NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think women should be legally equal to men?



Hah! Fooled you. If you answered "yes", how just is it that a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot?

Conversely, anyone who opposes same-sex - note I'm not saying homosexual because that doesn't matter - marriage must believe that women should not have the same rights as men.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that both women are heterosexual.

Do you think women should be legally equal to men?



Hah! Fooled you. If you answered "yes", how just is it that a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot?

Conversely, anyone who opposes same-sex - note I'm not saying homosexual because that doesn't matter - marriage must believe that women should not have the same rights as men.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that both women are heterosexual.


Now I am all for woman’s rights
And same sex marriage but I don’t see the leap between the two

You say that because a woman cant marry a woman that means she doesn’t have the same rights as a man

What about a man marrying a man … that is not allowed either

Does that mean a man doesn’t have the same rights as a … man?

It just doses not seem like a logical jump.

We should go back to the old days when women were considered chattle. Honestly, would anybody even talk to them if they didn't have a vagina?

What rights?

Do you think women should be legally equal to men?



Hah! Fooled you. If you answered "yes", how just is it that a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot?

Conversely, anyone who opposes same-sex - note I'm not saying homosexual because that doesn't matter - marriage must believe that women should not have the same rights as men.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that both women are heterosexual.

I agree. Heterosexual women should be allowed to marry eachother. But only heterosexual women.

Nobody else should be allowed to marry. :)

Nothing wrong with women being equal to men...your trap didn't fall on me anyway. I approve same sex marriage.

- Asylum Nova

But if your gonna let same sex heterosexuals marry each other. Whose to say they wont all do it for tax purposes?

Plus then you'd need to legislate marriage much more closely. And its not A good diea to try to legislate feelings.

But if your gonna let same sex heterosexuals marry each other. Whose to say they wont all do it for tax purposes?

Plus then you'd need to legislate marriage much more closely. And its not A good diea to try to legislate feelings.
Who's to say two homosexual people of opposite sexes won't marry for tax purposes? I know that's my goal in life.... err, to marry for tax purposes.. not to say that two homosxual people.... screw it.
Did I just imply I'm gay?

You're trying to say that a man has more rights than a woman, because a man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry a woman?

But a Woman can marry a man while a man can't marry another man.

People of the same sex are already allowed to marry in the Netherlands. It is normal here.

So I guess we are way ahead of America. ;)

I'm lost in this thread and its only the first page. WHEEEEE!

Do you think women should be legally equal to men?



Hah! Fooled you. If you answered "yes", how just is it that a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot?

Conversely, anyone who opposes same-sex - note I'm not saying homosexual because that doesn't matter - marriage must believe that women should not have the same rights as men.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that both women are heterosexual.

a man can marry someone of the opposite sex to him, and so can a woman. peanut head.

People of the same sex are already allowed to marry in the Netherlands. It is normal here.

So I guess we are way ahead of America. ;)

... sounds like it. Kudos to you. Hey, I've got a question. Since same-sex marriage is allowed in the Netherlands, can you tell us a little bit about how it's affected society? Some folks here seem to think same-sex marriage will cause the complete deterioration of morality and propriety (not to mention distroying families and bringing about the fall of America).

We all know Americans are panicky petes.

Doesn't the netherlands also have some Anti-immigration party currently in power?

People of the same sex are already allowed to marry in the Netherlands. It is normal here.

So I guess we are way ahead of America. ;)
HEY! They are allowed in Canada...in some provinces. ^_^

So, we're on the same page. Now if the government would just legalise marijuana then we'd be getting somewhere.

this whole discussion gives me a headache

But if your gonna let same sex heterosexuals marry each other. Whose to say they wont all do it for tax purposes?

Plus then you'd need to legislate marriage much more closely. And its not A good diea to try to legislate feelings.

There are no tax breaks for marriage except for dependants. And if two heterosexual people want to marry and adopt a child, that's fine with me.

I put no simply because I don't think the answer is as universal as people think, there are some things that just aren't for men, and some things that just aren't for women, for example, I could never agree with allowing men to join the navy wives club (yes this is a legal issue).

But in most applicable situations, there is no reason to separate, if they can pass the physical requirements for a given military position, let em at it, they can bleed for their country too, if they have the best qualifications/personality for a given business position, no problems here.

