TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Dear Women: You are not Oppressed

aG_Infamous

January 26, 2017
2181 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://dontsteponsnek.com/2017/01/26/dear-women-you-are-not-oppressed/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Dear Women: You are not Oppressed
Author

aG_Infamous

Upvotes 2181
Comments 478
Date January 26, 2017 3:31 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5qartx/dear_women_you_are_not_oppressed/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dear-women-you-are-not-oppressed.933235
https://theredarchive.com/post/933235

Comments

[–]LikesTacos 451 points452 points453 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” ― Thomas Sowell

[–]LucifersHammerr 278 points279 points280 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A study actually demonstrated that when men treat women equally, without chivalry, they are overwhelmingly regarded as "sexist" by both men and women.

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Look at how people are jumping all over Trump cause he didn't treat his wife like a lady.

[–]jaheiner 59 points60 points61 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ironic seeing as people are making rape threats and saying terrible shit about her not even a month ago. Now they're worried about him not treating her like a lady?

[–]Rethgil 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That has all the hallmarks of feminists-try any old lies to further a so called moral cause, but abandon them totally the next day if it doesn't work and create a new lie. Even if it contradicts the previous one completely. I get the feeling from such things that most feminists think the end always justifies the means. For them, anyway. Says a lot about the immorality and radicalism of modern feminists.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol he didn't hold the car door open for her, or walk her up the steps.

Seems like her doesn't think she's a fragile flower (aka equality)

Sad.

[–]you_cant_banme 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I need to put some time aside to read a book or two of his. That man is a fucking legend.

[–]Rethgil 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that most feminists often come from privileged backgrounds and are used to acting arrogantly and selfishly are certainly not unrelated.

[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Was that originally Sowell? Ironic HuffPo and their ilk co-oped it.

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

According to goodreads it is. I give them a lot more credence than HuffPo.

[–]Evets616 717 points718 points719 points 9 years ago* (163 children) | Copy Link

Mens issues aren't addressed adequately, but articles like this will not help anyone take the movement seriously.

He makes an absolute comparison between western women and women in states that all would agree are dealing with overt, state-sponsored oppression. The handful of examples he gives are oppression. They are not the sum-total list of all possible forms of oppression. By setting up this list, he attempts to invalidate the whole protest

He makes vague claims about what possible reasons they could have for protesting and then cherry picks a paragraph from one article with a few specific reasons and then some nice vague reasons possible for protesting. This is a nice Straw Man that he sets up here where he can misunderstand and attack these reasons for wanting to protest.

Taxes on hygeine products are an issue when the country has policies in place like HSA and FSA's that people can set aside tax-free dollars for medical expenses. I personally use mine for allergy medications, shots, eye doctor visits and the dentist. Those medications and doctor's visits seriously affect my health and overall comfort. And yet those policies do not cover tampons, pads, and other products associated with every mature woman's menstral cycle. That's pretty bullshit that something that majorly affects the majority of women isn't covered. By the way, if you have a prescription, you can spend FSA money on your Viagra.

But the author here glosses over the principle with a monthly monetary value and then tries to say that asking for this is bad in principle as a gender specific law. He then compares this to men being forced to sign up for the SSA. I think the SSA signup being gendered and tied to so many important federal things is wrong and I support the elimination of the requirement or expanding it to both genders. But let's look at the actual effect it has: there hasn't been a draft in over 40 years. So any man born after 1955 hasn't had to deal with a draft. But nearly every woman born since then has had dozens of mentral cycles to deal with. Not being able to use FSA dollars on those products for women is an issue and the author's treatment of the issue is lazy.

The author next completely misses the point, my guess is on purpose, about Paid Maternity Leave. He cites the FMLA program's 12 weeks as proof of paid maternity leave in the US. His claim is again, made in the most lazy manner possible. Why? If you go to the FMLA wiki page, you'll see that it's not an explicit maternity program. It's a general 12 weeks per year, unpaid, that anyone can take, if they qualify for the program. The point of the program is to give you that time and protect it by not allowing your employer to fire you for medical reasons. It's not a gender specific giveaway to women. Yes, it is an unpaid block of time that can be used for giving birth, so it technically checks the box against the protestor issue of unpaid maternity but the law isn't a specific women's law. He misrepresents the issue.

The whole point of protesting over the lack of paid parental leave, and I personally fully support paid leave for both parents, is that the US is woefully inadequate in addressing this issue compared to nearly all other western, wealthy nations. If you follow the wikipedia link he gives, it talks about maternity leave in the US. The 4th sentence says that the US gives 12 weeks of leave for mothers under FMLA. The very next sentence, however, shows exactly the point that anyone ever makes about the state of leave here in the US:

This policy is distinct to other industrialized countries for its relative scarcity of benefits, in terms of the short length of protected maternity leave and not offering some form of wage compensation for the leave of absence

And even in the FMLA article, a nice table comparing the lack of benefits in the US is shown in the article section under controversy. The table shows how other countries all have paid maternity leave, with several also covering fathers as well.

Several of the claims that the author addresses I lean towards his opinion. Walking alone at night isn't something I'd call safe for many people, especially depending on where you live. Objectification is an issue, but not remotely on the level of health issues. And 100%, I agree that the plight of men as victims of domestic violence is criminally ignored here, and most places honestly. Women are not the sole victims of violence in the US, far from it. And I don't support the notion of systemic oppression of women in the west as compared to elsewhere.

And at the end, he tells women that they need to be more inclusive of men's issues and campaign for equality and not privilege over men. Sure, that makes sense if you buy into the rest of his claims where he's trying to show that women don't have any problems here and have nothing to complain about. Then, yeah, any complaining is for special things, not equal things. But he failed to support his major points that women are perfectly fine. So he comes off sounding like the feminists who say "why make a men's group? just support women's groups because we're already fighting for equality".

This isn't a zero sum game, and women and men like the author who try to turn it into one just set everyone else up for conflict. Women having issues with some things does not mean that men can't have issues about the some of the same things and also about other, different things.

[–]Hey_You_Asked 82 points83 points84 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for saying what needed to be said.

[–]gRod805 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

This article reminded me of why I had planned to unsubscribe to the sub once and for all. I originally came here because i thought certain child support rulings were unfair and also saw that boys who were raped by their female teachers weren't being treated the same had they'd been girls. I then saw this sub change to become very Alt-right, White males are only welcomed kind of place. I think this sub has to go back to its roots. Stuff like this is really alienating. You can be for women's rights and for mens' rights at the same time because originally these terms stood for equality. Now it seems like one has to take from the other. Any sane person can see how offensive the presidents language was when he talked about groping women. You don't need an agenda to realize that even if it goes against our political beliefs, lets not fool ourselves.

[–]George_Beast 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Black dude here, tell me again why I'm not welcomed here? I've never felt like it but maybe you can enlighten me.

[–]Demonspawn 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Any sane person can see how offensive the presidents language was when he talked about groping women.

What was offensive about him talking about what women would let him do?

That women would let him do it? I guess it's "offensive" that he let women's real behavior be known to the world.

That women won't let you do it? I guess it's "offensive" that he can get women while you can't.

It's not offensive at all. Grow up.

[–]mwobuddy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What was offensive about him talking about what women would let him do?

Because it sounds like rape and sexual assault when a man says it. A woman "just letting a guy do it" still counts, cause "reasons".

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Uh-oh, there's the magic buzzword of "Alt-right".

Now I can't take a word you're saying seriously.

[–]LucifersHammerr 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I then saw this sub change to become very Alt-right, White males are only welcomed kind of place.

I read this sub daily and you're full of shit.

[–]Apexbreed 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do too. That guy is just mad his political ideology isn't being worshipped so he drops the A bomb...

[–]BobMcGeorge 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If anything this sub is more left than right

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I then saw this sub change to become very Alt-right, White males are only welcomed kind of place.

You are full of shit.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit. You may use a screenshot instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

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

Head to the actual men's rights subreddit, my friend. It's always been preferential. This one has always been motivated by anger and misogyny.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've said this elsewhere, but it deserves to be here ...

Virtually nothing that you've listed has anything whatsoever to do with Trump, because at the time of the Women's March, he'd served a grand total of a few hours in office. He didn't enact sales tax on tampons, which are overwhelmingly imposed at the state level, by state legislatures. He didn't choose not to ratify the Equal Pay Act, which is also done at the state level and which the states have had the option to do since 1963. He didn't create the social situation where several states have no parental leave at all, and most don't have any paid leave in place, leaving it up to the corporations themselves to fund it.

So, while women may have some legitimate beefs with US society, as you've said, literally none of it can be attributed to Trump. Virtually all of what you list has been in place for years, if not decades.

So ... why now? Why not last year, while Obama was in office, and these issues were still extant? Why not back in Bush's era? Why not in Clinton's? The failure to fully ratify the Equal Pay Act in the US has been a weeping sore since Lyndon B Fucking JOHNSTON ... but US women waited until Donald Trump takes office in 2017 to finally get out in these kinds of numbers?

So, if most of these legitimate concerns didn't involve Trump, why now? It's pure political theater, and should be dismissed as such, even by those people - you and I included - that acknowledge there's legitimate concerns for women in US society.

[–]Just4yourpost 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a zero sum game, and women and men like the author who try to turn it into one just set everyone else up for conflict. Women having issues with some things does not mean that men can't have issues about the some of the same things and also about other, different things.

Women make it a zero sum game, whether you like it or not. Tell me what would've happened to you if you held up a sign for various Men's Rights issues that he listed during your pussy march, and I'll show you the door.

Oh, and shouldn't we not be taxed on Toilet Paper? Toilet paper for wiping your ass is as much a necessity for MEN AND WOMEN as Tampons are for women. And please do compare toilet paper to using a cloth or towel....or a rag. Please please PLEASE do...

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

You

I like you.

[–]shizenmeister 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your well thought out and rightfully critical summary.

[–]Guack007 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was going to downvote but I appreciate the criticism of the article you had so I did not. You make some valid points such as FSA spending, however, as you said, its a small issue. I read your whole post as well as the replyies and still I dont see where you stated a single "big" issue thats even remotely comparable to the ones others have brought up. Not one

[–]dotlurk 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You have basically confirmed the author's claims: women are not oppressed in the USA.

Btw, aren't tampons like 30 for 5$? Are you seriously calling this an "issue"? I'll keep buying my shaving cream without making a March about it.

[–]Evets616 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay.

[–]LucifersHammerr 69 points70 points71 points 9 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

And at the end, he tells women that they need to be more inclusive of men's issues and campaign for equality and not privilege over men. Sure, that makes sense if you buy into the rest of his claims where he's trying to show that women don't have any problems here and have nothing to complain about.

It's a question of priorities. Eg whining about a tampon tax vs men having zero reproductive rights, boys having their genitals mutilated, men being denied access to their kids, being subject to conscription, receiving 63 percent longer prison sentences, the suicide epidemic etc. There seems to be a massive empathy gap here to the point where we literally care more about a few bucks spent on tampons than men's very lives.

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One night my girlfriend and her friend were talking about how dogs don't get a say in people clipping their tails and ears shorter and how we have no idea what it's like to have part of our body removed without our consent. I had to poke my head into the room and say "actually... I do know what that's like."

[–]gdl_nonsense 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

OMG--a few years ago, I had a heated discussion with a feminist friend about how morally reprehensible MGM was (and she definitely wasn't biting). A couple hours later, we were in a bar, and she and another friend were lamenting the atrociousness of declawing cats.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because to feminists men are less deserving of bodily autonomy and rights than animals are.

Fuck them.

[–]Evets616 86 points87 points88 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

You minimize the claim in the same way the author does. Someone somewhere else has a claim to a larger issue, therefore, you don't get to complain about your smaller issue. No one is making the claim that this issue is the biggest issue.

It is, however, part of the larger women's healthcare issue with is directly being compromised by the agenda of the new administration and as part of that, is a valid point.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's funny how women and feminists get butthurt if we talk about male domestic violence victims, claiming its not a priority because more women are statistically more violated and we see comments like this saying "all issues matters" when it favours women.

[–]LucifersHammerr 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

You minimize the claim in the same way the author does. Someone somewhere else has a claim to a larger issue, therefore, you don't get to complain about your smaller issue.

You can complain, but it would behoove you to recognize the fundamental absurdity of caring more about a few dollars than male life.

[–]guto8797 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Again, while I agree, we don't slam movements for not protecting every issue. If people claim they are fighting for female rights, you can't bash them for not supporting male rights. Now, if they claim to fight for both genders equally while not doing any of that that's when you can call them hypocrites.

But this kinds of stuff is common here. Every time someone brings a female issue someone has to come shouting BUT MEN HAVE IT WORSE and it honestly weakens a lot this movement. Its like the "eat your broccoli because kids in Africa starve" argument.

It was after all the march for women or something like that. Not the march for the equal rights of both genders.

[–]xNOM 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If people claim they are fighting for female rights, you can't bash them for not supporting male rights.

? What legal rights do women lack, exactly again? Name one.

[–]LucifersHammerr 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Every time someone brings a female issue someone has to come shouting BUT MEN HAVE IT WORSE and it honestly weakens a lot this movement.

It's sort of difficult not to though. It's not as though men started this fight. Feminists created a laundry list of alleged oppressions suffered by females; they claimed these were "gendered issues". Well as it turns out a lot of them actually apply to both genders or there is some male equivalent of X issue. If the feminist movement had begun as an egalitarian movement that recognized areas where males were disadvantaged we wouldn't be having this problem. They didn't -- from the beginning they were purely gynocentric -- so here we are. It's taken about a hundred years but men have finally had enough abuse. It is actually quite remarkable that men are speaking up at all given that our gender role is based on strength.

[–]guto8797 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The problem with trying to categorize the "feminist" movement is that its in no way or shape organised. Its a wild spectrum ranging from sensible people fighting for both genders, to people recognising issues on both sides but focusing on females, to the more dramatic people.

I just think that despite the fact that I am a male and that I have suffered from male-specific problems in the past that does not stop me from acknowledging female issues and from trying to improve the situation while in a more civil matter trying to bring attention to male issues while doing so. I can fight for the rights of both sides while trying to establish bridges in-between. I can understand the tampon complains. Its not a picky issue. If males had to use a special Toilet paper on top of regular toilet paper, just that that special one cost way more and wasn't covered, I would be pretty angry too. But because I protest against this situation doesn't mean I can't also try to bring awareness to MGM, unfair sentencing, custody battles, workplace injuries etc

[–]LucifersHammerr 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The problem with trying to categorize the "feminist" movement is that its in no way or shape organised.

If by this you mean "ask ten feminists a question and you will get ten different answers" you are correct (unless it's about the mysterious patriarchy, which they all agree is the devil). However feminists certainly do not lack in organization or funding. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.

I don't particularly care what Jane Q feminist thinks. I care what the feminists who influence policy think. So for example, the largest feminist organization in the US, NOW, opposes equal parenting rights and alimony reform. The largest feminist domestic violence group in Australia, The White Ribbon, opposes recognizing male victims of domestic violence (or female abuse of children). And so on and so forth.

Until feminists clean their own house and demand that these groups support men and boys and actual equality then I will consider them my enemies.

[–]guto8797 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think that's a very dangerous position to have. Every group has its looneys, and antagonising everyone because of it is not a good idea. I recognise your points, but there are also MRA's who have a bolt or two off their heads. I don't think you would think well of a woman who said that while men don't clean house and get rid of all extreme-right wing anti planned parenthood types they don't deserve support.

Just be careful, you are building a strong strawmen around something too wide to be categorised effectively and that detracts from your message.

[–]SirkovTheWanderer 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Has it's looneys

These are not outliers. They are the largest groups of feminists in their respective countries. They are of a size such that they can actually influence policy. It's equatable to women marching because they are worried about the opinions Trump has in regards to their rights.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

false. All feminists believe patriarchy theory and the idea that women are oppressed.

If they don't believe those two things and just are "I like equality" then they are simply useful idiots.

[–]LucifersHammerr 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think that's a very dangerous position to have. Every group has its looneys, and antagonising everyone because of it is not a good idea.

When the "dangerous looneys" are in control of the asylum, we have ourselves a problem. If feminists spent one-hundredth of the amount of time trying to get rid of the man-haters who run their movement rather than trying to defend their brand the problem would disappear over night.

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

Yeah except everyone can call themselves a feminist. I could also go make a mensright activist account and bash everything about equality and come off as unfair and sexist and destroy the image of mens rights activists.

Why listen to idiots and trolls. You push all the people way that want to help and are for equality. Just focus on gathering the good people.

[–]Kuramo 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism, check it out.

[–]Meyright 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can complain, but it would behoove you to recognize the fundamental absurdity of caring more about a few dollars than male life.

Especially when their movement claims its for men's rights too.

Equal custody, prison sentences? Naaah, lets concentrate on fixing pink tax first though /s

[–]Evets616 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I would love for you to point out where I made the claim that tampons are more important than a human life. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a feminist quote for that.

Once again, just because we have an issue that is potentially much more serious, does not invalidate the existence of one of their issues.

[–]LucifersHammerr 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I would love for you to point out where I made the claim that tampons are more important than a human life. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a feminist quote for that.

I can do much better. The founder of the first gender studies course in the US, Sally Miller Gearhart, advocated genocide against men. She did so in all sincereity, claiming that males should be kept at no more than ten percent of the population. So she actually placed a negative value on male life, rather than being more concerned about the price of tampons.

