I understand that you are stating that the rights given by the state are merely social privileges but they are the same thing in the context of the debate. Natural law is simply the law of the universe. Physics, science, the observable and measurable. That's the god given right. All are equal under the natural law and it's based on their means. A star has no right to create a black hole unless it has the mass to do so. for example. The leaf blowing in the wind creates sound on the same principals of a human commanding vocals.

I understand your point. Im just saying changing the name of something but implying the same context doesn't constitute an argument. However, what you state is more along the lines of natural law and the rights found therein.

So, you're talking about top end corporation jobs where wages are "negotiated individually" and when a woman says hey I have a baby on the way and the boss goes "you willing to take a pay cut to pay to have the job?" and she says yes, okay? How is that even a dispute? In your scenario you are literally blaming the woman negotiating the terms of her employment and agreeing to it as the reason woman are so pissed that there is a wage gap...

screw it my statement stands... there is no wage gap... a man can negotiate a pay cut for time off too.

Safe to say that the chaos is the ultimate form of law? Some how it's so chaotic that it actually results in equality? lol

"How exactly do you get from human rights to the rights of a leaf blowing in the wind. Strange leap of context indeed."

Not exactly, when I said that natural law has inherently created natural rights for all provided they have the means to do said thing I meant exactly that. Speaking to one another is simply a vibration from our throat. A leaf blowing in the wind is simply a vibration caused by wind blowing across it... Natural law and the natural right to speak applies to all equally and it is unbiased.

"Once again social privileges are clearly distinct from a human's right to be alive. "

Humans have a right to be alive under natural law and natural right, but that's only because they can be alive. Humans also have the right to die under natural law and natural rights simply because the universe is hostile and impersonal, it devours to survive. That's the way it is and the way it has always been. Socital and economic human rights state nothing about your right to be alive or your right to die. Yet it's in law so some how its there... Kind of leads credibility to the whole debate and what it's about.

"The spirit of the debate was a question regarding human rights between men and women, yet the OP only listed examples that were not human rights. "

Interesting, so you're saying that feminism isn't exactly about equality between economic and social human rights? I kind of had the same feeling bro.

"This same conflation is used by liberals in order to claim that certain social privileges are in fact human rights. Clearly the OP made this conflation, hence my response."

That's weird. I'm the original poster... yet I'm republican and you likened me to liberal. I think you just have the need to be right and will fight dearly to protect that hollow sense of victory.

Human rights are granted by the particular society they are governed by. Natural law governing all life is what I assume you are talking about when you state "as part of creation." by that notion a leaf blowing in the wind and making a rustle has the same right to free speech as any human does.Under natural law all are equal based on their means and nature is inherently unbiased. The stance you take in this argument is a bit of a trump card that can be thrown out here true, but it doesn't exactly conform to the spirit of the debate because you clearly know what was meant by the debate title.

Further note the two definitions of Feminism is as follows

1

: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

2

: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Therefore under definition of feminism which the debate was about, but you can only chunk it in so many words when creating a debate here is about womens rights and when you deal with both sex's it becomes human rights and interests.

While that is true in the sense that a man could never be a woman or vice versa are you saying that equal rights, equal pay and equal treatment for an action no matter what that action is woman seem to come out on top. That meaning women are treated better than their male counterparts in the majority of cases?

So are you saying that in many of the issues that woman care about themselves are in fact happening even worse to men?

In the case of a wage gap, I believe there is no such thing. The greatest argument I could ever reasonably conceive of on this issue is that corporations are about making money. The best way to make money is to save money. If women were making so much less then men on average, in the spirit of cutting costs and saving where they can you would see many more men jobless and woman taking over those positions simply because they are the cheaper option.

She's free to do what she wants, free to believe what she wants, free to be who she wants and I hardly believes she cares what anyone thinks about it.