Collective panties?! Relax, its just a discussion. I dont think it was ever implied in discussion where this set a precendent. In my own mind I wasnt thinking of a geographical place so much as thought patterns that persists in re women in the world in general. You know, I am a woman. These things are important to me. And the secular vs religious law thingy has always been a stone in my shoe. I mean I have to drag out my soap box occasionally. I read the original post as not so much about the case itself, more a question posed about the example this sets.
And, 007 offered dinner so it cant be all bad.
Quote:
Original Posting : I find it interesting that the court didn't hear any evidence about religion during the litigation, but the whole idea and precedence this creates by the way that I read it is that it creates a situation for women to be chattel. A possession or object instead of a person.
Quote:
reduced the woman — and by extension all women — to the status of goods whose acquisition could be renounced by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden impurities or defects in them.
Reading the above, just makes me shiver. I cannot believe that someone would be able to find something like this acceptable. Could someone divorce because of being sterile? having cancer? getting fat?
|
__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata
Last edited by girldetective; 06-04-2008 at 05:59 AM..
|