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

Exactly. Caring is not a finite resource.

[–]thisisnewt 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

It's a question of visibility.

Most men aren't negatively impacted by a lack of reproductive rights, circumcision, custody rights, the draft, prison, or suicide.

Every woman has to deal with the "tampon tax".

Not saying that it's right, but that's why you have disproportionate levels of support.

[–]LucifersHammerr 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Most men aren't negatively impacted by a lack of reproductive rights, circumcision, custody rights, the draft, prison, or suicide.

Interesting. So most males aren't impacted by having sensitive tissue removed from their penises. They aren't impacted by gynocentric education systems. They aren't impacted by a woman literally controlling a man's body (via the state) and forcing them to become indentured servants. They aren't impacted when their wives divorce them and prevent them from seeing their own children. They aren't impacted by being twice as likely to be charged with a crime and receiving 63 percent longer sentences. And non-Western men aren't impacted by being forced to fight and die in wars.

Yes that makes perfect sense.

Alternatively, there may be a logical explanation, namely gynocentrism. We care more about women than men. As confirmed by every single study on the subject, men have outgroup bias toward women and women have in-group bias toward themselves. This was evidently an evolutionary adaptation (women are the bottleneck in reproduction) that is now maladaptive.

[–]Drugs-R-Bad-Mkay 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You're missing his point. What he's saying is that not all men a) are circumcised or are negatively affected by their circumcision, b) have a child, c) have been divorced, d) have been arrested/sent to prison, or e) have been drafted in a war. All of those things have happened to some men, but not all men. All women, every single one of them, have menstrual cycles.

Hence, tampon tax is seen as a universal problem, while men's issues are seen as niche problems.

This statement is in no way an endorsement of ideas one way or another. Just trying to clarify OPs point.

[–]Vertical807 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your point isn't really on target either.

A) There's still studies coming out that circumcision could lead to many problems. I believe there was a study that showed circumcision in dogs could cause unnecessary aggression. But the thing is, most men in the U.S. have been circumcised, and I think there's a valid claim to believe it could be causing problems.

B) Most men do have children and some are forced to pay child support while the mother can just abort the child, and she can restrict access to said child.

C) Divorce rates are nearly at 50% man...

D) I wonder what the gender is of the highest amount of criminals in jail are?

E) Sure, but that fact still stands, just to get a drivers license or a pilots license we still have to sign.

Secondly, not all women experience periods. Most do sure, but there's also other options. And naturally, women do not need them per say, so therefore by definition, are considered a luxury, same applies to toilet paper. Now the only logical argument I could see is that there generally needed while in the workplace or a professional setting. But I expect any male specific items to be non-taxed as well.

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

A) For every study that claims there's a problem with circumcision there's another that finds no evidence for that. Unnecessary? Quite possibly. But there's far from a medical consensus that it's actually damaging.

B) Six million men over the past twenty years have had to pay child support. The majority (70+%) had visitation or shared custody. That 6 million includes the situations where the parent should be paying child support. E.g. bailing out after the abortion window closed. That's an extreme far cry from a majority.

C) 21% of men have been divorced. Not all divorces are awful. Again, nowhere near the majority.

D) Men have a 9% likelihood of ever being incarcerated during their lifetime. A far cry from a majority.

E) It's a dead point. The draft will never be reinstated. I agree it should be eliminated or applied to both genders, but it's a seriously low priority issue.

Less than 1% of women are affected by primary amenorrhea - so the vast majority do have periods at some point.

Any masculine health product that's analogous to period products I'd 100% support getting the same treatment. But I think this is a situation where we need to acknowledge that the sexes are different but we should still be striving for equality.

Even taking the grossest exaggeration for each category (9%, 21%, 6 million) and assuming no overlap (which is an insane assumption), the majority of men aren't impacted by any of this.

I agree that a lot of the disadvantages men face are way more serious than what women face, but let's not pretend that these serious problems are universal.

[–]LucifersHammerr 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes that's a fair point

while men's issues are seen as niche problems.

No, the reason we are less likely to recognize male problems is because males lack in-group preference and are less able or willing to unite along gender lines. Ironically this means that patriarchy theory is incorrect. Not only do men not try to privilege other men (their sexual competitors) but they tend to favor women in most circumstances.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

30% of men are mutilated. It's mostly an issue of women being incapable of having empathy for men. Same reason you see women ridiculing men with bodies in the top 0.0000000001% - 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% while whining about objectification.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Men's rights conflict with human nature. MRA ideas have been realised though the movement exists since decades. The only viable strategy might be a twisted propaganda that pretends men's issues are really women's issues (seefor instance the documentary "Divorce Corp."). People who actually successfully bring MRA issues to the general public are mostly women, like Karen Straughan or Cassie Jaye or Christina Hoff Summers or Honey Badgers or Lauren Southern though you'd bet almost everyone who subscribes here is a man.

[–]bythog 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Every woman has to deal with the "tampon tax".

I'm sorry but the vast majority of goods are taxed. You could even consider a tampon or pad to almost be a "luxury" good considering diva cups are accessible to any woman and at a cheaper cost than either tampons or pads.

[–]Rethgil 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What?! Most men are affected DAILY. What a ridiculous thing to claim.

[–]guto8797 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not... really. Perhaps with the exception of circumcision, which is weird to me as someone not from the states, but the crushing majority of men don't have issues with unwanted pregnancies against the mother, or custody problems, or the draft, or going to prison, or killing themselves. Pretty much all women face the tampon tax and that's why its such a discussed topic. Despite being a "smaller" problem it affects a lot more people.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

again, not true.

Unless the woman is the primary provider she isn't buying those tampons.

[–]splodgenessabounds 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most men aren't negatively impacted by a lack of reproductive rights, circumcision, custody rights, the draft, prison, or suicide.

Citation(s) required.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens)

[–]Meyright 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Every woman has to deal with the "tampon tax"

Every man in the US has to deal with the draft. So your claim is proven wrong.

But hey, having to pay taxes for your sanitary products is much more "visible" issue i guess

[–]majortom22 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It isn't visibility. Women are just simply the priority. A woman's hangnail matters more than a man's death.

Most men aren't negatively impacted by those things? What are you talking about!? Almost all (American) men are affected by circumcision, and most men are affected by at least some of those things.

I myself am affected by 3 of them.

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

Every woman has to deal with the "tampon tax".

not true.

Women who are not the primary provider of the family will never see that money, let alone the tax.

[–]mistixs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

ok then never complain again if you break your arm because there are some people out there who don't even have any arms

[–]LucifersHammerr 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a silly analogy. A better one would be "don't complain if you stub your toe because there are people out there currently being tortured to death." Tampon taxes don't compare to things like not being allowed to see your own children.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the person with the broken arm consistently lectured the armless guy that he's privileged and only broken arms count as being disabled then I'd expect the armless man to respond with "shut the fuck up" at some point.

Feminists have a history of claiming only women are oppressed and men always have it better.

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

But you're doing it again. Your comparing one chosen issue with another chosen specifically to show how different the importance of those are.

I could continue this by saying that women get statistically less taken seriously in medical emergencies and suffer from more problems following that... but... where do we get this way?

I say tampons are important, ok let's work on that. Good. Not all the people have to work at the same time on the tampon issue. The other half can work on idk let's say reproductive rights aka government takes over child support if the man got tricked into a pregnancy like when the woman would not take birth control or so on purpose. So we work on these issues and solve them. What's the problem with that?

If we keep trying to determine the priority of issues... we can't because everyone determines it differently for themselves. Let's just say all the issues are important and we never know how quick we get through with them. Maybe the tampon issue could take decades, maybe a few years, same for the reproductive rights for men.

Focus your strength on fighting to solve the issue.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The difference is, when women speak about their issues they get marches and events and people praising them for their bravery. When men talk about their issues they're misogynists, evil, patriarchal, homophobic, transphobic, privileged assholes who deserve to be in camps. Don't believe me? Don't have to, just google Mens Domestic Violence Shelters, or look up the rules for men in a homeless shelter. Tell me all about how bad the women have it. I mean aside from winning most custody and alimony battles, winning almost all of the domestic violence issues, getting months in jail for raping someone while men get years. But i mean other than that its like the same thing, i mean they both have issues right? I mean just the other day someone held open the door for a woman. I know right, the fucking nerve of that patriarchal scum, being polite, what a piece of shit. Oh and lets not forget what happens if a woman accuses a man of rape, if he didn't do it, doesn't matter the world will treat him like he did. He'll lose his scholarship, his job, his wife, kids, possibly be jailed for 10-20 years. And when the woman comes forward and says "naw i made that up" what happens? Fucking nothing. So no you don't get to stand here and say that. Women in the first world are not oppressed, in fact they belong to the most privileged and least oppressed group of people who have ever existed.

[–]mistixs 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention the fact that lack of paid maternity leave correlates with higher infant mortality rates, and also, the US has higher maternal mortality than Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Libya, and Iran. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/women-dying-childbirth-u-s-saudi-arabia/ https://www.rt.com/usa/362297-maternal-mortality-rates-america/

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well, women actually kill their own children far more than men do, especially younger, then blame it on hormones. If your body is going to make you snap into a child murdering phase, why should we trust you with our children?

[–]Erochimaru 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you very much for your amazing comment!

We shouldn't try to invalidate our oppressions, no matter the sex or reason we are oppressed. Instead we should point to the things happening like you did, about the female hygiene products not being covered but viagra is. I wanna add that there is no such perfect thing as viagra for women and there are many sexual issues gone ignored, like the equivalent to blue balls or erectile dysfunction. Something like viagra for women needs to be developed.

And for men, they need safe birth control and for instance vasalgel should be more supported and come out asap! I also was so happy when Obama announced to have more baby stations build in mens toilets! Maybe this one issue is not huge for many but for some men who are the sole parent it's very difficult.

And there are tons of other things. We should point problems out and work on them, not bury them. We should try to understand each other :)

[–]NaughtyFred 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

afaic the fact that "not being given free tampons is sexist" shows the utterly ridiculous mockery of a movement that feminism has become.

[–]Ninja_Arena 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I use to get downvoted to hell when I complained about posts like this and similar articles basically designed to stir up trouble and not solve anything. We are ultimately here to spread awareness and discuss solutions and options when dealing with oppression and maybe provide support to men dealing with specific issues.
Glad to see someone can post what you did and not get downvoted to hell. This sub might be turning around.

[–]tallwheel 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah. It's just because this was on /r/all and there are lots of non-subscribers to this sub posting and voting in this thread.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically. Its kind of like a Distributed Brigade, in which the participants are heavily feminized doctrine, and came here on their own will, rather than through a "brigade" sub post, and are spamming that upvote/gold option because they're both disgusted and terrified at facts and critical thinking.

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

Yeah, you might be right

[–]Kuramo 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism is so wired inside men, isn't it? You're an evidence of that.

[–]Evets616 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm gynocentric because I acknowledge facts and called out a lazy, poorly supported piece of writing?

I've got no problem with criticizing some of the things women or feminists say. But it should at least make sense and not just attack the issue because it's about women.

Like I said at the end of my post, this isn't an either/or situation. Women have some valid issues. I don't have to argue against that just because I'm a guy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, you're gynocentric because you miss the key logical flaw in the march and in your argument. Did all of the things you list in your missive magically appear when Trump became President? No.

The states that haven't ratified the Equal Pay Act have had since 1963 to do so, but haven't. Differential differences in sales tax that affect tampons didn't magically appear under Trump, and have been in place for years. The US's dearth of paid parental leave and poor record on maternal/neonatal care has been a reality for decades.

I can agree with you (and do) that these are all legitimate concerns, ones that women should be protesting against, and yet for years or even decades they didn't take to the streets? Suddenly these real issues become real enough to put hundreds of thousands of women in the streets before Trump has even served a single minute in office? Passed a single bill?

Ultimately, to dismiss this march as political theater is something that can be done even if I 100% agree with your position.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Name one right that men have in the western world which women don't.

You can't. Checkmate.

btw, getting money to fund your personal hygiene needs is NOT a right.

And I hope all the people spamming upvotes to your post get banned from this sub for "brigading" from r/all.

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He makes an absolute comparison between western women and women in states that all would agree are dealing with overt, state-sponsored oppression.

No. All would NOT agree.

Please stop this social justice gynocentric idiocy that women in Saudi Arabia are "oppressed" and that this is some kind of crime against womankind. Everyone in Saudi Arabia is "oppressed." Have any of you idiots bothered asking Saudis? And how do you reconcile your ridiculous contention with the fact that women are actually happier than men there, and are just as likely to support Sharia law as men are?

[–]Evets616 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, i like how you lumped both sides of this argument into the SJW box. That's hilarious given the discussion in this thread.

But you're taking about stuff like this right?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/meast/saudi-women-disagree-rights/

Yeah, some of them consider it a good thing. Many don't. Many express the desire for equal legal rights. Whether or not they like it doesn't change the fact that one gender is subject to significant legal restrictions. The "some of them like it" argument doesn't change the fact that the law are there and they do what they do.

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, i like how you lumped both sides of this argument into the SJW box. That's hilarious given the discussion in this thread.

? The MRM also has its SJWs. Some truly believe that Western men are "oppressed." Others believe that women in 3rd world countries are "oppressed." The actual data and common sense suggest that it is simply not possible for one gender to "oppress" the other.

Yeah, some of them consider it a good thing. Many don't. Many express the desire for equal legal rights. Whether or not they like it doesn't change the fact that one gender is subject to significant legal restrictions.

There is no such thing as "equal" legal or any other kind or rights or morality between two groups of nonrandomly selected people. Morality does not fall out of the sky. It is 100% subjective. It is decided by the people directly affected by it themselves.

Given that: 1. The differences between men and women as a group are more significant than the differences between races etc., and that 2. It is not possible to separate the sexes and 3. it is not possible for either sex to be in the minority, then: if similar fractions of men and women think something is "fair," then it is "fair." End of story.

[–]Rethgil 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you consider yourself an MRA? Or in favour of them?

[–]Evets616 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I do consider myself one. There are plenty of serious issues facing men, across the board, that need to be addressed by society but either aren't or are actively mocked.

  • The lack of reproductive rights
  • our disposability in the workplace and as soldiers
  • the utter lack of serious mental health programs geared towards men in general but especially veterans
  • gender bias in the family courts and in prison sentence lengths
  • the extremely negative attitudes towards and criminalization of male sexuality
  • the fact that men are the large majority of the homeless due to less options for them
  • male suicide rates
  • the categorization of men as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence
  • the falling numbers of men in higher education
  • circumcision
  • disparities in funding of medical research for males vs females

That's just off the top of my head while typing a reply on my phone. All of those things need to be addressed, seriously, and I'm sure I've missed some.

But I don't believe the existence of all of these things means we get to ignore legitimate issues facing women or get angry with them for trying to address their issues. I believe that just as I believe it's wrong of many outspoken feminists to do the same to us.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the utter lack of serious mental health programs geared towards men in general but especially veterans

If your self-esteem takes a hit from going onto online dating sites, and you complain about how you feel, everyone will bash you. Males call you a fag or a pussy, females call you a virgin loser or a "nice guy".

We don't want mentally ill men in our society. Its still highly stigmatized here just like it is in China. We don't even want men to complain about their interpersonal relationships, that's for women, and when women do it they get pats on the back and "its okay, you're the greatest". When men do it "stop being an entitled pile of shit!"

A man is not supposed to be human. He's supposed to be superhuman. Or a robot.

[–]Evets616 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, I agree. The strong, doc male who never complains or feels is incredibly harmful and drives other issues, like the suicide rate

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Taxes on hygeine products are an issue when the country has policies in place like HSA and FSA's that people can set aside tax-free dollars for medical expenses.

Oh, so men have no problem setting asside HSA dollars for deoderant, razors, bodywash... oh, wait... we can't either.

Feminists are complaining that they don't have even more over men than they already have.

But let's look at the actual effect it has: there hasn't been a draft in over 40 years. So any man born after 1955 hasn't had to deal with a draft.

And yet every man has had to sign up for it or be rejected for their Federal Student Loans or be ineligible to apply for a federal job.

Not being able to use FSA dollars on those products for women is an issue and the author's treatment of the issue is lazy.

Yes, because it's not fair that men get to use FSA dollars on hygiene products while women... oh, wait.. men can't use FSA on hygiene either.

Feminists are complaining that they don't have even more over men than they already have.

Yes, it is an unpaid block of time that can be used for giving birth, so it technically checks the box against the protestor issue of unpaid maternity but the law isn't a specific women's law. He misrepresents the issue.

And hopefully now you understand the bolded refrain I'm posting:

Feminists are complaining that they don't have even more over men than they already have.

And at the end, he tells women that they need to be more inclusive of men's issues and campaign for equality and not privilege over men. Sure, that makes sense if you buy into the rest of his claims where he's trying to show that women don't have any problems here and have nothing to complain about.

1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men have and women do not have in equal or greater levels.

2) Please enumerate any government-enforced responsibilities which women bear which men do not bear in equal or greater levels.

Yep... nothing there. So once again that means:

Feminists are complaining that they don't have even more over men than they already have.

This isn't a zero sum game,

Sadly, it is.

Who pays for all these benefits? Is that source of money unlimited?

No? So it is a zero sum game.

And, FYI, men pay 75% of taxes.

[–]Meyright 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Mens issues aren't addressed adequately, but articles like this will not help anyone take the movement seriously.

