Would feminists be able to execute the rights by themselves?

Question

Men execute the rights. The enforcements - police, etc - they all men. They may be a couple o' women out there but they hiding behind the men... nobody scare of them lil' women...

If men did not agree, there would be no rights - coz we stronger.

Answer 1

"coz we stronger."

No, sorry. The illiterate are not stronger than me.

Answer 2

Huh?

If, to take one example, poll workers refused to give voting ballots to all women, there's nothing the women could do.

Given that men have been in executive positions, it does take men's realizing women are human beings for women to be fairly considered for jobs and promotions.

It's not true that all police are men.

But then police are not the only people involved in created a fair and equitable society.

Fortunately, it's not a war between men and women, so much as a struggle between the genuinely human beings who recognize that all humans have human rights, and the sub-human morons who don't.

Stronger? Only sub-human brutes live their lives in such a way that physical strength is the only factor.

After all, being CEO doesn't take the ability to bench-press one's weight.

Of course, people who have no brains at all tend to see all things in terms of brute strength; doesn't mean they're right, just that their brainless.

Answer 3

5 answers? Die, troll, die!

Edit: By the way, the fact that you're posting a question like this on a forum like this leads me to believe that you're most likely a pasty nerdboy, rather than the macho strongman you stipulate would take over in your anarchist society. Keep in mind that in such a society, the strongest males and females would dominate, and weaker males and females would be submissive. So guys like you may be in the exact same position as women would be. Think of all the women who could kick your *** - Chyna, for example.

But of course, someone would inevitably invent war technology (easily could be either males or females who do this) and then whoever was smarter would have the upper hand...so really it all comes down to smarts in the end, not brute strength.

Answer 4

Hmmm, over in England, doesn't the Queen have to give Royal Assent to legislation to actually make such rights executable in the first place?

Answer 5

Good point. Some of the things the feminist movement demands require men to enforce them e.g. I would like to see a woman-only police force for arresting men under VAWA allegations.

Btw  Untamed Rose's answer shows you the other type of power that women have used to get what they want, very effectively.

Answer 6

The rule of law is stronger. If we lived in a complete anarchy, this may actually apply, but NO ONE would have any rights. "Men" may have run things then, and still largely do, but any civilization that has this kind of infrastructure that you describe protects ALL of citizens, male and female. Of course, groups that were disenfranchised are going to have to go through the rule of law to obtain any rights and recognition. This is obvious.

Answer 7

You know, trying to claim your gender is better yet having so many typos in your post that it looks like a 5 year old typed it really does nothing for your argument.

Answer 8

Actually in the town I work in, there is a woman cop who is well known and feared, as she gives more tickets than any of the men officers.

btw...

Maybe you should try "hooked on phonics" .. no use going through life nearly illiterate.

Answer 9

I bet they would be scared when they stand before a woman judge.  :)

Answer 10

But keep in mind that it was women who made men agree. That doesn't sound so weak, does it?

Answer 11

I guess you're assuming women would just turn into your submissive little slaves in that situation. Don't count on it.

Answer 12

No if the government,military and police forces were all run and staffed by feminists they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from each other let alone enforce any laws.

Feminism is nothing more than lipservice to the cause of equality they do not actually seek nor want equality. Feminists want domination not equality. They want women to get what they want when they want it.

Answer 13

Axn Darling where have you been, I've been waiting for you to return :)

Answer 14

In truth that answer is no.  I still look at it this way with all the marches and what have you those men could have told them to, "Shut the h**l up and get back in the kitchen." However, they did not.  Also, we must never forget that women were never forgotten, even when they couldn't vote.  In colonial times men would often discuss political views with their wives and quite often ask them for their opinions. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15488/154...   Abigail Adams, a very out spoken woman, was well educated and often offered John Adams the 2nd President political advice when it came to women; when she wrote him this letter.  http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/ab...  I would never call her a feminist by any degree; however, she was a very wise woman.  It also must be said that many women would not be where they are today had it not been for such legislative moves as affirmative action. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7615... in truth is a very good move; only when it comes to rigorous employs such as policemen and firemen having to lower their standards to allow a woman like me to enter their fold scares me; especially, when testing standards had been shamefully lowered.  Certain sections of those professions should always be left to the men and women can work the dispatch and or assist in the medical care.  A very foolish assumption I know; however there is a reason for the differences in our physique.

Even though you men are so much stronger never forget that we women have our own strengths.

On the night of April 26, 1777, Sybil Ludington, age 16, rode through towns in New York and Connecticut warning that the Redcoats were coming to Danbury, CT. She gathered enough volunteers to help beat back the British the next day. Her ride was twice the distance of Paul Revere's. Her hometown was renamed after her.

        On June 28, 1778, while "attending the [artillery] piece" with her husband at the battle of Monmouth, N.J., a cannon shot passed between the legs of Mary Hays (Molly Pitcher) tearing off the lower part of her skirt -- and she kept on loading her cannon. When her husband was wounded, she either fired the cannon once alone or several times, depending on witnesses. In 1822, she was awarded a soldier's pension of $40 a year.

        In October of 1778 Deborah Samson of Plymouth Massachusetts disguised herself as a young man and presented herself to the American army as a willing volunter to oppose the common enemy. She enlisted for the whole term of the war as Robert Shirtliffe and served in the company of Captain Nathan Thayer of Medway, Massachusetts. For three years she served in various duties and was wounded twice -- the first time by a sword cut on the side of the head and four months later by a shot through the shoulder

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/ab...  Once again it would be foolish to call them feminist, the term had not been coined yet, those women were determined, strong and brave.  

Answer 15

ok you right....lets try it.

As of tomorrow morning...no women can vote work drive and has no rights at all.

Now what do you think these poor little women will do?  

i predict a lot of fighting between couples, every couch in the nation have a man on it, sudden drop in the birth rate, lots of burnt dinners, pretty much every women would do her best to make the guys miserable until things changed back.

So who has the "power" again?