I would like to thank MacKiller and dbates for the opportunity to discuss what I consider an important subject and one which has its beginnings over a
century ago.
A convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.
Seventy years after the American Revolution, a New York housewife and her friends were discussing the situation of women in the new democracy. During
the revolution itself women had taken many risks in the fight for freedom, but on the day of their meeting, July 13 1848, they were still
denied basic rights. The five friends were not the first to complain about the unjust treatment women received, but they were the first to do
something about it.
Within days, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her friends had arranged for a meeting to take place in the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls and placed an
announcement in the Seneca County Courier advertising what they called "A convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition
and rights of woman."
The Declaration of Sentiments
As the event was set into motion, Elizabeth Cady Stanton began working on what she called a "Declaration of Sentiments." This document, using the
Declaration of Independence as a framework, listed areas of life where women were treated unjustly.
Married women were legally dead in the eyes of the law.
Women were not allowed to vote.
Women had to submit to laws when they had no voice in their formation.
Married women had no property rights.
Husbands had legal power over and responsibility for their wives to the extent that they could imprison or beat them with impunity.
Divorce and child custody laws favored men, giving no rights to women.
Women had to pay property taxes although they had no representation in the levying of these taxes.
Most occupations were closed to women and when women did work they were paid only a fraction of what men earned.
Women were not allowed to enter professions such as medicine or law.
Women had no means to gain an education since no college or university would accept women students.
With only a few exceptions, women were not allowed to participate in the affairs of the church.
Women were robbed of their self-confidence and self-respect, and were made totally dependent on men.
It is difficult to imagine the kind of life women had in those times over a hundred and fifty years ago. And if it hadn't been for people like
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the noted black abolitionist Frederick Douglass, women today could well be suffering under such unjust laws. In
certain areas even today women are still treated unjustly, and it is my intention, within this debate, to take up the cause of Women's Rights and
hopefully explain why such a movement still has a place in the twenty-first century.
Round 1. Pisky v.s. dbates: Women's Rights, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 23-1-2005 @ 10:43 PM by Pisky
Who is to say what women's needs are if not the women themselves ?
I support the Women's Rights Movement because I believe in equality. True equality for all irrespective of gender. I believe that every human being, male or female, should have the same opportunities to further their own goals. That said, Affirmative Action has no place in a world of true equality since it merely swings the balance in the other direction and results in animosity.
Not every woman wants to bring children into the world, not every woman wants to be a 'little homemaker'. If they so desire then there should be no barrier to it, alternatively if they wish to make a world outside of the home and have a career then neither should there be an impediment to that either.
Women are indeed physically different to men, but to say that they are not as capable of performing certain jobs is illogical. Women have proved themselves in the fields of medicine, computers, farming - you name it, they have done it. Admittedly there are certain physical jobs that are more suitable to men, but the fact that there are women who are capable of performing those tasks yet are denied the right by reason of gender is one of the reasons that the Women's Rights movement still exists.
To deny all women the right to work in whatever employment they choose is unacceptable. If a woman is capable of doing the job, then why should she be denied the opportunity purely because some men believe that women should stick to being the 'little housemaker'. Equally not every man is capable of doing manual labour. It is my opinion that employment should be dependant on the ability of the prospective employee rather than on gender. The denial of rights in the workplace, including the fact that women in general are paid less than a man in the same circumstances, is just one reason that the Women's Rights Movement still exists.
We no longer live in the Middle Ages when marriages were made to further Royal dynasties. In those times alliances were often made by the heads of the respective households who gave their offspring in marriage to like-minded people of the same social class. The mediaeval monarchs of Europe, for example, would marry their children off like commodities in order to consolidate power. Needless to say, often these marriages failed due to lack of love and respect between the parties. Husband and wife would stay married in name only, taking lovers in order to obtain some modicum of tenderness.
To suggest that women return to the times when they were merely chattels to be disposed of by their fathers is not acceptable, in fact it borders on the barbaric. Certain cultures, even now, believe in Arrange Marriages, but it is my contention that they rarely result in love matches and that many women of such joinings stay married purely due to fear. For them to refuse their father's wishes can even result in their deaths. So called 'Honour Killings' are invariably due to women attempting to avoid the archaic custom of Arranged Marriages.
Yes, women should be cherished by their families, but that love should be unconditional. Women deserve the same opportunities as their male counterparts. They deserve to be treated with the same respect as men. They should never fear for their lives due to some antiquated laws and beliefs.
That is what the Women's Rights Movement is all about. The rights of woman to be her own person.
BBC UK - Women still paid less than men
Honour Killings
I support the Women's Rights Movement because I believe in equality. True equality for all irrespective of gender. I believe that every human being, male or female, should have the same opportunities to further their own goals. That said, Affirmative Action has no place in a world of true equality since it merely swings the balance in the other direction and results in animosity.
