Are men 'Going Galt' ?

[–]nwz123 47 points48 points49 points 13 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

“One thing I talk about [in the book] is that I used to think as a woman it’s hard to be a men’s rights activist,” she says. “I want men and women who care about them to have the courage to stand up in a world that says that there is only male privilege. I would like people to put themselves in somebody else’s shoes and see the world from the male point of view and see that maybe things aren’t so great.”

If feminists had remained this way, that is: had they stayed true towards their goal of equality between the sexes, this is the form their ideological platform would take: pointing out the ways both men AND women suffer in society through gender roles, expectations, exploitation, etc, and developing ways to counter-act this dynamic so as to ease suffering, empower people, and push society towards the future....

If they were like this, they'd be fighting alongside us, not trying to run us into the ground via slander, lies, shaming, and the derailment of honest conversation and reasoned debate. Nope, feminist ideology in our modern context is decisively against what it stood for in its inception. It's fucking sad.

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]damsel_in_dysphoria -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]SatanIsAnAtheist 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Total bullshit.

All mainstream feminists believe at least some of the following. Please explain to me how they represent equality.

-We live in a society that subjugates women, despite mounds of evidence that men are worse off than women in many ways.

-We live in a "rape culture" where we have to "teach all men not to rape" despite that both sexes can be victims, and perpetrators, of rape.

-False rape accusations are rare, and should not be punished, despite how horribly a man's life is ruined.

-Women are the victims of domestic violence, and men are the perpetrators, despite that numerous studies show DV is reciprocal and male victims are profoundly discriminated against.

-Men should have no reproductive rights.

-Only women should be entitled to billions of dollars worth of social services, despite that men are statistically worse off than women in a variety of ways.

-The "wage gap" which has been debunked 5 zillion times by respected economists.

-Feminists fight shared parenting laws yet whine about women being percieved as default caregivers.

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

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

"As a feminist, I don't think I know any feminists who would disagree with what Helen Smith says."

"What precludes Helen Smith's ideas from being feminist ideology in a modern context? It says right atop the page that she's a modern feminist."

THIS right here. DO YOU SEE THIS? This is EXACTLY why when you say you support equality while also flying the banner of feminism, you are supporting all the man hating feminists. Providing cover for them. Proclaiming that you care about mens rights and that you are also a feminist is the most damaging thing you can do to Mens Rights.

Feminism is the enemy that destroys mens rights, and this kind of thing only helps muddle the issue to make feminism look like its not really that bad after all. You are preventing people from recognizing the evils of feminism when you support equality while flying the flag of feminism.

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

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

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

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

[+]damsel_in_dysphoria -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I'm so, so fed up with hearing this bullshit argument, all the time.

Feminism is not about equality. It never really was. It was always about expanding female privelidge.

I used to call myself a feminist, when I was younger and erronesouly believed feminism was about promoting fairness and equality, but as I have learned the true results of what feminists have achieved and what they push for, it is clear that feminists are only motivated by female self interest; fairness has nothing to do with it; they don't give a shit about men (except in how men can help them achiveve their goals, of further expansion of female privelidge).

I'm actually sick of having to explain this. It's really hard for me not to insult you for your casual, complacent, pig headed stubborness, that feminism is what it says it is - fairness, equality and "nice things" - not what feminist actually do - which is promote female advantage ahead of male at every turn, even if males were worse off to begin with.

Here are just a few examples : -

Feminists lobby for shorter sentencing for women even though males already spent longer in jail for similar crimes.

Feminists lobby for closure of all women's prisons even though 20 times more men are in prison than women.

Feminists invent syndromes to excuse female murder and violence yet make no excuses for male violence - indeed, they even argue violence is inherently male.

Sorry, I no longer have any patience for ignorant, lazy, bullshit feminists like yourself.

[+]damsel_in_dysphoria -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]damsel_in_dysphoria -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]damsel_in_dysphoria -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrway121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]r_rships_account1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nathan8999 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]damsel_in_dysphoria -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

300,000,000 fewer women than there should be

No, I'm not including the tens of millions of men who died in wars. I do believe that equality will give people less reason to fight, but that may be wilful naïveté. I don't think it's good that people die in wars, if that's why you raised the issue.

The 300,000,000 estimate is a regularly cited figure from Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, I assumed that it wasn't very obscure. You should read his stuff, he's exceptionally good on social welfare things.

Either way, the submission was about a feminist saying some stuff that OP presumably liked. I said "yup, I'm a feminist, I like that too." and somehow I've been asked to justify and defend that all evening, and even asked to renounce my feminism. I don't think that's particularly fair.

I think I'll go back to lurking. I care about gender equality, it makes sense for me to follow the Men's Rights movement, but I guess I'm not particularly welcome.

I really hope you guys get what you're looking for.

[–]t1k 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not hard this stuff -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

The military dead, wounded and missing (practically exclusively male) add up to about 38 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

The military dead, wounded and missing (practically exclusively male) add up to about 73 million.

These figures include civilians but it's not reasonable to argue that men didn't face the overwhelming majority of deaths over the last hundred years or so in two major world wars.

You claim that a figure of 300 million women dying is credible because of a book by a guy I've never heard of but he's good at 'social welfare things'.

Come off it if you really mean 'I care about gender equality' then you wouldn't try and minimise tens of millions of documented men dying because you read a book that claimed women might be worse off and that suits you better.

[–]damsel_in_dysphoria -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

100,000,000 died at war, they're probably practically mostly male. That's atrocious! Really. I don't think the women of the time asked them to do that, or had any political power to make it happen, but war is terrible. I wish it didn't happen, and I spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort making sure I don't have anything to do with it.

It doesn't suit me better to say that women are worse off, and I won't. I haven't even played my victim card. I'm not a man or a woman, which pretty much means I get a lion's share of inequality; but then I have internet access and running water, so I'm doing pretty good.

Some guy you've never heard of is pretty cool though. He was professor at Oxford, then Harvard, has over 90 honourary degrees and a Nobel prize. I'm terribly sorry when I first got into feminism I didn't take him with a pinch of salt because t1k hasn't heard of him.

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]t1k 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Interesting that you pick up on those points while ignoring that (where I live anyway):

80% of homeless people are male

90% of workplace deaths are male

3 out of 4 people that commit suicide are male

You complain that women don't make up a sufficient number of politicians, what do you reckon the male to female ratio of:

Bomb disposal experts

Submariners

Miners

Soldiers

Fishermen

Pilots

Astronauts

Construction Workers

Bin Men

Electricians

Police Officers

Firemen

Drivers

Security Workers

is?

You think you can just go about demanding that women be put into well-paid, influential and safe jobs while ignoring the deaths, disabilities and poor wages many men have to endure?

Your other points about child support, abortion, paternity leave as being a disadvantage to women - I'm not convinced these are disadvantages to women, they often seem like disadvantages to men but if you want to clarify what you mean then maybe we can discuss it further?

[+]damsel_in_dysphoria -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nwz123 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

I really feel like that's a pessimistic view of things. I mean- get married, don't get married, it's up to you.

I found a girl I love and by some miscalculation on her part she loves me back.

There are nearly 4 billion women out there, and yeah- loads of them suck. But not all of them. And yeah, society is geared in their favor nearly across the board (I asked a feminist the other day "Can you point to a right that men have that women don't have?" and she resorted to pointing the finger at Iranian women being unable to drive. Because, yeah. I definitely didn't mean first world countries only.) but they're just people.

