I would like to introduce Women's Rights, a struggling and slowly growing subreddit.

bluequail · 2012-10-01T16:17:31+00:00

Some time back, VA had started the subreddit r/womens_rights. In fact, VA knows that I am not one of the bra waving, bra burning feminists, and I told him in...

[–]Thuren 45 points46 points47 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I want justice and opportunity for all.

So do I. This is why I am hoping to make this a group that is about women's rights, but mostly fueled by men. Not by women who want to see the victims of false suffer for existing.

Like I had said to the mods when I approached them about putting this intro in, I had always worked heavy industry. Quite frankly, I've never had a serious problem working in a predominantly male environment, and that the two genders do so much better when they work to compliment each other, instead of working as two opposing forces. I don't have to be a man to work in a male industry, and a man doesn't have to hate men to support women's rights.

In the US, the problem is fairly minimal. I know that once upon a time (many years ago), that in the US, men had to make more, because they were supporting a whole family without any help. But in this day and age, most families are dual income, because not a lot of families can survive at a financial level with just one income.

I also know that there are serious women's rights problems for women in other countries.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magrias 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You do not remember correctly. Presently in the U.S., women are paid substantially more than men for equal work. As I have pointed out, this is shown clearly by the CPS. They are 50% more likely to earn college degrees (correlated with white collar work), and have a considerably lower unemployment rate. This does not sound like they are victims of discrimination.

I am not aware of men who think sexual harassment is harmless. You have not established that there are a meaningful number of them, or that women are any less likely to act inappropriately. Men as a population are as aware of what constitutes harassment as women, even the ones that act inappropriately. Women are not intellectually or morally superior to men to the extent that they are uniquely qualified to spot harassment, as you seem to think. I am aware of no evidence that women are discriminated against in white-collar jobs. I am aware of an abundance of evidence that women are the b. I have beneficiaries of discrimination against men, and largely responsible for it. I have just described some of it.

If you are aware of firms that promote less able men over better qualified women, please give me enough details that this allegation can be substantiated. Who are these businessmen and businesswomen that intentionally harm their businesses and profits? You know discrimination against women (but not against men) is illegal in the workplace, right? If your allegation is true, and widespread, you will have an avalanche of successful lawsuits to cite. Please do so.

Your reply to my questions did not include any answers.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 53 points54 points55 points 13 years ago (198 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (172 children) | Copy Link

They just need to deal with responsibility too, and that just doesn't seem to be happening over a wide variety of areas.

I often wonder. Is it truly that "that many" women are out of touch, or if it is the few that are - are so vocal that it makes them all look crazy. Something to be said for the old saying "one bad apple spoils the bunch".

But this is why I am advertising this in MensRights. I want to focus on the issues that are related to women, but affect men indirectly as well. If I had wanted to promote female chauvinism, I would have advertised this in 2X. But I don't feel that "that" would help either side.

Some of the things that bother me are things like government feeling like it has the right to limit birth control on women. Certain politicians (like Akin) that feel it is acceptable to talk as though women are not much more than the family pet.

I can only ask that you guys join me in this, and help forge it into what you'd like to see as far as women's rights go. I am hoping to turn it into something that involves conversation about the issues and provoke deeper thought.

[–]blueoak9 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]NWOslave -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I disagree completely. If the law said it wasn't illegal to rape women and a substantial portion of men did rape women, who would you blame? You would rightfully blame the men who raped.

If a woman aborts a mans child above his protests, she has killed his child. If a woman kidnaps a man child through divorce court, she is to blame. A piece of paper with ink on it, which is all a law is, can never be blamed.

All you're are doing blueoak9 and bluequail, is once again relieving women of all responsibility for their actions. Abortion alone is nothing more than the total relieving of women being responsible for their actions. How could it be anything else? You weren't forced to have sex, you chose to. So now if you get pregnant, the child is unwanted? There are a million things in life that are unwanted, hard or unpleasant. Yet once the deed is done in every other situation you have to pay the piper. But not in this case, yet someone always ceases to exist after a successful abortion.

It's an undeniable fact that if you weren't alive at conception you wouldn't be alive now. Yet we, as a civilization, have decided we know better. We say that fetus has yet to achieve personhood. They have yet to achieve the right to life. We pat ourselves on the back at how moral and advanced we are as we slaughter the unborn by the millions every year. We haven't progressed at all. We've regressed into a barbarian horde, bereft of compassion for those who can't even speak in their own defense. Civilized? We're anything but.

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If a woman aborts a mans child above his protests, she has killed his child.

On this note. But if he forces her to have the child, she has been made to carry a child to term against her will. What do you feel would be an fair solution to both? I'd like to hear it, because I can't think of what the answer would be.

All you're are doing blueoak9 and bluequail, is once again relieving women of all responsibility for their actions.

Just for the record, I am not blueoak9. You can probably verify that through admin - definitely have my permission to look, but you might want to ask their permission as well. In fact, just now (a second ago), peeked at (I am guessing "his"? posting history), and they have been a staunch MR poster, and I have not been.

Abortion alone is nothing more than the total relieving of women being responsible for their actions. How could it be anything else? You weren't forced to have sex, you chose to. So now if you get pregnant, the child is unwanted?

Please tell me that no man ever wanted a woman to have an abortion, and that every man hit with an unexpected pregnancy wanted the woman to carry the child to term, that he wanted to pay 18-24 years of support. Please tell me this.

Yet once the deed is done in every other situation you have to pay the piper.

So you are saying that there is no benefit to any man, any where, from a woman getting an abortion? That you speak for all men when you say that it is a woman's problem, and that men do not want for women to get an abortion when there is an unplanned pregnancy. More than that, why don't you start a self in MR, and let the male masses tell me this. Because I wouldn't have a problem at all with telling women that men want them to have their babies, that men want to be financially responsible and pay a minimum of 18 years of child support, and that there is nothing they want more than to be the fathers of a dozen surprise children.

Abortion is something that I view as beneficial to both genders. That it was actually as beneficial to men than it was to women, because it let them off of the hook for having to pay for a child that they were in all likelyhood going to have little contact with.

[–]NWOslave -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Abortion is death, plain and simple. We can call it happy pro-this or pro-that names. the fact is, someone is dead after a successful abortion. Only a truely degraded society could ever consider something so abhorent, beneficial or good. Whats a life worth? Let's calculate out the $$$$$ amount. Is the cost a little too pricey, is it unwanted.

Well then let's just pretend like it's not really life. We'll say things like its just a collection of tissue, or it hasn't achieved personhood. Oh and clear my concience while your at it. If a woman stops at the door to an abortion clinic and changes her mind, is that the moment the fetus achieves personhood?

Am I less dead if I'm aborted after four months or shot dead tommorow? As little as 80 years ago abortion was an unthinkable act of murder. Today, it's a right, and it's unthinkable to restrain a woman from getting an abortion. What's changed? The act of abortion is still the same, the only thing that's changed is our values and morality.

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_trepverter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (152 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (149 children) | Copy Link

[–]jvardrake 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Let me start off by saying that I am not one of the crazies who thinks that women should be "put back into the kitchen". In the eyes of the law + government, I want to see men/women being treated exactly the same - both in rights and obligations. That being said, how does that mesh with these two situations you have brought up:

1). they are trying to repeal abortion rights

How is it fair/equal that if a man has sex with someone - and neither of the involved parties do so with with the intent of having children - but the woman becomes pregnant anyhow, the man's only "right" is to "man up" and support the child/woman, but the woman has the "right" to:

have an abortion
give the child up for adoption
drop the child off at a "baby-drop-box"
decide to have the child, and have the state force the man into supporting said child for the next ~20 years

My point here isn't that abortion should be illegal, but that I don't understand how one gender should be held responsible for the results of having sex, when the other has tons of "options", including those that are considered "rights". It seems like, in order for things to be fair/equal, either both sides should be held responsible for their decision to have sex, or neither side should.

2). Also, one bit of legislation that was recently passed was so that women who are employed by churches should be able to have access to insurance paid for contraception. The churches rebelled against this, and it is one of the things that the republicans (namely Romney) are promising will be repealed if they come into office

If a woman makes a choice to work for a church (or other religious institution), why should it be the woman's "right" to force their beliefs on the church? If getting paid-for-by-insurance contraception is so important to a woman, wouldn't it just be more logical for her to not work for a church? I just don't see "free" contraception as being that fundamental of a human right that the government needs to force employers to provide it. Are employers required to provide insurance that supplies men with condoms?

[–]DerpaNerb 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I am going to start by directing you to my opinion here (from earlier in the thread)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10rle9/i_would_like_to_introduce_womens_rights_a/c6g1vzq

If a woman makes a choice to work for a church (or other religious institution), why should it be the woman's "right" to force their beliefs on the church?

Especially in this economic climate, I believe that a lot of women take what jobs they can get. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that a lot of people are involved in churches, not because they believe what is being taught there, but because it is sort of a clique that they have to be a part of to be accepted by community. That it is nearly impossible to be a part of some communities without being a part of a church group. Yea, I believe they are going for the wrong reason, but not everyone has the luxury that I do, of just blocking the things that are distasteful to them from out of their lives.

