Women's rights vary
Women's rights vary
257 comments
-
This is just blatantly false, men's rights do vary wildly state by state. I get what this is saying and I agree with the message but presenting a good message behind a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.
-
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Honestly the point that it tries to make is not the point that it makes either. It could be understood as "let's ban abortion everywhere", and I don't think that is the point that it tries to make.
I am in favor of bodily autonomy and I don't care what the law currently is anywhere, it should be a given.
-
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Worth knowing: although they attract a lot of anti-feminist losers, the "men's rights" activists are absolutely correct that men do not universally have the same support programs or even legal presumptions that women do. These can vary widely from state to state and even from court to court.
It's not nearly as big an issue as "they want her to die from a miscarriage", but "they presume he's the inferior parent" or "they presume he caused the violence even if he's the one bleeding" are also sexist oppression.
(Comparisons to the anti-woke "all lives matter" bullshit are apt -- men can and should recognize that relatively minor slights and injustices are not nearly as urgent as denying pregnant humans life-saving care!)
-
The irony is that the issue they're talking about involves women losing, in some states, rights that men have never had in any state; men have zero legal means of opting out of parenthood, full stop.
If this was about women losing something that men aren't already without, they might have the foundation of a point. But it's still a fact that women haven't really given a shit about advocating for giving men the equivalent rights, throughout the decades that they had them nationwide.
-
-
I'm not American, can you say what those rights are?
-
I think they're being a "technically Andy" and saying that different states have different laws for everyone.
The original post is clearly talking about laws that apply specifically to those assigned female at birth. So the comment your replying to is just purposely ignoring that. It happens all the time to liberals that are more concerned with being "correct" than actually just.
Now, trans men's rights DEFINITELY vary state to state. But I highly doubt that's what they were talking about.
The only other possible thing I could think of would be how divorce and child support is handled state by state (which is just another thing pushed by the right wing politicians). Maybe some obscure differences between access to TRT? But, again, it's just a comment that is giving no context to the original post and then just ignoring the fact that there is no law towards men, and their rights to their bodies, that is anywhere near what abortion laws control. (Again, excluding trans men. But if the comment you replied to cared about that they would have mentioned it.)
Clearly the original post isn't debating about how it's unfair that in Kentucky the passengers in cars can drink alcohol but in other states they can't. It's not a law about gender/sex. The top comment in this thread is just critizing the original post in bad faith for no real reason but being "technically correct". And for some reason it's being up voted without mentioning literally any law comparable on the level of anti abortion laws.
I'm welcome to be proven wrong. But, seriously, there is a reason they didn't mention a specific law targeting men in certain states.
-
-
Yup.
Glad someone responded to this like that.
As a man, try purport yourself the same from state to state, as if the rules and rights of one are carried over everywhere just because you're a man. XD
-
if you're going to be pedantic then you're sort of right. however, no state bans men from potentially life saving medical procedures when you need them.
-
Yes they do? There are all kinds of potentially life saving procedures that are illegal in various jurisdictions. There's no state with a blanket ban that says women can't get medical care. (Yet? Ugh.). And generally, abortions you're referring to are equally illegal for men and women when they are banned. OPs post is intentionally and pointlessly divisive, badly tainting their message by basing it on a clear lie
-
-
Which state is it illegal to get a vasectomy?
-
Agreed, this message makes a valid point with good intentions, but it will likely face harsh criticism from misogynists - without actually achieving anything meaningful.
-
This will also face criticism of normal people, and that kind of is the point.
If you put up messages like these, then automatically call valid criticism mysogenistic, then you can't call yourself the good guy/gal anymore
This is like politicians making some bullshit argument about protecting kids from abuse and anyone trying to give criticism automatically is in the "are you a pedophile, then?" camp.
If you have an argument to make, make a valid one and keep your auto judgement system off.
-
-
Men's rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant
-
You are missing the point. There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women's rights.
