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

TFW your own national leader doesn't know the actual statistics of his pet cause.

CttCJim

August 28, 2016
3924 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/gallery/RkvNK
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 TFW your own national leader doesn't know the actual statistics of his pet cause.
Author

CttCJim

Upvotes 3924
Comments 341
Date August 28, 2016 3:32 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4zzut9/tfw_your_own_national_leader_doesnt_know_the/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/tfw-your-own-national-leader-doesnt-know-the.942737
https://theredarchive.com/post/942737
Top posts by CttCJim

Girl who cried rape after threesome with two soldiers has been jailed

2396 upvotes
March 27, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

This crappy comic is circulating again, so I had to fix it.

703 upvotes
May 15, 2016
/r/MensRights

Feminist CEO Who Fell Asleep at Work Loses Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

100 upvotes
April 24, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

Something lighter that I posted to point out my stepmother's little sexisms for a laugh.

74 upvotes
September 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

FFS, Facebook, get a clue.

33 upvotes
October 1, 2015
/r/MensRights

Gotta keep fighting the good fight. Anyone think the feminist apologist will return and explain where I was "bullshitting"?

30 upvotes
April 23, 2016
/r/MensRights

Student accused of false sexual assault report arrested

23 upvotes
April 20, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

Not sure if good news or bad news... "Viral bleach attack on manspreaders turns out to be Russian propaganda" (contains source link)

11 upvotes
October 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Kalki_Filth 878 points879 points880 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Well hes right then isnt he? It is sexist i guess, just not towards womynz

[+]Blutarg -375 points-374 points-373 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

That's spelled "women".

[–]Kalki_Filth 167 points168 points169 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did u just assume my grammar, shitlord?

[–]daredsky 172 points173 points174 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Womynz*

[+]Blutarg -229 points-228 points-227 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Why? How are we going to criticize people for being ignorant and stupid when we look just as ignorant and stupid?

[–]Lecks 329 points330 points331 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Jokes are allowed here, this isn't a feminist sub.

[–]WakaFlacco 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ooooh. That was good.

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

You might even say that joke was ... elite

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

Call the burn ward!

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

As /u/theSpiffySpaceman said, he's parodying this. And yes, the people who wrote that are both serious and working at a major university.

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

Wow she's illiterate.

[–]satpin2 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But... that's not even how the word "women" was made....

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

Link appears broken.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Works for me still.

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

WTF?! I thought that shit was for schools in like cali and NY :(

[–]TheSpiffySpaceman 111 points112 points113 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's satire. Extreme feminists spell 'womyn' because they don't want the word to contain 'men.'

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

history

his

[–]TheSpiffySpaceman 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

herstory

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

... was a lie

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

Kevin's College Tips

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

Fun fact, they're moving on to womxn now, because womyn contains a y, like the Y chromosome, which is unacceptable.

I dearly wish I was kidding.

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

Oh wow. I always wondered where that spelling came form. Thanks.

The more you know

[–]Erochimaru -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Extreme retards you mean

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

Now that's just not cool.

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

Feminists by definition and origin aren't what the crazy ppl call themselves today feminists. That's why, not extreme feminists but extreme retards.

Also srsly womyn looks horrible

[–]Tadokat 57 points58 points59 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Bruh, it's a joke.

[+]Blutarg -26 points-25 points-24 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

http://imgur.com/gallery/n8umjWj

[–]KennesawMtnLandis 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Everyone else got it. You're the idiot. Stop replying.

[+]Blutarg -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No.

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

For what it's worth I agree with you if you think that the name calling here is ridiculous...

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

Woosh

[+]Reasonably_Lucid -22 points-21 points-20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey noobs, if you think this guy is serious, why don't you ask him before downvoting? Personally, he's probably joking, even though it's not very funny.

[–]Moladh_McDiff_Tiarna 89 points90 points91 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Just one question, I agree with everything else in this post, by why did you quote US military deaths, as opposed to Canadian, considering Trudeau is your PM? Or was it just more of a general "yeah men have it so much easier /s" type thing because that'd make sense

[–]speedisavirus 57 points58 points59 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Like most of those stats it seems a lot harder to find them for Canada. Like homelessness is hardly even tracked there.

[–]HumanWithCauses 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Like homelessness is hardly even tracked there.

I'm not Canadian but it took me a minute to find the Canadian homelessness research network.

[–]speedisavirus 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Their last report is 4 years old and their last paper is 3 years old. They also don't seem to record detailed demographic data.

[–]BlightedArrow91 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

we also haven't had a nationwide census in over 4 years, which has a lot to do with this data being old as shit.

[–]Cthulu2013 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The last prime minister completely gutted our statistics and census so we don't have fuck all for stats from the last 10 years

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

so your choices are between bad and worse ?

[–]NigelMK 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Aside from that, the employment statistics are from 2010, during the peak of the recession, 5 years before Trudeau even became PM.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a brilliant list. It shows very clearly which sex is worse off in one of the countries where "the official truth" claims the opposite. It's certain that the same kind of a list could be gathered in any other western country 7 years ago or today. (The problem is that in many countries we know how many girls study in STEM but not how many men are sleeping in parks.)

a campaign intended to point out how poverty in Africa (PDF from One Campaign) can often disproportionately affect women

Rational discussion 101, rule number 6: never trust anything that says women are worse off without checking out yourself. Why? Because it's known from countless examples that such claims are much more likely wrong than right. Usually, as we all know, women are treated better and their welfare considered more important than that of men.

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

I'm from the continent, and the poverty stricken and homeless are overwhelmingly male, for sure. Like 7/10 are dudes. If begging, the female will almost always get money (food whatever) over the male. She also usually brings a kid along to stand with her in traffic.

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

Probably copy/pasted from another source.

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

Even Canadian agencies use American stats if Canadian stats aren't available.

In this case, he chose American stats to support his own narrative.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What narrative? Is that not just a presentation of the stats?

[+]pigi5 -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Regardless of its truth, its still supporting a narrative. He only chose stats that show bias against men. There are stats that show bias against women too, but he didn't show those because he's trying to make a point. Just because it's true doesn't mean it's not a narrative.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]pigi5 -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sure you can find them if you try. I support the same idea as everyone else in this subreddit. I was just being pedantic.

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

I'm at a loss as to why this is getting downvoted.

[–]pigi5 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Me too. I'm not saying anything against what this sub stands for because I support it all. I'm just saying that it's called a narrative because that's what it is. The word gets used in a negative context a lot, I guess, but that doesn't change its meaning.

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

I agree.

It's a negative thing if you can't see your own bias, not a positive.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]shockingnews213 183 points184 points185 points 9 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but women didn't really get the right to work, most places wouldn't hire them for anything more than a secretary role. I don't disagree with what you're saying but women were not at the advantage liberty-wise back in the day.

[–]ePants 63 points64 points65 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't disagree with what you're saying but women were not at the advantage liberty-wise back in the day.

I think it was clear that his point was that women had a much better ratio of standard-of-living to effort-and-risk.

[–]kkjdroid 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But very little agency, which was what ended up being more important.

[–]ePants 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But very little agency, which was what ended up being more important.

True.

Unfortunately for men, however, women now have equal agency and more rights - in addition to being able to fall back on to historical gender roles to benefit from the better standard-of-living to effort-and-risk ratio.

[–]samsc2 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yup! It's far more unequal then ever before and women in general seem to have this culture around them of never ever acting like an adult. Taking responsibility for their actions, understanding their own limitations, temper tantrums, using children as items for blackmail instead of as children to be loved, and I always hear how men are never loving or are so hard on their kids but yet I always SEE stories about abuse by moms and all the other shit they get away with that would have a man in jail for life.

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

uh well low income housing in my area....is trailer parks....which are almost entirely populated by poor white people....so no not all political speak means minority when they say that... Did that help any?

Mad at women, eh Jim-Bob? Probably shouldnt have tried to stick it in your sisters pooper without asking.

[–]chinawinsworlds 92 points93 points94 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

They still had the most comfortable lives without a doubt, and that's how it's been since the beginning of our history basically. There's a reason masculinity is associated with hardship and pain.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Isn't there a difference between being bored and being forced to do hard manual labor?

Women have way more opportunities today and still aren't in coal mines, on oil rigs, construction sites, plumbers, electricians, etc.

In other words, women's careers have opened up vastly, and yet they still choose comfy little office jobs...and still complain they don't get the same money as someone who risks his life dealing with power lines or cutting down trees.

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

You're completely right, but I think the original post was mostly trying to emphasize that life in general was a bit shit and that the value of liberty was, historically, a lot lower. Liberty is always important and necessary in a civil, just society. On the other hand, it's really only as valuable as your capacity to make choices--which historically was pretty bad. Liberty is always valuable, but how valuable it is is very much a product of the time. To stretch it back many, many years, granting a peasant liberty meant very little--their lives wouldn't change, because they were already doing the best thing they could to survive.

Or more simply put: Liberty is important. Without liberty, we cannot enact change. However, the liberty of today is vastly more valuable than the liberty of centuries ago which would have been to choose between death or to continue doing what you're doing (and maybe die anyways).

When your chief concern is avoiding winter starvation, there's not a whole lot of "liberty" no matter what the actual laws are.

[–]Nic3GreenNachos 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Roosevelt wanted to bring back corporal punishment for white beaters. Yeah, no recourse. /s

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

but back then, as a woman, you had no control over your life.

Oh yeah, and if a man wanted to NOT work a coal mine, he had sooo many other options /s

and if your husband was a wife-beating drunk asshole, there was no recourse.

Bullshit, if your husband beat you, you could get every other man in your vicinity to beat him. now, tell me what a man could do if his wife beat him? If it got out, he'd be the laughing stock of the town AND possibly beaten, for not being "a real man".

It probably bore greater resemblance to the status of women in Saudi Arabia than to American women today.

Oh, you mean the ones that are so precious you're not allowed to even look at them?

[–]blendedbanana 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

and if your husband was a wife-beating drunk asshole, there was no recourse.

Bullshit, if your husband beat you, you could get every other man in your vicinity to beat him. now, tell me what a man could do if his wife beat him? If it got out, he'd be the laughing stock of the town AND possibly beaten, for not being "a real man".

Dude, that's a complete load of bullshit and I'd hope you know that. I'm a guy, I agree with a lot of the sentiments here, but to pretend that women could 'just get every other man to beat him'? Are you stupid?

It hasn't even been that long since it was legal to beat your wife. Large swaths of religious populations encouraged it to keep order in your home. She could easily go to another guy and say 'my husband beats me' and he would probably ask what she did to deserve it.

You don't have to downplay the legitimate problems of women to bring attention to the problems men faced, nobody wins when you do that.

It probably bore greater resemblance to the status of women in Saudi Arabia than to American women today.

Oh, you mean the ones that are so precious you're not allowed to even look at them?

...wow

[+]Reasonably_Lucid -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm

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

Why did you link an article from the Journal of Men's Studies about domestic abuse against men?

In what way does that invalidate that you were wrong about women not being victims of domestic abuse historically?

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

I think you fried his brain.

[–]phySi0 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In what way does that invalidate that you were wrong about women not being victims of domestic abuse historically?

He didn't say that, he said women had recourse if they were abused. His own source kind of contradicts that, but that is what he said. Scratch that, I initially read

Such "treatments" for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

as contradicting what he said about domestic violence being looked down on by society, but a man doesn't necessarily need to beat his wife to dominate her.

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

and if your husband was a wife-beating drunk asshole, there was no recourse. Bullshit, if your husband beat you, you could get every other man in your vicinity to beat him.

Quite often that simply was not the case.

now, tell me what a man could do if his wife beat him?

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkGZvC0z4I

[–]phySi0 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is this being downvoted?

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

Nobody likes when you just reply with a video. People are animals, that's why :D

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

[deleted]

What is this?

[+]Ecanonmics -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right but it did stress the idea of proper mate selection.

[–]Daemonicus 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, house work back then, was actually demanding.

[–]Reasonably_Lucid 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Sure but it's not "lung cancer" demanding like a coal mine is.

