Whistler

Wake up and smell the coffee.

You have not shown what equality of the sexes means, nor how the sexes could ever be made equal, nor why they should, nor why relations between the sexes should not be consensual, nor why equality should be the aim of policy rather than individual fulfilment, nor why men should have any responsibility to satisfy women's reproductive interests, nor why women should not have a responsibliity to satisfy mens'.

All you have done is evade all the issues again, as usual, derailing the discussion with another screed of hateful bigotry, irrelevance about court applications for child custody, incoherent drivel about men owning women, and separate legislatures.

I having proved that your argument would require separate legislatures for all different minorities whatsoever, it is no answer to say the problem would be solved by "equitable" governance since
a) that was the issue supposedly requiring separate legislatures in the first place
b) you don't have any presumptive qualification to speak on what is equitable, since you're in favour of special privileges for women on the basis of inveterate bigotry against men, remember?

Therefore your own dopey argument, if accepted, would require separate legislatures for every conceivable category of minority whatsoever, and stop trying to squirm out of it.

I think, as usual, Jack Marx has this CEO issue pinned...

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/why_do_women_want_to_be_bastards/

A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) tall, which is approximately 4 inches (10 cm) taller than the average American man. 30% were 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height.[11] Similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m) in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height.[12]

See, it's nothing to do with life choices of women, short people of whatever gender just aren't suitable for the job.

It's really only a job for tall people. Hang on... I'd make a great CEO!

First time I have read Jack Marx and he nailed it. I like the bit about

<It is not, I think, from the burden of making decisions that she wishes to abdicate, but from the responsibility for them. She’d rather me be the (censored) responsible should everything go catastrophically wrong. Better to drive from the back of the bus than end up with a faceful of head-on collision.>

I wonder how common it is? >)

hi Jefferson, equal and the same are different otherwise women would never have been prohibited from governance.

Jefferson, you are simply ignoring the offspring in your analysis. Once the child is born, whatever the circumstances, then it requires certtain things. The question is how best to provide those things while not disadvantaging either parent. You correctly point out that the way it has been done is coercive of the father to the advantage of the mother, which is not ethically defensible, it seems to me. It would be equally wrong to suggest that the mother should bear all of the cost merely as a consequence of the division of labour involved in the reproductive act.

James, I liked that bit too. I've said for a long time that what women seem to want is 100% authority and 0% responsibility. The whole basis of so much of the ranting of the feministas is that they resent being held to account for their decisions and they demand that they the state ensures they don't have to be. I've said it before, but the whole current fuss around Feminism will become a thing of the past once the world runs out of cheap energy - we simply won't be able to afford to pretend that nature is irrelevant simply to suit the middle-class princesses.