Does the Baha'i faith REALLY proclaim equality between men and women?

If women are prohibited from serving in the Universal House of Justic, doesn't that imply an inherent inequality?
Chester, I take issue with your statement as there are also inherent inequalities regarding inheritance (more given to men?), education (a daughters education a higher priority than a sons?), and pilgrimage not being required of women...
Chester, I do want to add that I appreciate your honest and well thought out reply, I just want to encourage an intellectual conversation about the subject.
"if viewed as "unequal", it would be so in favor of the women."

Correct, but is that not an inequality just the same?

yeah

If that's so then--women prohibited-- that is indeed INEQUALITY. As that faith, I understand, has its origins in ISLAM I can't see how it would even sorta be for equality between genders. Women are trash or less than trash in Islamic law.

All professed Baha'i persons I know are bent on saying we are all the same. I doubt it means women count as much as men--in their minds.

I believe Zoroastrianism does not differentiate between sexes insofar as rights, opportunity, and positions of responsibility and power. Gender is irrelevant.

if a women is not let to do somethings.. and only man can do it then it is unfair.. then woman is not treated equally.
what is the universal house of Justice? temple? anyway when someone say
hey u woman cant do this, this is job for man.. then it is very clear and transparent that man are treated greater than the woman...

I think this is so wrong but just because men and women are equal in the Bah?'? Faith, this equality does not imply sameness.

This is pretty much the only instance of any inequality between men and women in the Baha'i Faith. That being said, it's often mentioned and is rather a tricky question to answer since the reason isn't given. The only explanation is that one day it would be plainly apparent why it was set up this way.

And to serve on the UHJ doesn't imply power, influence, or being better in any sense whatsoever. One can think of the elected administration of the Baha'i Faith as sort of an upside down triangle - to be serve on the UHJ is to be at the bottom in a position of absolute service.

edit:

Dave - yeah, I was specifically thinking of the education part when I wrote the "pretty much". I guess I think that it less of an equality thing, and more of a "the sexes are different" thing. At least for the education part, I believe it was done that way because women are the first educators of the children, and so if it is only possible to educate one child, it should be the girls. In either case, if viewed as "unequal", it would be so in favor of the women.

edit #2:

I guess it can be if you really want it to be. The crux of the issue is that none of these laws were put in place to degrade women, but rather to lift them up. Above all though, I think it is important what *you* think. You are 100% entitled to the belief that the sexes are unequal in the Baha'i Faith. I'm glad that you have the courage to investigate and ask questions. Good luck on your search

This is one of the most thought provoking aspects of the Faith - how does equality of the sexes exist while this apparent inequality exist at the same time? In the Baha'i Writings it mentions that the explanation will be "made manifest even as the mid-day sun" in the future (which is good enough for me as a Baha'i) but there are some other thoughts that I have along these lines as well:

1) There are several places in Faith where seeming inequality or difference exist - educating daughters before sons (if you can only do one or the other) or giving the eldest son a larger portion of the inheritance if there is no will left by the parents. However, when you looking into this a bit further it can be found that the reason for these apparent "inequalities" has to do with a tie between rights and responsibilities. The mother has the role of the primary educator of the children and this role is so important that girls should be educated before boys (quote below). The eldest son is the one responsible for caring for elderly parents and therefore is the one who receives the house of the parents. Perhaps there is some tie between rights and responsibilities that we currently do not understand that would limit a women's ability to serve on the House of Justice.

2) Another issue is what are the job requirements for being on an infallible institution? There has never been an infallible institution established by the Messenger of God Himself and there is no way for us to understand the full requirements for a job like that.

3) Finally, as the second quote mentions below, through out nature there is "sex differentiation in function" but that does not mean that one sex or the other is better. These differences in function when properly followed often allow for the male and female sex compliment each other in function. Therefore, the equality mentioned in the Faith is not one of function but one of rights and station before God. So, assuming that one day we will know why women should not serve on the Universal House of Justice, the fact that they have different functions does not go against the inherent equality of sexes in terms of rights and station.

That is about it. Interesting question - it was fun to think about these issues for awhile.