When people take issue with MRAs & misrepresent our arguments to make it appear as though we're trying to deny women rights...
Do they even realize that men face inequality & THAT's what we wish to correct? The 14th amendment offers the Equal Protection Clause:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now when MRAs notice that women have reproduction rights & men have none, this represents a very clear case where there is NOT "equal protection of the laws."
...& that's just one issue. Even if it were the ONLY issue (which it's not), that's grounds to seek justice. Why is this so hard to understand?
2007-10-26 04:36:53 · 6 answers · asked by hopscotch 5 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
EDIT:
(Super Ruper)
Feminist enact laws that take men's rights away like VAWA. It has nothing to do with women having all of the rights men do. It's about women having MORE rights.
...& the reproductive rights thing... Men have to finance the decisions of grown women. Her body, her choice, HIS responsibility. AND it's unconstitutional.
2007-10-26 05:00:36 · update #1
EDIT:
(Carrie)
Men's rights activists want women to have control of their own bodies. We just don't want women to have control over a man's finances. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll be able to accept that a rejection of indentured servitude is not "whining."
2007-10-26 05:10:42 · update #2
EDIT:
(ProfessorC)
Read my response to Carrie. ...Then research VAWA. Beating ANYONE is already illegal and punishable. There is no need for VAWA & the language contained within it as well as the title is very sexist & anti-male. Research the MRA complaints about VAWA
2007-10-26 05:15:20 · update #3
What reproductive rights do men want? The right to make a unilateral decision on what a woman does with a pregnancy happening in her body.
VAWA does not take away ANY male rights. It gives women and children a chance at living a life free of fear.
2007-10-26 05:07:26 · answer #1 · answered by professorc 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Super ruper - your arguments against male reproduction rights sound almost the same as those that where put against feminism at its rise. And based almost solely on what you want to believe, which is your perspective about how men may choose, which there means they shouldnt be allowed to choose. Interesting - should the same method of dishing rights out be applied to women? You sure seem happy with that methodology being applied to men. Seems like you need to shift over to make space for men having equal rights and you dont like it.
The other detail mentioned is there are other issues. shooting down one doesnt address the others.
The other detail is he asked why do what you just did, which wasa get defensive and try to make his points seem unreasonable - you actually failed to answer his question.
Which seemingly you have answered just by looking at how you have responded. You dont like the idea of an equal footing. Just they way you come across there.
Perhaps Im mistaken - but thats just how you come across to me.
Edit carrie does the same thing - but actually makes a personal attack out of it .. lol. Not paying child support and not being involved in the choice of reproduction is not the same thing.
Edit on relation to vawa - why is that need specifically for women and children - what about men and children, children, womne, and men as groups. In essence vawa isnt needed, on that protects people from those things is, as in men-women -children no matter how they are grouped or not. To set one specfically for women is sexist, by definition. Its title is sexist by definition.
Edit dude - hate to point this out - a fetus isnt a womans body - its half her body, its composed of half of someone elses dna.
2007-10-26 04:58:14 · answer #2 · answered by Andy C 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They've been told that reproductive rights for men don't necessarily mean control over abortion enough times already to tell that they are intentionally misunderstanding this point because understanding it would show them up as being against equality.
It's the best they can do I guess.
2007-10-26 05:27:05 · answer #3 · answered by Rio Madeira 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Jakie no person ought to assert it i've got been battling with my brothers and sista's for years and that i think of surely everyone who says it won't be mad if somebody else says it (in a non unfavorable way) i do no longer in basic terms like the be conscious or definition in the dictionary
2016-10-14 02:40:39 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay...so here's the deal...
I don't think that anyone can argue that - historically - women had few rights in our society. Through time and the women's movement, that was changed, and women were recognized as equal citizens in our society. In order for that to happen, however, men didn't have to give up any of their rights, they simply had to move over to make room for us.
Why is that so hard to understand?
And more importantly...how many men really want their 'reproductive rights'? Come on now...can't you come up with better than that? If I took a poll of 100 men who were unmarried and happened to get their girlfriend pregnant...how many do you HONESTLY believe would want for her to have the baby so that they could keep it? COME ON - get realistic!
2007-10-26 04:47:00 · answer #5 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Dude, I'm no lawyer, and even I can tell that "Waaah I don't wanna pay child support, waaaah, I wanna tell women what to do with their bodies, waaah" has absolutely ZERO to do with "equal protection of the laws."
2007-10-26 04:56:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