Well, smiting wasn't really the point... but I'm glad at least you see my points.
I apologize for what were really somewhat angry responses. At the end of the day, part of what motivates me is the law's expressive function here as much as anything else - frankly, I'm ashamed that my government is one of the few advanced democracies that doesn't see enshrining sex equality as a matter of law as an "of course" sort of thing.
I wouldn't want to impute any overt sexism to you; I'm sure where we disagree about gender roles, you have the best of intentions. But part of what got my ire up about this discussion (to bring it to a bit of a more abstract level) is that I felt as if there were *real* human problems at stake - educational access, job discrimination, medical care (e.g., even many gov't-employee health plans cover viagra but not birth control... and I know you're anti-BC, but I'm sure you can see how that might strike many folks as deeply unfair), etc. And it's being opposed to a very thin and abstract principle of minimizing laws. I'm too much of a pragmatist to be comfortable with that, and I'm also suspicious of the way that such libertarian impulses often play out into systems where the privileged are protected and the less privileged left vulnerable (even though no one "meant it") - e.g., the way that property rights are a no-brainer but sex and race equality are matters of dispute.
Anyway, just by way of explanation. And, no I didn't catch your comment about state laws (I responded from the email notification), so, yeah, sorry to sound extra-pedantic. As my comment showed, I didn't think about it initially either.
no subject
I apologize for what were really somewhat angry responses. At the end of the day, part of what motivates me is the law's expressive function here as much as anything else - frankly, I'm ashamed that my government is one of the few advanced democracies that doesn't see enshrining sex equality as a matter of law as an "of course" sort of thing.
I wouldn't want to impute any overt sexism to you; I'm sure where we disagree about gender roles, you have the best of intentions. But part of what got my ire up about this discussion (to bring it to a bit of a more abstract level) is that I felt as if there were *real* human problems at stake - educational access, job discrimination, medical care (e.g., even many gov't-employee health plans cover viagra but not birth control... and I know you're anti-BC, but I'm sure you can see how that might strike many folks as deeply unfair), etc. And it's being opposed to a very thin and abstract principle of minimizing laws. I'm too much of a pragmatist to be comfortable with that, and I'm also suspicious of the way that such libertarian impulses often play out into systems where the privileged are protected and the less privileged left vulnerable (even though no one "meant it") - e.g., the way that property rights are a no-brainer but sex and race equality are matters of dispute.
Anyway, just by way of explanation. And, no I didn't catch your comment about state laws (I responded from the email notification), so, yeah, sorry to sound extra-pedantic. As my comment showed, I didn't think about it initially either.