and google can find most of 'em for you.
I was interested in the comments on women and temples in India in this thread.
http://www.chennaionline.com/columns/variety/2006/07sabarimala.asp... Should we be bothered when we see, even in the 21st century, a woman being prohibited from doing certain things, like becoming ordained or entering a temple, just because she is a woman?
But why does the temple board tell her so? It gives a smorgasbord of reasons: The 8 km trek to the temple along dense woods is arduous for women; Ayyappa is a bachelor God and his bachelorhood will be broken if he sees a woman; the 41-day penance for the pilgrimage, where one must live as abstemiously as a saint, cannot be undertaken by women - they are too weak for that; men cohorts will be enticed to think bad thoughts if women joined them in their trek; letting women into the temple will disrupt law and order; women's menstrual blood will attract animals in the wild and jeopardise fellow travellers; menstruation is a no-no for God.
And so the list of lame reasons grows. Don't think that no one has ever questioned the inanity of those reasons. Several Indian feminists have fought, and keep fighting, with the temple board in favour of the women devotees. But the temple board remains implacable. It is backed by enormous political clout, and poor Indian feminists, like feminists almost everywhere, must fend for themselves. It doesn't help that many Indian women are disinterested in any feminist struggle. They think that it is presumptuous for women to defy established customs. It is hard to rally them, especially when it involves flouting tradition or religion.
Nevertheless, many brave and, sometimes, distressed women, boldly try to go where no young woman has gone before. ...
We women have our own local fights to fight everywhere you go. (I gather that the temple in question, Sabarimala, is just about alone in not admitting women, and is also publicly funded, and there is a bit of a brouhaha going on in India about the whole thing.)
Menstruating women have been barred from doing all sorts of things in just about every culture throughout history and geography; some of the bans have extended to all women in the menstruating age bracket, just to be on the safe side. Menstrual blood is regarded as unclean -- it pretty much epitomizes all that is nasty and weird about women, who are of course just generally nasty and weird anyhow.
I would imagine that the current employment form question does have more to do with stupid stereotypes about women's health status than about our nasty and weird nature.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=f96299a4-954b-43e2-9933-2d42d2e890fa&State Principal Secretary (Health) Chandra lyengar said: "Health problems or aberrations are generally mentioned to assess the officer's physical fitness. But information on menstrual cycles is irrelevant." Other senior women officers termed the queries "insensitive".
They have decided to send a protest letter to the Centre, if required. Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) Chitkala Zutshi said she would seek clarifications from the Centre. A senior officer at the Prime Minister's Office, who declined to be named, was shocked when HT informed him about the new appraisal format.
"We will check on this," he said. Satyanand Mishra, secretary in the Ministry of Personnel at the Centre, said he had not received any complaint. He said the queries were based on advice from the Ministry of Health. "We sought the ministry's help to draw up a health-history format. I assume this will help evaluate the officer's fitness," Mishra said.