I hate that is true but even moreso that folk are so fucking dense to see
Unless those men are black, Hispanic, or neurodivergent.
Privileges certainly vary by race, but do 21st century laws vary?
The only example I can think of is reservation laws.
The varies WILDLY in how and when it is enforced, you fucking buffoon. Why isn’t trump in prison for fucking ever right now?
I’ve never even heard of someone else collecting felonies like beanie babies and not spending the rest of their life in jail.
There’s black folks Still in prison for petty weed crimes, on state charges, in states where it’s legal now and has been for years
So, laws are consistent. Enforcement isn’t.
deleted by creator
The counter-claim is not that racism is exclusively a men’s issue. The counter-claim is that the claim “men’s rights don’t vary by state” is false, as evidenced an example of how men’s rights do vary by state. The implied part that should have been explicit is that the way racism manifests from state to state also has gendered aspects, with some disproportionately affecting women (e.g. hair/dress policing in the workplace) but some also disproportionately affecting men (e.g. incarceration). That is to say, racism and sexism are intersectional. Another example might be how custody rights typically vary from state to state often unjustly disfavoring the father, given all other things being equal.
I’d suggest that this argument does not go against the underlying position of OP that “patriarchy bad”, rather it corrects OP to highlight how institutional sexism typically falls along normative/conservative conceptions of gender for men too. That is to say “patriarchy bad mostly for women, but also bad for men too”.
You realize those prejudices get compounded, right?
What’s the name of that highway in canada, where they raped and murdered and dumped the corpses of native women?
Never a lead on any of those cases. I don’t think one was male, but hey, maybe there were a couple
Indiginous men were taken on star light tours by the cops
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_killingsHighway of tears, there have been several leads and several serial killers caught. The original list in 1980 included Larry Vu, Eric Charles Coss, and Phillip Innes Fraser but they were later removed after the “highway of tears” designation to focus exclusively on first nation women.
The lack of males is due primarily to the categorization, not the lack of victims.
That’s what voting blue NO MATTER WHO got you.
Yup.
We live in a country where if I get in the car with my girlfriend on the west coast and drive to the east coast, she gains and loses basic human rights multiple times before we reach our destination and nothing changes for me.
We can’t even treat our women with respect. Trash nation. Full stop.
Trash nation. Full stop.
And so many women vote for this?
Would it be the red states? Would it be because women there vote for the kind of politicians that don’t care about their rights?
Men’s rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant
Which rights are exclusive to men?
The right to drink a beer while operating a riding lawn mower in full view of the public without wearing a shirt.
But that’s illegal for everyone. Even for women.
I think you have it slightly twisted. If you’re mowing your own lawn on your own property as a dude and showing a bare chest, you will find that there are no laws on the books in your locale prohibiting this. If you dare to show boobs while doing so, however, you are certain to cop an indecent exposure charge (or at least the threat of the same) if anyone sees you.
There are some exceptions where being out and about topless as a woman isn’t illegal, but these are indeed exceptions in specific states and municipalities, which is kind of the point of this entire thread. Nobody’s going to say anything to a guy doing this, even if he’s ugly.
I think you missed the part about operating a riding mower while publicly consuming alcohol. That’s the part that’s illegal for everyone.
On your own property? No it ain’t. On the street, sure.
Show me in the OP screencap where it says exclusive
Women’s rights vs. men’s rights.
Do women have the right to receive life saving medical care(abortion) as they should?
I’m not arguing the point it’s making, just that the wording doesn’t convey what it means to
Amendment 2 varies by state county city. But not by sex. Lots of rules are state wise, not federal
What’s amendment 2?
Electric bugaloo
The right to bear arms.
right to own bear arms.
Oh. Usually it’s phrased as second amendment.
Yep, I definitely think the whole phrasing of that comment is unusual. I understand the basic facts they are stating, but not the point of stating them.
I’m confused about what your point was in your original comment. I don’t get the relevance?
My original comment? I just answered your question as to what that other commenter meant by “amendment 2.” I didn’t say anything else? Did you not want someone else to answer your question and only want that commenter to?
The second amendment to the constitution
What do you mean by this?
You can open carry where? You can own an assault rifle where? You can not open carry nor own a pistol where 18 vs 21 where?
All are questions of the second amendment. In NYC you can’t own a gun without privelege. In Orlando, you can now own one and carry one.
You’re missing the point: are any of those rights different my state only for men or are all of those rights different by state for EVERYONE including men and women?
There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women’s rights
There are no rights exclusive to men
You can kinda stop there, I mean, are there any rights exclusive to men? If there aren’t this is kind of a false dichotomy.
