Hacker News Reader

Comment by Forgeties79 | Hacker News Reader

I’m having a hard time buying the argument that the law prefers women when women just had their bodily autonomy stripped away across the US only a few years ago and the very real, awful history that lead to the “me too” movement due to years of women not being taken seriously in the eyes of the law.

I have a feeling this comment will not sit well with you but I am very much willing to engage this in good faith. I don’t see what you’re seeing. There are definitely domains where different genders have the advantage, but to act like the law as a whole benefits women over men…that dog don’t hunt IMO

Education, there is a stronger argument there (re admissions and such, not safety). I agree that has gotten messy as hell at the very least.

Workplace, similar to my issue with the law claim.

View on HN

It's not clear to me that women's bodily autonomy is starkly disadvantaged in US law vs men's.

The law protects female infants from circumcision in a way that it doesn't protect male infants.

The law requires men to register for the draft.

Men who have been circumcised and/or drafted surely outnumber women who have been denied an abortion in modern America.

The comparative scope and impact of those insults to bodily autonomy is debatable, but I don't think it's so black-and-white that someone might reasonably prefer the overall status of women in the eyes of US law.

(Just to be clear, I think everyone's bodily autonomy should be protected.)

Citing conscription is incredibly disingenuous. Nobody's getting drafted again.

And surely we are discussing life in the US today for young men and women, not for the vanishing number in their late 70s and 80s who were drafted into Vietnam.

I hope your prediction is correct. Some people predicted that abortion wouldn't be prosecuted again, but they were wrong. Things can change quickly in law and government.

In response to the grandparent's comment,

>I’m having a hard time buying the argument that the law prefers women when women just had their bodily autonomy stripped away

I can see how someone might look at the legal landscape and prefer to be a man with no chance of becoming pregnant and having to face the legal risks of abortion. I can also see how someone might look at the risk of conscription and prefer to be a woman.

A fair accounting of who the law prefers might take into account written law on abortion, conscription, and infant genital cutting, and possible unwritten biases, like criminal sentencing disparities, divorce court imbalances, and the difficulties and biases in prosecuting sexual assault. It's just not clear to me that "bodily autonomy" is a bright razor that separates men from women in US law.

> Citing conscription is incredibly disingenuous. Nobody's getting drafted again.

But they are still legally required to register, aren't they?

Imagine if women were required to register to something that is no longer done, but there is still a penalty for not registering, and you cannot be 100% sure that in future the situation won't change. Would that be okay?

Still required, it's called Selective Service, and:

> A man who fails to register may be ineligible for opportunities important to his future. He must register to be eligible for state-funded student financial aid and employment in many states, most federal employment, job training under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men.

> Penalties for Failing to Register

> If required to register, failure to register is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the registration requirement is subject to the same penalties

https://www.sss.gov/register/benefits-and-penalties/

Just to be clear:

Female "circumcision" is actually severing a part of the body dense with nerves that is extremely important to orgasm, and often done to a developed child or teen. It is done without anesthetic, and is a horrifyingly traumatic experience.

Male circumcision (correct use of the term) involves removing a circle of tissue with far fewer nerves from a baby, who will not remember the event.

It's disgusting to conflate the two mutilations. God, the misogyny on this forum...

Sorry, I should have said

>The law protects female infants from genital cutting in a way that it doesn't protect male infants.

There's a wide gamut of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting practices, which range from causing severe permanent damage to leaving no lasting physically-detectable changes. Standard male circumcision falls somewhere between those extremes.

Whatever their differences, one thing they have in common is that they both violate bodily autonomy. But only one is legal.

The grandparent comment is skeptical of the argument that the law prefers women, citing recent abortion restrictions as a removal of women's bodily autonomy. I'm pointing out that men also lack bodily autonomy under current laws, so a "has bodily autonomy" checkbox doesn't automatically reveal which group the law prefers -- one would have to debate the costs and benefits to each group and form a subjective conclusion.

Two things can be horrible even if they are not horrible in exactly the same way.

Punching someone and shooting someone are also 2 painful events for the that someone. Are they the same event?

Nothing I wrote implied otherwise.

Everything in the comment you wrote implied otherwise. Literally the whole comment was just about that.

>their bodily autonomy stripped away across the US only a few years ago

Babies are not the same person as their mom

Reply on news.ycombinator.com