But males and females will never be the same.

"You're off bravely defending our nation. And I'm here stuck at home with your lonely wives.

What to do?"

women should shut up more often :mad:

women should shut up more often :mad:

Nah, I think idiots should shut up more often. I have a slight noise induced hearing loss in the high frequencies. Speak up, ladies.

women should shut up more often :mad:

Beg your pardon? Perhaps you should try it first...

women should shut up more often :mad:

Pot calling Kettle!

You imply that you want more rights.Rights to do what, exactly?Gay marriages in America are a different subject, a man can't marry another man either..

Well, if it weren't for reproductive purposes, females most likely would have been slaughtered, survival of the fittest.
Man would have killed them like he did the neanderthal.

But if your gonna let same sex heterosexuals marry each other. Whose to say they wont all do it for tax purposes?

Plus then you'd need to legislate marriage much more closely. And its not A good diea to try to legislate feelings.

What's with this argument all the time? WHAT TAX PURPOSES??? In what country is it beneficial to be married!??? Usually it means you are taxed together, in a higher income bracket, and actually keep LESS of your income!

DOWN WITH MARRIAGE! It's a tax grab!
MUAHAHAHHAHAA!

what are you lot talking about your such weazel bags :sniper: :headbang:

what are you lot talking about your such weazel bags :sniper: :headbang:

Pet peeve, sorry...it's YOU'RE, not YOUR.

DOWN WITH MARRIAGE! It's a tax grab!
MUAHAHAHHAHAA!

I know this very nice place for... special people like you.

You imply that you want more rights.Rights to do what, exactly?Gay marriages in America are a different subject, a man can't marry another man either..

Not at all. I just want the same right a woman has- that to marry a man.


It's true that I have an equivilent right- specifically, to marry a woman. But the Supreme Court had something to say about "seperate but equal" a while ago... now what was it?

Maybe I should make another poll called "Racial rights"- Do you think black peoples should have to use different water fountains than white peoples?

Why are there 8 votes for no?

Did KHELP go and make some puppets for himself?

Everybody should have the same rights. The SAME rights. No prefferential treatment.

I know this very nice place for... special people like you.

As long as they feed me three times a day, I'm all for it! :) Seriously though...when my husband and I lived together, and did not declare ourselves to be living common-law, we pulled in about $9500 more each year. Now, taxed together, and with no benefits for our two children (because we earn just shy over too much), we lose that amount each year. Just for being married. If only we could hide our relationship! :p

Not at all. I just want the same right a woman has- that to marry a man.



Come to Canada. You have that right.

In fact...at the risk of sounding like a paranoid FREAK, gay marriage is a great little tax grab too! In fact, you don't even have to GET married to be declared common-law (six months of living together, or immediately on having a child together AND living together). Common-law couples get taxed the same as married ones...and now we can tax the common-law GAY couples. Hooray for Canada, the land of milk and tax money!

Well, if it weren't for reproductive purposes, females most likely would have been slaughtered, survival of the fittest.
Man would have killed them like he did the neanderthal.

If it weren't for reproductive purposes, females could have killed all their infant sons at birth.

Guess what. Your statement wasn't rational, and neither was mine.

womens rights: barefoot and pregnant. :D

If it weren't for reproductive purposes, females could have killed all their infant sons at birth.

Guess what. Your statement wasn't rational, and neither was mine.

Just saying... Physically and Emotionally... Women are the weaker of the two sexes..
But hey, we're all humans.

Just saying... Physically and Emotionally... Women are the weaker of the two sexes..
But hey, we're all humans.

You speak the truth!(although not ALL Women are weaker, just 99.7% of em.)

Just saying... Physically and Emotionally... Women are the weaker of the two sexes..
But hey, we're all humans.

Actually, male infants are more likely to die in their first few years of life than female infants. Furthermore, female fetuses are more viable.

While I do accept the argument that men are physically stronger than women, I do not accept the argument that men are automatically stronger emotionally and psychologically then women. I've met men and women who have fought through a lot of adversity, and I've met both men and women who crumble at the first sign of things not going their way. I think mental strength has a lot more to do with cultural and upbringing than gender.

Actually, male infants are more likely to die in their first few years of life than female infants. Furthermore, female fetuses are more viable.

