manifest outrage -- the kind of BS we condemn Saudi Arabia for. Not in my country!!!

[msanthrope]

3. I did. There's a few other active threads already on this subject.

Reposts of the same topic become vanity....

[efhmc]

5. There are never enough threads about misogyny,

especially on DU.

[msanthrope]

6. There are always enough threads about other threads. Really, was your OP so

special it couldn't have been a reply post on the thread you referenced in your OP?

I suppose you aren't any worse than the OPs who reference a mere tweet, or some random guest on a political show on cable...

[LoZoccolo]

7. Or posts that only contain text in the subject line.

[HappyMe]

9. ....

:spray:

[msanthrope]

10. Don't you hate that? That's why I never respond to those threads.

;)

[efhmc]

11. Thanks for your analysis of my passion about discrimination

against women. I started a reply to the original thread but felt moved to write something separate from it. Progressive feminist issues are sorely neglected on this site. That is my personal opinion. Yours is probably different. If vanity equates to passion for a subject that I feel strongly about, then so be it.

[msanthrope]

13. I don't doubt your passion. Merely question how you chose to express it.

I think the thread in the OP deserved the bump of your reply.

You thought your reply deserved its own thread.

Omnia Vanitas.

[efhmc]

14. What concerns me about this whole "vanity" issue is the idea

that starting a separate thread is suspect as just wanting to be seen because your opinion is so important that it needs to be shared on the whole board. I think this squashes free expression, but I don't plan on doing it again because what I wanted to share seems to have gotten lost in a website fax pas and that is not what I wanted to accomplish.

[HappyMe]

8. I beg to differ, but that's just me.

:shrug:

[itsallhappening]

16. LOL

[tblue]

15. What is the big deal about reposting? It's not always "vanity".

Who has time to scroll down to see what was posted 3 hours ago?

Sometimes it's worth it to make sure something doesn't be buried & missed.

[efhmc]

17. That is exactly what happened.

[Obamanaut]

18. dupe, delete

[Obamanaut]

19. If the rant that was posted as the OP in this thread had been posted as a response

in the other one, that would have 'kicked' it to the top of the page of GD. Not buried. At the top. Not easily missed.

And I suspect you know that.

[efhmc]

20. What are you talking about? I did not sit here and try to

devise a way to get noticed. I am a 68 year old feminist who sees the world, even the so called progressive world, still treating women as less than human. I wanted to express that idea and offered my opinion on this site. Somehow I thought that DU was the place to do it. Why are you so opposed to people (women)wanting to express their passionate thoughts about the wrongs of this world? Because they have already been addressed. discussed. and analyzed to your satisfaction? Your reaction really goes to to prove the "point" I tried to make in this thread.

[Obamanaut]

21. The rant, or opinion, would have fit in just as well on the original thread, and would

have served to keep it on page 1 of GD, possibly gathering more views/responses.

It appears the sensitivity level is set rather low, as evidenced by the last response.

[Obamanaut]

12. I did. The thread referenced in the OP is on the GP, with numerous 'recs'. There is no

need for a thread referring to that thread to be on the GP as well.

The OP's 'outrage' would have made a nice response, and that response would ensure the parent thread would remain on page 1 of GD, with the 'recs' keeping it on GP.

[AverageJoe90]

22. Never did like those stinking Haredis. nt