[–]Daemonicus 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Does it need to be?

Just as always... "Women" didn't have the most comfortable lives. People with money did. Most women had to do non-stop work throughout the day, just like men.

Also, civilisation is a bit older than the coal mine.

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

"Women" didn't have the most comfortable lives. People with money did.

Exactly, it's not a women's issue.

edit: also, women could marry men with money. No woman with money would marry a man without.

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

Non-stop? Housework back in the day can't have been Non-stop. You tried to clean a house without electronic assistance?

Actually not that bad. Put an hour on it, tops, maybe two if you've got carpet. (And I have a damn menagerie in here)

Bottom line is the "triple shift" labor force waffle that has been touted for longer than I've been alive is a fairly cushy number. It's so easy (coming from a guy who cooks and cleans everyday, not the other way around).

[–]Daemonicus -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually not that bad. Put an hour on it, tops, maybe two if you've got carpet.

That's cute. So you have no idea how to actually do any of these things. Nice.

Laundry by hand, sucks. Cleaning the floors (properly), sucks. Not this simple straw broom sweep session that takes 10 minutes. I'm talking about using soap, and a brush to scrub the floors.

Ever try cooking things from scratch, with stuff from the garden, or fields? Having to kill, and prep your own meat/offal, bones (for soup/stew), preparing preserves, cured meat, maintaining healthy livestock, a garden, and crops, is a full time job in itself.

Now, on top of all that animal husbandry/agriculture/gardening, and chopping wood, add in cooking, cleaning, laundry. Then add in child rearing...

Yeah... Non-stop.

Bottom line is the "triple shift" labor force waffle that has been touted for longer than I've been alive is a fairly cushy number.

In modern society, with the inventions of machinery, and mass produce food, yes, you're right. But for about 90% of human existence, and for people that didn't have these things (even up until recently), it wasn't this way. While they didn't have the same jobs as men, they certainly weren't just slacking off, doing nothing.

It's so easy (coming from a guy who cooks and cleans everyday, not the other way around).

Your perspective is so wholly ignorant of the real world outside of your personal bubble, that it's sad.


Just want to point something out here... Read my post again. Pay attention to what is actually written. Notice how it's all in past tense? Yeah.

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

Most women had to do non-stop work throughout the day, just like men.

How long do you think it takes to clean a house?

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

What time period are you assuming I'm talking about?

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most women didn't just 'clean house'. Most women were not bourgeoisie, so they HAD to work, just to get by. Not 'vacations every year in a hot resort' get by, but 'not starve' get by.

The rich enough could afford house staff to do the housework, the poor enough didn't have enough time to do their own housework (they probably cooked their food, but cleaning was probably not a top priority).

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Women" didn't have the most comfortable lives. People with money did.

If you were a housewife, you had money. Or else you weren't a housewife, you had to work outside. It's not like the working class made enough wages to live on a single one.

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

If you were a housewife, you had money. Or else you weren't a housewife, you had to work outside.

You can still be a housewife, and work outside.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Work 70+ hours a week and then try to have time to do laundry by hand and cook your own food, and sleep. You had to cut somewhere, and not your job, or sleep (then you can't work at all if too sleep-deprived). You had to cut corners on the housework, not clean floors, not dust, and do laundry less.

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

It is. But it's still safe. Dry. Comfortable. Protected...

[–]Daemonicus -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe in the last century, sure.

Safe would depend on your definition of safe. Everything else, not so much.

[+]sup3r_hero -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i would be kinda careful with this statement. basically they were often beaten and unable to leave a non-functioning relationship.

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

I don't think they would choose working given the choices back then either..

[–]AkaviriDragon -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but women didn't really get the right to work, most places wouldn't hire them for anything more than a secretary role.

According to whom?

[–]shockingnews213 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Somebody needs to study American history a bit more.

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

Not an argument

[–]shockingnews213 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

In World War II, women went back to work while men went off to war. One can argue, though, that women didn't get a lot of roles in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military

First line of the third paragraph states: "Despite various, though limited, roles in the armies of past societies, the role of women in the military, particularly in combat, is controversial and it is only recently that women have begun to be given a more prominent role in contemporary armed forces. As increasing numbers of countries begin to expand the role of women in their militaries, the debate continues."

It wasn't until 1917 that a woman enlisted in the military. "[In] 1948 [...] a law was finally passed that made women a permanent part of the military services." After World War II. During World War II, the women stayed home for the most part. The men went off to war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Women_in_combat

So then was the first time that women were put to fit male roles in the workforce. Yet, a lot of women were discouraged from working after the war seeing as it was publicized by widespread media as being wrong. Under the "Rigid Gender Roles line :

The dramatic dichotomy in gender imagery in the 1950s makes people laugh 50 years later. In Dick and Jane readers, advertisements, educational films, and television shows, post-war Americans saw feminine, stay-at-home moms cleaning, cooking, and taking care of children while masculine dads left home early and returned late each weekday, tending to their designated roles as lawnmowers and backyard BBQers on the weekend. In More Work for Mother, Ruth Schwartz Cowan wrote that psychiatrists, psychologists, and popular writers of the era critiqued women who wished to pursue a career, and even women who wished to have a job, referring to such "unlovely women" as "lost," "suffering from penis envy," "ridden with guilt complexes," or just plain "man-hating."

So, as much as you'd like to say that mass media doesn't have that much of an impact on the masses, then you don't really understand how a lot of people work. We use reddit, which is a form of mass media. We are impacted from what we see here whether you agree with that or not.

My point is that women didn't have it easy and a lot of times, neither do men. I just would like to see there be more of a mutual understanding than a split in idealism which I often see in this part of the internet as well as other sites like Tumblr (that's a whole can of worms I won't touch, you can see /r/TumblrInAction for that).

EDIT: Downvote isn't a disagree button, it's an off topic comment, but I appreciate how you think.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your 1950s stuff was the only time in history were people with so little money as middle class (not the poor) were able to afford living on a single wage. It was FAR from universal, even then.

[+]orcscorper -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It's true; women were not at an advantage liberty-wise. Liberty is not as important to women. They want comfort, security, social status, and for their children to have those things. If men had to die to provide those things to women, they did. Like children, women had less liberty and less responsibility than men. Now they have the same liberty (and then some), but not the same responsibility.

Edit: is this r/MensRights or r/Feminism ? Who's brigading us that pro-feminist comments get all the upvotes? The circlejerk has been broken. This is why we can't have nice things.

[–]shockingnews213 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but that's the thing, not all women are like that. Some women feel that they should have the right to be able to contribute as much as a man. So, saying that women don't feel that way is a sweeping generalization.

[–]orcscorper -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women do have the right to be able to contribute as much as men. They have for longer than I've been alive, and I'm old.

[–]shockingnews213 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah since the 80s. Which is relatively not that long ago.

[–]ulthrant82 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men still work long hours in mines, mills and fields. ;)

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Except people more talk about how women couldn't hold land, vote, have property really of any kind, etc.

[–]ikbentwee -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Wtf do you think housewives did all day?

If they're poor enough to have husbands working at coalmines and mills then they're not sitting around playing with kids all day (which btw is fucking horrible) they're tending to the home garden, animals, cleaning cooking, mending - modern conveniences weren't what they are nowadays. There's a lot of labour that takes place at home. And sure, day-to-day work may not have been as dangerous but if you factor in her heightened risk of dying from childbirth and it's complications then it's pretty on par.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

they're tending to the home garden, animals, cleaning cooking, mending

No, they had to work outside if they were poor. No time to tend to all that unless they're farmers and farming is their job then, not staying home.

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

Did I say they were farming the land? Nah. It's pretty normal for one to have a home garden which can or cannot yield food (perhaps herbs) - sometimes one may have a garden to beautify their home and in this case it would still too require maintenance.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Forget a garden if you're poor, unless you sacrifice your sleep to it. We're talking 19th century no?

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

I have a feeling we're talking about urban poor vs rural/suburban poor

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Suburban didn't exist then.

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

I'm not entirely sure what suburban would be to you my country doesn't have it but I would use it to describe the type of housing we have here because it's an easier description of not rural and not city living but kind of like cute little cottages but not always in a village.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In 19th century, suburb didn't exist. People didn't have the transportation to live too far from their workplace and commute daily. It took almost an entire day to go a distance covered in maybe 2-3 hours today.

[–]lolervin 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We're talking about sexism, not sexual orientation

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

;)

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

American and British, yes? I've not read USian nor UKian before but appreciated pausing for a sec to think on it. Very good, makes sense; just uncommon!

Thanks both for your perspectives, was an interesting read.

[–]olican101 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The chav thing is a little true though. Most of the UKs issues seems to come from the Tory's playing on the weak minded nationalists while saying "blame the poor and immigrants". Ehrn thry are the ones at fault. They abused a scapegoat and it backfired in their face with Brexit. In which, everyone loses. EU immigrants are less likely to claim bennefits/break the law and are more likely to work/create work. But as soon as someone from poland commits a crime the sun is all over it because $.

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

43 is not really as old as I think some of the young'ns here think it is. That means you were born in, what, like 1973 or 1972? And probably just beginning to understand issues like this at all during the '80s. It what way was it really "fuck women" in the 1980's? By that time women already had long since gained all the legal rights of men, and most of them were working professionally. Family courts were already siding with wives and mothers similarly to how they do today.

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to say that women didn't face any discrimination in the professional world of the 1980's (or now for that matter), but by what measure was it "fuck women"? They weren't exactly a disadvantaged class who had horrible lives that nobody gave a shit about.

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

Cracking post.

I'm ~ a dozen years older than you and the things you mention about our parents' and grandparents' generations ring true. My old man (he died a few years ago) came from a family of 8 - his mother was a tyrant and his father (from a family of 14) too weak, probably because of what he went through in WW1. My old man did everything he could to get away from home - regular beatings, hand-me-down everything, the only money from his father's paltry income as a grave-digger - he even conned the medics when he was called up for National Service just so he could gtfo. Mum's family was just up the street (4 daughters) and they weren't much better off - Mum's father was in two campaigns in WW1 in the Somme, he died early because of the effects of mustard gas.

I could go on, but I'm sure you and many, many others here know what I'm on about. The thing is, your post reminded me that proper hardship was all around only 50 years ago and if they were alive our parents and grandparents would look at us like we were in the land of milk and honey.

It's very easy for me to get caught up in the wrongs and injustices displayed on this sub and to forget that - compared to a mere 50 or 60 years ago - things ain't really that bad, for the most part.

[–]olican101 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think now its just "fuck men AND women". Women still face oppression and descrimination. Feminism still has a long way ahead if it. But issues now also affect men. Hopefully as wimen become more equal to men people will see the issues against men more.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Are you saying we can't trust www.ageofshitlords.com? Where will I go for my news???

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

yes... or wait, actually no.

[–]atallpanda 84 points85 points86 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Trudeau wasn't talking about Canada when he said this. He's taking about the women worldwide.

Furthermore it was a response to a request from the ONE campaign

The organization had sent an open letter to Trudeau and other global leaders this March to coincide with International Women’s Day asking them to recognize that poverty and gender inequality go hand in hand.

Article http://globalnews.ca/news/2902602/justin-trudeau-joins-gender-inequality-campaign-says-poverty-is-sexist/

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, I was wondering the way which this was taken out of context.

[–]Fubby2 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And this is why people don't consider this movement at all legitimate. Railing against a feminist statement out of context doesn't bode well with the idea of equality if you ask me.

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

If that is a qualification the feminists movement gets an F-

Nit saying it's a good thing to get to their level but still, misrepresentation/quoting/taking things out of context is crowd riling 101

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

Canada or worldwide, poverty is not fucking sexist.

His message, the ideology behind it, and the expected actions that should follow are all vile boy-hating and man-hating.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]25russianbear25 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

claim that more women than men are under the low income cutoff in Canada is true

Not 100% true.

Like you said thats mostly for over 65 yr category, lets not leave out facts.

Can we please stay accurate?

Can you???? Please? For every 100 Canadian male workers there are only ~89 Canadian female workers. Of course employment affects poverty/financial status - you cant even deny that. Until you get those other 11(about 1 million women) unemployed to join the work force to have a fair 1:1 ratio you cant even begin to say that poverty is sexist. Poverty gets to unemployed first REGARDLESS whats between their legs.

Compare apples to apples. 1 million is too big of a number to simply write off to fit your agenda.

Lets compare 1 man to 1 woman, after all were equal correct?????

[–]Banshee90 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also I can't speak for Canada but in the US a man basically has to prove he is the better choice to get full custody. So of course selection bias will be present when the man has to prove he is the better choice (including financially better).

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

There is a difference between unemployed and not employed. Most children and retirees are not employed. They don't need to work, and aren't looking for work, so they are not unemployed. Women married to men who earn enough to allow their wives to stay home are not employed; they are also not unemployed.are Show some evidence that those million Canadian women are all in poverty and unable to find work and you may have a point.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Lets not leave out facts

Mate you literally quoted him saying the fact youre asking him not to leave out, the fuck is wrong with you?

[–]25russianbear25 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mate did you read the rest of my comment??? Or youre willing to write off 1,000,000 (of people who are capable of work) because youre comfortable with comparing unequal numbers (100:89)

Lets compare 1 man to 1 women, after all were equal correct?????

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]25russianbear25 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

To some extent

Of course. Its almost like there are exceptions that can be found in a group thats made of millions

If anything, I suspect that would skew women's incomes upwards, with low income women being more likely to become unemployed

were on same side... idk why youre saying what i said

I disagree, there are clear sex differences

there are..... do those differences bar women from employment? last time i checked canada doesnt discriminate based on gender.

[–]Sadnot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

were on same side... idk why youre saying what i said

If unemployment skews the reported income of women upwards, they're in an even worse position than the statistics I posted would suggest.

I assumed you meant the opposite.

[–]25russianbear25 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If unemployment skews the reported income of women upwards

That if is wrong. Job = money = food/shelter/goods. Majority of people who dont have a job live in poverty, majority of people living in poverty dont have a job... inb4 exceptions.

Not sure why you dont understand that having no source of $$$ means youre probably poor.

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

Not sure why you dont understand that having no source of $$$ means youre probably poor.

Yes, but you said: "Until you get those other 11(about 1 million women) unemployed to join the work force to have a fair 1:1 ratio you cant even begin to say that poverty is sexist."

Those women weren't included in the survey to begin with.

[–]25russianbear25 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Those women weren't included in the survey to begin with

Show me where it says only working men and women were surveyed/displayed in those poverty numbers, do that and youre right and im wrong.

the original comment was deleted(along with the link) but here i found the site for you http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/index?lang=eng&MM=1 :) prove me wrong

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

Alright, that wasn't strictly accurate. Only families with at least one working person were included.

Regardless, if a greater proportion of women than men are living in low income families, there are more working women with a low income. That's... not exactly a controversial statement. We all know women work lower paying jobs.

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

I see its irrelevant but OP's statistics should be its own post

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

Yeah, those statistics raise valid and important concerns. They just don't do a good job of showing that "[our] own national leader doesn't know the actual statistics of his pet cause."

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

Single women with children are also roughly 50% more likely to live in poverty than single men with children.

The men had a job instead of benefits?

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

This still doesnt mean that poverty is "sexist"

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

Depends what we mean by sexist. If poverty is non-neutral and happens more to one gender, I'm fine calling it sexist in this context.

Incidentally, I've just now looked into it closer and Trudeau was specifically referring to international poverty, especially in Africa, which I know less about. Here's the letter, judge for yourself.

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

Men die at a vastly higher rate due to workplace injury compared to women. Does that mean workplace injuries are "sexist"? If you don't agree, just admit you're a hypocrite. I mean, just because something happens to women more, or to men more, doesn't mean it's "sexist", to even discuss things in these terms is to play in the territory of the SJW, and if you play their game, you've already lost. Men and women are different, biologically, so different outcomes in many different ways is to be expected. If all outcomes were equal, that would just be bizarre. I'll start giving a shit about these feminist pet causes when they start giving men the same respect and attention that they demand for themselves. (I'm not holding my breath)

[–]Sadnot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Men die at a vastly higher rate due to workplace injury compared to women. Does that mean workplace injuries are "sexist"? If you don't agree, just admit you're a hypocrite.

Of course I agree, in that sense of the word "sexist". Workplace injuries are a combination of men being expected to perform the more dangerous labour, as well as a culture of workplace stoicism that doesn't allow complaints and safety measures. Both ultimately stem from sexist attitudes about men.

Men die at a vastly higher rate due to workplace injury compared to women. Does that mean workplace injuries are "sexist"? If you don't agree, just admit you're a hypocrite.

Fair. I'd argue, however, that workplace injuries is clearly a cultural effect, given the success of some industries at lowering injury rates by changing the workplace culture.

Oh, and of course, that our attitudes ultimately stem from biology doesn't make them ideal, or inevitable. We can work to change a poor situation and mitigate our biology.

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

Yeah but don't you think that workplace deaths disproportionately affect men because they are stronger and more capable of doing a lot of the more dangerous jobs? I agree with the thing about stoicism, I think one of the main reasons that feminisms hogwash goes so unchallenged is because of the stoic attitude of men to "shut up and take it" but I'm fine with men doing the more dangerous jobs because I hate seeing women do them and I think they are less capable emotionally and physically of doing them.

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

Yeah but don't you think that workplace deaths disproportionately affect men because they are stronger and more capable of doing a lot of the more dangerous jobs?

In some cases, sure. There are plenty of dangerous jobs that don't require hard manual labour though, which are still predominantly men.

Anyway, even if disadvantageous outcomes are caused by biology - and I don't think I would agree with you about how often that occurs - that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

For example, men are far more likely to kill themselves. Even if that turned out to be entirely biological, I would still argue that we need to figure out why it is occurring disproportionately in men and how best to stop it.

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

Yep. I wonder if it could have something to do with the fact that our culture constantly takes dumps all over men from childhood on, gives them no support, bleeds them financially in divorces and tells them their very masculinity is "toxic". I feel like the most well adjusted of our men don't internalize this, but many do notice it and take it in and let it kill them inside.

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

I'm sure those are all factors. Most important, I think, would be the lack of support you mention. A serious lack of support for mental health issues alongside a cultural demand that men be "successful" is a recipe for high suicide rates.

[–]FrenchCanadianTrump 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

http://homelesshub.ca/resource/state-homelessness-canada-2013

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

For those interested:

47.5% of homeless people are single, adult men from 25 to 55

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

I wonder why is it not broken up by gender totals?

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

In the U.S., the 2014 poverty rate was average of 13% for men and 16% for women. Of course, this doesn't include all the men who go into the prison system and get out without any job options so they just go right back into the prison machine. http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/how-does-gender-relate-poverty-status

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

Not refuting it but looking at only one set of data is not good for making a good answer for something. Besides, it could easily be bias.

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

be bias

Be biased.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love you grammar nazis. Your have no life and that's okay with you.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nope, you can say it like he did

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

Someone/thing can have bias but someone/thing is biased

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"It could be bias." Bias could be the problem. Like, "it could be lupus".

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

Absolutely, but "it" in this case is the dataset. The dataset cannot be bias.

[–]ajax1101 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But this is about Canada?

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

It's not about Canada either... Trudeau is supporting the ONE Campaign which primarily works in places like Africa. http://globalnews.ca/news/2902602/justin-trudeau-joins-gender-inequality-campaign-says-poverty-is-sexist/

[–]AkaviriDragon -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, a 3% difference which is negligible, but what's your point?

[–]Imnotmrabut 170 points171 points172 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

A Statistically Illiterate politician who panders to the Labial Vote?

Who'd have thought it possible in this day and age!

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

Ha! Labial vote! I'm using that! You are a comedian!

[+]AnewAaron -84 points-83 points-82 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

How is he statistically illiterate?

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How indeed....

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

Did you literally not even look at the post?

[–]25russianbear25 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you joking or do you have an actual disability?

Read the post again

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

But why male models?

[–]Imnotmrabut 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It happens when Politicians are more focused upon Pomade as a way of gathering votes, rather than using facts and rational argument to deal with reality and the needs of a country or it's citizens. P¬))

He is proof of both Social and Cultural Darwinism with his actions and illiteracy showing that the female of the species is impressed by good hair and not rational thought. We're all doomed!

[+]MemoryLapse -14 points-13 points-12 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

complain about sexism

win election based on being sex object

Liberal logic folks.

[–]Anarchistnation 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Liberal logic

Get that shit out of here this isn't a conservative haven.

[+]MemoryLapse -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, did I violate your safe space? I'm talking about the Liberal party.

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

Liberal party

There's no such thing.

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

Don't have kids

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

I don't intend to

[–]AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT 123 points124 points125 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Does this guy not realize Trudeau isn't American? All those statistics are useless.

[–][deleted] 73 points74 points75 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well to be fair, Trudeau is just saying "poverty is sexist" in general including Canada and the US. Everywhere really /s

[–]Lethn 51 points52 points53 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It proves a point I made awhile back though where people like him keep things deliberately vague so that no one can really fact check him or call him out unless they do some decent research on the subject.

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

How does gender relate to poverty status?

13% for males 16% for females

United States. Bureau of the Census, "Current Population Survey: Income [and] Poverty [and Health Insurance]", http://hdl.handle.net/SSDS/11315 V5 [Version]

http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/how-does-gender-relate-poverty-status

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't that just make him a good politician? Most politicians do the same thing, some worse than others...

[–]IAmMadeOfNope 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A good politician

But a really shitty person

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

The two go hand in hand!

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

Ayyyy

It's a fucked up world we live in, thanks for the cynical humor

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

He was actually speaking about a cause that focuses on developing nations. I'm not sure what those stats look like on a global scale, or in impoverished nations.

[–]Hitleresque 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Not at all, the US and Canada have proportionally similar statistics in most areas. The only one that's not relevant here would be the requirement to register for selective service, but that has little to do with poverty anyway.

[+]AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT -23 points-22 points-21 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

"similar" is not proof of anything. While I don't doubt that a lot of them are probably mirrored, it means nothing without sources.

[–]stemgang 51 points52 points53 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Sure. Canada's treatment of women is like Saudi Arabia compared to the USA. There is no similarity between the treatment of women in the USA and Canada.

/s

[–]killerofdemons -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Considering Canada has a lower poverty rate ten the US on general I doubt any statistic related to poverty would be accurate. We also have a lower incarceration rate so that won't translate either.

We do have a higher female homeless rate(though it's still probably 75% male) and a higher rate of women getting hurt at work. I doubt our college enrollment rates are the same because so few Canadians go to college. UNIVERSITY rates are most likely comparable to the college enrollment but "most likely" isn't exactly a verifiable statistic.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Don't forget that any discrepancy between social assistance in the two countries will also drastically change what it means to be poor. If you are poor but well fed and housed that is significantly different from being homeless type poor.

[–]killerofdemons 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't find any gender specific stats on homeless but..

http://homelesshub.ca/blog/infographic-homelessness-canada-numbers

There's a few decent sources listed in the stats from this article.

I got most of the info for my above opinion from cbc and torstar. Please feel free to contradict my opinion as I'm open to discuss any topic.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

I looked for more stats but I'm on Mobile and its tough to search and share links. It doesn't seem that there's many stats that separate gender in the Canadian figures(i mostly just looked for injured workers and homelessness) which is pretty good. Lowering worker injuries has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the "how and why"

All the info I base my options on comes from years of reading and watching news. I've also been casually monitoring MOL injury reports for a few years.

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

You're right the big difference is the govt of Camada pays for maternity leave for botu men and women, albeit women's leave is mucg, much longer.

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

So you are saying Canada is worse on women's rights than America? Try getting one single Canadian to agree to that.

[–]AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am Canadian. And I'm not saying it's better or worse. I'm saying his comment is irrelevant because those statistics don't mean anything.

[+]bumblebritches57 -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Implying canuckistan is any different than 'Murica.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thesimen13 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'd love a government that based policy on objective evidence

And that's the problem with democracy. Imagine how stupid the average person is and then realise that half of the population is even more stupid...

[–]rocelot7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Imagine how stupid the average person is

Aren't we such average people?

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

I would argue no, the people who actively engage in politics, discuss it, and read about it, are not the average.

Stupid in this case meaning ignorant, I wouldn't say we're any more or less inherently intelligent because we're involved.

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

The average IQ on this subreddit should be slightly higher than the average of (for example) the US due to us being largely middle class, aging from 20-35 and not watching soap operas.

[–]ulthrant82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Aww.. Now I miss George Carlin.

[+]nybo -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Imagine how stupid the average person is and then realise that half of the population is even more stupid.

Not true, that would be the mean person, not the average.

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

No, it would mean both... The average AND mean IQ is about 100 (by standard)

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

What do you think is the difference between those two?

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

They knew the "fuck Harper" vote was going to likely come after the 2011 election and went with the pretty boy to try and win votes. If they weren't going to get the votes, Mulcair was.

Trudeau is a puppet. He's there for the photo ops and selfies. The old Liberal guard is pulling the strings behind the scenes.

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

Prime Mimbo

[–]diphiminaids 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I understand most of these shitty things favor men being on the shit end, but is there a statistic for poverty? I'm assuming he means below the poverty line, what is the statistic?

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

As per the US breakdown by gender men either break even or win in that one. Not by any significant amount though.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

[–]dejour 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

15% of women are below the poverty line, and 11% of men. That's a significant difference in my opinion. (By my count women are more likely to be poor in 48 out of 51 states/districts. And there are 3 ties)

Of course, poverty line is not the only way to measure this. Homelessness might be a better way and that stat makes men seem worse off.

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

4% really isn't a significant difference when you consider almost all homeless people are men which means they are far more impacted by poverty than women.

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

Are homeless people accurately accounted in poverty stats?

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

That's a really interesting question as it depends on whether they only calculate poverty based on household. Regardless though I don't think it's a far stretch to relate the fact that there is a smallish difference in gender poverty gap but an overwhelming male biased gap on homelessness that you can clearly say that males are by far more impacted.

[–]shadybaby22 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of irrelevant statistics.

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

It's like he just copy-pasted every stat that shows how men have it worse than women. They're all true, but only three or four refute his statement at all. It would have been better to reply with the most relevant facts, then build a narrative about how more men in prison and more women with college degrees lead to women being better off. Life-expectancy and suicide rates should be left out of the argument completely. This wall of links convinces nobody.

[–]do_something_aboutit 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Am I reading these stats right? Because it looks to me like only 4% of homeless people are women and yet women account for far more than 4% of almost every single negative thing on that list, i.e. men are more likely to be homeless, but among homeless people, women have it worse.

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

Women have it worse because they never had to learn how to survive. They then continue to depend on others while homeless.

I've never seen a homeless woman digging through the trash, but I've seen them suck some guys dick for $20.

Perspective

[–]Yeah_Yeah_No 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What are you even trying to say?

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

That he's sucked dick for $20.

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

He hates women.

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

You're right, Justin. Throughout history The Patriarchy has conspired to exclude women from the venerated human traditions of starvation and homelessness.

There is no way that we can claim that women are equal to men until we get them out of the shelters and food lines and onto the highway onramps, which have been dominated by cishet white males for far too long!

It's time to smash the glass floor!

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

I don't know the whole story, but I'm pretty sure this was taken out of context. From what I understand he was referring to third world counties, and not the first world. Which, I guess would be more correct than if he was referring to only Canada.

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

This guy's using American statistics.

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

Here's the list. Unfortunately some of the URLs had been shortened at some point and wouldn't open, even from the post.

Unsheltered Homeless (2009)

Women – 12,000 – 4%

Men – 240,000 – 96%

Source http://www.societaldistress.org/files/HO-HAR2009.pdf

Life Expectancy (2006)

Women – 80.8 Years

Men – 75.7 Years

Source: http://www.census.gov/2010census/

Suicides (2008)

Women – 7,585 - 19%

Men – 28,450 - 81%

Source: http://web.archive.org/.../http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm...

Deaths by Homicide (2004)

Women – 3,856 – 20%

Men – 14,717 – 80%

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Table_12_2006.html

Deaths from Cancer (2004)

Women – 269,819

Men – 290,069

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Table_12_2006.html

Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004)

Women – 3,357

Men – 8,756

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Table_12_2006.html

Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research

Women – Breast Cancer – $631,000,000 - 40,000 Deaths

Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000 - 33,000 Deaths

Source:http://web.archive.org/.../factsheet/NCI/research-funding

Deaths on the Job (2010)

Women – 355 - 7%

Men – 4,192 - 93%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2010hb.pdf

Injuries on the Job (2007)

Women – 36%

Men – 64%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2010hb.pdf

College Enrollment (2009)

Women – 58% - 11,658,000

Men – 42% - 8,770,000

Source: http://web.archive.org/.../nces.../fastfacts/display.asp...

Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific)

Women – Yes

Men – No

Source: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol341/1-36.pdf

Unemployment Rates (2010)

Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000

Men – 10.5% - 8,626,000

Source:http://web.archive.org/...//www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat2.pdf

Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010)

Women – 36.1

Men – 40.2

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.pdf

High School Graduation Rates (2005)

Women – 72%

Men – 65%

Source: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_48.htm

Incarceration Rates (2009)

Women – 114,979 - 7%

Men – 1,502,490 - 93%

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim09st.pdf

Child Custody Rates

Women – 11,268,000 custodial mothers

Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers

Source: http://deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php...

US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010

Women – 139 - 0.001%

Men – 100,063 - 99.99%

Source: http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php...

Federally Funded Battered Shelters

Women – 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year

Men – None – $0

Source: http://web.archive.org/.../familyviolence/factsheet.htm

Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present (not including cancer research)

Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000

Men Only – None – $0

Source: http://www.hrsa.gov/index.html

Forced Selective Service

Women – No

Men – Yes

Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010)

Women – 5.8%

Men – 12.2%

Source: ]http://web.archive.org/.../NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.pdf

Divorce filings

Women - 85%

Men - 15%

Source: http://www.uplifting-love.com/.../80-percent-of-divorces...

Doctor Degrees(2010)

Women - 51.6%

Men - 48.4%

Source: https://www.aei.org/.../women-earned-majority-of.../

Master’s Degrees(2010)

Women - 60.3% Men - 39.7%

Source: https://www.aei.org/.../women-earned-majority-of.../

Receive Alimony

Women:97%

Men: 3%

Source:http://www.wsj.com/.../SB10001424052748703399204574505700...

[–]Hydris 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is unemployment rate just those who are of working age and not employed or those that are on unemployment. If its the former then I'm sure the numbers are deceptive. How many of those unemployed women are of by choice compared to men.

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

It's typically defined as those activity seeking work.

[–]jc5504 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The unemployment rate is generally measured by the same standards internationally, which is based on people seeking work. This is so we can compare unemployment across the board without having to account for any variables.

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

No, it's chopped and screwed to hell and back.

in the best of cases, only about 70% of the adult population works at all (tl;dr stay at home parents, and the occasional bum)

then they chop off a good portion of the people who've looked for work and couldn't find it for a long enough time.

then they chop off people who've given up on finding work.

and there's more but I don't remember it all rn.

tl;dr it's biased as fuck and not even close to a real representation of unemployment.

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

holy shit. That is just a smack down.

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

That's some really good cherry-picking.

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

ageofshitlords.com

Yeah great source.

The irony here is that he's actually talking about developing countries, and focusing on comparatively trivial first-world problems to the detriment of international 'real issues' is one of the biggest criticisms the alt-right likes to pretend to care about when they attack feminism. Christ, people.

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

Woman here, I was pretty miffed when he made that 50% women in the cabinet rule. You hire the best person for the job, that's it. Ugh.

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

... He was talking about how poverty disproportionately effects Women in African countries... That was like the whole point of The ONE campaign.

[–]baserace -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is complete bullshit.

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

Well, he knows what year it is! That's all that matters!!!

[–]Griever114 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No different than that fuckface Obama spouting the gender gap and fucking rape statistics as fact.

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

Obama, Trudeau, Merkel, Hollande... don't work for their people, they work for the international bankers.

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

What a wonderful North America were in aren't we, world leader spewing lies in their gynocentric, man hating, barrage of stupidity.

Still I expect this from Trudeau, he's one name change away from selling pot out of his trunk to survive, but Obama is a smart man, he's lying on purpose.

[–]Griever114 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. they are all in league

[–]tallwheel -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I'm reading, FUCKFACE!" - Big Red

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

He isn't wrong, Poverty is Sexist, towards men.

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

Because all rich people are women right?

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

... Because all Social Programs are directed and designed towards Women actually.

[–]Clockcannon -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's blatantly false.

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

I'm sorry...but an adult man should never, ever be making that stupid fucking "heart" thing with his hands. For a world leader to be doing it is beyond grotesque.

[–]Stagione -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

What, is making a heart shape too girly for you? Are you afraid it's going to emasculate your tough macho persona? I'm sorry but if some random guy making a heart sign with his hands makes you feel any less masculine, then you have issues to work out

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

why did you italic "girly"?

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

For emphasis

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

It worked.

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

These stats are not for Canada.

The population differences, incarceration differences, not to mention how skewed the homocide stats are because of gun laws.

Anyone who has lived in both Canada and America for a significant amount of time would tell you, they arent quite as similar as youd like to think.

If the stats are not for Canada, they are not valid. End of story.

Edit : I was too harsh at first and it wasnt really necessary, so I deleted the pointless emotional stuff. Sorry all.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Excellent comment, thanks for looking into it. Thanks moreso for encouraging real and constructive discussion, this is a solid contribution. Its especially important to note how poverty works in Canada in relation to First Nations people.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. I will work on that, as my goal is to be effective, emotions get in the way.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

So give us stats that support the claim that its sexist against women in Canada.

EDIT: cttcjim is right.

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

Im not arguing that it is or isnt sexist against women.

All I am saying is that USA stats are not applicable to Canada for various reasons.

This is reddit. Your stats should apply to the country youre discussing or this is essentially a shitpost.

At least actively recognize that these stats do not apply. Dont tell yourselves that the two countries are similar enough, they arent, its not good enough.

Im not here to support in favor of or against what Trudeau said. Im in favor of yall using legit sources and acknowledging when they arent like rational people.

Edit: Removed uneccessary statements. My original comment included some emotional elements I appologise for.

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

My apologize, should have read the comment better.

Id agree with that, but i wouldn't support your approach to pointing out hypocracy by insulting and claiming you are right by being downvoted, would make people actually read your comment.

We are after all in reddit and people really are hostile when someone ends their argument or point with "downvotes cause im right"

[–]bumblebritches57 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you're just living in a bubble that "canuckistan is better than ;murica1111111!!111111111!!".

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

He's not wrong.

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

Wtf did u guys do electing this guy Canada?! Wtf seriously!!

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

The problem is, our previous PM was a Conservative (think Republican) and we got really mad at him so we voted in a Liberal (think Democrat) because we all forgot that in 40 years of controlling the country the Liberals basically did nothing at all. Canadians vote based on how much we hate what we had, not how much we want what's being offered; that's how Alberta got into the mess we're in, too.

[–]belil569 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This guy is a tool. Only way he got the recognition to even run for the position was because of his father.

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

Is he not, though, mentioning poverty on a global scale in response to the 'One' article? Third World countries, in particular.

https://www.one.org/canada/blog/i-wholeheartedly-agree-poverty-is-sexist/

Otherwise- yeah, it would be BS if he were talking about his own country.

Here's a reframed reason to be upset at the quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nna9EvWhlxw

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

That's a really good long list of items, though. Can anyone link the actual text for future copy/paste?

