This belongs here, right?

RirMx · 2018-03-07T14:52:29+00:00

More women than men in personal care, cleaning and teaching professions in the EU9,420 points•2,583 comments•submitted 3 years...

[–]wasnew4s 124 points125 points126 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]RirMx 56 points57 points58 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]desderon 70 points71 points72 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]svenskbitch 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Actually, I think it is fully legitimate to aim for some balance in gender representation both at the top as well as across the board. As an economist, I am also convinced that we are all losing out because women are not living up to their potential. It costs over $1 mn to educate a medical specialist - if that person then takes time off or chooses a specialty below her potential, it is not only she that loses out, but society as a whole. We need these people. The claim that men have to give way for women is ridiculous: there is place for most talent out there (and that talent will create more space through entrepreneurship, technical progress, and improved health).

I am also convinced that we can get more women in IT. They used to dominate computer programming until the mid 80s, and they make up half of computer engineering graduates in much of the emerging world, including the Middle East. But rather than insisting they do the same tasks as men, let us have a nuanced discussion about where they can create the most value: in music, women and men are on par on average, but men are much more successful in jazz improv, and women in, say, operatic belcanto. With the value created by social networking, I have no doubt they can be much more valuable without silly quotas and numb ideology.

My problem is the way we go about this. We silence gauche but well-intentioned ideas on how to reach these objectives, such as those of Damore. We avoid nuanced discussion, because using nuance inevitably creates the risk that some detail could be taken out of context to be misogynistic. What is left is quotas, some formal, but most informal: if a woman can do the job, you get her. Even I do that, almost instinctively. That can of course be bad for men, but at the end of the day I am not so worried about the fate of some of the most talented people out there, likely to make it to the top 1% anyway. I am more worried about society: the effect of a decade of informal preferences given to women that has seen women occupy 70% of senior administrative positions in Sweden has been to signal to talented men to stay clear of the public sector. This makes the public sector less able to attract talent, and increases the difficulty of moving towards balanced gender representation in the private sector.

But understanding how genders differ (on average, not every individual) could give us the tools we need to encourage people, experiment with different organisational and business models that make better use of different kinds of talent, and, as should be the real goal, help make sure that people get to do what they want to do and are good at. This should apply not only to women in the private sector, but to ANY area where one gender makes up less than, say 20% - especially education and social services.

MRM has the reputation for simply being against everything. That reputation is partially deserved, and anyone scanning through comments on this site with that preconception will find ammunition to confirm it. But let us keep in mind that if all we do is stop feminism, we will still have a status quo that in many cases treat vulnerable men atrociously and that will impose gender roles that are constraining to a significant minority among us. It will not be as deeply satisfying as dismissing feminism as screeching supremacists, but at the very least it would make it much more difficult for them to dismiss us as.... what was that delicious English expression I learned recently... basement dwelling alt right neckbeards who cannot get laid?

As a centre-left, moderately to playfully flamboyant, openly gay man from Europe who supports free markets, open immigration, strict gun control (because the freedom of living in a society without guns far outweighs that of those who for whatever reason want to buy assault weapons), broad but efficient social redistribution (because allowing people to live in extreme poverty is unconscionable), and socialised health care (because the dynamics of the sector does not allow the free market to work to our advantage), and who openly recognises his white (but not male) privilege, and who on this forum often tries to introduce nuance that gets misinterpreted as covert feminist advocacy, even I have been dismissed as one of those. The mere fact that it is possible to put me in that category is at most in small parts our fault, but we will not win the hearts and minds of most people out there without doing something about it.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]svenskbitch 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Not at all. But your accusation is ironic, as in the same comment I mentioned that when I try to bring in a bit of nuance to the debate here, it gets misinterpreted as sly feminist advocacy. All I can do is kindly ask you to assume that it is most definitely not. It is, at most, marginal disagreement with some more extreme MRM views and the way advocacy takes place in practice.

I am for freedom, and I vehemently disagree with initiatives that confuse opportunities with outcome and advocate heavy-handed policy on that basis.

