There is a protest in Tibet because a local cult forbids Buddhist nuns to drink alcohol. (This is a purely imaginary conceit of mine, of course!)
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), faced with the opposition of the locals, decides to ban alcohol from local supermarkets.
Explaining this hotly-disputed measure, a local official says:
Of course, we are perfectly secular, and do not have a problem with alcohol. However, we worry that if the shops are full of alcohol, Buddhist nuns will be forbidden by their fathers and husbands to go shopping. It is essential that Buddhist women are fully included in society. So in order to avoid the exclusion of Buddhist nuns or lay women from mainstream participation in society, we have to make this accommodation.
Is this an appropriate way of dealing with the matter of gender inclusion and gender equality and women’s liberty?
I.e. are the priorities of the CCP correct?
Or, are they treating the symptom, and not the disease?
What is the real problem here?
The lack of accommodations, or the kind of superstitious and male-centered ideological nonsense that leads to the demand for accommodations in the first place?
Is the best strategy to alleviate some of the symptoms, while leaving the root cause intact?