NationStates Jolt Archive

The Declaration of Masculism Rights

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by Stash Kroh

The World Assembly applauds the efforts of others previous to secure gender equality among the member nations.

However, fears that with the rise of female rights, men’s rights have subsequently been abused. It is now common in member states to see a man sent to jail for rape because he accidentally bumped into a woman, or a well-mannered father losing custody of his kids to their estranged mother who plans to use their college fund to pay for her cosmetic surgery fees.

Concludes that the gender equality intended has drifted into a vile corruption, the very foundation of reverse discrimination.

Disagrees against those that argue for a hasty repeal, with consideration of the equality already established, and therefore encourages member nations took look for an alternative means to rectify these tribulations.

Article I

Hereby, declares that no being of any gender shall enter a courtroom or habitation of justice and be looked upon as guilty before proven innocent or otherwise.

Abolishes the use of gender stereotypes in a court of law, no gender is capable of killing, raping, abusing, or committing a crime against the state less or more than the other.

Insists that the handling of custody settlements must have a basis in logic and presentable evidence, no parent may be prohibited from seeing their children or raising them because the verdict sees them only as their gender with its inherent stereotypes, and not as a parent.

Prohibits the usage of military conscription that is gender specific.

Preserves the spirit of gender equality, by prohibiting the elongation or increased severity of criminal punishment due to the convicted’s gender.

Article II

Encourages member nations to establish more social programs and positive male role models in media to increase the awareness of male rights and freedoms, as the assembly has already attempted to do so for females.

Forbids educational studies from teaching animosity towards Masculism, or ignoring the importance of equality of genders in favor of studying strictly feminist or masculist ideologies.

States that no all-male public school may be prohibited, when an all-female public school is not, or vice-versa, in a member state.

Enforces the equal need of paternal leave, if a system of maternal leave has been implemented in a member nation.

I know not whether to laugh or cry. Poor oppressed men. :eek:

If this was serious, we would have to oppose it, based on the principle that any resolution promoting a single group's rights goes against the idea of equal rights.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

A suggestion that would acheive much of the same thing without being prejorative, counter-productive, objectionable, or ridiculous:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the World Assembly or by any member state on account of gender.

I know not whether to laugh or cry. Poor oppressed men.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Poor oppressed Women.

If this was serious, we would have to oppose it, based on the principle that any resolution promoting a single group's rights goes against the idea of equal rights.



This is an attempt to constrain the ever growing force of reverse discrimination, the fact that no one sees the current unbalance in our equality, shows that we're obviously consumed with these feeling of reverse discrimination already. I don't think that are attempts to establish gender equality was in the same spirit as reverse discrimination, which is why a resolution like such is a neccessity to finish what we started.

The simplest idea is to ban gender discrimmination as a whole. There's no need to promote one gender to compensate for dominance by the other.

On the other hand, I think we have one that accomplished gender rights....

A suggestion that would acheive much of the same thing without being prejorative, counter-productive, objectionable, or ridiculous:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the World Assembly or by any member state on account of gender.
What's wrong with:
'All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex'? (http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=34)

What's wrong with:
'All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex'? (http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=34)

Nothing. In fact, it is superior -- in addition to already having been passed.

Forgive my ignorance of existing WA resolutions. :$

This is an attempt to constrain the ever growing force of reverse discrimination, the fact that no one sees the current unbalance in our equality, shows that we're obviously consumed with these feeling of reverse discrimination already. I don't think that are attempts to establish gender equality was in the same spirit as reverse discrimination, which is why a resolution like such is a neccessity to finish what we started.After a review of passed WA resolutions, we would be even more firmly opposed to this, given that it actually tips the scales in favour of males, and is based on false information. Not a single WA resolution promotes the rights of individual groups. The ones that do promote rights are gender, race and species neutral, thus making your argument moot.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

At the risk of oppressing all you long-suffering, underprivileged men in the room, the Federation would be completely opposed to this piece of reactionary and regressive tripe. Existing WA law already protects people from discrimination based on sex or gender. There is no need for this proposal, other than to soothe certain mens' wounded pride.

Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

There is no "wounded pride", mearly a corrupted system. The scales have been tipped towards women's rights, and this proposal attempts to equal it out by forging a blockade against unwanted reverse discrimination. This resolution is not meant to be some ridiculous-conservative-testosterone-fest that your attempting to paint it as, its merely a correction of some ill-intended escalation of gender inequality, to help forge the equality we we're intending.

