If we accept that the genders are not identical, what legal justification can there be for their inequality?

Question

If we take 'the supposition of identical abilities and characteristics' out of the discussion, so that we are only left with the same criteria by which 'all men who neither being identical are legally afforded the same status of equality', what legitimate basis can there be for dismissing a need for the legal equality of all women with all men (especially including all countries as a definition and function of Human Rights)?

Shingoshi Dao

I hope that I will have clearly set the proper terms for this question's discussion, excluding the ability for some who I know are intelligent and have the integrity to do so. The parameters are simple and straightforward. If we use the same criteria by which all men are deemed equal by the law, why shouldn't the same criteria be applied to the assertion of legal equality of all women with all men.

Shingoshi Dao

Please star this question to bring as many heads to the table as possible. Thank you!

Please see and star these questions also:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071106181030AAVP7eX&r=w
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071105095736AASaXzl&r=w

CAN THERE BE ANY GREATER STANDARD OF EQUALITY, THAN GOD HAVING GIVEN TO ALL PERSONS THE POWER TO CHOOSE?

Shingoshi Dao
2007.Nov.08 Thu, 15:43 --800 (PST)

Answer 1

Who is the one deciding which characteristics are superior and which are not. If we start grouping humans we can say those with black hair and brown eyes are superior as well or that tall people are superior. We could also say those who speak more than two languages or those who possess degrees from Univerisities should rule the world.
All people are not the same and that doesn't mean they should be not valued in the same way.
I subscribe to the view that all individuals have inherent worth and should be treated with respect and dignity.
Physical strength is becoming obsolete as technology is becoming more advanced. So does that mean that men should take over the role of subservience? Not in the least.
Men and women may have different characteristics but both are valuable and should be shown the same considerations and respect.
This should also go for the disabled, elderly, poor etc.

Answer 2

Not only are the genders not identical, really no one is identical to someone else in every way. Even identical twins have differences in personality and upbringing, and are not entirely the same. Just because people are unique individuals does not make any one person worth less than someone else. Each of us are brought into this world with an inner light: a spirit, a soul.....you don't have to be a religious person to understand this concept. What right or authority should human beings have to judge someone else's worth? By what means could we ever objectively measure such a thing? Who here is "qualified" enough to carry out such a "test"? Therefore, would it not be more just to afford each living person with equal value for the mere fact that we are each alive? That we all deserve the same basic rights, freedoms, and opportunities when we begin our life journey? (And we should be allowed to retain these, unless we commit harmful criminal acts against another or society?) The only reason I can think of for taking away any of the rights or freedoms or opportunities is when the protection of society is at stake. Our justice system is far from perfect but it does attempt to do this: to protect society by limiting those who show a callous disregard for someone else's life. (Or liberties, or rights.)

Should we treat some groups of people as if they are criminals (take away or deny them rights) just because they may be of a different culture or gender than we are? Is that not a crime in itself? Are we not then denying individuals the ability to reach their own potentials? Are we not then also denying society of those people's potential contributions? When we hurt the individual, we harm society. When we harm society, we harm ourselves. We are all connected. To evolve as a species, to evolve intellectually, spiritually, and otherwise, we need to understand that the only real steps forward we can make have to made together. This means, we all must be allowed the ability to join the great circle.

My opinion.

Answer 3

I hope I understand this question, Without thinking of god and without thinking of characteristics how can you dismiss any one of human rights when dismissing thoughs factors are mainly what seperates us? or without mens characteristics vs womens why would you dismiss a need for legal equality of all human beings? without it what was the reason for any and all countries act of some protest and punishment for that protest for? I hope I am getting this across, but if not what im trying to say is without thoughs main factors there wouldnt have been a need for legal rights AT ALL, we would already be considered and consider others as equal.

Answer 4

In Saudi Arabia, women people can't go away the abode and not using a male mum or dad. In Saudi Arabia, women people can't artwork in a company with male consumers or customers. In Saudi Arabia, women people would be unable to be interior the employer of different adult adult males and not using a male mum or dad. It does not make any experience for a undies shop to hire male workers, while the consumers are going to be lady and can't shop interior the shops with adult males latest. So think of being a Saudi women people donning a niqab, attempting to purchase a thong with your husband, father or brother at your section, and a male worker helping you with your purchase. it may be much less burdensome for those women people if their male mum or dad ought to drop them off in lady-basically shops, the place they'd shop conveniently and revel in some freedom. i think of Saudi Arabia is frightened of putting this skinny component to the wedge into their society-- they may well be afraid that shops using basically women people would have women people-basically shops, then women people basically procuring centers/department shops, and who's familiar with, then a woman may well be promoted to greater positions, a woman would income some skill and shake up the bright inequality in Saudi Arabia. Eleanor, you do no longer understand that individuals do no longer choose for to stay this form. i replaced into raised Muslim and that i do no longer understand a single Muslim who has an identical opinion with the regulations in Saudi Arabia. the individuals there as properly as in Iran, are being oppressed. they do no longer choose for to stay that way, yet they're compelled to. the government has to maintain an somewhat good oppression with a view to ward off the individuals from utilising the thin edge of the wedge into their totalitarian society.

Answer 5

Women should be afforded with the same rights as those with men regardless the difference in their characteristics.

There should be no reason whatsoever denying or limiting women rights. What is being 'All men, created equal'.

We do lived in a patriarchal society, marked by the supremacy of the father... legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line of a disproportionately large share of power.

Which sucks , especially for women persecuted in countries hell bent in preserving their way of life; that is treating them slaves and no better than their males counterparts.

Answer 6

The problem is that I don't believe the genders are equal--we are wonderfully different. If you are referring to inhuman treatment like in some countries then that is a different issue because ALL humans should be treated with dignity and humanity.

Answer 7

No legal justification. As far as men being more logical, that's just another sexist stereotype.

Answer 8

i cannot imagine any grounds for general discrimination against any section of the community.

if there were any form of argument which justified a diminished franchise for women it would necessarily justify a diminished franchise for black people, roman catholics, low-income families: any group one might wish to exclude and which could be relied on to be too small to defend itself.

personally i consider the us' lifelong debarring of spent felons from voting a gross violation of human rights (and so does amnesty international).

the backbone of democracy is summed up in pastor martin niemöller famous poem.

so i don't see you finding much of a counterargument to this: not from the spineless.

Answer 9

Legal smegal I don't care if the top lawyer owns a beagle; sorry mate I don't believe in equality.