Not every woman wants to bring children into the world, not every woman wants to be a 'little homemaker'. If they so desire then there should be no barrier to it, alternatively if they wish to make a world outside of the home and have a career then neither should there be an impediment to that either.
Women are indeed physically different to men, but to say that they are not as capable of performing certain jobs is illogical. Women have proved themselves in the fields of medicine, computers, farming - you name it, they have done it. Admittedly there are certain physical jobs that are more suitable to men, but the fact that there are women who are capable of performing those tasks yet are denied the right by reason of gender is one of the reasons that the Women's Rights movement still exists.
To deny all women the right to work in whatever employment they choose is unacceptable. If a woman is capable of doing the job, then why should she be denied the opportunity purely because some men believe that women should stick to being the 'little housemaker'. Equally not every man is capable of doing manual labour. It is my opinion that employment should be dependant on the ability of the prospective employee rather than on gender. The denial of rights in the workplace, including the fact that women in general are paid less than a man in the same circumstances, is just one reason that the Women's Rights Movement still exists.
We no longer live in the Middle Ages when marriages were made to further Royal dynasties. In those times alliances were often made by the heads of the respective households who gave their offspring in marriage to like-minded people of the same social class. The mediaeval monarchs of Europe, for example, would marry their children off like commodities in order to consolidate power. Needless to say, often these marriages failed due to lack of love and respect between the parties. Husband and wife would stay married in name only, taking lovers in order to obtain some modicum of tenderness.
To suggest that women return to the times when they were merely chattels to be disposed of by their fathers is not acceptable, in fact it borders on the barbaric. Certain cultures, even now, believe in Arrange Marriages, but it is my contention that they rarely result in love matches and that many women of such joinings stay married purely due to fear. For them to refuse their father's wishes can even result in their deaths. So called 'Honour Killings' are invariably due to women attempting to avoid the archaic custom of Arranged Marriages.
Yes, women should be cherished by their families, but that love should be unconditional. Women deserve the same opportunities as their male counterparts. They deserve to be treated with the same respect as men. They should never fear for their lives due to some antiquated laws and beliefs.
That is what the Women's Rights Movement is all about. The rights of woman to be her own person.
BBC UK - Women still paid less than men
Honour Killings
reply posted on 25-1-2005 @ 01:03 PM by dbates
Equality for women, but what is equality?
Sure everyone wants equality, but what exactly do we mean when we speak of equality. Equality does not necessarily mean that everyone gets treated exactly the same. Equality can also mean that we treat different sets of people differently to get the same result.
Restrictions on some benefit the whole
You mentioned Affirmative action. This is a excellent way to make my case. Due to circumstances such as racism, and restricted access to learning, certain ethnic groups are given a preference in job placement, or education funding. You might see this as a restriction of the rights of non-minorities, but it is simply a method used to level the playing field. Laws are in place to restrict some, for the good of all. The result is a better society, and citizens who are happier with their way of life. In this case a restriction of rights on one group, benefits the whole.
Society has shaped the current placement of men and women's rights and tends to flow toward the greatest benefit for the whole. Men are just better gatherers and hunters than women are. It was more beneficial for society as a whole that the women stayed home and worked on raising the children, and preparing food. If women had been better hunters and gatherers than men then the result would have been that men stayed home. What we see in laws is simply an reflection of what exist in nature. To try and change these rules is to go against nature itself and doesn't benefit everyone.
Women naturally want to stay at home. Why pressure them to work?
A recent survey by the Census Bureau show a drop in employment by women who have infant children, and another shows that up to 1/3 of women without children contemplate leaving their jobs to stay at home. Enacting more laws to further women's rights is only putting pressure on women to behave in a manner that they don't want to. Sure some women prefer to work, but using this as a measuring stick is like comparing the average woman to a super-model. Do some women want to achieve this image? Sure they do. Is this the normal way of life? Of course not. Given the opportunity, women would almost always rather stay at home and care for their family than pretend that they want to be just like men in the workplace.
Survey shows first drop in labor force participation by women with infants - Census Bureau
Women with no children at home regularly consider leaving their jobs
Sure everyone wants equality, but what exactly do we mean when we speak of equality. Equality does not necessarily mean that everyone gets treated exactly the same. Equality can also mean that we treat different sets of people differently to get the same result.
Restrictions on some benefit the whole
You mentioned Affirmative action. This is a excellent way to make my case. Due to circumstances such as racism, and restricted access to learning, certain ethnic groups are given a preference in job placement, or education funding. You might see this as a restriction of the rights of non-minorities, but it is simply a method used to level the playing field. Laws are in place to restrict some, for the good of all. The result is a better society, and citizens who are happier with their way of life. In this case a restriction of rights on one group, benefits the whole.