Not that I disagree with women’s rights of course, I’m just having trouble thinking of something that even would possibly “only apply to men.”
I was agreeing they didn’t vary by sex, but just to play devils advocate, rape. In many states only men can be charged with rape, because it defines it as penetration, and I don’t believe fingers count
You are missing the point. There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women’s rights.
Things like parental rights don’t apply here because those impact both genders (they are zero-sum; a decrease in men’s paternal rights implies an increase in women’s rights).
Only women have specific rights that ONLY impact women and vary from state to state
So you’re saying that in addition to the rights we all have, women have additional exclusive rights.
No, I’m saying that women are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as everyone (e.g. complete bodily autonomy) but have their rights restricted in varying ways from state to state.
This really isn’t that hard to understand. Women have had their rights restricted in ways that men didn’t for a long, long time. It’s so normal that you aren’t even aware of it.
They got the right to vote later than men.
They got federal protection for their right to have their own bank account without a man’s approval in 1974 for fuck’s sake.
Is it so hard to recognize that women’s rights are controlled in ways that men’s aren’t?
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Male genital mutilation is common practice. The discrepancies certainly aren’t equal, but they aren’t exclusively one-sided.
Let’s not forget that women have never had compulsory military service in the US either. I hear some things can happen to your body in war. I mean aside from it being mandatorily shipped away for months and years.
Yes, anyone pushing for that last inch of total exclusivity here has another think coming.
It’s not that hard to understand. Neither is “Men’s rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant.”
If you had just been reasonable and settled for that, I woudln’t be deliberately winding you up like this.
Name a state - or a country - where men have “(e.g. complete bodily autonomy)”. All the examples I can think you might think are false, so either I’m missing something or I’m gonna challenge you so badly I van taste the endorphins (or I’ll learn something, so win win for me)
They got the right to vote later than men
Yes. For example in UK, women got universal voting rights whole decade later than men.
The comical thing is that women don’t have the right to vote in the U.S., neither do men, they have the right to not be discriminated against when voting takes place.
e.g. If Florida says they will hold a vote by the population for representatives, they can’t say women exclusively can’t vote. But Florida could in theory state they won’t be holding a vote for the representatives, and the currently sitting members of their congress will pick their representatives instead. Sign that into law and poof, they just legally removed 23 million people’s right to vote
There are no rights exclusive to men or women. Abortion also affects trans men.
Oh hush. The post clearly means the sexes not the genders.
Transphobia flourishes when it’s dismissed, minimized, and forgiven.
The only differences between “men’s rights” and “women’s rights” comes down to unequal treatment by police and the courts. When we talk about abortion and rape, the group in question can be described a bunch of ways (“female”, “xx”, “uterus-having”) but not accurately simply as “women”.
Because trans-men are men, not women, and treating them as such is every bit as bigoted as treating trans women as men.
Do you not think that access to abortion affects cis men too? Of course it’s far more important to the woman whose body is at risk, just not solely important to her. This is the kind of stupid divisiveness that doesn’t help.
No it doesnt. They state gender multiple times.
Hush? Like how women have been historically told to hush? Trans rights are every bit as important as women’s rights.
While you are technically correct, this is very obviously a discussion about reproductive rights, and the historical oppression of women as those who are most commonly impacted by reproductive rights issues. Your point is factual and valid but it is a distraction from the very important conversation being had here.
If this discussion leads to improved protection of reproductive rights, by pointing to the imbalance between traditionally male and traditionally female rights under US law, then trans men will also benefit. As such, the distraction of pointing out that trans men are also impacted therefore it’s “not just women” and the implication that we shouldn’t be talking about the ongoing oppression of women but rather “uterus havers”, works against your own interests.
The people who need to be convinced that reproductive rights need protection, and for whom the “it’s imbalanced” argument will be effective, are often even more vehemently opposed to trans issues. Bringing your point up here only serves to further entrench people who might otherwise be swayed to make changes that would benefit trans men. This is called “breaking into jail”.
There is a time and a place to have the “trans men are impacted by reproductive rights issues” discussion and this isn’t it.
Maybe make the point in a more direct and less confusing manner then? People are just critiquing the message because its written poorly. Its not even apparent its about reproductive rights until someone else clarifies that.
I knew immediately that it was about reproductive rights, but that’s just because that’s been the latest and most consistent snub against women lately.
If this were 40 years ago it would probably be about their ability to get a bank account or credit card without a man.
Or vote
I know it seems pedantic and normally I wouldnt interject but clearly based on your responses throughout this thread it needs to be brought up.
My omission of your point was intentional because as I said, in this context it’s not pedantic but rather self-defeating.
