Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

Do Women Have More Legal Rights Than Men?

August 14th, 2014 - 6:49 am

Yes, according to Judgy Bitch and here is but one example (thanks to the reader who emailed me the link):

Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death.

There are other legal rights that women have that men do not that Judgy Bitch lists here.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
As Stephen BASKERVILLE writes in
"TAKEN INTO CUSTODY"
(The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family)
— incidentally, the book is mentioned in Helen Smith's "Men on Strike":

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html

… In the jargon of family law, faithfully parroted by the media and academia, this father has "lost custody," a simple and harmless enough sounding formulation of events, so common as to be mundane. But this jargon disguises far-reaching implications. In plain English, this father's unauthorized association with his own children is now a crime.

… the media will go to any lengths to avoid admitting that we are in a massive epidemic of government-sponsored child stealing. So pervasive is the demonization of fathers today that fathers themselves share in it even after they have become its victims. "It is typical for a man to believe … the media myth of the Evil Male," writes Robert Seidenberg. "While he knows that he is a great father himself, he thinks everybody else is a deadbeat dad."

…The growth of this machinery has been accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign that has served to justify punitive measures against citizens who are not convicted of any crime. "is there a species on the planet who is more unjustly maligned than fathers?" writes columnist Naomi Lakritz. "Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, molesters, and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the initial moment of conception is over."

… Were these citizens wanted for murder, they would be described as "suspects," but the government and media have already convicted them. … Columnist Kathleen Parker concluded that "the 'deadbeat dad' is an egregious exaggeration, a caricature of a few desperate men who for various reasons — sometimes pretty good ones — fail to hand over their paycheck, assuming they have one."

… The regime of involuntary divorce, forcible removal of children, coerced child support, and knowingly false accusations is now warping our entire legal system, undermining and overturning principles of common law that have protected individual rights for centuries. The presumption of innocence has been inverted

… Far from simple violations of particular constitutional clauses, these practices and powers are undermining constitutional government in its most fundamental principles. The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Do Women Have More Legal Rights Than Men?"

Seriously? Does anyone even need to ask?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
For the scope of selective service / draft - nope. I'd also eliminate the college exemption, as well as eliminate ways that wealthy or connected people can avoid the draft.

It would add further incentive to politicians to avoid stupid political decisions when their kids or grandkids are subject to the draft, not just disposable men of low status.

Further, when conscription *does* affect families, it will be even more disincentive to getting us involved beyond the capabilities of a volunteer army.

Men earned general, universal suffrage in America when they were subject to conscription. I see no reason to grant women suffrage in this day and age without the same, equal requirement. If women want to avoid that, then their vote should not count, or should not count as much. That would likely put a huge damper on a class of people that's voted themselves a billion or so in annual feebies. mostly taken, ironically enough, from those who are subject to the draft.

Dependency should have a cost, and so should voting for it.

FWIW, I concur with your analysis of the one-sided reproductive rights that Roe and adoption have created.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (23)
All Comments   (23)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
From the linked article:

"5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape.

"The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with."

Don't forget: some men get penetrated unwillingly by other men, too. But it's not taken nearly as seriously.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Crimes against the overclass are always taken more seriously than crimes against the underclass. Ironically, this is basic Grievance Studies 101.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Illegals now have more rights and privileges than native born Americans.

They are granted de-facto immunity from having to comply with certain laws that many native-born must comply with, sometimes on pain of imprisonment.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
I fear for the state of the Republic and expect that "indivisible" will be challenged within the next decade.

Things that go on forever won't.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Fewer legal rights, more legal responsibilities, and overwhelming judicial bias against us in court. Why wouldn't men opt out of any social obligations?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
All "protected categories" have more rights than white men. The first thing is to end the concept of "protected categories" in hiring.

If a lesbian business owner wants and all women workforce let her. If an atheist wants an all atheist workforce let him. If a racist/homophobic/sexist pig wants an all straight white male workforce let him.

The result will be evolution with business owners voluntarily seeking diversity so as not to tick off potential customers and the bigots dying in the tarpit, with the upside being whiners and malcontents get the boot (or a blunt and effective sit down) and everybody wins.

The other thing is to end the academic propaganda programs, at all levels, where young women are told that men -- and heterosexuality -- are evil.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Do you seriously believe there is any legal impediment to a lesbian having an all-lesbian workforce? Or a black business owner hiring only black people?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The other thing is to end the academic propaganda programs, at all levels, where young women are told that men -- and heterosexuality -- are evil."

I used to believe this was only happening in Colleges and Universities, but having recently been around large groups of middle and high school students I see a lot of female couples. I don't mean couples, as in female friends holding hands because they're close friends, I mean couple couples. It's easy to tell the difference. I haven't noticed it with the guys...yet.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
As Stephen BASKERVILLE writes in
"TAKEN INTO CUSTODY"
(The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family)
— incidentally, the book is mentioned in Helen Smith's "Men on Strike":

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html

… In the jargon of family law, faithfully parroted by the media and academia, this father has "lost custody," a simple and harmless enough sounding formulation of events, so common as to be mundane. But this jargon disguises far-reaching implications. In plain English, this father's unauthorized association with his own children is now a crime.

… the media will go to any lengths to avoid admitting that we are in a massive epidemic of government-sponsored child stealing. So pervasive is the demonization of fathers today that fathers themselves share in it even after they have become its victims. "It is typical for a man to believe … the media myth of the Evil Male," writes Robert Seidenberg. "While he knows that he is a great father himself, he thinks everybody else is a deadbeat dad."

…The growth of this machinery has been accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign that has served to justify punitive measures against citizens who are not convicted of any crime. "is there a species on the planet who is more unjustly maligned than fathers?" writes columnist Naomi Lakritz. "Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, molesters, and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the initial moment of conception is over."

… Were these citizens wanted for murder, they would be described as "suspects," but the government and media have already convicted them. … Columnist Kathleen Parker concluded that "the 'deadbeat dad' is an egregious exaggeration, a caricature of a few desperate men who for various reasons — sometimes pretty good ones — fail to hand over their paycheck, assuming they have one."

… The regime of involuntary divorce, forcible removal of children, coerced child support, and knowingly false accusations is now warping our entire legal system, undermining and overturning principles of common law that have protected individual rights for centuries. The presumption of innocence has been inverted

… Far from simple violations of particular constitutional clauses, these practices and powers are undermining constitutional government in its most fundamental principles. The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"What we confront here is a bureaucratic machine of
a kind that has never before been seen in the United
States or the other English-speaking democracies"
writes Stephen Baskerville in "Taken Into Custody"
(The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family)

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html

The implications reach far beyond fathers and even beyond the family itself, for forcibly severing the intimate bond between parents and their children threatens the liberties of all of us. "The right to one's own children … is perhaps the most basic individual right," writes Susan Shell, "so basic we hardly think of it."

By establishing a private sphere of life from which the state is excluded, family bonds also serve as the foundation of a free society. "No known society treats the question of who may properly call a child his or her own as simply … a matter to be decided entirely politically as one might distribute land or wealth," Shell continues.

… considered in the light of constitutional principle, the destruction of ancient protections is clearly systematic with the nation's family courts and endemic to a governmental regime whose very existence is predicated and dependent on the power to remove children from their parents. Far from simple violations of particular constitutional clauses, these practices and powers are undermining constitutional government in its most fundamental principles. The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Gawain's Ghost.
The IDF doesn't have women in the line units. Haven't for a long time.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. "

This is a bit misleading. Men are required by law to register for the draft whether or not they ever register to vote.

Given that the draft is not used at present, a simple solution would be to require women to register. Then, if we ever do re-institute the draft, we can have the debate about whether to actually draft women.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Do Women Have More Legal Rights Than Men?"

Seriously? Does anyone even need to ask?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All