While I do accept the argument that men are physically stronger than women, I do not accept the argument that men are automatically stronger emotionally and psychologically then women. I've met men and women who have fought through a lot of adversity, and I've met both men and women who crumble at the first sign of things not going their way. I think mental strength has a lot more to do with cultural and upbringing than gender.

Hah, unless you live in Africa and every 1 in 3 children starve to death.. your statistic is moot.
Welcome to America.

Just saying... Physically and Emotionally... Women are the weaker of the two sexes..
But hey, we're all humans.

Is this how you start conversations with the ladies? :p

Hah, unless you live in Africa and every 1 in 3 children starve to death.. your statistic is moot.
Welcome to America.

Incorrect. This information is garnered from North America and European statistics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3754262.stm

"Male embryos are less robust than their female counterparts, and so require a greater degree of nurturing through pregnancy if they are to survive to full term." - US study quoted in the article.

"Professor Andrew Reid, spokesman for the British Society for Human Genetics, told BBC News that in the general population it was thought that roughly 106 boys were born for every 100 girls.

"It is thought this is nature's way of compensating for the fact that boys are more likely to die in infancy because there are genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy which almost entirely affect boys," he said.

yup I agree men are stonger in the short term but alot weaker long term, think about it which sex live longer?

Do you think women should be legally equal to men?


I voted 'no'. I am all for equality under the law, but the fact must be recognised that due to biological differences men and women should have somewhat different rights. Equal, but different.

I voted 'no'. I am all for equality under the law, but the fact must be recognised that due to biological differences men and women should have somewhat different rights. Equal, but different.

Fair enough. Your opinion and reasons I respect. Some of the other folks who have posted in this and other threads on similar topics...well, respect has difficulty making it onto the radar screen.

Do you think women should be legally equal to men?

I voted 'no'. I am all for equality under the law, but the fact must be recognised that due to biological differences men and women should have somewhat different rights. Equal, but different.

Huh? I think you misinterpreted the opening statement. No one is saying men and women have to become the same biologically. Rights and priveleges, is all.

I lost my faith in humanity today (again) and a lot of you arent helping.

Women emotionally weaker? There is no way to measure emotional strength as different people measure different things as strength. For instance my sister has been through the same well, family problems as me. She came out right way up but with a nasty temper, I can back down and dont take my problems out on others, but Im depressive, ie I broke. Which of us is stronger? I can control myself, but she withstood it better? Tough call.

Anyway, as for rights, I think they should be equal but not the same. Not quite the same, as we are equal but different between genders. But as fair as possible. I beleive in same sex marriage, I actually cant think of any areas where there should be any actual differences (between rights of genders), but there may be. So the different bit might not even be necessary. Im just covering unforseen circumstances.

"I voted 'no'. I am all for equality under the law, but the fact must be recognised that due to biological differences men and women should have somewhat different rights. Equal, but different."

I completely agree with this view. There are biological differences that must be accounted for. Childbearing rights are foremost, but there are also differences for military service and so on.

Besides, girls are stupid.

yup I agree men are stonger in the short term but alot weaker long term, think about it which sex live longer?

Yeah, women live an extra 5 years or so after the age of 80.

To tell you the truth, man or woman, i wouldnt want to live that old anyhow.

Fair enough. Your opinion and reasons I respect. Some of the other folks who have posted in this and other threads on similar topics...well, respect has difficulty making it onto the radar screen.

Huh? I think you misinterpreted the opening statement. No one is saying men and women have to become the same biologically. Rights and priveleges, is all.

Yes, but my point is that those biological differences entail different rights and priveleges. It is meaningless to grant men the right to have abortions or to undergo Caesarian sections on a nationalised health service, for example, and thus there are different rights based on biological factors. This does not mean that anyone is better/worse than anyone else, just different.

Sidenote: long time no see, Equus.

Yeah, women live an extra 5 years or so after the age of 80.

To tell you the truth, man or woman, i wouldnt want to live that old anyhow.


Agreed … work in a long term care nursing home as security … personally I would WANT Alzheimer’s


It would be hard on family and you forgetting family but as you get older you are LIVING that youth … cant tell you how many times I have heard the “bought new car yesterday” or “just had my baby boy” story … sorry this may seem insensitive but I wouldn’t want to wake up every morning knowing the most productive and visceral part of my life is over

Yeah, women live an extra 5 years or so after the age of 80.

