What If You Get Rights Wrong?

 https://x.com/ColorMeWhitePr/status/2098785611737948341

 https://x.com/dvorstone/status/2098838079872385146?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Her commentary exposes a critical confusion around the concept of "rights," and it's very important, but it'll take me a second to get to the point: 1. Women generally conceive of "rights" as privileges or entitlements, i.e., things they're allowed to do. Thus, more "rights" means more "freedom." This concept of rights can defined as "being without constraint." The primary influence here is Rousseau. 2. Men, on the other hand, tend to think of freedom as a state of undisturbed accountability, i.e., "being without restraint," i.e., no one is preventing them from acting but they're fully accountable for the results. The primary influence here is Locke, and it's more prominent in the U.S., whereas the other variant is more common elsewhere. The meaning of this is that men tend to associate rights as a restriction on others. Women tend to think of rights as an obligation on others. So, the statement "I have the right be safe walking the streets at night" is nonsense to a man. He thinks he has the right to walk at night and he has the right to defend himself from attack, but the claim that he has the right to be "safe" is incoherent. To a woman, the statement means "it is the duty of others to ensure that I am able to do this thing." Another example is "I have a right medical care." This means "someone is obligated to provide this to me" in the Rousseauean sense. In the Lockean sense, it means "It is morally permissible for me to use violence to acquire healthcare." So, to a man, rights are a static thing that define their relationship to coercive force, i.e., under what conditions they can use force or it can be used against them. To women, in general, rights can increase. You can get more of them. This is why a constant political concern is "expanding rights." They're using the state to compel more and more people to service their list of expectations. The result of all of this is that men and women have radically different emotional responses to rights because: 1. To women, this means the more rights they have, the more people are working to satisfy those rights. More rights = more provision, security, and so on. It means more people are working to take care of them. Rights are the means by which they manufacture of collective/public husband or father. 2. To men, their rights are static but whether or not they're respected by the state is in question. Thus, "more rights" means more domains in which the state isn't interfering, which means FEWER people are working on his behalf and more is on his plate. Thus, emotionally, "more rights" to women feels good, whereas "more rights" to men feels burdensome or even scary. For women, "rights" are an unqualified good. More is always better because it has no relationship to their personal aptitude or character. For men, rights mean more is on their plate and they might actually not be capable of handling that, and so limiting or restricting rights accordingly could be to their own benefit. Rights, to a man, depend on capacity. This is why children don't have full rights, along with dementia patients, and so on. Your rights correspond to your capacity. But not to women. Rights are a measure of how much you're being supported by the community. Thus, children and even animals have "rights." It's a measure of care and support, and has nothing to do with capacity. So this woman says that white women have so many rights, this is what she means. She means that Western society is largely oriented towards taking care of white women, and said women don't appreciate that. It has nothing to do with the Lockean notion of rights as defining a moral constraint and duty. This is why women hold on to the notion of voting as a "right" because if it is a right then it's necessarily good because it's "more." If we just started saying "your duty to vote" instead of "your right to vote," fewer women would be as emotionally attached. A huge amount of politics in a liberal democracy is explained by this concept."