The Equal Rights Era

Lindsay’s post about the halfwitted prediction that humanity will split into two subspecies in the future makes many good points about why this divergence won’t exist. But one point it doesn’t make is the overall trend of greater convergence, especially greater equal rights.

In 1400, rights were accorded to kings, emperors, sultans, and maharajahs. Now, they’re accorded to a larger group; not all of humanity, or even all of the first world’s citizenry, but certainly a larger circle than in the past.

In terms of equal rights, what we have is about the closest thing that could practically exist to uninterrupted progress. Backlash or no backlash, women in stable democracies are less discriminated against than they’ve ever been. The status of ethnic minorities is gradually improving (much of Western Europe seems to be undergoing a fit of racist hysteria, but it’ll calm down eventually). The rise of religious fundamentalism is a short-term phenomenon that will evaporate in 20 years if it doesn’t create a theocracy by then, as cultures secularize.

I won’t be so optimistic as to predict full equal rights even in my lifetime. I’m not going to even guess when the equal rights era we’re in will end to within a century; I suppose it’ll be in this millennium, but even about that I’m not sure.

Right now, the liberal project’s main aim is equal rights. It has enough philosophical depth and political breadth to metamorphose into something similar when that is achieved – for example, pure civil libertarianism, or opposition to legal codification of cultural traditions – but it’ll necessarily change.

Rawls’ conception of maximal equal rights will remain, but the conception of what “equal” means will have to change. Since income inequality and greed are natural parts of the human condition, there will always be some inequality to level; but whereas right now leveling the playing field is primarily about gender, race, and nationality, and even intranational, intraracial class differences mimic racial inequality in certain ways.

On the other hand, since a lot of people already believe we’re in a post-equal rights era, it won’t be so utopian as I’m making it sound. The best modern approximation of such an era – it’s impossible to get a real sense of what it might be like since cultural norms change extremely quickly – is the life most American TV characters lead, minus the dramatization. So the fact that American TV shows inadvertently function as socio-cultural science fiction helps us predict how things might be like when all the inconvenient facts of life television brushes off are really eliminated.

9 Responses to The Equal Rights Era

  1. Hujo says:

    http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133199#133199

    Thanks to feminists and thier company, my countries ‘equality’ laws label me privileged at birth based on my sex and skin color, so privileged that our laws state I deserve less human rights protection than other “disadvantaged groups”

    Double thinky!

    These nebulous “human” right and equality laws are what allow for supremacist acts likw vawa that give female victims of dv more rights and protection than men who are victims of dv in almost equal numbers to that of women.

    Te can be apllyie dto more than job equity any thing.

    http://tinyurl.com/7pdcw

    http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5092100.stm
    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID16.pdf
    http://tinyurl.com/y49xfb
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/06/btsc.rowlands.batteredmen/index.html

    Feminism is not the patriarchy but it is a bigot with a selfish agenda.

    During Hitler’s reign he implemented laws that gave Jews less rights and protection. Feminists have implement laws that give women more rights and protection.

    Some are more equal than others. Isn’t equal

  2. Hujo says:

    Te can be apllyie dto more than job equity any thing.
    They can be applied to more than job equity, any thing.

    LOL

  3. Alon Levy says:

    Feminists have implement laws that give women more rights and protection.

    In which universe?

    The links you give show that there is domestic violence against both women and men, but that there’s more against women. I’m not sure what the CNN news story is supposed to achieve; if I were the kind that posts news stories of rape and screams at how bad it means the patriarchy is, it would be relevant.

  4. Hujo says:

    Wha?

    This is a post about rights is it not?

    VAWA and other VAW laws give women more protection under law. It discriminates against men, it *would* be a human rights violation except here the human rights law in my country is what allows for the discrimination inherent in VAW laws and affirmative action and biased standards in advertising policy, ANYTHING, it can be applied anywhere.

    So that Group x has less protection from bias as group x is labeled a privileged human based on sex and skin color and group y is labeled “at a disadvantage” So lets create the violence against WOMEN act, or lets hang a whites males need not apply sign on a government dept’s door” No matter the injustice it creates its in the name of what the left tells us is equality. Among other things we are enabling dv against men, discriminating against men in work places and creating an anti-male media in the name of equality.

    Some are more equal than others. Is not equal.

  5. Hujo says:

    Oh sorry, where did vawa and the idea women are more likely at a disadvantage/more worthy of human rights protection come from?

    Feminist lobbies.

  6. Alon Levy says:

    This is a post about rights is it not?

    Yes; it’s not about news stories about men being victimized by domestic violence. By the same token you can argue that because BOW crime existed in the 1950s and 60s, anti-lynching laws discriminated against white people.

    Oh sorry, where did vawa and the idea women are more likely at a disadvantage/more worthy of human rights protection come from?

    My answer would be, “The fact that domestic violence is likelier to be against women than against men, the average anti-female DV case is more severe than the average anti-male DV case, and women have a weaker social support system than men because there’s ongoing economic discrimination against them.”

    But yes, politically, the groups that have noticed those facts and agitated for implementing policy based on them are feminist lobbies.

  7. Hujo says:

    “..and women have a weaker social support system than men because there’s ongoing economic discrimination against them.”

    Yes but this is only a true statement if you ignore; class and age and lack of interest in trades and IT and science and math and the fact 90% of men are killed on the job indicating men take harder jobs with higher pay, and that many women, whom feminists look down on, choose to raise kids and not work, also ignoring opportunity for gender boys are doing much worse in education. That is a lot to ignore. Those feminist lobby groups are real clever in ignoring things like that.

    I would like a concrete example of present economic discrimination against women as we are dealing with present laws.

    Liker? Not by much, severity? If a wife is abusive a man and kids should have a place to go, he should have the same avenues for support as women, the system of support for men does not reflect my statistics nether does the amount of women punished for dv.

    Did you notice the part in the cnn article about women throwing their abused husbands in jail by pointing a finger? How bout trampling of rights?

    “But yes, politically, the groups that have noticed those facts and agitated for implementing policy based on them are feminist lobbies.”

    My, don’t they hate to look at the NOW.

  8. Hujo says:

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4674779

    Here is more recent proof men need equal protection.

    Its funny in nazi Germany Hitler said that the Aryans were at a disadvantage because of the economics controlling Jewish community so he implemented laws that gave Aryans more human right protection.

    Feminist use the patriarchy as there scapegoat to implement supremacy laws for women.

    Why should men go without study or care why should men go without protection from violence they suffer almost equally?

    All men are not born privileged, these laws make all women born privileged, you don’t find it the least bit creepy that our country’s marketing standards state women deserve more protection from negative portrayal in ads, and the only reason the can state this is th HR law, it can be apllied anywhere.

    Some feel the reason for boys educational ills is the gender disparity of male teachers, but OOPS

  9. Hujo says:

    (sorry bad cut and paste)

    …men are privileged in the eyes of the law because they are born with penis, no affirmative action for the privileged second class in education.

    Its 2006 not the 1800’s its time women became equal and by that I mean we remove their feminist implanted privilege from the system, weather its title ix, affirmative action or greater protection in negative portal, they are privileged under the law this creates discrimination against men.

    Have you ever thought maybe the lefts theory about the normal distribution in society is wrong and is mearly perpetuating an elites agenda? I hear feminuts say discrimination over and over but the science, the stats, the facts point to lack of interest in high paying fields.

    So why do we have laws that allow half of the populous to lose thier human right protection again? The reason is equality? HA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: