5 rights women have that men don't

I came across this article the other day and I found it rather interesting.

5 rights that women have that men don't

Obviously the laws change by country, this is going by US laws currently.

In case anyone isn't aware, this article is utilizing the strawman fallacy .

Let's go through these one by one, shall we?

1. Women have the right to genital integrity

An argument based on the hearsay of some people claiming to be a part of one ideological camp does not make an argument valid. In fact, there are feminists who argue that circumcision, whether it be on the penis or the vulva is morally and ethically wrong. You can find a feminist who will say the exact opposite. Feminism isn't a unified ideology. So no, women do not have genital integrity because FGM still exists in many parts of the world. Just because it doesn't exist here doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die

Ah, I love me some ahistoricism. Do you know why women are not included in the draft conscription agreements? Because women were deemed to be unfit for combat and needed at home to care of children. There are a dozen other ways the needs of the society could have been handled without going straight down the gender lines, but they didn't see it that way. Men didn't want to fight alongside women and now they're griping about having to die in pointless wars all by their lonesome? Zero sympathy. I would suggest that, rather than putting women in the draft, we end war and conscription altogether.

3. Women have the right to choose parenthood

Couple things about this one: first off their source is dubious anecdotal evidence at best, please be aware that just because it has a link doesn't mean it links to anything reliable. Secondly, to suggest that women have the right to choose parenthood is about as honest as saying gay people can get married. Yes, due to widespread reforms in laws regulating birth control, a person who is capable of being pregnant now has greater access to birth control. It is still difficult to get in many places and the cost for effective birth control, especially if you don't have insurance can be prohibitive.

4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children

This is only true on the misconception that women are better caregivers, but also because women ask for it. In cases where men ask for it, more likely than not; they receive equal or primary custody ( source ).

5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape

While not entirely unrelated, this is still a red herring . This insidious fallacy (in this context) presumes that because rape also happens to men and the definition of rape has also silenced men that that somehow means women are in positions of power.

If anyone bothered to read a book on feminist critiques of rape, they would know that the underlying criticism is not only against rape but against a culture that places emphasis on toxic masculinity. It is through this toxic masculinity that such things as male rape go unnoticed, dismissed, and silenced. Men are presumed to want sex all the time and therefore they couldn't possibly have a situation where they were forced to have sex against their will, could they? This is a patently false presumption and I know quite a few men who have come forward with their stories. The fact that male rape gets ignored doesn't dismiss or downplay the overall criticisms of rape culture.

Next time someone wants to try to criticize feminism, or say that women have power and privilege over men, I suggest they do it with something other than tumblr feminism.

This is going to be fun.

Jamie Stick wrote: In case anyone isn't aware, this article is utilizing the strawman fallacy .

One must also be aware (much to Jestor's glee) that the use of a logical fallacy only condemns the logic itself, not the truth or falsehood of the argument.

An argument based on the hearsay of some people claiming to be a part of one ideological camp does not make an argument valid. In fact, there are feminists who argue that circumcision, whether it be on the penis or the vulva is morally and ethically wrong. You can find a feminist who will say the exact opposite. Feminism isn't a unified ideology. So no, women do not have genital integrity because FGM still exists in many parts of the world. Just because it doesn't exist here doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

FGM is a problem. It's a major problem in many parts of the world. But the OP clearly stated that they were unsure of the truth of these claims outside the US. Within the US, FGM is considered barbaric and heinous, while circumcision is considered a choice based on health, religion, or aesthetics and normalized.

Ah, I love me some ahistoricism. Do you know why women are not included in the draft conscription agreements? Because women were deemed to be unfit for combat and needed at home to care of children. There are a dozen other ways the needs of the society could have been handled without going straight down the gender lines, but they didn't see it that way. Men didn't want to fight alongside women and now they're griping about having to die in pointless wars all by their lonesome? Zero sympathy. I would suggest that, rather than putting women in the draft, we end war and conscription altogether.

