Huckleberry
New member
What do you think? What are your reasons?
What say you?
What say you?
Do women have more rights than men today?
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
More rights ? I don't see that, I think we all have the same rights. What say you ? Are there some hidden rights we don't know about ?
glorydaz
Well-known member
I've racked my brain and can't think of any. :idunno:
I thought of one. They have the legal right to murder small children in some circumstances.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Crud. I should have thought of that. :noid:
Buzzword
New member
I'll take "Questions Only A Man Would Ask" for $500, Alex.
Seriously, it's like white people complaining about "reverse racism".
When the system (built and still run by White, Outwardly-Heterosexual, Self-Identifying Christian, Cisgender Males, by the way) favors one particular person-configuration above all others, anyone who was born not conforming to that configuration doesn't even have EQUAL rights and protections as those who do, much less MORE.
And it's only due to the propaganda war of the WOHSICCMs in power that any not in power think balancing the scales equals unbalancing them.
Huckleberry
New member
How about these?
Right to genital integrity (re: circumcision)
Right to vote without conceding to the draft
Right to choose parenthood (and, indeed, all reproductive rights - men have none)
Right to be assumed caregivers of children
Right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape
Right to genital integrity (re: circumcision)
Right to vote without conceding to the draft
Right to choose parenthood (and, indeed, all reproductive rights - men have none)
Right to be assumed caregivers of children
Right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape
Huckleberry
New member
Great. So you should be able to name a few rights men have that women don't, so that we further this discussion. :up:
The very idea of gender equality is a fallacy. Men and women are different. We each have our areas of strength and areas of weakness. We compliment each other.
I do believe in meritocracy wherein the best person for the job is rewarded. But we must keep in mind that not all jobs are intended for all people! Men and women can be Doctors. Men and women can be Nurses. But only a man can be a Father and only a woman can be a Mother. Of course "Fathering" and "Mothering" may be accomplished by many people as the need arises.
I don't think it wise to mess with Mother Nature!
PureX
Well-known member
This is true, but it has nothing to do with gender equality in relation to human and civil rights. Just because a woman's physiology is different doesn't mean it's OK to pay women less money than a man for the same job. It doesn't mean they can be treated differently in terms of commerce, educational opportunities, banking services, political representation, or in the courts.
This isn't a question of physiology. It's a question of equal civil, social, political, and legal rights. As far as I know, we have eliminated gender inequality legally, but clearly that has not filtered through socially, in terms of wages, job opportunities, and child and health care. And it's these areas we need to work on to improve gender equity.
Again, these have little to do with each other. So conflating them serves no useful purpose.
Also, I don't understand what you think a "meritocracy" is, but I am not aware of one ever having existed, or even what such a thing would look like. All I know of that term is that greedy conservatives like to use it as code for "the rich deserve every advantage while the poor deserve to suffer". An attitude that has very little actual merit, as it's both untrue and irrational.
Do women have more rights than men today?
Of course not. It's a daft notion.
Of course not. It's a daft notion.
Supra.
I know what rights and the laws pertaining to them are.
Supra.
What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? Do you mean that babies don't get to choose if they're circumcised or not? That power would be in the hands of the parents, male and female, so far as I understand it.
That's not a right, you know. Being exempted isn't a right any more than color blind people or those with medical conditions precluding service could be said to have a right on the point.
That's also not a right, but a description of biological function mingled with the essential, foundational notion that people have an oft qualified level of autonomy when it comes to their own bodies. Men can choose to participate in reproduction, but the only distinction in that involves the bearing of children, which they cannot do and to which right isn't attached.
That's also not a right or even a presumption at law anymore, though it was for a very long time.
No, anyone who is sexually violated can claim that now, though for a time and mostly due to popular misconceptions, it wasn't the case.
Huckleberry
New member
Can we agree that men and women do indeed have equal rights, using the legal definition of the term?
As for the more common (and incorrect) use of the term, I offered my five "rights" as much as anything to establish I'm prepared to accept using the term in that way. People do tend to use an often ridiculously inflated use of "rights" in debates like these. That doesn't bother me.
true, I didn't think of that -
yes, except for abortion in America and maybe divorce and custody cases, men and women have the same rights
Sure. Rights aren't gender specific, even if the application might be on rare occasion.
You shouldn't. It muddies the term and doesn't contribute to discourse on actual right. Talk about legal inequities in practice if you like, or gender differences in how we approach law or, more to the point, have historically and how that's changed. But I don't think there's any real service done to right or discourse on it by allowing people to mistake the term or application.
I'd say it should if right matters and even language, for that matter.
On the plus side, looking at the vote there doesn't appear to be much confusion so far. :e4e:
Ah you do fling that judgmental mud right and right!
Meritocracy means the best qualified person for the job ought to have it.
Keeping in mind that each job has its own qualifications and each situation has its own necessities.
Prima Donna's, for instance, no matter how qualified in other areas become a glitch in the ointment of productivity.
Oh yes, and those person's who spout loud and long about every decision made by management as stupid yet crawl back into the woodwork when something they have advocated goes awry, oh yes indeed! These are miserable with which to deal....
Huckleberry
New member
So you're saying women have more rights in these areas than men? Can you think of any male rights that might balance this out?
Huckleberry
New member
Granted, but unfortunately that's how the game is played these days.
I didn't expect otherwise.
What about the area of reproductive rights?
"Reproductive rights are the rights of individuals to decide whether to reproduce and have reproductive health. This may include an individual's right to plan a family, terminate a pregnancy, use contraceptives, learn about sex education in public schools, and gain access to reproductive health services."
Do you consider these things "rights"?