But that does not mean that all assumptions that underpin that approach are wrong. Some are right. Most of them, however, are not likely to change radically, so the point is moot. But at the margin, some might.

What I want are not quotas and regulations, but rather experiments with a few, select policies designed to nudge people to develop their potential outside the constraints of their gender roles or culture overall. This includes, of course, female CEOs - but we have already gone overboard on that front. But it also includes encouraging men to go into teaching.

The word is encouraging, not enjoining. I would like to get at the men who would be excellent teachers, but who shy away from the profession for reasons that we can easily change. That includes pay in countries, like Sweden, where teachers are ridiculously underpaid (much less than in the US even). But equally important is outreach targeting men, and of course measures to alleviate the risk of being unfairly accused of sexual misconduct - something that all male teachers I know fret about systematically.

In other words, I want people's choices to be more free. If, after that, we still cannot find more female theoretical physicists, then so be it. I vehemently oppose quotas, with the possible and partial exception for parliamentary democratic representation - but that would affect only a few hundred people, so it is an issue of democracy rather than gender equality.

Feminism is rampant in Sweden. But while I oppose it, do not assume that it is simply an extreme version of what you have in the US. We have stayed clear of many of its extremes (except for the famous laws on rape and prostitution, which in legal practice have been tempered so far, but which are still egregious), and paternal leave and shared parenting has created arguably some of the most empowered and engaged fathers in the world.

So while I am happy to hear your arguments, if you would like to discuss with someone who opposes you completely, I am not the one, and this is probably not the forum for it.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

I am for freedom, and I vehemently disagree with initiatives that confuse opportunities with outcome and advocate heavy-handed policy on that basis.

You are only looking at outcome, and feminism is all for violating men's civil rights when there are not enough women by feminist standards (51% or better, 100% female is not a problem). This is a solid repeat observation, not a theory. I don't know how things are in Sweden legally, but the swedish feminists want female quotas for corporate boards like were passed in Norway.

What I want are not quotas and regulations,

Today we have regulations and quotas in fact, although they call them targets. The big complaint from feminists is that there are too many white men in STEM (no, I'm not exaggerating). So highly qualified men are being passed over for employment by companies looking for more women.

but rather experiments with a few, select policies designed to nudge people to develop their potential outside the constraints of their gender roles or culture overall.

I don't see any difference between what you advocate and what we have now.

But equally important is outreach targeting men, and of course measures to alleviate the risk of being unfairly accused of sexual misconduct - something that all male teachers I know fret about systematically.

Interesting you noticed that, but around here SH laws are written in such a way that what a man says or does is irrelevant (he need never even have met the woman) and he is allowed no defense. Women use false accusations to remove competition or get rid of someone they do not like, it's legal and any large company will support them knowingly.

But there is another problem, after years of feminist advocacy, any man interested in working with children is considered a pedophile or a closet pedophile and this is inexcusable in men, but female teachers are allowed to get away with sleeping with 13-14 yo boys every day.

In other words, I want people's choices to be more free.

You've already deemed their free choices today incorrect.

If, after that, we still cannot find more female theoretical physicists, then so be it.

Yeah, right. There's never a sunset clause on these things.

Feminism is rampant in Sweden. But while I oppose it, do not assume that it is simply an extreme version of what you have in the US.

I just looked up your username, it seems you are a Swedish feminist. I've read many posts and articles by men in Sweden and many are leaving the country as soon as they are able. They say it's hell there and their lives can be ruined by any woman who gets angry at them.

and paternal leave and shared parenting has created arguably some of the most empowered and engaged fathers in the world.

From what I have read by Swedish men it's not quite the way it's made out to be, the mother still holds all the power.

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

I think you still misunderstand my stance. You are disagreeing with a straw man, and I have to tamper my instinct to start defending things I disagree with in response, albeit with less verve and more nuance than you appear to.

So I won't. I am not defending the current approach. I want to change it. But not by simply dropping all social justice goals, but by making them realistic, flexible, and inclusive of all social groups; and by making the tools we use to promote these goals more focused on removing remaining barriers, nudging and promoting rather than force.

