NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a women's rights proposal twice now and both times it had failed toreach quorum. I ask you all to take a good luck at it. Please give me suggestions as to how to improve it, or just let me know that you would approve of it if I resubmit it.


DEPLORES the intimidation of women through male-oriented abuses,

DEEPLY REGRETTING the withholding of citizenship and ethnicity from women living in another country,

ACKNOWLEDGING that women's rights are equal to men's and both must be equally preserved:

1. ENCOURAGES the UN to establish centers for women in all nations whereas women could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home;

2. CALLS FOR all employers to abide by a UN backed mission that requires equal-opportunities for women in the work place:
a) equal wages
b) equal chance at employment/ranking
c) equal benefits

3. STRONGLY SUGGESTS the international legalization of divorce, which would allow women to freely and safely remove themselves from an abusive marriage;

4. APPLAUDS the proposal of a fund dedicated to furthering the education of women in countries where women are not given an equal chance at attaining an enducation;

5. REITERATES article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination".


Thank you! I will resubmit it when I start getting some positive responses on it.

Would females not be covered in the Universal Bill of Rights resolution, article four, which states "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation", you may ask?
Said 'law of any member nation' could be specifically curtailing the rights of females, not males, and even if treated equally under this rule men would not be affected, at least not adversely. At least, this is how we could interpret it.

As such, we encourage this proposal be put to vote. Any bill which improves human rights is a good bill, so far as we're concerned.

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Confederacy of Mattikistan

1. ENCOURAGES the UN to establish centers for women in all nations whereas women could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home;
And just leave the men on the streets?

2. CALLS FOR all employers to abide by a UN backed mission that requires equal-opportunities for women in the work place:
a) equal wages
b) equal chance at employment/ranking
c) equal benefits
Unfortunately this is so vague as to give equal wages despite performance.

3. STRONGLY SUGGESTS the international legalization of divorce, which would allow women to freely and safely remove themselves from an abusive marriage;
And men for that matter…

4. APPLAUDS the proposal of a fund dedicated to furthering the education of women in countries where women are not given an equal chance at attaining an enducation;
What about the places were men don’t have an equal chance. Should they just put up with it?

5. REITERATES article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination".
Well I agree with that…

I disagree with this proposal because it gives women more rights then men, which would be sexist. The Black New World will not be supporting your proposal.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Though not a UN Delegate, I'm hoping this proposal reaches the UN floor.

One of the points *against* my current resolution (one which has been privately telegrammed, but not posted here) is that women are often the victims of HIV/AIDS. For reference see the UNAIDS report I've quoted.

The UNAIDS report explains why this is so: in many cultures, women are the caregivers. And sometimes they also are an additional wage earner, but as we know, they frequently are paid less.

The Women's Rights proposal isn't about making men second class citizens. It addresses the fact that despite the good intentions of prior NS UN resolutions that it can't hurt to really highlight their plight.

Maybe it is time to first build a list of a few UN Delegates who'd offer to always accept your proposal, because if memory serves, your proposal had over 80 or so endorsements at one time. Clearly it is a good proposal.

Although I feel that this proposal isn’t creating second class citizens out of men I feel that this resolution fails to take into account societies that were men have traditionally been repressed. If I recall correctly we had a ‘recovering matriarch’ in here before and I feel that this proposal wouldn‘t help repair the rifts in such societies.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

We fully support this proposal.

Though perhaps this could be somewhat improved prior to submission (such as some clarification on point 2), the intentions behind this proposal are good and the suggestions as to how to remedy the problem(s) are great, especially in that they are not too intrusive. We, too, support this proposal.

In response to The Black New World:

I would like you to remember that this is a Women's Rights proposal. The majority of the time women are placed on a secondary level to men, whether it is publicly obvious or not. This proposal targets countries where women have had a traditionally inferior status to men throughout history.

In turn, it does not give women more rights than men. In many countries it is legal for a man to divorce his wife, yet a woman cannot legally separate a marriage. If that union is abusive, opressive or unhealthy in any way, shape or form, the woman is forced to endure it, whereas the man may leave as he wishes.

I believe that you are not interpreting Operative clause 2 correctly, therefore I will be editing it before it is resubmitted. Op. Clause 2 is targeted at situations where, regardless of preformance, women discriminated against when it comes to promotion opportunities and wage rates. Also, in general, women recieve less benefits from an employer than men do. (OC note: Think of the whole Wal-Mart thing that's going on where they're saying that its nearly impossible for women to get promoted and in some cases women are being paid up to $1.50 less an hour than a man doing the same job, regardless of preformance. If that's happening in the U.S. think of how it must be in LEDC's where its almost impossible to find a job in the first place..)

Operative Clause 1. May I reiterate that this is a Women's Rights proposal. And this may not apply to your nation, but in many third world countries, when a woman's husband dies, or if her husband leaves her, or if she cannot generate enough income to house herself and/or her family, she has no where to go. Many shelters are overcrowded, filled with both men and women. Or if she does find a shelter, they do not have the nessecary facilities to tend to the special needs of a woman. Shelters that are specifically designed to care for women would provide not only shelter, but also medical care. A woman's medical needs are much different and more specialized than that of a man. Also, it is more common for a woman to have children with her when seeking shelter than a man. Special facilities for children would also be included in this clause. This does not discriminate against men because it does not shut down other homeless shelters, therefore men still have a place to seek refuge.

If you would like to inform me of a country where the enrollment rate in primary, secondary and higher level education is higher for women than it is for men, because women are encouraged to go to school and men are encouraged to stay home and tend to the family, I would greatly appreciate it. I personally do not know of any examples of that.

Thank you for examining this proposal though, it is appreciated.


The Rouge Nation of Javala

The current government of Alzakara agrees with Lady Desdemona's thoughts on the matter, but we also (if the proposal is put to a vote) vote yes on the matter.

I fear that Article 5 makes reference to a declaration that has not been made by this body. Otherwise, I and my compatriots generally support this proposal, though note Lady Desdemona's concerns and would perhaps appreciate greater emphasis on condemning the specifically female-directed abuses carried out in many countries (though thankfully FGM has already been addressed in an earlier resolution).

Our thanks for your efforts.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I believe that you are not interpreting Operative clause 2 correctly, therefore I will be editing it before it is resubmitted. Op. Clause 2 is targeted at situations where, regardless of preformance, women discriminated against when it comes to promotion opportunities and wage rates. Also, in general, women recieve less benefits from an employer than men do. (OC note: Think of the whole Wal-Mart thing that's going on where they're saying that its nearly impossible for women to get promoted and in some cases women are being paid up to $1.50 less an hour than a man doing the same job, regardless of preformance. If that's happening in the U.S. think of how it must be in LEDC's where its almost impossible to find a job in the first place..)

Actually all I was saying is that It could be interpreted as such. I just wanted it tightened up. (OOC: Note that some countries are not based on real world countries and it has been known for women to be the oppressive party in some nations)

Operative Clause 1. May I reiterate that this is a Women's Rights proposal. And this may not apply to your nation, but in many third world countries, when a woman's husband dies, or if her husband leaves her, or if she cannot generate enough income to house herself and/or her family, she has no where to go. Many shelters are overcrowded, filled with both men and women. Or if she does find a shelter, they do not have the nessecary facilities to tend to the special needs of a woman. Shelters that are specifically designed to care for women would provide not only shelter, but also medical care. A woman's medical needs are much different and more specialized than that of a man. Also, it is more common for a woman to have children with her when seeking shelter than a man. Special facilities for children would also be included in this clause. This does not discriminate against men because it does not shut down other homeless shelters, therefore men still have a place to seek refuge.

It does not encourage men’s centres being shut down and does not discriminate but I am worried that countries will only have shelters for women because that is the only type of shelter we are making them have. And are men’s bodies less complex?

If you would like to inform me of a country where the enrollment rate in primary, secondary and higher level education is higher for women than it is for men, because women are encouraged to go to school and men are encouraged to stay home and tend to the family, I would greatly appreciate it. I personally do not know of any examples of that.

Heian-Edo, if I recall correctly is, a ‘recovering matriarch’. I never said anything about staying at home and tending to the family. I recognise that social pressures make it hard for some woman to complete on an academic level but I feel that this proposal has no benefit to countries were men have traditionally been repressed, in fact it could make things worse.

Oh and as Ecopoeia said you reference an imaginary document.

That being said I take most of my earlier criticism back but I don’t feel that you take into account the diversity of countries in the UN.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Actually it was Daryn

the women in our country need very little UN help in suceeding. Remember, we live in a very diverse world.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=333189

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The people of the Holy Empire of the Flying Jesusfish are extremely concerned by this thinly veiled attack on our national sovereignty. This proposal is just one more example of radical feminists trying to put women over men and destroy others' culture and traditions. As our high priest recently declared, the only thing a woman's good for is cleaning and makin' babies. Ideas such as equal pay forget a woman's true place: the kitchen. In our great nation, women only may work outside the home when the State compels them to. The State has the right to pay and treat these women however it sees fit, as it does with men. As a Godfearing, faith-based nation we reject all feminists' contrivances including abortion, divorce, outside labor laws and other so-called "women's rights." On all of these grounds, we absolutely oppose this proposal.

Furthermore, should the UN adopt this illegitimate document, the Holy Empire reserves its sovereign right to torture and execute any suspected feminazi or crazed lesbian, as well as the right to assassinate these feminazis in other nations. That is all.

...As a Godfearing, faith-based nation we reject all feminists' contrivances including abortion, divorce, outside labor laws and other so-called "women's rights."
...torture and execute any suspected feminazi or crazed lesbian, .
No you don’t.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=333482

Well I'm sorry but I can tell you right now that there's no way that I will be able to change Jesusfish's mind. No offense but its not worth my time bothering when someone is as radical as that and so blatently against the UN Charter and all that is moral and right.

