[flagged]

>Women's rights are entitlements and freedoms given to and exploited by women. They are decidedly not entitlements or freedoms given to or exploitable by men, and therefore humans in general. >They usually come at a substantial cost to men. The vote is one example.

But the right to vote is decidedly an entitlement or freedom given to and exploitable by men, and therefore humans in general.

As are other "women's rights" such as the right to own property, the right to equality in the workplace, the right to bodily autonomy (currently deprecated,) and the right to a divorce. Depending on the culture, the right to drive a car. The right to wear pants without being hauled off to an asylum for sexual deviance.

I'm not actually aware of any such rights exclusive to women. Even men can get maternity leave in most countries. And for the life of me I can't imagine the "considerable cost" that women being able to vote has had on men, much less why that should be considered a problem.

▲

ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> right to a divorce

> the right to drive a car.

> The right to wear pants

See, it is patently obvious that many people do not actually know what their rights consist of, and what is actually not a right at all.

"The right to wear pants" is obviously an absurd example you've come up with, but let's take a corollary: that nobody has a right to walk around in public unclothed. So, properly formulated, there is a compulsion to cover one's private parts, because indecent exposure is a citable/arrestable offense. Whether a woman wears pants, or a man wears kilts or a bath towel: that is all a matter of dress code, rather than human rights.

There is no right to drive a car. If you go to the police or the DMV and assert your "right to drive" they will laugh at you, and they will show you the law that describes your driving privilege. It is a privilege to drive a motor vehicle, and that is why your privilege can be suspended or revoked, due to many factors, because it's not a right at all. You're allowed to walk around out there, but it's the State that has a right to regulate the highways and streets.

And, surprising as it may seem, nobody has a "right to divorce". It is very clear that no rights are conferred, when you marry, to sever the union. But by the same token, a divorce can be extremely easy to obtain, and don't expect to block your spouse from going through with it. But you can contest every aspect of it along the way.

So I hope this helps clear up some of your more egregious misconceptions. Please, when enumerating human rights, do not mix up privileges or fake rights or urban legends in there, because it makes you seem ignorant and uneducated, and perhaps you, like many citizens, are unaware of what your rights actually consist of.

	▲	krapp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		So the only counter-argument you're capable of making is to be needlessly pedantic about my terminology, despite it being perfectly understandable and well understood within common vernacular and the context of the womens' rights movement, and call me ignorant and uneducated. This thread really is a dumpster fire, I don't know why I put in even a minimum amount of effort sometimes.

▲

oddIdentities 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]