Nostr Web Client

He's not completely wrong, but he's probably a real jerk. I'm conflicted. 🤔

https://www.threads.net/@laurenscomedystuff/post/DHi7QiYJXpl/some-men-are-no-longer-pretending-they-want-equality-they-want-obediencei-just-h

Cykros 9mo ago

The opposite of equality is quality.

That said, insofar as women are humans and humans have rights, it seems more that we should be sure not to be saying we're removing women's rights while still holding fast to some idea of men's rights. Men and women perhaps have separate duties, but duties and rights are not the same thing, and duty is always a matter of context, be that family, clan, company, society, or greater humanity. Rights, to the extent they make sense, transcend such contexts. Duty arises by contract; rights arise from birth.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Laeserin 9mo ago

It's a debate about privileges, not rights, really.

Humans all have the same rights (life, property, association, speech, movement, contract, ...), and those can only be infringed-upon, not removed. Forcing a woman to marry would infringe upon her right to choose who she associates with, who inherits her property, whether she enters into a contract, etc.

Priveleges (like voting) are supposed to be dispersed in accordance and proportion to duties (like securing a common defense), but they no longer are, and that produces much bitterness.

Forcing other mens' wives to stay at home and refrain from commerce, would infringe upon those women, but also their husbands, who have contractual duties to fulfill (ensuring his family is provided for) and therefore should also have the privelege of determining how those duties are fulfilled. The state shouldn't be involved in any manner, either to restrict her commerce or to encourage it.