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

If you open in imgur, I pasted the comment at the bottom. Unfortunately op had some links that were broken, and wouldn't open even from Facebook.

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

Why is he listing sources for what's happening in the USA as a response to the Canadian prime minister?

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

If this retard was voted into office, I still fear Trump has a good chance.

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

why does he link to US army statistics when this is the canadian PM?

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

Why is this guy the way he is?

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

He is a really, really bad person. Fuck him.

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

Unsheltered Homeless (2009)

Just for the first statistics while the percentages equal 100% the numbers are equal to over 100%.

Perhaps the extra 2000 surveyors identified as other in regards to sexual orientation. But literally they added over 2000 extra members to the women's category.

I can't even take this seriously because the first amount of information you're trying to show me is inaccurate.

Edit: and it's over 7 years old, nope.

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

Does Canada have any politicians who will champion for men against this guy? Someone needs to go after him for this one. By all means, throw around your bullshit myths with wage gaps and campus rape, it's the only thing feminists have left, but the moment any fem tries to go after homelessness, poverty and mental health as a problem for women, they need to be told off.

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

Has anyone double checked those stats? I'm pretty sure some of them are true, but no research funds for male only cancer? Testicular?

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

Prostate?

I do seem to recall a graph showing funding for cancer treatment by type along with associated deaths of that cancer. What struck me was that prostate cancer had more associated deaths and significantly less funding than breast cancer.

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

Weird. As far as cancers going that one is very survivable.

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

I'd be willing to bet it's because prostate cancer has a much lower rate of early detection. It's probably discovered so late that the patient has a very slim chance of survival. Doesn't it usually require a prostate exam? Which isn't something people tend to do or have done to them frequently.

But don't think I know what I'm talking about, these are just guesses.

[–]bumblebritches57 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Protip: It'd be found earlier if there was more funding.

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

I have known a number of people who survived it and I thought the deal was that it was somewhat easy to detect because it screwed up the way you piss. So you end up going to the doctor, they put a finger in your butt and tell you they have to treat your cancer.

Yeah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancer_mortality_rates_in_the_United_States

Prostate cancer is the most survivable actually.

[–]candidly1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did everyone think he was pretty AND smart???

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

“Women and girls are less likely to get an education, more likely to be impoverished, and face greater risk of disease and poor health,” ~ Trudeau

I need to see the data which supports this, Mr Trudeau.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2902602/justin-trudeau-joins-gender-inequality-campaign-says-poverty-is-sexist/

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

In third world countries, it may well be true. Globally. But in the West, in the country he's not fixing, it's not.

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

this guy is a communist cuck and his dad used to bend fidel over and ass fuck him

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

[permanently deleted]

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

check the imgur post, desc on the last image. i'll post a comment too.

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

We made the front page again.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did anybody else catch what Milo said about him on Rogan's podcast?

"He looks like a faggot. The type to get loads blown on his face by everybody in the club."

[–]rg57 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did anyone expect this airhead to know anything about... anything?

Watching the debates was a cringe-fest... scrambling for words... panicking for ideas... red alert! say anything! say anything!

[–]pannerin -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Fuck you. Fuck all of you. Trudeau is supporting the ONE Campaign, which fights extreme poverty and preventable diseases primarily in Africa. And it is a sexist issue.

"In 2016 half a billion women still cannot read, 62 million girls are denied the right to education and 155 countries still have laws that differentiate between men and women. Girls account for 74% of all new HIV infections among adolescents in Africa, and 40% of women on the continent suffer from anaemia, which results in 20% of maternal deaths."

Prime Minister Trudeau is hosting a fundraiser for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in Montreal 3 weeks from now. Stemming from his well-known feminist stance, the ONE Campaign here has successfully gotten him to publicly recognize that poverty and gender inequality go hand in hand, in order to pressure other world leaders into doing the same.

Meanwhile, all of you here have been looking for the latest examples of 'feminist logic' to glomp on and ridicule. You have lost any capability to read and comprehend the manufactured controversies dangled in front of you here. That embarrassment of a website attempted to parade Trudeau's support of the ONE Campaign as another reason to laugh at feminists, and everyone believed them, from that Facebook comment, the screenshotter and OP, to all of you here. You fucking fell for it, fuckfaces! You have successfully shown another example of Men's Rights Activism having no sense of reality right here and now.

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

Other data points include: two-thirds of the global illiterate population are women. Globally only 55% of women participate in the workforce compared to 70% of men, and some of this is due to legal restrictions on employment, inadequate opportunities, or lack of childcare. The vast majority of women worldwide who have the potential to contribute more fully in the labour force live in emerging and developing nations, which means that their families are earning less than they could be. In the developing world, 16% less women than men go on the Internet, this in the age of technology in the global economy.

The ONE Campaign accepts no donations. They only want you to sign their petition, and spread their message. Hillary Clinton has went on the record to say what she'd do - if elected - to fight extreme poverty. They want you to make Donald Trump do the same. The UN General Assembly will be meeting to discuss the global refugee crisis, and they want you to make sure that they include the education of refugee children in their plans. They want you to tell Congress to consider additional appropriations for nutrition aid programs in the 2017 budget that will help save lives and fight poverty. And yes, they want you to say that we won’t end extreme poverty without ending global gender inequality.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What are the comparable statistics of men? Is it similar to the situation women are in in those areas?

[–]pannerin -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What? If 74% of new HIV infections are for girls, 26% are for boys. Men don't get pregnant, so they don't die from childbirth.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Let me clarify, concerning the right to education how many boys do not get that chance? Also, what exactly are the laws the differentiate between the sexes? In addition, one should not simply cite statistics and claim its discriminatory while giving no context to the information.

Why are that many girls not getting a chance for education? Why are a majority of HIV infections female? Why are so much of the population suffering from malnutrition? Do the maternal deaths have other factors?

I can give some possible explanations. Males are the primary bread winners and so it is more important for them to have an education. Also, since women are valued more than men, men take far greater risks to provide for the family and having a women take an education slot puts men at risk since they won't have a chance at less dangerous work. If the man then gets killed or injured it puts a far greater burden on the family than if a women was.

For HIV infections, part of the reason is just how it is, women tend to get infected easier than men so that doesn't say anything about how we supposedly treat women wrong. In Africa, the catholics preach that using condoms are bad or go against god and that being circumcised helps prevent HIV infection. Both claims are wrong and retarded and they both help spread the disease by lying to men and harming them which in turn harms women.

So if people really want to help women then men ought to be helped as well, but that isn't what happens with the majority of donation campaigns. This is my problem with Trudeau's actions and others like him, they ignore half the problem claiming to want to help yet their actions either cause more harm or are ineffective because of their ideology and its lack of acknowledging reality.

So if these campaigns donate just as much aid to men and women then I will support them, otherwise they are disgusting hateful organizations that do not care about how the world is, as their ideology and publicity is more important. They shouldn't ignore men any longer but it's a fact of our species to treat men far worse than women, men are disposable and no one fucking cares.

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

When families can't afford education for all, they pay for the boys first since they are seen to be the future breadwinners for the family, and education can mean that they get paid more. While girls usually are required to complete household chores or take care of their younger siblings, also limiting their time to study in the first place. In sub-Saharan Africa 60% as many girls as boys attend primary and secondary schools, but more drop out at secondary school. The literacy rate of women is two thirds that of men in LDCs.

Differentiated targeting here is important. Maybe we need to introduce the concept of collective childcare. Maybe we need to bring the school to the village square, so girls can care for their younger siblings there while they study. Women are forced to spend around sixty percent of each day collecting water, so maybe we need to maintain the well that some dudes built there and left, convince everyone to use it and to check back regularly. These are things that boys do not need, since they do not collect water and do not take care of the household. No, boys shouldn't join girls in these village square classes when they can study without the distraction of caring for their siblings elsewhere.

Not educating women means that the direct effect from female education to income is lost, so the potential household income is decreased. Then we have single mother households, and no we don't see single father households there. Educated mothers know how to better take care of their children, so we get less child mortality and malnutrition.

20% more women are in vulnerable employment compared to men in LDCs. When we talk about laws that limit employment opportunities for women, we are talking about women’s land tenure rights. Women are often the primary users of land and laborers on land but their rights to land and resources are rarely formally recognized. Women across the developing world are consistently less likely to own land, have fewer rights to land, and the land they do own or have access to is of lower quality in comparison to men.

Read this PDF, but skip 1.5 and resume at page 5 if you must.

Then there are more women-focused measures to take for female employment. We need to give women relevant agricultural training. We need to give women access to credit, since female farmers’ access to credit is lower than that of male. We need to give women access to banking, since 1.3 billion women do not have bank accounts. We need to give women access to the Internet and mobile phones. A study found that child survival prospects are 20 times higher when a mother’s earned income increases than when that of a father does.

Why should we care more when a woman has HIV? When we talk about women with HIV, we are talking about transmission of the virus to their babies. One-third of pregnant women living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries do not recieve treatment to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies.

Because women and girls often face discrimination in terms of access to education, employment and healthcare, and since men often dominate sexual relationships, as a result, women cannot always practice safer sex even when they know the risks involved. Poor women are also more likely to resort to sex work, and men are likely to refuse to use condom during intercourse with girls or women performing sex work. The presence of any of these 4 factors: intimate partner violence, extreme poverty, education, and partner income disparity, is linked to HIV status in young women. And in the first place, there remains strong misconceptions on how HIV is transmitted and how condoms work to prevent transmission.

I have no idea what you mean about reasons for maternal deaths. 43 million women are unable to deliver their babies in a health facility. Women have a lack of access to tools needed to plan and space the births of children - IUD, breastfeeding, condoms dead last. Pregnant women need to tap on health services more often then others, so a women centered approach is needed when supplying basic health services needs. They have to be responsible for childbirth, monitoring during pregnancy, and the supply of supplements needed to prevent maternal death in shortage of food.

Your misogyny blinds you. You have no source for your assertion that women are valued more than men, which is completely divorced from reality in LDCs. Directing efforts in aid to women in poverty reaps more benefits then generalised efforts. One of the most important efforts in HIV work should be making sure that pregnant women get treatment to prevent transmission to their babies. Poverty will not be eliminated without unlocking the economic potential of women. Child mortality rates will not be reduced unless efforts are directed at women, the managers of the family.

Yes, there are aspects in modern society where us men are being discriminated against. Yes, gender norms have disadvantaged us men in some areas. No, not all of the sexist stuff happening to women is invalid. The majority of rape accusations remain valid, the pay gap exists to a smaller extent, and pregnancy and childbirth is an arduous and agonising experience that women willingly go through, that we depend on, and that we should respect.

If you are going to be bitter and irrational about the disadvantages men face then don't bother supporting men's rights. As it is, your attitude is an embarrassment to men's rights and demeans its validity.

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

TL/DR at bottom (you did it to my last comment so why not?)

"Not educating women means that the direct effect from female education to income is lost, so the potential household income is decreased."

And if everyone women has a job then who is taking care of things back home? A paid caretaker which negates that income. The work women do off officials jobs also have value is likely isn't factored into that calculation.

"Then we have single mother households"

Which are a burden on society financially and socially (increased crime rates, drop out from education, etc.).

"Educated mothers know how to better take care of their children"

Not stated in your link (I'm assuming most of which you are saying here comes from the link). The briefing talks about how many negative factors are alleviated when the mother has more access to resources. Which the same could be said of fathers/men as well but they ignore any comparisons to that, most of the statistics are just flat statements saying women and their children are better off when mothers have access to land/resources, well no shit having more wealth makes one better off. I think there are more factors they are deliberately ignoring to push their narrative.