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that being a member of the UN required the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, seeing as it is a staple and the basis of many committes within the UN such as ECOSOC, WHO, UNCHR, SHC etc. (OC...I might be wrong, I'm pretty new to NS).

Also, I need to remind you yet again, this is a women's rights proposal. If you are worried about the rights of men in predominantly female-run cultures, then please propose a men's rights resolution. After all, it has been stated many times now, both must be equal.

Yes, this reso does just cover some of the basics and doesn't get into Female Genetial Mutilation or many of the various and wide spanning topics that it could cover. If there were to be a resolution that covered all of these topics, I doubt that anyone would take the time to read it since it would be thicker than the last Harry Potter book. lol. I would be impressed that a person would write such a thing, but then there would be the argument that important points were left out...it's a never ending cycle.

As far as the note on the differences between men and women's bodies. I do beleive that women's bodies are more complex, in the aspect that they need more than just a general doctor. That's why I would want these centers equipped with gynecologists, OBGYN's, forms of prenatal care..what have you. That's what I was referring to in that statement.

Well thank you for looking over what I have to say again. If you have any suggestions as to how to tighten up this proposal I would be happy to entertain them.

The Rogue Nation of Javala
UN Regional Delegate: The Awesomely Free Nations

As for the articles addressing "equal-opportunities" and "equal education", Meatopiaa is all for it.

Meatopiaa has issue with the article #1 addressing the UN establishing, "...centers for women in all nations whereas women could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home". Shall the UN fund this endeavor then?

The existing resolution; “UN Taxation Ban” Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003 , stating, "The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose." So all member states shall allow the UN to move onto their soverign soil and establish bases for the erection and administration of "centers for women" (that do not include men with children)? Or shall the UN begin dispersing monies to all member states dedicated to this worthwhile cause? From where shall that enormous amount of funding from the UN come?

Additionally, speaking of no shelter inclusive of men... Men are also known to be physically abused and psychologically damaged in abusive relationships. Abusive treatment by domestic partners is not exclusive to women being the only victim. Men are also sometimes found in the same predicament as some women, and with children in tow as well. Shall the children of single parent homeless fathers wither and suffer in the streets because their custodial parent happens to be a man? This point is especially evident when considering the already enacted UN resolution; “Gay Rights” Implemented: Sat May 3 2003 , which states, "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."


I also believe that the article #3, "STRONGLY SUGGESTS the international legalization of divorce, which would allow women to freely and safely remove themselves from an abusive marriage" will conflict with the game mechanics.

Nations citizens have the right to their religion and religious freedoms. Being so, some Nations could, will, and do outlaw divorce as a matter of religious beliefs. For example, religious beliefs cannot be infringed upon according to; “The Universal Bill of Rights” Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003, which states, "All human beings have the right to worship any faith..." As we all know, many faiths already "outlaw" divorce and the entire population of some Nations may disagree with divorce as a matter of faith. While the outlawing of divorce is not Meatopiaa's position on that issue, Meatopiaa is not willing to infringe on any other Nations beliefs or faiths, as a matter of government, if they take issue with their religious rights being infringed upon.


On a final note, while this resolution is an honorable one and the intentions are very good, the UN has also passed the resolution; “Legalize Prostitution” Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004, which states, "As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession. If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by."

So, in closing, they could always sell their bodies without fear of being a criminal in desperate times in order to pay rent and feed their children.

I am afraid you misunderstand me. The Holy Empire of the Flying Jesusfish shall happily accept this proposal should it pass. But in one of the greatest conservative traditions, we shall find various loopholes to exploit, undermining the objectives of the law. As an easy example, our women's shelters, should we decide to have them at all, could suffer from a shocking level of violence. There is probably a UN resolution somewhere banning violence, which will complicate things but ultimately be avoided as well. You see, it's very hard to make a sound law, and there has yet to be one in all history that is entirely effective.

And since the subject has been brought up, the Empire does not tolerate homosexuality or prostitution either.

The Confederacy of South Puyallup finds that this resolution, while well intentioned, would be counterproductive to the values of individual rights that the citizens of our Confederacy hold so dear; thus, the Confederacy will not support this resolution.

The Republic of Akanet would be delighted to give a chance to women, let them rights, let them life, it will be porgressive for all of us! With all due respect, Ruler of Akanet. :D

The region of Slashdot will vote for this proposition if it is amended to appropriate funds aimed toward helping men live as long as women on average.

Thank you.

Union of Socialist States of Rubberduckistan opresses it´s citizens equally, regardless of race, creed, or gender. All are in the service of the Party. :)

Meatopiaa has issue with the article #1 addressing the UN establishing, "...centers for women in all nations whereas women could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home". Shall the UN fund this endeavor then?

