Female flesh is quite often the bait for the hook of Dharma. It is simply gross to assert that modern eyes are weighted down by feminist-historical criticism rather than liberated from sexist practices and sexist readings of history.
=========================================
Indeed, such an assertion would be "gross" but happily, this is not what I wrote nor the intention of my words.
In matters of critical analysis - Marxist, feminist, etc. - I follow the wisdom of departed Brit physicist David Bohm who wrote that good theories, unlike bad ones, are true "but only up to a certain point."
Which is to say, much has been illuminated by the feminist POV you've presented but it's not the only accurate way to see the issue at hand.
As I stated in my previous post (at the very tippy top as I recall), I don't argue against, disagree with or otherwise challenge the critiques of Buddhism you quoted and the line of reasoning you're following. In short, I don't dispute the existence of misogyny throughout the Buddhist tradition but that wasn't the focus of my post.
My focus was on the full flavor of the very old story of Siddartha in the harem -- part of a larger tale -- you cited as evidence of Buddhist misogyny.
I suspect this will fail to move you, which is fine. Indeed, you've already explained your dis-interest in interpretation, original sources and so on:
"I'm interested in the history of religion, not the philosophy of religion. And I *totally* excuse myself from discussing doctrine / belief / or authentic tenets."
Which means we are actually talking, as the old saying goes, at cross purposes.
DRM