GC: What are "sex-based" rights?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They never tend to understand that chosing between "be stoned to death or wear burka" and "starve to death or sexually please men" is NOT a choice.

I think they understand, which is why they think the second an immediate threat of being stoned or starved disappears, they think there are no social pressures pushing women towards these things, despite very much being there. Kinda like how people think that just because most women aren't beaten anymore by their husbands and they can vote, that misogyny is a thing of the past.

Modern liberalism is pretty much seen as being ok with everything, not criticising anyone and letting everyone do what they want. So if you criticise the rampant misogyny in our society, you're actually being oppressive towards these people and also claiming that people aren't special snowflakes whose choices matter above all else. This is obviously opposed to making any strides for women, because this demands that the patriarchy be criticised and that people consider their sexist biases, instead of writing them off as "to each their own" and "choice" that just so happens to match patriarchal pressures.

Conservative party is more liberal than Democratic party in the USA

lol how exactly?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lol how exactly?

Democratic party is pushing against freedom of speech and using authoritharian methods, while Conservative party is not (which is not making them less bad or retarded, thought).

I think they understand, which is why they think the second an immediate threat of being stoned or starved disappears, they think there are no social pressures pushing women towards these things, despite very much being there. Kinda like how people think that just because most women aren't beaten anymore by their husbands and they can vote, that misogyny is a thing of the past.

Still, the thing is that for MAJORITY of women in the world all that is STILL true. Around third of women in the world can be legally murdered if they say "no" to men in some circumstances, a lot of women in more poor countries can't gain enough to sustain themselves and kids if father/husband leave.

Libfems are just privileged and/or rich and think that everyone in the world can make same choices as them and have no consequences for them. It is clearly seen when they are saying "those women were transmen in 1700s" when speaking about women, who were trying to do "forbidden for women" jobs or education. They think that women could just have that education, but they just chosen to identify as men because they just wanted to, not because they were forced to and otherwise they'd be killed, imprisoned or would not be able to get education or work where they like.

Especially funny it sounds when look at modern versions of Sharia, where women are rightless, but if woman's husband (and his father) died and she has no sons and her husband owned a land, then she can take his name, wear "manly cloths", deny any womanhood (so can't have sexual life, become pregnant, can't do any "feminine" jobs) and pretend to be her husband for the rest of her life. And she will get almost all rights that men have. Obviously it is "just a choice" too and "she just transman".