What more does it need than issues (human rights) not being addressed adequately to take a movement seriously?

[–]friendlessboob 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, the point is to not demonize anyone based on gender and make sure people are getting a fair shake. This guy thinks it's a competition that men need to win.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

uh no... It seems like he is stating that since nobody else is helping men he should.

There is no winning when we both need eachother to live and reproduce.

[–]friendlessboob 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was agreeing with the comment I replied to and then commenting on the OP. Obviously there is no winning, that was my point.

[–]ExpendableOne 73 points74 points75 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

wear penis costumes

Do you want to be arrested and be put on some kind of sexual offender's list?

[–]AnastyNAHA 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Exactly my thoughts. I'd give you upwards of 30 minutes before you're a registered sex offender for doing that shit.

[–]Danni293 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So it's ok to wear costumes of female genitalia, but not make? Do you see the double standard?

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

Yep, but that's not the only double standard in our society.

[–]AtemAndrew 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just wait until the first sunday of April.

[–]greenbut 150 points151 points152 points 9 years ago* (93 children) | Copy Link

i totally agree, if you are going to march/protest something it should be specific...like paid maternity leave..that would have been nice...but this was just dumb...as a Hispanic women working male dominated field i'm not oppressed one bit and i think its opposite, men don't want to make jokes around me because they feel as though i might get offended ...ugg ...in reality its a step backwards from equality in my opinion, i have to make a lot of jokes just for the white men to feel comfortable around me to let loose a bit ....also men and women are different, physically and mentally (hormones) (see recent scientific studies which are now being done with that in mind), so stop it ladies i don't want my future daughter signing up for selective service

[–]tigrn914 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

Was with you up until the last part. Women should be required to sign up. Otherwise it's oppressive to men(as it is now).

There's legitimacy in the argument that men are more fit for war, however there are always roles that women can fill.

In the event of total war(the only event I feel justifies a draft), we need everything we can get.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

There shouldn't be a selective service in the first place.

[–]tigrn914 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There shouldn't be slavery in the first place. Doesn't mean we only enslave men because slavery shouldn't exist.

[–]bumblebritches57 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that's not current;y an option. when the world is at peace we won't need one, but were a long ways off from that.

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

That would be best, certainly, but currently our government is in a much closer position to making it gender equal rather than doing away with it entirely. Baby steps. First, let's make it gender neutral. Then, once people realize their daughters - as well as sons - could potentially be sent to war against their will, we'll be in an even better position to argue that selective service should be done away with entirely.

[–]AnastyNAHA 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

There is places for women in the infantry since even an infantry battalion has desk jobs. They won't be labeled "infantryman" but they most definitely could set up comm., work the S shops, and shit like that.

[–]thatusenameistaken 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

No they couldn't, because even the admin in an infantry battalion is expected to get out and do 25 mile hikes on workups just like the rest of them. Comm is mostly radio operators, who are detailed out to infantry for exercises and in combat, and their load is generally actually heavier than most grunts.

What happens in support units is women soak up a hugely disproportionate percentage of rear area duties when those units deploy people. They can't hack deployments, so they get pregnant either during workups or on deployment so they get sent home.

They effectively work in deployable units like casualties do. Sure, they can hold down a desk slot in the absolute rear, but that just means that when an actual combat ready Marine/Soldier gets light duty and would get assigned admin tasks, there isn't a slot for them to go into. So now you're out a body on the sharp end, because ordinarily you could rotate one of those comm guys in the CP out to a line company and now you can't.

[–]bumblebritches57 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can confirm. one of my female friends who had no interest in having kids, got pregnant while stationed in Japan.

[–]thatusenameistaken 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say she was about to either pull a deployment or short unaccompanied TDY someplace unpleasant like Korea. I've got nothing against Korea, but the US military is only there to either sit on the wall or to run field ops for cold weather.

[–]bumblebritches57 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tbh idk the backstory we're only fb friends and i haven't talked to her much lately, back when Kim Jung Un was threatening us every month we talked more lol.

[–]AnastyNAHA 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah good point. I actually forgot about admin doing hikes with us in Lejeune. Women tend to break from hikes anyway.

[–]thatusenameistaken 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a bone structure and natural chemicals thing. Even when women are actually willing to put in the work and have the heart/will to try grunt training, they just break quickly. At least the Corps was willing to take the political hit and be honest about training them to be grunts, so the spade got called a spade. The army just did their usual shit lowering standards and looking the other way to certify them combat ready.

I'm all for women serving in the military and signing up for the draft, but it should be like WW2 where they have their own auxiliary and it doesn't interfere with combat or combat support units. Otherwise you wind up with situations like my buddy was in as a Navy Chaplain's assistant. He got out after 12 years because they never let him out of infantry units. Every shore detail for his MOS was taken by a female, and all the ones on big ships, so every time he was set to get an easy base tour he'd get screwed over last minute. Twice in a row he was supposed to leave 3/5 for division, where he'd at least be kind of in the rear. Both times a female with his MOS got pregnant to dodge ship duty, so both times it was either deploy again on ship or stay stateside with us prepping for deployment.

For Navy Corpsmen I understand it's even worse, the majority of the better (more technical and more $$$ when you get out) C schools go to women because they pull base hospital tours while male corpsmen mostly get sent to the Marines, or pull sea duty. Once they get sent green side, they tend to get stuck there since they're always behind on technical training and later slots go to the few lucky males and the females that got base hospital first tours.

[–]AnastyNAHA 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. A buddy of mine was in the same unit with the Marines for 10 years. That is ridiculous. He has spent over half of his enlistment deployed. 2 pushes to Iraq, 3 to Afghanistan, 1 meu, and 1 UDP to Okinawa. Finally got the poor bastard into a clinic in Chicago last year.

[–]HeartlessSora1234 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

In a draft situation is every man expected to be this fit? Isn't the point of a draft to get more people because the situation is desperate? If so why not add women?

[–]AnastyNAHA 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm not speaking on a draft situation necessarily but everyone in the infantry is expected to be very fit. Not just fast but both mentally and physically strong also. In a draft situation, these things become less important because we need bodies more than we need highly trained and fit troops. Boot camp during a major war gets cut to just a few weeks as well.

[–]HeartlessSora1234 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

In a non draft situation they shouldn't except People who are not fit enough for the job. I don't see why gender should matter in this regard.

[–]AnastyNAHA 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Because integrating women also means there has to be separate restrooms, sleeping arrangements, and several other things like that we don't already have since units are all males. While on patrol we literally shit in a hole and cover it up with sand/ dirt. Women would just make it such an inconvenience that it wouldn't be worth it. Also, they are a risk to other people's lives as I stated above as well as their own. Give a woman a 50 cal and tell her to hike it 6 miles while maintaining a 3mph pace (less than half of a typical hike) and see how quick she fails.

[–]HeartlessSora1234 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Again if they can't do the job they shouldn't have the job (and at this point I'm starting to think you're just ignoring the logic here so I won't bother pointing it out again). As for the inconvenience there's already women in the army and besides that redirect a little funding and make it work. It's the army not a summer camp dealing with inconvenience is part of the job. Having women shouldn't cause inefficiency.

[–]AnastyNAHA 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In combat it definitely does. Assuming you have clearly never been there you have no idea what it's like. Infantry units operate in different settings so women are most definitely not there already. You make it sound like being politically correct is worth increasing the danger put on someone's life in combat.

[–]HeartlessSora1234 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're assuming all women are physically inferior to men.. People who are unqualified for the job shouldn't have the job and if the situation is so dire that those unqualified for the position are necessary then accountability shouldn't be expected.

[–]AnastyNAHA 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Most women are physically inferior to men. Women are not built to do what men can do. That's also why the standards in the military are different for men and women. I can only name one woman I've ever met that MIGHT could have kept up with us. That's one...... out of hundreds, maybe even thousands that I worked with.

Edit: start producing large amounts of testosterone and things might change. Until then, 99% of women literally can not compete with men in strength.

[–]HeartlessSora1234 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then they simply are not qualified for the job. If we go based on qualification gender shouldn't matter. There are men who are not as physically fit as women as well. In a draft situation do we overlook this or not when it comes to men? If we do then there's no reason not to include women.

[–]Electroverted 110 points111 points112 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, we're not worried about offending you; we're worried about you using those teases against us later. Men don't worry about offending other men because a supervisor can yell at both of them to knock it off and get back to work and it's resolved. A supervisor can't do that when a woman complains, and oftentimes the damage done to the accused male is longlasting.

So we're not worried about the offense, we're worried about the power you have over management.

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's included in what she's talking about. Supposedly offending her is the first step in that process of drama that would unfold, because most of the time a supervisor gets involved it's after the offended speaks up. Of course, the very fact that a woman is present will make the supervisor walk on eggshells.

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well hopefully one woman will now understand the concept of false accusations.

[–]Electroverted 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Some of them aren't necessarily false, but extremely distorted.

I heard a story of a group of men and women trading sexist jokes back and forth. Later one of the women, who joked about men, complained to the supervisor about the men telling sexist jokes. Her complaint isn't a lie, but she twisted the facts. Luckily the manager had witnesses and gave her a warning instead.

How about that campus story about sexual assault where a couple had consensual sex. The next day the boy groped the girl's chest, and it took her several months to file a complaint. She wasn't lying, but she was fucking around with their relationship dynamic to administrators and more-than-likely jilted about something else (break-up, etc).

This bullshit is why men treat women differently. Women revel in it and think it makes them clever, but really, men will always treat them as immature and lesser as long as they do it.

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

and oftentimes the damage done to the accused male is longlasting.

Zero tolerance society.

[–]rtechie1 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One of the biggest problems women in STEM complain about is a lack of mentoring from men because men are afraid to be alone with them due to fear of sexual harassment claims.

[–]originalSpacePirate 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And for good reason. Even just the accusation is often enough to ruin your career. After studying and working your ASS off to get into the STEM field why would you put that at risk? Especially as the women being pushed into STEM are all feminists (which i think is still ridiculous as not a single feminist has pushed for more women in male dominated fields like construction and other manual labour) and believe society should bend over backwards and treat them like special snowflakes for being in STEM.

[–]rtechie1 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

After studying and working your ASS off to get into the STEM field why would you put that at risk?

That's exactly why this is worse in STEM than in many other fields. Women report much the same thing in the legal profession, for much the same reason. And who is more likely to sue than lawyers?

[–]DingleBerryCam 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Although it was called the women's march, I believe the march on DC was less towards "women's rights" and rather more about marching in protest to Trump's inauguration.

A lot of women see him as a womanizer and so are upset about him being elected despite that fact. Hence the march was less about being oppressed as it was about just disliking the new president.

[–]RubyOrchid13 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That still doesn't make much sense as 60℅ of white women voted for him. He actually did well with the female vote, as far as I know anyways.

[–]DingleBerryCam 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well it wasn't just females there either. From what I had heard there was a large amount of men in attendance as well. I was under the impression that the large amount of people there were more under the category of "against trump" than under the category of "fighting for this large list of topics" although they aren't mutually exclusive of course

[–]reverian69 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It felt like a progressive agenda under the message of equality.Sadly others critcizing the march were getting labelled sexist.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My mother voted for trump. When I asked her how she could after the things he said about women, she responded "well. I never heard him say that." I think the main thing is that no one really wants to trust hillary.

[–]Ninja_Arena 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, there's video evidence of him saying such things, nevermind the tweets. So yeah, seems like she is being willfully ignorant die to her distaste for Hillary.

[–]greenbut 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

then they should have said that, not compiled some big list to protest about, of course it was big because everyone protesting for their own reasons. i don't like the guy either, and actually voted for clinton since i like the environment and didn't realize the SJW shit spreads really far, but i dont like him because he is a crazy selfish narcissist who feeds off bad press for gigantic ego and is completely unpredictable not because he is anti-women, i think he actually said once "one good women is better then 10 good men" (see PBS frontline documentary The Choice 2016)

[+]johnnie-fuckwit points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

"One good woman is better than 10 good men"

Douchebag assholes always say shit like that about women. It's compensatory.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He was referring to situations in the bedroom.

[–]Korvar 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

womanizer

Not "womaniser" but "someone who brags about getting away with sexual assault". Which is a different kettle of fish.

[–]PM_ME_UR_VAG 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He bragged women let him touch their pussies which isn't sexual assault. This narative that he's bragged about sexualy assaulting women is a lie.

[–]JoelTLoUisBadass 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sexual assault and them letting him grope them because he's rich are 2 different things.

[–]FeierInMeinHose 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Brags about being able to grope beautiful women, I don't really think he was bragging about being able to get away with sexually assaulting them. What I took from that tiny soundbite is that he was saying that they're attracted to him because he's rich and famous and thus they let him grope them, not that they let him grope them because he's so rich and famous that he would ruin them. It really is completely up to the listener how they take it, though, because we have no further context.

[–]Korvar 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to:

A lot of women see him as a womanizer

and pointing out that "a lot of women" see him as "someone who brags about getting away with sexual assault"

You apparently disagree with their analysis of that clip, which is fine. But that's what they think, not that he's a womanizer.

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

Your description sounds like a fair and equitable exchange between two parties interested in mutual benefit. If we're being honest, beautiful women aren't draping themselves all over him for his good looks and charming personality.

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

Fair enough

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

There you go. Now we're talkin.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well if your daughter doesn't have to live with the very real possibility that she may be sent to a foreign land to die, then she doesn't deserve equality. I'm being facetious, but I hope you see that point.

[–]Blarneystone2 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They did march for stuff, alot of it was Bs, cept birth control and abortion access.

[–]bumblebritches57 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i don't want my future daughter signing up for selective service

That's not equality tho...

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

I would imagine that by them feeling PC to not include you in their congenial banter there might be moments where you could end up feeling left out or less bonded with the group. Or I could be talking out of my ass.

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

Even if required to sign up for draft, what they'll do is have a policy of picking male names out of the hat first. It is just lip service.

[+]-bruce- points 9 years ago* [recovered] (325 children) | Copy Link

I am so tired of this false narrative.

We elected a president that said you should grab women by their pussies. He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions, which many women view as their right. Women are voicing their protest at that reality, and for promotion of women's rights generally.

This isn't hard to understand, and the false narratives promoted by posts like these just reinforce the line that the men's rights is anti-women.

It's the same narrative that says men shouldn't advocate for their rights because "they already have it good". It's a toxic sentiment on either side.

[–]ZenPyx 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ahh. Except you forget that men are subject to many of these trials as well. A man gets no say in his own children's birth or lack thereof. Frankly, Hillary has said some disturbing stuff, especially about homosexuals, in the recent past, whereas Trump seems to be acting in a decent manner and wants equality for all. Men's rights is not anti woman. It is against the idea that women should be the only ones making societal progress, and frankly men are being left far behind in that regard. In terms of restricting funding for abortions, I'm pretty sure you have to pay to get anything medical done in the US, so it's not like the money wasn't coming out of your taxes anyway, and this way richer people who don't qualify for a free one will have to pay a little more to offset the money that would have come from people who will never have children. I understand that women should have a right to an abortion, but it still costs money and that money has to come from somewhere. This isn't really a false narrative. It's just men pointing out that women are not the only ones who have it bad and men are being pushed under the rug as we are far less likely to voice our concerns due to our more reserved nature. Frankly, most women in the women's march didn't really know what they were doing in the first place, it was more of just a general "anti Trump rally" with a vague feminist undertone.

[–]Hydris 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions

Having the right to have an abortion is worlds different than not getting the government to help you pay for it. You are not owed funding to get an abortion.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (83 children) | Copy Link

I agree entirely. The author points out that women do in fact pay $7 more than they should due to the Tampon Tax and basically says "whoop de doo" because men have to sign up for selective service. Why does it have to be men vs. women? Why is women's gripe against an unnecessary tax invalidated by something completely unrelated? Also, I bet 95% of the people who marched last Sunday have no idea who Linda Sarsour is. Her misguided comment on Sharia Law has no bearing on the things women personally experience everyday. They didn't march for Linda Sarsour, they marched for themselves.

[–]rtechie1 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

There is no "tampon tax". What they're talking about is that tampons aren't exempt from sales tax and they want them to be because they are "essential items" unlike say, shaving razors for men. Though I would add condoms to that legislation as well.

[–]elebrin 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

If we are going to have a sales tax, then we shouldn't play favorites with it at all. Either we have one or we don't. When we have a selective sales tax, it allows Government to play favorites with particular industries and it allows politicians to give out favors.

No, if there must be a sales tax it should be on everything without exception.

[–]Quintrell 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Feminists argue that the tampon tax is unfair b/c tampons are a "necessity." Okay, well what about food? That's far more of a necessity than tampons, which are a relatively recent invention. You literally need food to live and yet grocery stores where I live levy an extra 3% on food products.

I think a closer comparison would be diapers, both baby and adult, which are also subject to a sales tax, and taxed at the same rate as any other non-food stuff. So why just tampons? Why not other necessities? I guess incontinent adults don't have an entire social movement lobbying on their behalf.

[–]Evets616 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The tax issue is also about income taxes.

You can set aside money in an FSA or HSA directly from your paycheck, to be used only for medical and healthcare expenses. That money is set aside, pre-tax.

There's a list of approved items that you can use this money for. Feminine hygiene products aren't covered on the list.

FSA info on tampons

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

Yeah that makes more sense. I think most medical supplies shouldn't be taxed, or at least at a much lower rate

[–]youcantdenythat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Their point isn't about necessities being taxed. It's about being taxed because they are a woman. Men don't need tampons so don't have to pay the tax.

