I mean if you're at the point where you can't enforce laws in your society, you have even bigger problems; especially if you've allowed a small minority of men to hold your system hostage. So clearly, if that is the concern, better to nip it even sooner rather than let it fester.
somenameforme|3 years ago
The point of this is that the civility of society is, for better and for worse, not upheld by enforcement - but by an unspoken agreement to a social contract. If any remotely sizable group of people chose to break that agreement, it would be unpleasant times ahead. Even this issue aside, it seems self evident that trying to run a society through coercion would be unstable at best.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
[2] - https://www.murderdata.org/p/blog-page.html
[3] - https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/08/americas-...
twstdzppr|3 years ago
Sometimes unpleasant times are necessary in the fight for human rights. Otherwise we would still have things like slavery. Additionally, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and they also wouldn't be able to make independent financial decisions like have their own bank accounts or mortgages. These things aren't that historic, and taking the side of trying to restrict women's relationship choices strikes me as being on the wrong side of history again.
giantg2|3 years ago
Even the high clearance rate in places like Japan is suspect. So it seems like a problem, but it seems universal.