I'm straight up gonna call you on your BS here because the way you've tried to make this point is actually more offensive to me than the point you're trying to make, which isn't based on any kind of factual evidence whatsoever.

Men buy franchise with service. This is a near-universal constant, even in 2015. Whether that service is actual or theoretical, men (and transwomen) in the United States must still register for that service, which could potentially end their life. Women are not required to do so, no matter the sweeping changes made toward military equality in the last twenty years. Furthermore, when asked about it, literally every feminist I've ever spoken to thinks they should remain exempt. Explain to me how that is fair? Men are expected, through social and legal pressure, to die for the rights and safety of women and children in order to have a say in their governance. When women wanted suffrage, they protested a bunch and a group of men (commonly called "the government" at that time) handed it to them without any of the costs normally associated with it.

Furthermore, the way you frame your response to this point, Jamie, implies that men have any say whatsoever in the involuntary nature of conscription. Not only are we eligible for prison time, our citizenship can be revoked entirely, if we fail to fall in line with a requirement women do not have held over their heads. There are a metric f***load of reasons that men would not want to fight alongside women in the military, and many of them are actually ridiculously logical, so turning the fact that for the entirety of human history men have been forced to lay down their lives for women and children (through compulsion) into an argument in favor of a misogynistic view of combat is really, really uncalled for, I believe.

Couple things about this one: first off their source is dubious anecdotal evidence at best, please be aware that just because it has a link doesn't mean it links to anything reliable. Secondly, to suggest that women have the right to choose parenthood is about as honest as saying gay people can get married. Yes, due to widespread reforms in laws regulating birth control, a person who is capable of being pregnant now has greater access to birth control. It is still difficult to get in many places and the cost for effective birth control, especially if you don't have insurance can be prohibitive.
...
This is only true on the misconception that women are better caregivers, but also because women ask for it. In cases where men ask for it, more likely than not; they receive equal or primary custody ( source ).

False. The link I just dropped states that "The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional protection of such a father's parental rights when he has established a substantial relationship with his child." I've italicised the part that is utterly nonsense, because there seems to be popular, social, or legal requirement that a woman do the same; she is assumed to have done so simply through the act of birth.

Furthermore, while there is no denying the biological bias toward women in regards to the actual gestation and birthing process, this has caused women's issues of the 20-21st centuries to be very clearly focused on women's reproductive rights. Women have a plethora of birth control options available, access to medically safe abortions, government assistance, preferential adoption status, more comprehensive health coverage, and public sympathy. The extent of men's rights in regards to reproduction consist of condoms and the decision on where one chooses to stick their equipment.

That's it, unless you count the choice to walk away and be saddled with judicially-mandated financial support for something you were unprepared for. Men's reproductive rights end the moment the reproductive act begins, and if you think that is any kind of fair then you have a very unique definition of the word.

While not entirely unrelated, this is still a red herring . This insidious fallacy (in this context) presumes that because rape also happens to men and the definition of rape has also silenced men that that somehow means women are in positions of power.

This is a very unpopular opinion, but women have always been in positions of power. They are the sole limiting factor in human reproduction, and have been the voice in the ear of every male ruler in the history of the species at one time or another. Perhaps they have not been socially equivalent (which is something that should be rectified), but they have always held power.

This goes back to that social pressure I mentioned before. As a man, if a woman tells her that another male did something awful to her, you are socially pressured and considered obligated to take her side on the matter until it can be verified she is lying. If not, you risk being ostracized among your peer group at best, and being grouped in (and possibly charged or beaten) with the offender. The problem is not that women lie; everyone lies. The problem is that when women lie, until such a lie can be proven airtight (even in cases where such proof is impossible to obtain), men are considered obligatory defenders of her position and story if they want to maintain their standing among their peer group. And this is all without discussing male rape at all, which is a whoooole other can of worms I'm not prepared to discuss at the moment.