"Women are often the primary users of land and laborers on land but their rights to land and resources are rarely formally recognized"

I didn't read anything that women were the primary users of land or laborers in the link, only that they were the prominent spenders of wealth acquired from the ownership of land. I doubt that women are the majority of laborers, as in farming the land. The link states:

When considering household well-being, it is important to consider who within the household manages the family’s resources, including land, as women are much more likely than men are to spend income from these resources on their children’s nutritional and educational needs

A quote concerning labor:

A 2013 World Bank report found that although women generally provide a significant portion of agricultural labor, contracts for the production of export crops are overwhelmingly signed with men

So what exactly is agricultural labor? Well it's not farming as the next part states. Yet they add a quote on the side that contradicts this:

Women farmers hold the key to sharply reducing world hunger.... women produce most of the food. In some countries, 70%, 80%, even 90% of the food people consume is produced by women small farmers.”

They are contradicting themselves, are men the majority involved in production of crops or are women? (export crops specifically which are made where and sent to where? if made elsewhere why aren't they talking about local production or food imports?) If men are the majority of farmers why then would they state that women are so vital? My guess, they aren't and the authors are pushing their narrative.

"Women are often the primary users of land and laborers on land but their rights to land and resources are rarely formally recognized. Women across the developing world are consistently less likely to own land, have fewer rights to land, and the land they do own or have access to is of lower quality in comparison to men."

Why is this the case? Historical precedence? If this paper's supposed data is correct then women do a better job at managing land. So if governments and villages or whatnot know about this why then do women not have more access than men? Let me guess, either they don't know, they are irrational or something something misogyny.

I wonder which narrative they are trying to push. Yes, the more I read this brief the less I trust it, especially its singular focus on women which if you remember my previous post if why I dislike most aid campaigns. Besides, they add gender to the title as if they also talk about the situation affecting men, the only mentions men get is when comparing those poor disadvantaged women to those men (women have less property rights, what a horrible misogynistic culture!).

"We need to give women relevant agricultural training."

But I thought women were the majority of agricultural labor, or was it farming, both? Why would they need extra help when they are already the majority in the field, what happened to equality? Wouldn't that hurt men more from competetion which is aided unfairly? (again, what I said in my previous comment)

"We need to give women access to banking, since 1.3 billion women do not have bank accounts"

Do they have the freedom to make their own accounts? If yes, why are you advocating that we force them to do things they don't want in the name of parity?

"We need to give women access to the Internet and mobile phones."

Who is going to pay for this? Oh yeah I forgot, men. So no, they can pay for their own shit, internet is not a right and it's certainly not free.

"A study found that child survival prospects are 20 times higher when a mother’s earned income increases than when that of a father does."

A study also found that single mothers are causing a lot of problems through their shitty children, alienating the fathers or by being irresponsible increases these problems. Also, Hitchen's Razor.

"Why should we care more when a woman has HIV?"

Apparenly you didn't read my previous comment about HIV.

"Because women and girls often face discrimination in terms of access to education, employment and healthcare, and since men often dominate sexual relationships"

Discrimination does not equal disparity of numbers in education, again Hitchen's Razor (show laws in place banning women from the educational system). Employment, you are attributing to malice that which could be explained by other factors, some of which I explained in my last comment. Healthcare, are we talking about Africa still? I'll say I'm ignorant about much from there but I'm guessing a health care system is not something they all have access to. If not Africa, women are the majority of beneficiaries from healthcare and it would be ridiculous to claim discrimination there. Women are the gate keepers to reproduction (and therefore sex), if they really didn't want to be there they could leave their partner (this excludes arranged or forced marriages, duh).

"Poor women are also more likely to resort to sex work"

And poor men do not have that option, which is worse off? Is anyone forcing these women into sex work? (I'm talking about volunteers, duh)

"men are likely to refuse to use condom during intercourse with girls or women performing sex work"

And I'm sure women have the ability to refuse the client then. Also, who is making men think they don't need a condom (if this is even the case)? Hmm, I'm sure I mentioned it in my previous comment.

"I have no idea what you mean about reasons for maternal deaths."

Factors such as sterility of environment where the babies are being born, general health and well-being of the mother, education or skill of doctor attending the pregnant women.

"Women have a lack of access to tools needed to plan and space the births of children"

I'd agree, education and responsbility ought to be priorities to uplift the whole population.

"so a women centered approach is needed when supplying basic health services needs"

What percentage of the population are women? I'm guessing around 50%. I recognize that women need some more specific health services, but that doesn't mean near 100% (or whatever the number is) of the aid ought to be given to women. That is just ridiculous if one cared about equality.

"Your misogyny blinds you."

Yes I hate women so much I skull-fuck them. Are you done you retard? I don't care if I do or not and certainly don't about your opinion. Is my opinion factual or not? Accurate or not? Everything else, including your stupid ideology, doesn't matter.

"You have no source for your assertion that women are valued more than men"

I gave no source, doesn't mean I don't have one. What are the statistics in aid given to men in conflict ridden countries? Percentage of refugee status given to men fleeing compared to women? The amount of men killed compared to women in suppose women-hating countries? If you don't care to ask or find out I won't bother to give you sources because you'll ignore it anyways.

"Directing efforts in aid to women in poverty reaps more benefits then generalised efforts"

Oh, seems you stuck your foot in it soon after, giving other reasons why doesn't change this.

"One of the most important efforts in HIV work should be making sure that pregnant women get treatment to prevent transmission to their babies."

Don't care, I hate women remember?

"Poverty will not be eliminated without unlocking the economic potential of women."

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Are you complaining?

"pregnancy and childbirth is an arduous and agonising experience that women willingly go through, that we depend on, and that we should respect."

Rats give birth, it's not special and I don't fucking care. Unconscious women shit out babies, it's not special. Women have been doing this since the beginning, wooow weeee, what a talent.

"If you are going to be bitter and irrational about the disadvantages men face"

What? You mean women, right?

"then don't bother supporting men's rights."

I don't get it. You rant on about how bad women have it (don't care, I hate them remember) then somehow jump tracks to how I don't care about men. You are a special one.

TL/DR "As it is, your attitude is an embarrassment to men's rights and demeans its validity."

Oh no, more shaming language. HOW WILL I COPE!?!?! Oh! I know, I'll skull-fuck some more women I hate. See ya chump.

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

I don't understand. I gave you too much to read? I did not enjoy getting up from my typing haze to see how much I've copypasted with the aches to show. I gave you a summary? I can’t believe you would think my last paragraph was a summary of this issue, a summary of what I can see about you and what you shouldn’t do perhaps.

Women can be given opportunities to work within the village or at home. Women already are the main laborers on farms, so they can use their education to improve methods to show village leaders that they can own their land too. If both men and women are educated, the household can better decide who has a higher earning potential and who should stay at home. With intergenerational families, daughters can be the ones going to the city to make money and send money back instead of just the sons. When fathers die from HIV or malnutrition, further handicapping single mothers is the equivalent of sending them and their children to their deaths. Do you care about people dying?Or maybe you don't care about giving single mothers support. Do you support giving drug addicts clean needles? Or maybe you think it's sexist. But women are more likely to stay at home to work, and getting them employment with good hours but a large gap in their employment history is difficult. This is something single fathers DO NOT have a problem with, since they are more likely to be regularly employed in the first place.

No it's not in my link. Do I need to give a source for that? Is an illiterate, uneducated woman going to be worse at parenting than a high school graduate? In your quest to be 'accurate' and 'factual', have you forgot common sense? At least, educated women are better able to support children in their schoolwork, something that you probably can agree is a key part of parenthood.

You are showing some serious issues in reading comprehension here. This is the opposite of being 'accurate' and 'factual'. If your anger at the world about how men are being treated like trash is blinding your reading comprehension, you need to shut up and chill until you can stop embarassing the men's rights movement with.

That statement is talking about how women would make better spending decisions than men IF they held the purse strings. The statement did not say anything about whether WHO generally holds the purse strings; this is a cross cultural paper and there are patriachal and matriachal societies. The next statement is "women generally provide a significant portion of agricultural labor". That means what it means, women are generally the farmers! The next part is "contracts for the production of export crops are overwhelmingly signed with men". This means that men are the ones who sign the deals to sell their crops. There is zero contradiction here whatsoever. If you read that document in general, you would know that men are the ones who by and large own the land, own the farm, and decide who gets to own the farm. The male owner signs the deals to sell the crops, while female workers generally get jack shit. Does that mean the female workers aren't working on the farm? I have no idea what kind of alternate meaning you have been able to cook up.

Yes, you have been able to read the next quote correctly. The farmers are women, so women produce most of the food.

"less likely to own land, have ..." I told you to read at page 5. You didn't read at page 5, or perhaps you didn't read correctly. I didn't want to quote everything, but it seems that I should've. Ctrl-f ‘large-scale’ without quotes if you can find where I continue. "Post-colonial land distributions, formalization of individual land rights, and subsequent land transactions frequently vested titles to land in the head of the household only. These were most often men, according to patrilineal custom, and this vesting shifted the traditional concept of what it means to have rights to land.

While clan elders continue to facilitate allocation of land and patrilineal inheritance procedures, their authority to regulate and protect women and children from land grabbing, distress land sales, and forced eviction upon spousal death or divorce has been weakened. In many cases, wives in polygamous marriages are vulnerable to insecure land rights and require clan intervention for protection. Where land is scarce, first wives may lose rights to a portion of their land when their husband takes a second or subsequent wife, because traditionally each wife has her own plot of land, and this plot may be taken from the first wife’s portion of land. Second or subsequent wives may also have insecure land rights due to their status within the family. In Burundi, for example, the law does not recognize polygamous marriages, so only the first wife’s children are entitled to inherit land. Subsequent wives would need to appeal to clan elders for assistance. In general, married women in sub-Saharan Africa access land held under customary tenure through their husbands. These women are especially vulnerable to losing their land when their husbands become ill or die from HIV/AIDS. In many customary systems, people risk losing their land if they are not using it productively. Many widows struggle to retain land when their husbands die because tribal or customary leaders may assume that she cannot productively use some or all of the land.

In Kenya, where women head 70 percent of all squatter households, more than 25 percent of female slum dwellers report having been displaced from their rural homes as a result of land dispossession. The current surge in interest in farmland in Africa by large-scale investors is likely to cause greater vulnerabilities among women, because their claims to land rights are generally weak.”

"We need to give women relevant agricultural training." We have established that women are the farmers, and men own the farms and everything else. If their husbands are dead, women may know how to do the menial work, but know nothing about future direction: what to farm when, contacts of wholesalers, machinery management, whatever. Since they don’t know this stuff, they can have their land taken away by chief leaders. So we need to give women relevant agricultural training, the basics of which men already know. We don’t have to teach women how to be the best farmers, but we must teach them what their land owning husbands know so that when their husband dies, they can take over immediately and not get their livelihood snatched from them.

It’s called access to banking. Men can go out to work, men can go out and meet wholesalers to discuss farm prices. Women don’t have access in the first place.

Access to the internet and mobile phones is called an investment. Did you know that farmers use their Nokias to carry out transactions over long distance for their crops? This is called giving women the tools to improve their standard of living. We know that technology is such a tool. If people can’t afford such transformational tools, why not give it to them, especially when the poverty these people are in leads to death, illness, and starvation? You probably have never heard of free or discounted internet access, notebook computers, mobile phones for the elderly and poor families.

You obviously really hate single mothers. Yes, children of single mothers have poorer outcomes than those with two parents. Do you think single mothers enjoy giving their children less? Have you heard of the saying, mothers only want the best for their children? Why do you think that statement doesn’t apply for single mothers? Or do you think that statement is bullshit? Why are you totally against supporting single mothers so that they can be better able to care for their children? Is it what you see around you or online? Why is your first thought on snatching support from them instead of calling for ways to follow up on aid recipients to see what further help they need, or simply making them accountable?

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

part 2

No, I don’t have to give you a source, and I don’t have to give you further evidence. You can google that sentence yourself, find the reference or citation yourself, and read that study yourself. Is it that you are too lazy to google, or you can’t tell that that’s a copy pasted sentence?

No, I read your comment on HIV. As I state in my previous comment, there remains strong misconceptions on how HIV is transmitted and how condoms work to prevent transmission despite a few decades of free condoms and education. Being circumcised is indeed a serious measure to prevent HIV infections, it isn’t some Christian BS. Condom usage rates have barely budged, and HIV transmission is less likely with circumcision, a one-time decision.

