Of COURSE it is... because women were borne out of Adam's rib, so they aren't really important independent beings anyway...

I'm not saying that anything much is meant by that, but its a convenient example of how thoroughly embedded our society is with stuff that writes women out of the picture.

Using the expression 'mankind' to mean 'humankind' is standard, accepted, use. Its misogynistic roots are indeed obvious but the meaning of words does vary across time. I am happy to accept the evolved meaning of the word "Men" and would rather have that than going back and trying to edit the Declaration to fit the new meaning.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Which is backfiring because the state is ensuring it is perceived as coercive and discriminatory.

And the living side by side is failing as well. Seems we're all out of luck when it comes to immigration issues, then...

Quote:

... and hypocritically, the law makes them responsible for the act...

I think the idea was that no one would be wearing burqa as a consequence. In any case, for nth time, I don't support that law as such.

Quote:

So the correct response would be to make the bride and groom both guilty of being in an arranged marriage, even if the agents for that arrangement were their respective parents? That makes no sense, yet it is precisely what has been adopted for the burka. Surely it would make more sense to rule that a petition for divorce on the grounds that the marriage was arranged would be regarded favourably, and that possibly people might even be protected from familial retaliation.

See above.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.