Turkey Writes In Law That Men And Women Are Equal

	posted by Nightmist on Friday November 23, @12:03PM from the inequality dept.
	This story in the Chicago Tribune reports on new legislation to equalize men and women (particularly in divorce) in Turkey. The legislation was lauded by a women's group calling themselves "The Flying Broom," but what's more interesting is the fact that the legislation genuinely seems to promote equality rather than privelege of women over men. Previously, in a divorce women were entitled only to property legally registered in their names. Now, property and assets are to be divided equally. At the same time, men will be able to seek alimony from wives. Of course, we'll need to wait and see how Turkey interprets the application of the law toward men down the road.

<  Activism Project: The Plight of Afghan Men | YWCA of Middle Tennessee Launches Hate Campaign Against Boys  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

About property division by Adam H (adam@mensactivism.org) on Friday November 23, @12:44PM EST (#1) (User #362 Info) I got a question, if property is in one person's name (would this be the man more often than not?) why should their partner get half of what's not theirs? I mean, isn't this really a creeping form of communism AKA Karl Marx saying " all property is theft"? the question here is, seeing what's happening to guys in divorce, should we not be opposed to this as the nearest man would be the one who who gets shafted nine times out of ten? BTW Spot the quote: "we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes." Guess where that's from? that was from NOW's founding statement in 1966. The National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose They changed their tune fast enough....

Re:About property division by Subversive on Friday November 23, @08:33PM EST (#2) (User #343 Info) I got a question, if property is in one person's name (would this be the man more often than not?) why should their partner get half of what's not theirs? I'm sure you already know the answer to this. Marriage is traditionally assumed to be a "partnership," into which both parties put their entire lives including all of the property the own (barring a pre-nuptual agreement). In countries where until recently wives needed their husband's permission to work outside the home, my guess is that not a lot of jointly owned property actually gets listed under both names. If judges here were to divide joint property of a marriage equally, that would be an enormous boon to American men. We should be so lucky. I mean, isn't this really a creeping form of communism My personal opinion is that overuse of the word "communism" comes across about as well as overuse of the word "fascist." (I outgrew calling Ronald Reagan a fascist when I stopped being a teenager.) ----- This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.

Re:About property division by Adam H (adam@mensactivism.org) on Friday November 23, @09:16PM EST (#3) (User #362 Info) Which brings to something else: how are you to know how much they did during the marriage? a one judgement fits all idea is a world class kind of insanity, And nobody says what women own is for the nearest man's taking do they? And how the hell did I overuse communism? I only said it once.

Re:About property division by Subversive on Friday November 23, @10:14PM EST (#4) (User #343 Info) Which brings to something else: how are you to know how much they did during the marriage? Doesn't matter. That's why people need to use wisdom in choosing their life partners. a one judgement fits all idea is a world class kind of insanity, Well, I agree with you there. I think equal division of joint assets during the dissolution of a partnership should be a standard subject to modification by things like fraud and infidelity. And nobody says what women own is for the nearest man's taking do they? Marriage is more than proximity. That's why the priest usually says that "marriage is not to be entered into lightly." And how the hell did I overuse communism? I only said it once. IMHO any use of the word "communism" to describe things like Democrats is overuse. IMHO so was your use. I think your argument would be more persuasive without the use of such hyperbole. Btw, I hope I am not insulting you--that is not my intention. I just disagree with you, is all. ----- This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]