Is there any serious legal right men in the west have that women do not?

Question

I don't want silly stuff like "Men can pee on bicycle tyres. Women cannot." I want serious laws that affect the common citizen.

All statements should be backed up with proof.

And though people here will know my stance, I'm asking this with a curious, open mind.

Inspired in part by this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aph5P6MqUhing7DWyyB0Nj3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080613002628AAFzisR&show=7#profile-info-3djaNCeaaa

Answer 1

Around the other way

Women have the legal right to change their name when they get married, (as a legal change of name - I know someone that changed their first name too).  But men have to pay money to change their name.

Sorry I cant provide evidence, just know people that tried (this was a few years ago) and I don't know the people very well so to be honest i don't know how reliable the information is.

Answer 2

silly answers is all you will get because there in-fact are none.

Answer 3

There are none.

Edit: Lucy F, women do indeed have the right to pass their family name to their husband and children......  Its a shame really.

Answer 4

Women in the West

The Empty Land:The general theme of women in the west, is that they need a man to support and take care of them. However there was one cowboy in my book that thought otherwise. The main character Matt Coburn, he said “You never can tell about a woman. Some of them have more built-in nerve than a body would expect.” Also women were not generally chosen to be wives because of their good looks, or special talents. This was shown in my novel when Coburn thought “ She was an unusually attractive girl, in a country where girls of any kind had been few.”

Last Stand at Papgo Wells: Women in this book are slender, dainty, and pretty.  Their purpose in life is to settle down with a man and make him happy.  They also need to run a household and raise the kids. “This is a rough

country, ma’am. It needs men with the bark on…and it needs women, women who could rear strong sons.”

Radigan: L'Amour has two very tough, beautiful women in this novel.  Another theme focuses around them.  Gretchen could ride, shoot,and cook.  She was prepared for anything that might happen and she was

calm.  Radigan notes this of her, she wore ridingboots and a rough skirt-she was ready to go." Angelina is a very cold, calculating woman who knew how to make the most ofher appearance.  As her foreman, Wall, thought, "She was too cold, too shrewd, and she used her beauty as some men used a gun."  The women of the West had to be as tough as the men in order to survive.  The delicate, fragile ones just would not have

survived.

Crossfire Trail: Women’s Role in the West- The only female character in the story was the

love interest of the hero. She was the one in need of  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€Âœsaving” from men of ill repute.  Her role beyond that was minimal.  Because she could not participate in any gunfights or physical altercations, this left little

for her to do in the story since the story is nearly continuous fighting.

  

Kate's role in this novel was not the average role that a woman has in a Western.  Instead of being seen and not heard, Kate was the boss handing down orders left and right.  She commanded her respect and no one ever

second-guessed her.  The men were intimidated by her while their women admired her independence.

Warriorspath:   2. Women were to keep in their places and not be too independent or read too much.  Women who were not normal were feared to be witches and sold in slavery or killed.  Kin, however, liked women who could be equal to men because in the West,  women had to be as strong as the men.

  

Hanging Woman Creek:   - Women are characteristically the damsel in distress and need to be left at home while the men take care of everything. In this case, however, Ann was more strong than many women in similar roles. She is

independent, brave and takes a stand for what she believes in. In the West, to survive, women can't be wimpy or they don't make it there. Ann displays this well.

  

  

Rivers West:  One of the themes that L'amour touches on is that of the treatment of women in relation to men.  Women in the west were not expected to think for themselves or to be leaders and L'amour contradicts that with his character Miss Tabitha Majoribanks.  She is a young lady who is "wiser than many a man twice her age."

(L'amour, 85)  She also decides to go west by herself to find her lost brother, which is something that women of that period did not do.  Going out west was a man's job and she was just a "very  young lady"(31) Even though "there is no shrewder person in the country than her,"(85) Talon still finds it necessary to follow her wherever she goes to keep her out of trouble.

Son of a Wanted Man: In "Son of a Wanted Man," women are treated as precious objects. When Mike Bastian first meets Mrs. Ragan, Drusilla and Juliana, he acts as a perfect gentleman, helping them get whatever they need and getting it quickly. The women act proper as they have been raised up. However, there is another side to these women in the book. Drusilla for example, knows how to fire a gun and reaches for her gun when Perrin and his boys came. And when Ducrow captured Juliana, she was right beside Mike, riding on a horse, like a man. Borden Chantry's wife also has more of a role that just the woman, who back then, listened to what her husband told her to do. In this example, she continually asks, even begs Borden if they can move back east for a better life. Even though Borden absolutely does not want to, he finally gives in near the end of the book.  --

Bendigo Shafter: Women in the town were respected and had good relationships with the men. Bendigo always respected Widow Macken, for example.  Another thing that shows respect for women is that they were allowed to vote in the elections.  The men took care of the women, and the women took care of the men in turn.  The men made sure the Widow Macken got a house built for her, and in turn, she made her house available to visitors from out of town.

Women were to keep in their places and not be too independent or read too much.  Women who were not normal were feared to be witches and sold in slavery or killed.  Kin, however, liked women who could be equal to men because in the West,  women had to be as strong as the men.

  

Sounds good to me!

Pvt. Oxford here

United States Army

Answer 5

I would say that first off, it started as men having rights(or at least propertied men) and women having less or none. The entire purpose of the feminist and women's rights movements was to equalize the situation in order to make rights equal and conditions at least approximating equal. The whole notion of wondering if there are any rights that men have and women don't kinda seems to me as if you are looking backwards and trying to conserve some sort of leverage that men have lost in relation to women over time. truth is that we have a long way to go until women have any real equality in society. We still haven't entirely achieved equal pay for equal work, men still have a big influence and say over a woman's body (a WOMAN'S right to choose), and working women still largely face a double workload since housework and child-rearing is still individualized and considered a woman's job. All romanticized notions of a time when "men were men and women were women" neglects the conditions women had to live through and prompted them to organize a feminist movement in the first place. Any rights men enjoy that women do not can only exist at the expense of women and so I would personally oppose. And I would add that it is not up to men to decide the rights women will or will not have, it is up to women to organize themselves and decide what rights or issues men have that they want and are entitled to.

Answer 6

What a meaty question that I can sink my teeth into it,as far as I know there is none.....

Answer 7

no there are no laws which are actually enforced to this capacity. however there are some things still on the lawbooks. such as a man in south carolina has the right to beat his wife if done on churchsteps. But these laws are not enforced and are quite out of date. so essentialy  NO

Answer 8

interesting question... honestly no i cant think of anything much. some jobs can legally specify only male applicants but there has to be a very good reason (working with vunerable men, heavy manual lifting etc). theres also some working mens clubs up north in the uk still off limits to women in some respects.

and, not so much a legal right as a social one, but men still get to pass on their family name to wives/ kids.

i think women have fought our way through on everything else!

Answer 9

I just want to remind an obstinate historical fact: all feminized societies are doomed, they do not last long, and surrender to paternal societies very easily. So while we are arguing about freedoms and rights of men and women (with minorities thrown in), the nations free of sophisticated Western legislation will come to power in our countries, and establish their clear and immutable laws. All our belligerent feminists will become docile, put on hijabs, and gladly hug their new hubbies! Military power will be absolutely useless here. I think we are doomed already! Immigration and uterus will do their business;

ppl having given me thumb-downs are scared, yet agreed with me!

Answer 10

The only one I can think of (I wouldn't call it serious)..

but women cannot go topless at public places like pools or beaches. If we'd did it we'd get fined lol. Although I'm talking about the US.. I don't know about the rest of the western world.

edit*  Umm.. no ACTUALLY Andre.. I specifically said the US.. and also specifically said that I knew nothing about the rest of the western world (ahem.. which includes Canada). And I also said that it wasn't what I would call serious. I personally would love to walk around topless (even though we're living in a puritanical society) but its such a non-issue for me that I really don't care to exert energy into fighting for my right to go topless.

Also, Andre, as far as your "concern" for protstate cancer funding and awareness vs. breast cancer funding and awareness.. Women fought for those rights! It wasn't some gift from out of nowhere. It started from the bottom up. As far as I'm concerned I believe more research should be put forward into ALL types (even *gasp* gender neutral research) of cancer. You act like its women's fault there isn't more prostate cancer awareness and research. If men want the word spread and research done.. maybe they should do what women did... fight for it. This goes the same for the women's health and women's issues offices.. Women fought for those too... so if you want them... fight for those rights.

And to this.... "Women are allowed, in the US, two non medical and non biological legal means to, post-coitally, and post natally, void ALL of their legal parental obligations, while men are denied such equal rights."

While you over-inflated your words as best you could.. your argument doesn't fly. First off there are groups already fighting for these men's issues (and while I may not agree with these groups.. at least they're not JUST complaining and they're actually doing something about their feelings of inequality). Second... I think this issue is much broader than child support obligations. And no, I don't believe a man should have ANY say with what a woman does with her own body or any impending child within her body. I do believe it is the responsibility of BOTH parties to ensure they're not making babies if they, or one of them, doesn't want a child. You can't control the actions of another and you're only in control of your own actions. So wear a condom.. and if anyone tries to pull the "she tricked me" argument.. yeah.. A. watch your condoms and make sure no one has access to tamper with them. B. Use a condom even if she says she's on birth control. C. Take responsibility for your own reproductive organs. D. Stop being an opportunist and sleeping with any random s***k that walks your way and then later expect her to have been straight up with you.

As far as the domestic abuse laws.. there have been strides in that too. Some places automatically arrest both parties no matter who is more injured. Also the fact that men are FAR less likely to report domestic abuse has inhibited any further laws to be made to be gender neutral.

I just don't get what it is that you guys want to happen.. seriously. Do you think these rights should be taken from women and we should go back in time? If you're upset about your claimed inequality then FIGHT for them rather than sitting around complaining on Yahoo Answers.

Edit*

I'll rephrase this. On a serious note (in reference to your article)  during all of the fighting for equal rights women have gone through horrible things throughout. But he was not fighting for any specific issue FOR men. He was arguing against feminisim. Nothing productive can be made by pure critique. You have to strive for actions to follow ideas. Although there is nothing at all wrong with using your first amendment rights. He should be free to say anything he wants to say... whether I agree or not.

And to be fair to my comments....  I started off very light-heartedly because afterall this is Yahoo Answers (a place for opinions NOT legal change lol). The only reason I added the rest of my argument is so there was another side to the argument.

As far as you.. I looked at your profile and am rather impressed that a 15 year old is that interested in these subjects and it really, sadly, shows the vast difference in the American education system vs. other parts of the world. My only critique, once again, is that spending your time knocking down feminists is not at all productive. Only through struggle comes change. And obviously by the heated battles in the gender and womens issues category.. it is obvious that there is still to large of a divide (even amongst women themselves) to spend time going round and round in useless argument. That is a huge problem with any progressive movements is that there is far too much time spent on petty details rather than finding common ground.

Answer 11

Paternal rights.

Answer 12

firephoe... should examine some western laws on this matter. In Ontario, Canada, the provincial Supreme Court years ago ruled that women can go topless anywhere than a man is allowed to go topless. Its hardly men's fault that few women want to use this freedom...

Now, if we reversed the question, its clear that women have far MORE rights than men do in the 1st World. There are offices for women's issues and health, though there are no such offices for men's issues. Women are allowed, in the US, two non medical and non biological legal means to, post-coitally, and post natally, void ALL of their legal parental obligations, while men are denied such equal rights. And, so on. Spending for women's health issues far outweighs men's.

While men and women get, and die from, similar rates from prostate and breast cancer, respectively, the funding and awareness for the women's disease is many times what either is for the men's.

On the matter of actual laws and legal practices, when it comes to domestic violence, most jurisdictions have polices of ONLY arresting the man, even if the man is the one with the serious injuries.

Answer 13

Though I do not have the necessary legal background to answer this appropriately, I have observed that in most countries, it is the enforcement of laws that are lacking rather than the laws themselves.

For example, in USA, there had never been a woman President. In the next election, there was a possibility, but that too has faded out. Of course, Legal system is not prohibiting women from becoming US President. But the fact remains that the mindset of the people cannot be conditioned just by equal rights to men and women. Something more has to be done about it. In India, since many years a Bill to be introduced for reservation for women in the Parliament  has yet to be passed. If there was a law that men and women have to alternate as Presidents of the country, then only will the equality get enforced. Just passing a law giving equal rights is not enough considering the psychology of the masses. Laws are needed which enforces equality.