Men and women use razors, diapers, etc so these are fair things to tax.

[–]Quintrell 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They aren't being taxed because they are a woman. They are paying a tax because they are buying a good. And I don't see why anyone should be taxed for being old and incontinent either. Or why a person should be taxed for being sick. How is that fair?

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

Agreed

[–]kai_zen 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So things that only women need to use should not be taxed? What about lipstick? Isn't that the definition of preferential treatment? Why does it matter that an item that women buy is taxed? Is there a corralary in men's prooducts that is not taxed?

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

I'm not debating, just explaining their point.

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

Jesus, what retrograde state do you live in? I've lived in several states and none of them have had sales taxes on food. Not even my current state which has no income tax and relies heavily on sales tax for state funding.

[–]Pepper-Fox 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd pay any sales tax if they could make it standard and work into pricing like they do in europe so we can get rid of the fucking penny

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sales taxes unfairly impact the poor, who spend most of their money on goods and rent. If you're going to have one, essential items need to be excepted.

[–]elebrin 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree. If things are excepted, then politicans can use those exceptions to play favorites with some industries. This leads to an entangling of interests.

Well, whatever.

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

Perhaps the best solution is to not have them, then.

Politicians love them though because it catches everyone and is basically unavoidable even for rich people with accountants on retainer.

[–]bufedad 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

The author points out that women do in fact pay $7 more than they should due to the Tampon Tax and basically says "whoop de doo" because men have to sign up for selective service.

More than they should? What do you mean more than they should? It's a tax, you have to pay it when you purchase something. Men have to pay it when they purchase their hygiene products. What makes women so special that they don't?

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

The argument is that tampons are an "essential item." Whether or not you believe they are is up to you.

[–]locks_are_paranoid 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In most states, toilet paper is taxed as well. That's clearly an essential item, and so are many other things which are taxed.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The argument is that tampons are an "essential item." Whether or not you believe they are is up to you.

Toilet paper is an essential item. Soap is an essential item. Hell, food is an essential item.

They don't care about essential items, they care about tampons.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

Okay? What point are you trying to make? Women pay taxes on those items too, just as men.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Okay? What point are you trying to make? Women pay taxes on those items too, just as men.

What's your point? Is the point not that they are paying taxes on an essential item? Or is it because that essential item is only for women that it matters? Does it stop mattering if men also pay that tax? I'm guessing... I don't understand what your problem is with this tax.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

The point I was making is that taxes on the items you listed are paid by men and women. Taxes on tampons are paid exclusively by women and that is why they care about tampons, obviously. I never indicated in any of my comments whether I thought women should or should not pay a tax on tampons.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok, then ban tampons and pads. Women can go back to using rags and since both genders use rags they no longer have a reason to complain about the tax.

Nobody said women HAD to use tampons, right?

[–]budhs 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is mostly a British issue where there are two classes of tax, everyday items and luxury items with a higher tax; tamping and pads are classed as luxury items but men's essential hygiene products aren't.

I think in America the issue has something to do with male hygiene essential being viable for tax returns but not female essentials. I'm not from either of the countries though so I don't know any more than that.

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

This is mostly a British issue where there are two classes of tax, everyday items and luxury items with a higher tax; tamping and pads are classed as luxury items but men's essential hygiene products aren't.

If other basic hygiene products are classified as everyday items in the UK then I agree that tampons/pads should be classified as such also.

I think in America the issue has something to do with male hygiene essential being viable for tax returns but not female essentials.

That is not the case. In the USA the argument is entirely bunk.

[–]LucifersHammerr 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

The author points out that women do in fact pay $7 more than they should due to the Tampon Tax and basically says "whoop de doo" because men have to sign up for selective service.

I wonder if you recognize the absurdity of whining about $7 vs. being compelled by the state to fight and die in wars. I mean this is just off the charts narcissism and entitlement. While it's true that Western men do not currently face a significant risk of being drafted, they are still live under threat of conscription, and it was only a few decades ago that they were sent en masse into the meat grinder of Vietnam.

That is the problem I have with the women's march. These people don't seem to realize that females are privileged in virtually every sphere of Western society, nor do they show the slightest interest in equal rights when it comes to men. It's gynocentrism on steroids.

Edit: downvoted for telling the painful truth. Good ol' R/all.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (25 children) | Copy Link

I do recognize the absurdity of Selective Service. But what does that have to do with the Tampon Tax? Why is it one or the other - can't we be against the Tampon Tax and be against Selective Service?

Also, why is it women's responsibility to protest Select Service? If men were to protest against Selective Service would we face the same criticism if we didn't also include the Tampon Tax on our signage?

See, I understand the major difference in weight of these two things, but I don't understand why one invalidates the other. They're both legitimate gripes.

[–]LucifersHammerr 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I do recognize the absurdity of Selective Service. But what does that have to do with the Tampon Tax? Why is it one or the other - can't we be against the Tampon Tax and be against Selective Service?

Sure you can be against both. But comparing the two is ridiculous. One is profound institutional oppression, the other is a few dollars. See the problem? You're more worried about a few dollars than men's lives.

Also, why is it women's responsibility to protest Select Service?

Do you care about equality? Men are currently unable to vote unless they sign their bodies away to the state. Women do not have this obligation.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

One is profound institutional oppression, the other is a few dollars. See the problem? You're more worried about a few dollars than men's lives.

I am not more or less worried about one or the other. They're not comparable and should not even be mentioned in the same sentence is my point. Women shouldn't be allowed to complain about the Tampon Tax until Select Service is repealed? Is that your point? I'm confused here.

Do you care about equality?

Are men not allowed to protest?

[–]LucifersHammerr 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Women shouldn't be allowed to complain about the Tampon Tax until Select Service is repealed? Is that your point? I'm confused here.

Shouldn't be allowed? No. But it's incredibly narcissistic to be whining about a few bucks when men are legally obligated to die for the state. Again, this is about priorities. A few bucks vs. male life. The very fact that I'm having to debate this shows just how fucked up this society is. Gynocentric to the point of absurdity.

Are men not allowed to protest?

So the answer is no? You don't care about equality? You only care about women?

Men are allowed to protest, and they are also allowed to be mocked and degraded in turn for failing to live up to their gender role, which is based on strength. This gender role is enforced primarily by women. We need women to help.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

But it's incredibly narcissistic and gynocentric to be whining about a few bucks when men are legally obligated to die for the state.

By that logic isn't it fairly narcissistic and geocentric of US men to protest the possibility of Selective Service when there are dozens of countries around the world that currently do require military service. There are 87 countries in the world that currently require military service for men, including 32 countries requiring it for more than 18 months. Would it be wrong to protest Selective Service in the US until those 87 countries changed their laws first?

Again, this is about priorities. A few bucks vs. male life. The very fact that I'm having to debate this shows just how fucked up this society is.

This does not show how fucked up society is. It shows that human beings are now, as they always have been, primarily concerned with whats directly in front of them. If there was a draft tomorrow you can bet your ass there would be protests galore. But there won't be - so there isn't. It's not that women don't care about men. It's that they care about themselves first. That's human nature and it's not a bad thing.

So the answer is no? You don't care about equality? You only care about women?

What, specifically, have I said that demonstrates I don't want equality? Men should not be required to register for Selective Service. Women should not be required to pay excessive taxes.

[–]LucifersHammerr 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

By that logic isn't it fairly narcissistic and geocentric of US men to protest the possibility of Selective Service when there are dozens of countries around the world that currently do require military service.

No. The issue of men being forced to die for the state, whether in the US or elsewhere, is orders of magnitude more important than a few dollars. The fact that you don't seem to recognize this is actually quite chilling.

It's not that women don't care about men. It's that they care about themselves first. That's human nature and it's not a bad thing.

No, that's not "human nature". It's female nature. Men care about women more than they care about themselves (your average man will literally risk death if he sees a woman being attacked on the street). The problem is that the same is not true in reverse, as all studies on the empathy group and in-group bias demonstrate.

When we have reached the point where we care more about a few bucks vs. eg the male suicide epidemic, we are reaching Reductio ad absurdum levels of gynocentrism.

The instincts that demand men prioritize women and that women prioritize themselves were useful in our hunter-gatherer past when there was always imminent danger. However they can clearly become maladaptive, as this debate demonstrates. The hyper-focus on women to the exclusion of men and boys will ultimately harm both sexes.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

The issue of men being forced to die for the state, whether in the US or elsewhere, is orders of magnitude more important than a few dollars.

You keep bringing up the few dollars line. Ignore that, please and answer this simple question - why are men in the US allowed to protest the possibility of Selective Service when there are 87 countries that already require it? Again, ignore the women's issue here and just answer that question.

No, that's not "human nature". It's female nature. Men care about women more than they care about themselves (your average man will literally risk death if he sees a woman being attacked on the street). The problem is that the same is not true in reverse, as all studies on the empathy group and in-group bias demonstrate.

Ahh, I now see why arguing with you has been pointless. You will make up whatever generalities you need to prove your point.

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

I don't think there is a significant portion of the population that cares more about a few bucks than about male suicide dude. You're kind of off the deep end.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By that logic isn't it fairly narcissistic and geocentric of US men to protest the possibility of Selective Service when there are dozens of countries around the world that currently do require military service.

Maybe if both were protesting to the same governing entity responsible for addressing them.

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

Is the tampon tax specific to tampons, or is it just sales tax?

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

You probably got downvoted for your assertion that women are privileged in every sphere of society, linking only to a site called "realsexism" to support your point. Just sayin.

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

It doesn't have to be men vs. women at all. Do you see a protest of men about selective service? What about men paying more tax and getting less healthcare funding, do you see that protest? So why do women think it's OK to make demands for women only?

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

So they're only allowed to protest for the things they desire if they also include the things we desire? Or it's women's fault that men don't protest?

The women marching didn't make it men vs. women - this article did.

[–]baskandpurr 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are supposed to accept the burdens that society places upon them for the greater good. This sub is people discussing those burdens and it gets mocked at every opportunity. It's meetings are blocked and the media treats "MRA" like its an insult.

The question I replied to was "Why does it have to be men vs. women?". It's not, men aren't protesting anything, they aren't taking a side. So why is women vs. men valid?

[–]TNine227 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Why don't you protest? They didn't discuss men's issues because the march was about women's issues.

[–]baskandpurr 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So your saying men should only protest men's issues and women only protest women's? Why does it have to be men vs. women?

[–]TNine227 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I seem to remember a whole lot of men out there during the women's march.

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

Yes, but they were only interested in womens issues. Women are so oppressed that men will line up to help them, at their own expense.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because women have massive group bias, which is the reason they'd rather conjure their own oppression instead of helping men who are suicidal or stopping MGM.

[–]Meyright 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why don't you protest?

Because nobody gives a shit about men! Including you obviously.

[–]bumblebritches57 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What about that razor tax, that a lot of jobs require you to buy unlike the supposed pad tax.

Oh no that would destroy the narrative gotta cover that up.

[+]dubuaska points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol first, the government doesn't find abortions, secondly the government funding an abortion for a woman. Isn't a fucking right. It's the woman and man's problem, not the government or anyone elses.

[–]Vertical807 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Technically, your right that the government can't, but the states can.

[–][deleted] 232 points233 points234 points 9 years ago (100 children) | Copy Link

We elected a president that said you should grab women by their pussies.

Where? Where did he say "you should grab women by their pussies"? The answer is nowhere, because that's not what he said.

False narrative indeed.

[+]-bruce- points 9 years ago [recovered] (47 children) | Copy Link

It's your right to take his statement as women want men who are "stars" to grab them.

I think it is reasonable for women to take that statement as a suggestion that if you are a star, you can get away with anything, whether the woman like it or not. He uses the words "they let you do it...You can do anything". To some, that sounds like assault.

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points74 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

To take his statement as what? All I did was doing was pointing out that you were objectively wrong.

To some it sounds like assault. To some calling a woman stupid is sexism. To some micro-aggressions are real problems. Some people think transracial is a thing. Some people think "virtual rape" is a thing.

Some people are dumb. Only Trump knows his actual meaning behind what he said. But it's open to interpretation to an extent. However, he did not say "you should grab women by their pussies". That's patently false, yet that's exactly what you were saying he said.

While ironically talking about false narratives that everyone else is pushing.

[–]leftajar 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

The word "let" renders impossible the situation of "sexual assault." The whole point of sexual assault is that it is unwanted sexual contact.

[–]magster11 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Just because you let someone in power over you have sexual contact with you doesn't mean you aren't afraid of the consequences if you don't comply.

[–]mwobuddy 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No means no. Use it if you don't want it.

[+]throwapoo56 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (31 children) | Copy Link

Just because you let someone in power over you

It's called hypergamy. Or the beauty and the beast complex, the less ''beautiful'' side is always gonna be tagged as rapey. In other words, female privilege.

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

Just because he thinks people "let" him doesn't mean they actually wanted it.

It really depends on the context. If he was naked in bed with a woman for sex and he grabs her pussy, that's fine.

If he grabs some woman's pussy in a business meeting or at a function and she chooses not to report it, that's still sexual assault. And he might think she "let him".

Some assaulters and rapists are not fully aware that what they are doing is wrong. Not all rape is of the "grab a woman at knife-point in the park at 2AM" kind.

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

"Let" in the context he describes means they didn't physically stop him. "I just kiss them, I don't even wait." What is he not waiting for? The solstice? Nah, consent.

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

"Let" in the context he describes means they didn't physically stop him. "I just kiss them, I don't even wait." What is he not waiting for? The solstice? Nah, consent.

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just kiss them, I don't even wait.

[–]Cashtronauts 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Right, he said he could do it. That's not much better, he's still condoning the action. Then there's the Planned Parenthood stuff mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Obviously women have a reason to be upset or worried when someone like that is our in charge. If Hillary was elected and made it harder to get a vasectomy and talked about slapping men in the nuts people would rightfully be upset.

BTW, this article's "women in Saudi Arabia have it worse" argument pretty shitty. By that logic MRAs in the West have nothing to complain about because men in North Korea have it worse.

[–]cuteman 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He said if you're rich and famous that they LET you

[–]80brew 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I for one am glad slapping men in the nuts is frowned upon in this establishment country.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He said they'd let him. And most would.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I met a woman at a bar. She was a little drunk, but she put her eye on me. Now normally, she's flirty with guys all around.

I got her attention well enough to take her home, but before that, I was sitting at a table with a man and a woman. Both were average to ugly scale, a little overweight, etc. They were having fun sitting ant talking with each other, I was introduced by the woman that had her eye on me.

Now, these two people started jawing at me that if I wanted to get with this other woman that I should just grab her hair and spank her ass. They were basically telling me to sexually assault her. But I did. First time around she leaned in and said stop it, but the guy didn't see, so he asked her if she'd like her ass spanked. Then she leaned in stuck her ass out for me to hit it, and then we went to her place later that night.

When we were still at the bar, she grabbed the other woman that was with the guy and kissed her, and then that woman told me "you need to step in next time". I just met her, I have no idea what she's doing, and I'm getting blamed for one woman sexually assaulting another on the lips...

Want a real example of rape culture and sexual assault?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/20-000-lesbians-gather-dinah-shore-weekend-article-1.2593624

The festivities in the desert city began March 30 and ran through April 3. The "Club Skirts The Dinah Shore Weekend" was named after the original Dinah Shore Golf Tournament, which the iconic entertainer launched in 1972.

The partying was fun and carefree, with the Guardian newspaper writing of an understanding that "what happens in Dinah stays in Dinah (unless it ends up on Facebook)."

Random women often get pulled into hotel rooms, according to the newspaper.

"Flashing is normal," a 24-year-old woman named Charlotte in Palm Springs told the Guardian. "I get flashed at a lot."

Read that again, carefully. Women flashing people (that's indecent exposure for men, and people are disgusted by it, but women its fine). Women pulling random women into their hotel rooms for sex. Women they don't know. They're basically assuming consent is given and then sexually assaulting them, if we go by your metric.

Where are all the cops busting this sexual assault fest?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/07/dinah-lesbian-festival-women-palm-springs

“Flashing is normal,” Charlotte, 24, told me. “I get flashed at a lot.” Random girls pulling you into their hotel rooms are also pretty standard. One year, there was a minor earthquake in Palm Springs. Debbie, a Dinah veteran who has attended every event since 1991, recalls that half the water splashed out of the pool. Most of the girls were too drunk to realize or care.

Syphilis, by the way, isn’t something most lesbians think about much as they rack up Dinah conquests (“Never settle for a girl from day one,” one girl advised me, “the day two girls are always better”). Nor are STDs in general. It’s my untested hypothesis that one of the reasons the Dinah is so debauched is that it is quite difficult to get pregnant when sleeping with other women, and there’s also a misperception among many lesbians that you’re not at risk of STDs. Certainly it’s not something you’re told about much; a lot of medical professionals aren’t trained to talk to gay women about sexual health

Okay, as a hetero male "never settle for the first girl, the second girls are always better'. Sound disgusting, sexist, etc? Then maybe you have a problem of "anti-male sexuality" sexism.

Sounds like a lot of sex predators, and fun fact, they're ALL WOMEN in this instance!

For instance, here's a comment in that section:

Ask any police department in the country, the incidence of fights, assaults, rapes, sexual aggression, defacing of property, tend to be much lower at gay events.

