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
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.
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.
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
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”.
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.
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_killingsHighway 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
So, laws are consistent. Enforcement isn’t.
Racism’s isn’t exclusive to gender. Try again.
The counter-claim is not that racism is exclusively a men’s issue. The counter-claim is that the claim “men’s rights don’t vary by state” is false, as evidenced an example of how men’s rights do vary by state. The implied part that should have been explicit is that the way racism manifests from state to state also has gendered aspects, with some disproportionately affecting women (e.g. hair/dress policing in the workplace) but some also disproportionately affecting men (e.g. incarceration). That is to say, racism and sexism are intersectional. Another example might be how custody rights typically vary from state to state often unjustly disfavoring the father, given all other things being equal.
I’d suggest that this argument does not go against the underlying position of OP that “patriarchy bad”, rather it corrects OP to highlight how institutional sexism typically falls along normative/conservative conceptions of gender for men too. That is to say “patriarchy bad mostly for women, but also bad for men too”.
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!)
To be fair, the vast majority of these are societal standards and not rights, they are still absolutely important and we need to do more for equality both for women and for men, but strictly speaking they are not by definition rights.
But I am in agreement with you that I think a lot of why the younger generation are being pulled in the wrong direction is because men, of which I am one, have not done enough to create an environment that addresses issues that primarily affects men in a way that is not based on misogyny.
Don’t get me wrong, the alt-right have absolutely tried to exacerbate these issues (either knowingly or unknowingly) and use them for their own gains, but we as a society have also not prioritized emotionally healthy solutions and that has led us to where we are.
I think we have a right to be judged fairly and not because of our gender or sex. But that’s a semantic point and I don’t want to quibble.
I do want to push back on excusing from women their responsibility for the society we live in, however. (Or just underline an implied point we may both share.)
Nearly every man I know values the opinions of women at least as much as those of other men. When a boy sees his mom belittle his father for being insufficiently manly, he hears a lesson that sexism is bad. When a man tells a boy that the way to get a girlfriend is to be a sexist jerk the boy listens, not because he cares about the con artist, but because he’s desperate for a girl who cares about him.
Men have a lot of the big levers of power, and do bear a proportionate share of our own blame, but we shouldn’t excuse women who use the power they have in ways that make our society worse.
We’re all in this together, and all need to do what we can to make the world we pass to our children better than the one our parents passed on to us.
if they assume he’s the inferior parent, why do the men win custody almost every fucking time they try, whereas the woman involved gets the kid dumped on her, completely, with no child support orders unless she fights for them, anytime the guy doesn’t want anything to do with the kid he knocked her up with?
Men winning custody? Surely you jest
I would agree and disagree.
You are right but I think “ignoring” “men’s issues” harms the feministic cause and consequently the “dying of miscarriage” problem. As sad as it is PR is sometimes very important and e.g. the lie in the post doesn’t help the PR and a lot of young men don’t feel supported but attacked by the current framing of feminism.
I think we agree and agree.
I was careful not to use the word “ignore”, because the answer to anyone sharing how they were harmed by sexism should never be anything less than “that’s horrible and I hate that it happened to you.”
Sexist women who claim to be “feminist” and yet feel free to denigrate men or dismiss their perspective are terrible advocates for the cause.
(Not “their” cause, because sexism is an evil that harms everyone and everyone should be against it.)
(And sealions who claim to be “men’s rights activists” but just want to be sexist anti-feminist trolls are at least as bad.)
Yup, we agree.
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.
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
it’s funny, abortions are banned equally for men as for women, therefore it isn’t a gendered issue?
Is 2025, men can get pregnant too.
I am trying too, after a year on grinder I did not get anyone pregnant, not even myself
Keep going, brother. Surely the right egg is out there for your seed. Or vice versa, idk.
Um… so, first and foremost, I know trans people exist, however, I’m not sure how many men are rushing to get an abortion…
Does the number matter? This should be about equal rights for all people regardless of race gender, sex, genetic make-up, age, or governing body. Feminism is for everyone. Treating men like feminism is not for them keeps men from backing feminist causes.
