vision2020
RE: Criminal syllogism
Dale Courtney wrote:
"As my dad used to say, "that dog won't hunt." Courts have rejected that
argument, saying female breasts are different than male breasts because
they are generally understood to be "private areas."
*Some* (still backward) courts have rejected that argument, but, more
importantly, some courts are making progress in understanding the
discriminatory roots of such a ridiculous male propagated justification
for unjust and unequal treatment by the law.
That's what I hope for this community: that we make progress in
*eradicating* all the ways, legal and societal, an entire gender is
discriminated against.
Dale Courtney also wrote:
"There are myriad ways in which men and women are equal; there are
significant ways in which they are not. It is the difference which
liberals like to either ignore or pretend don't exist."
<sigh>
Yes, male & female chests are different, and I'm so weary of those who
support the discriminatory nudity ordinance trotting out the false
argument implying, and outright stating, that those of us who are
against it don't recognize a difference. Of COURSE we do.
However, as I pointed out the other day, male chests also develop
secondary sexual characteristics (which is what female breasts are) as a
result of puberty. Males are not legally required to "cover" those
changes, yet women are.
Justice dictates that *similar* (NOT same) circumstances warrant equal
treatment by the law.
Solely as a result of puberty, both males and female develop secondary
sexual characteristics of the chest area. Justice mandates that similar
(NOT same) circumstances *should* mean equal treatment: either both
genders keep their chests covered or both genders have a choice of
whether to cover those secondary sexual characteristics.
And, Mr. Courtney, the dog that *shouldn't* hunt is the "status quo"
argument that advocates the male-traditional model that breasts, and not
similar male secondary sexual characteristics, are sufficient
justification for unequal treatment and protection under the law. That
because males (in a male-dominated society where women have historically
been denied equal access to and participation in and protection by the
legislative and judicial systems) have been responsible for the sexual
objectification of female breasts within the legal system and elsewhere,
females should continue to be legally punished for the thoughts,
actions, and beliefs of men.
That's the dog that *shouldn't* hunt.
Times change, Mr. Courtney. Progress happens. Slavery has been
abolished, racism is no longer legally sanctioned (at least, in theory),
women can vote & own property & work outside the home & pay taxes & wear
pants & lots of other things :-) These are but a few examples of how
courts, which previously denied equal access and protection, have moved
forward.
It's time . . . past time . . . for more progress to be made. Some
jurisdictions are making that progress, and I want my community to be a
part of progress, *not* putting *new* laws on the books that continue
the unjust "status quo" of unequal protection.
Saundra Lund
Moscow, Idaho
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Back to TOC