I'll give you an example. The Houston Ship Pilots association. It is kind of a murmured thing that you need to be a Mason to be accepted to join. And that no one that is a part of it isn't a Mason. My husband is a towboat captain with 8 issues on his license (unlimited master's license), and knows the Houston Ship Channel like the back of his hand. He could make $100K/year more than he is currently making, but he doesn't want to be a Mason. So he is excluded from being able to join them.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jvardrake 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think we are looking at this differently. I am a small government person. I don't want the government to be given the power to force people/companies into doing anything more than absolutely necessary.

Protecting people's/workers' rights is necessary. Paid-for-by-insurance-contraception for women only (again, I'm not aware of a government mandate forcing insurance to provide condoms to men)? How is that something that is so necessary, that it needs to be deemed a right?

Unless it's the case of a particular form of contraception being used for some other medical benefit (which I think some of them can be used for?), the only thing contraception does, is make it so that one can engage in sex without fear of having it result in a child. How is that a necessity?

Personally, I don't care one way or the other about whether or not people do that - their having sex is none of my business. If that's what they want to do, however, they can pay for it (and they - i.e. both of them - should be held responsible for the results of their decisions). Why should I, or a company, be forced to subsidize their behavior?

That being said, I am not blind to the argument that people are going to engage in casual sex no matter what, and that whatever moral objections people may have, the results of that sex - lots of unwanted children - are a bigger problem for society. In fact, it definitely seems like the people of the United States should engage in a discussion about this very thing. It should be something that the people decides, though. It shouldn't be just one administration deciding that, even though roughly half the populace seems opposed to it, they are going to force their will on the rest.

Also, if we do decide that government should be mandating that free contraception should be available, it needs to be available to both genders - not just women.

In any event - as it it now - as long as employers aren't able to forbid employees from using contraception (which would be absolutely ridiculous), I don't think the government should be sticking its nose into this.

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Protecting people's/workers' rights is necessary. Paid-for-by-insurance-contraception for women only (again, I'm not aware of a government mandate forcing insurance to provide condoms to men)? How is that something that is so necessary, that it needs to be deemed a right?

As a planet, I feel that it is important to minimize the numbers of people being born. I feel that contraception is important for all, not just women. I support free contraception for both genders, and even though right now the only two forms of contraception that is available to men is condoms and vasectomies, right now they are working on a contraceptive for men at TAMU. If it is ever approved, I think it needs to be free or paid for by insurance.

the only thing contraception does, is make it so that one can engage in sex without fear of having it result in a child. How is that a necessity?

It isn't the fear of having a child, but the risk of having one. Having a child that isn't wanted is a very real consequence of having sex. It has derailed the plans of a successful life of many people. And you aren't going to be able to stop people from having sex.

Also, if we do decide that government should be mandating that free contraception should be available, it needs to be available to both genders - not just women.

I agree.

[–]pocketknifeMT 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

Let me ask you this: do you feel it benefits you to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?

The church/birth control is all about who pays for birth control, not whether or not it can be obtained or used.

The church issue especially irritates me. The women are paying for their health insurance through their jobs at the church. They are being selective on what they choose to cover. And often, church employees aren't offered the opportunity to purchase secular insurance through their jobs.

And in my home state of Tx - funding to planned parenthood has already been cut. So it isn't only a church issue.

What if the issue instead was covering heart issues. If they said "well, it was your choice to eat steak and twinkies, and since it was your own choice, we won't cover your heart medication or surgery".

I feel that with the church/birth control issue, it is a matter of religion exerting its influence over government.

I buy my own condoms; Buy your own pills.

That being said, insurance has never covered my pills. I have always had to pay out of pocket for them. But I also see overpopulation as being a serious problem.

Have you ever seen a condom fail? Would you want to pay 24 - 26 years of support for that? Some courts are ordering parents to pay higher educational costs for their offspring as well as insurance to that age. I've seen condoms fail, but that was a little over 30 years ago, maybe they make them better now.

Some women don't like the side effects of existing chemically based birth controls, and end up buying condoms themselves. They aren't asking for those to be paid for.

Myself, I have always viewed condoms as more of a disease barrier, and birth control as a means of preventing a pregnancy.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Let me ask you this? Do you think it benefits you to support women women who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ignore men who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Women are not paying for their health insurance. All members of the pool are paying. You care about retaining benefits for women. You do not seem to care about achieving those benefits for men. You want to preserve women's superior status, not bring about equality.

In Texas, was Planned Parenthood funding cut only for women's services? What proportion of services were given to men and women before? And now? What you want is to retain and increase the inequity, right?

In what ways does religion exert influence over women but not men regarding birth control?

Are courts ordering mostly men or mostly women to pay higher educational costs for their children? In what way is this a disadvantage to women?

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Are courts ordering mostly men or mostly women to pay higher educational costs for their children?

They have, when they felt the father could afford it.

In what way is this a disadvantage to women?

It isn't a disadvantage to women. It is an example of why the ability to prevent or stop an unwanted pregnancy is so important.

Do you think it benefits you to support women women who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ignore men who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

For starters, it benefits me by not having to support the unwanted children by paying taxes to support them. That the taxes that we pay go to house, provide medical, free lunches, and educate and everything else that go to support these children that are unwanted and are born into families that can not afford them. That is how it benefits me.

I don't want to ignore men who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I think a man should have as much choice to stop an unwanted pregnancy, or they ought to be allowed to opt out of any part of raising a child that was unwanted to them, after offering to pay for an abortion.

The only downside I can offer is that I can not say that it is right to force a woman to go the duration of a pregnancy that she doesn't want to undergo. So if a man does want a child, and the woman refuses, I can't think of a fair way to let him keep the child while forcing the woman to go the duration of a pregnancy. I am going to have to ask him to write that one off, and it isn't right. I wished someone could tell me what is a fair solution to that.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_trepverter 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On this note. The government does stuff like this all of the time. Not that "that" makes it right.

I am a smoker. The state raised the taxes on cigarettes, under the claim that they needed the money to pay for the medical expenses of smokers. The state of Texas is also collecting an additional 580 million a year from the tobacco industry.

Does the money go to cover the medical expenses of smokers? No. It goes for rehabilitation program for prisoners. It goes for health insurance for low income children, and my children are already covered by insurance. I am related to no prisoner and I have no low income children. And yet in the meantime, I am paying a little over $1500/year in taxes to support these causes, just through cigarettes. That isn't counting the other taxes we pay.

If you get it from insurance, the ENTIRE pool pays for it. Barren/post-menopause women and men are losers in this scenario.

Men and post menopausal women benefit from it by not having to support children that are born to people who can't afford them. Contraception is a lot cheaper than 20+ years of support.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]bluequail[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oasisisthewin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, completely besides the fact that China is a very different country.

My point was that if people kept being born in the US, and the race into overpopulation continues like it is, people in the US are going to be facing the same "work for pennies or starve to death" scenarios that China has.

Someone I know went to China for a few months. They saw a couple of women feeding the bulbs into the strings of Christmas light (you know how there are two wires that feed through two holes, and then you snap that little frame down to where the electricity meets the wires from the bulb?), and they were making the equivalent of 1 US cent per 100 bulbs strung. Someone else there had 4 hour lunches each day (working in a hospital), because there are so many people and not enough jobs. So they do extended lunches so the people don't have enough hours in a day to get a second job, so that leaves a job open for a different person to be able to have a job as well. These are just examples of how overpopulation can impact us on a financial level.

From a natural resource level. We are quickly running out of enough room to be able to grow enough to feed the population of the world. Even water is becoming more scarce, not just at ground level, but down in the aquifers. With more people needing to eat than what can be grown, it isn't going to impact the people who can afford to pay the higher prices, but the people in the poorest countries are going to starve to death. They won't be able to purchase food at the higher price that the scarcity is going to bring.

You act like people are without thought and just automatons.

Some are. Others just aren't aware of the bigger picture as they get caught up in the microcosm of their own life. It isn't that they are bad, they just don't stop to think.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Idiopathic77 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If the government was pushing Islamic churches to host pig roasts we would get pretty pissed off.

What I see as the problem with what you are saying is that the government isn't actually demanding that rigorous church women run out and get abortions. It is saying that those that want to should be able to. So it would be a little more similar to the government saying that those Islamic people who wanted a pulled pork sandwich should be allowed to have one. If they didn't want one, that would be ok, too.

Those women can get supplemental prescription insurance for a reasonable cost.

I've looked for supplemental insurance, and I can't really find any.

Those women can get supplemental prescription insurance for a reasonable cost. Or get a different job. If they can't agree with the church on the issue of birth control perhaps that is not the right work place for them to begin with.

Just me, but I couldn't understand a person wanting to work at a church to start with. But I couldn't see working retail sales or waiting tables, either. It doesn't mean that I look down on them for their choices, but none of those (church included) would be an atmosphere that I'd want to tolerate. But we are so fortunate, I don't have to work a job to keep my kids fed. So I don't feel it is right to tell them to just go get a new job, especially for those women in smaller towns that don't have a lot of jobs, or say women who are willing to work in a church so their kids can get a private educations.

[–]Idiopathic77 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, the government would be demanding that the Islamic church pay for the pork.

take your pick

Just me, but I couldn't understand a person wanting to work at a church to start with. But I couldn't see working retail sales or waiting tables, either. It doesn't mean that I look down on them for their choices, but none of those (church included) would be an atmosphere that I'd want to tolerate. But we are so fortunate, I don't have to work a job to keep my kids fed. So I don't feel it is right to tell them to just go get a new job, especially for those women in smaller towns that don't have a lot of jobs, or say women who are willing to work in a church so their kids can get a private educations.

