it does, though the feminist movement has been corrupted and is far worst than what it was back in the day with all the "man-splaining" and "man-spreading" we got back half a decade ago. i haven't seen much now, with the exception of the people who hate karen memes

Yeah, I think those feminists should get back to basics.

When second-wave feminist gains like abortion rights are under assault in this country, then it's time to dial back the controversial, bleeding-edge, third-wave cultural stuff.

true that. they should focus on... well... real issues.

Ok, yes this post is good and i after with that definition, but this topic is very detailed which leaves me with one question. Should women have only the same rights as men, or have more than that, i.e abortion rights. I only ask this because this is again a detailed matter and should have more included.

That's supposed to say "agree" not after

Good question.

The principle of male-female (and racial, etc.) equality under the law is known as the "Equal Protection Clause," and it's found in the 14th Amendment.

However, men and women are obviously biologically different when it comes to reproduction. Men can't get pregnant, and therefore they don't need abortion rights.

So when it comes to the analysis of abortion rights, we have to look somewhere other than the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court in 1973 found that the Due Process Clause, also found in the 14th Amendment, provides a "right to privacy" applicable in this instance:

"In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a 'right to privacy' that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, it held that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as 'fundamental', which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the 'strict scrutiny' standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Every abortion-related decision since Roe v. Wade -- and there have been quite a few -- has accepted this fundamental analysis. To my knowledge, there's not a single justice, liberal or conservative, on the current Supreme Court who disagrees with it.

For me, when it comes to abortion rights, the "right to privacy" is about recognizing that the government cannot decide a woman's destiny whether or not to choose to bear children. At least, up to a certain point.

But in the third trimester, the Roe v. Wade court -- and I -- would agree that states can regulate abortion in the interests of preserving fetal life.

Why thank you for that answer but, I know of one justice that disagrees with abortion. Now because this is a democracy, technically speaking, the radical conservatives are a justice that disagrees with the right to abort. Now I for one think it is better, not to mention cheaper, to use safer sex practices or not do it unless you are ready to bear a child, I still think that, if needed be, a woman should abort the child.

Of all the justices, Clarence Thomas has offered the strongest language against abortion, but he's stopped well short of calling it murder.

See his concurrence in Box v. Planned Parenthood, decided in 2019.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf

And receive equal respect.

The dirty little secret of feminism is that pretty much every American in the year 2020 is a feminist already, in most respects, whether they realize it or not.

There are a handful of issues, like abortion/reproductive rights, #MeToo, and some niche cultural concerns, that continue to fuel anti-feminist backlash among some, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Most Americans these days support women getting educated, competing in the workplace on an equal footing as men, having the freedom to choose their sexual/marriage partners, and generally controlling their own destinies. And the right to vote of course. These are some of the bigger gains of the feminist movement over the past 100+ years.

Modern life without feminism would be almost unthinkable. I say "almost unthinkable" only because there continue to be places in the world that don't have much feminism at all. Places like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

I ran into an ImgFlipper yesterday who called feminism a "Cancer of the West," but nobody in the West wants that kind of society. At least, I hope not.