Things like parental rights don't apply here because those impact both genders (they are zero-sum; a decrease in men's paternal rights implies an increase in women's rights).
Only women have specific rights that ONLY impact women and vary from state to state
-
-
If a right varies from state to state, it’s not a right, it’s a conditional privilege.
-
I'd argue they are still rights whether the law is behind it or not. These things are always a moral entitlement; not always a lawful one.
-
But like... Morals are relative. They're frameworks built around core values, they're not a property of the universe. They're not self evident, they're axioms we choose to value collectively
Rights are things that must always be fought for, and they can be both established and worn away. They're a social construct
Rights are things that come before the law, they're the boundaries of the law. But like the rule of law itself, they only exist through collective belief and action, otherwise they're just words
I don't think it needs to be dressed up more than that. Good things are good and bad things are bad, rights protect people from bad things from the state
You'll never convince people who think good things are bad, because they don't have good values. You shouldn't engage with them on an equal level, because their values are inferior... At this point we just need to make it socially unacceptable to share their fucked up opinions
-
-
Didn't know that George Carlin came back from the dead
-
By that logic there is no rights. It ignores what a fight is supposed to be practically and legally
-
What if a bad supreme court can come in and take away rights? If that's the case, then it doesn't matter if it's explicitly listed in some kind of constitutional document because the bad court can choose to interpret that document in such a way that the right disappears. By this definition, there's no such thing as a right, because there's always someone who can come in and take it away. There aren't, and can not be, any actual rights, just conditional privileges.
But, that isn't a very useful definition. In some sense, it's obviously true. If a warlord takes over a country they might suddenly forbid something everybody assumed was a right. That's why we have the saying "might makes right". Fundamentally the only rights you really have are the ones that you're strong enough to prevent someone from taking away. It certainly helps to have them written down in some kind of founding document, but it's no guarantee of anything.
-
Freedom is something you take. Whether for yourself or another, and it's always from some fucking duechbag who wants slaves and not equals
-
-
It’s kind of inherent to the concept of rights that they exist in some framework of authority.
Cavemen could have shouted that they have human rights to the other cavemen bashing their heads in and it would have been utterly meaningless.
-
Needs alt text or link to source.
By claiming the repression of inalienable rights means they are conditional privileges, the author's admitting their ignorance of moral philosophy & the purpose of the word inalienable in it.
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy. The premise is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them. Violations are unjust.
They don't imply a legal system can't violate ethics.[^enlightenment] They're for arguing a system shouldn't & to demand a more just one. It's still up to the people to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought is a naturalistic fallacy.
[^enlightenment]: The Enlightenment thinkers who developed these ideas were completely aware that they can and do, so for the author to treat that as not the exact problem they were addressing is awfully special. They were devising a definition for legitimate authority based on moral philosophy & not on divine right to rule.
-
-
Liability for child and spousal support do vary by state.
Gendered inequity in criminal punishment does vary by state also.
-
when i was younger and stupid and in the (glass) closet i was dating the son of a pharmacologist. this man had made millions developing medications. he was fond of me and privately told me i was too funny and smart to be dating boys.
he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are "for women" - will not be clinically tested on my body.
the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved.
to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant.
once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about "the effects of New Medication on the body."
instead, the trial would fail - the results would be "the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient."
it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus.
that's how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.
at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this -
- that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.
i remember him shrugging. "that's not to say it doesn't happen," he said. my ears were ringing.
i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant.
when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.
how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment.
how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.
it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to "save" our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren't we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can't get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually. who cares about you and your actual safety. think about what you could be carrying.
-
jesus, that was a haunting read
-
women are also dismissed or outright ignored in the ER OR AT appointments, as having a period or being hysterical when they have serious symptoms of a disease.
-
how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment.
You would be extremally disgusted hearing what happens in poland since 2020.
-
That's rough. Thank you for that explanation.
