are inequalities towards men fair because of inequalities towards women in the past?

Question

BQ : Are inequalities towards men in western societies justified by inequalities towards women in other parts of the world ?

BQ2 : Do women have less rights than men in the west ? Or do men lack some rights that women have ? if women do lack any rights, name them please.

inspired by answers here that really annoyed me -> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An7oIf4rjziz3gdhNamO8HDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130529164427AARgz6w

Answer 1

If it were the same men and the same women, perhaps.



But the men of the future are suffering for the sins of the men of the past. Boys are suffering for the sins of men they never knew.



So basically, these boys are being penalized for having a Y chromosome similar to somebody in history.

Answer 2

It's not. There also weren't as many inequalities towards women in the past as what modern feminists make it out. There were also inequalities towards men. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

An example of a man's inequality was a lot of times slogging away all day at the work, often in a job he disliked. She would be in the comfort of home. Raising children wasn't a hardship in comparison. She would spend most of his hard earned money. Also, a lot of time she'd deliberately hold herself back, as far as vocational abilities went.

Answer 3

In saying that inequality against men is justified because it happens to women elsewhere in the world is still promoting inequality of people who have done nothing to deserve this separation of rights.



The goal of all people having equal rights should not be to ensure that they will be treated identically, as this ignores certain significant differences such as the biological distinction of sex, but to ensure that the general amount of rights is equal such that all people are given an equal chance to succeed in life. It would be difficult indeed to draft a single law to govern the rights of both birds and fish, as even if they theoretically deserved equal rights, finding a common criteria of judgement and limitations between the two creatures would be near impossible. For this reason and others, it seems many forms of civil rights activism succeeds only in reinforcing the separation between cultural, racial, sexual and ethnic groups. As long as we continue to both stratify our society while attempting to fix it with a homogenized consideration of human rights, our true nature will continue to elude us

Answer 4

Question: No. We shouldn't judge someone on their ancestors. Hitler had sibling, and they had kids, should we hate them because their uncle or great uncle was Hitler? No, it's out of their control.



BQ: No.



BQ2: No, women don't lack rights. Men have the short end of the stick in courts (custody almost always goes to the mother, 94% of the time, and such, like longer sentences, and for rape I heard, they are seen guilty until proven innocent, and they are seen as potential rapists, unlike women, who aren't)

Answer 5

Inequalities are never fvcking fair ever. I wish I could shoot real bullets out of the Nerf Jolt, at all the amazingly fvcked up answers I've had the joy of reading on this site.

Answer 6

No



BQ: No, hell no



BQ2: No



@ Proud Misandrist, an "eye for an eye" is simply an immature and petulant argument.



There is a reason why the law dosen't make it so a rapist gets raped and so forth. Because two wrongs don't make a right, and imagine what happens if you make a falsely charged man get raped? You're making an innocent person get raped.



Women are more likely to initiate domestic violence by hitting, so does that mean all men are excused to hit back if she "hits" first? I don't think so.

Answer 7

Would it be "fair"? Technically, yes. Fairness is an eye for an eye, in my book. Is that a productive or progressive way to conduct our social matters? I'll admit that it's definitely not.