What laws would you oppose or would institute?

Asatmaya · 2022-04-30T01:18:15+00:00

Driving under the speed limit in the inside lane should be cause for justifiable homicide.

TrilIias · 2022-04-30T02:56:31+00:00

Default shared parenting.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2022-04-30T06:33:27+00:00

I presume we're talking about the US context. If so, below are my prescriptions.

Shared parenting by default (as a rebuttable presumption).
Completely sex/gender-neutral family law and divorce law.
Ratify the ERA in its original form, without the Hayden Rider. That said, this may not be necessary since most American jurists read the ERA's prohibition on sex discrimination into the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Stop the public subsidy of woke ideology. Publicly funded education should not promote "wokeness" as true. Public employees should not be subject to "woke" diversity training. K-12 education should not be based on "woke" praxis or promote "woke" theories as true. Colleges which accept public money may teach about wokeness but students should not be pressured into accepting or endorsing wokeness by any faculty member or administrator. In addition, stop publicly subsidizing DV shelters based on the Duluth Model (even the model's creator has rejected it as unscientific). "Wokeness" is to the social sciences what Intelligent Design Theory is to biology - it is unscientific partisan indoctrination and should not be funded by taxpayer money.
Abolish affirmative action in the public sphere or by institutions receiving public money. AA violates the 14th Amendment.
Prosecutors need to start enforcing laws against malicious false accusation of rape or abuse.

I agree with the original post that election day should be a public holiday. However, it is well known that men in general have an out-group bias towards women, and women have an in-group bias towards other women. Therefore, I don't think "more democracy" will necessarily help advance men's rights.

It should also be known that I don't think men's rights can be attained purely through political fixes. The issues are, at their base, cultural ones.

63daddy · 2022-04-30T01:36:09+00:00

Any law encouraging discrimination should be overturned or amended to be non discriminatory including; Affirmative Action, VAWA, women owned business advantages, gender related healthcare advantages, etc.

I’d support the ERA though I doubt it would be enforced.

shit-zen-giggles · 2022-04-30T07:16:28+00:00

Also if your iq is below 90 you can’t or shouldn’t vote, especially if your illiterate. [...] A genius’s vote should be worth more, based on tested merit. Let’s get technocracy! Oh and maybe it would be best if everyone can vote, but if they didn’t pass a civil test at the end of high school or when being patriated, then their vote should be ignored by the machine.

I see where you're coming from but I whole heartedly disagree with that notion. My IQ (determined via standardized test) is 116, mind you. The solution isn't to deny 'dumb' people the vote (or not counting their vote). I'd first want to see how much IQ gain can be made by ensuring an optimal environment at scale.

It's never nature vs nurture, it is always nature AND nuture. So even if we optimize the environmental factors (starting in the whoom) there will of course be a distribution of apptitude.

My point isn't to make everyone into geniuses (impossible endevour anyways) but rather to move the whole (normalized) distribution upwards on the absolute scale of apptitude. I think there's a reasonable potential for gains to be made there and if we could optimize the nurture side we'd hopefully see that the worst pitfalls of stupidity could be avoided.

ABCAJB · 2022-04-30T02:05:37+00:00

I would pass the equal rights amendment since it would prohibit gender discrimination completely in the law.This would solve a lot of different issues such as the educational gap by requiring scholarships to be applied to everyone regardless of the gender they are and the discriminatory selective service system which would have to be abolished or applied equally to everyone if the selective service is going to continue to exist in the law.Speaking of th selective service i currently have a petition to call on congress and the senate to either abolish the selective service system or to expand it by requiring everyone to register to have equality in the law and i would really appreciate it if anyone here can look into and sign my petition.Once i have enough signatures i will be showing it to my representatives to be able to make changes to this discriminatory law.

Link to the petition: https://chng.it/mtgBd6yn

Ateapotist1983 · 2022-04-30T13:06:57+00:00

This is exactly the socialist hellscape the World Economic Forum is pushing with their "Great Reset": you will own nothing and be happy. What you're describing is very similar to the dystopia portrayed in Menken's "Brave New World".

Ateapotist1983 · 2022-04-30T13:08:31+00:00

Men should have the same rights to decide if they want to be a parent as women do. An option for lega/financial abortion would be a start.

3DemocracyActivist · 2022-04-30T16:42:22+00:00

It's all very simple and easy to understand, equalise all laws, rights and punishments and that's all there is to it. As a gender neutral human rights activist, I am personally in favour of more lenient sentences for crimes, and making the law itself less complicated. However, as an equality activist, I am only interested in introducing one new law / policy - a law that says all laws, rights and punishments are required to be 100% equal without exception. As an equality rights activist, I am not pro or anti harsh punishments, I am not pro or anti soft punishments, I am simply pro equality.

In order for equality rights activists to be effective and achieve our goal, we need to put all differences aside and focus only on the goal of equality within our movement.