If we were in a different context I’d be right there with you championing the fact that trans men are effected by reproductive rights issues.
But for all the reasons I’ve already explained I chose not to bring transgender matters into this conversation because it only serves to make it harder to get the things you actually want, which is reproductive healthcare equality for trans men (and women).
It was a deliberate choice to meet my target audience where they are, knowing that a victory in that context would benefit trans men too.
THAT!
I don’t get why people think saying things like “REPEAT THAT OUT LOUD” makes their point better. Let the horror speak for itself, it’s plenty capable of doing so.
oh no, rethorical tools. what an horror
I mean when it’s something really obvious that the entire audience already knows it’s just obnoxious
I feel it’s only obnoxious because it’s uncreative. Theyre just using a template meme which feels low effort.
if you’re right and the audience knows it’s obnoxious, why do you repeat yourself? or using rethorical tools is ok when you’re using them?
honestly, it’s such a non issue.
It’s an issue to me because it’s really annoying 🤪
why use emojis if the meaning is clear? DAMN RETHORICAL TOOLS, WHY ARE THEY SO UNIVERSAL
I kinda just wanted to see what would happen if I did that lmao
(Also it does meaningfully change the tone of the message)
Yes it does, that is the point of rhetorical tools. otherwise imagine if it was costumery to send messages as succinctly as possible without any fluff or emotional tone. Communicating would be a pain.
My rule of thumb, if complaining about something annoying is even more annoying than the thing I am complaining about, it is not worth complaining about.
“an horror” is far scarier
boo
it’s an orror innit
Just like “Read it again, slowly”. dw, I understood it the first time around.
To be fair, given the apparent average reading comprehension of most social media users, it probably does actually make a difference
Social media users on text platforms are probably above average on reading skills. I’m convinced the average person is only semi literate, and there’s a shocking amount of people who can barely read at all.
This has been studied and it’s actually true
Especially when it’s something untrue followed by “REPEAT THAT OUT LOUD”.
you ain’t been around a whole lot of the states, have you
Why?
Tell me that when we ban male genital mutilation.
There is at least a parental choice involved. The government is actively removing women’s rights as we speak
deleted by creator
No where that i am aware of. I wasn’t trying to make that point? Although even non adult women are being affected, such as access to birth control
deleted by creator
Gotcha
No offense (lie) but cry me a fuckin river. Is it shitty, stupid, fucked up, and should be stopped? Sure! Wholeheartedly agree.
But framing it the same verbiage of something that KILLS LITTLE GIRLS or MAIMS THEM BEYOND BEING ABLE TO PISS let alone have a functional set of genitalia if they get to grow up
is fucking retarded
Sweet, I guess you win the oppression race
Way to pull the ladder up behind you. Selfish jerk.
deleted by creator
A man having a fully clothed boner in public is illegal in Tennessee. And that’s not something we can control.
If you cut through the dog-whistling bullshit, there are a lot of issues with child custody, for example. Access to the correct restroom is also highly state dependent. While the legal aspect is only part of it, genital mutilation rates are also variable by state.
Look, this isn’t a competition. Two things can be bad at the same time.
deleted by creator
Every single one of the amendments called the bill of rights has different limitations per state.
A man’s 1st amendment rights are legally different in Florida than in California
A man’s 2nd amendment rights are legally different in Florida than in California
And so on. 3rd amendment is probably the least variable but still.
Name a “right” that doesn’t vary state by state. Frequently our legal rights vary by county and city even. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
deleted by creator
I very much care if women die and it’s so stupid to imply I don’t when I’m disagreeing with the insanely ignorant OP. Stop making enemies out of allies.
If it had said men’s life saving healthcare doesn’t vary by state, that’s a huge fucking difference and you know it. It would still be wrong, because everyone’s access to healthcare varies vastly by state, but at least you’d have a leg to stand on.
deleted by creator
Aha aha aha but wait, it’s equally legal in every state, thus making it just fine. /s
Here in Tennessee, if I get a boner in public (fully clothed), it’s indecent exposure and I can be arrested.
That’s not the case in most states.
Granted, I doubt it’s a common issue, but I’m a nerd and saw a claim that’s technically wrong, so here I am.
Technically laws change for men in every state, such as ones with legal cannabis or dry counties or even leash laws. But I get what the OP was saying
Yeah, you have to read it as “laws that apply specifically to men”.
Men’s rights to what, exactly? There are plenty of rights that affect men that vary state to state. Off the top of my head I can think of firearm rights that vary dramatically state to state. Or are we talking about rights exclusive to men because of different biology between men and women? I feel like other than a vasectomy, I’m not sure what other male-biology-related rights I have. Honestly there’s less technology related to reproduction on the male side.