If anyone bothered to read a book on feminist critiques of rape, they would know that the underlying criticism is not only against rape but against a culture that places emphasis on toxic masculinity. It is through this toxic masculinity that such things as male rape go unnoticed, dismissed, and silenced. Men are presumed to want sex all the time and therefore they couldn't possibly have a situation where they were forced to have sex against their will, could they? This is a patently false presumption and I know quite a few men who have come forward with their stories. The fact that male rape gets ignored doesn't dismiss or downplay the overall criticisms of rape culture.

Toxic masculinity is very much a problem, but so many feminist notions these days reinforce it without actually realizing they're doing so. That's why masculinists and MRAs have sprung up. Are they misguided? Yes. Are they problematic? Yes. But you would be utterly amazed at exactly how many things they get right when you can weed through the neckbearded fedora-nonsense.

Women cannot help men be better men. Only men can do that. If the entirety of the feminist movement is for women to have agency over their own choices and their own definitions of feminity, trying to do anything about "toxic masculinity" at any time it does not actively harm women's agency is actively working against equality. If feminists don't want men deciding what womanhood means, they lose their right to butt in on masculinity. Show us the problem and walk away. Let us fix it.

Next time someone wants to try to criticize feminism, or say that women have power and privilege over men, I suggest they do it with something other than tumblr feminism.

I am always willing to criticize feminism. Always. We should have this discussion at some point. Bring popcorn.

An argument based on the hearsay of some people claiming to be a part of one ideological camp does not make an argument valid. In fact, there are feminists who argue that circumcision, whether it be on the penis or the vulva is morally and ethically wrong. You can find a feminist who will say the exact opposite. Feminism isn't a unified ideology. So no, women do not have genital integrity because FGM still exists in many parts of the world. Just because it doesn't exist here doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Yes, just because it is rare doesn't mean it should not be looked into.

The fact remains that the much larger problem of "male genital mutilation" concerns both more victims and is quicker to write.

Heck why not go for "genital mutilation", it's even quicker to write, and not sexist.

The extent of men's rights in regards to reproduction consist of condoms and the decision on where one chooses to stick their equipment.

Not really. If a young boy gets raped by his pedo babysitter and she gets pregnant, he's liable to pay child support while the rapist looks after that child.

In case anyone isn't aware, this article is utilizing the strawman fallacy.

It's not, actually, although that statement was a fallacy (argumentum ad logicam if you must know).

We had a pretty in depth discussion on conscription starting back in November 2014. Merely suggesting we "end war" is not an answer, or realistic as long as there is human Ego there will be armed conflict.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/108844-conscription-draft?limitstart=0&start=40

I did notice in the news a journalist wrote this yesterday: "Islamic State militants have abducted as many as 90 Assyrian Christians, including women and children, after overrunning several small villages in northeast Syria"

Is it more horrific if we say women and children? Is the life of a woman of more value than that of a man? Why does the journalist use this as a point for his story? This may warrant its own topic, rather then hijack this thread. Just wanted to include it in the perception that is associated with point #2.

Sooo...what do you guys think about the article?

rugadd wrote: Sooo...what do you guys think about the article?

I'd say that I need to look into each of the points/claims made in the article. Reason: I've responded to topics like these before and it was mostly anecdotal instead of factual. I'd like to actually write from facts than from personal experience, though personal experience has its place, at times. When I briefly looked at Judy Bloomfield's blog, I was immediately met with an article about MRM stuff. It may not be what the blog is about, but I could be mistaken. When I have enough time to go through it the way I want, I may have something to actually put in there.

Mrs. Bloomfield's blog - http://www.JudgyBitch.com

rugadd wrote: Sooo...what do you guys think about the article?

Thanks for asking, LOL.