For example, I am against life sentences, Russia has life sentences only for men, my preference would be instead of introducing life sentences for women in Russia (which would achieve equal maximum punishment) that instead life sentences for men in Russia are abolished (which would also achieve equal maximum punishment), however, for the sake of equality, I'll say, within the equality movement I'm not interested in wether life sentences on a whole are abolished or kept, I'm only in favour of equalisation. Someone else who is pro equality might be in favour of life sentences, and might prefer that instead of abolishing life sentences for men in Russia, that they are instead introduced for women.

I'm willing to say, I put equality first, meaning as an equality activist, I'll support introducing life sentences for women in Russia (because men face these sentences in Russia) even though I'm ultimately against life sentences on a whole, because I put equality first, meaning even though I'm against life sentences, my stance is that discriminatory life sentences are even worse than gender neutral life sentences. In order for equality activists to be successful, differences of opinion outside of equality must be put aside within this movement.

As an equality activist, a person who supports life sentences must be willing to say they'd rather no one can get life sentences, instead of just one sex and to mirror that, I'm willing to say I'd rather everyone can get life sentences, instead of just one sex. You apply this same standard, to all laws, punishments and rights globally.

That's how you have an effective and simple aim / demand for a movement based around equality. The end goal isn't abolition of a specific law, or introduction of a specific law, the end goal is simply equalisation of all laws, rights and punishments.

If this goal is achieved, and the end result is that life sentences are introduced for women in Russia and also kept for men, then I will consider that a victory for equality for that issue, and I will then, separetely from the equality movement, move on to just calling for abolition of life sentences for everyone, as a human rights activist, instead of as an equality activist, but wether or not that is achieved is a separate aim and goal from equality activism. At the same time, if equality is achieved and the end result is that life sentences are abolished for men in Russia and also not introduced for women, then a pro life sentence equality activist must accept that as a victory for equality, and then if they choose, after equality has been achieved, they can then go and call for life sentences to be introduced for men and women, as a pro punishment activist, separetely from the equality movement. The point of the matter is I want everyone who supports equality, to unite and support introducing a new global policy, that simply states that all laws, punishments and rights must be gender neutral. We can all do activism together, as one large group, until that policy is introduced, and once it is, we can all go our separate ways, and move on to other causes and other movements, but if the equality policy is ever broken, we can all reunite, and do activism again until it is reintroduced.

Anyone who wants to add or take away anything from the end goal of equal rights, is damaging, dividing and ultimately shrinking the movement. If people want to make pro tough on crime or pro soft on crime arguments within the movement, that's fine, but it must never be a requirement of this movement to have to share any aim other than equalisation, in fact the only requirement should be that equalisation is put first within the movement. This is not a movement for a specific political party, this is not a movement for a specific religion, this is a movement for everyone who supports gender neutral laws, rights and punishments, regardless of their religion or political views.

For the purpose of achieving equality, an equality movement needs to be concerned only with achieving equality in order to be effective. If an equality movement becomes biased towards harsh or soft punishments, then it will simply cause division, which will lead to arguments within the movement, and cause the movement to achieve nothing. If it comes down to that it would probably be best that the movement splits into two seperate movements - the pro giving women as few legal rights as men movement, and the pro giving men as many legal rights as women movement, but the simply pro equality movement would be the unification of both of these movements, that puts aside the direction of equality, and simply aims towards the end result of equality.

If the movement simply consistently demands equality, then it will be very effective, the movement will be bigger, people within the movement can all aim towards a common goal, and any legal change that results in equalisation can be considered a victory for the purpose of equality, but this movement must never be satisfied with small or non all encompassing victories, it can only be satisfied with 100% equal rights, laws and punishments without exception, which is why instead of demanding changes to specific laws, the movement should simply demand total equalisation of all laws, without being in favour of or against any specific laws, within this movement, as an official stance of the movement.

Once again, if someone within the movement wants to speak in favour of or against a specific law (outside of equality law) that's fine, but they must support a gender neutral punishment for breaking this law, and they can't demand that the whole movement supports this law, but they can demand the movement supports a gender neutral punishment for breaking this law in the event that the law is introduced.

TitanicPat · 2022-04-30T21:28:33+00:00

Recognise the men falsely accused of rape as victims of a specific crime under the law. (Currently the charges are wasting police time and perverting the course of justice, it is only the state that is officially the victim when a man is falsely accused)

csgosilver1 · 2022-05-02T17:39:47+00:00

Only net tax payers are allowed to vote it would reign in spending and bring about more creative solutions to problems instead of solving every problem by opening another giant government program.

2022-04-30T04:31:05+00:00

No « positive discrimination ».

Title	What laws would you oppose or would institute?
Author	Stalkwomen
Upvotes	2
Comments	24
Date	April 29, 2022 11:55 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ueywfx/what_laws_would_you_oppose_or_would_institute/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-laws-would-you-oppose-or-would-institute.1113835 https://theredarchive.com/post/1113835

Comments