This works out to privilege without sacrifice. That is not the best foot forward in discussion of equality.

Again the pill is not going to break the bank.

Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.

This is just for Michigan from data collected from Blue Cross Blue Shield. Most other data puts the number at between one third and one half higher expenditures for women than men on health. Those numbers apply to Gov insurance as well. To me it is as if some women are arguing that the lions share is not yet enough.

[–]Nepene 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"Let me ask you this: do you feel it benefits you to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? "

Let's unpack what this means- mostly intelligent women who have a career or an education will have casual sex and then get an abortion so they can continue their career/education.

Is it good to delay babies for work? It means more women in the workforce, but it means lower fertility for smart people and more down syndrome. It has a mixed benefit and loss to me. It doesn't mean a reduced population as some will continue to have babies.

"The church issue especially irritates me. The women are paying for their health insurance through their jobs at the church. They are being selective on what they choose to cover. And often, church employees aren't offered the opportunity to purchase secular insurance through their jobs."

That issue irritates you, that women can't easily get abortions they pay for by their church jobs.

It irritates churches that they have to include abortion in thir coverage, and that if they self insure they have to cover abortion.

Men are irritated that their insurance premiums are used to pay for women's special treatments and not men.

Given that many people are annoyed, some compromise is necessary. There is innate unfairness in the system.

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Let's unpack what this means- mostly intelligent women who have a career or an education will have casual sex and then get an abortion so they can continue their career/education.

Do you mean that this is the highest group of women who have abortions? Because if that is the case, I feel like you are wrong. I believe that a lot of younger women, like those just out of high school with no prospects of college, or women that are in college are a higher demographic of who are having abortions.

That issue irritates you, that women can't easily get abortions they pay for by their church jobs.

With the exception of babies that are already dead or the woman's life being in extreme jeopardy of delivering, I don't think any insurance or church ever paid for an abortion, ever. So it isn't as though I am protesting the lack of church funded abortions - that is something that has never happened.

It irritates churches that they have to include abortion in thir coverage, and that if they self insure they have to cover abortion.

No one ever asked a church to include abortion coverage in their insurance. In fact, no one ever asked regular health insurance companies to include abortion coverage in their policies, either.

[–]Nepene 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/8/601.full

"A high level of education of a woman and her partner increased the likelihood of abortion, especially among young women. "

A world where the smarter women abort their babies (especially young ones) isn't necessarily a world I want to spend my cash supporting.

Abortion coverage is pretty common in insurance.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/abortion-insurance-coverage

"No one ever asked a church to include abortion coverage in their insurance. In fact, no one ever asked regular health insurance companies to include abortion coverage in their policies, either."

http://www.examiner.com/article/catholic-leaders-to-obama-we-will-not-comply-with-abortion-coverage-mandate

Someone should tell catholic bishops that then.

http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/common/

Almost two-thirds of insurance companies cover elective abortion to some degree. Contact your insurance company to find out if you are covered.

And tell insurance companies that they are lying.

[–]bluequail[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone should tell catholic bishops that then.

If I were going to tell a Catholic bishop anything, it'd be to quit diddling little boys.

But as to the article, they are referring to RU-486 as the so called "abortion" in question. Reading about it, the time frames in which it works is only up to about 7 weeks. That it is most effective around the 3 week period. It describes the fetus like this - "approximately 2mm long (about 1/10 of an inch).". That isn't a person. In fact, I don't think it even has its final gender at that point. It is a bundle that is starting to form, and barely starting to grow its nervous system. That is not a person.

But... at the same time I recognize that you have your own beliefs, and it isn't my desire to offend you by insulting your opinions. I realize that most people aren't going to change their opinions no matter what I say. I am firm in my beliefs, but not iron clad. I just haven't heard anything that I feel is worth changing my beliefs for, regarding abortion anyhow.

[–]wskrs 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nepene -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wskrs 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AndIMustScream 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]primaloath -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You're not the one with the responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the potential mother is. And if she is slutting around, I doubt any decent person would want to finance her lifestyle.

Do you really feel like "women/girls who are slutting around" are the only ones who get pregnant? What about the young couples who think they love each other, and say a condom breaks, and they end up pregnant. Do they deserve to have their entire futures derailed by an unplanned baby? And is it right to raise an infant in the atmosphere of being supported by one minimum wage paying job, because that is all their high school aged parents can get - with no education?

And if you truly believe that only "women who are slutting around" are the ones to have unwanted pregnancies, where does that leave men? There are two sides of just this issue alone, even. The first being would a man want to have to pay to provide for this result of a woman supposedly slutting around for the next 18-26 years? How morally bereft are you suggesting men are then, that they can not control themselves around such a woman, and are no different than a male dog around a female dog in heat?

I think it greatly benefits men to be able to avoid having to pay child support on a one night stand. I don't see the women as any bigger sluts than the particular men that frequent that type of woman. And face it, decent guys don't normally get involved, even for a night, with that caliber of woman. They are both disgusting beyond words.

Also, there are women who want a relationship with a particular guy, and they get this stupid idea that if they get pregnant, that he will belong to them, forever. I think that men need an "out" from that.

And perhaps I see more cases of this type of thing in Texas, than what others see in other parts of the US. I can't tell you how many gals I have seen that figured a baby was some kind of a man anchor, and despite failing to retain a single man with it, with try to use it as a trap for multiple men. They don't "raise" their kids, they just let them run mostly wild. They ignore them as they are trying to worm their way into yet another man's life. The kids go to school dirty and lice ridden, they are beneficiaries of the government in every way possible, and they just do time in their dam's home until they are old enough to be legally kicked out. Many of them end up in the state's foster system, since the mothers can't wait a full 18 years for them to be on their own.

I think it behooves everyone to stop all pregnancies, except for the ones that are actually being born to a stable environment where they are all wanted.

[–]Idiopathic77 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]primaloath -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What about the young couples who think they love each other, and say a condom breaks, and they end up pregnant.

Two people can afford birth control, as it is their mutual responsibility to plan their family properly. When we're talking about one person unilaterally taking birth control, we're talking about a slut.

And if you truly believe that only "women who are slutting around" are the ones to have unwanted pregnancies, where does that leave men? Most men are decent; women tend to go for a limited group of men that fit their savage instincts.

The first being would a man want to have to pay to provide for this result of a woman supposedly slutting around for the next 18-26 years?

When a woman sluts around and becomes a single mother, she begins wearing a massive neon sign saying "slut" that allows us to screen her out (there are no effective ways to screen out a slut). No decent man would date a single mother, unless she could prove she had been abused, deceived etc.

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We subsidize the cost of pills over here in Australia. It's a bit of an issue because we subsidize the older, cheaper pills, but not the newer ones (so the price can range from $30/3 months to $80/3 months).

I think the issue is how much the drug companies profit from this kind of thing that they have to cost so much and be subsidized at all. All that money just flows offshore and it seems wrong.

Condoms can't be subsidized because the legislation that covers this stuff is for medicines, you couldn't just throw something else onto the list because suddenly people will want all kinds of things on the list that shouldn't be there.

I don't think that means they should or should not have the pill on the list though. But for true signs of equality we'll have to wait for the male pill to come out.

This will be a bit of a struggle though because, just like the newer female pills, these things don't automatically get put onto the list without significant public pressure. That pressure doesn't exist for men because those guys are all busy attacking each other in an effort to white-knight and impress bluequail.

Which is exactly why the post shouldn't have been allowed.

Overall I don't think the public should have the right to argue over how the taxes are spent to distribute medicine, the government makes that decision based on the data they gather on what is cost effective and will benefit the most people.

And I'm also pro-universal health care no matter what the taxes are.

Not that I think all government taxes are fine. I certainly don't like paying for troops to support that Iraq war, which has gone on to basically destabilize the planet over the past two decades. But I don't have the choice on my tax forms not to pay it.

[–]Avalon81204 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I knew before I ever went in to have the baby that I wanted to have my tubes tied. More than that, I had wanted to just have an abortion, but my husband really wanted us to have the baby, so we respected his desires about this instead of mine. But my health and age were also of such that having any more children was a bad idea.

I made the mistake when I chose my ob/gyn. Had I known that my only choice of hospitals were going to be Catholic teaching hospitals, I would have gotten a different ob/gyn. He wasn't a Catholic in fact he was Jewish. But that hospital didn't allow the doctors to perform sterilization procedures on people, even if those people really shouldn't be forced to risk a pregnancy again. As it was, due to several bad health issues, I had to have a c-section a month before he was due. I was at the point that I was having to have an amnio every week, because they were checking to see if his lungs would be able to breathe on his own outside, or if he needed to be placed on artificial respiration, once delivered.

It was not a charity, my insurance paid 100%. But he was the senior staff at a teaching, Catholic hospital. And I didn't have the option of choosing another hospital. In fact, my experience there was so wretched that he released me 30 hours after my c-section, and just did my visits for the first week at my house.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Well, for instance, they are trying to repeal abortion rights.

That depends on what you consider abortion and what you consider infanticide. And no, not everybody has the same viewpoint on that subject. There is a view that abortion puts one person in a position of responsibility for the death of another person, even a potential person. Of course, if we are going to start deciding who ought to live and who ought not to live, the elderly, people with debilitating diseases, and children with developmental disorders would probably qualify in certain cases. "Pro-choice" isn't about the person's own choice for their own life, it's about one person's choice for another, without their choice; and I'm not saying this as a pro-lifer, just enumerating the argument.