To tell you the truth, man or woman, i wouldnt want to live that old anyhow.

What? Now we're going to argue whether or not seniors can live active, productive lives and enrich the lives of others? Please, let's not go there. The vast majority of volunteers in North America are senior citizens, many of whom are at least octogenarians.

Although I agree, if for some reason the quality of my life was poor, such as bad health or whatever, I don't think I would want to "live that old" either.

*getting through the first place.*

"If we allow this, who's to say this won't happen, who's to say that..."

Who's to say, *indeed.*

Who says that you or anyone has the right and need to define other people's relationships?

Frankly, the business of the state as regards marriage or any other contract is to ensure *fairness* and people *keeping said contracts.*

No more.

The very *fact* that this issue is so controversial, in and of itself, *demands* that we, as free people, have the *right* to decide for ourselves, not for others, and enjoy equal protection under the law.

That's it. It's that simple.

It's not possible for there to be a consensus on people's *opinions,* never mind the necessary state interest and just cause factors.

The institution of civil marriage *exists,* there's no legitimate or even clearly demonstrable state interest in closing it off to certain minorites, thus, the right of choice devolves to the *people.*

That's what America's all about.

Lest we forget.

Umm, lest more of us forget.

What? Now we're going to argue whether or not seniors can live active, productive lives and enrich the lives of others? Please, let's not go there. The vast majority of volunteers in North America are senior citizens, many of whom are at least octogenarians.

Although I agree, if for some reason the quality of my life was poor, such as bad health or whatever, I don't think I would want to "live that old" either.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be sexist.. But I think it's pretty obvious that men just have life easier.
Although their brains are developed for more complex thought.. they lead simpler, more calm lives.
Talk about Irony ;) ;)

That's *people* as in the individual citizens involved, in case anyone missed that little *detail* in civics class.

Sidenote: long time no see, Equus.

Yeah, as you can tell from my post count, I don't post in the NS forums a lot. But how can I pass up these recent women's rights topics? I stayed out of yesterday's since many of the participants had passed beyond the realm of irrational into some weird sub-space pocket where time was a short-term continuous loop. Or something like that.

Yeah, as you can tell from my post count, I don't post in the NS forums a lot. But how can I pass up these recent women's rights topics? I stayed out of yesterday's since many of the participants had passed beyond the realm of irrational into some weird sub-space pocket where time was a short-term continuous loop. Or something like that.

Yeah, it is good to see feminism finally raise its head here, even if rockets excepted, it still seems to be getting hung up on issue of whether men should open doors for the ladies. Maybe I've missed the point, but who goes through doors first isn't the fundamental problem in the gender relations of the Western World. Still, its a start. I've always felt that it was an issue sorely under-represented in discussions here. As far as the misogynist nutters go, I would have a tiny touch more respect for them if they actually went straight to the first hand sources and tracked down some Solanas or Dworkin and did some research instead of spouting off their third-hand ill-informed 'feminazi' rhetoric.

Oh, and from what Edwardian wife-disciplining manual did you guys get these ridiculous ideas about the differences between men and women?


It's like the casual disregard for the facts of the ruling party is just seeping in and robbing males of what brains they have. It's like certain sheeple were just waiting for permission to revert to the lazy thought of other times.

If women can put up with 8-20 hours of labor pains and push something the size of a large watermelon thru a hole the size of a small squash, she can deal with anything. :mad:

The day I see a man push a baby thru his p-hole, will be the day I hang up my bra and declare myself an alien. :sniper:

Yeah, it is good to see feminism finally raise its head here, even if rockets excepted, it still seems to be getting hung up on issue of whether men should open doors for the ladies. Maybe I've missed the point, but who goes through doors first isn't the fundamental problem in the gender relations of the Western World. Still, its a start. I've always felt that it was an issue sorely under-represented in discussions here. As far as the misogynist nutters go, I would have a tiny touch more respect for them if they actually went straight to the first hand sources and tracked down some Solanas or Dworkin and did some research instead of spouting off their third-hand ill-informed 'feminazi' rhetoric.

Absolutely agreed.

