My purpose of this thread was explained from the start,
It was to be a cause of self reflection and to build understanding and acceptance, in place of false sameness and confusion.
If you don't believe in compulsion, that's great. Re-reading your posts I'm not sure exactly where you stand on the issue. Although this line seems to indicate that you do in fact favour state intervention:
and I also believe there are certain jobs men should be EXCLUDED from and shops from where men should be barred.
You speculate about the difference between men and women. It's very hard to say how much we are different by nature, or by nurture. Rather than theorising and guessing, the role of the state should simply to be to provide a level playing field from a legal point of view (ie you can apply for any job no matter what your gender, race or social background).
If you believe in the principle of equality for all men in employment law or any other area, then you should also support it for women. Equality of access means for everyone, or else it simply isn't equality. It's amazing how often people demand equality for themselves
on principle whilst refusing it to other groups in other contexts.
This doesn't mean that men and women are the same and must be forced to take certain roles. Quite the opposite - they can choose. The state should not get involved. Would you agree?
Of course, as you mention, society (as opposed to the government) can pressure people into taking one course of action or another. This is more difficult for the state to prevent - and you could argue it shouldn't even try. However, this pressure could be both against female access to employment or in favour of it. You may claim western society unfairly pressures women in a western society to go to work (although I think that's a huge generalisation) yet other societies try to prevent them - especially some of the Taliban groups with active physical coercion.
HOWEVER - If you believe that your religion dictates some form of male/female division then that is another issue. It makes a big difference in someone's attitude. For instance, an individual woman may feel that the employment restrictions placed on her are God-given and therefore in themselves almost a form of worship. Plainly, she will view these restrictions very differently and not as restrictions at all.
But a non believer is likely to find those exact same restrictions very insulting and coercive. Therefore, to cater for all its citizens equally no matter what their religion, the state should legislate only to provide equality of access, and let individuals decide whether or not they want to apply for any job.
Open access laws don't force anyone to work. Whereas closed access laws obviously prevent selected people from certain professions. Open access provides choice, closed access is coercive.
An individual may welcome that coercion and therefore not see it as coercion at all - but it is still coercion from a legal point of view.
First you tell me where I live
Your style is very British English - perhaps you used to live there? - but of course, reading back it's obvious you live elsewhere (Bangladesh perhaps). This is not important to the debate although it seems to excite Shaden.
No wonder you guys normally take 1 or 0 children or don't even fulfil the human responsibility of even marrying and passing on anything good to the next generation
By the way, the key indicator for birth rates seems not to be employment laws, but education. Basically, the more educated women are, the lower the birth rate tends to be. So would you recommend restricting female education?
'A women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm
