We oughta have more rights....we have more guile
Do women have more rights than men today?
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
We always have choices. We can contribute to the education and elevation of discourse or to the dumbing down and disintegration.
I say aim high.
It's a patchwork of S.Ct. cases that establish related controls over the individual's physical integrity.
In relation to my above point. It's a mixed bag. For instance, women who abuse alcohol or narcotics leading to the birth of a child damaged by that behavior can be prosecuted in many jurisdictions. I'd say the Ct. has made a serious error with regard to terminating pregnancy. There is no fundamental right to be taught sex education in schools, though it may serve a public interest. Access to reproductive health services is a bit vague and heavily qualified in the particular.
But ultimately most of that falls under a person's right to, within qualifiers, have the freedom of their own person. The particulars that differentiate between gender tend to follow biological lines and not an attempt to make for an uneven field. So a man, who can't become pregnant, assume the risks associated with pregnancy to his person cannot enforce his will in the matter on a woman who can.
So no, ultimately there aren't more rights for women, no matter how thinly we slice the term, there are only rights that pertain to biological distinctions involved in our relative autonomy over what happens with our own person.
PureX
Well-known member
Well, I think you're using the term too narrowly, then. Wikipedia defines meritocracy as
"a political philosophy which holds that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively according to merit. Advancement in such a system is based on performance measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented."
But regardless…
The real problem with the term/ideal of "meritocracy" is that it doesn't define anything essential; i.e., the basis for the determination of merit. And therein hides the bias, the bigotry, the irrationality, and the harm.
When this nation was being formed, it was commonly believed that male, white, educated, and wealthy land-owners were the embodied definition of "merit". And so they, and they alone, were presumed to have the right to control the levers of politics, the economy, and of social order. These men defined merit based on themselves, exclusively, and so have maintained control over the lives and well-being of everyone in this country, and of many others around the world, ever since. Yet their definition of merit doesn't really merit that kind of exclusive power and influence, because in truth, those men were and are no more intelligent, ethically grounded, morally magnanimous, or self-aware than anyone else in our society is. And a great deal of unfair, unjust, and unnecessary suffering has resulted for a great many human beings (but not to the meritocrats, of course) because of it.
And this kind of self-centered bias infects nearly everyone's concept of "merit" because nearly everyone is using their own goals and aspirations as their criteria for merit. The primary goal of a commercial business in a capitalist system, for example, is to make money for the capital investors. So what do you think will be the criteria for 'merit' in that business? It will be one's ability to make the investors money, of course. Thus one CEO gets paid millions of dollars while thousands of his employees struggle to survive on their meager wages because he used his presumed "merit" to gain as much compensation for himself as he could, by denying as much compensation as possible to everyone else. And he is rewarded for this selfish greed, because of the definition of 'merit' in capitalist business enterprise is based on selfishness and greed. (There is little actual 'merit' in this outcome, however, except for the capital investors and the CEO.)
The point is that 'merit' will always be defined by those in power, and that definition will then be used to keep them in power. And this is why conservatives like the idea of 'meritocracy' so much; because the fundamental drive of the conservative's nature is to maintain the status quo. And this concept of "meritocracy" is a powerful and time-honored excuse to do exactly that.
Okay! In a company one has job descriptions. In the hiring process one selects the person best suited to perform the duties contained therein. For instance an LPN cannot apply for nor qualify for an RN position.
That is my narrow definition of merit based qualifying. You are correct I did use the term "Meritocracy" incorrectly.
A thousand wallowing I am so sorry your Highness!:chuckle:
No, they do not have more rights. But they do, i think have more opportunities today than men do.
Affirmative action programs and the feminist movement has seen to it that specifically in employment and college opportunities, women have the upper hand now.
I would say that they have the same rights. But there are a few differences that necessarily arise from the circumstances of how those rights are applied. See below.
I am not a fan of circumcision in any case, and I think that ideally all children would be afforded the right to decide in their own case if it's right for them at an age when they can understand the choice. However, I also acknowledge that the practice is far more harmful to girls (it really isn't quite the same procedure given the anatomical differences), and the procedure is arguably beneficial for boys. So, I think this is a case where the same right doesn't lead to exactly the same conclusion.
Sure, I'd agree with that. I'd also say that the military needs to catch up with the times. I'm not sure if there should be selective service registration requirements, but whatever they are should be uniform regardless of gender.
To a point. Both men and women have a right to control their own bodies. However, since it is women who carry babies, and not men, they do have a naturally asymmetric amount of control in the early stages.
Yes.
Yep. Positive consent FTW.
I am not a fan of circumcision in any case, and I think that ideally all children would be afforded the right to decide in their own case if it's right for them at an age when they can understand the choice. However, I also acknowledge that the practice is far more harmful to girls (it really isn't quite the same procedure given the anatomical differences), and the procedure is arguably beneficial for boys. So, I think this is a case where the same right doesn't lead to exactly the same conclusion.
Sure, I'd agree with that. I'd also say that the military needs to catch up with the times. I'm not sure if there should be selective service registration requirements, but whatever they are should be uniform regardless of gender.
To a point. Both men and women have a right to control their own bodies. However, since it is women who carry babies, and not men, they do have a naturally asymmetric amount of control in the early stages.
Yes.
Yep. Positive consent FTW.
PureX
Well-known member
But you're still missing the point. The people deciding what has merit are simply using the idea of merit to advance their own interests. So really, all a "meritocracy" is, is self-interest justifying itself, and thereby disqualifying equanimity. Which has very little actual merit as an ideological act, for anyone but those who control it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Aside from the legal, which TH, made pretty clear, I agree that women have more rights as far as the unborn child. I hate it that fathers can not put a stop to having their child aborted by it's mother.
PureX
Well-known member
It is inside her body, after all.
But he put it there.
PureX
Well-known member
I'm simply explaining why the man does not get a say. He had his say when he "put it there" in the first place.