Feminism being misandrist and transphobic is what keeps men from backing feminist causes
Absolutely, but some laws can specifically impact the needs of a particular gender, historically pretty much always women. Treating everyone completely equal in cases like these tends to marginalize groups of people, which is why equity is more important than equality.
Ugh. I mean shit guy really? Making the argument that it’s equally illegal for a man to get an abortion as a woman therefore it’s not different is the stupidest fucking argument I’ve ever seen in my life.
Still not as stupid as trying to say OPs post is true
Men can and do get pregnant and can and do need abortions.
The comment that was using this as justification isn’t talking about trans men. Its just arguing in bad faith.
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
What rights exactly? Racism excluded because racism isn’t exclusive to gender.
This idea of pretending like men don’t experience rights issues at the hands of the state is antithetical to forming an equal society, it only serves to disuade men from being feminists because “it isn’t for them”
Can you point to a specific law targeting men that is based on their body anatomy? Not men that are targeted for race, gender vs. sex identity, or sexual orientation.
Literally, just asking for one specific law comparable to anti abortion laws. Thanks.
There is no section in the PDF you linked talking about laws that restrict the rights of cis men based on them being cis men. Trans men, yes, but I don’t think that’s the context of what the original post was talking about. Maybe I missed it though.
Or is this all a misunderstanding of the OOP not considering trans men? I’m confused.
There are laws that force men to be financially responsible for children that aren’t related to them.
You wanting to find excuses to hate men is not a great place to start a worldview from.
Can you be more specific? I read the PDF you linked but found no mention of any of these laws. I don’t hate men. I’m literally a man. Also, I’m not trying to find something to hate men. Quite the opposite. I’m just asking you to help me find the law you are talking about. Is that so bad? Like, I read an entire PDF you linked to “prove your point” and it doesn’t have anything related to what you’re trying to talk about. Did you read it?
I think that’s perhaps the issue with the post. It’s not men’s rights don’t vary by state. Because I’m sure there are some that do. I think the point here is what men’s rights to healthcare vary by state?
You should stop moving the bar so you can maintain a bad opinion of men.
It’s really weird.
It’s really weird that men want control over women. Maybe if they minded their own business I wouldn’t have a bad opinion of men.
You and I both know healthcare was the point of this post, so by ignoring that, you moved the post. Fuck off
No, you don’t get to dictate the direction of conversations when you don’t like where you brought them.
You have to get past this victim mentality if you ever hope to live in a world with men instead of killing them all.
Society wants two classes of women, brides and sex workers. We cannot allow this
deleted by creator
Which state is it illegal to get a vasectomy?
The post does not specify reproductive rights, it just says rights.
it just says women’s rights
Ftfy
Yeah, and women have other rights than those related to reproduction. The person you replied to was pointing this out.
As far as I know none. But barriers to being able to get one is wildly different. I know in New York, there’s a 30 day waiting period after having a consultation with the dr before they are allowed to operate.
Is a life-saving emergency vasectomy a thing? I feel like this whole comment section is just incapable of understanding the degree of the law being discussed and the impact on an individuals life.
Like, it would be unfair if in California men were not allowed to jwalk but women were. Kind of odd. But, like, what the fuck are we even talking about if we’re comparing that to something on the level of a often life saving medical procedure?
I’m autistic. But this comment section is making me feel neuro-typical for how incredibly hyperfocused it is on trying to act like the OOP is “technically wrong”. And the best example I can find talking about cis men is your comment. I gotta be missing something. Are people really saying there is some law comparable to anti abortion laws that target cis men? I really hope it’s not a 30 day waiting period for a vasectomy when the same thing probably applies for non medically necessary hysterectomys as well. Seriously, did you even look up the laws on hysterectomys in the the same state? Because that’s a much more risky procedure that likely has even more restrictions.
They didn’t say it was that right specifically
No they are comparing men’s rights to women’s.
Women’s rights to life saving medical care (abortion) is being denied.
That is true, but it doesn’t mean the person you originally replied to is wrong. What they said is also true. Presenting what you did as a counterargument makes no sense.
Which state is it illegal to get a tubal ligation?