Also, one bit of legislation that was recently passed was so that women who are employed by churches should be able to have access to insurance paid for contraception.

Can I just point out that contraception is not a "right" even by itself; and employer-funded contraception is most definitely not a right. It's a privilege; one that is very nice and can save the person lucky enough to have medical coverage like that for her job, but not all jobs should require that sort of coverage, or there will be a qualifications bar for entry into that job under which people without those qualifications will not get the job. In order to pay for the insurance required, the company will have to justify the increase by making the job more necessary or risk not being able to pay the operating costs of the business; therefore, people who do not have the social status to attain that standard of excellence will be uniformly shut out of work, if the rule applies to all companies equally. That would be fine... if you wanted to make sure it was more costly for women to work at lower entry-level positions than men, who don't need the contraceptive coverage; but if you're interested in the equality of women in the workplace, it may be counterproductive.

And no, contraceptives alone do not equate with medical necessity; even in the case of actual medical issues, insurance companies decide whether or not to provide coverage based on the cost-benefit analysis. They can't keep their operating costs down if they simply pay out to everybody on their service; there's no such thing as a free lunch, and ultimately somebody has to pay for those contraceptives. So if there's an actual medical necessity for contraceptives, that would be evaluated differently than appealing to the "comfort and well-being" of the employee. If you're working the drive-through at Burger King, your comfort and well-being are probably more reliant on a steady paycheck than having your job downsized so that the corporate office can justify paying the increased premiums for your health care. And that's only if they've chosen one of the companies that doesn't already provide for contraceptives in their women's health care package. And nowhere, I should point out, do health care companies consider it important to the comfort and well-being of men to pay for their condoms, although technically condoms provide a far more impressive barrier to life-threatening and dangerous STIs than an oral contraceptive.

So, just to be clear--contraceptive coverage by employer's health insurance (hell, employer-provided health insurance itself!) = privilege, not a right. I assume your first thought is going to be "well, why can't we all have health insurance anyway??", but let's not forget that we're not teenagers under the aegis of deep-pocketed parents. Somebody has to pay for all this care, and unlike Scandinavian countries with less than half the population of NYC, the government can't pay for us all to have health care without making it deliriously expensive or horribly ineffective (think the postal service... now imagine postal workers performing surgery on you). I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but stamping your feet and demanding a purely first-world privilege as somehow being a "right" that you just have to have is not the way to solve any issues.

[–]bluequail[S] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

what you consider infanticide.

I think at a bare minimum, for it to be considered an infant, it needs to be able to breathe on its own outside of a body. But like you said, everyone's opinion differs.

They can't keep their operating costs down if they simply pay out to everybody on their service; there's no such thing as a free lunch, and ultimately somebody has to pay for those contraceptives.

Myself, I am not a big supporter of higher levels of profit for large corporations. I think one of the greatest things that the patient protection and affordable care act was limiting the insurance companies to 20% profit. I think 20% profit is plenty when everyone needs to have insurance. I can't think of a single good reason why the insurance companies need to make 80% profit, or 100% profit, like grocers do on fresh foods that go bad in a short period of time.

(think the postal service... now imagine postal workers performing surgery on you)

Ha! The postal service can't even effectively manage snail mail, I can just imagine how terribly they would botch health care issues. :)

I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but stamping your feet and demanding a purely first-world privilege as somehow being a "right" that you just have to have is not the way to solve any issues.

But I am not demanding anything. I am asking people to open up to talking about the issues. And this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You hold one opinion, I hold another and we are able to talk about it, without my saying "because you are a man, you are wrong".

And I am also coming from a personal opinion of the world being overpopulated. I would even support longer term contraception (think IUD and norplants) for women, instead of a monthly pill. It is hard enough for parents who want children to raise them, now think about the burden that is placed on the people who didn't want children when they became a part of a pregnancy. Not only that, but many women use children as a weapon against the father of the children. A means of destroying him emotionally, financially... rarely is child support used strictly for raising the child or upgrading the quality of the child's life. Often it is used as the mother's spending money, I've seen it happen, firsthand.

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Myself, I am not a big supporter of higher levels of profit for large corporations. I think one of the greatest things that the patient protection and affordable care act was limiting the insurance companies to 20% profit. I think 20% profit is plenty when everyone needs to have insurance. I can't think of a single good reason why the insurance companies need to make 80% profit, or 100% profit, like grocers do on fresh foods that go bad in a short period of time.

That's what everybody assumes about companies--that they are just sitting on piles of money while everybody else goes bankrupt. The fact is that most companies operate partially, if not fully in the red most of the time, working on the assumption that future profits will cover present expenses. Having worked in accounting departments before, I can tell you that very rarely (and almost exclusively in the public sector) is there ever an overage at the end of the fiscal year, and when there is, it's usually redistributed back into the company in the form of raises, stock share/401k increases, and improving employee benefits. Insurance companies especially; they have to look at each patient with complicated formulae of present cost vs. future benefit, and a lot of the times the present outlay of a few hundred dollars every six months will never make up the cost of a single $40-100,000 emergency medical procedure, even if you paid into the system for the rest of your life. Most insurance companies that survive for any length of time do so precisely by doling out coverage as minimally as possible to the widest possible consumer base--covering major medical only, or situational coverage using pre-licensed hospitals (like Kaiser Permanente offering care at KPF hospitals, or co-payment agreements at public organizations like Planned Parenthood) rather than paying full-price for coverage at any location.

And that's only one half of the spectrum; hospitals, who do have to pay for their own operating costs, the salaries of their doctors, the expensive equipment, etc., often spend money years ahead of recouping their losses, extending contracts and credit both to large companies and to individual consumers, hoping to make some sort of profit off of interest from monthly payments as well as aggregate payouts from companies when the services they provide are covered; in order to make those aggregate payouts more, they often have major medical and other serious services cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars more than they would cost privately or individually, because again--you can't pay for the hospital with nonexistent money. If they can get the insurance company to pay for the expense, they will make it worth their while in order to keep the lights on; insurance companies know this and work to keep their own coverage minimal so as not to be bilked. The consumer is often caught up in the middle of these issues and can sometimes be charged with ridiculous expenses that leak out of the fray, like $300 for a single dose of prescription-strength Tylenol. Again, it's a terrible, wasteful system, but because we have the best hospitals in the world, they cost that much. On the very small scale--locally, regionally--co-ops and managed medical care plans can work, much like universal plans work in European countries and Canada; but there, because there is little competition, you have extremely long waiting lists for certain procedures and care that is less flexible for the particular consumer.

And I should point out that this situation exists at every level of the business world, not just massive corporate hospital/insurance carrier structures. I recently talked to a guy who was running a coffee shop about his world; he said that he hadn't been taking a salary for the past couple of months because business had been slow; he's been trying to offer some sort of package deal health care for his employees, but his choice is literally between having enough employees to cover all the shifts and having health care and one less employee. Those are the businesses that are hurt by the sort of thinking you're employing above; sure, the Fortune 500 have golden parachutes aplenty, but that's mainly because they are big and corrupt enough to have amassed that wealth. The vast majority of businesses in this country are local and regional businesses, owner-owned or operated, with only a tiny minority of corporate conglomerates. Trying to treat every business like a multinational corporation is unhelpful and unfair to the very people which our society most relies upon (the working middle class). What we need is ultimately to close the loopholes (mainly through government/private sector collusion) that allow companies to get so big, and to shrink the funds taken by the government away from non-wealthy earners like middle class businesses (which also suffer under the greatest tax burden, percentage-wise). As a libertarian, I am in favor of closing down our international empire of bases and non-wars first; that alone could provide a much-needed reprieve in incremental tax increases for middle-class businesses for the next several years, meaning that more earnings could be spent building businesses here instead of bases overseas. Hell--if we shrunk the massive off-budget spending of the Fed and the Pentagon, we could raise the income tax-burden level of citizens so high that poorer workers might not even pay income tax, which always hits the poorest populations hardest.

The idea is not to simply write more laws, but to understand what money is doing in the first place, so that the community can make businesses work for the community, instead of for the government at the point of a gun. As of 2012, we've got the largest federal register of laws and the biggest tax code ever written in the history of man, but the golden-parachuters can always hire lawyers and buy congressmen to get around that. Sort of like a wall of separation between church and state, there needs to be a wall of separation between industry and state, so that massive multinationals can be held civilly and even criminally liable for their illegal actions (instead of the limited corporate liability they now have, granted by the government), and so that businessfolk at the small end of the spectrum aren't forced to shoulder an inordinate burden of funding state enterprises.

I suppose this is far afield of contraceptive issues... but I've already written it, and it seems like a waste to delete it all. So there. :)

And I am also coming from a personal opinion of the world being overpopulated. I would even support longer term contraception (think IUD and norplants) for women, instead of a monthly pill. It is hard enough for parents who want children to raise them, now think about the burden that is placed on the people who didn't want children when they became a part of a pregnancy.