The existing resolution; “UN Taxation Ban” Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003 , stating, "The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose." So all member states shall allow the UN to move onto their soverign soil and establish bases for the erection and administration of "centers for women" (that do not include men with children)? Or shall the UN begin dispersing monies to all member states dedicated to this worthwhile cause? From where shall that enormous amount of funding from the UN come?

By taxing the country and not the population.

Additionally, speaking of no shelter inclusive of men... Men are also known to be physically abused and psychologically damaged in abusive relationships. Abusive treatment by domestic partners is not exclusive to women being the only victim. Men are also sometimes found in the same predicament as some women, and with children in tow as well. Shall the children of single parent homeless fathers wither and suffer in the streets because their custodial parent happens to be a man? This point is especially evident when considering the already enacted UN resolution; “Gay Rights” Implemented: Sat May 3 2003 , which states, "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

Although I agree that men are also abused (and face social rejection when they are) I fail to see what gay marriage has to do with that.

I also believe that the article #3, "STRONGLY SUGGESTS the international legalization of divorce, which would allow women to freely and safely remove themselves from an abusive marriage" will conflict with the game mechanics.

Nations citizens have the right to their religion and religious freedoms. Being so, some Nations could, will, and do outlaw divorce as a matter of religious beliefs. For example, religious beliefs cannot be infringed upon according to; “The Universal Bill of Rights” Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003, which states, "All human beings have the right to worship any faith..." As we all know, many faiths already "outlaw" divorce and the entire population of some Nations may disagree with divorce as a matter of faith. While the outlawing of divorce is not Meatopiaa's position on that issue, Meatopiaa is not willing to infringe on any other Nations beliefs or faiths, as a matter of government, if they take issue with their religious rights being infringed upon.

Religious individuals are free not to get divorced.

On a final note, while this resolution is an honorable one and the intentions are very good, the UN has also passed the resolution; “Legalize Prostitution” Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004, which states, "As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession. If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by."

So, in closing, they could always sell their bodies without fear of being a criminal in desperate times in order to pay rent and feed their children.
Of course.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

By taxing the country and not the population.



Although I agree that men are also abused (and face social rejection when they are) I fail to see what gay marriage has to do with that.



Religious individuals are free not to get divorced.


Of course.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Meatopiaa is very much in favor of womens rights. The government is sensitive to the needs of the people, and we serve to mitigate the suffering of all its citizens when they find themselves in dire straits, including the plight of the homeless, which includes social services for women AND men.

If my Nation faces forced taxation to fund this endeavor, despite having "progressive social policies in education and welfare", which did not come free of charge, the cost will ultimately be passed to the citizens, in the form of higher taxes by the nation, in order to recover those monies. We would have no other recourse, as it would mean paying for the same services twice, while not reaping the benefit. I'm not sure if that's a viable loophole in the Taxation Ban resolution, but it's sneaky if it is.

Perhaps if you made an exception in your proposal, or tried rewording a small portion. Meatopiaa takes issue with article#1, which states, "1. ENCOURAGES the UN to establish centers for women in all nations whereas women could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home;" Perhaps changing "UN" to "Nations" or "all Nations", would be of great benefit. You could then include, "Non-compliance would require UN intervention and Nation taxation to bring unwilling Nations into compliance"... or something along those lines. In the same vein, something along the lines of "Nations who already provide for the provisions of this resolution with domestic social services and legislation, and meet the requiremnts of the resolution, are excepted from this article." I could really support your goals if any one of those two adjustments could be made. I think you'll find many more Nations might too. This is someone elses vision, a vision which I share, I am merely offering suggestions that may hasten getting your worthwhile resolution passed.

As far as the Gay Marriage issue goes, do you not see the disparity? Two men may be married, and adopt children of their own. Then, by whatever circumstances, be it abuse, death, infidelity, one spouse is uprooted from his home with the children in tow. They'd be every bit as worse off as any female in the same position, but not accounted for in the services provided. Co-ed shelters and making all the services Co-ed would eliminate that short fall within the resolution.

Lastly, while "Religious individuals are free not to get divorced" is an acceptable response, the resolution makes that impossible as worded, "3. STRONGLY SUGGESTS the international legalization of divorce, which would allow women to freely and safely remove themselves from an abusive marriage;". Maybe I'm confused is the problem. As worded, if the resolution passes, are all Nations required to legalize divorce, or just strongly urged to allow it? Despite popular beliefs, and my own personal experience, Marriage is not a "ball & chain". Anyone can "freely and safely remove themselves from an abusive marriage" by just leaving, which I realize isn't as easy as I put it, but just getting up and going is a viable remedy to keep from being abused. Being hunted down and dragged back is another matter altogether, but I digress.

I would very much like to support your resolution, and while I am not a delegate, I do express my views to my delegate as does most everyone who is active in my Regions official activities. I hope my suggestions help you and perhaps the resolution will pass as it stands.

