|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:20 PM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever happened to women wanting equality, it seems such a thing is not nearly enough.
When women start to die in numbers that equate with men in defending the country and building its future - only then should they prove entitled to 'claim' much of anything ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:48 PM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather that no one died, but I don't think that men should always be the ones required to do the dying.
More important is to give men equal protection under law, protection from feminist legal scams, some reproductive rights, more life choices other than being a wage slave for the wommin and childen, and equal rights to relationships with children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 11:15 PM March 6th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The more this happens the more its apparent women don't and never did want equality. Eventually guys will insist on true equality and there will be no inequality based on some vague notion that women need help for some exaggerated or imagined inequality somewhere else. I notice that if the man registers in her name and they divorce she gets the property. Time for some false DV allegations perhaps? There's already some concern about also dowry accusations on one Indian website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 10:17 AM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This is just going to make more of a mess all around. what happens when the govt finds out that the men are sending the women to make purchases to save tax money...
its similar in the states where men are putting their companies names and such in their wives name so that they can get all kinds of preferential treatment on taxes, loans, interest, zoning, double representation in govt contract solicitations...
on of the biggest jokes of women owned businesses being one of the fastest growing sectors is that its a mans company begin proxied by a woman (for mutual benifit).
i wish politicians would get a course in game theory at the very least. i have yet to see them realize that changing the rules changes the game. so whatever forces were at play when you decided to screw with it, are now a whole new set. so there really is no way to "adjust" things like this without creating a new mode of play. they keep thinking that the adjustment will take place and then people will just do the same thing except for the few that the adjustment affects. the truth is that something this large shifts the game...
try playing chess and just change the rooks to be like queens and see if its the same game.
the worst part....
is that the feminists will now scream that india is more progressive than america, australia, etc... and we should also make the same change here... especially since it will help all those single moms in the interest of the children.
Any movement forward anywhere is a movement forward everywhere eventually when it comes to this kind of thing.
maybe they might suggest that women should not have to pay any tax..
hang on its going to be a bumpy ride next election...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:27 PM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
They can add "not paying tax" to the list that includes "don't allow police to question if a woman is telling the truth [in domestic violence disputes]."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 02:08 PM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I would point out that the Supreme Court just yesterday based their decision to prohibit sentencing to death juvenile offenders BASED On INTERNATIONAL LAW. Regardless of how you feel about the death penalty, the precedent that's being set here will enable the United States Supreme Court to use this example to more explicitly do the same for American women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:25 PM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
so i guess i am not too far off base.. (i would rather have been wrong)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 09:51 PM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing personal, Dodger, but I would rather you had been wrong. The only thing that would save us from such a fate is the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the current Supreme Court is quite willing to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Mangesh writes "The