DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Narus63** · 11-05-2008, 10:01 PM

I was approaching the idea from another angle. In other words, not what things should be like, but what they are like. Therefore I was suggesting that legal instruments can be conceived as unable to protect the rights of individuals because such inequalities do in fact exist.

If we look at the rights of someone at birth, it is unlikely that they will face discrimination at that time, and unsure whether they will actually face discrimination in their life. This is a matter of "chance", while law is imposed on everyone and does not depend on chance.

Would you consider the glass ceilings in pay scale existent in most Western countries a discriminatory law? Perhaps not a law per se but a regulation ? It is obviously discrimination. But that's not a right someone get from birth or is sure to be confronted to. My poll is about certain, unavoidable things. We cannot say that all men and women in "idealised states" will certainly have different rights. Yet, it is undeniable that male and female brains think differently, and that men and women have clearly different bodies. With the same training, you cannot expect a woman to be a strong as a man, because the hormones are just different (muscles need testosterones, and men have much more of it).

Do you mean women have more rights in this case because they have the right to not be in the military? I daresay that in most countries where there is conscription, women generally do not on the other hand have the right to serve in combat military roles, so one right is traded for another. A good deal, I wonder? In most/all Western countries where there is male conscription, women have the right to serve in the army if they want to (as career soliders). Men are forced to join the army for a certain period of time (like in France), while women have the right not to join.

11-05-2008, 10:01 PM	#24
Narus63 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 383 Senior Member	I was approaching the idea from another angle. In other words, not what things should be like, but what they are like. Therefore I was suggesting that legal instruments can be conceived as unable to protect the rights of individuals because such inequalities do in fact exist. If we look at the rights of someone at birth, it is unlikely that they will face discrimination at that time, and unsure whether they will actually face discrimination in their life. This is a matter of "chance", while law is imposed on everyone and does not depend on chance. Would you consider the glass ceilings in pay scale existent in most Western countries a discriminatory law? Perhaps not a law per se but a regulation ? It is obviously discrimination. But that's not a right someone get from birth or is sure to be confronted to. My poll is about certain, unavoidable things. We cannot say that all men and women in "idealised states" will certainly have different rights. Yet, it is undeniable that male and female brains think differently, and that men and women have clearly different bodies. With the same training, you cannot expect a woman to be a strong as a man, because the hormones are just different (muscles need testosterones, and men have much more of it). Do you mean women have more rights in this case because they have the right to not be in the military? I daresay that in most countries where there is conscription, women generally do not on the other hand have the right to serve in combat military roles, so one right is traded for another. A good deal, I wonder? In most/all Western countries where there is male conscription, women have the right to serve in the army if they want to (as career soliders). Men are forced to join the army for a certain period of time (like in France), while women have the right not to join.
	Quote