Some Are More Equal than Others: Why Arguments about Greater Oppression Other Places Don't Cut It.

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...national-women-oppression-feminism?CMP=twt_gu

Quote

I’m wary of broadly painting Western women as universally less oppressed than others – there are actually many ways the US lags behind other countries on women’s rights, like political representation, corporate power and parental leave – but it is true that American women have more legal rights than women in some other countries. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women aren’t allowed to drive. In Afghanistan, a woman can go to jail for leaving her abusive husband. Brazilian women can’t access abortions, nor can women in Ireland. According to a 2011 UN report, 127 countries don’t explicitly outlaw marital rape.

But is that really the standard by which people want to judge equality? So long as we have the right to vote, drive, go to school and work, American women should shut our mouths and be grateful to American men for allowing us to have that much?


Advertisement



The righteous fight for bare minimums doesn’t have much of a ring to it. The goal of feminism is justice – not to just be better off than other oppressed women. There’s no such thing as equal by comparison.

The truth is that in spite of the gains women have made over the years, we are still discriminated against politically and culturally. Women are still attacked, raped, trafficked (sexually and otherwise), paid less than men, objectified, and denied our legal rights to abortion. I mean, we’re still debating access to birth control in the US – so let’s not overstate how good women have it.

Yes, feminists should support women’s rights and their advocates abroad – by asking those women what they need, not telling them – but that doesn’t mean we should do so to the exclusion of all efforts at home. And the complex conversation about American feminists’ responsibilities to international causes is one to be had by people actually concerned with women’s rights – not those who only express concern when feminists say something they don’t like.

 

[Derec]

In the US there are zero laws that discriminate against women, but there are laws that discriminate against men, such as requirement that only men sign up for the so-called "selective service" as well as treatment of men when it comes to divorce (when alimony is awarded in 96% of cases it is awarded to the ex-wife and judges can capriciously dismiss pre-nups if they feel the ex-wife is not getting enough of her ex-husband's money), child custody (in a contested child custody situation a woman pretty much has to be a drug addict for her not to receive primary custody) and even violent crime - women have a "violence against women act" even though men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime. Furthermore you have women who commit intimate partner violence treated with kid gloves. Mary Winkler shot her husband to death while he slept and only got 60 days. Nikki Redmond followed her unarmed boyfriend and shot him in the back, killing him, but got acquitted because she is woman. How about equal punishment for equal crimes?

Add to that that even though women are 60% of college students they are still treated as "underrepresented minority" when it comes to preferential treatment for admissions or scholarships (this preferential treatment is the reason for 60% in the fist place). Furthermore a female college student can get rid of any male rival by simply accusing him of "raping" her, because the standard of evidence is so weak her word is sufficient even when there is exculpatory evidence (like she texting him that she had a great time).

Sure, there are some countries like Sweden where female supremacy is more advanced than in the US but that is no reason to want to emulate them. By the way, the radical feminist author of this screed, Jessica Valenti, once expressed sympathy with efforts by Swedish feminists to reverse the burden of proof in criminal cases of rape. I.e. a man accuse of rape would have to prove his innocence rather than the state having to prove his guilt (i.e. pretty much what US now has on college campuses).

 

[untermensche]

In the US there are zero laws that discriminate against women...

Any law that restricts the rights of women to abortions is a law that discriminates against women.

 

[Derec]

In the US there are zero laws that discriminate against women...

Any law that restricts the rights of women to abortions is a law that discriminates against women.

So unless a woman is allowed to abort on her due date for any reason or no reason at all it's "discrimination" against women?

No, some restrictions on abortions are necessary. On the other hand, we have a situation where men are required to pay child support for accidentally conceived children but only women have the choice over that pregnancy which amounts to gross discrimination. A legal remedy would be to allow men to opt out of parenthood (both rights and responsibilities) within a certain window of start of pregnancy (or being informed of it) which would give the woman an informed choice to either abort, give up for adoption or raise the child by herself.
The current situation where the woman makes all the choices but the man has to pay for them and has no input is highly discriminatory and should stop. As does the practice of punishing male victims of adultery twice by making them pay child support for the brat their cheating wives conceived with somebody else. Also we need to stop the practice of requiring sperm donors to pay child support. We do not ever do it with egg donors but then again, they are female, and thus the "more equal" humans.
Last but not least, only female contraceptives are covered under Obamacare, not male ones.
As you can see, there are plenty of instances where men are discriminated against when it comes to reproductive freedom. But to you, AthenaStillAsleep, Jessica Velenti and other "progressives" only women's issues matter.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In the US there are zero laws that discriminate against women,

