Any anti-feminists? Any feminists?

[ScienceAf]

1) Of course they are merits of equality. Women have equality, because of paper that the majority follows.
If it is not followed, the ones in power (The Gov't) will punish. Paper or words, the majority and the most powerful rules and we must follow their creed.

Hey, could you find me the spot in the Constitution where everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work?

You can't find it, because it's not in there. But is certainly one inequality that feminism helped to ameliorate -- although it still exists, particularly with regard to race.

2) Well the majority didn't seem to agree with it, (Sorry, I don't know much about the Nisei, could you clarify?) and the change from the AoC to the Constitution just shows that if those words weren't altered to create a different framework for the government things would have gone differently.

You seem to think I'm arguing that words are meaningless, I'm not. It's important to have rights enumerated legally. But that doesn't guarantee rights in practice.

I'm pretty sure, by the way, that the majority of Americans agreed with both Jim Crow and interning Japanese in the camps.

3) Feminism became obsolete when women had gotten rights. If you think words on paper (decided by the majority and the powerful) don't have meaning, that apparently means women have less rights? No. It would mean they have different rights.

Yeah, that's kinda the point, you know. Equal rights, not different. You're mounting a pretty incoherent argument here: feminism is obsolete because women have different rights than men. Equal rights means that all people share the same panoply of rights regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion or lack thereof, etc.

So that would mean that men also have some problems to? Yeah. Stereotypes such as women don't lie about rape ("Take all accusations of rape against women by men to be true!") would be set into motion. Because certainly a lot of people see women as victims.

Why are you introducing this into this conversation? It's entirely irrelevant.

The majority doesn't see women as tools or sub-human.

No one said the majority sees them any way at all.

So if the words on paper don't have meaning. The thoughts of the majority certainly do.

Leaving aside the fact that I didn't say "words on paper have no meaning", the fact is that if your good treatment is dependent upon majority opinion, that is not a right at all.

1) Sure, it's not in the constitution, but when we needed feminism it helped (along with other movements) lead to the "Civil rights act of 1964". And of course not everyone deserves equal pay. There's qualifications to be met.

2) I meant that the majority didn't and after a while through protests, movements, etc, they came to a change in mind.

3) I'm saying if the claim was true then the rights would have been different rather than less. But we have equal rights.

4) Forgot why.

5) Exactly

6) Well there is no objective opinion and the majority can not always be justified, however the majority sees women as equal and the majority/gov't holds the power.

P.S
What's your definition of equality?
What rights do men have that women don't?