Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?

[Greatest I am]

Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?

I do for gays but not for women and children.

When it comes to women and children, I think men are duty bound to put family duty and responsibilities above themselves and thus men should not consider themselves as equal to women and children. Men should put the needs of women and children ahead of their own.

Think in terms of the good logic of the law of the sea and it being applied to land.

It is said by many that the courts favor women in most divorce cases. Given that almost 50% of all household are maned by single women, are our courts thinking more as I do and does that make them dishonest in terms of equality under the law?

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

[EquALLity]

Um.........

You're saying that men should put the needs of women over them because women are too weak to handle themselves?

...
........
................


K

[Greatest I am]

Um.........

You're saying that men should put the needs of women over them because women are too weak to handle themselves?

...
........
................


K

Um..... No. Some women can clean my clock if they chose to.

But that could apply in cases where physical strength is an issue. Like in the military.

First, depending on the position inside the military, and knowing that most women are not as physically strong as men, I think it would be hard on infantry men, for instance, to accept a woman watching their backs as compared to a man who can physically drag their wounded bodies out of a tight spot.

Where physical strength or endurance does not matter, the above would not be a problem.

Even today, with fire departments and other physically taxing work places wanting to increase the female population in their ranks, are having a hard time finding strong women.

PTSD would also likely go up with more women in the armed forces. I do not have proof of this but it seems to me to be what would happen.

Women, because of the above limitation, could not likely ever become half the military force so that equality might not even be possible.

Regards
DL

[EquALLity]

Um..... No. Some women can clean my clock if they chose to.

...

Ok?

But that could apply in cases where physical strength is an issue. Like in the military.

First, depending on the position inside the military, and knowing that most women are not as physically strong as men, I think it would be hard on infantry men, for instance, to accept a woman watching their backs as compared to a man who can physically drag their wounded bodies out of a tight spot.

Where physical strength or endurance does not matter, the above would not be a problem.

Even today, with fire departments and other physically taxing work places wanting to increase the female population in their ranks, are having a hard time finding strong women.

This topic is only relevant if we're talking about issues related to physical strength... you can't use it to make generalizations about the roles of men and women.

PTSD would also likely go up with more women in the armed forces. I do not have proof of this but it seems to me to be what would happen.

?
Um, because women being in the armed forces raises amounts of rape? Because that's not the fault of the women...

[Commissaris]

Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?

I do for gays but not for women and children.

Wat kind of legal rights and/or obligations should women and children have in your estimation that men shouldn't and vice versa? Maybe you have some kind of overview?

[Greatest I am]

Um..... No. Some women can clean my clock if they chose to.

...

Ok?

But that could apply in cases where physical strength is an issue. Like in the military.

First, depending on the position inside the military, and knowing that most women are not as physically strong as men, I think it would be hard on infantry men, for instance, to accept a woman watching their backs as compared to a man who can physically drag their wounded bodies out of a tight spot.

Where physical strength or endurance does not matter, the above would not be a problem.

Even today, with fire departments and other physically taxing work places wanting to increase the female population in their ranks, are having a hard time finding strong women.

This topic is only relevant if we're talking about issues related to physical strength... you can't use it to make generalizations about the roles of men and women.

PTSD would also likely go up with more women in the armed forces. I do not have proof of this but it seems to me to be what would happen.

?
Um, because women being in the armed forces raises amounts of rape? Because that's not the fault of the women...

I did not have rape in mind and I don't think it is a big factor in PTSD.

I was speaking more about how a man might be able to take the strain and guilt of killing his fellow man in combat better than women.

Perhaps I am just bias in thinking that women are not as violence prone as our testosterone makes men. Jail stats that sit at 95% male and 5% female seem to show the truth of this.

Regards
DL

P.S.
I noted your -- I am God -- in your display name. Are you a Gnostic Christian?
If so, thumbs up.

[Greatest I am]

Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?

I do for gays but not for women and children.

Wat kind of legal rights and/or obligations should women and children have in your estimation that men shouldn't and vice versa? Maybe you have some kind of overview?

There should only be one law for all. The extra I give women and children is out of personal duty based on the spirit of the law of the sea. The King fights for the Queen and children. He does not send the Queen out to fight for him. That kind of logic.

