Yes, and this is a problem for the US military. Over the past few years, there has been a push to open up jobs to women that were previously closed. The problem is that women have always been provided a lower set of standards to adhere to than men, in order to enable more women to be in the military. This is fine if you are sitting at a desk, but it isn't fine if you have to carry a 60lb backpack on a 10 mile hike. So, recognizing reality, the standards are leveled and as a result, women fail.
A Woman's Rights?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Are "woman's rights" in any way different from "human rights"? Or Men's rights in any way different for these two?
I am inclined to think "women's rights" = "men rights" = "human rights" so think it is not a good idea to speak of them separately; however I'm not very sure what they are or even that any fundamentally exist.
"Rights" are creations of societies, especially their legal systems, so differ (or may) for one society to another. An interesting example of this recently occurred during the meeting between Raul Castro and Obama. Obama was critical of Cuba's one party political system and Raul of the fact that in the US (but not in Cuba) women doing the same job as a man are paid less. Likewise Raul placed the "right" to health care above the right to vote for you leaders. He noted that even in remote parts of Cuba, when a pregnate woman begins to dialate, she is taken to a hospital, and may stay there many days before giving birth. Cuba exports doctors to much of the world, and only by choice does a Cuban not have access to one essentially for free.
What, if any, are your fundamental rights that all societies should provide? I can only think of one that may exist: The right to use your body as you alone see fit*, provided that does not conflict with the same right others have. Can anyone add another?
* Conscription into an army is a violation of this right, except within the concept of Locke's "social contract" you may give it up to live in the society of your choice. Likewise thousands of other "rights" are surrendered, such as the right to drive thru red lights, etc. So perhaps the only right you have, is to leave one society and join another, that will accept you.
Sadly, if that is true, the US does not violate rights by treating men and women differently before the law. I. e. women do not have any right to pay equal to a man's for doing the same job. There is only the right to leave the US (or work within the law to change its granted rights).
I am inclined to think "women's rights" = "men rights" = "human rights" so think it is not a good idea to speak of them separately; however I'm not very sure what they are or even that any fundamentally exist.
"Rights" are creations of societies, especially their legal systems, so differ (or may) for one society to another. An interesting example of this recently occurred during the meeting between Raul Castro and Obama. Obama was critical of Cuba's one party political system and Raul of the fact that in the US (but not in Cuba) women doing the same job as a man are paid less. Likewise Raul placed the "right" to health care above the right to vote for you leaders. He noted that even in remote parts of Cuba, when a pregnate woman begins to dialate, she is taken to a hospital, and may stay there many days before giving birth. Cuba exports doctors to much of the world, and only by choice does a Cuban not have access to one essentially for free.
What, if any, are your fundamental rights that all societies should provide? I can only think of one that may exist: The right to use your body as you alone see fit*, provided that does not conflict with the same right others have. Can anyone add another?
* Conscription into an army is a violation of this right, except within the concept of Locke's "social contract" you may give it up to live in the society of your choice. Likewise thousands of other "rights" are surrendered, such as the right to drive thru red lights, etc. So perhaps the only right you have, is to leave one society and join another, that will accept you.
Sadly, if that is true, the US does not violate rights by treating men and women differently before the law. I. e. women do not have any right to pay equal to a man's for doing the same job. There is only the right to leave the US (or work within the law to change its granted rights).
Last edited:
I have to admit that a few women can compete physically in some occupations. My daughter and I were talking about the possibility of including women within the military draft. Her view was that it should be a woman's right, even though she has no desire to be forced into military service. I've never viewed the draft as a "right," but more of a liability that faces most young men during a time of war. I'm curious, would women actually view this as a step towards equality?
What kind of childish sentiment are you milking?
In my country we have the freedom to choose, America must have taken your rights away!
Rights are different from entitlements. Rights are relatively new in the history of humanity. Entitlements have been around since the time of the first monarchies. Before America was formed, the king/queen was entitled to all the land and wealth of the kingdom. The first son of the king was entitled to be king someday. Nobody had the right to be king, since it was an entitlement, not a right. Entitlements supersede rights. If the king wished to share some of his land in the new world; America, he could entitle land to his most loyal or destructive subjects; cronyism. Entitlement bestows things based on the power of the government and law. It tends to be based on cronyism; all the wealth go the king is entitled to his son by law.
