Whistler, in the past husbands could have and have been gaoled for debts incurred by their wives. Where is the patriachial power and privilege in this.

If I recall correctly the life insurance business was created by some baptist ministers, as a way and means to provide financial support for the widows and children of ministers who passed away.

Making slanderous accusations.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/time-for-the-age-to-apologise/story-e6frfifx-1225948011596

Erin Pizzey wrote that 60 out of the first hundred women who came to her shelter, that these women were as violent, if not more violent than the husbands that they had left.

Whistler has merely gone from bitter prejudiced personal argument to bitter prejudiced general argument. Her argument is essentially that no man may presume to question her authority, and that any man who does is mentally ill.

The ludicrous idea that women are a subject political class under the ‘supervision’ of men, on the ground that men form the majority of politicians, would apply to any minority. Presumably we should have a separate legislature for Somalis, Sufis, and short people with red hair?

Furthermore according to that dopey theory, since male suffrage was itself the outcome of the reform acts of the nineteenth century, the minority of men who satisfy the criteria for voting before the reform acts, (adjusted for inflation, naturally) have the political “supervision” of the rest of the men who are mere disadvantaged dependents. And since that minority derived their advantage from Parliament, and Parliament in turn derived its authority from the curia regis, the King’s council, and it in turn from the King, therefore all men in Australia are dependent on the “supervision” of the current sovereign – who, in case you haven’t noticed, is a woman.

Underneath the constant stream of insult and abuse that comprises the substance of whistler’s argument, is the same old double standard: women should have equal rights *and* equal outcomes. But when we try to find out the reason that would justify this, we find only the same hypocrisy and double standards I have pointed out.

None of the feminists in this thread have been able to refute that:
1. equality of the sexes is literally meaningless except in a given abstract purely formal sense
2. there is no way they could ever be made equal
3. even if there was, there is no reason why equality, rather than individual liberation, should be the criterion of policy
4. any attempt to make the sexes equal must be a mere cipher for a particular arbitrary exercise of power biased in favour of the particular interests of one sex – there is no possible alternative
5. therefore feminist policy is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

It is also blatant dishonesty to keep attempting to run all issues into gender, the assumption being that the differences between the sexes are mere “gender roles”, which can be changed at will. We haven’t begun to enter onto gender issues yet, because the feminists have been unable to show that policy could ever deal with the *sexual* differences on terms of equality.

The feminists have failed to address themselves to the central issue. If all relations between the sexes were required to be consensual (they are opposed to it), and if the only laws permitted were those which applied equally to both (they are opposed to it), then given the natural differences between the sexes, the outcomes would not be equal. Why not? Because the sexes aren’t equal in the first place and no-one can prove that they are.

(Grim’s attempt to prove that they are equal was instead to assert that they should be equal, but a) that is to admit that they aren’t, and b) it still shows no reason why they should be.)

That is why the only response of whistler and pelican are various species of personal argument – because they are utterly unable to hold up their own end of the argument or refute mine.

Jefferson
What arguments? You haven't given any for instances or examples and have only made broad generalised 'motherhood' type statements.

What points you have made have been refuted or in some cases there has been an admission of inequality on both sides.

I for one am a bit sick of gender politics and would much rather talk in terms of individual responsibility but responsibility means just that - not some design to transfer responsibility to anyone other but ourselves which is about all I can glean from your big picture statements.

A judge would be rightfully reluctant to give custody of a child to an applicant who expressed the view telling the truth is an expression of hatred or that a person should not be responsible for indebtedness incurred by property they own (English law once applied this responsibility equally to women, horses, sheep and cattle), which is precisely why some men have problems with women and the Family Court. Men have enacted laws to protect citizens from scoundrels, reprobates and those who shirk their duty of care. Equitable governance between women and men delivers equitable governance to all demographics comprised of women and men including "Somalis, Sufis, and short people with red hair" while the monarch performs a ceremonial role in a constitutional democracy for those who don't already know. Men have exercised their genius to transform the despotism some males still champion into egalitarianism. There's hardly any men left in Australia who don't support the view women are entitled to exactly the same instruments of governance men granted themselves. A referendum on equal rights between women and men with governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees would be a certainty to succeed if conducted this Saturday.

What arguments? The five points above.

Females do not have the same liability or risk in having a specific child that males do. Do you deny it?

Thus:
1. the sexes are not equal and it is meaningless to say they are. Yes?
2. they cannot be made equal without bias against one. Correct?
3. even if they could be, which they can't, there is no reason why they should be? True?
4. you have not established any reason why men should have "responsibility" for reducing the particular liabilities and risks that females have in reproduction - as a sex, not a gender. According to your theory that there is no natural law, and only social conditioning, there is no reason why the law should not be the other way around - enforcing "responsibility" on women not to discriminate against men wanting to have casual sex with them, *and* leaving women to bear the entire cost of motherhood.
5. thus your argument is is completely, reflexively biased and sexist. It is self-contradictory and hypocritical. You consistently conjure "responsibilities" in respect of male, and "rights" in respect of female differences, without ever coming up with a principle that could be applied equally regardless of sexual differences.

You have only responded to these arguments by personal arguments directed at me, or by caricatures of my argument, or by generalisations.

You have never given any reason why there is a male responsibility to satisfy womens' reproductive interests, but not a female responsiblility to satisfy mens'?