Is it really lower? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like its reported less because there isn't gendered animosity and exclusiveness, that changes the person's beliefs from consensual sexy times into sexual assault. Go to any hillbilly bar, and women are there getting felt up while talking to guys they're interested in. Sexual assault? He didn't ask, she's simply "letting him and not saying no".

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Right? I forgot, hyperbolic speech = systematic oppression by the patriarchy. Give me a break.

[–]voksul[🍰] 114 points115 points116 points 9 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

You know how you feel like there's systematic biases in the world that prejudice men? That men are discriminated against in child custody cases, that adult men interacting with young children is unfairly tabooed, that male-targeted rape isn't taken seriously or punished, that men don't have the social support structure that women tend to have and "man up" is toxic, false rape allegations, and so on?

Women face similar, but unique problems of their own. Street harassment. Pressure to bear a child to be a true woman. Lack of respect when in a leadership role. Excessive sexualization or objectification of women. Societal pressures pushing women away from STEM. Rape dangers. Congressmen being fuckhats. And more.

A women pursuing solutions for the societal issues does not preclude or impair the solution to your own problems. A woman campaigning for feminist rights does not mean that men will be subjugated, just like how a man campaigning for men's rights issues does not necessarily mean that women will be suppressed. Both genders face unique issues that deserve to be addressed and both genders have the right to campaign for a solution. Neither party's actions have to sabotage the other.

Don't demonize feminists because of the extremist members of their movement. They're a radical minority that appears exaggerated by the 24/7 cycle of outrage porn perpetuated online. When you do that, you're feeding the stereotype that MRAs are just women-hating neckbeards and delegitimizing the issues that men face in society. While there's significantly more radical MRAs online due to the movement's unfortunate oppositionary core, the problems brought up by the Men's Rights movement should not be ignored because of those people.

When both sides can calmly discuss their issues, it is then we can solve the issues that we all face.

[–]Vandechoz 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't demonize feminists because of the extremist members of their movement. They're a radical minority

...that has infested higher education and international politics, with no criticism from feminism. At best, you get "well that's not real feminism" after a single issue has been pointed out.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Your absolutely right. The difference is when men bring up these issues, we're labeled "privileged" or "sexist" and told we live in a "bubble" and are incapable of understanding how "privileged" we are.

Meanwhile women are empowered by their peers, the media, and society in general.

[–]another_busted_robot 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

You're not really labeled any of those things by sane people. The real problem is that the outrageous shit spouted by idiots gets so much attention. Fuck, every stupid thing that gets posted on tumblr by some nobody moron gets posted here, and upvoted and ranted about as if it's been some declaration of fact by someone important, and then we end up in this stupid endless circle jerk battle of who's more oppressed instead of working together to make sure shit is fair for everyone.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I know plenty of people personally who post things on Facebook and instagram that support the narrative you are denying happens. Yet I don't know a single guy who would post anything to call them out. Because there is a huge fear that they will be personally attacked for doing so. It's real. This is the time we live in now; where anti-Feminism is inherently misogynist.

[–]another_busted_robot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not denying that there are people trying to push these narratives, I'm saying that their opinions are unimportant, and that giving them attention in any measure legitimizes their stupidity. I don't see much of this garbage on Facebook. It was an easy fix, too. Whenever someone posts some ignorant, racist, bigoted crap I just kick them right off. Whether they're disguising their racism and bigotry under the guise of social justice or it's just old fashioned hatred doesn't really matter, it's all the same.

The majority of the people out there that are concerned with social issues, be it gender equality, racism, homophobia, or whatever are not idiots, and these extreme end, tumblr/Reddit fueled morons do not represent them. The same goes for "men's rights", although you wouldn't know it by reading this shit show of a sub. The idiots always scream the loudest, and are the most fanatical, but that doesn't mean their screaming fanaticism represents the majority.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The people who post this stuff otherwise sweet, sane people. I'm saying that it has been accepted in today's world that this is empowerment instead of just delusional.

[–]another_busted_robot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean, no one can tell you how to interact with the people in your life, so you gotta do what feels right to you. I'm just saying, if there's no consequence for shitty behavior, it becomes normalized. Maybe when those sweet people in your life realize no one wants to talk to them anymore, they'd reflect on themselves a bit. Or maybe not, I dunno. Fuck, just look at the south. Known for their sweet southern hospitality and casual racism and bigotry. Seem like two things that don't mix, yet there they are.

[–]yaypudding 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like when we grow up, you can either face your problems or blame others. Saying I can do this because they did that, is childish and continues a perpetual cycle of bullshit. Both groups do this, mostly by those who have so much hate they want revenge not equality. We just have to understand that most people are not the villians we make them out to be, and that we all deserve a bit more empathy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women get told the same thing. Look at all the outrage this March caused. Just look at this article lmao

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women are favored 2:1 in STEM fields. Stop spreading lies. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/04/stem-study-women-twice-likely-be-hired-comparably-qualified-men

[–]dakru 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There's conflicting evidence on that. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/15/trouble-walking-down-the-hallway/

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That study was fucking terrible and you should know it by the truncated y-axis they use. I am not confident the study subjects bought their cover story either, and it was also performed because of the overwhelming evidence via previous studies that showed women are given positive discrimination in STEM.

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

That study was fucking terrible and you should know it by the truncated y-axis they use.

The Moss-Racusin study? I took a look at the page and I assume you're referring to Figure 2, the salary offered., which shows from 25k to 31k. I don't see the problem there. It's often useful to zoom in on a particular part of the y-axis to see what's happening better. For example, this CNN article on the Dow reaching 20,000 starts at about 18,000. If it started at 0, we wouldn't be able to see as much of the detail of the jump since Trump won the election, which is the point of the article.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

" Street harassment"

How many women you think have harassed me when I'm out drinking with my friends`? Women apparently have a hard time controlling their monkey brains when a handsome guy is near.

"Excessive sexualization or objectification of women."

Rofl. Women constantly objectify men. Try again

"Don't demonize feminists because of the extremist members of their movement. They're a radical minority that "

Yeah half my family is feminists and they're all man haters. I've yet to meet a feminist for equality offline. But sure. It's a tiny %.

[–]The96thPoet -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You seem bitter about something buddy.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty bitter about not being able to go out drinking with my friends without nasty women verbally or sexually assaulting me yes.

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

Excessive sexualization or objectification of women.

Women's bodies are sexually objectified more openly and often. Agreed there.

It does happen to men too (particularly in regards their height, but also in other ways like musclyness and occasionally penis size), but it's more open and common with women's bodies which are plastered up in every ad campaign etc.

Men are objectified for their earning potential and usefulness. If objectification turns women into sex machines, it turns men into food machines and money dispensers.

Agreed about most of the rest of what you say.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Normal rules don't apply to women. It's also the reason why the feel so confident shaming and verbally/physically assaulting men. Well there's one guy here who won't stand for it anymore.

[–]throwaway008 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are so right buddy. Most of the redittors posting here seem to be writing for the sake of one upmanship rather than to actually make a point!

[–]RESET-REWIND 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was incorrect of him to use the word "should", but even using the correct phrasing doesn't really invalidate his point.

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

Exactly. And to pretend women don't talk locker room talk as well is a complete lie as well. Well maybe the ones who are ugly inside and out who don't get the d, are going to yell the loudest about trumps statement about how women will do anything for men with fame, power and money....

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

Left wingers don't give a shit about truth, they only care about posturing.

[–]Daemonicus 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am so tired of this false narrative.

Then stop lying to prove your point that Trump is an evil asshole. There's plenty of legitimate things you could point out that would do the same.

We elected a president that said you should grab women by their pussies.

Meaningless jock talk. Should we prosecute every teenager that screams about raping someone's mother when they get killed in CoD?

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions, which many women view as their right.

He added a condition for NPOs in other countries to not promote abortion as a family planning tactic, unless that person is raped, or the pregnancy is due to incest, and other similar exceptions. If they were to promote abortion as a family planning tactic, then they wouldn't receive US funds.

This doesn't mean that other countries are banned from performing abortions, and it doesn't mean that anyone is the US is federally banned from performing abortions.

Women are voicing their protest at that reality

Except that what they view as reality is wrong.

and for promotion of women's rights generally.

That's fine, if that's what they were actually doing. But not everyone there was promoting that message.

This isn't hard to understand, and the false narratives promoted by posts like these just reinforce the line that the men's rights is anti-women.

What false narratives exactly?

It's the same narrative that says men shouldn't advocate for their rights because "they already have it good". It's a toxic sentiment on either side.

Women already have more rights than men. Supporting a march that says otherwise is moronic. A march, that has promoted violence, by the way, and conviction based on allegations.

That's what you want to support?

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points66 points 9 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

Not having your abortion funded by the state isn't oppression. Not having access to government benefits isn't oppression.

[–][deleted] 76 points77 points78 points 9 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

Except women instead has to turn to unsafe alternatives for abortions when cut funding forces clinics to shut down. This is not US only, but foreign organisations were granted funding as well. Less developed countries will be hit even harder, and at the same time people think women in the US are too privileged to protest for their own interests, like what about the women in the Middle-East? Yeah, this funding cut will sure help women in the Middle-East and Africa! Where women actually!!!1!1 are oppressed. Sounds like oppression to me when women have their services' funding cut, because we would rather have them die and get sick from unsafe abortions than provide clean and safe ones.

[–]KingRamZee 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Abortions aren't safe. Not the ones funded by the government nor alternative options.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

If not having your abortion paid for by the state sounds like oppression you must live a charmed life

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I'm sure women in less developed countries live a very charmed life when walking to an underground basement when they're 13 years old to undergo an abortion.

[–]thesimen13 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Is this the right time to mention that it's okay to tell men not have sex because babies will be born? Double standards are the best. But seriously, if you don't want abortions; don't have sex.

[–]NobilisUltima 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you don't want food poisoning, don't eat food.

Both are biological desires hard-coded into us as humans. Your reasoning also doesn't account for rape, or the abortion of unviable/unsafe pregnancies.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

People will have sex no matter what. That's not a matter of discussion. Get rid of that abstinence-only mindset, it's old.

If you don't want abortions, go ham with promoting contraceptives. Make them easy to obtain. Delete unsafe-sex from existence. That's how you minimize abortions.

[–]thesimen13 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was pointing out a double standard: That it's socially acceptable to tell men not to have sex to avoid pregnancies, but not women.

In all seriousness though, you have the right to abortion and the right to have sex with someone you fancy, fully knowing the possible risk of pregnancy. As an autonomous woman, should you not be responsible for your own actions? Why should the government pay for you and your partners fuck up? (pun intended)

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is by far the best option, free contraception for all.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People will have sex no matter what. That's not a matter of discussion. Get rid of that abstinence-only mindset, it's old.

It's what men are told every day, even when they are raped. So time for women to get that equality they so richly deserve. Don't want to be forced to support a child? Don't have sex.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You do realize that plenty of women are also stuck supporting a child alone, without the man who impregnated her? I won't argue that child support sexism isn't an issue worth supporting: it is. This isn't a zero sum game though, something it seems like a lot of people here have trouble grasping.

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

The man who impregnates her has no duty to help. She is the one who chose to carry it to term, so she is the only one responsible for it. Only exception I have is if it was in a place where abortion was completely banned, but that doesn't happen in the EU or the US and bringing up other countries is about as relevant as bringing up the Syrian war.

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

Why do assume I think it's okay to tell men to refrain from having sex? I'm a dude myself.

Whatever you say, sex will happen. Nothing in this fucking world can stop that. Contraceptives is what will stop pregnancies from happening, and when they don't, abortions will. This is not hard. The answer is right in front of you. You stop more abortions through easily obtainable contraceptives than what banning abortions will.

It's what men are told every day, even when they are raped.

Women as well, and no less so. Instead of arguing about this shit, go make a change. Change how people think about sex and rape. Stand up for male victims of rape, and stand up for female victims of rape. Be the guy people want to talk to when this shit happens.

Side note: I don't know how we got off-topic so much. This doesn't have anything to do with my comment at all.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that this is a necessarily gendered piece of advice. Men can walk away from a pregnancy, in many cases, with ease. Women can't, not even if abortion were free.

[–]thesimen13 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Walk away? Walk to jail you mean?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

No, there are plenty of men who walk away from pregnancies when the woman is unable to get an abortion, is what I'm saying.

[–]thesimen13 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

feel free to show some evidence

[+]KnowsAboutMath points 9 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

But seriously, if you don't want abortions; don't have sex.

By that logic, people shouldn't seek treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases.

[–]thesimen13 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What? Are you retarded? By that logic, if you don't want sexually-transmitted diseases, you don't have sex! Jfc.

[–]rtechie1 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

An abortion "paid for by the state" is just state provided healthcare aka Medicare. Are you opposed to Medicare? Should poor people who get sick just die in the streets?

[–]Hydris 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Optional procedure =/= nessecary actual healthcare.

[–]Vandechoz 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the question isn't if they should have it, it's whether it's oppression to not have it

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Except women instead has to turn to unsafe alternatives for abortions when cut funding forces clinics to shut down.

False dichotomy. They can use birth control or not have sex. I believe all healthcare should be free for everyone, but until that happens women absolutely should not have special treatment.

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

Except women instead has to turn to unsafe alternatives for abortions when cut funding forces clinics to shut down.

They should woman up and support their child. A real woman doesn't complain about supporting her child. And she shouldn't have been having sex if she didn't want a child. And I'll say the same thing to rape victims that the courts tell to male rape victims who are forced to pay child support to their rapist.

That's being treated as a man would be.

[–]ExpendableOne 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

We elected a president that said you should grab women by their pussies.

You are the one painting a false narrative. His exact words were "when you are rich, they let you grab them by the pussy", which is clearly implying every form of consent feminists could possibly define. If a woman was to say something to one of girlfriends like "when you have huge tits, guys will let you do anything to them. They will even let you touch their dicks", no one would be in outrage over this or calling it sexual assault. And, honestly, I have heard a lot worse from women. "Grab them by the balls" is a phrase that is often used by women, even in politics, and is far more violent, hostile, toxic and gendered(sexist) implications.

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions

He is not making abortion illegal and demanding public funding for abortion is a major entitlement by these women. You're talking about a country where literally basic healthcare is considered a commodity, and you expect the state to pay for abortion(which also happens to directly go against a lot of people's ethical/religious beliefs). Treating the situation like he is banning abortion is painting a false narrative. Do you understand how fucked up it is to make this a bigger issue than universal healthcare(if not specifically because it only affects women)?

Women are voicing their protest at that reality, and for promotion of women's rights generally.

Women are voicing their hatred of a candidate who won fairly, for things that he didn't do. It is an entirely juvenile and unjustified protest that these women are flocking to by the thousands out of sheer ignorance and, in all reality, entirely driven by a very visible hatred and contempt for men.

[+]-bruce- points 9 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

You are the one painting a false narrative. His exact words were "when you are rich, they let you grab them by the pussy", which is clearly implying every form of consent feminists could possibly define.

Don't agree with you there. As I mention elsewhere, when he says "they let you do anything" it can be reasonably viewed as suggesting that the power imbalance from being a star allows him to get away vs they consent to it. I think reasonable people can disagree.

He is not making abortion illegal and demanding public funding for abortion is a major entitlement by these women. Treating the situation like he is banning abortion is painting a false narrative.

You are right, my language was not very clear. But he is certainly actively reducing access.

The point I was making is that there is a false narrative that the women didn't have a point to their protest, not that everyone has to agree with their positions.

Women are voicing their hatred of a candidate who won fairly, for things that he didn't do. It is an entirely juvenile and unjustified protest that these women are flocking to by the thousands out of sheer ignorance and, in all reality, entirely driven by a very visible hatred and contempt for men.

I don't share your opinion. I know many women who marched, and they marched for the reasons I suggested, not for hatred of men.

[+]throwapoo56 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Don't agree with you there. As I mention elsewhere, when he says "they let you do anything" it can be reasonably viewed as suggesting that the power imbalance from being a star allows him to get away vs they consent to it. I think reasonable people can disagree.

Barf. ''Power imbalance'' is gynocentric doublespeak to cover up their mating strategies and all across the board golddigging and shit-testing.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Go back to TRP dude.

[+]throwapoo56 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point of mens rights, which is to call out females and males on their own solipsistic chauvinism. What men's rights does is use the talking points of a penis chauvinist against a pussy chauvinist, and then vice versa when talking to a penis chauvinist. That's why mens rights finds harmony with the universe, while the chauvinists don't.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol, the jargon is thick and meaningless in this one.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Power imbalance is the vacuous rhetoric phrase that they use in defending age of consent laws as well.

I don't want to get into that specific argument, but its a point that power dynamic is the most used and abused meaningless phrase for people to claim victimhood without having to show proof of victimhood.

It rides on the coattails of marxist ideologies. You should check out this.

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=0s-XOvFQ5rc&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D04wyGK6k6HE%26feature%3Dshare

[+]throwapoo56 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I believe in power imbalances, only in an ambiguous relative way that transcends ideological lines. Certainly not in the solipsistic hypocritical manner employed by the gynocentrists. As far as I'm concerned, women dominate on all parts of the classical ideological spectrum because of their heightened communicative powers, while men are more alienated.

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

One of the 48 laws of power is to be the person with the least interest in the relationship, because that gives you all the power, since you can take it or leave it. Interestingly, this is what PUA culture talks about, and what Paul Elam talks about. If you "want", women can smell it on you and are not attracted. If you could take or leave them like they don't matter, they're more attracted to you.

