Male rights issues

[elohiym]

Have you ever noticed that when people talk about "male rights", it almost exclusively involves women in some way?

That is what you would expect when discussing gender-specific rights in a society. For example, a female infant is protected against circumcision in the U.S. but a male child is not.

You never hear anyone complain about how men are looked down upon for taking what's seen as "women's" work, like nursing or teaching.

Are they looked down upon?

This is in contrast to the issues that feminists tend to raise, which involve things like sexual violence from men, but also things like wage equality, access to health care, lack of political empowerment, and stigmatization of women's bodies.

...almost exclusively involves men in some way. Not really a contrast, right?

It's not that men's rights are an inherently absurd concept.

It's not an absurd concept at all.

In fact, feminism properly understood should entail a concern for the rights of men just as it does for women. But the focus and history of the movement is such that it's easy to get the impression that it's mostly a reaction to resist the advancement of equality for women.

Is that what you discern from the examples of male rights issues given on this thread so far? I don't want to resist the advancement women gained by female circumcision being illegal in the U.S. but want the same right for male infants to not be infringed.

Not to say there isn't some institutional unfairness against men in some of these contexts, but it's a little hard to respond positively when I'm not sure that they have the same commitment to equality.

Think about what you are saying there. You see inequality but will not respond positively because you're not sure about what's in the hearts of tens of millions of men?

 

[elohiym]

What you're describing is the capacity to bear children, not the right. It's an important difference.

A woman has a right to use her capacity to bear children. You cannot deny her that right. In China, for example, the right of a woman to bear children is restricted and denied, and that's immoral.

 

[rexlunae]

A woman has a right to use her capacity to bear children.

Sure, but not because she's a woman. Because she's a person.

You cannot deny her that right. In China, for example, the right of a woman to bear children is restricted and denied, and that's immoral.

No one suggested doing that. Would you deny the right of a trans-man to potentially bear a child as well? Would you deny the right of a trans-woman who has a (as-yet not quite invented) artificial or transplanted uterus to bear a child? No.

 

[elohiym]

I'm glad it happened to me when I was born ...

I'm at peace with it because I was not severely damaged like some men, but I would have preferred to be left intact.

Why are you glad it happened to you? There is nothing sad about having having a foreskin, un-calloused glans and undamaged frenulum; in fact, it's an advantage.

Wasn't "genital mutilation" once required by God? You make it sound so sinful.

The circumcision done today is not what God commanded in the Bible. There were at least two modifications to the procedure made by the Jews that were not commanded by God. Originally only the tip of the foreskin was removed; the glans remain covered by foreskin, the frenulum undamaged. The current procedure completely removes the foreskin and damages the organ in several ways, sometimes seriously enough to impair sexual function. Regardless, there is no religious requirement for circumcision in Christianity.

When women are circumcised, they rightfully call it genital mutilation.

 

[elohiym]

Sure, but not because she's a woman. Because she's a person.

A male person cannot bear children.

No one suggested doing that.

It's already being done. I gave China as an example.

Would you deny the right of a trans-man to potentially bear a child as well? Would you deny the right of a trans-woman who has a (as-yet not quite invented) artificial or transplanted uterus to bear a child? No.

There you are creating a right that is not a human right but a trans-gender right.

 

[rexlunae]

A male person cannot bear children.

Depends on whether he has a uterus. It's been done.

It's already being done. I gave China as an example.

There are a lot of things that are considered rights that China doesn't respect.

There you are creating a right that is not a human right but a trans-gender right.

How? What's the difference?

 

[elohiym]

Depends on whether he has a uterus. It's been done.

Okay. Still, the anatomical difference necessitates a gender-specific right. That was my original point.

How? What's the difference?

The man was not born with the inherent right to bear children, which is both a human right and gender-specific right. When you change the gender you create a new gender-specific right, one that was not inherent but created by contract.

 

[rexlunae]

Okay. Still, the anatomical difference necessitates a gender-specific right. That was my original point.

Rather, a stunted and inaccurate view of gender forces you to try to fit rights to a paradigm that doesn't work. There's absolutely no necessity in trying to say that a man lacks a right simply because he lacks the ability to exercise it. It seems to me that you're trying to manufacture a disparity of rights where none genuinely exists.

The man was not born with the inherent right to bear children, which is both a human right and gender-specific right. When you change the gender you create a new gender-specific right, one that was not inherent but created by contract.

It's not a "contract-created" right. Who would the contract be with, the surgeon? No. That's absurd. A man, any man, regardless of any contract, who can carry a baby has as much right to give birth to it as a woman. It's just that the average man has less ability. It's like how I may have the right to write an award-winning novel, but not the ability. Same problem, ultimately.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Rather, a stunted and inaccurate view of gender forces you to try to fit rights to a paradigm that doesn't work. There's absolutely no necessity in trying to say that a man lacks a right simply because he lacks the ability to exercise it. It seems to me that you're trying to manufacture a disparity of rights where none genuinely exists.

ETA: Just a comment, I don't really want to engage other than to offer this idea...

That's like claiming you have the right to genetically modify your offspring. As a man you do not have the right to a uterus, or else you could push a doctor to sell that service, citing your "rights." But you do not have the right to modify yourself in a way that involves others in an unethical fashion.

 

[rexlunae]

ETA: Just a comment, I don't really want to engage other than to offer this idea...

That's like claiming you have the right to genetically modify your offspring. As a man you do not have the right to a uterus, or else you could push a doctor to sell that service, citing your "rights." But you do not have the right to modify yourself in a way that involves others in an unethical fashion.

I don't really disagree with that, honestly. You know who else doesn't have a right to a uterus? Women. Most women have uteri. Some don't. Some have to have theirs removed. Some aren't able to use them. No one has a right to that sort of thing. But if they do have a working uterus, they have a right to use it.