Quickly, to define what I think of as a non-right: e.g. If you have the right to private property, then my non-right in relationship to you is your private property. My non-right begins where your right places a stake. See, rights are individually protected, as non-rights are guarded against. I am going to examine an egalitarian model of relationship (because rights and non-rights always exist in a relationship) as far as rights are concerned.
One thing to note is that in a patriarchal society, rights were kept by the man, as his societal function was protector/image bearer of the family. Woman had no rights. However, there are many stakes that are placed in our society which protect the [natural] rights of women that did not exist at the time key NT passages were written.
As I study hermeneutics, it becomes more and more clear that one ought to read the Bible exegetically for principles (whether in who God is, or whether in how we should response, or practical, and so on). Principles, which are heavily influenced by society, cannot contain societal or cultural normalities. They just can't!
In this I believe a reassessed pragmatic approach to gender studies (in light of my espoused equal gender competency / potential) is in hand. Pragmatics, which always reflect another angle of cultural truth, should bring pause to understood ontological presuppositions (non-biological, non anatomical). This is where non-rights come into play. More later...