Though, this MRM does seem to be policy related at state or nation level, just with some elements that are shared in some countries, but to me it does not compare to the global subjugation of the female gender throughout human history which is now only starting to be removed in some parts of the world. They just dont compare, so it sort of makes the MRM look a bit attention seeking, which is fine to an extent. Lobby groups gonna lobby, but when they start attacking other lobby groups like feminists they shoot themselves in the foot IMO.

all lobby groups should be attacked. Anything that supersedes the fair representation and governance of the people by itself; one voice per individual, no more and no less, is an enemy of that which we believe to be good and just. To allow lobbies to operate is like going back to the days when only the rich and powerful could have a say.

to me it does not compare to the global subjugation of the female gender throughout human history

And it shouldn't. If you want to compare the global subjugation of women throughout history with something, it should be with the global subjugation of men throughout history.

Adder wrote: ...global subjugation of the female gender throughout human history...

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule
http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-matriarchal-communities-from-albania-to-china-3525234/
http://www.amazon.com/Matriarchal-Societies-Studies-Indigenous-Cultures/dp/1433125129

in case anybody forgot those were a thing.
also, there are many cases in history of social equality among the genders, so there's that, too.

I find the concept of privilege an interesting one.
In general, we all have privileges and restrictions. This is generally a perspective. How do I perceive this situation - am I limited or am I free?

When I teach grappling, I always ask my student - "who is winning? who has the advantage? Who is in control?" The only correct answer - no matter what position or lock the person is in is - I am in charge (of myself). If I feel empowered, then I am. If I surrender to my victim mentality, then I am a victim.

People talk about "White Male Privilege". What people seldom talk about are the limitations, expectations and restricts that come with that supposed "privilege". Everything is a blessing and a curse. Everything has a good and a bad.

Women have curtain attributes that "allow them privileges" and these attributes can come with a lot of challenges and "baggage".

In the end, nothing about life in the Earth is "fair" or "equal". But in spirit, all things are one, equal and unified.

What we should be focusing on is: how do we lift ourselves out of the victim state and into the empowered state so topics like this disappear?

1. Women have the right to genital integrity

I really have nothing to say about the first point except that it did state that it was only in regards to current US law.

2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die

Regardless of how any of it came to be, men still have to agree to be drafted before they can vote and women don't. Not exactly equal no matter how you look at it.

3. Women have the right to choose parenthood.

The simple fact is that women can say "I don't want it, take it away" while men are forced to pay child support regardless of what they want. I'm not against men supporting their child but the fact remains that the law says they have to if the woman wants them to while women can give up the child in multiple ways.

Admittedly I'm a little biased on this because when my parents got divorced my father's lawyer must have been really bad at his job. My mom got the house, was our (my sister and I) primary caregiver (getting into part four keep this in mind) and my father had to pay child support. My father made a lot less money than my mother and while she was our primary caregiver they split time with us 50/50. Why would my father have to pay child support in that scenario. It was so bad, he fell behind once and managed to gather enough up to pay it all at once. My mom took us to Disney world with it. My father is still bitter, understandably.

4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children.

If a woman wants to be the primary caregiver for a child in the case of divorce she pretty much just has to say so. For the man to get primary he basically has to prove that they woman is unfit to be a good mother. Anyone who has gone through their own divorce or is a child of divorce can attest to that. Whatever the law might actually say, that is how it is.

Please note that I love both my parents but my father was way more instrumental in shaping my life and he got screwed in the divorce.

5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape

This has less to do with law and more to do with perception, that I'll admit. Their argument is that when it happens to a man it has to be classified as something other than rape which means that it's not treated the same or used in most rape statistics. Not equal treatment, but...

What the article is really getting at is that men can't really come forward and say that a woman raped him because...well...he's a man. Society expects that not only does he always want to have sex regardless of who it's with but that he could stop a woman from forcing him to do it if he didn't want to. The article is not wrong about that.