So if you want to have power, you should date a physical or intellectual inferior, because then you can tip the power dynamic in your favor.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

it can be reasonably viewed as suggesting that the power imbalance from being a star allows him to get away vs they consent to it.

No it doesnt. Not unless you are looking to make a victim.

I know many women who marched, and they marched for the reasons I suggested, not for hatred of men.

We know different people. .

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

Consent is complicated. There is, as you pointed out, a difference between consenting to sex with a celebrity and having a celebrity "grab you by the pussy" because "they'll let you do anything when you're a star"

[–]ExpendableOne 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the power imbalance from being a star allows him to get away vs they consent to it

Wtf..? That would literally make any kind of sex where a guy or girl finds a parter who they believe is out of their league rape. It would also literally make every celebrity rapists by definition. It's ridiculous. Being a star doesn't mean people are powerless or forced to fuck you. Every one of those women who really want to fuck a star are doing it because they want to.

they marched for the reasons I suggested, not for hatred of men.

Then they marched out of complete ignorance and absolute projection and slander(which, if you had gone a little bit deeper within their motivation, was directly or indirectly driven by this general hatred/contempt for men that has become so socially acceptable. Just because you can't see it(and you're probably not looking for it), doesn't mean it isn't there.

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

Wtf..? That would literally make any kind of sex where a guy or girl finds a parter who they believe is out of their league rape.

Oh don't you know it. Its the marxist-feminist oppression model.

Any person who is male and has more money than his spouse is default rapist, because she doesn't want to be punished with the loss of his income by saying no to sex. Any woman that loses her job is immediately cast into the category of rape victim, because if she doesn't put out, there's that lingering fear of "the implication", as Dennis Reynolds says. The implication being that if she doesn't put out, she'll be homeless.

Its best as a guy that if you ever find yourself in a relationship where the woman loses her job, you immediately break up with her, because otherwise any sex you're having with her is basically coercion and rape since she's afraid to say no and potentially lose a place to live.

This is the logical conclusion of their kind of feminist dumbassery.

[–]WordEngineer 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No kidding. It's the ol' "You think you've got it rough? This person from a totally different country and culture has worse issues than you so you shouldn't feel you have to do anything to speak up on your behalf as a woman and American citizen."

It's not much evolved from "People in Africa are starving. Eat your beets."

[–]LucifersHammerr 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Except we're talking about people living in the same society.

This thread is a truly remarkable example of gynocentrism. Feminists claiming that paying a few bucks for tampons is somehow equivalent to not being able to see one's own children. It's a microcosm of the grand canyon sized empathy gap between the sexes.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's because the thread hit /all, and the Men's Lib crowd are swarming in to derail and add to the confusion.

Just another example of the institutionalized sexism (against men) that society in general displays and promotes.

[–]WordEngineer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, if you're talking about a global society. It should be obvious but women in the US and women in other countries live under different laws, different cultures, with different methods of progress and redress of grievances. People generally have rational self-interest, so women demonstrating against issues at their front door would seem to be expected, rather than what's happening to women in foreign lands under cultures they may or may not understand. I don't think they should be faulted for that.

And there seems to be a misunderstanding about the purpose behind the demonstration. This was an action of solidarity, not cherry-picking one cause over others to protest. It was refreshing to see several generations of women banding together against the new administration's androcentric leadership and proposed policies that work against women's autonomy.

If there is any empathy gap between the sexes, just as much of it is coming from men who think the women should have demonstrated for reasons men feel appropriate, for a male-approved purpose, while minimizing their concerns with ridicule and false equivalency in relation to men and their issues. I haven't seen anyone confront the male protesters outside my county courthouse that they should be addressing the plight of oppressed foreign men instead of wanting equal parenting time with their children. It's interesting how that works.

[+]upsidedownbackwards points 9 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. As much as it's really not fair that a man has no choice if his son/daughter is aborted there isn't a way to make it fair. It is her body. There is no way to make everything "fair", there will always be discrepancies based on biology. Men get jobs that need more strength. That shouldn't be any more of an argument than women making the choice on a child's life because it's their body.

[–]LucifersHammerr 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. As much as it's really not fair that a man has no choice if his son/daughter is aborted there isn't a way to make it fair. It is her body. There is no way to make everything "fair

Sure there is. Equal rights. That means male parental surrender. Right now it's "her body her choice." But it's also "his body her choice." Men are currently forced to become indentured servants for 18 years even if they don't want the kid. Surprisingly traditionalists are actually more intellectually consistent on this issue than feminists. They want to criminalize abortion but also demand a man pay child support. Feminists think women should have legal control over a man's body.

Also, men should have equal parenting rights in the event that both the man and the woman decide to raise a child. Feminists currently oppose this.

[–]HotDealsInTexas 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sure there is. Equal rights. That means male parental surrender.

And that is something we are NEVER GOING TO FUCKING GET if women don't have access to birth control and abortion.

[–]tallwheel 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the majority of women in developed countries do, while no single man has the legal right to parental surrender. I am all for women having access to abortion, and continuing to propagate it, but currently women have better access to this right than men do. No man can legally decide to not be financially responsible for a child... even if he drives to another state.

[–]LucifersHammerr 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What's your point? I'm not opposed to birth control or abortion. Did any of the women in the march demand legal male parental surrender? Why am I supposed to care about women's rights if they don't care about mine? That's the problem here. The hypocrisy.

[–]HotDealsInTexas 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The point is that being able to say: "Women already have the choice of opting out of parenthood via abortion and safe haven laws, and have far greater ability to control their own fertility: therefore we should have LPS because (a) it's equality, and (b) it won't harm women because if a man surrenders the child and she isn't willing to support it on her own since only she wants it, she has multiple options to opt out of parenthood herself." Essentially, it's a lot easier politically to demand a right women already have. So, aside from that I don't consider stooping to Feminism's level and refusing to support the other gender's human rights because of the bad behavior of a few Feminists to be moral, if you're advocating for LPS than it's in your best interest to defend abortion and BC access for women.

[–]LucifersHammerr 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes I understand your argument and agree. I just find it telling that no one seems to give a shit about men's rights. If MRA's tried to organize a march in defense of male rights they would simply be mocked. There is a profound empathy gap between the sexes.

[–]killcat 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's already happened, a men's march (small but still) against circumcision was attacked by feminists, because it took attention away from FGM.

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been subbed here for a solid 3-4 years. I can't speak to the movement as a whole, but this subreddit is vehemently anti-women. For a little while I thought it was a minority, then a vocal minority, but no, this sub is just women hating trash. I've had arguments on this sub with men talking about how all women are actively trying to kill all men, how all marital rape laws should be repealed, et cetera.

It's really, really sad. Men face real issues in the world. Circumcision, custody, the Draft, mass incarceration... And yet all this sub likes to talk about is how terrible women are. Posts like these are a dime a dozen. Women have literally no problems in society bullshit.

I really wish that the mods would crack down. Get rid of all the /r/redpill bullshit. Talk about how to help men rather than how to antagonize women and destroy feminism.

[–]AppleMangoPineapple 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Disclaimer: I'm a guy but I'm not a part of this sub. I don't know if guys here disagree with me or not. These are my personal opinions.

We... as in men AND women, elected Trump president. This is everyone's responsibility. The issue is not really that he said that. People can say anything they want in private, save for making direct threats and stuff. The issue was that people still voted for him. Blame the media for that. Or blame people for researching improperly before voting. Or blame them for not voting. The other issue was that Trump won by a landslide even though he lost the popular vote. Seriously, he won by like 70 electoral votes or some shit? Without winning the popular vote? That's fucked up. Something needs to change about that and it's right to protest about it. No wonder people aren't voting.. it's a complete joke. Their vote ACTUALLY doesn't matter in this system. But yeah, electing Trump isn't oppression on women.

Restricting funding for abortion isn't really oppressing women, either. It's a capitalist economy, you pay for your own health, which includes abortion. If women end up getting pregnant, they should have taken care of their bodies and used a contraceptive. If it didn't work, that is the risk they took, pay for the abortion. Biology is sexist, not legislation in this case. Arguing for abortion funding is fine. It's good actually, and I support it, but it's not oppression.

Arguing for a blanket statement like, "Women are oppressed, they need more rights" is exactly how you get ignored. If people challenge women on their claims, they either need to defend their claims or change them so that they are defendable. This blog post was a critique on the women's rights movement, that they are making false claims on oppression and rights. Instead of deconstructing its argument and rebutting, you just dismissed it as a false narrative and echoed the same things it was critiquing you on. You're focusing way too much on the intent of the sub and the author to be "anti women."

and for promotion of women's rights generally.

See what I mean? WHAT rights? The blog post wanted to know exactly which rights women don't have in this country so that, if anything, the discussion can be taken further. Calling any counterargument anti-women and exaggerating your own issues is what causes people to not care about what you have to say.

If you want to convince people of the other side, you need to start addressing THEIR points instead of regurgitating your own.

[+]-bruce- points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Arguing for a blanket statement like, "Women are oppressed, they need more rights"

This is the false narrative. The author is the one making that blanket statement and you, not the marchers, who have specific identifiable concerns that the author ignores.

That's exactly what women do when we talk about men's rights, and I was pointing out that this is a terrible practice that in my opinion we should call out, not support.

[–]AppleMangoPineapple 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I meant that it was the blanket statement you were making in your first comment. Perhaps I read the article wrong the first time, but I thought its message was pretty clear.

Also I assume you mean support, not call out? You're right that men's rights is treated the same. I see this sub as similar to modern day feminism, it's an exaggeration of the issue.

[–]lethrowaway4me 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

restricted funding for abortions, which many women view as their right.

Women view the ability to have an abortion is their right. Okay... But why does it need to be federally funded as well?? Removing the funding isn't the same as removing the access. PP may be able to still perform the procedure but it may cost women more money to do so. Is that what this is about? Women having to pay for things they want/need? That's not oppression, that's entitlement.

[–]BeefHarbor 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Federal funding doesn't go to abortion. That law has been on the books since the 70s.

[–]ManiacMac 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, even before Trump signed anything no money given to PP from the government was allowed to be used in abortions. PP does a lot more than just provided abortions and defunding them does not defund abortions.

[+]-bruce- points 9 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't disagree with you that is is up for debate whether the government should fund planned parenthood. But I am tired of the narrative promoted by this article that it is a "mystery" what women were protesting. This is a current service where the government is actively reducing access.

If the government reduced funding for a program that supports men, wouldn't we protest?

[–]lethrowaway4me 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We probably would, if there were any. Hell, one good thing that came out of the march was that I learned PP can provide condoms. Now, the question is are they any good?

[–]smartinson 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you asking if PP is any good? Here is a link to what they offered in terms of services in 2012. I will let you decide if you consider the services they offer are good.

[–]lethrowaway4me 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, sorry i meant the condoms they give out. I don't know if they're any good (comfort, fit, sizes, etc).

[–]MyFingerPointeth 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

last time i got some from PP they were those awful lifestyles, this was years ago however

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

that said you should grab women by their pussies.

No, he didn't.

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions, which many women view as their right.

More than half of women don't view it as a right...weird huh?

This isn't hard to understand, and the false narratives promoted by posts like these just reinforce the line that the men's rights is anti-women.

You seem qualified to talk about false narratives.

[–]dharmaticate 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More than half of women don't view it as a right...

Source needed. Most data suggests otherwise.

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

Nothing on that page talks about opinions on funding for abortion though, but I think I see where the confusion arises. I may have misinterpreted the person I replied to.

Misunderstanding aside, I wouldn't equate "most Americans think abortion should be legal under some or most circumstances in the first trimester with restrictions" to "most Americans think of abortion as a right" but that's really just semantics. For example, is driving a car or buying alcohol a right? It probably depends who you ask.

[–]Wagnerous 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have to say that as a progressive MRA, I'm pleasantly surprised to see this as the top comment.

As an MRA I, just like a lot of people here have been bothered by the constant complaints of women about being oppressed, which I have often times felt were strongly exaggerated.

On the other hand, as a progressive I was shocked that the country would tolerate Trump's disgusting comments about women (and it was hardly a one time thing) such that he could be elected president.

That was the first time I ever thought that there might be some credence to the idea of "Rape Culture" in the U.S. Obviously its nothing like Saudi Arabia, but the mere fact that so many people could tolerate his views on the matter is startling.

[–]Hirudin 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If feminists want bodily integrity to be a "right" (haha who are we kidding, this is about losing the privilege of free money) they could make a better point if they advocated for the other half of the species to have it too.

[–]cant_tell_me_nothing 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for this. You summarized it much better then I did later on in the thread

[–]GuardHamster 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. For instance, my mom didn't even march for womens rights per say. She marched because Trump frightens her on ALL of his stances and she feels he is unfit in every way possible. His behavior towards women is but one item on a long list for her. She thinks he is bad for the country as a whole and that people are going to die because of his poor judgement and they will most likely be men. She marched for everyone.

I am not going to debate Trump. I am holding up an example that contradicts the article. No one can know the true motivation for every person who marched. Had the march been called anything else she still would have marched. She is going to march in others and is in Philly right now.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny that you bring up false narratives, then you say "we elected a president that said you should grab women by their pussies". What a complete fucking lie. He was actually talking about a consensual relationship, but I see reality is something difficult for you to grasp.

Women don't have the right to have funding for an abortion, that is complete bullshit. It is a voluntary procedure, which are NEVER COVERED in other circumstances.

Why don't we look at what really happened in your little rallies... like... saying that men get free razor blades? Setting a trump supporter's hair on fire? But no, keep complaining because of your imaginary assault on rights that don't exist in the first place.

[–]7hunderpants 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions, which many women view as their right.

Why do women think they have a right to abortions paid for by the taxpayer ?

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

Reduced funding for abortions. Wow women might actually have to pay for their own mistakes. Children > women.

[–]7hunderpants 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why was one if the main speakers who murdered and tortured a man supported by all the (main leaders) feminists ?

Do you support blowing up the white house just as Madonna does ?

Trump did not say you should grab women pussy.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am so tired of this false narrative.

Talk about false narrative, and hypocrisy. The OP article was on point, your comment adds zero to the conversation, except false narrative.

Such concern trolling is much more appreciated over at /MensLib.

In fact the sub is built on such. You'll feel much more at home over there.

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

Everything you list is increasing equality by treating women more like men.

men's rights is anti-women.

Given the privilege women in western society have, it might as well be because women will definitely suffer compared to now once we have equality.

Once we have equality, either women will lose the right to an abortion or the right to force a man to support her choice. Once we have equality, either men will be far more free to sexually assault women (as women currently can do to men) or far more women will be in prison (if they are held as responsible as men). Once we achieve equality, a far greater percentage of workplace deaths will be women (regardless if we make it safer for men or if women start working the dangerous jobs and doing the dangerous tasks). Regardless if equality ends up being women being treated like men or men being treated like women, in western society, there will be a significant loss of privilege for women.

Women fight men's rights because they stand to lose so much privilege that it will be a massive shock to them.

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

Name one right men have which women don't. Abortion is an extra. Rights are not real things. They are made up. You have no Rights in the tribal jungle. Only social rules.

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

Men in a men's subreddit telling women how they should think/feel.

But we have nothing to worry about right? No reason to march at all.

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

Abortion is a moral wrong, and therefore can't be a woman's right

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

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions

Women don't get free abortions? Oh no! They'll have to actually pay for their mistake. But since they said they don't want the government making decisions about their bodies surely they don't want the government to pay for their bodies, right?

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

It's not false what so ever. They are not oppressed anymore than men are in this country.

[–]Irlmaier45 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We elected a president that said you should grab women by their pussies.

No he said when you're star you CAN grab their pussy and that they LET YOU

He promised and has already restricted funding for abortions

So what? Control your hedonism if you don't want children.

[–]runnyyyy 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

why does this shit have so many upvotes.. content like this is destroying this sub the same way as some feminists destroyed the idea of feminism

[–]azazelcrowley 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you check comments it seems people are arguing against it.

[+]DrewFlan points 9 years ago* [recovered] (80 children) | Copy Link

This is garbage. The author of this article didn't address Planned Parenthood at all, which was a major point of contention for many of the women who marched.

[–]cgsur 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Many are parroting lies told to them as facts.

Everybody should listen to both sides of any argument, once you start labeling others with insults, and stop listening to their arguments, you are being used as a tool and are brainwashed, and both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this.

The truth is there is things in common with conservatives and liberals, things like justice, costs, honesty, etc. Yet for political reasons people are being trained to avoid dialogue and meaningful compromising.

Time wasted mixing women's rights , religion and politics. Is time not dedicated to fighting corruption, and mismanagement and cronyism.

Women's and Men's rights and everybodies else's of any gender or race are important. But they are also used to distract from real issues which should be important to all. Divide and conquer is not just a saying.

PP does not use states funds to fund abortions, read both sides, understand.

And in other countries that use state funds for women's public health, because church and state are kept separate it makes economic sense, again read both sides, understand.

Everything should be doubted, every counter argument considered.

You cannot even trust yourself, remember those dumb ideas you had, remember that ex you had, and you though that hooking up was a great idea....

[–]staticsnake 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...and they still didn't address SPECIFIC issues with planned parenthood. Instead they simply scream bloody murder and oppression any time anyone might touch their precious clinics.

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

How is a denial of state benefits oppression? Defunding planned parenthood equals oppression towards women like ending corn subsidies is oppression against farmers.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hands off my corn.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Grab em by the fritters.