I knew about pregnancy concerns preventing pregnancy related medical things (tubes tied, etc) but not about health in general like a broken bone. WTF. I get people not wanting to hurt a fetus, but its wild that it's more important than the person that may be carrying it, let alone it when it doesnt exist and its just a woman that 'is pregnant or may become pregnant' with an injury.
-
Yup.
We live in a country where if I get in the car with my girlfriend on the west coast and drive to the east coast, she gains and loses basic human rights multiple times before we reach our destination and nothing changes for me.
We can't even treat our women with respect. Trash nation. Full stop.
-
Trash nation. Full stop.
And so many women vote for this?
-
-
Men's rights to what, exactly? There are plenty of rights that affect men that vary state to state. Off the top of my head I can think of firearm rights that vary dramatically state to state. Or are we talking about rights exclusive to men because of different biology between men and women? I feel like other than a vasectomy, I'm not sure what other male-biology-related rights I have. Honestly there's less technology related to reproduction on the male side.
I get the point of the message, that there are rights women should be universally guaranteed that aren't, and I totally agree with that message. But the phrasing seems ambiguous at best.
-
I am sure that they are speaking of reproductive rights that apply exclusively to men.
The biggest one that I can think of that varies by region are paternal rights. Things like which parent gets custody, child support. I guess you could say that paternal rights in that case simply vary inversely to maternal rights.
I think I recall from the past that in some states, a sperm donor, like for a sperm bank, may be subject to more liability for their children than in other states.
Medically, there's not only vasectomy, but also drugs that cause erections like Viagra, as well as other impotence treatments. I have no idea if any of those vary by state. Prostate treatment would also count. Any treatment that might increase or decrease viable sperm count.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were differences between states about how penile implants or even piercings are treated.
-
Oh yeah, firearm rights are definitely exclusive to men.
-
-
Unless those men are black, Hispanic, or neurodivergent.
-
You realize those prejudices get compounded, right?
What's the name of that highway in canada, where they raped and murdered and dumped the corpses of native women?
Never a lead on any of those cases. I don't think one was male, but hey, maybe there were a couple
-
Indiginous men were taken on star light tours by the cops
\ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_killings -
Highway of tears, there have been several leads and several serial killers caught. The original list in 1980 included Larry Vu, Eric Charles Coss, and Phillip Innes Fraser but they were later removed after the "highway of tears" designation to focus exclusively on first nation women.
The lack of males is due primarily to the categorization, not the lack of victims.
-
-
Privileges certainly vary by race, but do 21st century laws vary?
The only example I can think of is reservation laws.
-
The varies WILDLY in how and when it is enforced, you fucking buffoon. Why isn't trump in prison for fucking ever right now?
I've never even heard of someone else collecting felonies like beanie babies and not spending the rest of their life in jail.
There's black folks Still in prison for petty weed crimes, on state charges, in states where it's legal now and has been for years
-
-
-
Tell me that when we ban male genital mutilation.
-
Aha aha aha but wait, it's equally legal in every state, thus making it just fine. /s
-
Would an inconsistent law really be better?
It should be consistently restricted.
-
-
No offense (lie) but cry me a fuckin river. Is it shitty, stupid, fucked up, and should be stopped? Sure! Wholeheartedly agree.
But framing it the same verbiage of something that KILLS LITTLE GIRLS or MAIMS THEM BEYOND BEING ABLE TO PISS let alone have a functional set of genitalia if they get to grow up
is fucking removed
-
Sweet, I guess you win the oppression race
-
Way to pull the ladder up behind you. Selfish jerk.
-
-
-
-
Here in Tennessee, if I get a boner in public (fully clothed), it’s indecent exposure and I can be arrested.
That’s not the case in most states.
Granted, I doubt it’s a common issue, but I’m a nerd and saw a claim that’s technically wrong, so here I am.
-
Technically laws change for men in every state, such as ones with legal cannabis or dry counties or even leash laws. But I get what the OP was saying
-
Yeah, you have to read it as "laws that apply specifically to men".