You shouldn't let the vocal minority sour you on the whole gender. That'd be like hating ALL Christians because of the Westboro Baptist Church or hating ALL white people because of the KKK.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]Bobsutan 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[–]CORNDOGCOMMANDO 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just can not understand the reasoning behind feminist thinking that humanity as a whole must come together to help women and deal with every fucking problem they have no matter how small the problem is, I'm so sick of hearing that same crap over and over, I was once all for better treatment of women but now they are treated far better then me and I'm not suppose to complain?

Now when I hear that women are inconvenienced by paying for the pill I don't give a flying fuck, can't get an abortion then don't have sex. I am tired of subsidizing women's lifestyles at men's expense why should I have to pay more for insurance so women can pay less. Every fucking year I hear about some new legislation that will strip more from men to help women and what I'm suppose to help them? Fuck that

How about we separate our tax system so men's tax money is spent on male services instead of funding women's only organizations that are going to help strip men of more of our money.

I want to open my window and scream I'm not going to take it anymore I'm a human being not a slave I deserve the same amount of care and respect as women. I want to be treated fairly by the law and the government and right now if one women felt afraid I would get arrested and have my head examined to make sure I'm not a threat to women. How about they investigate what drove me to do that.

More then anything I would love to see everyday women stand up to feminist and their lies, I want to hear a women on tv say if women don't pay as much as men for insurance then we need to pay more or they pay less because what I hear from women is as long as I benefit from it I don't care what it does to man.

If someone can explain why I shouldn't feel this way I'm all ears, maybe I'm just missing something but equality is what I want and as long as I don't get it I'm not fighting for women's rights at the expense of my own

Fuck it rant over sorry for the formatting my phone is small so can't tell if it looks right.

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

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

[–]CORNDOGCOMMANDO 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites[S] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a discussion about this in /r/feminism:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1093bt/this_is_the_wife_of_a_professor_at_my_school_i/

Some of the comments are surprisingly positive about issues that affect men, particularly the discrimination against men and boys in Obamacare ... so please no downvote brigade :)

Here is the comment that I left:

Obamacare discriminates against men. The law contains 138 provisions that apply to women only, including seven extremely powerful offices of women's health that advise the USPSTF. Since the USPSTF makes the rules about who gets health care, and who does not, this is very troubling.

Some extremist women's organizations openly gloated about the discriminatory provisions of Obamacare:

http://jezebel.com/5922194/mens-rights-activists-upset-the-word-men-isnt-used-more-in-affordable-care-act

However, true egalitarian feminists (including many from this board) agreed that it is wrong to discriminate against men and boys in healthcare, and agreed that protections that apply only to women are wrong, especially when there are so many of them that the entire text of the law becomes a monument to gender discrimination.

[–]Izicata 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (77 children) | Copy Link

[–]JesusSaidSo 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]Izicata 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (55 children) | Copy Link

Currently women's reproductive rights are being curtailed in certain states such as Kansas. Link.

The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death.

There was the whole contraception insurance mandate thing. The Obama administration proposed a federal mandate that employers offer insurance plans that include female contraceptive pills, and somehow that equals employers paying for women to have sex. Note that the employer doesn't actually pay for that insurance, the employee does and the money is taken out of their salary. The employer basically just works with the insurance companies to get a bulk deal, because they can guarantee that all their employees get the insurance.

Women in the military are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in combat.

Approximately one in five women in the military has been sexually assaulted, but most don't report it. Men are also effected, with 50,000 veterans in 2010 screening positive for "military sexual trauma"

And, of course, there's always the never-ending wellspring of civil rights issues that is the third world.

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well let me tell you what is wrong with all of what you said.

Womens reproductive rights are VASTLY greater than mens. In many jurisdictions men must pay child support for ANY child their wife has even if they prove it isn't theirs, also men can be and are forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs when they aren't married simply because they "acted as a male role model". So even if abortion were all out illegal, women would still have vastly more reproductive rights than men, nobody FORCES ANY women to support a child that isn't theirs at the behest of a man.
Men have no such contraceptive pill and there is no funding into getting it. So again, women have it better.
Sexual assault definitions for this study included "unsolicited sexual remarks" and of course "sex while intoxicated" and HARDLY ANY WOMEN DIE IN COMBAT. So first you have a fake sexual assault definition for a fake sexual assault statistic, of course if "most don't report it" it also becomes unverifiable, not to mention they didn't report it because they don't want to start an issue over pedantic nonsense like a "that's what she said" remark, (yes, those are counted as unsolicited sexual remarks, and thus sexual assaults.) second, It is women's PRIVILEGE that hardly any of them die in combat. So again, women are not being oppressed here.
Men have it far worse in the third world than women do. Look at life expectancy, look at child soldiers, look at human trafficking, look at slave trade, look at genocide, terror attacks, starvation (hatian disaster relief) ect. Men have it worse all over, its just that nobody cares about them.

So your examples are all failures, and to ignore that obvious truth is sexist in itself.

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

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

Points one, two, and four are all true, correct, and don't make anything I said wrong. They are completely indisputable and do not disprove or contradict anything I have said in any way. What I have said, and what you have said, can both be true at the same time and you can believe them both to be true as long as you do not take acknowledgement of one for disagreement with the other.

Your third point is simply incorrect. Looking at the actual survey (Warning: 10 Megabyte PDF), the definition they used is actually reasonable.

The term “sexual violence,” herein referred to as “sexual assault,” is defined as: intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. The crime of sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy, and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful, or attempts to commit these acts. “Consent” means words or overt acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the accused’s use of force, threat of force or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

I also should have been more specific when I was talking about the statistics. One in five women in the military report being sexually assaulted, and one in fifteen men in the military report being sexually assaulted. As you said, the actual numbers are likely higher for both genders.

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

[–]MRMRising 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MRMRising 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MRMRising 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Izicata -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JesusSaidSo 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Ok, I grant you the Kansas part.

But the contraception mandate is not a civil right thats being infringed upon. Thats a civil right that is being enforced by law. Thats a civil rights win for women.

The women in the military is another civil rights win for women. The rape is a terrible crime thats occurring, but it isn't a civil rights issue.

And to boil down third world countries issues as being women's civil rights issues is disgusting at best, bigoted and closed minded at worst. Women's Civil rights issues there are merely a symptom of the overall dysfunction of third world countries. Putting effort into Women's Civil rights in third world countries does nothing to alleviate the problems that cause Women's Civil rights issues in the first place.

EDIT: And could people stop fucking downvoting shit that they just don't agree with?!? Izicata and nwz123 have legitimate arguments. Can we please upvote and refute, rather than downvote and ignore? Save the downvotes for the trolls and the idiots

[–]Izicata 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

The contraception mandate is a civil right now enforced by law. It just passed very recently with significant opposition, and was previously not enforced by law. It's a win for civil rights, but a very recent one and one that was opposed by a large portion of the legislative body.

Women being astoundingly more likely than men to be sexually assaulted in the military is a women's rights issue in the same sort of way that men being astoundingly more likely to be homeless than women or being astoundingly more likely to be injured at work then women is a men's rights issue. Additionally, women in the military who have been sexually assaulted and report the sexual assault have been harrassed, told it was gods will that they were raped, or killed and buried in a shallow grave. To be unable to report crimes without being harassed because of your gender is a civil rights issue.

And to boil down third world countries issues as being women's civil rights issues is disgusting at best, bigoted and closed minded at worst.

How fortunate for me that I never did that. All I said was that the third world was a "never-ending wellspring of civil rights issues". I did not specify women's rights, or men's rights, or anyone's rights. There are women's civil rights issues in third world countries, as well as civil rights issues for a whole host of other demographics. Solving those civil rights issues is, or at least should be, a long-term goal of most civil rights movements, and that includes the women's rights movement.