Yawn... as pointed out we have abortion restrictions, public decency laws, laws against ingesting substances during pregnancy... laws around vaginas, boobs and babies.

but there are laws that discriminate against men, such as requirement that only men sign up for the so-called "selective service"

Yes, this is a law, but the Equal Rights Amendment is dead, so it is up to mens rights activists such as you to revive and champion a new ERA.

as well as treatment of men when it comes to divorce (when alimony is awarded in 96% of cases it is awarded to the ex-wife and judges can capriciously dismiss pre-nups if they feel the ex-wife is not getting enough of her ex-husband's money)

I am checking the civil code and see no such law. Could you point it out? You do know how civil court works?

I am bored now. Thank you for your comment.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In the US there are zero laws that discriminate against women

That's wrong.

When you start in the first part of the first sentence of your argument with a demonstrably wrong statement, everything else you say becomes suspect.

The state legislatures trying to legislate away access to safe and legal abortion are passing laws that discriminate against women.

Now I know you won't agree, but I don't care.

And I don't believe you.

 

[Derec]

When you start in the first part of the first sentence of your argument with a demonstrably wrong statement, everything else you say becomes suspect.

I already pointed out to the subhuman one why that line of argumentation is bullshit.

On the other hand the fact that a woman can terminate a pregnancy at will (in first trimester at least) while a man has to pay based on her choice is highly discriminatory.

 

[Derec]

Yawn... as pointed out we have abortion restrictions, public decency laws, laws against ingesting substances during pregnancy... laws around vaginas, boobs and babies.

Public decency laws apply to men as well. Many men are on "sex offender" lists for urinating in public. How many women are on "sex offender" lists for public indecency? I know of none - another discriminatory practice.
As to substances during pregnancy, there are very good medical reasons for that law. Radical feminists think it's ok for pregnant women to drink themselves into the stupor and smoke crack during pregnancy? It's madness!

Yes, this is a law, but the Equal Rights Amendment is dead, so it is up to mens rights activists such as you to revive and champion a new ERA.

Given who ERA was championed by I am in no way convinced it would have really advanced equal rights but would rather probably have encoded the current practice of "women are more equal" into the constitution.

I am checking the civil code and see no such law. Could you point it out? You do know how civil court works?

The civil courts work in a highly discriminatory manner. For example, in how they award custody or award alimony (96% are awarded to women) or that they set aside pre-nups so women can get more during divorce.
In all of these cases the beneficiaries are always women. That is discrimination.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When you start in the first part of the first sentence of your argument with a demonstrably wrong statement, everything else you say becomes suspect.

I already pointed out to the subhuman one why that line of argumentation is bullshit.

On the other hand the fact that a woman can terminate a pregnancy at will (in first trimester at least) while a man has to pay based on her choice is highly discriminatory.

Wrong again.

That's why opposing attorneys try to impeach any part of a witness' testimony. Because once part is suspect, all can be considered suspect.

 

[Derec]

1

That's why opposing attorneys try to impeach any part of a witness' testimony. Because once part is suspect, all can be considered suspect.

You are the one that's wrong.
But in any case, you think women in US are oh so oppressed as to getting late term abortions. But what about all the different areas where men are discriminated against? Do these not matter because it's only men? I know discrimination against men doesn't matter to the likes of Jessica Valenti - in fact she wants more of it by implementing Swedish conditions.

 

[untermensche]

Any law that restricts the rights of women to abortions is a law that discriminates against women.

So unless a woman is allowed to abort on her due date for any reason or no reason at all it's "discrimination" against women?

Of course any restrictions on abortion are discriminatory.

Only women need and get abortions.

 

[Derec]

So unless a woman is allowed to abort on her due date for any reason or no reason at all it's "discrimination" against women?

Of course any restrictions on abortion are discriminatory.

Only women need and get abortions.

That is not what is needed to establish (unjustified) discrimination.

Only physicians need and get medical licences. That doesn't mean that any laws restricting medical licences are discriminatory against physicians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any law that restricts the rights of women to abortions is a law that discriminates against women.

So unless a woman is allowed to abort on her due date for any reason or no reason at all it's "discrimination" against women?

That is a solid entry for The National Strawman 2014 Competition!

