This does not mean you have to completely ignore the gender issue. We must soberly, without regard to stereotypes and rooted advocacy look at the current situation and think about sex, whose same rights must be protected now.
Discrimination against men - this is a fact that is not recognized by any formal structure in the world, not understood by public opinion, but which nevertheless exists, regardless of whether you admit it or not.
To begin with some statistics on Russia and hole world:
• Average life expectancy for men in
Russia for 14 years less than women.
• More than one million men die from heart disease and blood vessels, which is about ten times more than women.
• Mortality of men at a young age (15-24 year) more than three times that among women.
• At the age of seventy years and more the number of men in the four times lower than that of women.
• from injuries sustained in the workplace, men are killed ten times more than women.
• From all types of violence of men killed in a two times greater than women.
• Annually completing suicide for men is six times higher than women.
• 70% suffer from drug addiction - men (usually young men).
• 80% of patients with AIDS - as men.
• 85% of all homeless people - men.
• Males accounted for 95% of all inhabitants of prisons.
And yet we hear almost daily about the need to protect women's rights, allocating more funds for research in the area of specialized women's health and the media carefully cultivates the image of the female victim, for whose rights must be fought relentlessly all people of goodwill. Hypocrisy and self-evident.
Even the few rights that, at least legally available to us by the bourgeois state, against men confidently ignored.
The right to life.
1. Everyone has the right to life. (Constitution, Art. 20)
Thus, Article 20 of the Russian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to life, and Article 56, paragraph 3 states that the rights and freedoms provided for in Article 20, shall not be restricted. But in reality, only half of the country's citizens - that is, only women - has this right - men are de facto deprived of the right to life. The state has the right at any time to dispose of man's life at his discretion up to its complete elimination.
This, above all, talking about forced recruitment into the army. Pick up the strength of its punitive organs man in the army, the state disposes of them as their own property, lowering his status to that of a slave, and from that moment may be quite free to send a man into a situation that would directly threaten his life, we are primarily talking about the so-called "hot spots", ie armed conflicts of varying intensity, but not only: since 1986 hundreds of thousands of men were called and sent to Chernobyl, where the raging radioactive death. Look at today, even the survivors of Chernobyl, all or nearly all of them are men, not women, the state has no right to control women's lives and the lives of men - yes! The state has the right to kill males with impunity. Masculine, but not female. But on what grounds? Based on these lines now of military regulations?
- To be loyal to the military oath, to serve their people selflessly, courageously, skillfully, not sparing their blood and life itself, to defend the Russian Federation, to perform military duty, endure the difficulties of military service;
As you can see a man-servicemen shall not spare their blood and life itself to serve my people, that is, the Constitution guarantees life, and the document did not even know the second or third level, obliges him to die for his people. While the immediate question arises: people are - let me know who? Is he the man does not belong to the people, not a part of? In fact, it appears that no! But the military regulations, in principle, can not cancel or replace the Constitution for the citizens. However, since de facto it is going to have to admit that men are full citizens of the state does not recognize. The Constitution guarantees a person lives, and military regulations tells men not to spare his life, the Constitution prohibits torture and ensure decent treatment, but this document tells the young man to endure difficulties, justifying all tyranny, all the mockery of him, giving them the appearance of legitimacy. What it is, we know.
For example, when the country marks the end of 1995, in Grozny overnight killing several hundred young men. They say up to a thousand. It is said that the operation was poorly prepared. They say that many guys have just been called. But be that as it may, the state had the right to send these guys to death and do not incur any responsibility. A total of Chechnya killed to date of the order of ten thousand troops, most of which was sent there to die by force, as well as to lay this head of 14000 troops in Afghanistan and thousands more in other hot spots. The state has no right to send to death a woman unless she herself voluntarily before that did not express their consent or contract (and it's likely the state will try not to risk her life). So much for local conflicts. But there are more and mobilization plans in case of major wars - there it comes to millions. Thus, during the eighteen-WWII guys went to the front straight at school. Overall during the Second World War laid the head of 11 million citizens of a male dressed in military uniforms of the USSR. The state had the right, while their counterparts have the right to be safe, look for protection from death, away from the front line, and in this case to call them deserters, and were not shot by the verdict of the tribunal (while shooting their peers filmed at the propaganda films). Just as today, any age as eighteen guy can be completely confident that the State did not send her to one point in Chechnya to risk their lives, as in any other hot spots. Just like any other woman, not having a special contract with the army, can be confident that it will call not on any charges, where she would be in danger, if not for the fact that to send to the center of another blazing conflict. And this, not to mention the fact that she served in the army even in peacetime, as it relates to the treatment of deadly weapons, poses a risk to human life. So, according to official figures, every year in the peaceful army of about one thousand soldiers are killed, according to unofficial - about three thousand.
And here is another piece of military regulations:
Do not use weapons against women and minors, except in cases of an armed attack, armed resistance or a group attack that threatens the lives of soldiers and other citizens, unless other means and methods to reflect such an attack or resistance is futile.
- Ie, the statute permits the use of weapons against women only in extreme cases, against women, emphasizing their particular high status, but not the men - against men, against their kind, are allowed to use their weapons freely, without restrictions, as against a person with a lower legal status, not having the right to life de facto. A similar plan for a new amendment to the Criminal Code of self-defense: so a woman who kills a man, do not have to prove that she faces a real danger man, he must, especially if the attacking a woman.
Another part of the right to life - the question of the death penalty. It is known that the majority of citizens in Russia in favor of the death penalty. While their views are not taken into account - but who knows how to turn into the situation. The death penalty, as is commonly believed, especially appointed by ruthless criminals, but even here an exception is made for women - a woman sentenced to capital punishment is legally impossible. Law enforcement officials know how much more violent than men, are women who commit serious criminal offenses, and indeed, for the victim and his relatives have no great difference of principle, who had brought them grief - male or female, but women here have advantages have the right to life, to him the death penalty (including life imprisonment) is not applicable, no matter what crime they had committed.
Now as a conclusion, let's just think about whether feminists and their allies have a moral right to hold forth on discrimination against women is such that they were allegedly in the Duma does not tolerate or do not even get a salary at a time when men not so much with the Duma, or with the salary of the problem: they lack the most basic and elementary, the starting point of anything and everything - the right to life, because what is the point man to be someone else, or have something, if he has no right to simply dispose of their lives?
American human rights advocate Warren Farrell has determined that the power that so often like to ascribe to men, begins with the law, with authority to dispose of his life, his body, in short, his personal. Both the state and social consciousness is most often seen absolute hypocrisy when it comes to basic rights of men. Warren Farrell put it on this occasion as follows:
We do not call the extermination of male sexism (ie, sex discrimination), we call it "glory". We do not call one million men killed or wounded in a battle of the First World War (Battle of the River. Somme - the Battle of the Somme), the Holocaust, we call it "service to the fatherland." We do not call those who chose only men to send them to death, "murderers." We call them "the electorate".
Sorry for my english