Womens Rights in the 21st Century

September 28, 2009 | By | 1 Reply More

I found a fascinating post on one of the blogs I regularly read: Weekend Diversion: An Amazing Group of Women. It is mostly about the Asgarda women of the Ukraine, a small group of (mostly young) women working for the rights of women in an environment plagued with sex trafficking and other abuses of women, Eastern Europe. There is also a video of Loudon Wainwright singing “Daughter”. Well worth clicking over to hear the song and see pictures of essentially a modern tribe of Amazons.

Meanwhile, I wondered if the United States is the only nation in which there are so many groups of women actively protesting against rights for women. Like Phyllis Schlafly‘s Eagle Forum, who worked diligently to persuade women to vote against the Equal Rights Amendment, and continue to agitate to prevent any laws from passing that explicitly give women protections already enjoyed by men.

Pro Life groups are also essentially anti-women’s rights, and largely manned by women. It is basically a matter of whether the government or a women may legally decide who or what may live within her body and what may be expelled. Men already have this protection, granted by their reproductively deficient bodies allowing them to claim any foreign internal organism as a hostile alien.

Share

Category: American Culture, Civil Rights, Communication, Current Events, Health, ignorance, Noteworthy, Reproductive Rights, Social justice, Web Site

About the Author ()

A convoluted mind behind a curly face. A regular traveler, a science buff, and first generation American. Graying of hair, yet still verdant of mind. Lives in South St. Louis City. See his personal website for (too much) more.

Comments (1)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Drangsorian says:

    I simply disagree with the assessment that “pro-life” advocates are necessarily anti woman’s rights. I also hear the term misogynist flung around in lieu of reasoned argument. A person who advocates the moral understanding of a fetus as a person is not necessarily a woman hating monster that wants to keep women in the kitchen or the bed chambers.

    It becomes increasingly tedious to hear such baseless claims, especially among those I formerly respected for their ability to articulate sound debatable points.

    “It is basically a matter of whether the government or a women may legally decide who or what may live within her body and what may be expelled.”
    Of course, you don’t just mean “what” you mean “who,” else you wouldn’t have said that. Are you conceding that a fetus is “who” and not a “what?” This usually comes as a huge intellectual hurdle for many among the pro-choice persuasion…for some reason they are able to understand causality in every other instance except when it comes to understanding the biology of reproduction…but only with this particular issue. Another dichotomy that fascinates me. Interesting how so many will choose to ignore facts that they previously adhere to on intellectual levels.

    Once again, I pose the question “Can the government or woman legally decide what (WHO) may live within her property (an extension of her body…her home…her environment) and what (WHO) can be expelled?”
    Because if you are asking your question, I believe this one is equally valid.
    Should the government -an institution meant to protect “life, liberty, and property”- be permitted to prevent a woman from expelling a born child, even if so doing the child will undoubtedly perish as it is unable to care for itself? Should a woman be legally permitted the “right” to do so? Is it really just her “choice?”

    Just Wondering.

Leave a Reply