I remember a year or so ago, some of the white supremicists being very angry that white women weren't having as many babies as non-white women. Or the fellow who wanted to put all women on a pedestal...and make them stay there. So the topic of rights, responsibilities, and place in the world has come up in the past, but I have to admit that it usually devolves into a session of irate women (and their supporters) duking it out with tauntingly mysoginistic teen-aged trolls. Much like yesterday, in fact.

If women can put up with 8-20 hours of labor pains and push something the size of a large watermelon thru a hole the size of a small squash, she can deal with anything. :mad:

The day I see a man push a baby thru his p-hole, will be the day I hang up my bra and declare myself an alien. :sniper:

Equal but different again. You could detonate a small nuclear weapon inside a woman and the only thing youd notice would be her being a little grumpier. You move a man's kidneys around a couple of centremetres (ie kick his balls) and he will have to run somewhere safe before doubling over.

But a girl can be drunk beyond beleif (less pain) and slightly bang her head and be in agony. Even though its a bruise at worse. A guy can get concussion from an impact, and headaches aside not be bothered. (whereas headaches... argh!)

My reasoning. Headaches, babies... thats internal pain. Women can take internal pain in limitless amounts, but a tiny knock and they are in agony.

Men are the opposite.

Oh and our p-hol;e doesnt exactly expand, its passing a watermelon through a hole the size of... an apple pip (sorry, couldnt think anything else) now that would be agony! :eek:

And, frankly, I consider myself a feminist. I grew up in a climate where *people* held open doors for *each other,* anyway.

Nonetheless, I don't have issues with a gent holding a door open for me. I think it's quaint, and I like it.

Times have changed: I'm a different *generation* from the old guard feminists and the ones who felt really oppressed by the gender roles of my parents. Cause they were forced: a gent opening the door for you *used* to imply that you couldn't do it for yourself.

I'm not threatened by wearing a pair of pumps cause I can still kick a grown man in the teeth while wearing them. Personally, though, I *like* having someone protective around (of whatever sex, in my case.) On the other hand, I *don't* like being 'protected' by a man who thinks that solely because he's a man he knows what's going on and I don't, even if his 'little sweetie' happens to know several martial arts and has police training and way too much experience of the street.

I'm threatened by people assuming 'women are stupider' and thus believing they have the right to make decisions about my body.

I'm glad I'm bisexual, frankly, cause men who can live up to these ideals some insist on organizing life by, are few and far between.

Believing I must be inherently weak for you to call yourself strong is weakness, and a dangerous delusion, the way I see it.

Go ahead and be strong, if you can do it without being a pig and a loser.

Keeping me *down* doesn't accomplish this.

Some men have become mature enough to understand this. I dunno what's up with this crop of em.

Honestly, I'm rather shocked and apalled that as many people think that 52% of all human beings are not entitled to equal rights. Having a biology that creates marginal distinctions on an individual basis between men and women's physical strengths is not reason to deny rights.

I'm curious about what rights should be restricted to 52% of the population. Come on people, it's the 21st century. How much respect does it show for one's peers to say that for an arbitrary reason as gender that one should be denied equal protection and rights under the law?

Just saying... Physically and Emotionally... Women are the weaker of the two sexes..
But hey, we're all humans.

Every person is different, emotionally. But men take emotional stress and depression HARRRRRRDDDDDDD; they crumple into an emotional fetal position. While women are sometimes so strong they come off aggressive. Women in business are to be feared. :eek:

As for physical strength? I'll eat my words when I see a man push something the size of a watermelon out of himself.

Equal but different again. You could detonate a small nuclear weapon inside a woman and the only thing youd notice would be her being a little grumpier. You move a man's kidneys around a couple of centremetres (ie kick his balls) and he will have to run somewhere safe before doubling over.

But a girl can be drunk beyond beleif (less pain) and slightly bang her head and be in agony. Even though its a bruise at worse. A guy can get concussion from an impact, and headaches aside not be bothered. (whereas headaches... argh!)

My reasoning. Headaches, babies... thats internal pain. Women can take internal pain in limitless amounts, but a tiny knock and they are in agony.

Men are the opposite.