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

I've already talked about this in another post here, but the definition of sexual assault that the military uses is as follows.

The term “sexual violence,” herein referred to as “sexual assault,” is defined as: intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. The crime of sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy, and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful, or attempts to commit these acts. “Consent” means words or overt acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the accused’s use of force, threat of force or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

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

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

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

We're still talking about civil rights issues.

The contraception mandate is a civil rights win for women, but a very recent and a very opposed one. This is an example of both a recent women's civil rights issue, and an example of why a women's civil rights movement is still needed due to the significant opposition of the mandate.
Women being more likely than men to be sexually assaulted in the military is a civil rights issue in the same way that men being more likely to be injured at work then women is a civil rights issue. Additionally, everyone should be able to report crimes committed against them without gender-based harassment. This includes women in the military, who cannot report being sexually assaulted without a very high incidence of gender-based harassment.
Pretty much everyone in the third world faces some sort of civil rights issue, and everyone includes women.

Do you want help people in third world countries, or do you want to help women in third world countries?

Wow, your reading comprehension is poor.

Solving those civil rights issues is, or at least should be, a long-term goal of most civil rights movements

That is, civil rights movements that aren't entirely focused on one specific country such as the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), which dealt with civil rights issues faced by black people in America. So, yes, I think that we should help people in third world countries, but that any single movement is going to have a hard time doing so on its own just because of the size of the problem.

[–]JesusSaidSo 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I asked what were women's civil rights issues were at the moment and you provided two non-issues. One was a civil rights victory, and the other is a cultural issue, not a civil one.

Your third claim, the one about third world countries, is only valid if you ignore the fact that it is systemic of more serious issues that the countries as a whole face. Which is worse? Having your vagina sewn shut or having you and your entire town being killed.? When I was a child, I had my penis cut up and mutilated for specious medical reasons.

Please watch this with the sound up so you can appreciate it.

But you don't care about that, you care about women, thats all. For feminists, there is no space for anyone else to have issues but women. No one else can have problems until women have none.

So, even though women have the contraception mandate civilly, they have a problem with cultural ignorance. Rather than resolve cultural ignorance, we HAVE to resolve peoples views towards women first, fuck everyone else with cultural issues.

Rather than resolve crimes our servicemen and women face as a whole, we HAVE to resolve and give our attention to the women first, fuck everyone else.

Rather than resolve civil and societal issues as a whole in third world countries, we HAVE to help the women there first, fuck everyone else.

These are the mentalities that people face from feminism. Feminism has a "women first, fuck everyone else" mentality.

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

Wow, your reading comprehension is poor.

I agree with pretty much everything else in the article

Just because men have civil rights issues doesn't mean women don't also have civil rights issues.

Seriously. Stop arguing with the imaginary me in your head, and actually read what I've wrote. Yes, men are currently facing civil rights issues. That's why I'm subscribed to this subreddit. But women are also facing civil rights issues, and acknowledging that doesn't mean I also have to be a feminist or that I think circumcision is anything other than mutilation for cosmetic reasons.

I've also very deliberately not ever used the word "Feminism" in any of my previous posts, only "women's civil rights issue" or "women's civil rights movement", and I did that for a reason.

I asked what were women's civil rights issues were at the moment and you provided two non-issues. One was a civil rights victory, and the other is a cultural issue, not a civil one.

I provided one issue you acknowledged was an issue (Ok, I grant you the Kansas part.), one very recent and very opposed civil rights victory (The contraception mandate thing), one civil rights issue that you are choosing to debate whether not actually is a civil rights issue (The military sexual assault rates), and then briefly mentioned that women, as well as pretty much everyone else, face civil rights issues in the third world. I've already laid out my arguments for why the military sexual assault issue is a civil rights issue, and you have refused to acknowledge them. Instead, you tried to insert your own words into my posts in a bizarre form of SQL injection, and proceeded to argue with yourself.

[–]JesusSaidSo 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Seriously. Stop arguing with the imaginary me in your head

I'm not, I'm arguing with you. You just appear to want to ignore what I'm saying or see what I'm getting at. I pretty much laid it out, but let me put it in plain English again.

No one is disregarding that there are issues women face, but they aren't "Women's" issues. Crime in the military is everyone's issue. Cultural ignorance is everyone's issue. Backward mentalities, horrid cultural practices, and terrible situations are everyone in a third world countries' issues.

But men, men have actual civil issues that affect them specifically. This is why I specifically said CIVIL issues. Not cultural ones. I wholeheartedly agree that women have cultural issues that specifically affect them and need to be specifically addressed. But that not what this discussion started as.

You said there were women's civil rights issues that they faced

Just because men have civil rights issues doesn't mean women don't also have civil rights issues.

Then we got all sorts of derailed when you started blending issues and redirecting the conversation.

All I wanted to know was what were these civil rights issues? Are women unable to vote? Are they unable to hold political office? Are they legally or civilly discriminated against? Because from what I can tell, no, they are not.

But I may be wrong, and we're back where this started:

Can you bullet out what Women's Civil Rights issues are at the moment?

The answer to that question appears to be no, you can't.

[–]Izicata-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not, I'm arguing with you.

Yes, because I totally claimed that "nobody else can have problems until women have none", and that "we HAVE to resolve peoples views towards women first, fuck everyone else with cultural issues.", and that your being mutilated as a child is totally okay. No, wait, those words are ones you put in my mouth. You're ranting at an empty chair.

No one is disregarding that there are issues women face, but they aren't "Women's" issues.

Yes, because abortion rights, which you have already acknowledged are being certailed, aren't a women's rights issue. Women in the military not being able to report sexual assault without being harassed and ignored isn't a civil rights issue. And employers not allowing women to pay for contraception with insurance those women paid for until very recently being mandated by law to do so is not a civil rights issue.

Here, try the black person test.

Black people in Kansas can't get abortions because all the abortion clinics that service black people are being closed due to "regulatory issues". Black people in the military aren't able to report sexual assault without being harassed and ignored, and employers didn't allow black people to use insurance that those black people paid for to pay for contraception until they were mandated by law to do so.

Looks like civil rights issues to me.

[–]X8qV4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women in the military not being able to report sexual assault without being harassed and ignored isn't a civil rights issue

It is an issue Women face, but it is not "women's issue", because men face it too. JesusSaidSo has already written that in the post you replied to.

And employers not allowing women to pay for contraception with insurance those women paid for until very recently being mandated by law to do so is not a civil rights issue.

How can you claim that is a women's issue, when insurance has never payed for forms of contraception that are available to men?

Black people in the military aren't able to report sexual assault without being harassed and ignored, and employers didn't allow black people to use insurance that those black people paid for to pay for contraception until they were mandated by law to do so.

If those issues were as sever or more severe for other races, it would be really unfair to present them as "black people's issues".

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Izicata -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't even have to look at that article to know you're wrong, because you quoted the bit which proves you wrong.

In a 2006 survey of active-duty troops, 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in the previous 12 months.

Yes, more men than women were sexually assaulted, because the vast majority of the people in the military are men. But, in 2006, if you were a women in the military, you had a 6.8% chance of being assaulted in the previous year. If you were a man in the military, you had a 1.8% chance of being assaulted in the previous year. Women in the military were 3.77 times more likely to be assaulted then men in the military in the 2005-2006 period.

AND you're using outdated sources. The most recent numbers are from 2010, and I liked to an article discussing them one of my previous posts. Here it is again, here's a different source, and here's the Wikipedia article.