From my previous comment: ‘When families can't afford education for all, they pay for the boys first since they are seen to be the future breadwinners for the family, and education can mean that they get paid more. While girls usually are required to complete household chores or take care of their younger siblings, also limiting their time to study in the first place.’ Did you not read that? You want to talk about laws, why are cultural customs and norms not good enough for you? Without enforcement, and enforcement IS weak, parents are going to follow their own beliefs.

Yes, I have read your explanation for low employment. ‘Males are the primary bread winners and so it is more important for them to have an education.’ So I say that things could be better with dual incomes. ‘Women are valued more than men’ Matriachal societies do not dominate in this world. Just because you see that men are being treated like trash doesn’t mean that 1) men are being treated like trash, or 2) women in LDCs are being treasured. have already written hints of a response. ‘

We are talking about LDCs. We have always been talking about LDCs. You can say that healthcare is generally meant for women. I am saying that an absence of healthcare, or poor healthcare, disproportionately affects women. This doesn’t just make sense in LDCs, have you not heard about women losing access to abortions, the morning after pill, a lack of access to IUDs, reluctance to give hormone pills to teenage girls? Do you think all women who don’t breastfeed are selfish fucks, or do you know that why we need lactation consultants and how many we don’t have?

No, poor women cannot leave their husbands. Women in LDCs stay at home to take care of kids and the house. They have had no experience in employment since marriage, and often have lower education in the first place. In fact, divorce in the first world isn’t easy on the woman either. Women are more likely to stay at home to take care of kids, and they would all suffer from a gap in their employment histories if they have kids. The wage gap is also real, if smaller than often claimed.

Again, we are talking about LDCs. Sex work is a last resort. How is that not true? When they haven’t made enough to pay for household necessities, or are meeting clients while starving, the decision isn’t so clear cut, especially when ‘there remains strong misconceptions on how HIV is transmitted and how condoms work to prevent transmission despite a few decades of free condoms and education’. But no, women do not have the ability to say no if the john says no condom. Men remain stronger and larger than women, and women have to charm their way out, or decide whether to take the chance and just give in, or probably get beaten up and raped for good measure. And in a street alley with his friends around?

You say that ‘sterility of environment where the babies are being born, general health and well-being of the mother, education or skill of doctor attending the pregnant women’ can account for maternal deaths. This is precisely why we ‘a women centred approach is needed when supplying basic health services needs’! We need to make sure that women are able to travel to medical facilities when they are about to deliver. We need to have midwives available to women and medical facilities, so they can support doctors during delivery. We need to have supplements available that are focused on maternal health.

You say education and responsibility. With what I read from you, I think you mean telling them to not have sex if they can’t afford to have children, and always have sex with a condom. We have cheaper and more reliable methods of contraception, beginning with the IUD, then the implant, the shot, and lastly the pill. If the old methods don’t work, we need to do better.

You want to talk about aid for men. Aren’t you the one calling for equal treatment? You know more men get injured in war. More men get killed in war. Who is going to receive the most medical support in the first place? Why are more men killed in war? Is it because they are soldiers? Men make better soldiers than women, who have to work even harder than men to reach similar capability. Is it because they are out looking for resources while their family hides at home? You know men are more likely to survive a fight in the streets, but if you are in the streets, you’re more likely to die.

A cursory search doesn’t reveal discrimination against men in refugee approvals. What I see is prioritising, in favour of those in greater need. Religious minorities and LGBT individuals are in greater danger if their status is made known to radicals. Families should be kept together if possible. Then we explore those with family in host countries. Single men remain dead last, yes, since even in a war-torn homeland, they are going to be better able to fight for survival. Whether it’s snatching up aid from helicopter drops, doing whatever heavy work is available, or signing up for the army, men have greater avenues for survival. No one is should be saying that single men don’t deserve refugee status, but other than reasons for survival, yes they are more likely to radicalise.

I don’t know what you mean by sticking my ‘foot in it soon after’. Specific aid is given because there is a need that general aid doesn’t fufill. Is there an unserved specific aid for men in LDCs with a similar magnitude to that of women? What can you come up with? Of course, you probably don’t believe that women in LDCs need specific aid, even after all I have wrote. Even though women have less education, less ability to earn a living without an education and the land rights they deserve, need more medical attention that they don’t get, are the ones who take care of children, especially after being widowed.

Pregnancy, that you deride so easily, is what created you and me. Only if you have no interest in your life whatsoever, if you say your own life is worthless, then you can say that pregnancy is worthless. Can you easily endure the discomfort, pain and agony incurred during your own gestation? Your analogy of women being able to get pregnant and deliver children while in a coma is completely ridiculous.

I did mean men’s rights. If you are going to be bitter and irrational about the disadvantages men face, don’t support men’s rights. Normal people read about reasons to support feminism and agree. Rich people, who didn’t get rich by being stupid, read about reasons to support feminism and agree, and pay for all these interventions here. What I have read here so far is an absolute intellectual disgrace, a disgrace to reading comprehension, a disgrace to argument, a disgrace to men’s rights. If I were to use this standard of debate to champion men’s or women’s rights, I am going to fail miserably, and I would deserve it!

I could call you a poor reader and a poor debater and an overall silly man. Or I could call you a bigot. I’ll take the latter.

Of course, I’m the bigger fool for writing 2750 words for you

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

TL/DR at bottom

"Women already are the main laborers on farms"

You didn't answer my question whether this was the case of not when I pointed out the contradiction in the link you gave. Why are you ignoring what I say?

"so they can use their education to improve methods to show village leaders that they can own their land too"

So can men with education, how are you coming to this conclusion that women will have some special knowledge by virtue of their sex?

"If both men and women are educated, the household can better decide who has a higher earning potential and who should stay at home"

While completing ignoring biology and the derived behavior. Women tend to choose the safer options, which includes being provided for by men and not working a formal job. In addition to this, statistics in the west have shown that women that make more than their man are dissatisfied and are more likely to divorce, thus causing more problems down the line. This is not an argument that we shouldn't let women earn more money but rather that we ought to knowledge the consequences.

Also concerning biology, men are more likely to work more often, longer hours, and take less time off. So in the majority of cases men will be the primary bread winner unless there is a concerted effort to change this as feminism is doing and what you seem to want to do. So if you really want that education to be the most cost efficient, men are the one's that should be the primary recipient.

"With intergenerational families, daughters can be the ones going to the city to make money and send money back instead of just the sons"

Why aren't the daughters doing this along the men? Hint, it involves biology and male disposability.

"When fathers die from HIV or malnutrition, further handicapping single mothers is the equivalent of sending them and their children to their deaths."

I'm wondering why you are arguing this now, as the campaigns you mentioned before prioritized women and children while I argued against their actions since it didn't benefit everyone. This is exactly what I said before and you ignored it.

"Do you care about people dying?"

Not particularly.

"Or maybe you don't care about giving single mothers support."

I really don't. It's treating the symptoms so it will only help short term and it encourages more behavior that leads to more single mothers needing aid. There's already a few ideas about the root of the problem but no one dares address in the main stream because it would be viewed as misogynistic.

"Do you support giving drug addicts clean needles"

Irrelevant.

"Or maybe you think it's sexist"

Why are you asking me this, you are the one calling me a misogynist so in your mind I already am sexist.

"Is an illiterate, uneducated woman going to be worse at parenting than a high school graduate?"

Not arguing that.

"You are showing some serious issues in reading comprehension here"

Show that to be the case rather than just assert it.

"you need to shut up and chill"

No.

"there are patriachal and matriachal societies"

The vast majority of which are patriarchal, the matriarchal ones (which men are still disposable and gender roles still near the same) are primitive shit holes. Perhaps this says something about women-dominated society.

"We have established that women are the farmers, and men own the farms and everything else."

The problem I have is the whole assumption that it takes all the men to own the farms. I would disagree that this is the case and also that the majority of farmers are women. The majority of hard labor jobs done in the U.S. are done so by men. Why would this change in other regions? Maybe most of the men are dying from something else so women would have to fill in those roles. So I'd rather see the data breakdown of the workers.

So I looked up the first source in the link you gave. They talk of a gender gap in agriculture, okay yes but there is a reason (women tend to not want to work hard labor jobs). However, as I said before they are pushing an agenda, stated from the source.

building a gender perspective into agricultural policies and projects has been made to seem more difficult and complex than it need be

Why do we need a gender perspective? We don't, it's only demagogues that try to push this shit. Either make the industry more efficient or gtfo.

"Access to the internet and mobile phones is called an investment"

So women are being denied this? Prove it.

"If people can’t afford such transformational tools"

Oh, that's convenient. First it's women that need the help and now you're conflating poor people with women. How about help everyone like I stated in my second comment. Nope, I'm a sexist misogynist.

"You obviously really hate single mothers"

I state negative consequences of single motherhood and that makes me hate them. Sure dude, this is why you're a joke.

"No, I don’t have to give you a source"

Of course not, you're the exception. You're special. If you try to argue that something is the case and don't provide any support I can dismiss it with as little evidence as you're providing.

"Being circumcised is indeed a serious measure to prevent HIV infections"

It's permanent harm for something that could be done with a condom. But I'm the hateful harmful person towards men's rights when you are justifying the mutilation of babies, good job hypocrite.

"‘Women are valued more than men’ Matriachal societies do not dominate in this world"

It's called gynocentrism, it doesn't need a matriarchy. Oh wait, you don't believe in biology and it's effects on how we behave. No wonder why you keep advocating that more and more needs to be for women while ignoring men, it's you exhibiting gynocentrism.

"Just because you see that men are being treated like trash"

Didn't say that, strawman harder.

"You can say that healthcare is generally meant for women."

Also didn't say that. Women use it more, men put more into the system.

"No, poor women cannot leave their husbands"

Yes they can idiot as no one is forcing them. They choose not to because they have no better deal lined up. Again, women as victim mentality, you have much in common with a certain ideology.

"Women are more likely to stay at home to take care of kids"

And many of them choose to do so when they have the option, again biology and your denial of it.

"Aren’t you the one calling for equal treatment?"

No, I'm not. I stated equal aid.

"Why are more men killed in war?"

It might have something to do with biology but again I'm repeating myself.

"A cursory search doesn’t reveal discrimination against men in refugee approvals. What I see is prioritising, in favour of those in greater need.?

Whom are? Women and children mostly. Fucking brilliant lack of observation.

"Your analogy of women being able to get pregnant and deliver children while in a coma is completely ridiculous."

No, it happened which I why stated it as a factual event. Giving birth isn't special, any monkey can do it.

"If you are going to be bitter and irrational about the disadvantages men face, don’t support men’s rights."

So if I'm upset about the treatment of men I shouldn't do anything to stop that. Makes sense. I suppose you shouldn't support women's rights because you are irate about their supposed mistreatment. Be consistent.

"I could call you a poor reader and a poor debater and an overall silly man. Or I could call you a bigot. I’ll take the latter.

Congratulations, you won! You sufficiently shamed me into silence and I'll never respond to you again because you are so superior.

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

I spent at least a hundred words trying explain to you that there is no contradiction, that women are the main laborers and men are the owners who get to decide how to sell what the women grow. Why are you ignoring what I say?

Men are already the owners of the farms, so they know how to run the farm. I already mentioned that we don’t have to be looking at making women the best farmers, but equipping them with the knowledge their husbands already have. So we don’t need to train the men, we need to train the women so they can take over if their husbands get sick or die.

Men who are able to leave the village to work already have a certain degree of education. If you want to further educate them, why not educate the women as well? It’s probably going to be easier to do than post-secondary, skills based education. As I have already said, educating women makes them better mothers too, especially since they are the primary caregivers for children.

You are using first-world Western examples here. I have always been talking about LDCs. If a woman causes tension with her husband, do you think he will not hesistate to resort to violence? Do you think the male village leaders, who have already discriminated against women by not allocating the land they are enititled to under post-colonial distribution, would be biased against the women? Do you think law enforcement is strong is these countries, or that law enforcement would bring in their cultural beliefs on how women should stay at home to care for the children?