Society has shaped the current placement of men and women's rights and tends to flow toward the greatest benefit for the whole. Men are just better gatherers and hunters than women are. It was more beneficial for society as a whole that the women stayed home and worked on raising the children, and preparing food. If women had been better hunters and gatherers than men then the result would have been that men stayed home. What we see in laws is simply an reflection of what exist in nature. To try and change these rules is to go against nature itself and doesn't benefit everyone.
Women naturally want to stay at home. Why pressure them to work?
A recent survey by the Census Bureau show a drop in employment by women who have infant children, and another shows that up to 1/3 of women without children contemplate leaving their jobs to stay at home. Enacting more laws to further women's rights is only putting pressure on women to behave in a manner that they don't want to. Sure some women prefer to work, but using this as a measuring stick is like comparing the average woman to a super-model. Do some women want to achieve this image? Sure they do. Is this the normal way of life? Of course not. Given the opportunity, women would almost always rather stay at home and care for their family than pretend that they want to be just like men in the workplace.
Survey shows first drop in labor force participation by women with infants - Census Bureau
Women with no children at home regularly consider leaving their jobs
reply posted on 30-1-2005 @ 04:31 PM by Pisky
It is not only in the workplace that women are treated with less regard, for anachronastic criminal laws are also responsible for many problems
experienced by women today.
Until the Violence Against Women Act became part of US law, family violence was allowed and based on the "rule of thumb". This common law rule stated that a husband was allowed to 'chastise' his wife, providing that he did not use a 'stick thicker than a man's thumb'. You may think that this archaic and barbarous practice was put to rest many years ago, but you would be mistaken. This 'rule of thumb' was only done away with when the Violence Against Women Act became law - in 1994.
Women experience violence on a daily basis. How many times have we heard of women being raped and beaten and yet do not report the crime because they believe that the law is on the side of the criminal rather than the victim. How many times have we read of rapists being released early from prison on 'good behaviour' only to commit the very same crime once free. And how many times have we heard of a rape victim told by the court that she should have expected the attack because of the way she was dressed ?
Women should have the right to walk the streets safely, to dress as they wish to without fear of some drunken pervert crawling through the night. They should have the right to live their lives free of sexual harassment, violence and rape. It is true that the law has changed over the years in an attempt to stamp out violence and abuse, but when the judges themselves refuse to use the full weight of that law and instead give derisory sentences to rapists, they are guilty of giving a wrong message to society. Rather than helping victims, the criminal justice systems place hurdle after hurdle before those wishing only for justice. It is no wonder that many victims stay silent about their attackers since so many have been treated so shabbily by the law.
It is not only in America and Britain that this happens. Last year an Australian judge gave a rapist a suspended sentence because, in the words of Judge Duckett, the rapist is "a hard-working and responsible person". So what does that say to people ? Thats if you're hard working and responsible its ok to rape a woman ???
No wonder the Women's Rights Movement is still needed, when we have lawmakers and judges with that kind of attitude.
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Crimes against women often treated differently
Young rape victim angry at sentence
Until the Violence Against Women Act became part of US law, family violence was allowed and based on the "rule of thumb". This common law rule stated that a husband was allowed to 'chastise' his wife, providing that he did not use a 'stick thicker than a man's thumb'. You may think that this archaic and barbarous practice was put to rest many years ago, but you would be mistaken. This 'rule of thumb' was only done away with when the Violence Against Women Act became law - in 1994.
Women experience violence on a daily basis. How many times have we heard of women being raped and beaten and yet do not report the crime because they believe that the law is on the side of the criminal rather than the victim. How many times have we read of rapists being released early from prison on 'good behaviour' only to commit the very same crime once free. And how many times have we heard of a rape victim told by the court that she should have expected the attack because of the way she was dressed ?
Women should have the right to walk the streets safely, to dress as they wish to without fear of some drunken pervert crawling through the night. They should have the right to live their lives free of sexual harassment, violence and rape. It is true that the law has changed over the years in an attempt to stamp out violence and abuse, but when the judges themselves refuse to use the full weight of that law and instead give derisory sentences to rapists, they are guilty of giving a wrong message to society. Rather than helping victims, the criminal justice systems place hurdle after hurdle before those wishing only for justice. It is no wonder that many victims stay silent about their attackers since so many have been treated so shabbily by the law.
It is not only in America and Britain that this happens. Last year an Australian judge gave a rapist a suspended sentence because, in the words of Judge Duckett, the rapist is "a hard-working and responsible person". So what does that say to people ? Thats if you're hard working and responsible its ok to rape a woman ???
No wonder the Women's Rights Movement is still needed, when we have lawmakers and judges with that kind of attitude.
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Crimes against women often treated differently
Young rape victim angry at sentence
Pages: ^^TOP^^