There is no "wounded pride", mearly a corrupted system. The scales have been tipped towards women's rights, and this proposal attempts to equal it out by forging a blockade against unwanted reverse discrimination. This resolution is not meant to be some ridiculous-conservative-testosterone-fest that your attempting to paint it as, its merely a correction of some ill-intended escalation of gender inequality, to help forge the equality we we're intending.

Luckily this bullshit is so self-evidently absurd and offensive that it requires no detailed response.

::Cerys wanders round to the Unibot delegation and slaps the ambassador around the face with a wet fish::

--
Permanent Undersecretary Cerys Coch

There is no "wounded pride", mearly a corrupted system. The scales have been tipped towards women's rights, and this proposal attempts to equal it out by forging a blockade against unwanted reverse discrimination. This resolution is not meant to be some ridiculous-conservative-testosterone-fest that your attempting to paint it as, its merely a correction of some ill-intended escalation of gender inequality, to help forge the equality we we're intending.

Where have the scales been tipped towards women's rights? We cant see it. As we stated before, and will state again:

Not a single WA resolution promotes the rights of individual groups. The ones that do promote rights are gender, race and species neutral, thus making your argument moot.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

The only way to have no discrimination, is simply, to ban all forms of discrimination.

::Cerys wanders round to the Unibot delegation and slaps the ambassador around the face with a wet fish::

--
Permanent Undersecretary Cerys Coch

Hey! Did you ask if you could borrow my fish?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

The only way to have no discrimination, is simply, to ban all forms of discrimination.
Which we believe is covered in Resolution #35

Which possibly this proposal could fly in the face of

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

::Cerys wanders round to the Unibot delegation and slaps the ambassador around the face with a wet fish::

Yeah, you would.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

The only way to have no discrimination, is simply, to ban all forms of discrimination.

Either gender, it is true because you would then have a battle of the sexes/genders on your hands. I'd like to ask the trusty ambassadors to Unibot on why there is a need for positive discrimmination anyway? What is the point?

Anyhow, strengthening sexual equality as long as that resolution is independent of others might be okay.

Yours,

Either gender, it is true because you would then have a battle of the sexes/genders on your hands. I'd like to ask the trusty ambassadors to Unibot on why there is a need for positive discrimmination anyway? What is the point?

Anyhow, strengthening sexual equality as long as that resolution is independent of others might be okay.

Yours,

you wont get an answer. I have asked that question, in the form of 'where is the bias towards women in the current resolutions?' twice already without answer

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

You know, the responses of a number of the people in this thread only reinforce the OP's position.

You know, the responses of a number of the people in this thread only reinforce the OP's position.

:hail:

Either gender, it is true because you would then have a battle of the sexes/genders on your hands. I'd like to ask the trusty ambassadors to Unibot on why there is a need for positive discrimmination anyway? What is the point?

Anyhow, strengthening sexual equality as long as that resolution is independent of others might be okay.

Yours,

When I talk about reverse discrimination, I'm talking about the discrimination that happens in reverse to the discriminators after a massive wave of anti-discrimination takes place. In English,

Females protest, and thankfully get more rights, as they should. However equality was never really established, as men start to lose rights, dignity and so forth.

For example,

Has anyone else seen a university or workplace being sued for not hiring enough women, so under a strain of PR, they hire more women.

But what about the men that could have gotten the job? Weren't they just discriminated against for being male? Sure, there are other jobs out there for a thirty year old working class man...well there is, just not that one. They needed a woman. ;)

___________________________________________________________

you wont get an answer. I have asked that question, in the form of 'where is the bias towards women in the current resolutions?' twice already without answer

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Reverse Discrimination is the natural escalation of civil rights, and an movement towards gender equality.

Some of the sections need to be reworded because they give rights to men that women would then not have, however you'll find most of it, is just trying to set the record straight.

Do we really have nothing better to do than to stroke bruised egos?

I don't know how it is in other nations, but in the Republic, all are equal. We've never had a university or workplace sued because they didn't have enough of one gender or another. It just doesn't happen. People are looked at for who they are. Not what they are.

I don't know how it is in other nations, but in the Republic, all are equal. We've never had a university or workplace sued because they didn't have enough of one gender or another. It just doesn't happen. People are looked at for who they are. Not what they are.