Women know this bias, they are not going to threaten men by earning more, something that is not going to happen anytime soon since they would be the new demographic of workers, and new demographics get shafted. Not to mention educating a generation of women takes years and years.

So what if women work less hours? They are definitely going to work less hours in LDCs, since they have childcare and housework to do. If a women makes half that of their husband, that’s a 33% increase in household income right there. How much investment in post-secondary education is going to be needed to push men’s salaries to a similar amount? You are also forgetting that women are in a special position to work at home, doing sewing for example. And you obviously want to ignore the benefits of educated women in the household.

What we want to do is to give them an easier way to collect water, as I’ve already said, so that they have more free time to work. When your children are hungry despite how hard your husband works, are women going to just sit on their butts and relax for the rest of the time? You still forget, or refuse to understand, that women are the primary laborers on farmland already. They are not lazy here.

Why are women not going out to the cities? Because they don’t have an education! How are women going to compete with men with secondary education if they are illiterate in the first place? I have already been talking about why women don’t have an education, and I was talking about the benefits of giving women an education in this section.

For some reason, we have a lot of widows in LDCs, we don’t have a lot of single fathers. That’s why we have to support these people who are already widowed, that’s why we have to make specific measures that target them. I have talked about education for women, which can increase household income so that men and everyone in the family can have a better quality of life, preventing death and widowhood.

If you don’t care about people dying, you don’t care about poverty. Reducing deaths is one of the biggest goals here to reduce human suffering.

Look, if we don’t give single mothers aid, their children are going to suffer, and so would single mothers. It shouldn’t be a case of ‘you’ve made you bed, now lay in it’, when there is human suffering going on here, and when paying for interventions is going to increase tax revenue when families get back on track, and prevent expensive hospital visits and incarceration for mothers and their children. Contrary to what you believe, women aren’t going out there looking to get pregnant so they can take on the challenge of raising kids by themselves. If you want to talk about reasons why women become single mothers, we start at poverty and the incarceration of men who look to make a living, and not anywhere near misogyny.

Clean needles is a direct example of harm reduction. Supporting single mothers is another method of harm reduction.

This is saying that there aren’t many matriarchal societies in the first place, so probably women are being treated poorer than men.

The source has already stated that men are the ones who own the land rights to the farm. They own the farm. So we have a man who inherited land from his father, and his first and second wives and their children take care of it. Obviously not all men are going to own land, but men are already the ones more likely to get educated, so they can go out to find work.

Why do we need a gender perspective? Because we have widows in farming who could lose their livelihood, because women aren’t getting the land rights they deserve under inheritance and post-colonial distribution. I have already talked about this, and you have been unable to respond beyond ‘let the single mothers drown’ and NGOs pushing feminist agendas. The argument that NGOs are saying is that a feminist approach to solving poverty is the key to solve problems, and you have been repeatedly unable to properly rebut that.

Men are the ones likely to own mobile phones at least, since they use them to coordinate sales of harvests, and since they are the ones more likely to go out to the cities to work where mobile phones are essential. No one is banning women from owning this stuff, but what I am saying, and what should be obvious, is that women are more likely to be unable to afford this stuff. So that’s why it’s an investment to those who can’t afford it – women!

I’m the one who has been looking up statistics on refugee men because you brought that up. You are the one who can’t be bothered to look up something I mention. That’s lazy. But since you can’t be arsed to look it up, I googled the sentence I copypasted and its citation 62 here. And since you probably can’t be bothered to find that study yourself, the PDF is available here. And since you probably can’t be bothered to find where in the text 20 times is mentioned, I’ll quote it for you. “Both men and women use unearned income to reduce fertility and increase the probability that their children survive although the male in- come effects on survival are not significant. The absolute magnitudes of women's income effects are much larger than men's: almost 20 times bigger for survival rates in both the linear and quadratic models. The income pooling hypothesis is again rejected in all cases.” “The maternal income effects for both sons and daughters are much bigger than the effect of paternal income. (higher income effects on survival of children, mothers versus fathers) It may be wise for programs aimed at improving the healthiness of urban households in Brazil-and especially children-to take into account the suggestion that resources in the hands of mothers appear to have a bigger impact on household and child health than resources controlled by fathers.”

I know about the intactivist movement in first world nations. We don’t have rampant HIV going on here. There is a general knowledge that condoms prevent the spread of diseases here. As I have said before, condom use rates in African nations have failed to budge after years and years of free condoms and education, and there still persists misunderstandings that condoms actually help the transmission of HIV, and how effective they are at stopping transmission. Just like how vasectomy is an affordable way to stop pregnancy permanently, circumcision is an affordable way to significantly reduce the rate of HIV transmission permanently. Intactivist arguments don’t compare to the quality of life benefits of the large numbers of men and women who would be able to avoid the HIV infection so many of their countrymen have.

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

part 2

Men aren’t going to put much into the healthcare system in LDCs. Tax collection for the poor is barely practiced when it’s like squeezing blood from a stone. Whatever clinics available are either free or heavily subsidised for the poor.

Of course women won’t leave the husband if they don’t have a better deal lined up, not necessarily in terms a richer man as you may believe, but in the lack of skills she has to make a living for herself, because her parents couldn’t afford to pay for both her and her brother to go to school, because she has been staying at home doing housework and childcare for all her married life. What part of this is fake in LDCs?

I didn’t understand any of the complaining about biology until here. Childcare may be something women are more inclined to do, but can you say the same for housework? That’s a cultural convention for women to do housework. And when we are talking about women spending 60% of their day fetching water, that’s a lot of housework. If we can introduce community childcare, women would be able to go out and work for perhaps fewer hours. If we can maintain the wells built in the villages, women would be a lot freer to work. If we can bring jobs that women can do at home, like beading and leatherwork, women would be able to work while taking care of their children. These are not things I have not mentioned before. And again, women are not going to just stay at home and chill if they can take steps to give better nutrition to their family while remaining able to perform their duties for the household.

I have already given you some reasons as to why more men are killed in war. Those were reasons that were clearly rooted in their biology, like being soldiers or the ones to go out looking for resources. You have chosen to ignore this. I acknowledge that more men are killed in war, as a way to show that more aid is being given to them, who are more likely to be injured.

What I am saying is that prioritising for refugee approvals is not something rooted in feminism. As you are so fond of biology, I have already stated that women and children are in a worse position in wartime and are less able to survive. We help those least able to help themselves first before those who have more avenues to take care of themselves – men.

Of course giving birth isn’t a unique or special. Running a marathon isn’t unique or special either, but both pregnancy and a marathon involves many months of hard work and a whole lot of agony at the end, and we respect them for having gone through that. Of course women are able to do all that in a coma, that doesn’t mean that’s anywhere near the usual method of propagating the human species.

You still don’t understand why you shouldn’t talk about your support for men’s rights. It’s because you are doing such a piss poor job of doing so! If you were going to use your standard of reasoning when talking about some preference that women enjoy in society or some injustice that men face, you won’t be taken seriously. You could even further damage the reputation of men’s rights. I remain unimpressed by your lack of reading comprehension, especially when I have already explained how your reading comprehension sucks. Good luck trying to debate someone if you wilfully try to misunderstand what they try to say.

[–]profpoopybutt -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Canada from South Park under the rule of Canadian Donald trump sounds infinity better than the cuck's Canada

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

mr garrison fucking canadian trump was genius

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]Propaganda4Lunch -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's a punk bitch.

[–]Nine_Cats -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Nice points but you need to do stats as percentages of men and women, not percentages of who does what more with raw numbers. (Yeah yeah it should be 50/50 but it's still a poor way to present data.)

[–]Moonvie 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Considering the gender divide is around 50/50, I don't really see how your point is in any way relevant.

Could you elaborate?

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

The standard for statistics like this is "per 100,000 ____." Just better to stick with the standard.

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

It might not be the perfect list, but I still don't see your point. Using "per 100,000" is pointless, if you're not for example comparing USA statistics to some other country with different population size. All the statistics in that list are from USA.

Is it the percentages that give you hard time or what?

For example:

Suicides (2008) women - 7585 - 19% | men - 28450 - 81%

Means that out of ALL, 100% (36035), the suicides in the USA 100% (36035), men commit 81% (28450) of them. So out of 320mil people 36035 committed a suicide in 2008.

Unemployment rates (2010) women - 8.6% - 6,199,000 | men - 10.5% - 8,626,000

Means that out of the male workforce of 82,152,380 (100%) men, 8,626,000 (10.5%) are unemployed. USA population is around 320mil and they have around 160mil men. So around 80mil of their male population is retired/students/disabled/under 18 and so on.

The biggest problem is that the statistics are from USA and not from Canada.

[–]Nine_Cats -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't.. Isn't comparing us statistics to Canadian ones exactly what needs to happen with what I initially said?

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

Yeah the post isn't perfect. It still pretty clearly illustrates the point op was trying to make tho

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

Yep.

But for instance http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm it could even be hammered harder by the fact there's more women than men. Etc. It's an even bigger gap in the USA.

Clarity is always good. Especially when it's easy!

[–]ScumWithBoundaries -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why are the sources all 6+ years old?

[–]angrybastards -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't look at me. I didn't vote for him.

[–]OldSchoolNewRules -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So wait why does he think poverty is sexist?

[–]nihilist_denialist -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Huh. I had no idea sexism could only be unilateral.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trudeau is such a faggot.

[–]bumbuff -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most people facepalmed only a week after he got elected.

/r/Canada had a hard on for Trudeau and it deflated fairly quickly.

[–]theHawkmooner -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm disgraced to be a Canadian when this nut job is running the country

[+]Pelikahn -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can't let betas be in charge. They don't know what to do. Just look at Obama.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

to be fair canadians arent exactly known to be smart

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

Ignore Justin Trudeau puppet, direct your points and complaints to Gerald Butts his puppeteer or Sasha Trudeau his brother, talking to Trudeau directly is pointless.

I'm sure all the poor men out there will be horrified to learn that they're suffering is sexist again women!

For the love of the Gods, why did we have to elect a mysandrist himbo like Justin.

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

Because we all got so pissed off at the conservatives that were forgot how 40 years of liberal rule screwed up the country before. I guess we can blame this on Harper too?

Tldr he's not harper

[+]zappazappazappa -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

LMAO the /r/iamverysmart guy posting stats from the USA doesn't realize Trudeau is Canadian. Also I'm all for equality but 99% of those stats are irrelevant to the discussion. Looks like he just saw "something something feminism" on Facebook and couldn't think of anything more intelligent than his 4chan copypasta list. People like this are fighting against their own cause just like SJW's.

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

If you think this is how 4chan would respond, you should maybe actually go check 4chan out. Because that isn't how they react.

This is more like the Anti-SJW section of Tumblr, and this was just a barebones reply stating nothing but facts.

Also, if you think there would be a huge difference between Canada and the USA, then you'd be wrong. It might not be as bad in some areas (it could also be worse), but chances are they will be pretty similar, with men still getting the shitty end of the deal.

If you think disproving the crap that Feminists love to claim is "fighting against their own cause", then I have to ask what should have been done? Not show how full of shit these people are?

[+]Skarekrows -18 points-17 points-16 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I always have a good laugh when I see this subreddit. I'm pretty sure the bulk of the cringe subreddits are made up of you guys. So I thank you for the hours of entertainment.

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

For someone who supposedly only comes here to laugh, you sure are trying hard to make yourself look good. If this is your dose of entertainment, your life must be pretty pathetic.

Also by posting here, you have been automatically banned from many subreddits for wrongthink. Was it worth it? You could have used this comment to try and debunk some of the statistics, but instead you just shit all over the chess board and strut away triumphantly.

Whatever makes you feel good, pigeon.

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

http://i.imgur.com/bK2RG5N.jpg

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That dude is a piece of shit. I can't believe he won an election.

[–]ConnorBurnsRed -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trudeau is a disgrace. Just like his dad. I

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