Human Rights are quite new in terms of history. Rights appeared in a cluster when the Colonists in America, overthrew the king, in the new world. The entitlements of the king, in the new world, were neutralized and became distributed via individual rights. Rights gave the colonists the option to own land, which had previously been entitled to the king and his cronies. The average person had no right to own land under the king, unless the king entitled land. Rights appear only when entitlements were streamlined and eliminated. Entitlement has the word title; legal contract of ownership. Rights are not the same as legal contracts.
When the colonists overthrew the king and declared independence, they limited the power of government. They saw the relationship between too much central power and entitlements; cronyism capitalism. They had achieved independence from a monarchy government that tried to control everything, entitling itself and others via cronyism. The founding fathers knew first hand that government needed to be smaller, weaker but of high utility; good public servant.
A servant is not entitled to anything, unless conferred by the master, nor can a servant entitle others. Those who work in government were called public servants to remind those in government it is not a monarchy. When government forgets it is the servant and assumes it is the master, entitlements will appear, based on cronyism. This is what this election in USA is about. The entitlements of both parties will be stripped, and returned to the people to increase their rights.
For example, quotas are entitlements. Quotas are not rights. Rights means everyone has the right to apply for any job, with no restriction on anyone, using a consistent criteria used to hire the best people. There is no cronyism, as decreed by the king and enforced by law. Entitlements means cronyism, which means certain entitled people; women and minorities, will be hired based on the force of law. Rights decrease as entitlements increase.
During the Civil War, the Democratic party was the party of slavery. Slavery allowed the wealthy land and slaver owners to play king. The local slave kings were entitled to everything in their little world, while their peasants; slave, had no rights or entitlements. The monarchy mentality is still part of the Democratic party; Kennedy and Camelot, Clintons, and now the Obamas. They like to confer entitlements to those who vote for them or given them money for campaigns; cronyism. Entitlements take away rights, because the entitlements of the king and his cronies, supersede the right of the people.
You need to look at history to learn from history.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's kind of an odd way to pose the question. It sounds set up as if the onus is on you to defend it.
People have rights. All of them.
So ask that question:
Since women are, in fact, people, is there any reason why they they wouldn't entitled to full human rights - full stop?
You will quickly find out what your opponent's prejudices are. And the direction of the debate thereafter will correctly be on him having to defend his prejudices. As it should be.
Including women's views on reproductive rights and the freedom to have dominion over their bodies? How's that "training" going?
Says the poster ignoring the entire history of the word "right".
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It comes down to whether the standards being used are accurate gauges.
A 38-inch chest perhaps used to be a good first-order approximation of endurance/strength, but if it's strength/endurance that makes a soldier, then measure their strength/endurance (say, their ability to carry a 60lb backpack) not their chest size.
A Simple Question Becomes Complicated
I guess the ultimate question comes down to this: Do you want rights?
If the answer is yes, then we need not bother with the idea that human beings had to figure out the concept; one might as well suggest math is a fiction since an infant has to learn it. Human rights are an inevitable logical outcome.
If the answer is no, well, there is our answer.
But in a world where we acknowledge rights, why should a woman's rights be held out as a separate parcel from human rights?
Billy T↑ comprehends the vector:
The only reason we need think of them separately is because women's rights are reserved as some special, other rights. Bowser↑ provoides an example in the topic post―
―which in turn is his method of trying to avoid acknowledging that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop.
Wellwisher↑, to the other, provides an example of the political problem:
What comes after the "but" is always a matter of personal aesthetics. And as long as we reserve a segregated sphere for "women's rights", we tend to treat them as somehow different from human rights. Societies parcel out "women's rights" in exchange for obedience, or as a grudging last resort when there is no other option.
The British resorted to grudging logic in (ahem!) "granting" woman suffrage: Well, we wouldn't have made it through the War without them, so it would be kind of unfair if we said no, this time.
Americans couldn't even manage that, in the long run. We only have Amendment XIX because Amendment XIV did not suffice; when states tried to grant woman suffrage under Equal Protection, the federal government argued that XIV.1 was never intended to include women. This argument won the day; it seems that even today women are not considered people under Amendment XIV; we use a separate standard for judging sex discrimination, and it is more forgiving than racial and ethnic discrimination.
I guess the ultimate question comes down to this: Do you want rights?
