How would you deal with the Kantian positive x negative rights idea when applied to women in our current gender paradigm in most of the world?
For those who don't know what it is, from Wikipedia:
"Negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either action (positive rights) or inaction (negative rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights.
To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian."
The idea is basically that only negative rights are legitimate, i.e. you can be prohibited from doing some stuff, but you can't be obliged to do stuff. But I see it as a problem when applied to women because when women can't be obliged to do stuff, society is at danger because we need women to do stuff in order for society to function properly, like having enough kids to maintain fertility rates, be good moms, preserve the genetics of a nation, etc. Women are too much important as a reproductive resource to be allowed freedom to do as they wish.
Men also have their share of obligations in order for society to function properly, but they're obliged by nature to do work for example, or else nobody will have food to eat. The effects of men not doing what they need to do is more perceptible in the short run.
What do you think about this?
For those who don't know what it is, from Wikipedia:
"Negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either action (positive rights) or inaction (negative rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights.
To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian."
The idea is basically that only negative rights are legitimate, i.e. you can be prohibited from doing some stuff, but you can't be obliged to do stuff. But I see it as a problem when applied to women because when women can't be obliged to do stuff, society is at danger because we need women to do stuff in order for society to function properly, like having enough kids to maintain fertility rates, be good moms, preserve the genetics of a nation, etc. Women are too much important as a reproductive resource to be allowed freedom to do as they wish.
Men also have their share of obligations in order for society to function properly, but they're obliged by nature to do work for example, or else nobody will have food to eat. The effects of men not doing what they need to do is more perceptible in the short run.
What do you think about this?