-
-
-
I don't get why people think saying things like "REPEAT THAT OUT LOUD" makes their point better. Let the horror speak for itself, it's plenty capable of doing so.
-
To be fair, given the apparent average reading comprehension of most social media users, it probably does actually make a difference
-
Just like "Read it again, slowly". dw, I understood it the first time around.
-
oh no, rethorical tools. what an horror
-
oh no, rethorical tools. what an horror
REPEAT THAT OUT LOUD
See? So much more effective: @IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world missed an opportunity to prove a point.
-
-
More bullshit, made up divisiveness.
-
Would it be the red states? Would it be because women there vote for the kind of politicians that don't care about their rights?
-
Try not to "but what about men" challenge
Level: impossible
-
Men's rights don't vary state by state, but women's rights do vary state by state. There I said it out loud because I'm talking into my phone.
-
No states give men the right to not be a father. They're along for whatever ride the woman chooses
-
Men have the right to use birth control or get a vasectomy
-
Right to abortion is body autonomy, not right to escape parenthood. Fetal death outside the womb is a byproduct.
Natural law, in its majestic equality, frees the sexes alike from the duty to carry unwanted occupants in their bodies. Men have equal rights to eject unwanted occupants from their bodies whenever that happens. Only by accident of nature are biological women regularly cursed with the burden to carry child.
As frivolous as that may naively seem, it's a serious argument: don't blame natural rights for natural differences.
Repression of right to abortion should concern non-women, too: if they ever find their bodies hooked up to sustain someone's life and want to discontinue that, the courts might deny them.
-
Men have the exact same right to abandon and refuse to raise their child that women do. This right is not always respected in American courts, but the same laws that protect her if he doesn't want to help also should protect him if she just wants to drop the baby and run.
And if she sabotaged the condom, stole his sperm for IVF,.or similarly took action to concieve against his wishes, then she committed a crime and should be punished. But not the child.
As far as the law or justice cares, babies could be delivered by storks.
-
-
Learn liberal philosophy: inherent rights don't vary at all. Their repression varies.
-
I hate that is true but even moreso that folk are so fucking dense to see
-
THAT!
-
To just add a touch of clarity: straight white men's rights don't vary state by state.
-
I have recently became cognizant of the fact that women, really aren't treated like people.
-
all the anti-trans thing going is really about targeting women as well. since you rarely hear about anti-trans men.
-
I'm a transwoman who's just confronted her internalized misogyny
-
-
No man has ever pulled that maneuver off, that's for sure. It's hard enough as a man avoiding having to pay child support for a child you found out wasn't actually yours. Oh, and it's still open season on taking a scalpel to baby penises for no medically-justifiable reason.
All statements like these do is punctuate the severity of the empathy gap.
-
I've sadly read about this case. Just completely insane what young men are supposed to be "responsible" for, no matter what.
-
-
-
What right, shared by both men and women, differs from state to state only for women? Women have more rights than men do. If some of those privileges differ by state, why should I care? They already have more rights than men do. Women are a privileged class always demanding more privileges.
Men have to suffer twice as much to get any support at all.
-
The entire system is built to support us men. It's like an ocean. Women's rights are a tiny artificial sea wall constantly needing work to keep up with the relentless ocean of male dominance.
-
This is a farce. Women have all of men's rights on top of extra rights and don't have a variety of responsibilities exclusive to men. Most men have to constantly fight for everything they have without any of the support women receive. Survival for men is a relentless war that never sleeps, against other men, women, business, anti-male socio/cultural special interest groups and the state.
The same tired argument that because a few men have a lot of power, somehow all men do. That's projection from women who use their power to support women and oppress men, and assume men do the same. They don't. Those handful of powerful men treat most men like shit, worse than they treat women. Y'all have no fucking clue what men would be doing if they were as united in common cause in the way women do. But we may just find out one day if things keep going as they are.
-
257 comments