[–]verdis 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

Taking away access to abortion takes away a woman's right to control her own body. Not having the right to control your own body is the very definition of oppression.

And Planned Parenthood is a critical point of access.

[–]Hirudin 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Having a right is not the same as having someone else pay for you to use it, doubly so when the people paying don't have that right at all. Men are, overwhelmingly, the payers of taxes. And women are, overwhelmingly, the receivers of taxpayer funded services.

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

You have the right to an abortion, no one ever said you have the right to a state funded abortion. You are saying that not only should people be allowed to have abortions, the rest of the country should be forced via taxation with the threat of jail to fund them. Abortion should be legal, the state doesn't need to be paying for it.

[–]rtechie1 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/u/verdis is confused. The issue is women (and men) losing access to medical care provided by Planned Parenthood like pap smears and contraception. 92% of Planned Parenthood funding does not go to abortion. Eliminating all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood will reduce people's access to these health care services.

Eliminating all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood is something the Republican Party has wanted to do for a long time.

[–]staticsnake 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Abortion should be legal

It is federally. The arguments begin because people want it to be completely free for women's "health" and "choice" and everyone has an opinion at what stage in pregnancy abortion is okay.

[–]verdis 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

But since they currently are then taking away PP funding reduces access to abortion, which oppressed women.

You want to change the funding mix for PP, go nuts. But don't suggest suddenly cutting funding to a major abortion access point isn't harmful to women. Or that it's unreasonable for women to be upset about this.

[–]iasazo 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The removal of an entitlement does not equal oppression. You can still argue that it is harmful to women, it just isn't oppression.

When a tax cut expires, I am not oppressed because an entitlement I once enjoyed was taken away. It is harmful to me but not oppression.

[–]Hirudin 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The right to bodily integrity is a right (except if you're a man apparently). Getting money taken without consent from someone else is a privilege.

[–]FastFourierTerraform 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But don't suggest suddenly cutting funding to a major abortion access point isn't harmful to women

Of course it's harmful. Just like how raising the tax rate for the top bracket is harmful to billionaires. Government funding is a zero sum game. Any time anything changes, someone is harmed by it. But don't confuse harm with oppression. I'll give you an example- I was a recipient of a federally funded scholarship for a few years. One day, the program got abruptly cancelled. I used to be given free money, and then it stopped. It sucked, and I was pissed off, and it wasn't fair. But it wasn't oppression.

I can empathize with women who are angry. It sucks to have something taken away from you. But for the rest of us, who have never had any reproductive rights in the first place, it's hard to agree with the notion that this constitutes oppression.

If abortion were made illegal, that would be a different matter. That is the erosion of a right that women currently enjoy. However, in recent years, I've gotten colder towards the assumption that I would be up in arms in that scenario. I think the best shot at men gaining reproductive rights is to just start over from square 1. Men have stayed frozen at the year 1900 in terms of reproductive rights, while women have gradually gained total liberation, often at the expense of men. We need a new sexual revolution, where we can create a new social contract. How about something like this: everyone has the right to bodily integrity, everyone has the right to effective contraception. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, for anyone. Everyone has default equal access to the progeny that they have brought about by legal means.

[–]LucifersHammerr 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Your suggestions are way too logical to appeal to the hysterics populating this thread.

[–]Reddit1990 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That isn't oppression, that's inconvenience. It would be oppression if it was outlawed by the government.

Doesn't have to be oppression for it to be a good cause though, you can still advocate it with protests.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

The PP access was a benefit to begin with, so removing a benefit, not a right, is not oppression. Being harmful and being oppressive are not the same thing. Removing corn subsidies all at once is harmful to farmers, but it isn't oppressive. No one is stopping you from getting an abortion, they are just taking away the state funded option which maybe shouldn't have ever been there in the first place.

[–]verdis 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Being able to have an abortion isn't a benefit, it's a right. Taking away the largest provider of that benefit, without there being a replacement, is oppressive because it does stop people from having abortions they would have otherwise. That's pretty elementary.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You have the legal right to have an abortion, meaning that clinics are free to open and offer abortions and you have the right to attend that clinic and have the abortion. No where in there does it say that you have the right to have a planned parenthood clinic down the street. You have the legal right to have an abortion, you don't have the right to have a clinic down the street. THAT is pretty elementary. I have the right to attend college if I live in a rural area, that doesn't mean that you have to build a college down the street for me in order to satisfy that right. Making your drive to the abortion clinic take an extra 45 minutes is not oppression.

[–]Blarneystone2 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You have the legal right to have health care in your state, meaning that Hospitals are free to open and offer health care and you have the right to attend that hospital and receive healthcare. No where in there does it say that you have the right to have a hospital in your state. You have the legal right to have health care, you don't have the right to have a hospital in your state. THAT is pretty elementary. I have the right to attend college if I live in a rural area, that doesn't mean that you have to build a college down the street for me in order to satisfy that right. Making your drive to the abortion clinic take an extra 45 minutes is not oppression.

See, how ridiculous your argument sounds when you switch up a few words, the reality is that PP services communities that are urban and immobile, it is not as simple as picking up in the car and driving to ye old abortion clinic in place like kentucky there is 1 location to have procedure done, I agree that every small town does not need a clinic, just like every small town does not get a hospital, hell some counties do not have hospitals but if a there is a population sizable enough to be serviced by a medium to large sized hospital then there should also be a place where abortion is available.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually that argument still makes perfect sense. If you go out in the middle of my state, chances are you aren't gonna have great health care options. Because there are less people there. It's all moot for me anyway though, because I believe abortion is NOT a right in any way whatsoever. Murder never should be.

[–]zue3 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lmao you literally change his argument so you have something to be pissed off about.

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

Well that argument does sound ridiculous, because you don't have a right to healthcare. Also, having access to medical care is fundamentally different from having access to an abortion. Medical issues can be life or death requiring immediate remedy, you have a huge time window to get an abortion.

but if a there is a population sizable enough to be serviced by a medium to large sized hospital then there should also be a place where abortion is available.

Sure, let private companies open these institutions then. Why is it the government's job to provide abortion services?

[–]Reddit1990 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

One could argue its my "right" to not have to pay for other people's life choices, that it should be the person's own money that pays for their own choice.

So the government comes along and reduces or removes funding. The public no longer pay for it... but the facilities are still allowed to perform their operations. The right to have the operation done isn't removed, its just that they no longer have the means to give cheap abortions. Its now a costly procedure and it is more difficult to find places that are willing to do it.

This isn't really oppression, this is just the result of not actively supporting it financially. We have religious rights, but it doesn't mean that the government should fund churches. We have free speech, but it doesnt mean the government should fund a website or newspaper for me. The church isn't oppressed, the news media isn't oppressed, they just aren't being financially supported by the government...

Now that said, I think abortion should be funded because I think the vast majority of people shouldn't be having kids... but its still not oppression.

[–]verdis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'm not aware of any women that chose to be raped.

[–]Reddit1990 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

...what are you talking about? Who said anything about rape?

Are you talking about my comment on life choices? Its still a life choice whether you want to keep the child or not, regardless of how the pregnancy occurred. Sometimes they choose to keep the child, sometimes they don't. But regardless, that's very very off topic and accounts for a very small portion of abortions.

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

They are not talking away the right to abortion only who will pay for it. You can still have an abortion if you want, you just have to pay for it yourself.

[–]cgsur 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

State funded option brings down states total costs.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then let states fund it on a state by state basis, shouldn't be a federal issue.

[–]rtechie1 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why shouldn't it be a Federal issue? Economy of scale means Federal funding is more efficient for bulk services like grants.

And State funding doesn't really work well for anything anymore because almost all the tax revenue and profits come from a handful of states like California, Texas, and New York. They have lots of money, but Oklahoma sure doesn't.

[–]cgsur 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Education brings down abortion rates, and education about sex and abortion brings down states costs.

It is money you are worried about right?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where did I ever say we shouldn't be funding education?

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

The state absolutely should pay for it if it is in the state's interest to make funding abortions available to those who otherwise might not be able to afford it.

[–]lethrowaway4me 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But, is PP the only point of access for abortions? Taking one option away is not the same as taking all options away.

[–]GuinnessWithinUs 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

In lots of states it very nearly is, yes. Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming each have only one clinic statewide. Planned Parenthood uses private donations to partially subsidize abortion costs for the poorest women seeking one, and there's no guarantee that a private clinic will do the same. A number of states have had dozens of clinics close over the past few years through overbearing legislation that seeks to make an abortion all but inaccessible.

From Wikipedia: According to the Guttmacher Institute, 31% of women in rural areas traveled over 100 miles in order to receive an abortion while another 43% traveled between 50–100 miles. 87% of US counties do not have any clinics at all that will provide those services.

So yes, while still legal, actually obtaining an abortion is exceedingly difficult for many women in need of one. Removing state funding from the equation and assuming women will pay for the procedure on their own, you're still asking statistically low-income women to either have their own transportation, or foot a potentially expensive travel bill that a state hopes will keep an abortion out of her budget. Let's also keep in mind that these clinic closings don't make a distinction between pregnant women who had consensual sex and pregnant women who were raped. A woman could still be recovering from a violent sexual crime and be saddled with the unenviable choice of either carrying her rapist's baby to term, or coming up with the money for not just the abortion, but the potentially 100+ miles of travel to get to a provider, all of which might be entirely impractical or impossible for that woman.

It doesn't really strike me as much of a leap to equate the active attempt by multiple state governments as well as the federal government to do as much as possible to prevent women from exercising their right with "oppression." Would 2nd Amendment advocates not equate burdensome and redundant gun ownership legislation as a barrier to entry with "oppression" as well? I know they would, because you see it constantly. What's the difference here?

[–]FastFourierTerraform 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If abortion is more than a once in a lifetime expense for someone, there are larger problems afoot that the availability of abortions. I don't think it's unreasonable that someone might have to travel to get one. I mean, the people we're talking about might have to travel 100+ miles to get ingredients if they feel like cooking some obscure ethnic dish.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against regulations that generally harry the ability of clinics to exist. I just don't think that in a free market, a county of 5000 people needs an abortion clinic.

[–]GuinnessWithinUs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, there need not be a McClinic on every block in America, and Wyoming is so relatively uninhabited that I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of additional providers anyway, even under different circumstances.

I simply take issue with the clickbaity headline and the presumption that these women are just whiners ready to yell "OPPRESSION!" if they can't walk across the street and obtain a free, taxypayer-funded abortion in 15 minutes or less like an oil change. I think there's a lot of pretty transparent evidence that local, state, and federal governments are colluding to strip as many women as possible of the ability to exercise the rights that they've won, even if they're willing and able to pay for the procedure themselves. That would fit with my understanding of legitimate oppression, and I would readily extend that label to any other issue of intentionally prohibitive and impractical regulations on the rights of citizens, regardless of the gender most affected.

[–]staticsnake 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In lots of states it very nearly is, yes. Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming each have only one clinic statewide.

Where I'm from there weren't many good jobs in my field at all. I wound up relocating my family thousands of miles to a state I don't completely like because the jobs were there and my life is technically better there. But since my generation has been appalled that somebody would do what it takes to go where life suits them, nobody will understand that.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 31% of women in rural areas traveled over 100 miles in order to receive an abortion while another 43% traveled between 50–100 miles. 87% of US counties do not have any clinics at all that will provide those services.

I had to drive thousands of miles and relocate for a good job, and nowadays my drive is well over an hour one direction to a great career but still a nice affordable place to live. Oh wait, that's MY choice and I do what it takes. I never expected that jobs in my specialty would be catered to my precious self.

You're right. I demand better access to great careers that suit my precise needs. The government needs to ensure I have access to my specific job within at least 30 miles.

[–]GuinnessWithinUs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You're talking about moving your family thousands of miles for better job prospects in your established career field and I'm talking about the lowest income individuals who lack their own cars and for whom bus fare might represent a significant hardship, if a public transportation system in their area even exists or is robust enough to get them as far as they need to go. "Well, I guess I better start my five year career plan" doesn't really apply if you've just found out you're weeks or months into a pregnancy and need to obtain services with little or no income.

Moreover, I'm not making the case for the government ensuring that abortions services can be had everywhere at all times. I'm talking about exactly the opposite, actually. The private sector already spoke with its wallets and purses and said "Here's how many private abortion clinics can be kept afloat by demand." Then states came in and decided that they would bury a huge number of those clinics under red tape and new, confusing regulations that would intentionally force most of them to close outright rather than incurring the cost of compliance. The anti-abortion wave didn't start with renewed calls to de-fund Planned Parenthood, but now the intention to do so is only going to make matters worse for a lot of people, some of whom will be able to make other plans, and some of whom will not.

Calling attention to that on the national stage doesn't make them whiners who want everything handed to them. Again, the article here is trying to claim that women aren't facing oppression, but isn't that what you would call state and federal governments actively trying to prohibit any citizen or group of citizens from exercising the rights they're entitled to, even if it's indirect?

[–]staticsnake 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're talking about moving your family thousands of miles for better job prospects in your established career field and I'm talking about the lowest income individuals who lack their own cars and for whom bus fare might represent a significant hardship, if a public transportation system in their area even exists or is robust enough to get them as far as they need to go. "Well, I guess I better start my five year career plan" doesn't really apply if you've just found out you're weeks or months into a pregnancy and need to obtain services with little or no income.

But not many years ago DURING A REPRESSION I dealt with ALL of this that you stated and still found a way to take out student loans and make it all happen. It sucks but yes it took years of hard work to turn it all around. I just don't understand why if people don't like where they're at they don't find ways to move to places where they are more comfortable.

I know it's kind of a guttersnipe argument, but there is some legitimacy to the attitude that if people want to constantly compare us to other countries so much, why have they not considered moving there since those countries/states/counties/whatever already seem to do the things they like.

I would absolutely agree that privatization would be a great idea, as long as there are some regulations. The fact of the matter is that while the federal government legalized this, they left it up to states to decide what the exact definitions are, which I also think is okay to do so that each state can exercise their personal definitions of things.

[–]Blarneystone2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the only point of access, though this kind of talk is refershing coming from /r/polishits and /r/news

[–]nachtliche 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Making other people pay for your shit isn't a right.

[–]tigrn914 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Planned Parenthood is not funded by the government(nor should it be for that matter). Why do people not accept this fact? If all those women truly cared(the ones that marched) they could give a hundred dollars a year and effectively fund Planned Parenthood(which is mostly run by donations anyway).

It's my opinion the government should stay out of all things medicine unless it's the CDC and they have good reason to.

In the end I'd hold the right to abort hostage until men are given the right to abstain from parental responsibility as well.

[–]rtechie1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Planned Parenthood receives a ton of Federal and State funding and would have to shut down a lot of facilities without that funding.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll come at this from another angle.

PP was only defunded in FOREIGN AID by his executive order. While what you said is arguably true, it's also arguably true that the US is not the HC provider for the rest of the world, and a term like "oppression" doesn't really apply when you're talking foreign aid funding that's entirely optional, and is essentially charity. It's not "oppression" to remove charity.

In the end, other nations around the world are free to use their foreign aid to continue funding PP around the world. In fact, the target nations themselves are free to do so, as well, if that's what they consider to be a priority for their citizenship. The entirety of PP's foreign spending is about 140M a year, which is quite frankly a tiny budget item for pretty much any nation. There are cities that are talking multi-BILLION dollar projects to replace their sewer infrastructure, so what's 140M spread around the world and budgeted for in the target nations? It's zip.

Secondly, in a significant proportion of the nations involved, abortion is actually illegal. Funding PP via foreign aid, even if only rhetorically, can be construed as helping NGOs undermine national parliaments and legislatures and their laws. Getting out of that business around the world isn't necessarily a bad thing, from a different perspective.

[–]a_fucken_alien 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This entitlement is outrageous. You're so privileged you're mixing up rights with privileges. You have the right to education, that doesn't mean it's paid for you. You have the right to exercise your religion but that doesn't mean the tax payers build you a church. You have the right to have an abortion. You don't have the "right" to have it paid for and provided to you. That's a privilege.

To be clear. I personally think it's a good idea for abortion procedures to be easily available. But it's certainly not a right. And not having this sure as hell doesn't make you oppressed.

[–]verdis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If something is a human right, like the ability to control your own body, but exercising that right is inaccessible to you, due to cost, location, etc., that right isn't really there for you is it?

[–]a_fucken_alien 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So if I have the right to bear arms, but can't afford a gun, I've been stripped of that right and am oppressed?

[–]Siganid 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He did, in mentioning the reduction of government subsidies for female health issues.

Considering that women are extremely privileged in this regard it's very valid.

[–]Awfulcopter 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Author equates not being the most oppressed with not oppressed at all. That's the article. "Are things as bad for you as they are for Saudi Women? No? then things are perfect."

[–]LaterGatorPlayer 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the author is showing that women in America have all the same rights and privileges that men have. And they are comparing that equality to the inequality of other places where women do not have the same rights as men. Having the juxtaposition is a great way to compare and contrast reality versus perceived feelings of inequality. Women in today's America have the same exact rights as they had last month.