The new numbers are approximately 1 in 15 men in the military have been sexually assaulted, and 1 in 5 women in the military have been sexually assaulted.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

You edited your post to correct your statement that "men are more likely than women to be sexually assaulted in the military". The edit-asterisk beside your post time belies your attempt to troll.

However, the statistics which actually matter are the likelihood statistics. If three times more Africans than Mexicans are struck by lightning every year in the country of Doesntexiststan, but there are three times more Africans than Mexicans in Doesntexiststan, does that mean Africans are lighting rods? No, it just means that there are three times more Africans to be struck by lightning.

Given that there are so many more men than women in the military, the fact that more total men in the military are sexually assaulted then total women sexually assaulted isn't surprising. I'd also wager that men in the military take home more total dollars, but that doesn't mean there's a pay gap. It's the per-capita numbers that matter.

You're still using outdated statistics, the actual numbers are much higher for both genders, and I'd like you to actually link to this Navy report on false accusations. If you're going to make a claim, you need to back it up.

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

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Izicata 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I disagreed with that.

Probably here:

The contraception mandate is a civil rights win for women

Let's, for a moment, imagine that beaches are racially segregated; would creating a free whites-only shuttle service, to ensure that all white people can enjoy the beach for free, be a civil rights win? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure you would agree that in fact desegregation would be a civil rights win.

Reproductive rights are subject to gender segregation, and rather than desegregating them, the mandate simply makes it cheaper and easier for women to exercise their unilateral control. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see coverage added for men rather than removed from women, but to call it a civil rights win belittles all historical civil rights movements.

Do you know what women would have to face if birth control were not covered? They'd have to buy condoms themselves, just like men are expected to.

As things stand, free contraception is a privilege, not a right.

[–]Izicata -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

The contraception isn't free. Women pay for medical insurance, through their employer, that covers the birth control pill. All the mandate does is ensure that when an employer offers to let their employees pay for a medical insurance plan, that insurance plan covers the pill. The birth control pill is not only used as contraception, it's also used to treat Endometriosis and Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, so there are medical reasons to take the pill.
Currently reproductive rights are subject to gender segregation due to biology, not government or society. Research is going on in multiple countries at this very moment to develop a safe "pill for men", but most of the potential drugs tested haven't worked out for one reason or another. Biology isn't simple, and finding a way to safely disable sperm production in a way that can be undone easily is hard.

The reason developing female hormonal contraception was so easy is because there already was a situation in which women stop ovulating: when they're pregnant. During pregnancy, women's brains produce specific hormones that tell the uterus to stop ovulating. Essentially, all that had to be done to produce the female hormonal birth control pill was isolating those specific hormones, and putting them in pill form.

Unfortunately, there is no situation in which men stop producing sperm temporarily, and then begin producing sperm later, so we can't just hijack the body's inbuilt system. We have to find a more complicated solution. The reason there is currently no male pill is because men and women are physically and biologically different.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The contraception isn't free.

We erroneously made female health care less expensive (and male health care more expensive), while removing co-pay and what not from quite a few female services. If instead female rates went up, while male rates went down, and insurance started covering monthly strip club visits for men... I'm pretty sure you wouldn't call that a civil rights win, despite the health benefits of looking at breasts being well documented.

Currently reproductive rights are subject to gender segregation due to biology, not government or society.

Nothing about biology justifies the fact that sex is not consent to parental responsibility for a woman, but is for a man. Mandatory child support is based entirely on government and society; plus, giving single mothers 100% custody by default, allowing them to adopt out without the fathers consent? That's also entirely based on government and society.

pill is not only used as contraception

You have a basic misunderstanding of business; if the pill were no longer covered, a rebranded pill for those issues would hit the market within days.

"pill for men"

IUDs existed before the pill, and since we've invented the patch, NuvaRing, etc. Funding is worth comparing if you're going to point out that it's being developed, but I'm talking about rights, not the male pill.

stop producing sperm

So, cause the sperm produced to be non-viable; but again, not what I'm talking about.

[+]Izicata -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

Economics issues + strip club comparison

One, you're comparing medical insurance covering medicine to medical insurance covering strip clubs. This comparison is very invalid, as monthly strip clubs don't have a research-verified medicinal effect. If you can actually show valid scientific studies showing the medicinal effect of monthly strip-club visits, I will eat my computer.

Two, births are expensive and babies are expensive. Cheap contraception means less babies and less births. It's actually cheaper overall to cover contraception than it is to not cover contraception and cover the cost of more babies and more births. Covering one woman's birth control for the rest of her life is far less expensive than covering one whole new person's medical issues for the rest of their life.

Nothing about biology justifies the fact that sex is not consent to parental responsibility for a woman, but is for a man.

I apologize, I completely misspoke. You are 100% correct about this and I agree with you. I should have said that the reason there is no male contraception other than condoms/vasectomy is because of biology rather than governmental or societal influence.

You have a basic misunderstanding of business; if the pill were no longer covered, a rebranded pill for those issues would hit the market within days.

You have a basic misunderstanding of how the medicine business works. Drugs are patentable, and the patent for hormonal birth control was owned by the company Wyeth, which is now owned by the company Pfizer. The patent is estimated to expire in 2017. You cannot simply slap a new name on the same drug and sell it without being sued into oblivion by gigantic pharmaceutical companies.

If you're trying to make a new drug which does the same thing, it has to go through federally mandated drug trials, which take a very, very long time.

Other forms of contraception have been developed than the pill

Actually, they're mostly just variations on stuff we already know how to do. The patch, NuvaRing, etc. are all just different delivery methods of the same hormones. They last longer because they contain a larger dose of the hormones then a single pill, but release it over a longer period of time. IUDs are just variations on parking something where the babies are supposed to grow. Newer methods of birth control are longer lasting, cause less side effects, etc., but they all function pretty much the same way.

Right now, we don't really know how to prevent male sperm from being viable in a safe, temporary way. We've got some very promising ideas being looked into, but we don't know how well they're going to work out in reality.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

medical insurance covering medicine

It's only medicine for those who take it for reasons other than contraception; for the majority, it's not medicine, unless you consider pregnancy a disease; the same can be said for any medication which is being used recreationally.

Cheap contraception means less babies and less births.

I already said that I'm glad it's covered; but, in removing copay and reducing the cost of insurance for women, while expecting men to still pay for comparable services, and more for insurance over all is not a civil rights win, it's a female privilege win.

Imagine if we equalized the cost of car insurance, but then subsidized the cost of cars for men and not women.

You cannot simply slap a new name on the same drug and sell it without being sued into oblivion by gigantic pharmaceutical companies.

I meant that those very companies would rebrand the pill, not some new entity; that's sort of the definition of rebranding something.

they're mostly just variations on stuff we already know how to do

It's still spending R&D money on female convenience over male need.

IUDs are just variations on parking something where the babies are supposed to grow.

No, IUDs come in two flavors, hormonal and copper. Hormonal IUDs work the same way other hormonal contraception does, while copper is spermicidal. Both have the added benefit of reducing the cervical opening, but 'parking' something in your uterus is like... last on the list, if at all.

Realistically, the push should be for women to get copper IUDs rather than the pill; they last five years, are even cheaper than five years worth of pills, and don't carry the side effects related to hormonal contraception.

[–]Izicata-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

for the majority, it's not medicine

It's a drug prescribed by a doctor that prevents a specific biological situation which is considered bad, i.e. pregnancy. Pregnancy has a whole host of bad effects such as morning sickness, weight gain, and a whole lot of money disappearing over at least 18 years. If you start trying to define birth control as "not medicine" you'll have to start asking if a whole bunch of other drugs might not be medicine, because you don't really need to take Tylenol to get rid of that little headache, do you? Should other people's money subsidize your inability to deal with a minor inconvenience?

