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

[Derec]

Seems pretty straightforward.

It does seem straightforward. Unfortunately courts have found a way to implement others supposedly gender neutral laws like those against murder (treating female murderers like Mary Winkler or Nikki Redmond with kid gloves) or divorce laws (alimony beneficiaries are 96% women, courts have invalidated perfectly good pre-nups to give ex-wives more of their ex-husband's money etc.) so I am in no way convinced ERA would be interpreted and applied in non-discriminatory manner.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Seems pretty straightforward.

It does seem straightforward. Unfortunately courts have found a way to implement others supposedly gender neutral laws like those against murder (treating female murderers like Mary Winkler or Nikki Redmond with kid gloves) or divorce laws (alimony beneficiaries are 96% women, courts have invalidated perfectly good pre-nups to give ex-wives more of their ex-husband's money etc.) so I am in no way convinced ERA would be interpreted and applied in non-discriminatory manner.

still not addressing the OP, I see.

Color me surprised.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Seems pretty straightforward.

It does seem straightforward. Unfortunately courts have found a way to implement others supposedly gender neutral laws like those against murder (treating female murderers like Mary Winkler or Nikki Redmond with kid gloves) or divorce laws (alimony beneficiaries are 96% women, courts have invalidated perfectly good pre-nups to give ex-wives more of their ex-husband's money etc.) so I am in no way convinced ERA would be interpreted and applied in non-discriminatory manner.

You do know that the ERA did not pass and is not part of the Constitution? Please rewrite the ERA to correct the problems as you see it.

Derec's Truly Equal Rights Amendment:
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.

 

[repoman]

I finally agree with some of what you are saying Derec.

Some of the difference about how men and women are treated is not a double standard in the same way that racism is. The reproductive act and capability is the MAIN difference between men and women and having ANY laws regulating abortion is not automatically sexist.

That is not to say that the actual laws regulating family planning and abortion now are not sexist. Abortion now is being regulated out of existence in the most underhanded way in many states. I haven't followed all of these rules and seem the implications of whether they are actually oppression of women but my gut feeling is that they are.

The few ways that a man can have an effect on the reproductive life of a woman is to get a vasectomy or to lie about his level of fertility or hide that he has other children. I think that some regulation of vasectomies for married or younger men may be in order. Is that sexist?

 

[Derec]

You do know that the ERA did not pass and is not part of the Constitution?

I am aware of that, which is why I used the conditional "would".

Please rewrite the ERA to correct the problems as you see it.

I am not a lawyer and since we can't manage to apply our murder laws in a non-sexist manner it certainly is not a trivial problem.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I am aware of that, which is why I used the conditional "would".

Please rewrite the ERA to correct the problems as you see it.

I am not a lawyer and since we can't manage to apply our murder laws in a non-sexist manner it certainly is not a trivial problem.

So what I am hearing you say is rather than go out and actually work for equal rights, you are just going to complain since you believe nothing can change anyway. You know that guy from the other active thread? That Huey P. Newton guy? He went out and worked for change. Sure he could have sat on the couch eating Fritos and watching Beat the Clock. But he got up off his ass and attempted to change things.

You should actively work for change. You have many causes to chose from. Here is a list of things you can do from the top of my head:

• Volunteer on a panel to end prison rape.
• Work with the Innocence Project
• Volunteer your time with organizations seeking to investigate and end false confessions.
• Volunteer with first responder nurses to ensure rape kits are available and the chain of evidence is secure.
• Volunteer in Prison system to see that the falsely accused have the legal resources to advance their case.
• Start a battered mens shelter or a safe house.
• Work with organizations seeking to end elder abuse.
• Begin a support group for the wrongly accused.
• Work with prosecutors to see that those making false accusations are brought to justice.

In addition to my full-time work I volunteer my time. I find it rewarding to attach myself to a noble cause. Consider this a challenge to engage your beliefs in something bigger.

 

[untermensche]

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.

What an amazing lack of any coherent argument.

 

[Derec]

What an amazing lack of any coherent argument.

Speak for yourself.

 

[untermensche]

What an amazing lack of any coherent argument.

Speak for yourself.

My argument is simple.

Laws that only oppress and limit the actions of one gender are discriminatory against that gender.