Oh and our p-hol;e doesnt exactly expand, its passing a watermelon through a hole the size of... an apple pip (sorry, couldnt think anything else) now that would be agony! :eek:

Beg pardon? When we were kids, we would have "I'm tougher than you" contests. Stupid, I know. But as a girl, I would take on guys years older than me and refuse to give up. In the end, they would always be the one to back down. Maybe it was a misplaced sense of chivalry, but believe you me, as a farm girl I've dislocated my arm falling out of a hayloft, but still loaded boxes of tar shingles into a truck with the arm that worked. And then made dinner. ;) Seriously. I admit that when I was nine I had my front teeth knocked out by a steer, and I did cry then, but I didn't cry when a 1200 pound steer knocked me down, left a hoof print in my back and broke my little finger when it stepped on my hand. Mind you, the loss of the teeth hurt quite a bit more.

The women you know may be wimps, but don't classify all of us with them. The chicks in my family (and there are 7 of us girls) handle pain just as well as our brothers. Who can pick up and toss most men. They are BIG boys.

Anyway, the point I would actually like to make is that outward reaction to pain is often culturally taught. Little boys are taught to be stoic and not cry, little girls are taught that crying is acceptable. In my family, everyone was encouraged to be stoic, and whaddoya know -- none of us like to admit being in physical pain.

Note: Edited for clarity.

As for physical strength? I'll eat my words when I see a man push something the size of a watermelon out of himself.

And w/ all the coffee I drink, I was just worried about stones....

I think if that ever happened, I'd lop the damn thing off and be rid of it!

g.e.

Feminism is just plain WRONG! Its as bad as racism!

Now, if only they came up with somethign that meant everyone being EQUAL, like Equalism!

Feminism is just plain WRONG! Its as bad as racism!

Now, if only they came up with somethign that meant everyone being EQUAL, like Equalism!

Bah. You're getting your right to stand up and piss revoked by a swift kick to the jimmies.

The whole point of Feminism is to promote equal rights and opportunities that DO NOT CURRENTLY EXIST between men and women.

I know that it would be much easier for us guys if we could go back to the 19th century with all our entitlements, but it ain't gonna happen. Get on with life, and accept a more fair and balanced society. ;)

g.e.
Spokesdude for TFPotJW
Delegate Emeritus to the DU

Bah. You're getting your right to stand up and piss revoked by a swift kick to the jimmies.

The whole point of Feminism is to promote equal rights and opportunities that DO NOT CURRENTLY EXIST between men and women.

I know that it would be much easier for us guys if we could go back to the 19th century with all our entitlements, but it ain't gonna happen. Get on with life, and accept a more fair and balanced society. ;)

g.e.
Spokesdude for TFPotJW
Delegate Emeritus to the DU

Actually, alot of Feminist believe women are superior to men.(EX. That horrible nation of Feminany...)

I believe that men and women should have the same rights, and that all oportunities should be given to BOTH sexes!

OOC: Jovian Worlds... do you happen to Play EvE online?

Actually, alot of Feminist believe women are superior to men.(EX. That horrible nation of Feminany...)
And a lot of men believe men are superior to women.

I believe that men and women should have the same rights, and that all oportunities should be given to BOTH sexes!
I couldn't agree with you more. :)

Feminism is just plain WRONG! Its as bad as racism!

Now, if only they came up with somethign that meant everyone being EQUAL, like Equalism!
buy a dictionary.

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm) n.
Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
The movement organized around this belief.

Honestly, I'm rather shocked and apalled that as many people think that 52% of all human beings are not entitled to equal rights. Having a biology that creates marginal distinctions on an individual basis between men and women's physical strengths is not reason to deny rights.

I'm curious about what rights should be restricted to 52% of the population. Come on people, it's the 21st century. How much respect does it show for one's peers to say that for an arbitrary reason as gender that one should be denied equal protection and rights under the law?
Equal rights means that men should be able to compete in women's rugby, women should have to register for the draft, men should be allowed maternity leave, men should have the right to abort their child, etc. etc. I'm in favor of equal rights not dependent on biology.

Yes, but my point is that those biological differences entail different rights and priveleges. It is meaningless to grant men the right to have abortions or to undergo Caesarian sections on a nationalised health service, for example, and thus there are different rights based on biological factors. This does not mean that anyone is better/worse than anyone else, just different.

Sidenote: long time no see, Equus.

I disagree. Biological differences only affect how we take advantage of rights, not our inherent entitlement to them.

For example, maternity leave. Pregnant women should get at least somewhat compensated relief from professional obligations. If a man somehow gets pregnant, he can get maternity leave too. The same thing applies to abortion and c-section, as you mentioned. Men have the rights. They just have a hard time taking advantage of them.

Or do you think a pregnant man shouldn't be allowed maternity leave? :D

Yeah, as you can tell from my post count, I don't post in the NS forums a lot. But how can I pass up these recent women's rights topics? I stayed out of yesterday's since many of the participants had passed beyond the realm of irrational into some weird sub-space pocket where time was a short-term continuous loop. Or something like that.

Heh, just for the record, this is actually a gay marriage thread. But it's nice of you to try anyway :D

Heh, just for the record, this is actually a gay marriage thread. But it's nice of you to try anyway :D

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the title of the topic is "Women's Rights", the poll was about "Women's Rights" and a number of people have actually discussed women's rights in this thread. Not just me.

I realize that the author was discussing gay marriage, but my posts were all in response to comments on women's rights.

So I think I did okay. ;)

Equal rights means that men should be able to compete in women's rugby,

men's and women's sporting teams are not being integrated, just as the different weight classes in boxing aren't being integrated and the different age groups in little league aren't being integrated.


women should have to register for the draft

or how about NOBODY has to register for the draft?!


men should be allowed maternity leave

they are, except it is called paternity leave.


men should have the right to abort their child.
i agree, any man who is bearing a child should have the right to abort it. however, no man has the right to choose to abort a child he is not carrying, just as no woman has the right to choose to abort a child she is not carrying.

Equal rights means that men should be able to compete in women's rugby, women should have to register for the draft, men should be allowed maternity leave, men should have the right to abort their child, etc. etc. I'm in favor of equal rights not dependent on biology.

Read above... All of that is immaterial. We separate most sports into categories based on skill; if a woman can compete on a level with the male rugby players, why shouldn't she? Women should have to register for the draft, they're just as good soldiers (generally speaking). Men (as I said) should be allowed maternity leave/abortion if they get pregnant.

Biology is just a subtle way of saying you don't actually think women are the equal of men. I'm not saying you think this; you might not have considered it this way before. But here's your chance to revise your opinion :)


Pah! You tryin' to replace me, Bottle? ;)

I disagree. Biological differences only affect how we take advantage of rights, not our inherent entitlement to them.

For example, maternity leave. Pregnant women should get at least somewhat compensated relief from professional obligations. If a man somehow gets pregnant, he can get maternity leave too. The same thing applies to abortion and c-section, as you mentioned. Men have the rights. They just have a hard time taking advantage of them.

Or do you think a pregnant man shouldn't be allowed maternity leave? :D

Actually, many nations and companies do recognize a man's involvement in the birth or adoption of a child, and do allow for leave.

The company in which I work has 75% more male than female employees, but the guys get leave when their babies are born. It's called parental leave here, not maternity. Although I notice a lot of the guys don't take their full entitlement.

Actually, many nations and companies do recognize a man's involvement in the birth or adoption of a child, and do allow for leave.

The company in which I work has 75% more male than female employees, but the guys get leave when their babies are born. It's called parental leave here, not maternity. Although I notice a lot of the guys don't take their full entitlement.

It's not the same thing though. I'm saying if a man were physically pregnant for whatever reason, he should get leave. In that case, I suppose, his wife would get paternity leave... though that's just silly :p

here's a thought, if women recieved the same rights as men, does that mean that men would have the same rights as women? aka maternity leave during and after the birth of a child?

here's a thought, if women recieved the same rights as men, does that mean that men would have the same rights as women? aka maternity leave during and after the birth of a child?

Having not read the posts already addressing that would probably be less embarrassing if they weren't the five posts directly preceding yours :D

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the title of the topic is "Women's Rights", the poll was about "Women's Rights" and a number of people have actually discussed women's rights in this thread. Not just me.

I realize that the author was discussing gay marriage, but my posts were all in response to comments on women's rights.

So I think I did okay. ;)

Heh, I am the author. That was actually a subtle attempt to get the thread back on topic. Oh well :)

It's not the same thing though. I'm saying if a man were physically pregnant for whatever reason, he should get leave. In that case, I suppose, his wife would get paternity leave... though that's just silly :p

But it's not a black and white biological matter. The woman may actually be the person in labour, but many 'modern' men want to be more involved in the process than just conception. I guess what I'm saying is that we need to recognize factors beyond mere biology.

