Isn't it about time we called a spade a shovel ?
That the Arab moslem countries still have not been able to move out of
the 5Th century is a reflection of their intelligence.
That a man can say another man cannot see my wife is a reflection on
their intelligence in that they think their wife will be raped if another man sees her.

That ultimately is what it is about !

It is why a woman can not be with a man that is not her husband or
brother.
I find it hard to believe that their attitude to women is stuck where
it is because they do not have the intelligence to comprehend their
situation.
Why is their intelligence so compromised ?
I would suggest it is because they have practiced cousin marriage
for generations and generations.

The behavior of Arab and moslem male crowds reflect their problem.
They seem incapable of moderate protest. See their reaction to
Salmon Rushties book, the cartoons in the Danish newspapers, the
burning of the koran. These are typical behavior pattens of those
with intelligence related behavior problems.

All that is pretty harsh, I agree but someone had to throw aside the
polically correctness and say it out loud.

> Inconsistent with equality of the sexes under law. But if it's permissible, then how about anyone who's male is is entitled to special privileges? Nothing unequal in that, is there?

That's entirely different, it's a law targeting a group for biological characteristics (males) rather than for an action that is beneficial to society (giving birth). The law on giving birth attempts to compensate the person who has given birth for the loss that is required, in an attempt to effectively allow them to give birth without suffering for it.

There is a difference between equality under law and the identical treatment by the law. Equality under law can imply that the law recognises differences and then attempts to compensate for them.

Think about this as an example: the law discriminates against older people to the benefit of younger people. If a minor signs a contract, they are not bound by it until they affirm it at a later age. If an adult is on the other end, they are bound by it so long as the minor does not abrogate from it. This is not discriminatory - it is compensating for the inequality between the two people, in that the minor has less capacity to understand what they are doing.

>Because I have shown reason why it's impossible, and you are saying it can be done but haven't proved it, so the burden on you is to prove it can.

I also believe that people injured as a result of someone else's criminal act should be compensated so that it is as if they were never hurt. This is impossible - there is no way to give someone back their leg, the closest we can come is to try and put some kind of cash value on it, which is completely insufficient really.

By your logic, this would mean that because you can never compensate them in the right way, you shouldn't bother trying. My logic is saying that you can never compensate them in the right way, but you should do the best you can anyway.

NQD,

This is slightly off the current line of discussion, but I'm fascinated with your (no doubt, fairly accurate) summing-up of the reason that "compensation" is available in our society for giving birth.

Compensation for such an instinctual human undertaking could only come about in a society that is obsessed with defining all actions and their outcomes in monetary terms - of their representing monetary value, gain or loss.

Societies less obsessed with the motive of profit and more in tune with the intrinsic experience of their humanity would consider a live healthy child to be "compensation" for the act of birthing.

Just an observation....

NQD
Please define equality?

In this context, I think we're talking about social equality - which is a very broadly defined concept, but includes equal rights under law, as well as equal access to social services and equal opportunities in society.

And Poirot: I think the last point is key in terms of our discussion. There are many, many women in our society who will have a baby and that's all they want. There are others, however, who work and want to be able to enjoy everything that comes with motherhood, but also continue in their career. The parental leave scheme exists so that they have this option - it's not rejecting the idea that a baby has value in and of itself at all.

If there was no provision for parental leave, any woman having a child would be forced to choose between the child and her career, which definitely puts her at a social disadvantage compared to a man.

NQD
Your definition
a) is not a definition. I’m asking what equality is, not what it includes
b) is circular – equality includes equal A and equal B and equal C. But I’m asking what equality is, so saying it includes equality is not much of an advance, is it?
c) is internally inconsistent – equal rights under law are not consistent with policy treating people unequally but intended to effect equal opportunities, that’s the whole point
d) is impossible and therefore unreasonable
e) relies on privileging a minority group - (“the state”) - to claim for themselves the double standard of being able to use aggressive force as a means to ends they choose, while banning everyone else from the equal right of doing the same; and relies on allocating unequal benefits to different groups arbitrarily chosen by the group assigning itself superior status and power; thus it embraces and worsens inequality many times over and is hypocritical.

You have only proved my argument – it is meaningless and impossible to attempt to achieve equality of the sexes in respect of their biological differences, and attempting to do so by means of policy can only result in arbitrary and self-interested abuse of power whichever way it is attempted. The fact that one may be in favour of a particular abuse of power is irrelevant.

According to your logic, I would be entitled to handouts, specifically as a male, to engage in unprotected and uncommitted sex with many and various women, on the ground of the “social benefits” I would leave in my wake. I’m starting to come around to your point of view! But children are not a form of chattel belonging to the state or the community, their future efforts presumptively available to be expropriated to fund the benefits which the greedy and unprincipled covet, but aren’t willing to pay for themselves.