Well I don’t know, but have you had six separate $150+ appointments with your doc who asks you questions ranging from “well what does your boyfriend of two weeks want” to “are you really sure?” to “we’re going to have to ask you attend this six week course on why it’s important to produce a legacy before we can sign off on this. Then we’ll see what your insurance has to say”
The topic was illegal procedures, the person I replied to was comparing a vasectomy to abortion by asking which states it is illegal in.
The comparison isn’t valid. A vasectomy isn’t remotely the same procedure as an abortion.
Well I don’t know
You could check before posting so that you would know.
If you did, you would find out that there are 0 states in the United States where either tubal ligation or vasectomies are illegal.
I do agree that the access to care situation is shit and caused by sexist lawmakers and doctors.
But, just because you agree with someone, doesn’t mean you can’t tell them that they’re making irrational arguments. If people want to continue to push for change, it’s important that everyone is capable of understanding the issues and know how to argue them effectively.
Making outrage baiting statements are good for social media engagement, but they’re antithetical to convincing people to change.
Which states is abortion, a life saving medical procedure illegal?
Sorry, I don’t have a direct men’s version of this.
Texas has been murdering people over it.
I don’t know.
Which world is a vasectomy and tubal ligation the same as an abortion? Because that was the comment that I responded to.
Wow u really gottem
It seems like the same people that get mad about black lives matter, screaming white lives matter are here.
The message “black lives matter” was intentionally amplified to sow dissent along racial lines.
No, this is very different than that. This is about supporting one group without intentionally putting down another.
No, this is very different than that. This is about supporting one group without intentionally putting down another.
Y’all always tell on yourselves lol
Women have a long history of having less rights than men.
When did they allow women to start voting? That is just one example
First, sorry, but it’s fewer rights, not less rights, since it’s countable.
Second, sure, that’s true. That’s not what this is about though. There’s no reference above to which group is more privileged. It’s only talking about the fact that, in some places, the rights of men (and all people) do differ. I’m sure you can recognize this is true, right? Some states protect (or, rather, don’t infringe on) some rights more than others, for all people, right? If you agree then the statement of the OP is definitively untrue, and the comment above is accurate.
You are a fucking chode
Does anyone in this thread disagree with that? I haven’t seen a single example.
If someone posted “white women’s rights don’t vary state by state, but black women’s do”, they would rightfully be called out for posting nonsense. But you’d be there saying “no but black women have it worse tho” That’s the equivalent. It’s a clearly false statement intended to make one group an enemy instead of an ally and you shouldn’t be defending it so blindly
Spicy analogy but valid
Agreed, this message makes a valid point with good intentions, but it will likely face harsh criticism from misogynists - without actually achieving anything meaningful.
Why do you think it’s not possible to both acknowledge that women have it worse and also that there are things they negatively impact men as well? They’re not mutually exclusive.
Trying to fix men’s problems doesn’t mean women don’t have problems or the shouldn’t be fixed. Oppression Olympics aren’t productive for anyone.
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.
MAGA Be Like: “Men”, are supposed to use “women”, to make “childred”. “trans women” Can’t do that, “trans women” bad
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.
There is at least a parental choice involved. The government is actively removing women’s rights as we speak
deleted by creator
No where that i am aware of. I wasn’t trying to make that point? Although even non adult women are being affected, such as access to birth control
deleted by creator
Gotcha
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 retarded
Sweet, I guess you win the oppression race
Way to pull the ladder up behind you. Selfish jerk.
Point out to me where exactly adult men’s right’s vary by state? Excluding racism because racism isn’t exclusive to gender.
If you cut through the dog-whistling bullshit, there are a lot of issues with child custody, for example. Access to the correct restroom is also highly state dependent. While the legal aspect is only part of it, genital mutilation rates are also variable by state.
Look, this isn’t a competition. Two things can be bad at the same time.
No one said it’s a competition, I’m genuinely asking you. Even under child custody I would be interested to actual know the details, as one might be surprised. Access to the correct restroom, do you mean trans? Because that seems a separate issue from “men’s” rights
Every single one of the amendments called the bill of rights has different limitations per state.