Nor am I defending Swedish feminism, only saying that assuming that it is unnuanced female supremacy is wrong. And I am not saying that mothers and fathers are equal - mothers still hold more power, but significantly less so than in the US where even NOW vehemently opposes shared custody, as do most conservatives.

And female pedophiles...! Well, you get my drift.

Basically: there is bathwater. A lot of it. But there is also a baby in there somewhere. I am calling for a more balanced strategy on where it is, what it looks like, which vital organs it is missing, and how to keep it alive. That is all.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

But not by simply dropping all social justice goals

There is no such thing as social justice, and there is no justice in the so-called social justice movement. It's simply one battlefront in the feminist war on men. That's literally all it's about, hurting men. And apparently you support it.

and by making the tools we use to promote these goals more focused on removing remaining barriers, nudging and promoting rather than force.

It may start out that way. but in short order they will turn into Affirmative Action and quotas in fact. When your goal is actually excluding men from STEM fields, any pretense of fairness will fade quickly. Since your goals is simply more women, and you don't create jobs, the only way to meet your goals is less men. It's simple really, and has the support of feminism everywhere,

And in fact, the entire purpose of the feminist movement here has been to exclude men from society, and with the unrelenting help of the government, employers, and the entire school and university system, they've been very effective in this.

Nor am I defending Swedish feminism

Stop, you are a swedish feminist.

only saying that assuming that it is unnuanced female supremacy is wrong

And the difference would be?

Nuance? Is that using more delicate language in describing your means of removing men from the workforce and society?

But there is also a baby in there somewhere.

So you claim.

[–]svenskbitch 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Wow. You are only proving my points... :)

You claim I want to exclude men from the work force, or at least MINT professions. As what I argue runs both ways, I guess this means you think I also want to exclude women from teaching and pre-school?

I am not sure what to say, but at any rate nothing will come across as convincing. You strike me as the MRM equivalent of the feminist that thinks calling for DV shelters for men means that we do not need them for women because they are all lying anyway (Cassie Jaye kindly lent me that example).

But again, I am calling for removing quotas in favour of light promotion to nudge people in directions that, for reasons unrelated to their preferences and skills, feel driven in gender-specific directions.

My point is: as an economist, I see every single day that the logic that men have to give way to women, or for that matter that immigrants compete out locals from the work force, does not hold most of the time. In fact, we desperately need more MINT professionals and good teachers. Talented people create value, and that value leads to more jobs - through more spending, new sectors, higher productivity. I live in Switzerland, a country where negative interest rates and sky-high wages means that companies automate through technology or outsource whatever they can. But even so, the demand for labour is higher than supply, and unemployment is at 3% - below the purported equilibrium level of 4%. There is room for everyone. MINT jobs are constrained by supply, not demand.

Perhaps the core of your disagreement is that you consider the baby, or the assumption that there are constraints that prevent us from looking for jobs outside our gender role, does not exist in the first place. That is, I submit, a radical claim by any standard, given, for instance, several male teachers I know that find it stressful and oppressive to have to take pre-emptive measures to dispel any chance of being suspected of misconduct.

I cannot convince you otherwise. But surely, you have to admit there is a middle ground between denying the baby outright and a blind feminist obsession with equal outcomes? And if not, how are you not the MRM version of screeching ideologues who call Christina Hoff Summers, an avowed and consistent classical liberal, a fascist? I am serious - I want to know how you consider your approach different from theirs?

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]svenskbitch1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Striving for gender equality

You mean parity of the sexes, you lot have made the word 'gender' totally meaningless, you only care about a sex, and the sex you care about is female. That is, you posit that reality is wrong, it does not fit your political expectations and you are willing to deny millions of men job opportunities if necessary to fix reality. In America the social safety net does not extend to able bodied men (and rarely to the disabled) so in reality you are trying to marginalize and even kill men to make reality right. Good news, the entire feminist movement and the majority of the female population is on your side.

Radically different from quotas or ideology, as focussed on men as on women,

Wrong, these things always focus on women only. If a flood killed 100,000 men and 1 women, we would be hearing about how floods harm women more than men (just ask Hillary). If you don't know this you ain't living in this world.

but also different from keeping the state out altogether.

The state, at least in the US, has a vested interest in not helping men, they feed the prison industrial system and their assets make many lawyers rich.

For comparison: one side wants to outlaw cigarettes (or, say, drugs). The other wants to make them allowed everywhere. I want to allow them, but tax them and put warning labels on the packets and encourage kids not to start.

Men are already taxed (much more than women), they just don't get any benefit from it.

[–]svenskbitch1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow. You still think I only care about one sex, perhaps in part because when I say men and women you respond wrong - i mean only women. Even more starkly, you think the feminist movement is behind me - if I would post anything along these lines on a feminist forum, I would probably be blocked immediately. And the tax analogy you dismiss with a radicalised version of a completely different issue altogether.

I am not your enemy, nor will you be able to turn me into one. But of course, your valiant attempts to do so illustrate, if nothing else, exactly how overly polarised and unproductive this debate has turned into. Your responses remind me how, at the university of Chicago, feminists lambasted Laura Kipnis - or at any rate, one of those mildly dissenting feminists - as a fascist, while leaving Rick Santorum alone to compare homosexuality to bestiality two weeks later.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow. You still think I only care about one sex

You do call yourself a feminist and don't accept reality as is. So far you've not used words like 'patriarchy' or 'male privilege', but feminism does not allow one to question the existence of either.

perhaps in part because when I say men and women you respond wrong - i mean only women.

Feminists are like that, they say feminism is about people, but apparently only women are people.

Even more starkly, you think the feminist movement is behind me

I don't recall having said this, but by calling yourself a feminist, you are lending them your support.

I am not your enemy, nor will you be able to turn me into one.

You know, men have been hearing claims like this from feminists for decades, then feminists write the Violence Against Women Act, oppose Proposition 209 (the state shall not discriminate), and write Title IX (which resulted in cutting thousands of men's sports teams with no benefit to women) and much much more. We've been around this block more than a few times and the scenery never changes.

And you also think that the workplace is structured wrong. You've not actually shown that there is any problem, but you want to fix it anyway.

[–]svenskbitch1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have never called myself a feminist; in fact the only one who has in my life is you. And the aspect I oppose the most is the notion of patriarchy, or rather the interpretation of patriarchy as a system built by men for men's benefit.

But even so, this forum should be about the ideas, rather than a bizarre exchange about who you think I am. If you want to know what I think about Vawa, I would be happy to tell you - but you seem to assume I support it based on the assumption that I am a feminist, which again is based on a reading of what I wrote that resemble the way I imagine the devil would read the Bible. I am bemused, but it is also clear that we will not really get any further.

One thing fascinates me, though. If you read into what I write an idealist, borderline misandrist feminist screed, how in the world do you react when discussing with an actual extreme feminist? Must be quite a scene...

[–]tenchineuro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]svenskbitch1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Patriarchy as a system where those in charge have been mostly men - that is of course hard to disagree with. It is the much more specific and harmful feminist interpretation that I disagree with.

I did not say the work place was all wrong. All I said was that there is more to it than ostensible equality of opportunity. Nothing prevents men from teaching kindergarten de jure, but de facto - of course! But rather than quotas and ideology, let us focus on pragmatic approaches, see what works, and drop what is not (such as quotas). Shared parental leave and post-divorce custody had an astonishing effects on Swedish fathers; those policies were arguably illiberal, but I submit the positive effects on millions of people made up for that. Swedish prostitution law, on the other hand, was not only misguided (imagine that our drug policy would be to legalise drug dealing and punishing only the end users!) and misandrist, but downright elitist - against the explicit will of almost all female prostitutes in the country.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Shared parental leave and post-divorce custody had an astonishing effects on Swedish fathers; those policies were arguably illiberal, but I submit the positive effects on millions of people made up for that.

You'd have to fight all of organized feminism here. They say that men seek custody only to punish and control the woman. Actually, if they simply enforced visitation that would help a lot.

Swedish prostitution law, on the other hand, was not only misguided (imagine that our drug policy would be to legalise drug dealing and punishing only the end users!) and misandrist, but downright elitist - against the explicit will of almost all female prostitutes in the country.

I would have thought that the enlightened approach would be to legalize prostitution, it's a victimless crime most of the time. I sometimes wonder, if a male prostitute was involved, would the Swedish police arrest the woman?

And in the US they arrest drug users as well.

[–]svenskbitch1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

On parental leave and custody: of course - my point was only that not all of feminism takes that stance. NOW took the opposite stance in the 70s and early 80s, on the correct logic that the leading reason holding women back was their obligation or choice to focus on the family at exactly the stage in their career where they could be the most productive. They only changed their minds as the early feminist generation grew older and faced the downside for women of that stance. Yet another conflict between feminism's purported support of gender equality and the implicit mandate of lobbying for one gender only. In Sweden, they decided on the opposite stance - albeit, as far as I know, fathers' rights considerations had little to do with it.

On prostitution: Sweden has a strange combination of neoliberalism and progressive paternalism. Swedish companies have low taxes and almost no restrictions on hiring and firing, with a generous system behind it that ensures unemployment benefits and rapidly engages those out of work in targeted job training - seeing laid off industrial workers moving into computer programming in just one year. We have competitive charter schools for over two decades, but also a government that tells us what to eat and think and makes our tax returns public record.

That is actually not so much a problem, mostly because our public sector works very well.

But when it comes to drugs and prostitution, they go overboard. Getting pain relief from the doctor is a slug; after my gall bladder operation I was sent home with Tramadol (whereas in the US they would overdo it with ample supplies of strong opiates). And the prostitution law is founded on extreme feminist ideology, based on the widespread instinct that no woman would do something like that by free will - and if she thinks she does, she is deluded.

That is bizarre. In most cases, Swedish politics is amazingly pragmatic. After the 1991 crisis, we cut our bloated welfare system by over a third and privatised pensions in just one year - and even managed to get unions to agree to radical wage restraint. But the evidence against our weird prostitution law is strong by any standard, as many studies show - yet all parties hold on to it. We even want to make this Swedish law apply to Swedish men purchasing sexual services in far-away Thailand - imagine that principle applied to any other situation.

With the drug example, I meant to say that it would be bizarre if any country made it legal to sell and distribute and produce, but illegal to buy, drugs without prescription. My point was that in a few cases where our instincts to protect women, fired on by feminist orthodoxy, and enabled by a paternalist tradition, our proclivity for pragmatism that has otherwise made us one of the few countries in the world that combines free markets with low levels of inequality, falls short of tackling these forces... which is especially bizarre, as exactly the women they want to protect, female prostitutes, are almost unanimously against the law.

Male prostitutes - I do not know, but I assume arrests have only been made where the customer was also male. In fact, the media tried to create a scandal around middle age women going to Ghana to find younger men, but I have not heard any voices of targeting them the way they want to target those men going to Thailand.

For the record, I am against making drugs illegal (but they should be subject to control, registration, and resources to help addicts), and I find it illiberal to outlaw prostitution (though the same applies there). In Sweden, that puts me in a radical minority.

[–]svenskbitch1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By the way, I was impressed at your volte-face and even your apology. I may still guess that you are perhaps too quick to judge, but I fully respect that you are that willing to reconsider. Very few people do - but then again, that is perhaps not only because of character, but because of the polarised nature of the debate and the people such a debate attracts (most men I talk to about these issues actually agree, at least after some discussion, but then conclude that it is not worth the mental grief and negative reactions that speaking out about it would incur - these silent, but essentially MRM-sympathetic masses remain outside the debate).

On patriarchy, what I meant was: I do not deny that patriarchy exists, but I do deny the assumption that men ruled for men's benefits. In fact, every single restriction placed on women has been to protect them; and every single freedom given to men has been to enable them to provide this protection. As an avid hobby historian, I have actually tested this assumption hundreds of times. Sometimes, the link is not immediately obvious, but there are also no counterexamples. Witchhunt, some may say - but even there, that reflects our tendency to punish those few women who do not fulfill the role essential for survival: fertility. And of course the reason we protected women throughout history was to give them the conditions they needed to ensure the survival of the tribe - mathematically, an average of four child births per woman before they died at an average of below 40. Women living outside society and gay men were threats to survival, from a very cynical perspective.

That sounds despicable, of course. Especially for me as a gay man. But we cannot change 100.000 years of cultural and biological programming in a few generations completely. What we can do, though, is recognise that the above is the foundation for patriarchy, rather than some wild notion templated on whites and blacks in times of slavery.

[–]svenskbitch 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

BTW our exchange reminds me of when I discuss health care with my free-market, liberal American friends. I am very free market, and a steady supporter of the liberal party in my home country. I want a small Government that focuses only on those things the market provably cannot do better.

But I support funding most health care through the tax system. I have good reasons to. The market for health care is crippled for two reasons: in contrast to consumer electronics, which has managed to put immense computing power even in the hands of the poorest around the world, patients have none of the power of an i-phone buyer. Second, the political and moral imperative to make health care affordable leads to so many artificial constraints on the market that we reap almost none of the efficiency gains. And of course: Finland spends only a third as much as the US does on health care and more than the US spends on medicare and medicaid alone, yet provides almost free health care to all citizens. Not a perfect system. But less dysfunctional.

But when I argue this, I immediately get put in a category of a flaming leftist. And I find myself having to argue against points that I agree with in principle. They tell me I like interventions, and then I have to justify them. But in reality, I think my stance is in support of free markets - by fixing the areas where it does not work, and using it better where it does (which is most areas of the economy, including education and health care provision).

Similarly, I agree with you about feminism, and I think what I propose could strengthen the MRA stance by pushing for more nuanced ways of moving towards the social goals that we share. But if I had responded to your arguments in detail, I would find it hard to avoid coming across as someone I most definitely is not: a deluded feminist sympathiser.

This polarisation is worse on the other side. When I have tried to post something similar, couched in much more careful terms and not saying anything critical of feminism, I get lambasted if I am lucky, and often simply blocked or deleted. The regrettable upshot, of course, is not how that makes me feel (I can handle it, no problem), but that moderation in this debate gets marginalised.

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

Similarly, I agree with you about feminism, and I think what I propose could strengthen the MRA stance by pushing for more nuanced ways of moving towards the social goals that we share.

Social goals we share?

Would you be so kind as to educate me? Which social goals are these?

But if I had responded to your arguments in detail, I would find it hard to avoid coming across as someone I most definitely is not: a deluded feminist sympathiser.

You do call yourself a feminist, right?

When I have tried to post something similar, couched in much more careful terms and not saying anything critical of feminism, I get lambasted if I am lucky, and often simply blocked or deleted.

Nuance only takes you so far it would seem, you need to gain your feminist street creds by hating men loudly and publicly.

But in the long run, this is why there is no debate between men and women. Previously methods used to exclude men from the conversation were more blunt, male privilege and the like, but not they've fine tuned it with intersectionality.

But some feminists do allow men to join them, if they check their privilege. But they don't get to be part of the conversation as checking your privilege literally means being subservient to women, I'm not sure if actual boot licking is required, but symbolic boot licking is.

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

[–]bluefootedpig 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]postagestamp97 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dievanmijislanger 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory[🍰] 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AiroDewitt 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory[🍰] 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AiroDewitt 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory[🍰] 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DEVOmay97 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]mkrmec 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hannyu 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yes_I_am_racist 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]theothermod[M] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RirMx 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theothermod 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yes_I_am_racist 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolbience 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RirMx 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CounterfeitMemes 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RirMx 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Yes_I_am_racist 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]butterman403 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Title	This belongs here, right?
Author	RirMx
Upvotes	353
Comments	64
Date	March 7, 2018 2:52 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/82ot11/this_belongs_here_right/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-belongs-here-right.904845 https://theredarchive.com/post/904845

Comments