Anti-abortion laws are are a bunch of men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

If you can't find the coherence, the problem is not mine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He's not referring to a law, he's referring to what happens in court. The reality is the man gets screwed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're not making an argument for restrictions on abortion.

I do agree that opt-out should be the law of the land but whether it is or not says nothing about abortion restrictions.

 

[repoman]

Speak for yourself.

My argument is simple.

Laws that only oppress and limit the actions of one gender are discriminatory against that gender.

Anti-abortion laws are are a bunch of men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

If you can't find the coherence, the problem is not mine.

What if abortion laws and regulations were only voted on by women who were only elected by women? Would that be ok? I am not being sarcastic, it might work somehow.

 

[Derec]

You're not making an argument for restrictions on abortion.

You are right, I wasn't. It's a different topic that I didn't want to get too deep on so I merely mentioned it.

I do agree that opt-out should be the law of the land but whether it is or not says nothing about abortion restrictions.

Agreed.

 

[untermensche]

My argument is simple.

Laws that only oppress and limit the actions of one gender are discriminatory against that gender.

Anti-abortion laws are are a bunch of men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

If you can't find the coherence, the problem is not mine.

What if abortion laws and regulations were only voted on by women who were only elected by women? Would that be ok? I am not being sarcastic, it might work somehow.

There is no way to make any laws that restrict abortions non-discriminatory.

They only effect women.

The laws may be just or unjust, but they are always discriminatory.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What an amazing lack of any coherent argument.

Speak for yourself.

Oh burn!

Speaking of which, during lunch today, I found out I have to pay child support for seven more children, just out of the blue. When will the madness end?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

He's not referring to a law, he's referring to what happens in court. The reality is the man gets screwed.

But Derec's claim is that the law is written to discriminate against man... a Jim Crow of sorts.

 

[Terrell]

The few ways that a man can have an effect on the reproductive life of a woman is to get a vasectomy or to lie about his level of fertility or hide that he has other children. I think that some regulation of vasectomies for married or younger men may be in order. Is that sexist?

What regulations on vasectomies? In my opinion any grown man who wants a vasectomy should be able to get one on demand, any grown woman who wishes to get a tubal ligation should be able to get one on demand.

 

[repoman]

Untermensche,

should a doctor be required to perform a vasectomy on any man that asks for one without a lengthy state mandated counseling session or waiting period or a consultation/permission of his wife?

if essentially all doctors refuse to perform a vasectomy without the permission of the wife then there is a de facto power given to her over the man's body unless he gets a divorce.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche,

should a doctor be required to perform a vasectomy on any man that asks for one without a lengthy state mandated counseling session or waiting period or a consultation/permission of his wife?

if essentially all doctors refuse to perform a vasectomy without the permission of the wife then there is a de facto power given to her over the man's body unless he gets a divorce.

Sure.

But that's a big "if".

But my point would be that any law that regulates vasectomies is discriminatory. They only effect men.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Guys,

As much as I enjoy watching a group of men argue over who should have control over a woman's lady parts, and that discussion is always riveting, let's get back to the issue in the OP.

The argument that because western women aren't being honor killed means we are equal with men is a bad argument. That's the same argument that because little Jimmy doesn't have a distended belly but a sunken one, that he is living in a car and not a hut, that poverty doesn't really exist in the US. It is the same argument that says that since the average wealth of a black person in Chicago is greater the the average wealth of a black person in Chad or The Congo, then slavery was good for black people.

I have seen such arguments used by some people who are posting on these boards now and posted on the FRDB boards before, and I find them (the arguments) sickening and more importantly merely sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Underseer]

Guys,

As much as I enjoy watching a group of men argue over who should have control over a woman's lady parts, and that discussion is always riveting, let's get back to the issue in the OP.

The argument that because western women aren't being honor killed means we are equal with men is a bad argument. That's the same argument that because little Jimmy doesn't have a distended belly but a sunken one, that he is living in a car and not a hut, that poverty doesn't really exist in the US. It is the same argument that says that since the average wealth of a black person in Chicago is greater the the average wealth of a black person in Chad or The Congo, then slavery was good for black people.

I have seen such arguments used by some people who are posting on these boards now and posted on the FRDB boards before, and I find them (the arguments) sickening and more importantly merely sound and fury signifying nothing.

OMG, stop persecuting rich people, you collectivist-statist! We should immediately give them all tax cuts just in case their feelings were hurt. [/conservolibertarian]