Well, I do consider "pro-choice" to be a double-edged sword; if one has the choice to have sex, and one has the choice to use contraceptives (including condoms), and one has the choice to have an abortion, then I don't have any pity for the woman who chooses to have a child, and I don't think she is in any way a victim if her choice is a bad one. I don't particularly think the US or the world is overpopulated; seriously--I'm living in the midwest, and you could hardly call it overpopulated. The only places that I would consider overpopulated, and probably overhyped, are cities, and cities in which there is not much suburbanization, I should point out. European cities are losing their populations, actually, and are handing out cash prizes to couples who have children; they are also seeing a massive influx of refugees from places where life and jobs are much worse, like the Middle East and Asia. I think that the human species is a bit more adaptable and hardy than would be warranted by widespread (reversible) sterilization such as is popular in China; in fact, having large families, which is seen as a negative by western, educated, white folk, is in fact the main ingredient for the rise in power and influence that Latino communities in the west and southwest are experiencing. What we call financially unsound "burdens," they call "productivity." And it's hard to argue with the fact that they are probably the most productive minority in the US today; in a few decades perhaps, Latinos will become the majority ethnicity in California, all while we cradle our vital essences and imagine we're being socially conscious.

So no, I don't know where I come down on the contraceptive issue; there are benefits and drawbacks to all the positions. I think that everybody ultimately should follow their own best interests in that matter, and that the government shouldn't legislate responsibility or morality on the issue.

[–]bluequail[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Insurance companies especially; they have to look at each patient with complicated formulae of present cost vs. future benefit, and a lot of the times the present outlay of a few hundred dollars every six months will never make up the cost of a single $40-100,000 emergency medical procedure, even if you paid into the system for the rest of your life.

Part of the problem with this is that there are many people who have paid into insurance and when they had this big emergency, the insurance company would just flat refuse to cover the procedure.

Back in the 70s and 80s, we paid into insurance, and they covered our medical needs. Then in the late 80s, the insurance companies sent lobbyists into Washington and pled their case and the cost of insurance shot way the heck up. Why did this happen? Because they were able to pay off politicians into legislating against the citizens, and being pro-insurance company. But prior to the insurance lobbyists arriving in Washington, the companies didn't operate in the red.

The other thing is the medical industry is charging too much. There is an area not far from me where there are 4 MRI machines within a half mile of each other. There is no need for that many machines and each hospital is passing along the cost to their customers for all services, because they want to be able to capture a bigger part of the paying market. I hate to say it, but the medical industry is out of control right now. So is the insurance industry.

In the meantime, you make very good arguments and some very compelling points. But I can't take the time that your post deserves, because there is a flood of responses that I am trying to address in a timely manner. If you want, can I take this up with you later?

[–]Thinkiknoweverything 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Idiopathic77 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The other thing is the medical industry is charging too much. There is an area not far from me where there are 4 MRI machines within a half mile of each other. There is no need for that many machines

This is a poor way to look at things. If the volume is there to require that many machines then the volume is there. You need to learn some more about the realities of the industry you are critiquing. A standard head and neck MRI without the use of contrast material is twenty minutes. A thoracic exam-30, Abdominal-45 extremity-20. add contrast multiply by two. Any unforeseen problems, they are so common they barely qualify as unforeseen, and you average about 30 minutes per patient. In an 8 hour day 16 patients can be seen for an MRI per machine. You have 4 so that is 64 patients per day getting an MRI. That is not many. Considering MRI is used for orthopedics, neurology, urology, internists, cardiologists, pulmonary specialists, and on and on and on. Those machines are doing the work to ensure that the patient can get an accurate diagnosis, which is worth the money. Today we can run a patient through an MRI and find precursor conditions for many life threatening conditions. And that is a problem?

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrostyShazbot -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing. The biggest problem is that the real honest conversation about equality and what men and women's actual opinions of one another are is constantly shut down by alarmist women hell bent on further their own self interest and pathetic white knights who think that it will get their dick wet (and sadly, it often does).

The answer, is for women like yourself to spearhead this conversation and relentlessly confront those who would shut it down with it. Your opinions are your own and I won't dictate them to you. But I do insist that you make these conversations happen as often as possible. And when some alarmist self interested twat or her whiteknight newmale servant boy tries to shut it down by crying about how offended they are by the opinions they don't like...

crucify them for it. Mercilessly. Shut down their attempt at shutting down the conversation. Stand up for the right of people to express their opinions even, and especially, ones that you don't like. But take no prisoners when someone tries to prevent the conversation from happening or bully someone out of their own opinion.

Women have more power in this dialogue than men. I would ask you to please use that power to restore balance.

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What effect has Akin had on the rights of women?

He hasn't had any effects yet. But if given the power, women would be sent back to the middle ages level of treatment. The man is ill.

One of the things I had noticed over the past 4 years, since McCain made the mistake of even letting the public know that Palin existed. She pushed (pushes?) a platform of Xenophobia, hatred, class-ism, and all sorts of horrible things. And many people (especially here in Tx) felt that a public official expressing such a thinly veiled hatred like that made it ok to let it all out and just be like that in their every day lives.

I worry that when people like Akin behave in that manner, it is going to open up the same can of worms, and people are going to feel that it is ok to go on about how women are less than men.

And I can't tell you how it bothers me that with Bush, corporations were given "person-hood" and now you get other members of the republican party that would like to take "person-hood" away from women.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gege33 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gareth321 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gareth321 -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NWOslave 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Back in the kitchen? Another false notion that women were ever oppressed throughout history. You're equating the ease of todays society with yesteryear. Pre-industry what jobs were available? Blacksmith, Miner, Sailor, Logger, Carpenter, ect. There was no cars, computers, air conditioned offices. There was no Big Daddy Government saying to drop the maximum weight of a log or rock to less that 40 lbs so women can compete equally.

Tell me? What particular job could women compete equally with men 200 hundred years ago back to the beggining of time? Not many if you really think about it. Probably cooking, sewing and housekeeping at a guess. What a privilege it was to be at home while a man slaved away in a mine or as a lumberjack and brought his wealth home to support their family. He worked hard and dangerous jobs to support his wife and children. And modern women dare to call themselves oppressed in the past.

Whose oppressed? The miner who'll die a painful death supporting his family or the woman in the kitchen? It's a shame we don't have time machines, I'd love to see one of you ladies go back in time and tell the woman whose husband is working 14 hour days in a mine that she's oppressed by being locked in the kitchen. The women of old would slap you down right and proper, and you would deserve it.

[–]ignatiusloyola -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WinterFresh04 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExiledSenpai 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]firelord1973 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MechPlasma 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I like the concept - having a subreddit intentionally for Women's Rights, instead of calling it feminism and pretending it's equality. It should also avoid the "blame men for everything" aspects of feminism that everyone oh-so hates.

But the problem is that, and I hate to borrow a phrase from horrible feminist arguments, but watching out for discrimination against women is the default. Everyone already does it. It's why people don't bat an eye when someone proves that sentencing is gender-imbalanced, but there's an outrage when a company pays women less. It's why a huge number of issues feminists look at are rarely to do with actual discrimination and more to do with just gender roles. ...which isn't really a bad thing to fight against, but it's not Women's Rights.

And that's why I don't approve of r/womens_rights. Because, and you can check the posts there for yourself, with minor exceptions the only rights women in the western world don't have now are related to abortion. And here's the thing: I really really protest against trying to pass of the abortion debate as anything other than philosophical!

Edit: of course, I could be wrong and really oblivious here. I'd really like to be corrected, actually.

[–]bluequail[S] 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

From my response (just right now) to curebores -

And to me. Women's rights as a whole seem to be such a narrow scope of focus, compared to what is happening to men's rights.

It is a narrow scope of focus. You say only abortion, actually, it shouldn't even be abortion right now. The GOP is trying to erode the rights of women, from the ability to get birth control to a few other things. Akin is one of the worst offenders, having said in the past that "women have a smaller brain" in addition to the "in a legitimate rape..." comment. That guy is about a dumbass, and yet the people of Missouri keep electing him; go figure on that one.

But I really don't have conventional beliefs. Personally, I believe a woman should have the right to get an abortion for any reason at all. I wished there wasn't the stigma attached to it that there is in the US. I spent a lot of time in Japan in the late 60s, and throughout the 70s, and at that time, abortion was "the" accepted method of birth control. No one looked at it much differently than going to the dentist. And more than that, it was common for women to have had multiple abortions with no stigma attached. No more than what you stigma you see for women who are on birth control in the US today.

But I also happen to believe that while a woman's right to have an abortion should be inalienable, I feel that a man should have just as much right to opt out of a pregnancy. If a man impregnates a woman, he ought to be able to offer to pay for an abortion in the first trimester, and if the woman chooses not to accept that as a joint choice, he shouldn't be made to pay for the support of the child as it is growing. She wants to keep it, she needs to support it.

I believe that every child needs to be DNA tested at the hospital as soon as it is born, much how they test for PKU. Just so no man is ever tagged with the support of a child that they are not related to.

I believe that they ought to have provisional adoptions, so that men don't fall prey to women who marry them, have them adopt their child and then leave them, also leaving them with lifelong financial support of that child. It ought to be conditional on the marriage being successful.

But it is ideas like this that make me unpopular with so many in the women's rights crowd. My personal beliefs are based more on common sense and integrity than what best benefits the woman.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think women are less smart. The evidence suggests they are not. I am not aware that Akin claimed women are less smart. If he did, it was not part of your remarks. You criticized him for making a factually accurate statement. In doing so, you cast a halo of sexism over him. It was a false allegation.

I am thrilled to know that when a woman is pregnant, the father should have the right to order an abortion of the fetus carried by his partner. I am aware of no other woman who takes this position.

Akin's remark caused women who wanted abortions to be denied abortions? Here's the problem: The mere existence of a bonehead does not translate to a disadvantage for women. That a bonehead wants women to be denied equal access to universities does not mean they are not equal, or in fact, given preference over men. That a bonehead wants to repeal suffrage has no effect on women's right to vote. Nonetheless, women such as yourself often hysterically exaggerate the effects of words to make yourselves seem like victims of practical disadvantage when you are victims of nothing except disagreeable words. Disagreement does not imply injury. Akin has no power to harm you. He is a buffoon who can't establish a majority in Congress. Even if he were president, he can't roll back Equal Employment Opportunity or Title IX. Like the Wizard of Oz, he is a myth that women build up on the supposition that "Akin said something I don't like, women are under attack!!!!" His remark is of no consequence. Your hysteria is. And by getting hysterical about a myth, you distract attention from real problems, and in doing so your sons are harmed.

Let me give you an example. The same law that you want to preserve, the one the GOP wants to repeal, presently requires insurance companies to pay for contraceptives ONLY FOR WOMEN. By squealing about Akin's desire to repeal the law, you sucked the air out of the real issue, which is that men are second-class citizens under the law, and have little ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If you were really concerned about unwanted pregnancies, or equality, you would be banging the drum about this disadvantage for men. Your sons will be denied healthcare that is available to women because you filled the ether with disinformation. The law favors women, and you think it is a "Women's Rights" issue. You do NOT want equality. You want more attention focused on more advantages for women, and you want that attention to be diverted from the real inequities.

You have left your sons exposed to trickery by women, and entrapment by unwanted pregnancy. Those grandchildren will remind you that it was not equality you wanted. What you wanted was to sing the Women are Victims Are Hymn, whether it was true or not.

[–]bluequail[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I am thrilled to know that when a woman is pregnant, the father should have the right to order an abortion of the fetus carried by his partner. I am aware of no other woman who takes this position.

And I think this is something that we need to change. If nothing else, I don't think that a man ought to be dragged into having to financially support a child that he didn't want to have.

You have left your sons exposed to trickery by women, and entrapment by unwanted pregnancy.

Actually as the mother of 3 sons, I am the first to warn them. I feel that with my insight, it is my job to warn them of the treachery that is out there. How to best to protect themselves. What are common means of treachery, and how to avoid those. How to identify someone that is less prone to manipulation, and how to spot those that are more prone to it.

What you wanted was to sing the Women are Victims Are Hymn, whether it was true or not.

That is not true. In fact, I am the one person that will not sing any words to that.

How about this. Why don't you pm violentacrez and ask him about me. Ask him what kind of positions I have traditionally taken on stuff like this, and whose rights I normally support? Or ask LuckyBdx4 about me. He has kept pretty close tabs on me, and knows what positions I support. But don't take my word that I am a staunch supporter of men's rights, ask other people who have seen what I have supported.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that a man ought to be dragged into having to financially support a child that he didn't want to have.

It is not just a financially obligation, you said that men should be able to abort their fetuses. This would mean no baby for mom as well.

You have warned your sons about treachery while supporting the law that denies them the same benefits that women get.

I don't care what other people say about you. I am taking my position based on your own statements. You claim to be a supporter of equality, but you want to preserve and extend the advantages women have over men. You are oppositional to equality. You promote a subreddit to advocate for women's rights, which necessarily excludes men's rights. Since all of the inequities you have established are disadvantages for men, you are saying you want more advantages for women, while suppressing discussion of disadvantages for men.

You don't sing the women-are-victims song? Akin wants to take away the contraceptives that men buy for us! I got roped into this! Women have to get jobs they don't like! The GOP wants to take away our personhood! Waaaah!

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is not just a financially obligation, you said that men should be able to abort their fetuses. This would mean no baby for mom as well.

I feel that if a woman wants to have a baby when the man wants to have it aborted, then they need to be financially responsible for it without his help. They are making a choice here. But I don't feel that a woman should be able to have a baby that a man does not want, and force him into a lifetime of support. Just like a man doesn't get to tell a woman that she is going to carry a fetus to term, I don't think he gets to tell her that she absolutely can't. But... I do feel that the courts ought to back the man up and tell him that since he opted out, it isn't his problem. That he isn't going to have to pay for the child, he isn't going to have to tie up every other weekend with a child that he didn't want.

I don't care what other people say about you. I am taking my position based on your own statements.

No, actually you are basing your position of me on your own hatred of women. You have accused me of saying things that I haven't said, you have accused me of taking positions that I haven't taken, and you are afraid to ask others that have known me for years, because you can't handle hearing the truth. You want to keep your sack of dead cats (your opinions) because they are yours, and it doesn't matter how badly they stink, because they are your dead cats (opinions). I know exactly what you are all about.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeadingTooNFL 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

but focus on men's rights as that is an area of neglect on that front.

And I know that it is neglected. Everyone, the courts included always take the attitude that "he'll get over it. He has a good job, he can recover from this. He can start a new family." Yet I have known of many men who were totally devastated, not only financially, but emotionally by divorce.

There is so much that goes in at a level of disregarding the rights of men that I find detestable:

Tagging men for the support of children that are clearly not theirs - how does that even happen. Even after irrefutable proof (DNA) is presented, the state just says that better some random man support the baby than them (the state).
forcing a man to pay for his "soon to be ex-wife's" attorney.
not taking it seriously when an ex prevents a man from seeing his children.

and so much more. There are serious discrepancies in regards to what is equal, right and fair.

Even now, it takes the most horrendous types of abuse for a father to get their children back from their exes. When you get to watch a particular scenario long enough, you see children emulating the bad behavior of their mothers. I can tell one particular anecdote that showcases how a lot of what men go through is the result of learned behaviors by their exes, but I'll save that for when someone actually wants to hear it.

And to me. Women's rights as a whole seem to be such a narrow scope of focus, compared to what is happening to men's rights. But I am trying to do the best I can with what I have been given. :)

[–]blueoak9 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When some man is denied access to his children, some woman is denied access to her grandchildren, and some girl is denied access to her father.

Quite frankly, it is a children's rights issue. Unfortunately, the rights of the children themselves is overlooked as often as the rights of the men. It doesn't matter how badly a child might want or need to be away from their mothers, if the court orders the child to be with the mother, the child suffers as well.

First thing is you can't have one without the other.... ...thats what has to change, and it is a system - it will involve both women's and men's right because those are aspects of the one system.

I agree, but I don't know how to change the system. Perhaps talking about it, and then presenting it to our legislators is one way to start.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

our focus is to address the disadvantages that men and boys face and nothing more.

I've always worked in the heavy industry sector. I have seen and heard about what unfairly happens to men, and it bothers me a lot. One of the saddest things to me as a mother is that not only do I have to tell my sons to treat women well, but that they need to protect themselves, first and foremost. I can tell hundreds of stories of friends and co-workers that were royally rooked by someone that was manipulative. Not 20 or 50 stories, but hundreds in the plural form.

But VA roped me into this a long time ago, and at first I told him I was going to remove myself... since it wasn't something that I was good at. But I am hoping to make this about being fair to men, while supporting things like access to contraceptives. Just for instance, I support equal pay for an equal job, but I don't think a secretary in an office has the same job as a man working underground in the mines. It really does need to be an equal job. :)

[–]JamesRyder 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just be good with the moderating and the discussion will come. The problem with the feminist subreddits is that you can't debate anything there as you will get instabanned, even if they're suggesting illegal actions such as violence or harassment towards a person in real life and you call them out on it. Whereas here, I've actually called out MRAs after advocating illegal actions and I have not gotten banned on any account thus far.

Most of us here are moderates, but we don't really get the other side of the story as reddits such as againstmensrights even have hitlists of posters here, and they'll ban you pre-emptively (it's pathetic I know) so I would welcome a space where issues of female rights can be discussed critically (a lot of this issues require careful consideration and critique, especially regarding healthcare) without getting banned or put on a list.

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but we don't really get the other side of the story as reddits such as againstmensrights even have hitlists of posters here, and they'll ban you pre-emptively (it's pathetic I know) so I would welcome a space where issues of female rights can be discussed critically (a lot of this issues require careful consideration and critique, especially regarding healthcare) without getting banned or put on a list.

And I don't want to do that. I don't go into the various feminist movement type subreddits, or even 2X, because the loudest of the opinions you hear there are "man hating" women. That isn't a part of who I am, or who I want to be.

Most of us here are moderates,

I realize this. And this is why I want the dominating audience of the sub to be you guys. Not the women who hate men, not the men who hate women. But the people who are able to talk and debate about things and hopefully at least be able to understand the other side of it, and hopefully to give both genders a sympathetic ear to the other side.

I really did tell VA that I wasn't the right person for it early on, and a few months later, I told him that I was going to remove myself as mod. But the last few days, I started thinking that it would be nice to have a women's right group that wasn't anti-men. But I am a product of an era long ago.

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neverender141 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am new here, was intrigued by the notion of men's rights(something I believe to actually be an issue, as a man) and thought this was interesting seeing men's and women's rights in the same sub. I have seen this quote, or something like it, several times in this conversation.

"You think there are men similarly situated, and in the interest of equality you ignore them and exclude them?"

is this some big circle jerk phrase?

SIMILARLY situated does not mean EQUALLY situated. Men and women suffer from very different issues that take place in life. should women be able to get abortions. you're damn right. should a man have a say and not be on the hook for an unwanted pregnancy. you're damn right.

