Cornflower,

Lots of undesirable practices are not against the law. That doesn't mean they are above criticism. Over time, the weight of public opinion in many instances creates changes in the law to make those previously unacceptable practices illegal.

Of course there will always be privileged groups who want to preserve their cosy arrangements. Self-interest is a powerful force against socially-desirable reform.

I think if you had an open mind on this issue you would see a world of difference between discrimination that requires the force of law and discrimination that ends as a result of education and changes of attitude. You would also see that after centuries of discrimination it is sometimes necessary to introduce positive discrimination as special measures for a specified time and specified context.

In essence, anti-discrimination laws are designed to ensure that the best-qualified and most meritorious person is appointed to the position (your examples - barrister, surgeon and CEO are exactly right). In the past - and some instances today - people who would be meritorious are not give an equal opportunity to compete with the people of privilege.

Pynchme,
I understand you very well. You are giving support to Nina and her article about a nothing matter.

You misunderstand me. I'll make it as plain as I can. I do not care if Nina is a feminist, fascist,communist, moralist, capitalist or any other 'ist'. There are many important and valid issues to write about. The examples I gave were but two that should be obvious to any woman.

I am quite positive any child can come up with issues of far more benefit to everyone than the stupid subject she chose. Its a nonsense article. A waste of time, energy and paper and without even the slightest entertainment value. To me it reflects the authors priorities.

banjo here is some advice. Instead of reading stuff you're not interested in and then whinging about it afterwards.... repeatedly...why don't you go and write your own god damn article. Nothing is stopping you. And as it turns out I've written dozens of articles over the years and many of them have been on hard hitting subjects. The fact that you don't find this an interesting or engaging subject is of little or no concern to me- go read something you do enjoy. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to FGM why don't you go spend some time there instead of complaining that this thread is not a reflection of your own interests.

First l will acknowledge my tendency to project and understand the satisfaction that comes from pointing that stuff out. Still, its possible to take the ego/self outta the frame or at minimum acknowledge its clouding influences, whilst still being able to speak to an IDEA in a rational manner.

Seeker,
yes l agree, psyche of patriarchy is dark (and deep). Takes dark to see dark. By examining mine own shyte, l get insight into method (which follows motivation). Men are at least as oppressed by that stuff. Like women, men have been sold a bill of goods. With men its done agressively/directly, with women its passive/indirect.

nina,
l dont think there is such a thing as 'natural rights'. All are constructed, boiling down to assertion of one's claims (in this case, rights). It can be done logically (consistent) and reasonably (fair), which is my preference. Or we can go primitive and start effecting a base relationship to reality, namely the physical. Hopefully humans will evovle beyond incessant self-interest, egotism, emotion, instead trusting in reason.

SJF,
damsel-lancelot dichotomy persists b/c its so base, so id in nature, its hard to push away. Carrot-stick approach. The idea is intoxicating, feels good in a short-term rush sort of a way, but the hangover is very bad. Addiction to (delsuion induced) feeling is what keeps it alive. Its also a social convention thing, folks fall into line, go with the flow, dont rock the boat. Path of least resistance... definitely human, maybe arising out of the want for peace, plus avoiding problems (fear). Takes a lot of effort to push past. Ressentiment develops b/w the sexes (social classes) as a result of falling into conditioned roles, adjusting our true natures, pandering to each others insecurities. Tiresome stuff at the best of times. The sexes constantly adjust in order to make oneself desireable to that which is desired. And also set each other up for co-dependency. Its obvious in how parents raise their kids. Difficult stuff to get past.

ninaf, while ever you can field dress your kill as you did banjo, the choice of names is yours.

banjo - OLO is about many subjects. Often there are lighthearted ones that aren't hard-hitting.
If you really have no issues with it, why does this one provoke your ire, as opposed to the many, many other articles along such lines?

That's what make OLO interesting. A wide diversity of pieces, with differing levels of complexity, seriousness, controversy and humour.

nina, I must disagree with your comment about rights being inalienable. Whilst I agree that every society should strive for equal rights and anything less than equal rights regardless of race or gender is inexcusable, I still believe rights are still a human construct, and that any particular society will view them differently.

That doesn't mean oppressive views should be acceptable to us. Nor do I advocate a post-modernist approach of viewing such differing societies as equally valid.
But to me, the only things that are inalienable are things that are physical realities which can't be changed. Everything else is fluid. So it's more a matter of a semantic viewpoint than anything else.

So in a sense I agree with some of trade215's points, that rights are simple a product of enlightened people who have seen that this is a better way to develop a society.
That's why I don't have problems with bills of rights like other people do - many believe that a bill of rights is simply a transfer of power from the legislature to the judiciary.
I view it as entrenching rights a little more, making them harder to trample underfoot. Usually, opponents of human rights legislation, tend to be those who favour the conservative, traditionalist status, which also often hinges on certain gender roles and viewpoints.
It's interesting how often the opposition to human rights legislation comes from voices who also favour conservative religious attitudes, but ask any one of them and they'll say it's purely a coincidence. I do have issues with many aspects of the adversarial legal system, but I think the problems with human rights legislation tend to be overstated.