[Tndfpcin]

We do neither. You are constructing a false dilemma; the two solutions you have proposed are not the only ones available, and don't even really frame the debate in a meaningful way.

[bUqLfXRI]

After 20 or so posts this thread might as well be called. "Is the f-word always bad part 2" by aneeshm...

Everyone should stop wasting his time.

[RogHammon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Your peculiar definition of "internally logically consistent" precludes any such solution. Indeed, we can "have assumptions of equivalence in one sphere and those of non-equivalence in another." As long as you believe we can't however, the only solutions that are going to seem "consistent" to you are the ones you've presented us with. No, I'm not talking about acknowledging differences in on area but not in another, I'm talking about whether or not we assume such differences can exist in the first place.

[avavavava]

Originally posted by BeBro
Easy answer - when making policy you count in the differences in certain fields, and not in others, depending on the issue. There is nothing inconsistent about it.

Example:

Equal: voting rights for men/women

Different: special protection or benefits for pregnant women So you acknowledge that policy must take differences into account, and therefore implicitly accept that such differences exist, and must base itself on this acceptance?

[DoctorWeryDolt]

Originally posted by aneeshm
So you acknowledge that policy must take differences into account, and therefore implicitly accept that such differences exist, and must base itself on this acceptance? I think you'll find that most people acknowledge that policy must sometimes take difference into account, and that some differences do exist, especially the obvious physical ones.

[77chawzence]

Note that if we assume equivalence, then things like the man paying alimony and child support go out the window. There is also no division of assets or income mandated between the two partners in a marriage in case of divorce. What kind of Idiocy is this?? Child Support and Alimony do not go out the window in any way. Child Support is based on the principle that anyone who creates a child must continue to provide for their financial care after a divorce. Its only because of the wage rates of males are typically higher and woman typically receive custody in a divorce that you assume Child Support is always payed by fathers to mothers but their is nothing in the principle that says this must be so, I would not be at all surprised to find examples of 'reverse' child support though they would certainly be very rare. Likewise Alimony is based on the principle of supporting ones former spouse in the lifestyle they have become accustomed too and I believe it is becoming increasingly common for it to be payed by women to men.

I recognize that equivalence is not in reality true but I feel that it should be the goal of our legal system and society in general to archive as much equivalence as is practical. The example of special protection/benefits for pregnant women such as guaranteed maternity leave is a good example ware it might be argued we cant have equivalence, we can all agree men don't physically NEED maternity leave but theirs no real harm done to give it to them as well to archive equivalence before the law, that should be the spirit of the law in my opinion.

[M1zdL0hh]

I feel that the feminists are wrong but I don't know what to think.

[Heliosprime]

Originally posted by aneeshm
If one of the assumptions which must be made while deciding policy is that differences exist, then does this not also mean that the objectives to which policy strives are also affected by said differences, and that the differences must be taken into account when deciding what objectives policy and law is supposed to have? This is so vague as to be meaningless. In some cases, differences are germane to policy; in others, they are not. It is certainly not an assumption that needs to be made in all policies, or even in most policies.

You're trying to force the false dilemma again - "either differences exist and must affect policy, or they don't and must not!" The answer is that sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about that.

[bingookenoo]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

You're trying to force the false dilemma again - "either differences exist and must affect policy, or they don't and must not!" The answer is that sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about that.
Absolutely correct! Which means that one starting assumption is that differences can, in fact, exist.

This also means that not only the policy, but also the objectives of policy must take into account those differences. Agreed so far?

[envenonearo]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

No.

As stated earlier, in situations where the difference is total - e.g. wombs versus no wombs - it should be. In cases where the difference is a tendency, it should not be.
I'm not talking about how policy is made relating to specific instances, or even tendencies, I'm talking about whether or not, during the formulation of objectives of policy, differences should be taken into account or not.

[illerlytoindy]

Originally posted by aneeshm



What are your views on this?

[Ifroham4]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Note that if we assume equivalence, then things like the man paying alimony and child support go out the window. There is also no division of assets or income mandated between the two partners in a marriage in case of divorce. California does not have "alimony" as you describe it but rather "spousal support." For example, when a woman is the breadwinner, she is required to make payments to the man. Child support goes to whichever person is raising the child.

[Progniusis]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I'm not talking about how policy is made relating to specific instances, or even tendencies, I'm talking about whether or not, during the formulation of objectives of policy, differences should be taken into account or not. Easy answer: no. Slightly more complicated answer: even if you acknowledge differences, you still make policy that doesn't.

Women can get pregnant, men can't. But you still formulate the policy as a policy for any pregnant person; should a man, through some miracle, become pregnant, he may avail himself of the policy unproblematically.

Women tend to lack the upper-body strength of men. But you don't make a man/woman policy on, say, being a firefighter; you make an upper-body strength policy -- one that some women (like a positively Amazonian cop friend of mine) could pass and some men (I'm guessing most everyone who spends all day on Poly) could not.

Women live longer than men. But you still pick one sex-neutral retirment age for the society.

And so on. Get it?

[Beerinkol]

Originally posted by Az
Women live longer than men. But you still pick one sex-neutral retirment age for the society.

not in all countries. Didn't know that; still, one age for all is better,


Generally, the laws of today are just fine, In the West, anyway.

except the fact that women are given custody of children more often because of some voodoo "baby always loves mommy better" misconceptions... And this, of course, is not policy; it is a failure to implement policy with neutrality. 150 years ago (in the US, anyway), custody would have almost always gone to the father because of a different set of social prejudices.