If the answer is yes, then we need not bother with the idea that human beings had to figure out the concept; one might as well suggest math is a fiction since an infant has to learn it. Human rights are an inevitable logical outcome.
If the answer is no, well, there is our answer.
But in a world where we acknowledge rights, why should a woman's rights be held out as a separate parcel from human rights?
Billy T↑ comprehends the vector:
I am inclined to think "women's rights" = "men rights" = "human rights" so think it is not a good idea to speak of them separately ....
The only reason we need think of them separately is because women's rights are reserved as some special, other rights. Bowser↑ provoides an example in the topic post―
In general, my position is women have the same rights as men ....
―which in turn is his method of trying to avoid acknowledging that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop.
Wellwisher↑, to the other, provides an example of the political problem:
I am all for women's rights, but ....
What comes after the "but" is always a matter of personal aesthetics. And as long as we reserve a segregated sphere for "women's rights", we tend to treat them as somehow different from human rights. Societies parcel out "women's rights" in exchange for obedience, or as a grudging last resort when there is no other option.
The British resorted to grudging logic in (ahem!) "granting" woman suffrage: Well, we wouldn't have made it through the War without them, so it would be kind of unfair if we said no, this time.
Americans couldn't even manage that, in the long run. We only have Amendment XIX because Amendment XIV did not suffice; when states tried to grant woman suffrage under Equal Protection, the federal government argued that XIV.1 was never intended to include women. This argument won the day; it seems that even today women are not considered people under Amendment XIV; we use a separate standard for judging sex discrimination, and it is more forgiving than racial and ethnic discrimination.
A draft isn't a right, any more than a tax or legal obligation is. But no, there should be no special governmental provision to draft people based on their sex.
That women are supposedly exempt from "the draft" is a favorite line of so-called men's rights activists and other misogynists. Of course, in the US, there is no draft, so this line of argument fails like everything MRAs offer.
Rights and entitlements are not the same thing. I keep in harping on this because there is a tendency to confuse these two things, because the confusion is a smoke screen to hide deception.
The king is entitled to decide the life and death of his subjects. This entitlement can supersede the rights of the individual to life. Among his peers, the average person has the right to life. But the entitlement of the King, to decide life or death, trumps this human right. Entitlements supersede rights, which is why people like to confuse the two. If you have an entitlement, and call it a right, you can screw people, while also convincing them, this is fair.
Back in the days of segregation, whites where entitled to sit in the front of the bus. This mentality has not changed in terms of the Democratic Party. With quotas, women and minorities are entitled to sit in the front of all the social buses. Entitlements take away the rights of others, since equal rights would mean first come, first serve and not a quota system for the entitled.
Abortion is not a right, but an entitlement. Calling this a right is a scam. The entitlement of abortion entitles only women to decide the life and death of the unborn. She gets to play queen; off with their head.
Entitlements reduce the rights of others. If a woman was to have a pregnancy and she did drugs and hurt her child, then the rights of her unborn child will trump her lifestyle. Woman are only entitled to kill the unborn, but not injure it. If they injure it the rights of the unborn come first. If they kill it, the entitlement supersedes the rights of the unborn.
When we say women's right, this actually means women's entitlements. Women's entitlements means they have the right to supersede the right of others, since entitlements trump rights. For example, although a male will also be responsible for the unborn, and will even have to pay support for his child, or face fines and jail, he has no choice in the abortion. If abortion was a human right both parties would need to agree. But since it is an entitlement, which can trumps rights, the male has no say.
There is so such things as abortion rights. There are only abortion entitlements, which are not called this since the word illusion is needed to make people think the back of the bus is good as front of the bus.
The king is entitled to decide the life and death of his subjects. This entitlement can supersede the rights of the individual to life. Among his peers, the average person has the right to life. But the entitlement of the King, to decide life or death, trumps this human right. Entitlements supersede rights, which is why people like to confuse the two. If you have an entitlement, and call it a right, you can screw people, while also convincing them, this is fair.
Back in the days of segregation, whites where entitled to sit in the front of the bus. This mentality has not changed in terms of the Democratic Party. With quotas, women and minorities are entitled to sit in the front of all the social buses. Entitlements take away the rights of others, since equal rights would mean first come, first serve and not a quota system for the entitled.
Abortion is not a right, but an entitlement. Calling this a right is a scam. The entitlement of abortion entitles only women to decide the life and death of the unborn. She gets to play queen; off with their head.
Entitlements reduce the rights of others. If a woman was to have a pregnancy and she did drugs and hurt her child, then the rights of her unborn child will trump her lifestyle. Woman are only entitled to kill the unborn, but not injure it. If they injure it the rights of the unborn come first. If they kill it, the entitlement supersedes the rights of the unborn.
When we say women's right, this actually means women's entitlements. Women's entitlements means they have the right to supersede the right of others, since entitlements trump rights. For example, although a male will also be responsible for the unborn, and will even have to pay support for his child, or face fines and jail, he has no choice in the abortion. If abortion was a human right both parties would need to agree. But since it is an entitlement, which can trumps rights, the male has no say.
There is so such things as abortion rights. There are only abortion entitlements, which are not called this since the word illusion is needed to make people think the back of the bus is good as front of the bus.
Last edited:
most people have the good sense to not go out of there way to make themselves look like bigoted ignorant assholes. i applaud your willingness to buck the trend.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Are we really going to go down the rabbit hole of abortion?
Best to start a dedicated thread for that. It will totally swamp (as well as dynamite) this thread.
Best to start a dedicated thread for that. It will totally swamp (as well as dynamite) this thread.
Bells
Staff member
Reproductive rights is inherently connected to "a woman's rights". The reason being is that society has forced it to be connected as such by attempting to control a woman's rights to her own body and her reproductive rights. One could very well argue that a woman's rights to her own body is inherent to "a woman's rights".
No, you keep harping on this because you want to deny people their rights and entitlements.
I am not trying to deny anything. I am attempting to clarify so entitlements are not denying rights. Entitlements can trump rights, since entitlement means you are like royalty and can deny the rights of others, because you are entitled. If people were aware of the difference, most honest people who believe in equal rights for all, would no longer confuse entitlements with rights. Since entitlements reduce rights, they would not allow entitlements.
It is useful to have a historical perspective. The Democratic party was the political party of slavery in America, at the time of Lincoln. They liked the status quo of slavery, because they could do anything their wanted to their slaves. They could deny the basic humans rights in the Constitution, because their entitlement; car title, superseded all rights. The Republicans saw that equals right for all could not exist for the slaves, as long as the slave owners were entitled. It was lawful for the slave owner to rape female slaves, because their entitlement, as owner, allowed them the ability to supersede human rights. It is not called rape when one is entitled. Murder is not called murder, if the entitled king does it. Right as king means entitled as a citizen.
It is important to differentiate rights from entitlements, because entitlements tend to violate the humans rights of others, when you do the math. If we call an entitlement a right, then people are conned to believe there are such thing, as unique rights for specific demographics, which count for more common human rights. Humans right apply to all humans, while rights applied to a unique subset are entitlements and can supersede human rights.
Quotas are entitlements, and not rights, since they violate the rights of those not covered by the quota. Humans right apply to all in an equal way.
If a woman have the right to her body, and this is called a human right, then men also have a right to their body. Since men impregnate a women, the unborn child belongs to both bodies if terms of human rights. But since entitlement supersedes humans rights, the women is entitled to decide the fate. If abortion was a human right and not a women's entitlement, men and women would have 50% vote.
Liberal leaders tend to purposely confuse entitlements with rights. This scam is how they buy votes. Entitlements are based on the principle of crony capitalism, where an industry or entity greases the palm of leadership; votes or bribe, and will get a contract, which is not up for bid; denies equal rights. If the contract was based on equal rights, there would be an open bidding contest with was transparent. In the case of abortion, both men and women rights could bid on the abortion, since the unborn comes from the body of both.
The government in the USA, that is being challenged by the outsiders in both parties is based on entitlements. Defense contractors are entitled based on campaign contributions in the good ole boy network. It is not up for bid; equal chance for all. All the freebies that the Democrats promise for votes, get paid for by the general fund. It does not benefit all who contribute to the fund. It is an entitlement, not a right. a right would benefit all including those who are not vote for the Democrats.
Last edited:
Anyone who starts a passage with sentences like this is a racist. You are deliberately ignoring the history of the US after 1960 in an attempt to deceive your audience and doing it in a way to minimize and dismiss the real concerns of slaves and their ancestors.
Pathetic.
This is ridiculous, since fetuses are clearly a part of a female body, not a male one.
Why do anti-choice activists and other misogynists demand that we ignore the facts?