I wish everywhere was like that. It just doesn't happen though.
I feel like it should be a line in a John Lennon song.

Imagine men and women as equals..duh..dah..dah..da..duh..duh
No more men ashamed of watching Oprah in between one of the Die Hard Sequels...
duh..dah...dah..da..duh...duh
Imagine all of the freedoms...duh..dah..dah..da..duh..duh
And all of not-so-fat-slobs with their perfect t.v wives on sitcoms..
duh..dah..dah..da..duh..duh

I wish everywhere was like that. It just doesn't happen though.
I feel like it should be a line in a John Lennon song.

Imagine men and women as equals..duh..dah..dah..da..duh..duh
No more men ashamed of watching Oprah in between one of the Die Hard Sequels...
duh..dah...dah..da..duh...duh
Imagine all of the freedoms...duh..dah..dah..da..duh..duh
And all of not-so-fat-slobs with their perfect t.v wives on sitcoms..
duh..dah..dah..da..duh..duh

I must have fallen asleep during that particular culture class. I have no clue who this John Lennon is. I also don't know half of what was mentioned in those lyrics. Sorry.

Yes, it would be a perfect world to have everyone as equals. We did take a while to get there, but once we did, it was a change that all agreed was for the better.

I do wish you'd taken the stance of no discrimination to anyone though.

Oh... wait... Didn't we already do that?

Paula Jenner

OOC: Rutianas, I wouldn't bother feeding the troll. There's no point giving it the oxygen of attention.

OOC: How do you know John Lennon, Oprah and Bruce Willis aren't just Unibotian figures? (I wish) And I found the troll comment particularly insulting, the Lennon joke wasn't meant as a slash back of trollian proportions, I was just feeling like the forum needed a joke to lighten up on all of this tenderness in the air on the subject of male rights. Sorry.

OOC: How do you know John Lennon, Oprah and Bruce Willis aren't just Unibotian figures? (I wish) And I found the troll comment particularly insulting, the Lennon joke wasn't meant as a slash back of trollian proportions, I was just feeling like the forum needed a joke to lighten up on all of this tenderness in the air on the subject of male rights. Sorry.

OOC: I don't know that. Hence the comment of 'falling asleep during culture class'. :p

Reverse Discrimination is the natural escalation of civil rights, and an movement towards gender equality.

Some of the sections need to be reworded because they give rights to men that women would then not have, however you'll find most of it, is just trying to set the record straight.

We would probably agree with you... If there were resolutions promoting the rights of the feminine gender. But there isnt. They are all gender neutral, not pointing one way or the other. If the males of your land lack the testicular fortitude to ensure that they are treated equally, that is their issue, but since their rights are already covered, we do not see the need for this useless piece of legislation.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

OOC: It's okay, I can understand. A culture class on Unibot would be boring.
Now, Scotland..not so much.

If the males of your land lack the testicular fortitude to ensure that they are treated equally, that is their issue, but since their rights are already covered

I'm imaging what it was like previous to the Anti-discrimination act was passed. A women would be challenging a politician on women's rights, and he would reply "If the women of your land lacks the intelligence to know that they are being treated equally, so be it. You are equal. We men are just ...MORE equal."

Have we REALLY gotten better than then? yes. Can we be better? Surely.

__________________

We would probably agree with you... If there were resolutions promoting the rights of the feminine gender

Give it another read, if you can stand reading this "useless piece of legislation" for a second time.
I have made a few changes to the wording as I had originally intended it, there is no discrimination against women that I can see.

I understand the compliance commission and the resolutions previous to me, but it doesn't matter, civil rights promoting gender equality will always escalate into reverse discrimination without further legislature. This is all in theory, mind you, but...

I understand the compliance commission and the resolutions previous to me, but it doesn't matter, civil rights promoting gender equality will always escalate into reverse discrimination without further legislature. This is all in theory, mind you, but...

That is quite a theory -- have any evidence to support it?

Particularly it would be interesting to hear you explain how gender neutral provisions inherently promote inequality among genders but a provision such as you suggest that doles out special treatment to one gender does not.

DOES it dole out special treatment? I can't say If I know you well enough to tell, but I'll take and guess and say you wouldn't debate this if it was a minority group...

______________________

That is quite a theory -- have any evidence to support it?

