In what context could those statements (1) make any sense, or (2) be in any way acceptable? And further, you wrote one piddling paragraph. Any reader can plainly find the context: It is that you believe in gender roles so strong, it sounds as though you are an early 19th-century time traveler who just hopped out his ship. You conceal this in what I think boils down to, "men are better at everything," but it's clear you think that women belong in the kitchen and men in the mineshaft (especially when reading your other comments for this article).
If traditional gender roles are NOT so strong with you, why you are the one so strongly defending "XIX Century" role of a father "provider" who can't be a good parent and gets the children in less than 10% of divorce rulings?
Somehow when talking about employment 50/50 rule is very forward thinking, but if somebody would dare to employ the same rule to divorce court rulings it's "19th century".
So when at work we are all forgetting about the traditional family rules, but when in the court law having a divorce case we can be as sexist as we were 100 years ago?
That's your progress? As long as it is better just for one gender it is good? That's how you fight sexism?
I'm not sure if your original choice of words was regrettable, or if you're trying to cover a retreat. The tenor of your comments (here and elsewhere) certainly suggests the latter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former .. never use "natural" when you mean "historic." And "Somehow (emphasis added) we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" implies that you find this unbelievable. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is exactly how it sounds.
No, no, no. I did use the word "natural" as intended. I did mean that there are natural roles in the society for men and for women. As the proof I provided that the natural roles are still there in the courts of law. Apparently in the eyes of courts males are not as good parents as females. That's the law. Because apparently that's natural. And you seem to be fine with that natural.
If the natural order of things works in women advantage, you're fine with it not being changed in the past 100 years or so. Let the courts rule in favor of women to have right to the kids. You seem to have a problem only and only when female sex is at disadvantage.
Let me be cynical here to get my point accross: I strongly believe that it is natural for men to be income providers. As you seem to strongly agree that it is natural that women are the ones getting rights to the children in over 90% of divorce cases. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well?
You see, why don't we talk about this that it is 19th Century mentality to give kids to mother in over 90% of the divorce cases? How came it works only one way?
That's the point I wanted to get across, not to argue about single words semantics.
You've really gone off the deep end now. At least you've completely contradicted your "progressive" defense earlier, and now it is transparent that you have antiquated views about very strong gender roles.
So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in
natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do
believe in them as well?
Seeing that I haven't stated any of my own views, other than that I find yours very distasteful, I've got a hunch we agree on very few things about this.
And you seem to be fine with that natural.
You seem to have a problem only and only when female sex is at
disadvantage.
So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex
roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well?
Well, I'm sorry, but you should have stated where you stand on the issues instead of worrying about semantics. Not to mention first patronizing me and now victimizing yourself.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring that the half of all the divorce cases must end with the kids staying with the father?