The only overview I have is the old Gnostic Christian view that we should consider all women and children as common male of the community property so as to put them above men.

That phrasing would not pass today but the spirit of it is kosher. That is in fact what we do when we send our boys to die in war.

Regards
DL

[Commissaris]

I'm trying to parse what you're arguing for, so here's my attempt:

Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?

I do for gays but not for women and children.

There should only be one law for all.

So you believe men, women and children should be treated equally by law. Got it.

When it comes to women and children, I think men are duty bound to put family duty and responsibilities above themselves and thus men should not consider themselves as equal to women and children. Men should put the needs of women and children ahead of their own.

Here you're not referring to legal inequality but rather a social or informal inequality where society should still effectively treat adult men and the others differently, specifically: adult men should (generally? always?) put the needs of the others ahead of their own. Why should they do that? You say this:

Think in terms of the good logic of the law of the sea and it being applied to land.

but I don't know what the 'law of the sea' means applied to this context. What do you mean by it? Why is it morally better to organize things in this way when compared to the alternatives?

It is said by many that the courts favor women in most divorce cases. Given that almost 50% of all household are manned by single women, are our courts thinking more as I do and does that make them dishonest in terms of equality under the law?

This seems like a non-sequitur to the other discussion but I'll respond briefly anyway.

I've heard this said about the US, yes, but I think we need data to discuss this or employ a hypothetical. If courts base their decisions on assumptions about the general ability of men and women to raise children well then that would be a violation of equal treatment under the law. If they're employing different reasons then it's not necessarily a violation of equal treatment under the law. In general I do believe people assume that children are better off with their mother than their father when forced to choose and I think those people should change their minds on that.

[Greatest I am]

I'm trying to parse what you're arguing for, so here's my attempt:

Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?

I do for gays but not for women and children.

There should only be one law for all.

So you believe men, women and children should be treated equally by law. Got it.

When it comes to women and children, I think men are duty bound to put family duty and responsibilities above themselves and thus men should not consider themselves as equal to women and children. Men should put the needs of women and children ahead of their own.

Here you're not referring to legal inequality but rather a social or informal inequality where society should still effectively treat adult men and the others differently, specifically: adult men should (generally? always?) put the needs of the others ahead of their own. Why should they do that? You say this:

Think in terms of the good logic of the law of the sea and it being applied to land.

but I don't know what the 'law of the sea' means applied to this context. What do you mean by it? Why is it morally better to organize things in this way when compared to the alternatives?

The law of the sea basically states that men are to put the needs of women and children ahead of themselves. It is better to organize ourselves that way because it follows natural law that has the males as the protectors of the tribe and not those perceived to be less fit at fighting.

It is said by many that the courts favor women in most divorce cases. Given that almost 50% of all household are manned by single women, are our courts thinking more as I do and does that make them dishonest in terms of equality under the law?

This seems like a non-sequitur to the other discussion but I'll respond briefly anyway.

I've heard this said about the US, yes, but I think we need data to discuss this or employ a hypothetical. If courts base their decisions on assumptions about the general ability of men and women to raise children well then that would be a violation of equal treatment under the law.

True, and that is just the courts thinking that the child is best served by a single mother than a single father. A position that I agree with in the majority of cases. That is a personal bias that seems to be more popular than the other that would favor fathers.

If they're employing different reasons then it's not necessarily a violation of equal treatment under the law. In general I do believe people assume that children are better off with their mother than their father when forced to choose and I think those people should change their minds on that.

I think every case will be different and no set standard can be used. Some single father can and do parent better than their ex and it is to the courts to evaluate each case on it's own facts and merits of the participants with the child in mind. It is the real victim of divorce.

Regards
DL

[Commissaris]

I think every case will be different and no set standard can be used. Some single father can and do parent better than their ex and it is to the courts to evaluate each case on it's own facts and merits of the participants with the child in mind. It is the real victim of divorce.

That is not close to response to everything you and I brought up. Please stop abandoning your stances without even acknowledging the shift and start discussing your position because at this rate I'm just going to focus my attention elsewhere.

I'm glad you're in favor of equal treatment under the law in divorce cases.