Dear Javala,

I've given your proposal a read, and given a once over to the concerns voiced in the thread. Having little else to do this moment, and noting your request for suggestions, I've briefly re-written it a little. Naturally, its to be considered your material to use as you will for your aim to propose a womens rights resolution. I don't mean to say I completely agree with it or a need for it, but here we go, oh, and very nice initial writing, its pleasing to see your using the correct format, a good first step in any resolution to be.

*** *** *** *** ***

Suggest title : Sexes Rights, 1st Codifying Act.

The United Nations notes with sorrow the precedent in history and contemorary times where male dominated cultures infringe upon the rights of women. The following document is intended to both relieve and resolve much of these discriminative actions, not for one sex, but for all.

The United Nations :

Re-affirms and Re-states : Article 4 of The Universal Bill of Rights, implemented by the Nation States United Nations on Fri Aug 8 2003.

Deplores : The intimidation of one sex or more by another or others.

Is Deeply Disturbed By : The possibility or action of the with-holding of citizenship and ethnicity-recognition based on the sex of a individual or collective of other-ethnic origins or of origin within the borders of a nation state.

Does Formally Recognise and Declare : That the rights of all sexes are equal and that this equality must be preserved in the interests of the rights of all citizens of Nation States United Nation member states.

RESOLVES :

1. The Nation States United Nations does here-by greatly encourage each member states to establish a minimum of one center for each sex in their boreders, in which people of the sex of the respective designated center could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due to any sexually motivated violence or discrimination from the home or work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large.

2. The Nation States United Nations calls upon all employers to abide by the following regulations :

a) Equal wages for all sexes.
b) Equal chance at employment/ranking for all sexes.
c) Equal benefits for all sexes.

The above three conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases.

3. The Nation States United Nations does strongly suggest the international legalization of divorce, to be oberved or acted upon in future acts of the Nation States United Nations and that this document is to be considered supporting legislation for such a document.

4. The Nation States United Nations does applaud and protect the actions of any charity based organisation that is dedicated to furthering the education of any and all sexes in countries where one or more sex may not given an equal chance at attaining an enducation.

5. The Nation States United Nations states that this document is the 1st Codifying Act regarding Sexes Rights for all citizens of Nation States United Nations member states, and as a codifying act uniting any and all legislation which may effect citizens in relation to physical gender disposition, is open to future change by a future 2nd Codifying Act regarding Sexes Rights, as would a 2nd Codifying Act regarding Sexes Rights be open to future change by a 3rd Codifying Act regarding Sexes Rights and so on until such time as the Nation States United Nations decides to cease doing so, recognising that the process may be carried out yet in perpetuity.

*** *** *** *** ***

Well, I hope thats of some help, as you can see I generalised it a bit regarding numbers of sexes, I'll probably explain the need for that some time in 12 hours or more, I'm logging off in a short while to get some sleep. Failing it been of any great help, I hope it gives you some ideas. Night all.

I favour the version produced by Trock.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Well, I can only hope the originator of the proposal strain sees it fit to consider my minor effort helpful. As I said, they may of course feel free to use any and all of it as there own should they wish.

Leylsh would suport this proposal if it made it to UN status.

The Women's Rights proposal is a very legitimate idea, but there are some parts that do not appeal to the United Socialist States of Voroziniya. I agree that it should be UN policy that all women receive equal wages, opportunities, and employment chance, however, much of the proposal already addresses things that are already enforced. Simply suggesting and applauding something will really do nothing, and abuse and intimidation towards women is already enforced, as it is to men. Also, i strongly disagree with aid groups supplying shelter, food, etc. specifically for women, because women and men are supposed to be equal. Giving women special aid and not aid specifically for men is treating women better than men. So is a specific law forbidding intimidation or abuse towards women from men, because it is JUST AS ILLEGAL IF IT IS AGAINST MEN. Until those 2 factors are lifted for favoring women, Voroziniya must sadly decline from endorsing this great civil rights proposal.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I misspoke--*Law against intimidation and abuse towards women is already enforced*

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Women should be given EQUAL rights as men. No more and no less. It is then a nation's people shall be equal.

I agree fully, but this proposal is giving priviledge to women that is not being specifically granted to men. There must be both for it to be equal.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Please, before everyone goes spouting off about how Womens rights are bad, remember this:

Prejudice is stupidity and arrogance.

I agree, but I'm trying to say that prejudice goes two ways. It simply means that someone is assuming something about a group without taking in the whole facts. You cannot pre-judge that women are so oppressed that they deserve some things that are denied specifically to men. There cannot be groups for "people" and then separate groups for "women", if women get separate groups there must be assoiations for the welfare of "men" as well.

I agree with the proposal, it just needs to be editted so that women are equal to men, not higher.

The rights of both men and women must be preserved and championed, not just women or just men. Privaleges should not be granted to women, and not men. Both sexes need access to equal facilities and services. There should be no loop holes for the rights of one to harm the other.

the United Socialist States of Vanua

I see a common trend developing in the complaints against this proposal. First off, as the author of the Needle Sharing proposal, the reason I was advocating on the behalf of injecting drug users and NEPs, is because there are times when we as governments need to realistically admit that despite our best efforts, our socities are not equal to all based solely on birth.

The 11,000+ votes in favour of the NEPs largely came from individual nations and smaller UN regions. The larger Pacific delegates didn't cast votes by Friday morning, though a few of the smaller Pacifics did vote in favour.

In any event, a vote in favour was a statement by which our nations joined together to say, "Yes, drug use is bad, but these people need special help."

In many of our schools, we divide our children into gifted and talented programs or special needs groups. The divisions are made by both parents and teachers alike, based obviously on the need of the children.

Without pointing figures at individual nations (and I can easily go online and survey gender based salary figures and rape cases), let's just assume that *if* we can agree that there are disparities in some nations between what ideally female born children can aspire to vs. male born children, that perhaps a UN statement can help build some long-term goodwill and serve to full the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that carry out the real work.

Again, I promoted NEPs because they are essentially NGOs. They exist at the local level and employ local strageties to best save lives. This is the success of the United Nations ... not "go plant a tree" resolutions.

Let me take the analogy a step further ...

Imagine you are a parent of 3 children. While as a parent you aren't going to play favorites, if one of your children has diabetes, would you not take extra care to protect him / her?

A resolution designed to reaffirm that in the world women *do* make less than men (on average) and are shouldered with different responsibilities, isn't taking away anything from me. A parent who has to pay extra attention to a diabetic child doesn't love his / her other children less ... but the reality is they can better take care of themselves, and the loving parent needs to focus a bit of extra attention and love to the child who is born slightly less capable of meeting the physical demands of the world.

I urge your nations to drop your notion that this resolution threatens men. I am one, and clearly do I look threatened by this resolution? This is a basic human rights issue, and as written the proposal merely seeks to affirm something we all know in our hearts and empower NGOs.

Trust me when I say this, this is a well written proposal and something worthy of our attention. I would much rather nations focus on the *words* of the resolution / proposal than on the false impression that this will allow women additional rights.

1. ENCOURAGES the UN to establish centers for women in all nations whereas women could seek shelter, medical care, and counseling for both themselves and their children if they should find themselves without a home;

This is the only part that I have a problem with. these centres should not only be for women and children, men have needs as well. They should be equal opprotunity facilities. In many countries that have the problem of male/female inequality, people are poor and have little access to these things anyway. These should be provided for both sexes. The rest is fine.

the United Socialist States of Vanua

I agree, Mikitivity, that women have it worse off, but we should be raising them up to an equal level to men, not giving them special care above men like you suggested.

I agree, Mikitivity, that women have it worse off, but we should be raising them up to an equal level to men, not giving them special care above men like you suggested.

They are being raised to equals, not being treated as more than equals. Could you please point out where the proposal says how it will subjegate males?

Consider this: in most societies women remain the primary care givers.

I would strongly support an "Equal Rights" proposal, in which we addressed that, in some nations, men are at a lower level. Until the colonization by Europe, many African tribes were Matriarchs. I think that we should try to knock out all sexism in one swoop.
That's my only objection there.
I agree, Lord help me, with Komokom (who'd of thought that?) with his proposed changes.
Sexual discrimination goes both ways.
I recently applied for a job as a food server at a nice restaurant (with experience), and was told that they were no longer hiring servers, or at least not for a few more weeks, and so I took the (far) less desirable job of washing dishes, as I'm in need of college money. I showed up for orientation to find that several females who had applied for the same position as I afterwards, without experience, were hired simply because they were females.
I'm all for protecting women's rights, but if equal protection only goes one way, we lose the equality.

Wile I'm not denying the fact that in some cultures women need a leg up I am concerned of the effect this proposal will have in countries where men are disadvantaged and on the men in countries were things are already equal. It is not inconceivable that countries like this exist in an organisation as large and diverse as The UN.

If no one else is willing to does anyone mind if I submit Komokom's amended proposal?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

watch out...giving women rights might be racist towards arabs

The Federation of Jessicia favours the revised proposal written by Komokom. As it re-affirms the rights of both sexes (not having the opposite results for societies who place the welfare of women over men) yet still recognizes the need for seperate care facilities at times. We would like to support this proposal.

But, as a nation which already provides much in the way of health care and have a shakey tax situation, we are reluctant to vote for this.

For now we are still considering our voting position on this issue. We ask you to consider nations with shakey fianancial situations before submitting this proposal.

-The Federation of Jessicia, Foreign Affairs Minister, Braxton Conrad.

Please, before everyone goes spouting off about how Womens rights are bad, remember this:

Prejudice is stupidity and arrogance.

This was only brought up by one nation.

But many of the other nations were simply concerned about how this would effect equality of the sexes, not being sexist at all. These nations actually care about equality and that includes the status of women in their society. There is nothing wrong with considering how this document will effect the rights of men, if equality means anything and especially since certain parts of the proposal were sighted as examples of discrimination.

I suspect you were being a bit reactionary and I suggest that you read over and think more about the proposal and everything that was discussed about it as the other nations did.

To assume that every one who considers the rights of men must be afraid of womens' right is prejudice itself.

And, even if we were all sexist-women-haters, do you really think calling us stupid and arrogant will mean a thing? It would probably get us angry. I would suggest that you actually use constructive arguments.

I'd also like to ask why "prejudice" was brought into a discussion solely about discrimination by gender.

-Foreign Affairs Minister of the Federation of Jessicia, Braxton Conrad.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343329

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

First off I would like to apologize for my lack of response over the past few days...my internet was down so I wasn't able to update anything.

I am glad to see that Komokom took the liberty of writing up a new resolution, and I hope that they submit it. I would like to point out the fact that while I am a fan of their proposal, it cannot be considered a rewrite of mine since it is on a completely different topic. And I am also glad to see how much debate there is over this proposal.

I will try to respond to all of your postings with my own answers and ideas as soon as I can. Being without the internet has really thrown me off and I have a lot to catch up on.

Just as another quick point I would like to say that I am very happy to see that all of you are concerened with equal rights of both genders. And if I had set out to write an equal rights proposal, I believe that all of you would support it much more readily than the one that I have standing. I am not sorry that I did not propose an equal rights reso becuase my goal was to write a solid resolution that would raise women up to the same playing field as men, and that is what I did. Granted, I did not take into account countries where men live on a subservient roll, but, those cases are the exception to most circumstances. In whatever resolution is proposed there is always one side that can say that they are 'getting the shaft', even though this might not be true.

I will be rewriting the operative clause that deals with equal rights in the workplace. I will be clarifying it and giving it more detailed subclauses.

I will not change operative clause 1 that deals with women's shelters because I feel that it is imperative that women have specialized refuges for their special needs.

Please realize that this resolution does nothing to take away from men's rights. It does not bring men's rights into the picture at all because this is a WOMEN'S rights resolution.

Those of you who say that this reso would be infringing on national sovereignty have not taken a deep look at the United Nations. By joining the UN a country is pretty much letting an outside force dictate what happens inside their nation. Not in a bad way, becuase believe me, I am one of the foremost people fighting to keep the UN alive. But, by becoming a member nation you subject yourself to be under the jurisdiction of whatever resolution, act, or convention that is passed, even if you do not vote for it. In the UN majority rules, and if you are in the minority, your national sovereignty is being infringed upon because your country is subject to action that you feel is unfair, unwanted, or unneeded. Keep that in mind whenever you vote for a resolution.

I apologize if that sounds very controversial, but it is the truth as viewed by the Rogue Nation of Javala.

I will not change operative clause 1 that deals with women's shelters because I feel that it is imperative that women have specialized refuges for their special needs.

Please realize that this resolution does nothing to take away from men's rights. It does not bring men's rights into the picture at all because this is a WOMEN'S rights resolution.


You will continue to have the complete support of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, because you are right. Women, like children, do have specialized needs, and my government feels that an international statement acknolwedging this is the first step towards really bringing equality.

I'll remind everybody, that there is a reason why women see special doctors at times ... men and women should be equal, but both medically and socially this is not always the case. While we can't change biology, we can slowly work to deal with the social differences.

You will continue to have the complete support of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, because you are right. Women, like children, do have specialized needs, and my government feels that an international statement acknolwedging this is the first step towards really bringing equality.

I'll remind everybody, that there is a reason why women see special doctors at times ... men and women should be equal, but both medically and socially this is not always the case. While we can't change biology, we can slowly work to deal with the social differences.

The Federation of Jessicia does not, exactly, take issue with womens' unique biology. We do however recognize that men can be homeless with children as well as women and what are they to do?

We suggest that you include that, in special and emergency circumstances, that women shelters with childrens' facilities also accept men with children. Either that or put childrens' facilities in all of these places whether for men, women, or the general public. Children with mothers would recieve special treatment otherwise.

-The Federation of Jessicia, Foreign Affairs Minister, Braxton Conrad.

I agree that the means of reaching equality between women and men must give women extra needs, but the end result should be equality, not better for women. You cant have foundations specifically for women, because women and men are EQUAL.

If you absolutely must have such groups, be sure to specify that they are aboloshed after women and men are equal. Women do not deserve MORE than men in the end.

I would not expect you to be so shallow, Mikitivity.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

The Federation of Jessicia does not, exactly, take issue with womens' unique biology. We do however recognize that men can be homeless with children as well as women and what are they to do?

We suggest that you include that, in special and emergency circumstances, that women shelters with childrens' facilities also accept men with children. Either that or put childrens' facilities in all of these places whether for men, women, or the general public. Children with mothers would recieve special treatment otherwise.


I'll reply to this as well as Voroziniya's comments with something that I do feel comfortable with ... examples related to HIV and homelessness.