A man’s 1st amendment rights are legally different in Florida than in California
A man’s 2nd amendment rights are legally different in Florida than in California
And so on. 3rd amendment is probably the least variable but still.
Name a “right” that doesn’t vary state by state. Frequently our legal rights vary by county and city even. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
Fair enough. I would love for someone to point out where a man’s life saving healthcare varies by state.
Some people just don’t care if women die
I very much care if women die and it’s so stupid to imply I don’t when I’m disagreeing with the insanely ignorant OP. Stop making enemies out of allies.
If it had said men’s life saving healthcare doesn’t vary by state, that’s a huge fucking difference and you know it. It would still be wrong, because everyone’s access to healthcare varies vastly by state, but at least you’d have a leg to stand on.
Jesus Christ, I didn’t imply you don’t, but you know what? I’m going to straight up say you cannot fucking read. Read my message again. You’re making enemies when you’re taking that message so personal. Grow up.
The leg I have to stand on is women are historically treated like shit, and that’s the point here. Just look at the misogynists crawling around like maggots in this thread.
Similar as to women’s rights a lot of injustice is less enshrined in law and more in practice and societal reality. I.e. a comprehensive picture cannot merely be based on the detail of the law.
A man having a fully clothed boner in public is illegal in Tennessee. And that’s not something we can control.
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.
Just like “Read it again, slowly”. dw, I understood it the first time around.
To be fair, given the apparent average reading comprehension of most social media users, it probably does actually make a difference
Social media users on text platforms are probably above average on reading skills. I’m convinced the average person is only semi literate, and there’s a shocking amount of people who can barely read at all.
This has been studied and it’s actually true
Especially when it’s something untrue followed by “REPEAT THAT OUT LOUD”.
you ain’t been around a whole lot of the states, have you
Why?
oh no, rethorical tools. what an horror
oh no, rethorical tools. what an horror
REPEAT THAT OUT LOUD
See? So much more effective: @[email protected] missed an opportunity to prove a point.
too lazy, better let other people prove my point for me.
“an horror” is far scarier
it’s an orror innit
boo
I mean when it’s something really obvious that the entire audience already knows it’s just obnoxious
I feel it’s only obnoxious because it’s uncreative. Theyre just using a template meme which feels low effort.
if you’re right and the audience knows it’s obnoxious, why do you repeat yourself? or using rethorical tools is ok when you’re using them?
honestly, it’s such a non issue.
It’s an issue to me because it’s really annoying 🤪
why use emojis if the meaning is clear? DAMN RETHORICAL TOOLS, WHY ARE THEY SO UNIVERSAL
I kinda just wanted to see what would happen if I did that lmao
(Also it does meaningfully change the tone of the message)
Yes it does, that is the point of rhetorical tools. otherwise imagine if it was costumery to send messages as succinctly as possible without any fluff or emotional tone. Communicating would be a pain.
My rule of thumb, if complaining about something annoying is even more annoying than the thing I am complaining about, it is not worth complaining about.
If a right varies from state to state, it’s not a right, it’s a conditional privilege.
By that logic there is no rights. It ignores what a fight is supposed to be practically and legally
Needs alt text or link to source, and that’s just the author admitting their failure to grasp the distinction between moral philosophy & statutory law.
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.[1] 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.
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. ↩︎
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
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
Didn’t know that George Carlin came back from the dead
Oh, so by your genius logic, slavery wasn’t a human rights violation—just a ‘conditional privilege’ for some states? And I guess age of consent laws are just ‘local customs,’ not protections? Congrats, you’ve outed yourself as the kind of brainlet who thinks rights are whatever’s convenient for your backward agenda. Sit down, you absolute embarrassment.
Are you ok? 👀
Try not to “but what about men” challenge
Level: impossible
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
There are no rights exclusive to men or women. Abortion also affects trans men.
While you are technically correct, this is very obviously a discussion about reproductive rights, and the historical oppression of women as those who are most commonly impacted by reproductive rights issues. Your point is factual and valid but it is a distraction from the very important conversation being had here.
If this discussion leads to improved protection of reproductive rights, by pointing to the imbalance between traditionally male and traditionally female rights under US law, then trans men will also benefit. As such, the distraction of pointing out that trans men are also impacted therefore it’s “not just women” and the implication that we shouldn’t be talking about the ongoing oppression of women but rather “uterus havers”, works against your own interests.
The people who need to be convinced that reproductive rights need protection, and for whom the “it’s imbalanced” argument will be effective, are often even more vehemently opposed to trans issues. Bringing your point up here only serves to further entrench people who might otherwise be swayed to make changes that would benefit trans men. This is called “breaking into jail”.
There is a time and a place to have the “trans men are impacted by reproductive rights issues” discussion and this isn’t it.
Maybe make the point in a more direct and less confusing manner then? People are just critiquing the message because its written poorly. Its not even apparent its about reproductive rights until someone else clarifies that.
I knew immediately that it was about reproductive rights, but that’s just because that’s been the latest and most consistent snub against women lately.
If this were 40 years ago it would probably be about their ability to get a bank account or credit card without a man.
Or vote
I know it seems pedantic and normally I wouldnt interject but clearly based on your responses throughout this thread it needs to be brought up.
My omission of your point was intentional because as I said, in this context it’s not pedantic but rather self-defeating.
If we were in a different context I’d be right there with you championing the fact that trans men are effected by reproductive rights issues.
But for all the reasons I’ve already explained I chose not to bring transgender matters into this conversation because it only serves to make it harder to get the things you actually want, which is reproductive healthcare equality for trans men (and women).
It was a deliberate choice to meet my target audience where they are, knowing that a victory in that context would benefit trans men too.
Oh hush. The post clearly means the sexes not the genders.
Do you not think that access to abortion affects cis men too? Of course it’s far more important to the woman whose body is at risk, just not solely important to her. This is the kind of stupid divisiveness that doesn’t help.
No it doesnt. They state gender multiple times.
Transphobia flourishes when it’s dismissed, minimized, and forgiven.
The only differences between “men’s rights” and “women’s rights” comes down to unequal treatment by police and the courts. When we talk about abortion and rape, the group in question can be described a bunch of ways (“female”, “xx”, “uterus-having”) but not accurately simply as “women”.
Because trans-men are men, not women, and treating them as such is every bit as bigoted as treating trans women as men.
Hush? Like how women have been historically told to hush? Trans rights are every bit as important as women’s rights.
So you’re saying that in addition to the rights we all have, women have additional exclusive rights.
No, I’m saying that women are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as everyone (e.g. complete bodily autonomy) but have their rights restricted in varying ways from state to state.
This really isn’t that hard to understand. Women have had their rights restricted in ways that men didn’t for a long, long time. It’s so normal that you aren’t even aware of it.
They got the right to vote later than men.
They got federal protection for their right to have their own bank account without a man’s approval in 1974 for fuck’s sake.
Is it so hard to recognize that women’s rights are controlled in ways that men’s aren’t?
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Male genital mutilation is common practice. The discrepancies certainly aren’t equal, but they aren’t exclusively one-sided.
Let’s not forget that women have never had compulsory military service in the US either. I hear some things can happen to your body in war. I mean aside from it being mandatorily shipped away for months and years.
Yes, anyone pushing for that last inch of total exclusivity here has another think coming.
Name a state - or a country - where men have “(e.g. complete bodily autonomy)”. All the examples I can think you might think are false, so either I’m missing something or I’m gonna challenge you so badly I van taste the endorphins (or I’ll learn something, so win win for me)
They got the right to vote later than men
Yes. For example in UK, women got universal voting rights whole decade later than men.
The comical thing is that women don’t have the right to vote in the U.S., neither do men, they have the right to not be discriminated against when voting takes place.
e.g. If Florida says they will hold a vote by the population for representatives, they can’t say women exclusively can’t vote. But Florida could in theory state they won’t be holding a vote for the representatives, and the currently sitting members of their congress will pick their representatives instead. Sign that into law and poof, they just legally removed 23 million people’s right to vote
It’s not that hard to understand. Neither is “Men’s rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant.”
If you had just been reasonable and settled for that, I woudln’t be deliberately winding you up like this.
Well yes. In addition to the body parts we all have, women have some that are exclusive to them; and as they’re a bit special they require extra rights.
Well, no. Both sexes have body parts which are exclusive to them. And before you say “yeah but there’s nothing controversial or invasive happening to any male body parts” consider circumcision.
Amendment 2 varies by state county city. But not by sex. Lots of rules are state wise, not federal
What do you mean by this?
You can open carry where? You can own an assault rifle where? You can not open carry nor own a pistol where 18 vs 21 where?
All are questions of the second amendment. In NYC you can’t own a gun without privelege. In Orlando, you can now own one and carry one.
You’re missing the point: are any of those rights different my state only for men or are all of those rights different by state for EVERYONE including men and women?
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
I was agreeing they didn’t vary by sex, but just to play devils advocate, rape. In many states only men can be charged with rape, because it defines it as penetration, and I don’t believe fingers count
There are no rights exclusive to men
You can kinda stop there, I mean, are there any rights exclusive to men? If there aren’t this is kind of a false dichotomy.
Not that I disagree with women’s rights of course, I’m just having trouble thinking of something that even would possibly “only apply to men.”
What’s amendment 2?
Electric bugaloo
The right to bear arms.
right to own bear arms.
Oh. Usually it’s phrased as second amendment.
Yep, I definitely think the whole phrasing of that comment is unusual. I understand the basic facts they are stating, but not the point of stating them.
I’m confused about what your point was in your original comment. I don’t get the relevance?
My original comment? I just answered your question as to what that other commenter meant by “amendment 2.” I didn’t say anything else? Did you not want someone else to answer your question and only want that commenter to?
The second amendment to the constitution
Which rights are exclusive to men?
The right to drink a beer while operating a riding lawn mower in full view of the public without wearing a shirt.
But that’s illegal for everyone. Even for women.
I think you have it slightly twisted. If you’re mowing your own lawn on your own property as a dude and showing a bare chest, you will find that there are no laws on the books in your locale prohibiting this. If you dare to show boobs while doing so, however, you are certain to cop an indecent exposure charge (or at least the threat of the same) if anyone sees you.
There are some exceptions where being out and about topless as a woman isn’t illegal, but these are indeed exceptions in specific states and municipalities, which is kind of the point of this entire thread. Nobody’s going to say anything to a guy doing this, even if he’s ugly.
I think you missed the part about operating a riding mower while publicly consuming alcohol. That’s the part that’s illegal for everyone.
On your own property? No it ain’t. On the street, sure.
Show me in the OP screencap where it says exclusive
Women’s rights vs. men’s rights.
Do women have the right to receive life saving medical care(abortion) as they should?
I’m not arguing the point it’s making, just that the wording doesn’t convey what it means to
Liability for child and spousal support do vary by state.
Gendered inequity in criminal punishment does vary by state also.
Which rights are you referencing?
My state gives unmarried fathers essential zero rights as a parent of the child. They are expected to provide financial support though.
I didn’t know what essential zero rights mean.
Like 0 rights.
I’ll give you my solidly blue, pretends to be progressive states take:
If you are the father of the child you are responsible for the child. Unless you are married to the mother of the child, you default to having 0 legal custody of that child and all matters of the child’s health and welfare are up to the mother to decide. You have no paternal rights to the child, but you do have paternal obligations.
If you marry the mother you are suddenly legally part of the equation and have more rights, but unless you’re married to the mother of your child you have no legal standing.
Equal Protection Clause found in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
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.
You’re the only one making it about exclusive rights and not just generally rights.
Really stupid and asinine for people like you to demand everyone just shut up and agree with you, because agreeing with you but then talking about other related things isn’t nice enough or whatever
The OP is literally comparing the difference between men and women’s rights.
I guess pretending that they aren’t is popular.
Do men have rights that vary state to state? Yes. Do women also have rights that vary state to state? Yes.
So the OP is false.
Nowhere in op says exclusive rights, nowhere in op cuts out specific rights. That’s why people are disagreeing with you. You’re defending a false statement by adding words in your head that aren’t there on the page.
Yup.
A lot of “it means what I mean it to mean” going around in the replies to those pointing out the poor phrasing’s logic fail.