I mean, if you would step into my scenario for a moment...

Is there anything wrong with a career woman who works up until she's ready to deliver, schedules a c-section on a Friday afternoon, and goes back to work on Monday? Must she take parental leave? What if her husband is the one who will be taking primary care of the baby in the first few months? Shouldn't he be allowed to take parental leave to do so?

This scenario isn't really all that far-fetched. A scheduled c-section is becoming an extremely popular method of giving birth. The biggest problem for that high-powered career woman is a husband who wants to stay home with the baby. Usually they have to hire nannies instead.

Heh, I am the author. That was actually a subtle attempt to get the thread back on topic. Oh well :)

Oops. Sorry about that. But well, the title and poll were extremely leading.

But it's not a black and white biological matter. The woman may actually be the person in labour, but many 'modern' men want to be more involved in the process than just conception. I guess what I'm saying is that we need to recognize factors beyond mere biology.

I mean, if you would step into my scenario for a moment...

Is there anything wrong with a career woman who works up until she's ready to deliver, schedules a c-section on a Friday afternoon, and goes back to work on Monday? Must she take parental leave? What if her husband is the one who will be taking primary care of the baby in the first few months? Shouldn't he be allowed to take parental leave to do so?

This scenario isn't really all that far-fetched. A scheduled c-section is becoming an extremely popular method of giving birth. The biggest problem for that high-powered career woman is a husband who wants to stay home with the baby. Usually they have to hire nannies instead.

Sure. The person who is pregnant gets time off, and the person who is in a committed relationship with that person does too. If your government does that. I got no problem with that. Only with the labels "woman" and "man".

I mean, you can use them in common conversation, because the fact is there aren't gonna be any pregnant men, but legally it's implying that men and women don't have the same rights.

Oops. Sorry about that. But well, the title and poll were extremely leading.

Yeah, it's all right. My fault really- I didn't realize how many people would read the title, poll question, and hit "reply" before, you know, reading the post. Scum o' the earth in my book :D

ugh. I don't know where you're from, but here in Canada men and women have equal rights and I can't stand feminists here and in other civilized nations that DO have equal rights between the sexes. Oooh, so if a man gets paid a couple of bucks more than woman on his monthly pay check, there MUST be some kind of descrimination. Therefore, we should all go on some stupid protest at a small town city hall and make our case, bring it to the federal justice system, and earn the woman her extra four bucks. But waaait...now the man is getting paid less. Sound the alarms! Oh, I forgot, that doesn't matter. As long as the chicks are happy (and I don't care if you think I'm sexist because I said chicks. I never get pissed when girls call me stud, hot, hunk, or whatever else, and it's not like chick is even that sexual), no feathers are ruffled. My mom works at a place where she gets paid more than guys who are three years her senior. And they're not janitors or anything, they're in the exact same situation. You know what she would do if she got paid even a few cents less? Sue her company for descrimination. Seriously, feminists, shut up. The 70's are over, you are equal now. Another thing that pissed me off, just as a final note, was one episode of That 70's Show where they were doing a Christmas play and Donna asked "Eric, why aren't there any wise WOMEN?". I'll tell you why, it's because THAT'S NOT HOW THE STORY GOES! Sorry, but we're not gonna change the Bible for you bunch of hairy-armpitted lefties. There were wise men. Cattle farmers don't get pissed when it was shepards and not them who visited Jesus in the manger. There were women in the Bible: Mary, Eve, Jezebel(although she sucked), and the other Mary. Wise men aren't going to get a sex change because you think it's sexist to not have wise women. I doubt they even existed. Sorry about your luck, I know it was sexist to believe that women weren't smart back then, but that was then, this is now. But you DON'T CHANGE A STORY like the Jesus' birth! There are many other things I hate, and you'll be able to find them all at my website, www.geocities.com/marshall_man_rules.

There are many other things I hate, and you'll be able to find them all at my website, www.geocities.com/marshall_man_rules.


I haven't started building my site yet. Please check back soon!

Is sloth one of the things you hate?

Is sloth one of the things you hate?

I hate sloths. Not enough toes, the bastards!

I hate sloths. Not enough toes, the bastards!

Yeah, but man, do they know how to live :)