[jiggy2011]

Assuming you have a (equal) right to reasonable self defense under law, you would expect a judge to take into account circumstances which would include things like relative strength of those involved.

For example it would not be seen as reasonable for me to use a brick in self defense against a small unarmed child but it might be if I was attacked by a heavyweight boxer.

It's not something that is limited to gender either, as you could in theory have a weaker man fighting a stronger woman.

[Mz]

The statistics strongly indicate that the outcome is biased in favor of men, against women. The laws and judicial process don't currently do a good job of accounting for very real differences between the sexes here.

[jiggy2011]

I'm not sure that is argument for less equality per se, rather that you think the court should have ruled differently in some cases. Unless you would advocate laws that give women additional rights to use stronger force than men by definition, in which case I would disagree.

As a flipside example everyone has an obligation to pay whatever taxes they owe, that obligation is the same for everyone, in other words it is a criminal offence to avoid paying taxes regardless of whether you are poor or rich. However the amount of tax you have to pay will depend on your income level, as you would not expect a millionaire to pay the same amount of tax as somebody on minimum wage.

[Mz]

I am not arguing anything. Merely supplying an example that fit the parameters you provided. That's all. I am baffled as to why you are trying to turn it into an argument.

[jiggy2011]

Your example doesn't fit the parameters discussed.

[Mz]

I think it does. If you don't think so, move on.

[jiggy2011]

This is the problem I have with feminists, all opinion but not argument. But ok, this topic is dead.