Men's Rights and Women's rights aren't, and shouldn't be, at odds with each other. it should be a discussion together about how to best solve the problems because we are similar beings that go through different problems in society. a man get's the shit end of the stick in a divorce just as a default. that sucks, we should discuss together how to best solve the problem. Say some people feel that the rights overlap or step on each other- let's have a discussion about the best ways to help with compromise or better understanding of the mechanisms of society.

all I seem to see here(ok, not all, some of the dialogues are quite helpful and cogent.) seems to be "let me ask very specific questions to set X person up to blow their argument out of the water with watered down rhetoric."

the ENTIRE point of this is to get a true necessary intelligent CONVERSATION going about how to best further and ascertain the rights of each group and of people as a whole. we're talking about ways to improve mankind. quit being so butthurt about what rights people have that infringe upon yours, and start having a conversation about WAYS to bring about equality for all. not just how bad you feel that your toes are being stepped on.

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is... right now rights are swayed in the favor of women. They really are. You would not begin to believe what types of miscarriages of justice occur, and not in favor of the men. Men coming out of marriages get screwed over, both by their wives and the courts. All it takes is for a false rape allegation to go out by a woman, and men are basically powerless to stop them. Even if they manage to clear their names in a court, they still suffer the aftermath of it for the rest of their lives.

Kind of funny, but when I took a quick break from answering things, my middle boy got home from school. He asked what I was doing, and I told him. He asked me why things were the way they are, as far as the crimes against the rights of men, and I explained to him why I thought it was. I told him about how it was in the 50s and 60s, how divorces went up in the 70s, and how at that time, the courts were more generous to women, since at that time, the majority of women weren't breadwinners. They were stay at home moms. So the courts would give them the children and the house and child support as well as spousal support. And now, the court system's thought processes were antiquated, and that they were still automatically leaning in favor of the women, when it isn't as necessary now. That most women have a job skill, and that they weren't necessarily the best parent, because they were no longer spending all of their time at home with the kids.

the ENTIRE point of this is to get a true necessary intelligent CONVERSATION going about how to best further and ascertain the rights of each group and of people as a whole. we're talking about ways to improve mankind

And while I am hoping to do that, only time will tell. :)

quit being so butthurt about what rights people have that infringe upon yours, and start having a conversation about WAYS to bring about equality for all. not just how bad you feel that your toes are being stepped on.

Even those that are in this category, I can understand why. If I take and hit a dog and hit a dog and hit a dog... it is going to reach the point that the dog is either going to shrink away from me or bite the next time I raise my hand. That some of these guys have gotten mean or fearful of women, because they have been "hit" in some form by women, or the women's lawyers or the courts. They have valid reason to hate and to strike back. Perhaps not at me, but at some woman somewhere, and maybe more than one.

My middle boy. He is rough and tough, but he is also sensitive. Two of his closest friends had serious mom issues. One boy's mom was in prison for prostitution, and every time she got out, she would go right back to it, and end up right back in prison. The other friend was a girl whose mother would let subsequent boyfriends molest the girl, and finally CPS took her away and gave her back to the dad. In the span of time that she was with her mother, the mother not only collected child support from the girl's dad, but would let the never ending string of boyfriends molest the girl to keep the guys coming around. She was about a 400 lb pig of a woman, and the girl was about the only draw for the scumbags that this pig would attract. The mother allowed this shit to continue from the time the girl was 6 until she was 12. One guy even felt guilty, and confessed to the mother, apologized to her, and the mother "forgave" him. The daughter was devastated, as she didn't feel it was her mother's pain to forgive. Both of my son's friends hated their mother, and as a result, he went through one rough year where he hated me, he hated women in general, and he lashed out at me a lot.

Finally we had a talk, and I pointed out to him that even though his friends were justified in hating their mothers, that I didn't do the things that his friend's mothers did. That I had completely given up all of the things that I wanted to do, so he could be able to do the things that he wanted to do. That he would always know that if he had to come home in the middle of the day, or needed to go out of town for an event... that I was here or would take him where he needed to go. And it wasn't just me, his friends reiterated what I was telling him. That their mothers didn't parent them, that they were just side effects of a bad life.

So I can understand why there are some men that hate women so much. Some are probably validated in their hatred. And by wanting to have a men friendly women's right group, I don't mean to take away from their valid problems. I know their problems are real. I will be the first to say that they have been on the butt end of real persecution.

But in the meantime, I would like to thank you for your support. :)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

A woman has the right to wages equal to my productivity, profit, and value to the employer. If we both have the same job and I produce 30% more than her, she doesnt deserve my pay rate. If we both have the same job and I bring in more customers and make my employer more money, she doesnt deserve my pay rate. An employee who has not missed a day of work in 40 years is worth more than a woman who routinely takes advantage of her womens workplace health rights (sick days, PMS, pregnancy, childbirth, THAT time of the month, cramps, hangnail, bad hair day, bad fingernail job, hormones, or the one you always see but never hear about - the plain old I am to fat and lazy to get my ass out of bed to work so I'll call in sick excuse). This is how is USED TO work. This is not how its working with most today. With most, since feminism hit, they now have job classes and pay structures regardless of work history, performance, profit, productivity, ROI, or attendance.

A woman has reproductive rights. Men do not. A woman's body, a woman's choice. Sounds great on the surface, but what they forgot to add is accountability and responsibility into the mix. A woman forces these on a man without his knowledge or consent. So, we have men being forced to be held accountable and responsible for a women's "body choices".

Businesses are pressured into hiring/advancing women over men regardless of work history, performance, profit, productivity, ROI, or attendance.

Women get minority-class grants, funding, incentives, subsidies, programs and tax breaks when men do not.

A unemployed mother gets consoled, coddled, and all the assistance she could ever need, while a non-working father gets yelled at, shamed, disparaged, fined, contempt charges, and prison time.

A woman gets roughly 20% less harsh sentencing for the same crimes.

Courts automatically give women custody, even in cases where its been proven they are not the best caregivers and may actually harm the child.

In cases of divorce and custody, men are sanctioned exponentially more and harsher than women who commit the same infractions breaching court orders. Women routinely ignore ordered dates and holidays and judges do nothing. Men get fined and imprisoned for the same.

Women get special health care treatment with Obamacare. Men do not.

Alimony.

Maternity leave.

Men get no workplace protections against sexual harrassment.

Men committing crimes against women get much harsher treatment and sentences than women who commit crimes against men for the same crimes.

Women are treated better in prison, given a lot more privileges, and have access to a much broader selection at the prison stores.

Women commit more violence than men, most of it by proxy through the rarely talked about but fully enforced social construct/contract known as chivalry. A man sees another man treating awoman equally and they step in for her. She knows this, expects it, and relies on it.

I could go on for days, but the worse one I can think of is the social construct/contract that forces men to put their lives in between any woman and harms way, and it shall be enforced by every chivalrous white knight and woman around, calling, "women and children first. Why? The most die-hard feminist will revert to her inner irrational weak woman-child when she can step in from of a man for that lifeboat.

[–]FireTruth -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"""A woman has the right to wages equal to my productivity, profit, and value to the employer. If we both have the same job and I produce 30% more than her, she doesnt deserve my pay rate. If we both have the same job and I bring in more customers and make my employer more money, she doesnt deserve my pay rate. An employee who has not missed a day of work in 40 years is worth more than a woman who routinely takes advantage of her womens workplace health rights (sick days, PMS, pregnancy, childbirth, THAT time of the month, cramps, hangnail, bad hair day, bad fingernail job, hormones, or the one you always see but never hear about - the plain old I am to fat and lazy to get my ass out of bed to work so I'll call in sick excuse). """

i agree.... there is so much sexism at my work.... just saterday night i walked out side on my cigeret break... when a girl was laughing to her freind how she pretends to be too weak to do a hard job so the men have to do it for her.

many women take advantge of mens pity for them...

women should get eqaul pay of course.... as long as all the other factors are eqaul with a male counterpart.

there are so many factors that sometimes effect pay.... but if all factors are eqaul like how many hours a week is worked, how hard is worked, how many days are worked, expierance...then women should get paid the same.

right now all factors are not eqaul in many cases

i mean, jesus, just think about all the women that dont even work at all.

if your husband works 40 hours a week.... and you dont have a job... the man is gona make more money.

now apply this over the whole country in large numbers of people and your gona see some stastical odditys.

even if they did take that into account.. there is so much more that goes into it.

claiming women make less is true... sure... but that does not mean its discrimnation.... jesus isnt common sense takken into account?.... millions women end up staying home with the kid rather then working.

i highly doubt the stastics that show women make less money, account for all the factors of why it might not be discrimnation...

we have 2 dish washers at my job.... a guy and a girl...

the guy has been here 5 months, the girl 3.

the girl needs alot of extra help... its just too many dishes and they are too heavy for her to do it all fast enough.

the boy does not need help.

they dont fire the girl becuase she does work hard,,, and she is sweet and good looking

it was the only possistion they had for her at the time of hiring... eventualy she may but put on as a hostest in a month or so.

this girl works hard.... she almost can get the job done by her self... but she needs needs a fair amount of help for a one person job, and the managers have to wait longer at the end of the night to go home waiting for her to finish

the boy wish washer makes 10 dollers an hour... she makes 9.

discrimnation?.... or fair?

i say its fair...

in this case the boy and girl dish washer work almost the same hours.... the boy works a bit more becuase he is on the more busy days.

stastics show that women make less... but there are soo many unaccounted facotrs for why that is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

No, it is not fair, unless he is only doing 10% more work. Sounds like he is doing considerably more than that and the pay should reflect that. Otherwise she is getting free money and special preferential treatment the boy is not getting. PLUS the employer needs not pay someone elses wages to help him do his job. Fair? Really? Well yes, that certainly IS feminism's idea of fair.

other considerations making it unfair:

if anything, an emergency or catastrophe or whatever happens at that job and only 1 persons life can be saved ... the boy or the girl. Its the girl; every time, and if that boy resists or does anything to save his own life over that girls, he will be killed by chivalrous white knights trying to save her. And she will stand quietly by while they do it, no matter the degree equality ASSumed. No matter how you slice it, he dies and she lives. Every time. Those are your sons dying every time for her. If this is the contract and construct we must live by, dont your sons deserve to have this woman be deserving the gift they give her?

