If womens' rights come at the expense of mens' rights...?

Question

Then doesn't that logically mean that mens' rights were dependent on womens' lack of rights?

As in, if a woman has a right to control her body, it means that men no longer have the right to control her body. Men had to loose that right for women to gain it?

If a woman has a right to be sexual freely, as she chooses, does this come at the expense of a man's right to control female sexuality?

If a woman has a right to a career of her choosing, does it mean that men no longer have a right to limit "female" careers to motherhood, prostitution, and a nunnery?

If women have a right to vote, does that mean that men lost their right to control politics?

See where I'm going? Perhaps if the historical "rights" of men were not so dependent on women having a lack of rights, men today would not feel so upset at "loosing rights."

Another example for you: When women in Saudi Arabia and Iran gain the right to choose how they dress it will mean that men no longer have a right to beat women for not dressing "appropriately."

Will men cry about loosing those rights too?

Answer 1

Yes, you are right that what many perceive as "losing rights" is really just losing privileges and presumptive superiority.

There is not ONE valid example of how men have lost "rights" since women gained theirs.

And bodily integrity IS a human right (abortion). That's why torture is such a hot topic, it violates human rights. But actually, abortion rights are about the RIGHT TO PRIVACY...the right of a person to make a determination about medical procedures with their doctor without the interference of the government. If anyone disputes this, read Roe v. Wade.

Also, the point that many seem to be missing is that the examples given are about PERCEIVED "rights," and the PERCEIVED loss of rights.

Answer 2

Deva, you are a very wise woman and are very good an getting to the bottom line of issues.  Thank you.  I agree with you.

Answer 3

They will not.

Answer 4

Three and a half* of the four topics you are talking about are human rights. One gender gaining equality by receiving humans rights doesn't deduct the rights the other gender has had. As for abortion, it is about the right to life that the fetus potentially has.

As for the last part, I don't care about Iran or Saudi Arabia when it comes to the dress code for females.

* the first question referring to control of body refers to abortion and body as a whole. two issues in one question means there has to be two halves.  

Answer 5

Have you read the theory of the male gaze by Laura Mulvey? Through it she more or less argues that to desexualise the image of the female body in reality or rather to reject socially prescribed notions of femininity, can ultimately lead to non-meaning (for women) as all notions of femininity serve to provide meaning to the phallus through a lack (that lack being the lack of a p***s)    

Therefore, men interpret themselves as subjective, whereas women are seen as castrated men. Women have no independent identities.

Answer 6

What is wrong if women are free?  I think that's great.  Have women in the past been kept down?

Sure they have.  Not all men are evil-some of us want equal rights for both sexes.  BTW, except for some trolls & youngsters, I don't see many men asking for superior rights.

You can hate men for what some did (in the past) by punishing innocent fathers, men and boys today.  But does that make it right?  I care mostly about seeing my son.  Is that such a mortal sin?  Why should I & my son be punished for what happened 100 years ago?

I have not oppressed anyone nor has my son.  Where is the equality feminists say they want for both sexes?  In my case I just want to have visitation with my son instead of always getting hassled, yelled at and my ex not being there.  

PS:  why are Western Civilized men compared to Arabs?

Answer 7

Honestly, this question is to unfounded to answer. You examples do not support your premiss.  

Answer 8

wow you are truly angry.... good men have always respected good women.   Bad men have always been abusive.  Laws and religion don't change that, right and wrong don't change that.  

Answer 9

When one person's rights take priority over anyone else's, that's a perfect example of not being equal.

Which, is the case in all of your examples.

An example of it going the other way, where women's rights take priority over men's is affirmative action.  Better qualified men are likely to get passed up for hire if they need more women on board.  So, a man loses out on a good job simply because he's a man.  This is the exact thing that feminists were supposedly fighting against, and yet here we are...  now we just have different victims.

Answer 10

Yes, They will feel a total injustice and lack of rights....they also whine more than women! LOL!

Answer 11

I don’t think you’re being angry in asking these questions. These are just some things you thought of and you wanted to share them with us. It’s not a personal attack against men, you’re sampling asking (or implying) that if women had to fight for these rights in the first place, it means we didn’t have them to begin with (and men did). For example, in order for someone to have the right to own slaves; someone had to take the rights of a slave so that their owner may hold the deeds too their life. And in order for a slave to gain the rights to their freedom they had to fight and make laws to out law it. (this is just an example, no pun intended).  Many men (back in the day) did have the right to vote, and they had the rights to ownership (all rights that women did not have). So in order for these rights to be bestowed upon women, someone some where had to petition, protest, and sacrifice in order to ensure that women (who where also citizens like men) had the same rights. Now, this does not mean that all women (and men) had these rights. So in defense of most of the men in here, it was a selective process in regards to which women (or which color) was given these rights that every “red blooded American” was supposed to have. And even when “everyone” was given these rights, the courts of law at times did not uphold them in certain circumstances. Again, the fight marches on.

For a woman to have the right to control her body was something that took many years in the making. Because it was assumed that once a woman was lawfully wed she was the “property” of her husband. Meaning he could do any and everything he saw fit, and there were no laws to state other wise. But through change and struggle, women where given the “rights” to their bodies and able to do as they please (physically, spiritually, and sexually). Although there was really no laws (that I know of) that stated a man could legally treat his wife as live stock, it was still socially acceptable. So this was more so a social change that had to come forward vs. a legal legislation being passed in the defense of women. Unless we get into the rape laws being changed to cover women who were married being raped by their husbands (yea, it can happen boys). But I could be wrong, so anyone please feel free to correct me.

The issue with career choice was a “tedder-todder” of both legal and social change. For the simple fact that although it was never against the law for a woman to chose which career field she could work in, there where (and still are) many male co-workers and employers that made it impossible for a woman to enter a field of her choice. It wasn’t until feminist started shedding light to this issue that America (and the world) started to realize how unfair the playing field was for upward mobility in the work place, a harassment free work environment, or career change for women. So laws (or acts if I’m not mistaken) were enacted to keep the “good ol boys committee” from keeping certain people of different races and s*x out. Although I don’t think that our career fields where limited too just motherhood, prostitution, and nunnery. I think it was more like school teachers, nurses, and secretaries. We’ve always had the right to work in a career field that was not traditional to women. It’s just that now there are laws that keep most men from making it impossible for us to make that switch to what we really want to do vs. what we’ve been socially limited too.

Now, I’ve been to Saudi Arabia and Iran, and most of the limitations that those women faces are both social, and religious. Because their social and religious beliefs require them to be covered, the right for the men in their family to beat (or kill) them if they chose not to do so is made legal for the simple fact that religion is the law for them.  It’s not the same as it is here in America. Ours was mostly chauvinistic, traditional ideas that kept women from being allowed to wear the things they saw fit. Although some women did lose their lives if they chose to go against the grain (but not legally).

So it’s sort of like a demagogue (in-between right and wrong) for the issues surrounding women’s rights.  We call it rights because we have the right as free human beings to do as we please. But it was more social change that had to come about (with a mixture of legal change) in order for the tide to turn in our favor. Men have never lost their rights (regardless of what the men in her preach.) They’ve always had the right as free men to do as they please. We just had to “bend the social rules” to make it the same for us.  

Answer 12

Very good point, many of the "rights" some men whine about have to do with losing their control over women.

Answer 13

This is the worst glorification of feminism I've ever seen.

Feminism has achieved all the rights women should of had all along, now feminism is destroy mens rights as fellow human beings.

Modern day feminism is a female d********x group that hate mongers at men.  

Answer 14

You make an interesting point, but it's a very broad statement that doesn't seem to apply to every situation.  Just because a person, male or female (black or white, etc.) gains a right, does not necessarily mean that the other people lose their rights.

If a woman earns the right to get paid the same as a man, I suppose you could say that a man loses out on 1) controlling the amount a woman makes and 2) possibly a higher salary increase, but what if a man feels that it is a woman's right to earn the same amount or 2) doesn't feel it's his right to determine her salary or make more, or even 3) what if his partner is a woman who will begin to make a more fair salary.  Then I'm not sure you can accurately say he is losing a right.

I may not totally agree with your statements, but I do understand what you are saying, and you should ignore the replies that insinuate that you are a raving feminist.  They are very concerned about losing their "rights"!

Answer 15

You like most people have zero understanding of what is a right.  There is no Constitutional "right" to one's body, male or female.  That's just a bunch of hooey by the feminazi's to get their way on abortion.  If we have a RIGHT to our own bodies then tell me why it's illegal to ...

Ride a motorcycle (in many states) without a helmet?

Drive a car (in MOST states) without wearing a seatbelt?

Attempt suicide?

Likewise, what right does any of us have to a career?  In America, there is only 1 president every four years.  What if all Americans said that it's our "right" to be president?  All but one of us has had your so-called right denied us.  

The ONLY one that I will give you is the vote.  And YES I do weep over the fact that women can vote.  They vote with emotion and based on feelings and ... and ... I think I'm going to exercise my right to cry now.

Answer 16

It is true of some rights, but not of others, and it is rarely so black and white. It is possible for both to have rights. I do not think feminism has threatened any man's right beyond what is reasonable, nor does presently. If it did, that would be wrong, but it does not.

For example, the right not to be harrased at work - just as important as the right not to be bullied (something else inforced at work, however little people take advantage of it). Men did loose the right to act how they pleased (an infringement of their free rights). And shouldn't complain about that. However, the *individuals* that use it to victimise men are taking it too far (and that is *individuals*, and not supported by the majority of women. Sorry, guys, there is no feminist conspiracy. I asked). That is not enough to support that right being taken away from the majority. It is a case for more stringent accuracy checks, in order to protect *both* sets of rights, not that the right must be removed in order to protect the rights of men.

Answer 17

Well if you mean rights like being able to shout back when a couple have an arguement - without him being found guilty of DV.

Or if you mean if when a man and a woman who are both drunk and have s*x - with out being guilty of rape.

Or how about not the right to sit on a seat on a plane with out being looked at funny or told he has to move if a child sits near him.

Or the right to employment based on merit rather 'affirmative action' or 'positive discrimation' against him.

Yea I can see how those rights were so dependant on a woman having a lack of them.

Your ill thought out. Unwise, uncaring and had to think of your victim status. Try listening to the issues that are raised by men as to why they think they are loosing rights - rather than refering to issues that are one long ago resolved and two could never have been resolved with out the support of men as well - who now have no problems with it.