What have I been talking about for all of this week!?... besides John Lennon and Die Hard.
Look in the preambles, for your "evidence".

______________________

Particularly it would be interesting to hear you explain how gender neutral provisions inherently promote inequality among genders but a provision such as you suggest that doles out special treatment to one gender does not.

I fully supported the Charter of Civil Rights and Freedoms, but looking at the political scope of things with a third dimension, every resolution leads to another tribulation... that's practically the thesis of NationStates. The "problem" with anti-discrimination legislature is that it will eventually lead to reverse discrimination, this proposal attempts to solve these problems with out the need of an unpopular repeal of a resolution that done it's job for the most part.

Does it dole out special treatment?

First, that reply is non-responsive. Please supply some evidence that current WA resolutions forbidding gender discrimination are inadequate and/or result in so-called "reverse discrimination."*

Second, although you have altered Article I of your proposal so it reads as gender-neutral, your preamble and Article II are not.

*I note that the example you gave earlier of "reverse discrimination" involved nothing of the sort.

EDIT: Just a reminder, about existing Resolution #35 - The Charter of Civil Rights

Description: Hailing the work in furtherance of personal freedom already achieved by the World Assembly and,

Recognising this work as the preeminent task of civilisation and,

Seeking to augment this,

The World Assembly,

Requires W.A. member states to fairly and equally enact and enforce the following articles,

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and are urged to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.


Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

c ) Member states shall actively work towards eliminating criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice based on cultural or societal differences.

d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states.

I note that the example you gave earlier of "reverse discrimination" involved nothing of the sort.

How so?

The "problem" with anti-discrimination legislature is that it will eventually lead to reverse discrimination, this proposal attempts to solve these problems with out the need of an unpopular repeal of a resolution that done it's job for the most part.

Repeating this mantra does not make it so.

You have presented no evidence and the assertion is absurd on its face.

Luckily, no one is seriously supporting your proposal.

Look, I myself have had a Draft very much-gender oriented (some esteemed colleagues may attest to this). After thoughtful consideration, and some inner searching, I decided to remake it gender neutral. Results so far have been very satisfying, even much more then they would be in its original incarnation.

And for the sake of curiosity, actually, could you show me one non-RL Nation where women sexually assault men on the streets, force them to buy beer while they watch Höp'rah, and where women consistently earn more than men in ALL levels of society? (Or even a RL Nation, for Z'rquon's Sake!)

Or, taking on a serious note, do you actually think the The Charter of Civil Rights through some extremely perverted interpretation of the Charter, combined with some kind of drug-induced mass-idiocy needed to overlook such a perversion of basic reading skills, would lead us to the aforementioned hipothetical and bizarre situation?

Following this line of "thought" (sic), you could also submit to appreciation something along these lines:

Freedom from Gender Oppression

REALIZING (fe)male(s) interrelation is a complete and utter sh*t, beyond any hope of repair:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY (while ROFTLTAO :D) DECIDES:

1) All females shall have their sexual hormones-producing glands removed, along with breasts.
2) All males shall have their sexual hormones-producing glands removed, along with penis and scrotum.
3) Reproduction shall occur by cloning.
4) Clones shall be non gendered.
5) Chromosomes X (especially X) and Y are outlawed and are to be exterminated on site.
6) Then... hhaaahhahahahahhah (W.A. collapses in laughter)

...You could try, but I predict chances of passage are slim

If this proposal were submitted in its present form, it would be open to legality challenge on grounds of duplication (of Resolution 35) and game mechanics (breaching the fourth wall).

To clarify: Step 1: Game mechanics enforce Resolution 35 on all WA nations.

Step 2: You roleplay (ie, state, imagine) that its clauses are not being applied to males in some/all WA nations that have males.

Step 3: You write a proposal based on this roleplay.

This is why it is more appropriate to write WA resolutions as general principles, whch nations then apply (by roleplay) to their particular populace. We know they have done so because gameplay stats show the results, but how it's done (legislation, bribery, fiat) is up to the player.

If you intend to write a proposal prohibiting discrimination of a sort exclusive to males and not already covered in 35, please start a new thread.

If you intend to write a proposal in which the WA endorses a set of principles applicable exclusively to males and not already covered in existing resolutions, please start a new thread.

If this was intended merely as a joke proposal meant to provoke good-humoured discussion, I fear it has failed. If that is the case, don't start a new thread.