Men subsidizing women's medicine

I actually live in Canada, and we've got entirely single-payer universal healthcare up here and it works very well. I wouldn't use the fucked-up situation you've got down south for anything. So I'm not actually too concerned about the whole paying for other people's medicine bit. Frankly, you guys need to at least transition to a single-payer health care system and join the rest of the world.

I meant that those very companies would rebrand the pill, not some new entity; that's sort of the definition of rebranding something.

There's still only one pill. The patent hasn't run out, so a generic can't be made, so unless Pfiser starts a couple dozen entirely different advertising campaigns for the exact same drug it's still very easy for an employer to just not have an insurance plan that offers any of the drug under either name.

It's still spending R&D money on female convenience over male need.

Yup. That's the way profit-driven medicine works. At this point, reliable male birth control is a long-shot. There's no guarantee you'll ever get any money out of that research. Developing new, more convenient forms of female birth control is far less risky since we actually have some idea of what we're doing in that area. Companies don't like to gamble on something risky when they could put their money somewhere it's very likely to see returns. What we actually need is government investment in this, and for that we need the MRM to become far more mainstream than it currently is.

Hormonal IUDs work the same way other hormonal contraception does, while copper is spermicidal. Both have the added benefit of reducing the cervical opening, but 'parking' something in your uterus is like... last on the list, if at all.

IUD means IntraUterine Device. Intra is a prefix that means "in". In-uterus device. The very first line of the Wikipedia article: The modern intrauterine device (IUD) is a form of birth control in which a small 'T'-shaped device, containing either copper or progesterone, is inserted into the uterus.

You are, however, correct about the major mechanisms of how they work.

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

which is considered bad, i.e. pregnancy

Condoms not only prevent pregnancy, they prevent STIs... and guess what? Not covered, despite clearly being more effective at preventing more bad things... cause you know, a pregnancy can be aborted, herpes and HIV cannot.

I actually live in Canada

Fuck you and your health care that makes sense! <3

The patent hasn't run out, so a generic can't be made

Um, generic brands already exist?

a couple dozen entirely different advertising campaigns for the exact same drug

Big Pharma already does this.

What we actually need is government investment in this, and for that we need the MRM to become far more mainstream than it currently is.

There is definitely government investment involved in female contraceptives and what not, but I'm sure we agree on this point.

IUD means IntraUterine Device

My miscommunication sense is tingling; I never said that it doesn't rest mostly inside of the uterus, but that the part inside of the uterus simply being there does not prevent pregnancy (at least, to any noteworthy extent).

[–]Izicata-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Condoms aren't covered

Yup. I agree with you that condoms can be considered preventative medicine, that condoms should be covered by insurance, and that it doesn't make sense either economically or rights-wise that they aren't. They're not even covered in Canada, even though a free condom program would quite probably pay for itself in decreased STI treatment cost.

Look, I'm not a feminist. I've already said things to that effect to multiple people multiple times. If you ask me about an area where men get the short end of the stick, I'll probably agree with you that men get the short end of the stick. I just think that you can acknowledge that women have rights issues at the same time as you acknowledge that men have rights issues. Fuck, why is this so hard to understand.

Um, generic brands already exist?

Well, huh. Looks like I'm wrong.

Of course, the free market didn't magically make employers offer insurance that covers birth control for medical reasons but not contraceptive reasons even though there already exist multiple brands of birth control, so I guess you're wrong that "if the pill were no longer covered [by insurance], a rebranded pill for those issues would hit the market within days." See Sandra Fluke's congressional testimony about her friend who needed birth control for medical issues but couldn't get insurance to cover it.

My miscommunication sense is tingling; I never said that it doesn't rest mostly inside of the uterus, but that the part inside of the uterus simply being there does not prevent pregnancy (at least, to any noteworthy extent).

Ah, okay. That makes more sense.

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fuck, why is this so hard to understand.

It's not, perhaps I just see them as tiny minnows in a larger pond. Birth control should be covered (and now is here), but circumcision is a much larger issue (and getting worse on the whole). Abortion must be legal, but the fact that men have no out is a larger issue (since abortion is legal). In my time on this sub and elsewhere I've gotten the feeling that most MRAs do see abortion et al as important issues, but just... less important, because people are aware of them, and they're already legal and funded, even if some old fundamentalist nut happens to disagree on the telly.

See Sandra Fluke's congressional testimony about her friend who needed birth control for medical issues but couldn't get insurance to cover it.

Okay! :D

Polycystic ovary syndrome

There are other treatments, and a simple laproscopic surgery aside from birth control; her friend is at fault for not trying anything else before it was time for a trip to the ER.

Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were

5% of the population gets POS, complications like this are very rare, even within the 5% (MayoClinic).

One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

Insurance not covering medication for an undiagnosed problem... that sounds perfectly normal. I mean, otherwise anyone who wanted to get fucked up could just go to the ER; hell, anyone who wanted to make money could go to the ER and then slang pills.

Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

Women's reproductive health care is the exact reason women paid more for coverage, what? This statement is entirely erroneous, she's the only one putting that message out there.

So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

"I have a stupid friend who made a decision based on assumption rather than actually researching the issue, or asking questions."

pick between a quality education and our health

I know plenty of men who have to choose between health and any education at all; I'm one of them, but I'll get to that in a second. This is a massive argument from emotion, and blows things way out of proportion; honestly, you were doing way better without referencing this piece.

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

I pay more than that for health insurance, and when I suffered testicular torsion, I had to copay for each visit as I was shuffled through seven different doctors, various tests... and eventually told "it's normal." Ironically, my girlfriend had the exact same insurance as I did (I was paying for maternity coverage, because there was no plan without it), and when she went in with some mild abdominal pain, they immediately took her to get ovarian imaging without having to pay for a separate appointment. It was IBS.

Now, to put that in perspective, testicular torsion is in the top three most painful medical conditions - labor pain doesn't even make the top ten. If not treated within hours causes organ death, and while self correcting can happen (as with me), it means the testicle is no longer secure in it's orientation, and thus very prone to torsion from activities like sleeping; thus, even self correcting torsion requires surgery.

Guess who was denied surgery? I was, by a female surgeon who refused to even make eye contact with me, she just shouted her side of the conversation at the door. Guess what a complaint resulted in... "Aw, I hope you feel better!" And no, it wasn't school coverage or some shitty small insurer, it was Kaiser.

Perhaps I just got the short stick in life, and have terrible luck, but I came across many similar issues while researching my own health; regardless, I'm still paying off the ambulance ride from the second torsion, can't afford school, can't afford health insurance any more, nor the root canal I need to prevent the infection spreading to my other teeth (which I suspect it has, given the shape of the cyst).

So, perhaps now you can see why at least I personally don't put too much priority into birth control. It should be covered, but for every non-contraceptive issue there is almost always another treatment, however inconvenient it might be.

EDIT: Not sure how it is in Canada, but down here dental is not covered by medical insurance; I can understand that concerning cosmetic dentistry, but a root canal prevents the infection from becoming blood born, and those blood vessels for straight to the brain... yay!

[–]Izicata-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not, perhaps I just see them as tiny minnows in a larger pond.

I'm not even arguing about the relative importance of issues. I have said nothing but that they exist, and everyone who bothered to respond thinks I'm trying to delegitimize the Mens Rights Movement. Fuck.

