"A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate...."

[aneeshm]

The quote in the thread title is one of my own.

It relates to the principles to be followed when formulating policy. I came up with it when posting to that last thread about feminism.

The question here, a question which I consider quite important, is this: When making policy, do we work under the assumption that men and women are EQUIVALENT, and therefore that all laws relating to them must be exactly the same, and that gender should play no role at all? Or do we work under the assumption that they are not equivalent, and that therefore laws and policies must be formulated keeping in mind, and accounting for, all differences?



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.

OTOH, if we do not assume equivalence, then this affects ALL matters of policy, not just one, and we cannot have assumptions of equivalence in one sphere and those of non-equivalence in another. This will most likely piss feminists and (hypocrite-type) liberals off tremendously.

The statement "A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate" posits one solution to this problem.





What are your views on this?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The question here, a question which I consider quite important, is this: When making policy, do we work under the assumption that men and women are EQUIVALENT, and therefore that all laws relating to them must be exactly the same, and that gender should play no role at all?

All citizens of a country should be equal under the law, regardless of their genitalia. Theres no need to look down before granting a citizen equal rights.

 

[aneeshm]

All citizens of a country should be equal under the law, regardless of their genitalia. Theres no need to look down before granting a citizen equal rights.

All citizens are equal - but are the EQUIVALENT? That is, are they the same in every regard, with no differences whatsoever?

 

[Brighteye]

We assume that they're all human, and capable of human actions. People are different in many areas, not just which sex they are, but the law makes no allowance for this, and rightly so.
The law should refer only to humans and actions they can do, rather than specific segments of the population.

 

[aneeshm]

We assume that they're all human, and capable of human actions. People are different in many areas, not just which sex they are, but the law makes no allowance for this, and rightly so.
The law should refer only to humans and actions they can do, rather than specific segments of the population.

Would a strict enforcement of this ideal not mean that:

a) No alimony
b) No child support

would be enforceable under the law, given that the two partners in a marriage are treated as exactly and precisely equal AND equivalent?

 

[Brighteye]

Not necessarily. The law could simply state that the partner not in custody of children produced by that partner should pay some money towards upkeep of the children, without specifying anything further.

That's how laws should be phrased, rather than 'man gives, woman receives'.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I think.. when we want to create law that are equal in the spirit of justice, then we are going to have to recognize difference between the sexes. But only to a limit.

In other words, I think when making policy we should consider both sexes as equal, but we should always recognize and allow exceptions for the sake of sanity, common sense, and 'universal' morality (allowing more time off for women for pregnancy is a good example, or making the man pay extraordinary child support if the woman is the one who take care of the children).

 

[Truronian]

We assume that they're all human, and capable of human actions. People are different in many areas, not just which sex they are, but the law makes no allowance for this, and rightly so.
The law should refer only to humans and actions they can do, rather than specific segments of the population.

/\ What he said.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

All citizens are equal - but are the EQUIVALENT? That is, are they the same in every regard, with no differences whatsoever?

Why would a persons sex determine how the laws of the land apply to them? I dont see the connection.

 

[Stylesjl]

Laws should be gender blind except in the case of strict biological differences. After all, laws relating to pregnency don't apply to males, right?

 

[aneeshm]

Why would a persons sex determine how the laws of the land apply to them? I dont see the connection.

If we assume that men and women are equivalent, for instance, then the only way to "ensure" equality is to force men to take paternity whenever their SO is on maternity leave. Trying to cop out by saying that "Any person who is pregnant..." is a cop-out, because it is an implicit acceptance of difference, because only women can get pregnant. Either that, or we make no provisions for maternity at all, and assume that women are equivalent to men.

 

[aneeshm]

Laws should be gender blind except in the case of strict biological differences. After all, laws relating to pregnency don't apply to males, right?

So you support the abolition of the legal enforceability of alimony and child support laws?

 

[Tee Kay]

Agreeing with brighteye. Child support does not necessarily have to be limited to gender differences.

 

[Stylesjl]

So you support the abolition of the legal enforceability of alimony and child support laws?

Do the current laws specifically mention that gender is a factor in the descision? If so, then yes. Women deserve no special priviliges

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Laws should be gender blind except in the case of strict biological differences. After all, laws relating to pregnency don't apply to males, right?

Isn't Australia a common law country? I wouldn't be surprised if it was a judge who arbitrarily made up exceptions derived from gender-neutral labor laws for women with pregnancy rather than the legislative.

 

[Stylesjl]

Isn't Australia a common law country? I wouldn't be surprised if it was a judge who arbitrarily made up exceptions for women with pregnancy rather than the legislative.

I don't actually know, but i'm sure legislation does mandate some form of alimony or child support for a partner taking care of a child after divorce

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If we assume that men and women are equivalent, for instance, then the only way to "ensure" equality is to force men to take paternity whenever their SO is on maternity leave. Trying to cop out by saying that "Any person who is pregnant..." is a cop-out, because it is an implicit acceptance of difference, because only women can get pregnant. Either that, or we make no provisions for maternity at all, and assume that women are equivalent to men.

You mean if the law says that women have a right to maternity leave when pregnant, then men should also be granted the right to take paternity leave, when their wives become pregnant? I dont see why men shouldnt be allowed to take some form of paternity leave, when necessary.

Im with you as far as alimony is concerned, but why would child support go out the window? Men and women being equal wouldnt mean that men are freed from their parental responsibilities.