[hr /]
What the whole article comes down to, for me, is that there are still laws in the US that are different based on gender and that's not equal. I'm not a fan of the authors obvious slant against feminists specifically, I think it would have been more effective if simply talking about how the laws aren't equal without calling out a specific group.

You can not change the system and expect things to get better without first changing the people who support that system.

baru wrote: I find the concept of privilege an interesting one.
In general, we all have privileges and restrictions. This is generally a perspective. How do I perceive this situation - am I limited or am I free?

When I teach grappling, I always ask my student - "who is winning? who has the advantage? Who is in control?" The only correct answer - no matter what position or lock the person is in is - I am in charge (of myself). If I feel empowered, then I am. If I surrender to my victim mentality, then I am a victim.

People talk about "White Male Privilege". What people seldom talk about are the limitations, expectations and restricts that come with that supposed "privilege". Everything is a blessing and a curse. Everything has a good and a bad.

Women have curtain attributes that "allow them privileges" and these attributes can come with a lot of challenges and "baggage".

In the end, nothing about life in the Earth is "fair" or "equal". But in spirit, all things are one, equal and unified.

What we should be focusing on is: how do we lift ourselves out of the victim state and into the empowered state so topics like this disappear?

cosigned

Goken wrote: I came across this article the other day and I found it rather interesting.

5 rights that women have that men don't

Obviously the laws change by country, this is going by US laws currently.

3. Men have this right, it's just a little more invasive. Today for about $800 or so you can have a vasectomy, for about $40 a month you can bank sperm.

rugadd wrote: You can not change the system and expect things to get better without first changing the people who support that system.

Very well said, Rugadd. This is true, whether you are talking about changing laws, changing a business or even changing how you run your house. But I will take it one step further. You cannot change the system and expect things to get better without changing the people who support that system, but you have to first change yourself and demonstrate your influence to others in order for them to change and then move on to changing the system.

Any and all change has to first come from you. When people see you change, then question it. When they watch you work and fight for what you believe in, they will be inspired. When they see you are commited and accountable to your fight, they will start to rally behind you. When you stand before the people as a leader, you then cast the vision for what you are wanting to do. The people have already bought into you and now you have to get them to buy into the vision. Once they have bought into the vision, then you can create a movement. None of this can happen until you agree and effectively change yourself and then prove yourself. This goes for anything from business to politics to managing your own home.

May the Force be with you all.

Silvermane wrote:

rugadd wrote: You can not change the system and expect things to get better without first changing the people who support that system.

Very well said, Rugadd. This is true, whether you are talking about changing laws, changing a business or even changing how you run your house. But I will take it one step further. You cannot change the system and expect things to get better without changing the people who support that system, but you have to first change yourself and demonstrate your influence to others in order for them to change and then move on to changing the system.

Any and all change has to first come from you. When people see you change, then question it. When they watch you work and fight for what you believe in, they will be inspired. When they see you are commited and accountable to your fight, they will start to rally behind you. When you stand before the people as a leader, you then cast the vision for what you are wanting to do. The people have already bought into you and now you have to get them to buy into the vision. Once they have bought into the vision, then you can create a movement. None of this can happen until you agree and effectively change yourself and then prove yourself. This goes for anything from business to politics to managing your own home.

May the Force be with you all.

cosigned

Goken wrote: I'm not a fan of the authors obvious slant against feminists specifically, I think it would have been more effective if simply talking about how the laws aren't equal without calling out a specific group.

I'm with you on that one. Pretty much sums it up for me.

You know what else men have that women don't? This drives me up the wall!!

Buttons...

I demand to either have clothes with right-handed buttons or someone to dress me! :woohoo:

Kamizu wrote: You know what else men have that women don't? This drives me up the wall!!

Buttons...

I demand to either have clothes with right-handed buttons or someone to dress me! :woohoo:

You know what I wish women had that men have? Pockets. I swear I have to carry all of my fiance's stuff because none of her clothes have functional pockets worth a darn. LOL