My point of bringing up Sandra Fluke's testimony was that her friend's insurance did cover birth control for medical reasons, but since it wasn't mandated to cover birth control for any and all reasons her insurance decided not to cover it anyway and she wasn't able to afford it. Even though your claimed situation in this post actually happened, businesses and insurance companies offered birth control pills only for medical issues and not for contraception, Sandra Fluke's friend was still denied insurance for birth control pills for actual medical issues because the insurance company suspected she was taking them as contraception. The solution you claimed would work, is already in place and is not working.

You'd think you'd be able to pick that up from context clues, but apparently everyone is taking stupid pills tonight.

And I can't believe that I am having to repeat this, seeing as I've typed out something like it about half a dozen times already, I'm not even arguing about the relative importance of issues. I have said nothing but that they exist.

Your testicular torsion story is very sad. I feel bad that you had to go through that, and that it's nearly bankrupted you.

Your healthcare system is shit and that effects everyone in your society and maybe America should stop being so insanely right wing. Frankly, you get what you vote for, and most Americans aren't voting for sane people or not voting at all and thus you get the situation you have now. I feel bad for all the sane people in America, because they're saddled with a whole ton of scared spiteful morons who also have the right to vote. Money that should be going to keep Americans from dying in pain from preventable ailments has to go to buying aircraft carriers. The military has to be able to intimidate those Somalian pirates in outboard motorboats.

And no, dental care is not covered in Canada. It should be, but it's not. Fortunately, we're better able to afford it, because we don't have to spend our money on ten thousand dollar ambulance rides or die in the street.

For every non-contraceptive issue there is almost always another treatment, however inconvenient it might be.

And expensive, don't forget expensive. For someone who was nearly bankrupted by medical costs, I'd think you'd understand that sometimes Americans can't actually pay for all the medical care they need. If Sandra Fluke's friend can't even afford birth control without student insurance, how the fuck is she going to pay for any surgery?

Frankly, what you're saying is "I don't have any, so they can't either". How about, instead of advocating that women shouldn't have birth control covered under insurance, you could advocate for fixing the shitty broken system that's causing the issues? Note that I am not saying don't advocate for Men's Rights. Healthcare reform AND Mens Rights. There is an AND in that sentence. You fix that, you've dealt with not only a whole bunch of tiny minnows, but some gigantic damn man-eating sharks as well.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Whoa; most of the criticism I posted was directed at the poor argument presented by Sandra Fluke, not at you. I'm not trying to start a fight, calm down, I was just trying to explain what you had wondered about; sorry if I came across as attacking you.

"I don't have any, so they can't either"

I've said quite a few times this it is a good thing for contraception to be covered, even if only for women (FYI, a lot of places actually covered the pill et al before the mandate, including specific options like the NuvaRing); it would be much more accurate to say that my stance is something closer to this:

I don't have any, and you do; so, my need should be of higher priority.

For example, breast cancer was the most important cancer to fight when I was a child, but now that men are dying from cancer more often, we should shift our focus. We shouldn't forget about breast cancer, but now that the wind has shifted, we must adjust our sails.

The solution you claimed would work, is already in place and is not working.

Er, what solution?

And expensive, don't forget expensive.

Yes, but having options available, however difficult or expensive, is still better than having none at all. It was a huge win of whatever kind for women to get contraception, yay, but as a result the one test for prostate cancer (PSA) is no longer recommended, and might lose coverage (and that effects 20% of men).

Some women may have to travel quite a ways to find an abortion in some states, and it might be expensive, but it's still cheaper and easier than 18 years of child support.

[–]Izicata1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've said quite a few times this it is a good thing for contraception to be covered, even if only for women

It was a huge win of whatever kind for women to get contraception, yay

Reproductive rights are subject to gender segregation, and rather than desegregating them, the mandate simply makes it cheaper and easier for women to exercise their unilateral control. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see coverage added for men rather than removed from women, but to call it a civil rights win belittles all historical civil rights movements.

You can't even remember what arguments you've made.

a lot of places actually covered the pill et al before the mandate

And yet the federal mandate was still needed, because a whole lot of insurance plans didn't cover it. Some insurance plans covering it doesn't exactly matter because a whole lot of insurance plans didn't cover it. Some states mandate that prostate cancer testing is covered under all medical insurance plans, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be covered under all medical insurance plans.

Er, what solution?

If the pill were no longer covered, a rebranded pill for those issues would hit the market within days.

That one. The one you proposed, and the I linked to. The pills weren't rebranded, but the rest of the situation is the same.

Sandra Fluke's friend's insurance covered birth control for medical reasons but not contraceptive reasons. Sandra Fluke's friend needed birth control for medical reasons. She still wasn't able to use the insurance she paid for to buy birth control, could not afford birth control out of pocket, and as a result lost an ovary. Insurance that covers birth control pills only for medical reasons has failed women who need birth control pills for medical reasons. It doesn't work.

Some women may have to travel quite a ways to find an abortion in some states, and it might be expensive, but it's still cheaper and easier than 18 years of child support.

The problem is, some people cannot afford either. That's the issue. I don't think you understand how little money some people have, and if you do you're certainly not applying that knowledge. Some people don't have enough money to travel and pay for an abortion out of pocket or enough money to raise a child. Even if the abortion is covered under insurance, some people don't have enough money to take even one day off work. That's the problem. If an option is too expensive and too difficult, it's not actually an option people can choose.

We shouldn't forget about breast cancer, but now that the wind has shifted, we must adjust our sails.

You're preaching to the choir. Seriously. You don't have to convince me that men's health is a big issue, because I already believe that.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can't even remember what arguments you've made.

You proved my point in quote, thank you. EDIT: "Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see coverage added for men rather than removed from women"

And yet the federal mandate was still needed, because a whole lot of insurance plans didn't cover it.

Not all auto-insurance plans cover everything, aren't women suppose to be better at shopping than men? Like you showed above, it's good that the pill is covered, but as a woman I probably would have thought about that.

That one. The one you proposed, and the I linked to. The pills weren't rebranded, but the rest of the situation is the same.

The solution you claimed would work, is already in place and is not working.

Show me where birth control is marketed under another name as a hormonal regulator, without mention of contraception. It doesn't exist, it's not already in place, what are you talking about?

could not afford birth control out of pocket, and as a result lost an ovary

Yes, but she was a rare outlier who contributed to her own suffering by ignoring all other solutions, and this has been fixed! Yay! I'm not a rare outlier, and I'll probably lose a testicle, despite fighting for every option available.

The problem is, some people cannot afford either.

Yes, some people might not be able to afford to travel, some might not be able to afford the abortion, some might not be able to afford to raise it... but YOU are ignoring baby contracting. The mother can always have her medical paid for, her food paid for, her rent paid for, and all other living expenses... she just contracts to adopt the baby to specific parents, and receives a large lump sum at the end ($100,000 for example).

Know what happens to men who cannot afford those things? Prison (rape).

It is constantly astounding to me how little women seem to know about women, and the options available... in like... every circumstance.

You're preaching to the choir.

I feel like this goes both ways, we're just violently sharing information each other appreciates having learned; haha!

[–]Izicata1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let's, for a moment, imagine that beaches are racially segregated; would creating a free whites-only shuttle service, to ensure that all white people can enjoy the beach for free, be a civil rights win? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure you would agree that in fact desegregation would be a civil rights win.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see coverage added for men rather than removed from women, but to call it a civil rights win belittles all historical civil rights movements.

It was a huge win of whatever kind for women to get contraception, yay

Statements one and two contradict statement three; they cannot all be true at the same time. You said that the mandate is just aggravating gender segregation, then said that to call it a civil rights win belittles civil rights movements. Now you say that it is a civil rights win. Either you were wrong when you wrote your first comment, or you're wrong now.