How much is his life worth in terms of wages?

Hers?

Yours?

How much is your son's life worth in the same context?

I guess what I am saying is that you can be the most moderate feminist wanting only pure equality and womens/mens rights, but none of it means dog shit if you dont stand up against the radical feminists, whos backs and ideology and activism you enjoy and now stand on, and every social contract and construct, past and present, that separated them, and designed by them.

Men need a voice if you women want to fix your boys, the home and family, and have your boys quality of life be as high as possible. Men need time to speak the truth and complain and not be judged for it. Lord knows we have put up with enough BS for 50 years.

If you want your boys to grow up in a world where they are important and valued, then you will do these things for them.

[–]FireTruth -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

i mean its fair he got paid more.... not the amount he got paid more.

and yes... women tycpialy stand by and say nothing as a mans rights is violated to bennift her..... most men would not allow a girl to be treated like that for his bennift

it may have to do with most women lacking honor... i once read an artcial by a man who was describing how women tend to lack honor

asumming the deefiton of honor is : honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions

as an interesting side note... i read an interesting paper that in divorce, men often want fairness, well women were more focused on "having enough"

of course many people never feel they have enough money and stuff, we really need to stop women from dictating the way divorce works..

no wonder women see nothing wrong with sexism agsint men in divorce,,,, assuming its true most women look at whats "enough" while men look at whats "fair"

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, not alot with my own children as I have not seen them in quite a while. I am not sure they even know I exist. Last time I caught up with them they were in Newark, but I have the tracers out. I put up mens rights posters and cards at the stores that allow me to. They contain various links and messages about the importance of rights by birth for everyone. I did hand out Jury Nullification pamphlets at the courthouse, but I was given an ultimatum. Stop or get arrested. I caved. I've been to prison and I dont want to go back, even if putting me there violates my rights. I talk to my family, friends, and neighbors about politics and mens rights. I would really like to get something more formal started locally but those that do show interest are not willing to step into the spotlight right now. Cant really blame them. They are chivalrous white knights like I used to be. I really should make time to do more.

[–]FireTruth 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

interesting

did you know men got google bombed?.... ever here that term before?

type in men are smarter then women into google.com

its all articals about women being smarter then men.. i wonder if that was planed

and yet the avarge male and female iq remains the same as it was before the artcial that didnt even anounce much data on its finding publicly.... and visual obversation and audiory observation sure does not back it up either.

any ways.... what im trying to say is... it looks like femmists are busssy to.... a few months ago... you could find information about either sex being smater when typing it into google....

now you can only find info of women being smater then men on google even when typing in men are smarter then women...

its womens eggearness to believe they are smarter and the medias explotiation of that.... they really dont care that the researcher splayed the stastics and make wild claims from them... they dont care that the average iq has barrly changed in years for either gender......

my point is they at work... perhaps ALL of us should get to work fixing all of this shit and gaining eqaul rights and eqaul social standing.

"Then go DO something about it in your community for your boys"

i have been activily working on helping men gain equal rights for years.... both in educated men and women about matters releating to this stuff.... and other looseley related topics

i take active and sometimes effective counter measures to help men gain eqaul rights and social standing thoughout the western civliation.... and i help stop girls from being sexist and to realize other distrubing habbits both men and women have.

i have done my part..... i may have saved the well being of dozzens of men... helped several girls stop being sexist and assist them in dealing with matters women often struggle with like understadning guys..... and have done many expierments to learn what i can partly so i can be helpful to men gaining eqaul rights... and i have psycoligcaily effected hundreds of people that may be bennifcial to eqaul rights and life styles for men.

but i should do more, we ALL should.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]This_Quiet_Storm 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if there is a sub for human rights or not. And I usually know of where to find various subs. :)

And I wouldn't downvote you for that.

Women's rights came about in an odd way. VA created it, added me... then quit having anything to do with it. I've never been a feminist at all, and I have no idea why he added me as mod to it. But I am going to link to you a typical conversation that goes on in there if I talk about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Womens_Rights/comments/16khyt/when_the_stupidity_about_rape_wouldnt_stop_i_quit/

I... I never could get the feminist bent. I had always worked in male dominated fields, and I did it without suing anyone, and without waving my bra around. I needed a job, and that is where I had gotten it. And I stayed with some variation of that the rest of my working life. And I didn't face much ugliness or bias while doing it. When I was young, they treated me like a sister, and when I was older and went back, they treated me like an aunt. I became their friend and confidante, and I really feel like men face more bias than women do.

And... I am still trying to figure out what my role in women's rights ought to be. Yes, it is terrible when a woman is raped. It is also terrible when a woman takes a man's children away from him, his home, and nearly every other facet of his life.

Anyhow, here in the next few hours I will look for a human right's sub, and if I find one, I'll get back to you with it. :)

[–]rightsbot 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoldyOnions 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jack_el_destapador -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DavidByron -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]truthman2000 -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd take it a step further. Invite a small number of feminists into our midst - hand selected by the /r/Feminism community - set our best minds against them - hand selected by /r/MensRights community - and go through a long, drawn out period of Q/A for the most common questions we get asked, no interference or comments from outside parties allowed. You know, a proper multiparty debate.

I'd say 5 MRAs leaning from all of our stances ("extreme", "moderate", etc.), 5 feminists from the same. 1 moderator from each sub selected as a mediator that can only object to the opposing party's side, 1 truly neutral party without loyalty to either sub serving as the tie-breaker mediator.

Then post that full debate Q/A in the sidebar, properly formatted for easy reading (including all claims made, rebutted, proven, disproven...), and make that required reading before asking questions here.

Anyone who raises a question without having something genuinely new to add to the debate gets banned immediately, no questions asked. Legitimately asking for clarification is allowed; attempting to rehash old territory without bringing something new is treated as raising the question and banned.

Do that, and 100% of the shit will fall out.

No more, for example, "Why can't we be allies with feminists?" every week. -> Sidebar, read it. There was a debate between elected MRAs and elected feminists, and that is what we as a community agreed on.

Edit: Since this would deal with MensRights policy, it would also make sense for the questions being asked to be raised from the MR community, with a short free question period afterwards for the F community to get their questions debated, before the debate was formally closed.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's a great idea that would allow for clear and concise communication between the two camps.

Which is exactly why it won't fly.

Feminists have been refusing to debate us since day one on anything like a formal level.

Example:

Feminist Wanted! « on: March 27, 2006, 05:30:00 PM »
We are looking for a seasoned feminist who would be willing to debate Typhonblue on the topic of whether women are oppressed in the United States. If you are interested and feel that you are qualified please email me at:

 [email protected]

You will be given private access to a forum where the two debaters can work out the mutually agreed upon rules and have the debate free from other posters.

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=8875.0

[–]southernasshole -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"In what ways are women treated less well than men under the law? Outside the law, what rights do men have that women don't?"

I want to keep the gender rift going? By "gender rift", do you mean the march toward equality? Yes, I want to keep that going, in opposition to your distractions and disinformation. You came here to promote inequality. If there is a rift, that is the source.

Who said I think it is in the interest of men to hate women? This follows the party line. If you can't sustain your position with reason and facts, squeal YOU HATE WOMEN! If you are asked questions for which you don't like the answers, squeal YOU HATE WOMEN! Because whether it is true or not, the dogma is WOMEN ARE VICTIMS.

Show me one remark that expresses hatred of women. Or I invite you to modify your statement.

You feel the best way to close the rift is to identify was in which men are disadvantaged, family planning for example, manipulate that issue into the women-are-victims narrative, then advocate in the interest of equality the preservation and extension of women's advantages. When you are asked to defend your position, you sing another chorus of Women Are Victims.

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrueEvenIfUdenyIt -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In Afghanistan, the rape of boys is so common it's barely remarked upon. In the Middle East, a man who rapes a woman is killed too. As is a man engaging in consensual sex with a woman in adulterous situations.

But you never hear about it, because the media doesn't think people care. Or, alternatively, it doesn't fit the narrative.

In any case, the day you start asking how many men suffer identical fates to the ones you are so concerned about women for, in addition to the daily grind of oppressive laws at home, in their daily lives that affect them...dialy....THEN AND ONLY THEN can you pat yourself on the back for being morally superior and 'egalitarian' and stuff.

So far, you have displayed a startlingly gynocentric viewpoint, nauseating capacity for Eugenic thinking, and high handed, judgemental censorious tendencies.

With 'allies' like you, who needs enemies?

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluequail[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments