What about the psychological damage an unfastened body can cause for others involved in the accident? Also, there is a good chance that the body itself can do further damage to other people or property after it is projected from the vehicle.

Your argument seems to be based on acceptance of sexism in today's religion. Rather opposing this discrimination against women, you are attempting to justify it. Accepting it as "it is what it is" will change nothing, and keep our generation in the dark ages. Talk of God giving man duty seems very medieval along with focus on the strength of mind and physique. Women are just as strong in the mind, and their bodies are physically stronger in many respects. Unfortunately, they are often compared to male strength in male oriented exercises, such as lift weights; however, if you were to examine their physiology, you would discover they are superior. The U.S. census data indicates that, on average, women outlive men by several years.

Feminism is a matter of respecting women as equals. I believe your still in a male perspective when you speak of feminism and of male duty. We need to evolve away from this segregation and accept nothing less than equality.

Polygamy is sexist. Sexism refers to discrimination based on gender. Polygamy says that a man can have more than one wife, not the other way around. How is this not discrimination? Polygamy is based on the heterosexual relationship between one man and more than one woman, which logic seems to indicate as one man equals more than one woman. It would be hard to argue against this.

Cultural acceptance of polygamy does not exempt it from being sexist; it only establishes a sexist practice as a norm.

Any inclusion of god or gods into a debate instantly creates endless possibilities and lacks application to daily life. A pragmatic philosophy based on one's own life experience could be much more compelling and useful. For example:

One should not kill because it is an act that impedes self-progression, compassionate understanding, and goes against what one would want done to themeless. Additionally, harming others will naturally lead towards mental discomfort.

versus

If you kill someone, you will go to hell.

A pragmatic approach promotes a higher level of understanding, that their moral action comes from their own doing compared with moral action committed as an effort to abide with dogmatic rules.

I appreciate her policy on a women's right to choose. I also am pleased that she does not support drilling off the shore of Florida.

Are you suggesting that women are more easily tempted into sin and that one of the roles of man is protector of women? I whole-heartedly disagree in the validity of either statement. Both represent an ignorant male perspective, negligent of a women's point of view.

I raise this question of sexual inequality to expose the weakness in modern organized religions and dogmas that are being devoutly followed by both genders and have been, from the time of their creation to present, controlled by men.

If the omniscient god is personified, as in a monotheistic religion, then as the story goes, "he" is all knowing. This abstract thought has baffled theologians and religious practicioners for centuries. Does this god let us do as we please, does he control our thoughts and behavior, or does he know our future and refrain from interfering???

In taking a more practical approach to questions of free-will, I suggest the person refrains from allowing God to interfere with their observations of the world around them. When we observe that which exists around us, we can begin to see clearly that our will is forged by our environment, the people in our lives, and culture and customs of our societies. For example, one could make the argument we can choose to pursue careers as an athlete or a doctor, we are heavily influenced by our parents, by the economy (which dictates the pay of these professions), the decisions of our role-models, the availability of education, and on and on. The choices we make are relatively small when compared to the overall influences governing them. I challenge you to think about the major decisions in your life. Contemplate how easily you could have chosen a different path, and why you made the decision you have. Trace your steps backward. Your career may have emerged from your college degree, which followed your course work and decision to declare a major. Perhaps your major was picked because you knew very little of your options, and had a semester with a very enthusiastic professor who simply suggested that you would be good in that particular field. Our free-will and influences can be traced in very real ways without the necessity to include the powers of God. Although the inclusion of a god variable is extremely intriguing, the debate exists in an abstract realm revealing very little insight.

Any compassionate person should be able to identify the inequalities in the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Judaism, and some forms of Buddhism). Sexism appears to be especially correlated with the words orthodox, catholic, and fundamentalist.