Not all auto-insurance plans cover everything, aren't women suppose to be better at shopping than men? Like you showed above, it's good that the pill is covered, but as a woman I probably would have thought about that.

Casual sexism, hindsight bias, and superiority bias, all in two sentences. 7/10.

Show me where birth control is marketed under another name as a hormonal regulator, without mention of contraception. It doesn't exist, it's not already in place, what are you talking about?

When I pointed out that birth control has medical uses aside from contraception and thus should be covered under medical insurance, you said "if the pill were no longer covered, a rebranded pill for those issues would hit the market within days." I thought that you meant a rebranded pill would be covered under insurance for medical issues other than contraception, because otherwise what you said bears no relation to a coherent argument. And, since Sandra Fluke's friend's insurance already claimed to cover the pill for medical reasons other than contraception but didn't actually cover it for medical reasons when she needed it, that argument doesn't actually work. But since you seem to have no idea what I'm talking about, I'd like to know what you actually meant.

Yes, but she was a rare outlier who contributed to her own suffering by ignoring all other solutions

Victim blaming and baseless assumptions, classy. What makes you think she didn't try other solutions, and what makes you think that she could afford the option you mentioned, laproscopic surgery? Even if laparoscopy is covered by insurance, it can still cost hundreds to thousands of dollars out of pocket. Sandra Fluke's friend, who was unable to afford even a hundred dollars a month, would be completely unable to afford a couple thousand dollar lump sum.

You are ignoring baby contracting

So women who can't afford an abortion should have to suffer through nine months of back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, constipation, contractions, dehydration, edema, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hemorrhoids, pica, lower abdominal pain, increased urinary frequency, varicose veins, and abdominal separation? And those are just the routine problems of a pregnancy. Serious complications, like deep vein thrombosis, can lead to death.

Not to mention that if someone can't afford to go get an abortion, they won't be able to afford a pregnancy and all the hospital care it requires, so you'll be paying for their medical care. I think that's something most people just don't understand; if you can't afford medical care you're not just tossed out on the street to die. You'll go bankrupt, sure, but you're still treated, and that still costs money that has to come from somewhere. If someone's insurance doesn't cover their care, and they can't afford it out of pocket, then you pay for their care indirectly through taxes and increased insurance premiums. Yes, you. Your money pays for their medical care. If they can't find insurance that covers their care and they can't afford it themselves, you will be paying for it. And if you go bankrupt and default on your debts, they'll be paying for your medical care. The American medical system is already socialized, just in the shittiest, least efficient, most painful way possible.

The mother can always have her medical paid for, her food paid for, her rent paid for, and all other living expenses.

CITATION NEEDED

I have very consistently backed up my claims with links and evidence. You don't just get to throw a claim that wild out there without backing it up.

We're just violently sharing information each other appreciates having learned; haha!

I guess we're in a reciprocally abusive discussion partnership.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now you say that it is a civil rights win.

It was a huge win of whatever kind for women to get contraception, yay

I don't see the term civil rights, check yourself.

Casual sexism, hindsight bias, and superiority bias, all in two sentences. 7/10.

I apologize for using stereotypical humor to drive the point home, but hindsight bias? When I first looked for medical insurance I went over what was covered with a fine tooth comb, just as I did when finding car insurance; and, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect women to do the same.

But since you seem to have no idea what I'm talking about, I'd like to know what you actually meant.

Sandra Fluke's friend was denied the pill because they suspected that she wanted it for contraceptive reasons. If two separate pills existed under different names, one as contraception and the other as hormonal regulation, this would not have happened. Think about it like this:

I want contraception because I have ovarian issues!

Are you sure you don't just want contraception?

Versus:

I want hormonal regulation because I have ovarian issues!

Alright, but you should know that temporary infertility is a side effect.

See how those two are different?

Victim blaming and baseless assumptions, classy.

The way it was stated? No; she waited on an ER trip till emergency surgery was needed, that's her fault. If I broke my leg and just waited around as infection set in, gangrene, amputation; would you call me a victim? Or foolish for not going to the ER? Personally, I would call myself foolish. Further, if she couldn't afford $100/mo, I have no idea how should could even afford health insurance in the first place.

So women who can't afford an abortion should have to suffer through nine months of

Nice straw man; what about herpes? AIDs? Hepatitis B? HPV (resulting in cancer)? Syphilis (resulting in brain damage)? There are a lot of things worse than pregnancy which can come from sex. The only thing that makes pregnancy a "special ailment" is that it's natural, and ends.

CITATION NEEDED

Independent adoption; the birth mother's medical bills are nearly always covered. Living expenses are less certain, but it's a contract between two parties, so the mother could easily negotiate for coverage.

God, didn't you see Juno!? /s

Seriously, that movie was pretty flawed, but the independent adoption was pretty much on point.

[–]Izicata1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Whatever Definition

Adjective

6) in any amount; to any extent: whatever merit the work has.

7) no matter what: whatever rebuffs he might receive.

8) being what or who it may be: Whatever the reason, he refuses to go.

9) of any kind (used as an intensifier following the noun or pronoun it modifies): any person whatever.

"A win of whatever kind" would include "A win of the civil kind". If that's not the meaning you intended, maybe you should know what a word actually means before you use it.

When I first looked for medical insurance I went over what was covered with a fine tooth comb.

And you have no evidence Sandra Fluke's friend didn't. Her insurance did cover contraception for medical reasons, she just was denied coverage for spurious reasons. There is no reason to assume you could have done any better, and yet you are. Superiority bias. You're looking back at a situation that obviously ended badly, and saying "of course I would have been smart enough to avoid that". Hindsight bias.

See how those two are different?

So insurance companies are dumb enough to just not notice they're the exact same drug with the exact same effects? Come on. Corporations are profit driven sociopaths, not idiots.

I also like how you used the word "want" instead of need, because not dying from cancer or a stroke is totally a want.

she waited on an ER trip till emergency surgery was needed, that's her fault.

ER stands for emergency room. It's for emergencies, and costs a whole lot of money that we have established that she doesn't have. Fluke doesn't go in detail about her friend's financial situation in her testimony, but from what we already know, either the surgery was totally covered by her insurance or she's in financial trouble.

Further, if she couldn't afford $100/mo, I have no idea how should could even afford health insurance in the first place.

Georgetown University's insurance plan costs $2,075 at the start of the year. This works out to $173 a month. If your insurance rates unexpectedly increased by 58%, would it still be possible for you to afford it?

Note that Georgetown's insurance is a lump sum payment, not a monthly payment. Maybe she couldn't afford the $100/month because she thought the insurance she paid for at the start of the year would cover what the university said it would cover, and budgeted appropriately? She's a university student, she doesn't have much disposable income.

Nice straw man; what about STDs?

What about STDs? What made you bring up STDs at all? The fact that STDs exist does not make letting someone non-consensually go through nine months of detrimental effects with risk of death any more moral. If STD patients are being denied medical insurance coverage that they have already paid for, that is also a horrible situation. Both situations can be horrible at the same time.

STDs don't make what you said, that a woman who can't afford an abortion should have to carry the pregnancy against her will, any less wrong.

Independent adoption

contract between two parties

contract

You're assuming that everyone has enough money to hire a contract lawyer, that everyone can actually find someone willing to adopt their baby, and that everyone's life situation allows taking the time off for the medical treatment pregnancy requires.

And I've never seen Juno, and I hope to maintain that situation until I die.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"A win of whatever kind" would include "A win of the civil kind".

Yes, start a pissing contest with a linguist, that's a great plan; I explicitly stated that it was not a civil rights win multiple times, so to then assume that a blank must be filled in with what was explicitly denied is... fail.