No, some restrictions on abortions are necessary. On the other hand, we have a situation where men are required to pay child support for accidentally conceived children but only women have the choice over that pregnancy which amounts to gross discrimination. A legal remedy would be to allow men to opt out of parenthood (both rights and responsibilities) within a certain window of start of pregnancy (or being informed of it) which would give the woman an informed choice to either abort, give up for adoption or raise the child by herself.
The current situation where the woman makes all the choices but the man has to pay for them and has no input is highly discriminatory and should stop. As does the practice of punishing male victims of adultery twice by making them pay child support for the brat their cheating wives conceived with somebody else. Also we need to stop the practice of requiring sperm donors to pay child support. We do not ever do it with egg donors but then again, they are female, and thus the "more equal" humans.
Last but not least, only female contraceptives are covered under Obamacare, not male ones.
As you can see, there are plenty of instances where men are discriminated against when it comes to reproductive freedom. But to you, AthenaStillAsleep, Jessica Velenti and other "progressives" only women's issues matter.

Personally, I don't know how I make it from day to day without having to pay child support for another stranger's baby, seeing the laws are tilted as such.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

1

That's why opposing attorneys try to impeach any part of a witness' testimony. Because once part is suspect, all can be considered suspect.

You are the one that's wrong.

no, I'm not.

And that really burns your biscuits, don't it?

But in any case, you think women in US are oh so oppressed as to getting late term abortions. But what about all the different areas where men are discriminated against?

not what the thread is about and doesn't prove or disprove the OP.

Do these not matter because it's only men? I know discrimination against men doesn't matter to the likes of Jessica Valenti - in fact she wants more of it by implementing Swedish conditions.

Got anything to say that might be on point?

 

[untermensche]

Of course any restrictions on abortion are discriminatory.

Only women need and get abortions.

That is not what is needed to establish (unjustified) discrimination.

Only physicians need and get medical licences. That doesn't mean that any laws restricting medical licences are discriminatory against physicians.

Physicians are both women and men and they are all races.

Laws that restrict their activities are not discriminatory.

You simply don't know what the word means.

 

[Derec]

Physicians are both women and men and they are all races.

No kidding, but they are all physicians, which means all laws pertaining to licencing of physicians pertain to them and them only.

You simply don't know what the word means.

Neither do you. Laws that for example say that women can't drive are discriminatory, as are laws that say only men have to sign up for selective service.
But laws about abortion only apply to women because women have the organs in question and are thus not discriminatory in the sense you are using it because there is a non-discriminatory reasons these laws apply only to women. Thus it is more like the physician example than the "women can't drive" example.

- - - Updated - - -

And that really burns your biscuits, don't it?

Projecting much?

 

[untermensche]

No kidding, but they are all physicians, which means all laws pertaining to licencing of physicians pertain to them and them only.

There is nothing discriminatory about laws that regulate professions that are licensed by the state.

You simply don't know what the word means.

Neither do you. Laws that for example say that women can't drive are discriminatory, as are laws that say only men have to sign up for selective service.
But laws about abortion only apply to women because women have the organs in question and are thus not discriminatory in the sense you are using it because there is a non-discriminatory reasons these laws apply only to women. Thus it is more like the physician example than the "women can't drive" example.

These are laws that only limit the rights of women.

The perfect example of a discriminatory law.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No kidding, but they are all physicians, which means all laws pertaining to licencing of physicians pertain to them and them only.

You simply don't know what the word means.

Neither do you. Laws that for example say that women can't drive are discriminatory, as are laws that say only men have to sign up for selective service.
But laws about abortion only apply to women because women have the organs in question and are thus not discriminatory in the sense you are using it because there is a non-discriminatory reasons these laws apply only to women. Thus it is more like the physician example than the "women can't drive" example.

- - - Updated - - -

And that really burns your biscuits, don't it?

Projecting much?

I don't think you know what that word means, but then again since you are engaging in it, you wouldn't, now would you

 

[Derec]

These are laws that only limit the rights of women.

The perfect example of a discriminatory law.

Perfect nonsense. I can see this argument getting play at "womyn's studies departments" at particularly ideological universities but not elsewhere.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes, this is a law, but the Equal Rights Amendment is dead, so it is up to mens rights activists such as you to revive and champion a new ERA.

Given who ERA was championed by I am in no way convinced it would have really advanced equal rights but would rather probably have encoded the current practice of "women are more equal" into the constitution.

Seems pretty straightforward. You should revive it. Or why don't you rewrite it the way you would like. I'd really like to see your improvements.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[1][2]