I get the point of the message, that there are rights women should be universally guaranteed that aren’t, and I totally agree with that message. But the phrasing seems ambiguous at best.
I am sure that they are speaking of reproductive rights that apply exclusively to men.
The biggest one that I can think of that varies by region are paternal rights. Things like which parent gets custody, child support. I guess you could say that paternal rights in that case simply vary inversely to maternal rights.
I think I recall from the past that in some states, a sperm donor, like for a sperm bank, may be subject to more liability for their children than in other states.
Medically, there’s not only vasectomy, but also drugs that cause erections like Viagra, as well as other impotence treatments. I have no idea if any of those vary by state. Prostate treatment would also count. Any treatment that might increase or decrease viable sperm count.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were differences between states about how penile implants or even piercings are treated.
Oh yeah, firearm rights are definitely exclusive to men.
You’re the only one making it about exclusive rights and not just generally rights.
Really stupid and asinine for people like you to demand everyone just shut up and agree with you, because agreeing with you but then talking about other related things isn’t nice enough or whatever
The OP is literally comparing the difference between men and women’s rights.
I guess pretending that they aren’t is popular.
Do men have rights that vary state to state? Yes. Do women also have rights that vary state to state? Yes.
So the OP is false.
Nowhere in op says exclusive rights, nowhere in op cuts out specific rights. That’s why people are disagreeing with you. You’re defending a false statement by adding words in your head that aren’t there on the page.
Yup.
A lot of “it means what I mean it to mean” going around in the replies to those pointing out the poor phrasing’s logic fail.
If a right varies from state to state, it’s not a right, it’s a conditional privilege.
It’s kind of inherent to the concept of rights that they exist in some framework of authority.
Cavemen could have shouted that they have human rights to the other cavemen bashing their heads in and it would have been utterly meaningless.
deleted by creator
Are you ok? 👀
What if a bad supreme court can come in and take away rights? If that’s the case, then it doesn’t matter if it’s explicitly listed in some kind of constitutional document because the bad court can choose to interpret that document in such a way that the right disappears. By this definition, there’s no such thing as a right, because there’s always someone who can come in and take it away. There aren’t, and can not be, any actual rights, just conditional privileges.
But, that isn’t a very useful definition. In some sense, it’s obviously true. If a warlord takes over a country they might suddenly forbid something everybody assumed was a right. That’s why we have the saying “might makes right”. Fundamentally the only rights you really have are the ones that you’re strong enough to prevent someone from taking away. It certainly helps to have them written down in some kind of founding document, but it’s no guarantee of anything.
Freedom is something you take. Whether for yourself or another, and it’s always from some fucking duechbag who wants slaves and not equals
Didn’t know that George Carlin came back from the dead
By that logic there is no rights. It ignores what a fight is supposed to be practically and legally
I’d argue they are still rights whether the law is behind it or not. These things are always a moral entitlement; not always a lawful one.
But like… Morals are relative. They’re frameworks built around core values, they’re not a property of the universe. They’re not self evident, they’re axioms we choose to value collectively
Rights are things that must always be fought for, and they can be both established and worn away. They’re a social construct
Rights are things that come before the law, they’re the boundaries of the law. But like the rule of law itself, they only exist through collective belief and action, otherwise they’re just words
I don’t think it needs to be dressed up more than that. Good things are good and bad things are bad, rights protect people from bad things from the state
You’ll never convince people who think good things are bad, because they don’t have good values. You shouldn’t engage with them on an equal level, because their values are inferior… At this point we just need to make it socially unacceptable to share their fucked up opinions
To just add a touch of clarity: straight white men’s rights don’t vary state by state.
No states give men the right to not be a father. They’re along for whatever ride the woman chooses
Men have the exact same right to abandon and refuse to raise their child that women do. This right is not always respected in American courts, but the same laws that protect her if he doesn’t want to help also should protect him if she just wants to drop the baby and run.
And if she sabotaged the condom, stole his sperm for IVF,.or similarly took action to concieve against his wishes, then she committed a crime and should be punished. But not the child.
As far as the law or justice cares, babies could be delivered by storks.
Men have the right to use birth control or get a vasectomy
How is this not also an argument against abortion
It is
Which don’t protect them in cases of rape or reproductive coercion. Vasectomies are a form of permanent sterilization with dubious reversal rates.
That’s also ignoring how there are fewer options for birth control, in no small part due to biological differences (read: hormones).
The poster simply doesn’t care about men, dude.
Sure, but, that’s not why I bothered. It’s a small effort to hopefully get other folks to think about these problems holistically.
Fair enough.
