Women's rights vary
Women's rights vary
179 comments
-
-
when i was younger and stupid and in the (glass) closet i was dating the son of a pharmacologist. this man had made millions developing medications. he was fond of me and privately told me i was too funny and smart to be dating boys.
he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are "for women" - will not be clinically tested on my body.
the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved.
to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant.
once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about "the effects of New Medication on the body."
instead, the trial would fail - the results would be "the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient."
it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus.
that's how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.
at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this -
- that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.
i remember him shrugging. "that's not to say it doesn't happen," he said. my ears were ringing.
i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant.
when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.
how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment.
how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.
it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to "save" our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren't we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can't get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually. who cares about you and your actual safety. think about what you could be carrying.
-
jesus, that was a haunting read
-
how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment.
You would be extremally disgusted hearing what happens in poland since 2020.
-
women are also dismissed or outright ignored in the ER OR AT appointments, as having a period or being hysterical when they have serious symptoms of a disease.
-
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.
-
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.
-
To just add a touch of clarity: straight white men's rights don't vary state by state.
-
Try not to "but what about men" challenge
Level: impossible
-
Unless those men are black, Hispanic, or neurodivergent.
-
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_killings -
Highway 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.
-
-
Racism’s isn’t exclusive to gender. Try again.
-
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".
-
-
-
MAGA Be Like: "Men", are supposed to use "women", to make "childred". "trans women" Can't do that, "trans women" bad
-
This is just blatantly false, men's rights do vary wildly state by state. I get what this is saying and I agree with the message but presenting a good message behind a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.
-
I'm not American, can you say what those rights are?
-
I think they're being a "technically Andy" and saying that different states have different laws for everyone.
The original post is clearly talking about laws that apply specifically to those assigned female at birth. So the comment your replying to is just purposely ignoring that. It happens all the time to liberals that are more concerned with being "correct" than actually just.
Now, trans men's rights DEFINITELY vary state to state. But I highly doubt that's what they were talking about.
The only other possible thing I could think of would be how divorce and child support is handled state by state (which is just another thing pushed by the right wing politicians). Maybe some obscure differences between access to TRT? But, again, it's just a comment that is giving no context to the original post and then just ignoring the fact that there is no law towards men, and their rights to their bodies, that is anywhere near what abortion laws control. (Again, excluding trans men. But if the comment you replied to cared about that they would have mentioned it.)
Clearly the original post isn't debating about how it's unfair that in Kentucky the passengers in cars can drink alcohol but in other states they can't. It's not a law about gender/sex. The top comment in this thread is just critizing the original post in bad faith for no real reason but being "technically correct". And for some reason it's being up voted without mentioning literally any law comparable on the level of anti abortion laws.
I'm welcome to be proven wrong. But, seriously, there is a reason they didn't mention a specific law targeting men in certain states.
-
-
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Honestly the point that it tries to make is not the point that it makes either. It could be understood as "let's ban abortion everywhere", and I don't think that is the point that it tries to make.
I am in favor of bodily autonomy and I don't care what the law currently is anywhere, it should be a given.
-
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Worth knowing: although they attract a lot of anti-feminist losers, the "men's rights" activists are absolutely correct that men do not universally have the same support programs or even legal presumptions that women do. These can vary widely from state to state and even from court to court.
It's not nearly as big an issue as "they want her to die from a miscarriage", but "they presume he's the inferior parent" or "they presume he caused the violence even if he's the one bleeding" are also sexist oppression.
(Comparisons to the anti-woke "all lives matter" bullshit are apt -- men can and should recognize that relatively minor slights and injustices are not nearly as urgent as denying pregnant humans life-saving care!)
-
-
if you're going to be pedantic then you're sort of right. however, no state bans men from potentially life saving medical procedures when you need them.
-
Yes they do? There are all kinds of potentially life saving procedures that are illegal in various jurisdictions. There's no state with a blanket ban that says women can't get medical care. (Yet? Ugh.). And generally, abortions you're referring to are equally illegal for men and women when they are banned. OPs post is intentionally and pointlessly divisive, badly tainting their message by basing it on a clear lie
-
-
Which state is it illegal to get a vasectomy?
-
The post does not specify reproductive rights, it just says rights.
-
They didn't say it was that right specifically
-
As far as I know none. But barriers to being able to get one is wildly different. I know in New York, there's a 30 day waiting period after having a consultation with the dr before they are allowed to operate.
-
Wow u really gottem
-
-
What rights exactly? Racism excluded because racism isn’t exclusive to gender.
-
Yup.
Glad someone responded to this like that.
As a man, try purport yourself the same from state to state, as if the rules and rights of one are carried over everywhere just because you're a man. XD
-
Agreed, this message makes a valid point with good intentions, but it will likely face harsh criticism from misogynists - without actually achieving anything meaningful.
-
-
Tell me that when we ban male genital mutilation.
-
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.
-
-
Aha aha aha but wait, it's equally legal in every state, thus making it just fine. /s
-
Would an inconsistent law really be better?
It should be consistently restricted.
-
-
Point out to me where exactly adult men’s right’s vary by state? Excluding racism because racism isn’t exclusive to gender.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
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
-
-
If a right varies from state to state, it’s not a right, it’s a conditional privilege.
-
By that logic there is no rights. It ignores what a fight is supposed to be practically and legally
-
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
-
-
Oh, so by your genius logic, slavery wasn’t a human rights violation—just a ‘conditional privilege’ for some states? And I guess age of consent laws are just ‘local customs,’ not protections? Congrats, you’ve outed yourself as the kind of brainlet who thinks rights are whatever’s convenient for your backward agenda. Sit down, you absolute embarrassment.
-
Are you ok? 👀
-
-
Didn't know that George Carlin came back from the dead
-
-
Men's rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant
-
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
-
-
No states give men the right to not be a father. They're along for whatever ride the woman chooses
-
Men have the right to use birth control or get a vasectomy
-
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).
-
How is this not also an argument against abortion
-
-
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.
-
-
Liability for child and spousal support do vary by state.
Gendered inequity in criminal punishment does vary by state also.
-
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.
-
-
-
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?
-
Well, minorities exist.
-
Racism’s isn’t exclusive to gender
-
-
-
179 comments
I have recently became cognizant of the fact that women, really aren't treated like people.
all the anti-trans thing going is really about targeting women as well. since you rarely hear about anti-trans men.
I'm a transwoman who's just confronted her internalized misogyny