And you have no evidence Sandra Fluke's friend didn't.

The entire piece was about insurance through schools and religious institutions; therein it is implied that her friend never looked at independent insurance. But hey, let's see where this goes!

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus.

Sounds like her friend didn't even bother going to a drug store, let alone anything else; it also sounds like Sandra Fluke is full of shit.

This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

So, she lied about her age and about being a student as well? Can we agree that, like I said, you were doing much better without Sandra Fluke; the woman lied about her age, the fact that she was a student, and about the cost of birth control.

If STD patients are being denied medical insurance coverage that they have already paid for, that is also a horrible situation.

The point was that STDs are a whole lot more common than pregnancy, yet condoms are not covered as preventative care; plus, condoms are going to cost more than $9 a month.

You're assuming that everyone has enough money to hire a contract lawyer, that everyone can actually find someone willing to adopt their baby, and that everyone's life situation allows taking the time off for the medical treatment pregnancy requires.

Adopting parents pay for the lawyer, there are massive waiting lists for adoption, pregnancy doesn't require much care for most of it, and with your cost of living paid for... I don't see taking time off as an issue.

[–]Izicata1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I explicitly stated that it was not a civil rights win multiple times

Yes, you did explicitly state that, and that contradicts your more recent statement of "whatever". Perhaps you should be less vague in the future.

Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus.

Oh boy, an uninformed opinion based on hearsay.

Maybe you should actually have talked to some doctors, like this guy did.

"It's great when low-cost generics are available, if one of the ones available is the right method for you. But if we were talking about medication to address high blood pressure or to treat cancer, no one would take seriously this type of argument: "You don't need insurance coverage for that medication your doctor recommends. See, there's a different drug on sale at Target. I'm not a doctor, but, hey, it's probably just as good for you."

Are you a medical doctor as well as a linguist?

The entire piece was about insurance through schools and religious institutions; therein it is implied that her friend never looked at independent insurance.

There is no such implication; you are reading that interpretation into the testimony. Just because Sandra Fluke didn't talk about her friend shopping for insurance doesn't mean it didn't happen, and talking about uneventful insurance shopping during congressional testimony would be a waste of everyone's time and the taxpayer's money.

Georgetown University claimed to have an insurance policy which covered birth control for medical reasons, and then did not cover birth control for medical reasons. Quite frankly, the school said it would do one thing and then did the opposite. If you went over your insurance with a fine-tooth comb, made the decision to buy that insurance plan, and then your insurer says that it's not actually going to cover medication that it said it would cover and that you need, how fucked would you be?

So, she lied about her age and about being a student as well?

Show me where, in her testimony, she mentioned her age at all. You can't, because she didn't. The media misreported her age, and then conservative pundits lied about it, and for some reason you believe them. You'd think that having gone over her testimony and attempted a rebuttal, you'd have noticed this.
Sandra Fluke was still a law student when she gave her testimony, and graduated later that year. You are very misinformed.

The point was that STDs are a whole lot more common than pregnancy, yet condoms are not covered as preventative care; plus, condoms are going to cost more than $9 a month.

I'm not exactly sure how your point is relevant. STDs being common does not make letting someone non-consensually go through nine months of detrimental effects with risk of death any more moral.
I've already agreed with you that condoms should be covered as preventative care. Trying to convince me of something that I already believe is a waste of time.
I highly doubt you've actually looked at any numbers for either STDs or pregnancy, and if you have you haven't sourced your claim.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

That was a response to...

Can you bullet out what Women's Civil Rights issues are at the moment? I ask purely from an informational perspective. I've done my own reading and listened to certain sources, but I want to know from someone else what they think they are.

This person was posting what was requested. I don't think asking for something, getting it, then getting upset at someone for providing exactly what was asked is conversationally productive (as a group, not you individually). Also, the points listed were well within the realm of tame by this subreddit's expectations.

I would point out that the "Women in the military are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in combat" statistic is likely due to the fact that "97% of combat deaths & casualties since the first gulf war have been men" but having a debatable issue is the whole point of a forum and this list specifically notes that it is an issue that effects men as well, something I think we often do when we have to make caveats in public that women still have issues when talking about Men's Rights' issues as well.

[–]nwz123 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]JesusSaidSo 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]nwz123 -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But it saves lives. Sorry if I prioritize gains in the real world over attacking what could very well be a misguided goose-hunt, or at worse, an ideological dead-end-turned-dogmatism. And as a black man who's background is from a "third world country", let me tell you this: i've been around enough women who agree with this point. Women in the first world, compared to those in the third world, are PRIVILEGED.

Check your classism at the door, please. Hell, go read ANY writings on black feminism (try Bell Hooks) that critically examines radfem ideology as being largely unrepresentative of the LIVED experiences of a majority of women in the world, and how they miss the mark and paint their privileged (class and race) perspective as the "universal" experience of women everywhere." No, sir (or ma'am), I think it is YOU who is acting in a bigoted and close-minded way, even to OTHER women. I've done enough studying on the matter (educated, live experiences, etc) to know that you're wrong on this matter.

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

[–]nwz123 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dumbguyscene28 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]dumbguyscene28 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dumbguyscene28 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree that women are not disadvantaged by societal/governmental/other institutions in certain areas.

I agree with you that there are places were women are disadvantaged.

However there actually is a war on men. One that includes paramilitary raids with military vehicles...

Over the last few decades along with the rise in private prisons, there has been an ever expanding war on men(especially black men). Some call it the war on drugs, yet despite the fact that women also use drugs, there is only a small increase in incarceration of women since the beginning of the drug war.(That small increase is mostly due to the mandatory sentencing laws which prevent judges from giving women special treatment. If you look at the disparity studies above, most of the disparity which get women lesser sentences comes from judges departing from the guidelines when they are allowed to do so)

How often do women use illegal drugs? According to research by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), almost half of all women age 15-44 have used drugs at least once in their life. Of these women, nearly 2 million have used cocaine and more than 6 million have used marijuana within the past year. Most women drug abusers use more than one drug. An estimated 9 million women use illegal drugs in 2008;

From this comment on inequalities faced by men.

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

I'm not sure that this is a distinct issue from other disparities in sentencing between genders and the false perception of women as generally less capable of doing bad things than men. There are a whole ton of sources in that comment about female criminals getting far lighter sentences than male criminals, just not getting charged, etc. The justice system is massively biased towards women and against men, and the American justice system in particular is very heavy on the punishment and pretty much completely ignores any aspect of rehabilitation.

So, if we take that already horribly flawed system, and then fuel a massive expansion of it because politicians want to look "hard on crime" and people are generally scared of drugs other than pot, of course it's going to incarcerate massive amounts of men and very few women. It was already doing that, now it's just doing more of what it was already doing.

This is obviously a horrible human rights violation on a grand scale, but I'm not sure it's an intentional one. I think it's a product of a political culture based on fear and justice system focused on vengeance and punishment rather than rehabilitation. In a way, that makes it worse. Instead of a society explicitly setting out to wage war on men, men just get ground up between the gears of a system set up by a society that doesn't care about men.

Of course, I'm a Canadian pinko commie tree-hugging hippy, so take that for what you will.

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

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

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

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

[+]Izicata -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]AndrewSZ11 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]dumbguyscene28 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[permanently deleted]

Title	Are men 'Going Galt' ?
Author	OuiCrudites
Upvotes	120
Comments	166
Date	September 20, 2012 4:02 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/107459/are_men_going_galt/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/are-men-going-galt.1013154 https://theredarchive.com/post/1013154

Comments