The debate "Men and Women have the same rights in the 21st century in the west" was started by
November 27, 2018, 12:15 pm.
59 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 18 arguments, Jakellutis posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments, Brynn posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
SMNR posted 1 argument, Jakellutis posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
Dushonjj2, Nemiroff, csmithwick, byniched, JDAWG9693, zain, goodlo, jemiju, Brynn, Seejay and 49 visitors agree.
SMNR, Jakellutis, TJ, Tushar and 19 visitors disagree.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm against circumcision, just saying that the one benefit of it is mostly void in modern days, so it's mostly a neutral procedure
Under the foreskin only gets infected if the parents don't keep the infant clean (or if the person doesn't keep himself clean), which is part of every parent's (and man's) job. In earlier centuries when that was difficult, circumcision may have had it's uses, but not often in modern society.
fingers are not prone to infection unless you slice them open. you must not know the difference between being prone to infection (meaning that it's likely) and bring capable of infection in extreme circumstances.
circumcision removes a flap of skin that frequently gets UTIs. the biggest difference between it and finger removal is POSITIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES. a term you keep ignoring and I'm suspecting you may not understand.
Fingers are prone to infection. Your whole body is prone to infection. Doesn't mean it should be mutilated.
what's outrageous is comparing removing some infection prone foreskin to fingers.
you never did explain what the negative health outcomes of a successful male circumcision are, just like im still waiting for an example of someone convicted without evidence due to the meetoo movement.
Nemiroff, that logic is outrageously absurd. Should surgeons be allowed your parent's permission to lop off your fingers? It had an adult's permission so it's okay right?
what the heck are you talking about?
of course it's done with the parents permission, and it's done to PREVENT infection. it has positive health outcomes and unsuccessful procedures are practically unheard of.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. I do not care if it's successful or not. Removing a portion of someone's body should never be done without consent of an adult or for medical reasons. Babies die due to infection and for what? Religious reasons? To look good? You're risking the health of your child so maybe one day they'll get laid? Unsuccessful procedures can result in the most distorted penis one that I personally know men to be very ashamed of. I do not care about successful procedures it's not okay.
the question was "WHAT ARE the negative outcomes from a successful Male circumcision"... because there are none.
Negative outcomes from a successful removal of ones body? Really? It's okay to mutilate your child because it can be done successfully? Really? No child should have any part of their body removed or tampered with without their adult consent or if there's a medical reason to do so.
you specified the meetoo movement... I hope you don't show me something irrelevant. but I'm still waiting for an example.
what are the negative outcomes from a successful Male circumcisions?
Surely you do not believe that no one has ever been convicted without evidence as a result of false sexual allegations? You may be surprised.
To be fair, male genital mutilation also has negative outcomes, though not nearly as severe as female genital mutilation, to allow genital mutilation of males and ban female genital mutilation is certainly sexual inequality no matter how you cut it. There may be a divergence in severity, however that is a completely different argument.
I've never heard of Mr. lots. nor can we examine the evidence or lack of against gonn. can you give me at least one name? if you can't name anyone who was convicted without evidence, then I must conclude that noone has been convicted without evidence.
there need not be a female equivalent. there is no extra flap of skin with no purpose and increase infection risk on female.
lets compare the 2:
male: a medical procedure with positive outcomes.
female: a medieval torture tactic meant to permanently disable a person.
do you judge most things by just the name?
Your question has already been answered in "LOTS". Btw, what is the female equivalent to circumcision if not female circumcision?
seriously, comparing the circumcisions is like comparing the removing some skin for a graft to removing a leg for no reason.
also, please give me a few names, because I'm not so sure about your conclusion that anyone was convicted without evidence.
but I don't believe it is discriminatory or biased.
also, just because both procedures are called circumcisions doesn't make them both similar. the purpose and effects are vastly different.
one removes a piece of skin that is prone to infection, the other removes a sensory organ leaving the woman unable to orgasm for the rest of their lives, and increases the risk of infection.
the two procedures are completely different in every way.
But proving that something that is discriminatory is not bias is proving a positive, such as circumcision being legal while female genital mutilation is illegal, and to answer your question inquiring for false convictions: LOTS.
who has been convicted without evidence?
proving that something is NOT biased is proving a negative. the claim that it IS biased is the positive statement (is not vs is).
but according to you all surgery of children is mutilation without concent.
No you must prove a positive, how mutilation of a person without his permission is not a bias when it is discriminatory.
In the event that the father does not want to walk away, he must pay child support without being allowed to raise his own child. Therein lies the inequality. Does the mother have to pay child support? There's another inequality since adoption is a viable option for the mother, not the father, that is yet another inequality. Women therefore have all reproductive rights.
The metoo movement has certainly advocated for the prosecution without evidence, based solely on testimony. You need only look at their slogan - #Believeallwomen, and it has certainly led to innocent convictions and those few who have not been falsely imprisoned have had their lives ruined. Certainly an abuse of law and order.
No!...In some countries there in the west they aren't...Men are given more power and respect than a woman
"In what way is circumcision not bias?"
are you asking me to prove a negative?
the father can walk away, he will have child support, but he need not ever see the woman or child again if he so chooses.
adoption is a valid option for the woman, but I would not condone such an action. our orphanage system is horrible at current, and without more funding, will not be able to function if abortion is banned. until we properly fund orphanages, or support single moms in other ways, I probably wont be in support of abortion. if they are funded properly, then abortion can become very unnecessary.
who was convicted without evidence?
Well the metoo movement has pressured the justice system into convicting people, many of whom innocent, without proper evidence, but solely on a woman's testimony. That is not what due process looks like.
In what way do males and females have the same reproductive rights?
In a court of law, due process has always been upheld in the context of the #metoo movement. And, males and females have the same reproductive rights.
Without abortion, a woman may choose to put up for adoption, so if you want to say it's bias because responsibility, the woman still has more options to shift responsibility afterwards whereas a father must take care of the child after it's born, cannot choose adoption, and cannot walk away either.
In what way is circumcision not bias?
that was true back when children frequently died so families were huge. now people have about 2 kids and are usually sure they arent going to die. so they dont need to be dedicated baby factories. they can go out and do whatever.
circumcision isnt a biased event.
custody is wrong. however easy to resolve. just judge who is the better parent.
abortion is harder since if both disagee, one has to be the tie breaker so only they decide essentially. it is screwed up for a man. however without abortion, men have a choice (leave) but women do not.
so with abortion men have no choice and must shoulder responsibility if the woman chooses to keep.
without abortion women have no choice and must shoulder responsibility if the man decides to leave.
so both legal and illegal abortion is gender bias, just in opposite ways.
Because women are the child bearers, sexual equality is probably not a good idea, but that's a whole'nother debate.
Abortion restrictions put limitations on both men and women. If a woman can't abort, then a man can't force a woman to abort, so neither men or women can choose to abort, so abortion is sexually equal if it's illegal. An example of abortion not being sexually equal is if it's legal and a woman can abort even if the man don't want her to abort. That's really unpopular though which is why legalized abortion usually doesn't require the father's consent, and that's not the only reproductive right that is sexually unequal, for instance - circumcision is legal, custody favors the mother, mothers may place a child up for adoption without consent from the father, fathers must pay child support, ...etc.
Women have all the reproductive Rights? That's a joke right? Plenty of states make abortion near impossible for women and if you don't think abortions should be allowed then what reproductive Rights?
That doesn't seem to be the case.
For instance there is the metoo movement which has given women special rights in the judicial system. The standard for due process that everyone gets a fair trial and is innocent until proven guilty is not the case for men if they have in many cases not pleased a woman, then she may accuse him of sexual misconduct or rape in retribution which will quintessentially ruin a man's life. If you flip the metoo movement, it's advocates are shown to not trust a man's accusations of sexual assault against a woman so there is one and the most lopsided examples of why equal rights do not exist for men and women in western civilization. There is also reproductive rights which women have all of and men have none of, and many more.
perfectly equality may be impossible. but better equality may be reasonable.
True social equality can never achieved as long as we have our mammalian nature. Financial gaps, family statistics, anatomical make and social solidity is an evolved mind set and I do not believe it has truly been or for that matter will be achieved in the 21st century
modern feminists arent concerned with rights but with unfair treatment and double standards.
what do you think modern feminists are fighting for?