While reading the quotes, please consider that if people infected with HIV have special needs that need to be addressed in order to receive equal treatment, that the same applies to women.

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/hiv_homeless.html


Homeless women and adolescents are especially at risk. Homeless women frequently associate with men for protection and end up being sexually abused; they are four times as likely as domiciled women to be raped.(6)

Later in the ACLU article:


The other requirement that the ADA imposes on shelters is a requirement of "reasonable accommodation" for people with HIV. "Reasonable accommodation" means that where it is necessary for a shelter to modify its program or practices to allow people with HIV to participate equally, they must make that modification. For example, if a shelter allows clients to store and take medication, then it must do what is necessary to make sure clients with HIV can store and take their medication also. If clients with HIV need to refrigerate their medication, then refrigeration must be provided. If clients with HIV need to take their medication with food, then access to food must be provided.

Now I'm having a hard time finding articles that talk about how shelters are run, but it is my understanding (and it could be wrong) that many shelters have adopted gender based sleeping arrangements in order to prevent shelter based rape and abuse.

I wish I could have more.

Basically we all agree that the goal is equality. The question seems to really be, in order to be equals do you sometimes have to provide extra services to individuals whom have unique needs?

If you were the parent of a crippled child, I'm positive that you'd become a strong advocate on the behalf of your child and insist that society should strive to treat your son or daughter as an equal, but in order to do so may have to ignore his / her handicap and at times provide special different services for him or her.

The sad truth is, people aren't born equal. And yet most of us agree that it should be a goal of a body like the UN to move in a direction that would make things more equal.

This is not me being shallow by any means, but instead this is my government's position as a "caretaker" of the public trust that is granted to it by our citizens. Back to Rousseau's first political model: as governments we are really no different than parents. We seek to care for all our children, knowing that each one of them is slightly different. While our love and hopes for them is equal, our relationships with each one of them is unique.

To be certain, I do respect the complaints I am hearing. I feel each of your governments is right to put such a high value on equality. I'm only asking that you consider yourselves as "parents" to your "children" and think about what is the best was to show your love and hopes.

watch out...giving women rights might be racist towards arabs

I find this comment eronious and incredibly offensive as about 5% of the USSV is ethnically Arab. My people, including the Arab population has no problem with the concept of women's rights nor do they object to giving women equal status as men and women. Your comment is racist in itself. It has no place in a forum such as the UN and is disrespectful towards Arabs, Arab nations and those who understand the Arab people and culture to any extent. Your harmful and hateful remarks offend the people of the USSV and the USSV respecfully asks that you withdraw your remarks or apologize for them.

PM of the United Socialist States of Vanua, Wesali Sukulevi

I'll reply to this as well as Voroziniya's comments with something that I do feel comfortable with ... examples related to HIV and homelessness.

While reading the quotes, please consider that if people infected with HIV have special needs that need to be addressed in order to receive equal treatment, that the same applies to women.

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/hiv_homeless.html



Later in the ACLU article:



Now I'm having a hard time finding articles that talk about how shelters are run, but it is my understanding (and it could be wrong) that many shelters have adopted gender based sleeping arrangements in order to prevent shelter based rape and abuse.

I wish I could have more.

Basically we all agree that the goal is equality. The question seems to really be, in order to be equals do you sometimes have to provide extra services to individuals whom have unique needs?

If you were the parent of a crippled child, I'm positive that you'd become a strong advocate on the behalf of your child and insist that society should strive to treat your son or daughter as an equal, but in order to do so may have to ignore his / her handicap and at times provide special different services for him or her.

The sad truth is, people aren't born equal. And yet most of us agree that it should be a goal of a body like the UN to move in a direction that would make things more equal.

This is not me being shallow by any means, but instead this is my government's position as a "caretaker" of the public trust that is granted to it by our citizens. Back to Rousseau's first political model: as governments we are really no different than parents. We seek to care for all our children, knowing that each one of them is slightly different. While our love and hopes for them is equal, our relationships with each one of them is unique.

To be certain, I do respect the complaints I am hearing. I feel each of your governments is right to put such a high value on equality. I'm only asking that you consider yourselves as "parents" to your "children" and think about what is the best was to show your love and hopes.


The Federation of Jessicia has no problem with special needs. Our only problem is the fact that only the womens' facilities would get child-specific services while the rest would not. It would therefore give children with their mothers special treatment. All children, regardless of gender of parent, deserve the same treatment.

FOJ, FAM, Braxton Conrad.

Upon more careful analasis of the thread, I have come to the conclusion that Mikitivity and I are really saying the same thing but not necissarily paying incredible attention to each other. I think we all agree that the ends justify the means, and that women DO deserve special treatement to be raised to the level of equality to men, but cannot surpass it. I think that the establishment of such groups for the advancement of women is necissary, I just do not think it should be permanent. When women and men share social equality such groups and special functions specifically for women should be abolished, and I believe that should be specified in the proposal.

The United Socialist states of Voroziniya