[–]supercold1 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

They're about to lose abortion rights. I've been MRA for years, but I think they have a legitimate concern, here. Let them protest.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This wasn't just about abortion rights, though. At that, most were angry about planned parenthood defunding. Not having the state fund your abortion isn't oppression

[–]supercold1 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Except planned parenthood doesn't take federal funding to pay for abortions. They simply provide the service, but women have to pay for it. The cost is usually mitigated by negotiating a stipend from research labs for the viable tissues, but that's it.

downvoting me doesn;t change reality

[–]Ninja_Arena 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I kind of get the impression that this thread is full of a lot of people wanting to complain about the rally but don't know the exact reason why and are doing their best to ignore any arguments for why the rally may have been justified and ultimately, why is was good to have, even if it was a little dramatic.
My suspicion is, the rally wasn't about sucking Donald dick so gotta figure out a reason to bash it. Think there's a bit of a make America/alt right overlap with some MRAs so we are going to have to deal with posts like these

[+]Cats4Everybody2020 points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

If Planned Parenthood doesn't use federal funding to pay for abortions, then cutting funding to Planned Parenthood won't affect abortions at all.

[–]supercold1 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except that they are a provider of abortions, and a provider of the means to mitigate the costs of one, and one that a lot of women depend on. They also provide a whole host of other healthcare needs. Cutting funding to planned parenthood is all about shutting down an abortion provider. Period.

[–]peruytu 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And you're ok with unwanted children running around taking up more of the resources that don't have available under Trump? Planned Parenthood is not only for abortion, it's also for regular health services for women who otherwise wouldn't have anywhere else to go, or don't have insurance. What's wrong without our government funding something that important? While the government is funding oil companies, corporations, etc... using our tax money for corporate welfare, you're here complaining about women's health.

I used to like this subreddit, but it looks like Trumpers have taken off. That's a damn shame.

[–]ghroat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

pure conjecture. Why talk with so much authority when you clearly don't know what you're on about. women have to pay for planned parenthood abortions

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of people don't think abortion is a right, so this fight will continue indefinitely. I don't see it ever stopping.

[–]Mike-Hawks 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't consider myself a feminist and I think a lot of it is ridiculous and goes overboard, but this march was very necessary. And this article is complete garbage.

So the argument is, if Women here have it better than they do in Saudi Arabia then you aren't oppressed? Why the fuck are we using the middle east as a measuring stick for whether or not you are oppressed.

None of these feminists think they have it worse than Women in the Middle East. This is so dumb...

[–]verdis 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I truly hope you can understand the relationship between human rights and the laws that support them. Your arguments suggest you don't, which is unfortunate.

I would encourage you to meet with people who support abortion rights, and who provide abortion services. I think you'll find the factors involved more nuanced than you seem willing to admit.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I have lost the argument, so I will just tell the person that they don't understand things and encourage them to talk to someone else who can explain my point of view better

[–]verdis 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't it be nice if this were a competition with winners and losers. Life would be a lot easier that way.

You are clearly deeply committed to your beliefs. It's been my experience that my deeply held beliefs are tempered when I talk openly with people who hold opposite beliefs. Maybe you would have the same experience if you met with people who work in the world of abortion services.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I would, and I would have hoped you would offer some supporting evidence or argumentation for your side beyond "I have X right so the government has to pay for it". What experience have you had with people working in abortion services that would change my view?

[–]verdis 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Making this conversation about who is paying for abortion seems to be focusing on the wrong thing. The decision to have an abortion or not is a deeply complex, often painful, and personal one. A very important decision that cannot be taken back. In my view any discussion of abortion should start with that clearly in mind. Compassion and concern for the woman who is in this undesirable position, whether thru her choices or not, is much, much more important than where the money comes from, or one persons moral beliefs over another's. I think if you spoke to people intimately involved in abortion services you would hear a lot of stories about the human suffering that often accompanies abortion, and would support the notion that abortion access should be open, and abortions rare.

[+]flinxsl points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

You just very eloquently justified putting one group of people's moral beliefs over another, good job.

Nobody has countered the thesis of the article by explaining how women are oppressed in western society yet.

[–]verdis 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's been mentioned numerous times that restricting access to abortion limits a woman's control over her own body, which is a fundamental aspect of oppression.

[–]graffiti81 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Give me a fucking break. We've got a libertarian redditor (because nobody else would be retarded enough to name a blog don't step on snek) who instead of preaching liberty and freedom to say and think what one wants is telling women to sit down and shut up.

LO fucking L

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These women have every right to protest, that doesn't mean their reason for doing so isn't stupid. Libertarians believe in freedom of thought and expression, so that goes both ways.

[–]skywreckdemon 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is an awful article. Before I am accused of being against men's rights, I definitely am not. I just think this particular article is shit.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Tampon Tax in California amounts to women paying an extra $7 a month for their hygiene products.

Well, I found the guy who has never bought a box of tampons for a woman.

A box sells for $6 to $8, the tax on that amount would be about $0.50 cents ish, not $7.00.

We can argue that tampons should be tax exempt, if we also agree that other hygiene items should also be, but let's not pretend that the 50 cents a month women are paying in "tampon tax" is the greatest injustice anyone has ever known.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

not to mention toilet paper, bottled water and tea, tissues, diapers, food (nonperishable) , and McDonalds are all taxed.

Those are essentials as well, some arguably more so than tampons.

[–]bomi3ster 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can feel the fat women pressing that donwvote button here. You are not oppressed if you are a women in America. Go fight a good fight instead of taking a stand that does not matter.

[–]truthserum23 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This makes too much sense. Logic should not be expected when the objective is ambiguous and irrational.

[–]Elephantwalker 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

This is the post that is going to make me unsubscribe. I didn't think anyone was disputing women's issues, maybe the extent at the least. I thought we were here to discuss and bring attention to real men's issues like unfair divorce settlement, media treatment, statutory laws, etc. posts like this are ridiculous and take away from real problems

[–]iUptvote 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

This post is so fucking pathetic and shows the true side of this sub. This literally does nothing for Men's and Women's rights.

You people are so fucking out of touch with reality.

Reading these responses, this place is nothing but an echo chamber.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

because nobody can name ways western women are oppressed....

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

don't let the door hit you!

[–]flannelsoup 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn this got red pill real quick

[–]PraiseStalin 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"The future is female"

Now that's equality!

[–]a_trashcan 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why do you people always act like women's rights are separate from men's rights in this sub? An article like this also dismisses the entire men's rights issue, not just the womens rights issue. How don't you guys see this?

[–]Ninja_Arena 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. Welcome to the struggle of belonging to the MRA sub

[–]Shirakawasuna 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This sub seems to subscribe to the belief that fighting for equal rights means you need to belittle women's rights.

This is why you aren't taken seriously. Most of the comments that aren't critical of the post are just veiled attacks on women or arguing that women are privileged. No advocacy against a specific equality injustice, no organizing marches or political campaigns of your own. Just negativity directed at women, naive arguments that access to healthcare isn't an issue for them, etc.

You're the male equivalents of the anti-man feminist stereotype and I don't understand how you don't see it.

[–]Meyright 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

arguing that women are privileged

Because there is strong evidence they are.

no organizing marches or political campaigns of your own.

Its been tried. Nobody gives a shit about men and even then, feminists will try to shut you down.

Just negativity directed at women,

Not true. The negativity is directed against feminists.

naive arguments that access to healthcare isn't an issue for them, etc.

Most healthcare funding goes to women.

You're the male equivalents of the anti-man feminist stereotype

Whatever you're trying to say, sounds like a compliment, so thanks

If you're interested in the topic of mens rights, there will be a movie realesed called "The Red Pill" in some time on Netflix. This movie will give you all the answers to the questions you will have regarding my post.

[–]Ninja_Arena 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the biggest problem with the last two years, groups and movements that were established to combat bigotry, unironically in their eyes, acting like the biggest bigots out there. From some BLM leaders being blatantly racist and sexist, to feminist and MRAs being overtly sexist when discussing and blaming (but often not offering real solutions) others based on gender. It leads to limited or no progress and gets all the idiots controlling the narrative in the media of all these important movements.
You are all angry, we get it! Stop sabotaging actual discourse.

[–]cullins1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey according to his little quiz he could also say that African Americans immediately following the emancipation proclamation and the end of the civil war were not prosecuted against either. Whew, that's a load off!

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

Wrong. Change 'woman' to African American.

Are you denied employment on the basis of being African American?

The answer to that is yes, so they are oppressed.

Are you prohibited from obtaining an education?

Also yes

You are an imbecile.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are denied education?

Women face systemic injustices in the legal system?

[–]bsutansalt 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Archived for posterity.

http://archive.is/SPC2q

[–]splodgenessabounds 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can always tell when a post on men's rights hits the reddit front page. I can even - going by time elapsed and UPVOTES FTW - tell when this one fell off the front page.

[–]bradtwo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep in mind this is the same group of people who ignore the fact that when they participate in the pink ribbon marches more of the money they collect go to the CeOs than the research.

They don't want change. They just want to feel good about what they are doing. Positive group reinforcement. That is all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this menrights or lets whine and bitch about girls?

[–]RubyOrchid13 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actual majority of population, who vote at a higher percentage than men, who live longer lives, suffer homlessness several orders of magnitude less, don't have to sign up for the draft to vote, who are the majority of students in universities, don't work a fraction of the dangerous and dirty jobs men do to keep modern society running, have a huge advantage in the case of divorce... Muh oppression!

[–]SF_CrawNik 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't mean to sound like an ass. But what rights do they not have that men have? I've never seen a competent posts from them that I haven't just laughed at. I'm assuming 99% of the signs are kind of cherry picked on here.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

starts a slow clap

[–]Daktush 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

59% upvoted

Wow you did some triggering OP

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

I know. Its glorious.

[–]Katastic_Voyage 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Massive brigading indeed.

[–]Hirudin 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

At best, this march was a protest about the loss of a privilege (having abortions paid for by others); a privilege financed, ironically and overwhelmingly, by men who do not have the right to bodily autonomy that the feminists think women are losing.

[–]sxales 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a stupid argument, the "I have worse problems then you so you don't get to protest" bullshit needs to stop. It doesn't have to be us versus them. We all have problems and they all deserve fixing.

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

That cuts both ways. Care to give an example of a right men have that women don't?

[–]Holski7 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Idk, if someone who is elected claims they could grab anyones pussy without trouble... it warrants this kind of response. There are extremists who take advantage of everything, but this march made sense.

[–]Rethgil 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are some people posting suddenly in the MRA section because they are actually white knight father's doing what their feminist daughters or wives told them to?

I ask because there suddenly seems to be an influx of people taking the traditionally feminist side of things whos account show they otherwise never post or debate this section, who seem to have quite large incomes from long held down jobs, have wives, and are at least in their mid thirties. And this has happened all since Hilary lost the election. Literally.

So either a whole new bunch of men have suddenly chosen to change their views and posts them in the MRA area, or feminists are trying a new tactic yet again. It would also fit because most feminists come from wealthy privileged backgrounds funded by middle to upper class dads. Very interesting stuff indeed.

[–]Vandechoz 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I ask because there suddenly seems to be an influx of people taking the traditionally feminist side of things whos account show they otherwise never post or debate this section

When a post gets enough visibility (upvotes), it is shown on /r/all, which many people see on their front page, even when they are not subscribed to the subreddit where that post is shown.

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

I'm aware of that, yet the context of the posters I mention is odd, especially when the ones I noticed didn't have many upvotes.we're only talking about 6 or so....

[–]iREDDITandITsucks 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is this garbage post? I like being subbed here to see our most upvoted posts talking of legitimate topics. But this post is none of that.

[–]SlipperiPete 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Saying that they are not oppressed counts as oppression to them. The cycle of victimization continues

[–]willmaster123 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is why people see the MRA movement as just an anti-woman movement. I would say a solid 60-70% of the posts here are just saying 'woman dont really have problems!'

YOU CAN FIGHT FOR MENS RIGHTS WITHOUT HAVING TO DISREGARD THAT WOMANS RIGHTS IS ALSO AN ISSUE!

This entire article is just embarrassing. Literally every single argument in the article was a strawman or a whataboutism.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What right do men have which women don't?

[–]willmaster123 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Rights are what the government grants us. The issues that women have are mostly with society treating them unfairly, not necessarily the government. There's a handful of issues like tampon taxes, or abortion rights, or the fact that our president openly talked about sexual assault and still won. But those should take a backseat to other issues.

really it's more societal. At a lot of jobs, including my own, people don't take women seriously on a professional level. Once you hit a certain point, the office is 90% guys, a TON of workplaces are like this. Women are more often targets of rape and sexual assault, and serious domestic violence afflicts women more than men. Walking home as a woman is a lot scarier than as a man for a variety of reasons. Even at a base level, women just are not taken as seriously for small things. People think women aren't funny, they are bitchy and annoying, they're too emotional, they can't do hard work, they lie more than men, they are too sensitive... it's a lot of stuff in how society treats women unfairly.

None of these things should take away from the idea of men's rights. Men's rights is still very important in a lot of ways, and there is no reason it should be one or the other. But I'm tired of both sides claiming the other is needless.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are more often targets of rape and sexual assault, and serious domestic violence afflicts women more than men.

I was dancing with a woman who was around 20 at an after work function with lots of booze and she started shoving her ass into my dick without my consent because we were dancing together.

men get sexually assaulted all the time, if we use the same metric as women. We just complain about it less because we don't view it as important or damaging.

[–]Wmkcash 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy fucking shit this thread. So much wrong (coming from both sides) in such a small amount of internet.

[–]thetruthfl 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This post should have about 100k upvotes. There is NO DISPUTE about anything the guy wrote in his blog.

[–]Ooshkii 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I feel like pointing to the extremes and saying "we are not that" is a bad strategy. The argument as it presents itself only ever leads to "hey it could be worse" which is not compelling when talking to an activist. The activist isnt looking backward but rather forwards and so a more useful appeal would be to throw to what forward progression from our current point is.

Additionally, i dont think all of the ducks are in a row on this one. The sanitary tax is a gender biased tax on essential goods. This does explicitly penalize one gender over another. Similarly, this article didnt address other women's health concerns. One of the biggest issues was the funding of planned parenthood and women's right to abortion for unwanted children or medically necessities. Similarly, a big portion of the march was about tone and harsh language coming from the highest executor in the land.

[–]ifelsedowhile 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The sanitary tax is a gender biased tax on essential goods

there's a tax on toilet paper as well, no one is complaining.

[–]soundsaboutWRIGHT 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Men's Rights are the only rights!"

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

literally nobody said or implied this.

[–]tallwheel 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

WhoTF is that supposed to be quoting?

[–]Mark-Man 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sadly, most of these women will never realize that men are the ones who are oppressed until it affects someone close to them...

[–]Geralt-of_Rivia 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How do I upvote this twice?

[–]Codered222 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You forgot the tips fedora at the end of your title

[–]Guack007 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most awesome thing Ive read today!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ITT: bullshit leftists posturing.

Trump will do more for men than all of the Democratic Presidents of the last 50 years put together. I guarantee that.

Women are not fucking oppressed. The opposition to this link is why I will never subscribe to this sub. The people downvoting this link will never subscribe either way, but men like me might.

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

Yup

[–]throwaway008 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with some of the points made by the author. For instance, it's mostly men who work all the high risk jobs like working on high-rise construction and many similar hazardous areas. How come feminists wanting equal rights do not mention wanting to put in equal work in such jobs as well?

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

I'm ashamed to say this is Infront of the beautiful Iowa state capital in Des Moines. Makes me hate my home state

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

I really loved this article. Couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of feminism. We should be for egalitarianism.

[–]lenin1928 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So men should stop making it difficult for other men. Let's band together and give men only a free pass.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the fact that they use pink is kind of hypocritical since feminists want to break away from female stereotypes. then again idk if they're marching for that reason.

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

That just made me laugh in real life, thanks!

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

It's interesting how divisive this article is for both sexes.

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

I think it's a fair point to make that this style of protesting has made a lot of the people they are trying to win over angry and/or disenfranchised with their cause.

Better (and possibly less man-hating) styles could probably be used. IMO the single valid point is that people are confused why women wrote up this list and then protested. I'm not American, but it seems to me this was actually the guise of an anti-Trump political protest held right after his inauguration. Not gonna get political and express opinions on the president of a country where I don't like, but is this not correct?

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

Why do women think that only they're able to be victims, or whatever?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

is that sarcasm i detect?

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

Nope

[–]connosaurus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't either of us are going to change our minds, we view this much too differently.

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

Ok

[–]Banned_By_Default 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This sub really has become just anti-women. This has nothing to do with mensrights at all. Like absolutely zero.

It's right wing politics. "I don't want to pay for that!! Reeeeee!".

It's not about wanting something simlar for men. It's not about free condoms or STD check ups.

No. It's all Trumpolitics and nothing else. Just look at OPs dumb ass comments. It's just garbage.

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

ITT: OP dealing w.all the trolls. Every response was spot on.

[–]thost02 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is the OP the OC? I would like to send the OC some gold :)

[–]billy-_-Pilgrim 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd hate to be a chick, shit sounds exhausting, one half of the population is judging my fashion the other is like 10x stronger and can rape me. I get dudes get raped too but thats like comparing car accidents to plane crashes.

[–]Blurkillerex 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe stop thinking they are 10x stronger and are going to rape you?

[–]billy-_-Pilgrim 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would but any reasonably attractive chick has told me that theyre always being eyed everywhere they go at the least, at the worst grabbed, and of course the cat calling. Shit being stared at longer than a few seconds already feels confrontational so fuck all that noise, Id be such a bitch if I were a chick. I have a sister and I see that shit happen to her and I hate it.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter