Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman.

[+]Il128 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (577 children) | Copy Link

FTI there is a waiting list for men to get shelter in most cities. Women on the other hand get shelter immediately, regardless of space. Also, shelters that take women and children will exclude all men from entry when women and children are staying there.

So you've got a situation where 25% of the homeless getting shelter can and does prevent the other 75% from getting shelter even if beds are available. The glass bottom.

[–]MrChivalrious 1001 points1002 points1003 points 9 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[+]theskymoves points 9 years ago* [recovered] (50 children) | Copy Link

The "glass floor" flows better as it's a better opposite of ceiling.

[–]longshot 377 points378 points379 points 9 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

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

Having an ass made of glass sounds somewhat uncomfortable

[–]TheyCallMeGemini 149 points150 points151 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]joestorm4 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Thebig1two 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BluestBlackBalls2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DocPantsOnHead1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantumPCMR1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]joestorm41 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kevin69138 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]sprite_n_halo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]MaxC250 points 9 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I was born with a glass ass and paper skin.

[–]Circletwerk42 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Hyro0o01 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]befellen1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]harriharris1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jonathan9241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]derkman961 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

What about a glass power bottom? It generates a tremendous amount of power.

[–]longshot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]BedbugsCauseAutism2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GreenSnowday1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]temperate1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TaterNbutter1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YesItsthatbig1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Humulus_Lupulus19921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]funkymoose1231 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoDudeImScared1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]netizen5391 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskymoves1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pyromed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Anakin-Skyrunner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spight1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskymoves1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spight2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BSexclusionzone 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ULN5151 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Dirkef882 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FlameDragonSlayer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZS_11712 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sourceofgravy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 138 points139 points140 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]aquamansneighbor1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paulcole710-18 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman50 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]old_user_handle6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sam_Hoidelburgh 331 points332 points333 points 9 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlligatorDeathSaw 225 points226 points227 points 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mushy-shrimp0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallypoland 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]belhill19851 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fuckingnoshedidint1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bikemaul 84 points85 points86 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]workedog1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all-round-good-egg 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No, if you look at Figure 3 and surrounding info in your link to the stats, the 18% is for total "correctional population", which includes non-custodial probation and parole, as well as local jail and prison. So the 99% bit of hyperbole re prison population isn't too far off the actual ~94% figure.

edit: here's a more blindingly obvious source for anybody who can't be bothered reading the other source... https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

We could massively reduce prison population by not sentencing men to an average of 60% more prison time compared to women for the same crime with the same prior record...

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

... as well as focusing on opportunities for handing down non-custodial sentences for men, instead of just focusing on how to stop sending women to prison.

[–]Chava27 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Sourceofgravy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]i_am_penis 82 points83 points84 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]acesea 94 points95 points96 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]superbabe69 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most countries have laws dictating a man and woman in the same job should earn the same. That's the problem that HAS been solved.

Now? The complaint is "we don't have enough women CEOs" or "we don't have enough women engineers", while they conveniently forget industries like mining, electrical and manufacturing. All male dominated (mostly because they tend to demand a high risk for those who CAN lift heavy items let alone those who can't). Yet, I don't hear too many people saying we should hire more female factory labourers.

The pay gap does exist. As an average. But with the amount of SUPER high earning men, it's not a surprise. People like Gates push that gap so incredibly far out it's really not funny. But it's not called gender inequality. It's called rich people earning lots of money.

Yet, with the 1% owning like 99% of the wealth, and most of them being men, how is the pay gap only 20 or so percent? Because at the level 99% of people work, we all earn roughly the same, at least compared to others in our industry.

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

[–]SneakyPeaky9955 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]i_am_penis1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sewerrat931 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red_Raven2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]ArtificialConstant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JestyerAverageJoe1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NecroNarwhal 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]hubblespacepenny 66 points67 points68 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. They're pretty accurate. The fact that they seem ridiculous to you ought to tell you something about who controls the dialog.

Here are some sources (and minor corrections) for all the stats:

80+% of suicides: The 2015 CDC Suicide Datasheet pegs this at 77.9%.
80+% of homeless population: The 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress estimates that men account for 70% of the homeless population; other sources that better account for unsheltered (so called "hidden" homelessness) may peg this number higher.
99% of prison population: According to the Incarceration of women in the United States wiki page (yeah. they don't have a page for men), men account for 90.7% of the US prison and jail population.
99% of workplace deaths: The Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003-2015 report pegs this at 93%.

So ... yeah. It's real.

[edit] Please don't downvote the parent I'm replying to just for asking an honest question!

[–]NecroNarwhal2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeniusIComeAnon6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NecroNarwhal0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hubblespacepenny2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NecroNarwhal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hubblespacepenny1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NecroNarwhal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack3 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NecroNarwhal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]NecroNarwhal0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sam_Hoidelburgh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NecroNarwhal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sam_Hoidelburgh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]NecroNarwhal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallypoland2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sam_Hoidelburgh2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SneakyPeaky99551 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo77 1487 points1488 points1489 points 9 years ago* (264 children) | Copy Link

I do not have exact figures, but it is worth noting female homeless are at a huge risk for sexual assault. In fact, sexual assault is a large reason for homelessness among women. source Also, homeless people with children receive housing priority as well. I think we should really be talking about increasing resources for homeless people overall, rather than arguing without properly cited statistics. Even the original image doesn't give us a real sense of what's going on with homeless people. I would also remind everyone 40% of homeless youth are lgbt source. If you are concerned about homelessness in general please, please, please donate to your local shelters, because they are in need of help. I work in a hospital and see many homeless men and women come through. In general, they have low self esteem and think few non-homeless people care about them. Edit: " Of [female] victimized respondents, over half of the respondents (55.9%) had been raped" Edit: If people would like to help, you could donate to the National Coalition for the Homeless or if you would prefer to help more homeless men give to a veteran's org, because more homeless veterans are male.

[–]rurikloderr 105 points106 points107 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I also find it worth noting that males are at drastically increased risk of being the victim of literally every other violent crime there are statistics for. Homelessness increases the risks of every single crime by a lot.. some by magnitudes. It would reason then that men's risk of being the victim of every single violent crime increases drastically, probably sexual assault too. The number of men's shelters are in the single digits in most countries.

I'm not saying women don't deserve help, but what you just did was do what everyone always does whenever this shit is brought up. Maybe women deserve priority due to the unique risks associated with homelessness for them, but.. they already have priority. Why is it that women keep getting larger and larger slices of the pie when men suffer just as much?

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

We are animals with a big culture, but Nature is shaping the priorities under it. In the animal world, males are expandables. http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/ingenious-nick-lane

Females have the global prority (from a pure evolutionist point of view, because it works as a reproductive system).

This translates into our culture as well. Sure, females are "naturally" more the target of rape. Sure, there is the Male domination stuff, but males die far more in wars, take most of the risks (travel far away for instance), compete harshly the most for resources, die to impress females (even without knowing such as extreme sports), die far more in violence stuff, and male loosers are far more in big shit than female loosers, who can find far easier compassion everywhere and because females are more prone (it's deeply engrained, perhaps genetically) to be "socially empathic" than men.

[–]nipo77-12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part of gender inequality means that men and women will fair poorer in a variety of wellness indicators. The crude stereotypes about gender at the root of much of the inequality negatively impacts men as well. They have a higher suicide rate also. Some problems in this case homelessness benefit from not operating in a gender blind fashion. We cannot say that women "keep getting larger and larger slices of the pie when men suffer just as much." It's an issue that is too nebulous for us to make general statements like this. Do women have a higher burden put on them to not get violently attacked (not walking alone at night for example)? There are so many factors that influence a person's quality of life, even in the US there is huge regional variation in QoL that may trump gender differences for some.

[–]franklindeer25 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]breaktheglass2 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

"I do not have exact figures, but it is worth noting female homeless are at a huge risk for sexual assault."

Read

"Well most of the homeless may be men but the few homeless that are women have it worse."

Wouldn't want to lose that monopoly on victimhood.

[–]nipo77-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 574 points575 points576 points 9 years ago (170 children) | Copy Link

From your source:

A total of 78.3% of homeless women in the study had been subjected to rape, physical assault, and/or stalking at some point in their lifetimes. Of victimized respondents, over half of the respondents (55.9%) had been raped, almost three-quarters (72.2%) had been physically assaulted, and one-quarter (25.4%) had been subjected to stalking. These rates of victimization were much higher than the national average found in the National Violence Against Women Survey.

By comparison, when interviewers surveyed 91 homeless men for comparison, they found that 14.3% had experienced completed rape, and 86.8% had experienced physical assault. Over 90% of male respondents had experienced physical assault, rape, and/or stalking at some point in their lives.

If they used the definition of sexual assault consistent with VAWA, it excludes most forms of female perpetrated rape thus excludes most male victims.

If you are concerned about homelessness in general please, please, please donate to your local shelters, because they are in need of help.

Until you people clean house and stop creating a hierarchy of victims, nope.

[+]MaritimeMonkey points 9 years ago [recovered] (63 children) | Copy Link

Until you people clean house and stop creating a hierarchy of victims, nope.

You could just donate to shelters for men or places that provide warm meals. It's better than doing nothing because you perceive the action of some to be wrong.

[–]PooSnatchMcNobGoble 222 points223 points224 points 9 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]hubblespacepenny 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shadowvines 95 points96 points97 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]stationhollow points 9 years ago* [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Many are actively protested by feminists for not helping women and shut down i know thats what happened to the local mens shelter near me.

[–]Shadowvines 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeFace13-14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JakeFace131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JakeFace13-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JakeFace13-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JakeFace131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Could you give a name or source?

[–]gblue33 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Regular shelters usually tend to be "shelters for men" since women go to women-only shelters.

[–]PooSnatchMcNobGoble 256 points257 points258 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashooner8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neijo7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DMPDrugs30 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulbandaid13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neijo8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nikolausgillies4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]speaksamerican0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red_Raven5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neijo-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, you are just creating barriers on what you can and cannot do, and it's bullshit.

If you dont have any money you can crowdsource and ask people to support a charitable thing. Try to create some viral stuff like the ice bucket challenge.

Don't expect the government to particularly care for you or anyone else. Yeah, this is hyperbolic but has some merit. They don't come down to your apartment and ask you if you are contempt with how the country is run. They run their shit and sometimes listen to us.

If you want shit done, fuck the government. They are tax-ineffective as fuck and will at best give each homeless person a bottle of water to be able to say "we tried".

If you were going to make a shelter for men, feminists could try and do whatever, but you will find that many arent that extreme like we see on this subreddit, if they create a fuss, fuck them. What can they do? Piss on your property? fucking put a restraining order on them. They have no power at all. Rest assured the majority of feminists have a moral compass and a job and are just like us, the majority isn't insane.

Fucking do what you want to do.

[–]Red_Raven3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah yes. Because I have enough free time to get a men's shelter running, and that's exactly what I'd want to do with my free time if I had that much.

NO. I DO expect the government to treat people equally. It's the fucking government. Its JOB is to take care of shit like this so citizens don't have to worry about it! I'm going to be a tax payer, and I have a right to demand that the government to it's god damn job.

Obviously they do more than give out water because shelters for women exist.

Yes, because the government has SUCH a good track record of fairly punishing feminists when they attack things that represent men's rights. I don't believe that the majority of feminists are good ones. The majority of women are good. But if there is a majority of good feminists out their, they seem to be REALLY FUCKING OK with what bad ones are doing, because I NEVER hear them call other feminists on their bull shit. The ONLY good feminists I know are Christina Hoff Summers and a few fandoms on Tumblr. The rest seem to be content to let bad feminists demonize us.

You're right. It is up to me to choose what I do with my life. But I shouldn't have to set aside my career just to get a single men's shelter running, and doing so shouldn't be an uphill battle. I have every right to hold my government accountable for its blatant misandry.

[–]Bababooey2471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nikolausgillies-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]klcna 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Energy_Turtle 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aksoullanka1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razor12323 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]movesIikejagger2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gunter_heimlich2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DogButtTouchinMyButt2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taquitochocolatemilk2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sprite_n_halo2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Negativeskill2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Slowhandpoet1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 66 points67 points68 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

They're basically saying its only sexual assault only matters if it happens to women and assault (of any kind) against men is apparently not an issue.

Why? because women are special.

I don't see feminists protesting this any time soon, but it really sounds like a class action law suit waiting to happen.

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

[–]PacoBedejo2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]daguy111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]poopscrote1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]khanfusion 59 points60 points61 points 9 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 80 points81 points82 points 9 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]khanfusion 81 points82 points83 points 9 years ago* (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 82 points83 points84 points 9 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyIronicName 88 points89 points90 points 9 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 100 points101 points102 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxzf 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyIronicName-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Munchausen-By-Proxy6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Munchausen-By-Proxy 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Kalcipher2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kalcipher1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No it doesn't. It includes ANY penetration "no matter how slight" with objects, fingers as well as a penis.

Either way, we can still infer that if female pepetrators forcing men to penetrate somebody is not counted, about 4.4million victims are excluded in that definition.

You mean females forcing males to penetrate THEM. But it also doesn't count men forcing men for penetrate either.

True, hence even the number I arrived at is a conservative estimate.

Wellllll.. no there's no good reason to think it translates from the general to the homeless.....

It's called a base rate. I could not think of a specific reason to find it more likely that homelessness would increase or decrease rape of men compared to rapes of women, so my assessment as a weighted average according to a probability distribution should match the baserate. If you have an insight about why homelessness changes this ratio, and for some reason have not mentioned it already, I encourage you to do so.

you can't do that with an average.

Yes you can. Statistics would be pretty useless if you cannot apply them to a subset of the group sampled.

That's the sort of thing feminists do.

That's an ad hominem fallacy, and I will have you know that most ideologies have a tendency to twist statistics to support their agenda, not just feminists.

[–]sprite_n_halo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]typhonblue8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, yes you do. Interesting, since you can literally hit parent and re-read it.

I didn't say you misquoted or misrepresented NIPSVS's stats. I said the source you used is not making the same claim as the one you were asked to source. That's not stating EITHER claim is false. It's pointing out you shifted the goalpost, which is dishonest and detrimental to honest discussion. Not to mention unnecessary considering we're already in mens rights, you don't have to convince us men get fucked over through goalpost shifting in the first place.

That's some faulty logic. It assumes that most male rape is perpetuated by women.

Statistically it is.

You're going to have to source that one, because I'm pretty sure the actual stats say otherwise.

That is the claim that was asked to be sourced. Male rape is NOT only being made to penetrate. The stat you gave is only about made to penetrate. They are not the same claim. Is this seriously that confusing to you? Or is this one of those things where you think admitting anything was imperfect somehow destroys the entire argument so you think you can't admit a mistake?

And again, NOTE: I am not saying your claim is false. I am saying what you provided as a citation does not back up the claim you were asked to back up. "The sky is blue." "Prove it" "Here's proof grass is green." I'm not saying the sky isn't blue, I'm saying showing the grass is green isn't proving it.

And adding NEW information doesn't change that you didn't provide it in the first place, and is irrelevant to what I'm saying, because I am not questioning the stat itself. Which I feel I can't really be any clearer on, but suspect will be what you reply about anyway.

Can you acknowledge that your original source did not actually provide a source for what you were asked about?

[–]typhonblue5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This proves that statistics that exclude female perpetration of rape against men significantly undercount male victimization.

WHICH IS NOT THE CLAIM YOU WERE QUESTIONED ON YOU FUCKING DISHONEST JACKASS.

"Sky is blue" "Prove it" "Grass is green" "That's not what you were asked about." "Yea well, sky is blue and I proved grass is green, I'm right, lalalalalalalalalalalalalalALALALALALALA can't hear you!"

Original goalpost: "It assumes that most male rape is perpetuated by women."

New goalpost: This proves that statistics that exclude female perpetration of rape against men significantly undercount male victimization.

"But I proved my NEW goalpost!!!!"

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

You LITERALLY just got in a fight with some feminist bigot about how people use fallacious bullshit, and then you sit here and use that fallacious bullshit and give them ammo? Fuck you. Stop being lazy with your arguments.

[–]Alphabet_Bot4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oldini2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because I am not questioning the stat itself.

I said it multiple times. I bolded it. How can you STILL not know it?

Simple, you obviously aren't actually reading what's said. Try again bro. I'm not wrong. You're responding to something I never said.

Not only are you responding to something I didn't say. You're responding to something I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY so hard that I even made sure to explicitly, in bold, point out that's not what I'm saying.

So most rapes of men are perpetrated by women is accurate.

So lets just try to be fucking claer on this, shall we?

I am not questioning the stat itself.

Do you see it yet?

[–]Oldini1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not questioning the stat itself.

What part of that sentence is confusing you? It's irrelevant bro, I'm not questioning the statistic. Can you not read?

And again, NOTE: I am not saying your claim is false. I am saying what you provided as a citation does not back up the claim you were asked to back up. "The sky is blue." "Prove it" "Here's proof grass is green." I'm not saying the sky isn't blue, I'm saying showing the grass is green isn't proving it.

How much clearer can I possibly be that I AM NOT QUESTIONING THE STATISTIC. I'm pointing out the stat he responded with didn't support the claim, it was incomplete. You're trolling, right? Because as I said elsewhere, I've literally explained this concept to literally mentally retarded children. Just because he gave A STAT doesn't mean it was one that supported the claim made.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zipwithcaution-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]glimmearth 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]labrat42015 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]labrat4201 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shbro11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shbro11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oldini2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oldini1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oldini2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oldini1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CallingOutYourBS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You were asked about all rape. You replied with some. Either answer what was asked, or don't pretend you did. Don't reply with a stat that doesn't actually source what you were asked to source. It's not that confusing.

Beat this into your head.

You were asked about ALL rape to men, you only replied about "made to penetrate."

Yes, that's what they exclude. That's not what you were asked. YOU made a claim, you were asked about that claim, not "what did they exclude."

I gave you a fucking example, dude. How is this too confusing for you? "The sky is blue" The claim. "Prove it." the request. "The grass is green." The response. It doesn't matter that both the claim and response are true, that's not proving the claim.

You were asked about ALL RAPE. You showed ONLY about a subset a rape. A subset that conveniently ignores getting fucked in the ass by another man without consent. Since you were asked about ALL RAPE in the context of gender prevalence, ignoring a big ass set of rape that is obviously going to be done more by men is clearly not a complete answer, is it?

Considering we're literally talking about the problems with narrowly defining rape, talking about only a subset when asked about all of rape is a pretty fucking obviously dishonest move, don't you think? Just because it's in defense of your side doesn't excuse dishonesty.

I don't know how I can spell this out to you any clearer. I have literally taught this concept to literally mentally challenged children, and you're saying you still can't understand it? Willful ignorance is an impressive thing I suppose...

I've disabled inbox replies. Say what you want, last word is all yours. But please man, fucking put your ego aside and reread this without the investment in protecting yourself from being wrong.

[–]Graham_R_Naughtsy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Waking 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Third, do you really believe that women-on-men rape is going to account for the enormous discrepancy?

Yes, since women constitute the majority of those who rape men. Somewhere between 60-80% which means the male number could be 60%-80% higher.

They say 55.9% of women had been subject to rape, which in most surveys seems to include completed, attempted and drug facilitated.

They say 14.3% of men experienced completed rape. I don't know if these two statistics are comparable, because they could be measuring two completely different things--the female number inclusive of completed, attempted and drug facilitated while the male number is just completed rape--but even if they are...

Removing 60-80% of the rape men experience means that 14.3% could be more like 35.75-57.2%.

they come up with a modified question list for men and do not even use VAWA

How is it modified? Further I'm not saying they based it on VAWA, I'm asking if they based it on VAWA's survey methodology which excludes most forms of rape of men by women.

[–]Waking1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue18 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mad4madmen0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Considering one of your main points is based on women having significant priority over men to have access to places that even have a caretaker, that's not a valid argument. This is where people get confused and spread bs facts. This study is an older, but straightforward analysis of Homeless Victimization - (Kushel et al., 2003). The very most it says is this - "Among women, housing status was strongly associated with sexual assault"..."For men, there was no association between housing status and sexual assault", which is the main reason women are a primary concern. Rape & homelessness > homelessness alone seems to be the rationalization. Not saying that's right or wrong, just what the bias is. "9.4% of women, 1.4% of men, and 11.9% of transgendered persons reported sexual assault", meaning only 1.4% of homeless men are fully raped, not physically or sexually assaulted. "32.3% of women, 27.1% of men, and 38.1% of transgendered persons reported a history of either sexual or physical assault in the previous year", meaning that Trans persons are actually the most assaulted group overall. The sample size is 2577 persons (identifying as either man, woman, or transgender for the study) from San Francisco who are homeless, so take this with a grain of salt. The next issues are particularly bothersome- "In contrast to sexual assault, men were as likely as women to report incidents of physical assault", why isn't this as significant as being raped? Surely both are equally as horrible to endure and recover from. "There is little research on sexual and physical victimization among homeless men", meaning we obviously need more research done before we even have an argument about any of this. Homeless men are indeed being overlooked. If anything, I would assume the argument would trend towards those who identify as Transgender to "be more deserving" of help since they seemed to be victimized the most. Also, "A variety of factors appear to place homeless persons at high risk of victimization: lack of protective shelter, proximity to high-crime areas, engagement in high-risk activities (such as sex work) history of previous victimization, mental illness, and substance abuse." Use facts please instead of making incorrect remarks and potentially spreading biased information.

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mad4madmen0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fairly obvious twisting of words for desired outcome not based on evidence or sourcing. Please read the statistics and source material instead of citing one "source" not related to my rebuttal. How homeless individuals experience sexual and physical assault is what I was replying to, not averages for normal individuals and I not once mentioned hate crimes. I only referenced sexual and physical assault statistics of homeless individuals. I hope I went on and on about sexual assault since that's what I was addressing. Please do pay attention, it's necessary to always pay attention before shooting off a reply. You would have noticed that I agreed with you that male rape is overlooked since I said it above, but I'll requote it since you missed it. "There is little research on sexual and physical victimization among homeless men", meaning we obviously need more research done before we even have an argument about any of this. Homeless men are indeed being overlooked. Please please pay attention.

[–]devildog8886 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let's assume that rape for males was underreported and half-again as many were raped, so out of the 91 surveyed, 5 of them didn't report their sexual abuse or it was denied by the way the questionnaire was laid out. Surely we can agree that male rape has a tendency to get underreported by standard questionnaire methodology. This puts us at approximately 1 in 5 homeless males being sexually assaulted, which is still a significant number and even if it's not, you're arguing that 1 in 6 isn't a significant factor.

That being said, homeless women do get sexually assaulted more. And if 20% of homeless men are assaulted (75% of the homeless pop) and 50% of a quarter of the homeless population are women who are being sexually assaulted, these statistics might just be saying that a base level of homeless population is sexually assaulted, no matter the sex of the individual, strange though that might be.

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

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

[–]TheOriginalRaconteur1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wentthruurhistory2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo77 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand how vawa can exclude female perpetrated rape. Looking at the definitions in VAWA here, the focus is on what is done to the victim and they use "people" or "he or she" consistently, as to what constitutes rape, not by whom the rape is perpetrated. No one is trying to downplay the violence that people who live on the street must endure, but from my understanding from stats and personal experience ~~female~~, female homeless have a huge huge risk of rape and sexual assault if they are not sheltered. And keep in mind these statistics take into account that homeless women receive priority shelter and have for several decades. Yet, their risk is still higher than that of men. If you are truly interested in homelessness, there are many books written on this subject. They may be enlightening as to why there appears to be favoritism of one group over another. I suspect that the networks of publicly and privately funded non-profits (many overburdened volunteers and social workers) that shelter the homeless have evolved a system to protect the greatest number of people from physical harm. That is the most we can do in the current environment of funding and attitudes towards the homeless.

[–]typhonblue 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]nipo772 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]piar12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm unclear of the exact nature of her criticism. Is the criticism, female homeless are not at a significantly higher risk of rape and sexual assault? Or is the criticism that this established higher risk is not grounds to ensure women receive preference when these orgs provide help? In general, I am uncomfortable blaming these orgs without understanding the exact nature of the problem they face. Many people do not even realize that homelessness includes people living in the houses of non-direct relatives, temporary housing, pay by the week hotels, and other scenarios. So I object to politicizing one aspect of a vast, serious issue. I think its wonderful that people feel strongly about ending homelessness, and the most productive thing is to donate time and money to an organization that is consistent with your own values. Edit: if you would prefer to help men only, maybe you could donate time to an org that works with homeless veterans? I believe they are majority male.

[–]eohorp1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lincolnsarolling1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noprotein1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parabox11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]King_Turnip1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frandrecherslaugh-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frandrecherslaugh0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rhetorical_Robot 183 points184 points185 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]rkk2 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShitpostiusMaximus 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]0OOOOOO0 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]RedL45 points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Logistically, the most effective way to stop rape is to start giving consent.

/s

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

[–]0OOOOOO01 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Chibibaki0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hyperion513 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]devildog8883 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hyperion511 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheOriginalRaconteur 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]people_are_shit 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]shbro11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]people_are_shit2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shbro11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]people_are_shit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shbro12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The victim does need to be penetrated, but not just vaginally, or anally. Being orally penetrated by a 'sex organ' counts, too. A penis need not be the only culpable appendage, when it comes to vaginal or anal penetration, which can explicitly be done with any body part, or object.

There is another provision in the Victorian statute which explicitly includes the act of causing sexual penetration against consent in the overall definition of rape, so 'made to penetrate' would be defined as rape, too.

Yet another provision covers the event where consent for sexual penetration is withdrawn during the act, yet the perpetrator continues to sexually penetrate the victim. This would cover a scenario where, for example, a woman continues sexual intercourse with a man who wants to pull out before cumming, and, yes, vice versa.

There would most likely be similar additional provisions in the US-based legislation you cited, too. I'd be fairly surprised if there weren't, but imma not find out for sure, because law is a 'wrong read' for me too!

[–]people_are_shit2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shbro12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Meant long read.

Ah! I thought it may have been an expression I'd never heard before.

Honestly though do you not think it is unlikely for a woman to penetrate a man?

Yes. The original definition of rape would have made it impossible for a woman to be found guilty of the crime, but it also made it impossible for a male who forcibly penetrated another male anally to be found guilty of the crime. It was insufficient to provide equitable justice to victims of sexual assaults which didn't fall into only one narrow category - male on female forced vaginal penetration - hence, the current, expanded definition, which now refers to fingers, mouths, objects and anuses as well, instead of only referring to penises and vaginas.

Although it's not common to hear of a woman being charged with rape based purely on her penetration of a non-consenting other by her fingers, mouth, or an object, it is still necessary to allow for the possibility of such in the legislation.

I don't think an erection = consent.

No, which is why there is a separate provision for the case of the victim being forced to penetrate, rather than being penetrated by force. "Made to penetrate" can mean by a male or female perpetrator, so gender neutral. It's known as [Rape by compelling sexual penetration] (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s39.html) in the Victorian Crimes Act. I'm not sure if this is a universally accepted concept across different common law jurisdictions, however. If not, it should be! Or at least something similar.

[–]people_are_shit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bteh 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOriginalRaconteur-8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheOriginalRaconteur-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MolochHASME1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wadriner 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Wadriner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Wadriner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]mostlyrelevant-25 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheyCallMeGemini15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nayr7472 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mostlyrelevant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nayr7471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFuckYou 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]nipo77-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFuckYou7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo770 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Outside of gender, there are different kinds of homelessness--living in cramped apt with 10 people, pay by the week motel etc. People also face different issues, substance abuse, mental illness, escaping abuse etc. I think there are a large number of battered women's shelters for instance. It's my understanding that these orgs determine ~~who~~ whom to shelter based on these criteria, but facilities are either male only or female only, so they aren't in a position to discriminate based on gender. You could argue that more shelters should exist for men, there is nothing wrong with that. These facilities have to apply for grants and solicit donations like all of the other non profits. It seems like these orgs do their best to assess need based on the pressing needs of each person, and immediate threat to well being based on risk of sexual assault is a real part of that determination.

[–]AFuckYou6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo77-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFuckYou3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo77-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFuckYou6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo772 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are not adequate services for anyone, and why how can the US afford to spend billions of dollars on military equipment and a border wall, while there are roughly 500,000 homeless people in the US. It is not a gender issue, it is matter of national priorities. The easy solution is to increase social spending, because you can make a huge impact with very little money. I am not going to say x group is more deserving of service than y group, because every person deserves help--but state and city governments have shifted the burden to nonprofit orgs who pick up the slack literally out of the kindness of their hearts. Social services are very different than other gender equality issues, because at the end of the day no one should have to risk death or trauma. So the simple answer to this issue is vote to increase state funding and help all people who are being unfairly squeezed!

[–]AFuckYou7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo772 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Long comments are necessary to explain things that are complicated. On a different note, people who believe strongly in theories such as feminism or Men's Rights might benefit from Narrative Identity theories. Your identity/personality is not just traits like shyness, openness. People tend to create a "story" or narrative for their life, like always struggling for a parent's approval or feeling like they have been neglected or mistreated by the people around them. I think that sometimes Men's Rights gives people evidence that their own personal "narrative" is true. For any person it is hard to consider evidence that contradicts their "narrative" view of themselves and the world. I would urge people to try to understand how their own personality and biases might prevent them from making sense of the world around them. Some things that seem true to you, do not to other people. Very likely both people have let their own personality and biases cloud their judgment of what is going on. There may be no trend where we see a trend. And the trend may be the opposite-- its hard to objectively know. This is something that I try to think about with regards to these kinds of debates.

[–]AFuckYou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LOL_HRC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]codman606 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]codman6060 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Mors_imperator2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo772 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mad4madmen0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BucketsofDickFat2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Supertech462 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Willdiealonewithcats2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm also wondering if it's less about broad statistics and more about the severity of some of the risks that face women and young girls who are homeless - forced prostitution, sexual slavery and the odd serial killer.

Compared to broad rape, abuse, etc, these incidences are statistically low. But due to the severity of them push people to fund women's shelters to get women off the street. Like the Australian reaction to terrorism, 2 people killed on Australian soil, and we have spent millions policing the risk.

In this scenario it's less a homeless men vs homeless women, but protecting women from external factors, not other homeless men.

All in all it does take us away from the important point, the vast majority of developed nations do too little to help their homeless, and they can afford it. I'd also say funding has to go into mental health, that has been the biggest issue in Australia. They have defunded mental health and invested in 'home care', which of course just meant a lot of people unable to take care of themselves were pushed out onto the street. Criminalising using drugs and defunding rehabilitation programs created a second wave of homeless addicts.

[–]PointFiveOhms1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nipo772 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DolphinsAreOk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mykeru1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Throwabanana691 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReachFor24-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I stumbled on here from /r/all. I didn't know the subreddit until after I read the post. I went into the comments expecting something civil and logical. Nope, just everyone jerking each other off about women who "get all of the perks". I see your comment is gilded, read it, and it's probably the most logical thing on here. Nobody should be stuck on the streets. You ask for people to donate time or money if you want to help with homelessness, and then the replies are people bitching about how the statistics are wrong because of the definition of "sexual assault" and "rape". Then there's the person who decides a pepe meme is a good way to show a response to the homelessness stat on LGBT youth (cough cough /u/codman606 cough cough). No input but a laughing pepe. Wow. Much class.

And yes, there is some bullshit about how the law is written and how society treat men, but there is bullshit with every group. Women are severely underrepresented in Congress and local legislatures (2013 had 18.3% of Congress seats held by women and 24.2% for local legislature). Wikipedia Article on gender inequality in the US

But responders try to undermine the sources, but the fact is nobody should be stuck on the streets. Male, female. White, black. Straight or not. It doesn't matter who you are. You should not have to be stuck on the streets. And spending time to help people stuck on the streets instead of coming up with ways to undermine the main point because you don't believe in the stats is much better for you and society.

[–]orcscorper7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]codman606-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Society does need homeless people though, it requires it. Sorry to break your "Everyone desearves equal and fair treatment! Life should be fair and we should all try and make sure those people who do literally nothing with their lives but sit outside and hold signs get the help they need!!!!!" bubble. Believe it or not,life actually isnt the same for everyone! (crazy right). There are actually some poeple on this planet who are homeless that are not worth a second of anyones time, yet are being kept alive through petty offerings and shelters. I am not saying that there should be more homeless people or anything of the sort, and there are definitely hardworking and desearving men who are homeless. However, life should never be easy, life should never be given on a silver platter and we should never chase utopia. There must be those few who cannot even make the bare minimum and be forced to live upon the streets, its like a cruel payment that must exist so luxeries and wealth can exist as well. This is the hard truth to living in a Capitalism Economy that aquiring more wealth directly translates to power and worth. There should be a small amount of people homeless in society (and there always will be) and laughing at homeless LGBT Teens is fucking hilarious.

[–]ItsBabySheep-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IAmA_Cloud_AMA 40 points41 points42 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IHateKn0thing15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IHateKn0thing3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not really, I presented the plan to my doctor, which I got from asking /r/asktransgender and she capitulated because it's basically par for the course form people like me. We started on 100 Spiro, 2 Estradiol, and worked my way up to 300/4, and the shelter doesn't need to absorb the cost of the hormone supplements if they are handled through Medicaid or ACA. The doctoral visits and blood tests are covered.

Like, rather than rule me out as an edge case, accept that my experience is pretty par for the course. Fun fact, it's cheaper to give us the pills we need to stay sane than it is to try to clean up the effects of constant pain like dysphoria on our mental health. I'd personally would give up a few meals if it meant continued medical treatment, but at least try to recognize such a choice is inhumane to force onto an individual.

[–]IHateKn0thing6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IHateKn0thing6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well... I've see the places you talk about. There's these group homes, where you stack 4 people in a room. And there's the shelters that kick you out at six in the morning and lock the doors at 5 so you have to sleep in the bushes if you want to work any reasonable hours, though that's reserved for the old or mentally ill that can't get through the paperwork to get into those group homes. As far as food, you make the rotations. The various church groups provide you with sandwiches for listening to their stories. Oh, and you can use SNAP to buy some snacks at the 7-11.

So, it's a little silly to think it's like a one stop shop if a shelter is gender exclusive. And uh, there's some things girls do that guys don't have to deal with, and if you're sleeping with 3 other people in the same room, it's best all four of you are on the up-in-up.

[–]sneakpeekbot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IAmA_Cloud_AMA1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]all-round-good-egg 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FatSputnik0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco 298 points299 points300 points 9 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link

Women on the other hand get shelter immediately, regardless of space. Also, shelters that take women and children will exclude all men from entry when women and children are staying there.

Hi there, I work in a homeless shelter and have volunteered in the past. The amount of times I receive calls from women looking for shelter that have already been turned down by the few resources in the area they can stay is sobering. I know two of the places available to women do have waiting lists. Also, we do have two shelters that allow men to stay in them even if their are women and children staying in them.

Also, we don't have a waiting list for men, we have on average 30 empty beds, or more, at any given time.

It doesn't fit the narrative, I know, but I like to support my stances with facts.

[–]Rumblet4 161 points162 points163 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]rhose32 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Rumblet4 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]LickMyBloodyScrotum2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BestGarbagePerson2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Best of luck to you. I have to say it took me at least 5 years to get back to a "normal" from being homeless even for 4-5 months. I had PTSD from some of my experiences (like for real, night terrors, sleep with the light on, panic attacks where I throw up instantly and forget where I am just from a certain smell etc). I was not interested in sex for 3 years afterwards (totally 100% no-fap celibate), nor did I cry one single tear for that time either. (This actually worried me and was an aspect of my PTSD - I could not cry, even after seeing a dog literally get run over in the street in front of me.) But now I have to say I am very grateful to be alive and grateful I got out of it less hurt than I could have been (no drugs helps - I've never once touched anything stronger than weed, DON'T DO IT!) I am doing well as the lead manager for a 15 million dollar business, my finances are improving, I have a 3 year anniversary with my SO coming up, and I am now an avid rock climber. Stay strong, and be patient. Do not berate yourself for your feelings and/or how long it may take for you to get out of that hole - believe in yourself. You will!

[+]racast5 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (43 children) | Copy Link

~~facts~~

Anecdotes. I don't have an opinion one way or the other in this matter. I don't know anything about shelters. But call things what they are.

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

You are literally complaining about someone responding with an anecdote to someone who gave an anecdote.

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

Yeah, but the first poster wasn't super smug about how they had "facts." They may both be anecdotal, but I think the callout was still warranted, given the smugness of second poster and all.

[–]Wadriner 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]kalimashookdeday2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Stenanosaurus points 9 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes it was. It claimed that women get instant access to a homeless shelter.

[–]racast5 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]chinawinsworlds3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty472 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco-22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dparse48 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]burkechrs14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CAW43 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jklvfdajhiovfda3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lurked45 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]racast526 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]col_stonehill-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Il1289 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rouseco 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]rouseco 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chandarrr2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted]-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]legion3273 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]magnora7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

I also volunteer at a local year-round night-only shelter, and at one of our city's three emergency cold-weather winter shelters (all of which are also night-only shelters). The halfway house for women fleeing domestic violence and the halfway house for men transitioning back after prison are both professionally staffed & take donations but don't need volunteers.

The year-round shelter is most likely to turn men away for being drunk or high when they try to check in. It's a sober shelter, as are 2 of the 3 emergency winter shelters. I've never seen a man turned away because there were women or families present. I've seen both men and women turned away for being visibly inebriated. In bad weather, the cops come and take drunk or high people to the ER. Shelter staff can't handle the health and hygiene issues presented by drunk or high clients.

I don't know where this person is getting their information. Family shelters do exist, or, like in our year-round facility, there's a separate area for families that is separate from the men's and women's dormitories.

[–]all-round-good-egg2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mstwerkalot5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all-round-good-egg2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all-round-good-egg6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty472 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]edgy15yearold 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oofta31 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnblurredLines 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]oofta31-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnblurredLines16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oofta31-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnblurredLines12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oofta31-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnblurredLines12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oofta311 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnblurredLines1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oofta311 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, what about children? Why should they get preferential treatment? Just because someone is 30, does that mean they don't deserve housing?

Seriously, listen to how ridiculous that argument is. It's appalling. Again, you are framing the issue as if we are willfully choosing to leave men out to die while vacant warm beds are available. They aren't available.

I understand the point you are making. If homeless men received the same amount of attentionand resources that women did then there wouldn't be such a disparity. However, we only have a finite amount of money and resources to devote to the issue of homelessness, so unfortunately we have to prioritize in terms of most vulnerable. Does that mean homeless men are not vulnerable? No. So please do not try and insinuate I am suggesting otherwise.

[–]UnblurredLines1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Murdorkhan9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PixyFreakingStix5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]xxgodlike1xx 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CanucksFTW1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noregretstomorrow3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women on the other hand get shelter immediately, regardless of space.

Women and children's health is more complicated and urgent than men's health -- why are you acting so dumb. Literally ask any doctor and they will tell you the same. There is a public health interest in showing priority to women and children, not a political one.

Regardless of your numbers there are too many homeless people and not enough beds, period. If they started making men priority there would still be too many men sleeping in the cold. So I don't know why you think your pithy "glass bottom" observation is helping anything. Maybe stop trying to divide people along gender lines for no reason other than to get attention. You know as well as everyone that it's "women and children first" and I don't need to tell you the reasons. Is this really what insecure men spend their time complaining about? Now you're victims again because homeless shelters are sexist? Bitch please. Act like a real man and grow a pair, will you? Real men put women and children before them, they don't call time-out and whine like babies.

This is the main reason none of you can get laid, FYI

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

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

[–]rebelized39 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

I'll quote my two sisters "Worst case scenario if I can't get a good job, I'll get a rich husband" They constantly say this....That must be nice! Always have a safety net...

[–]Boopy7771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]sunal135[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]recently_resurrected2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hunguponthepast2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheAmazingBunbury2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stephen2awesome2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mr_royale1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PillowTalk4201 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jpapex1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FauxBoho1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kasliw1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoubleUnderscore1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BestGarbagePerson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Formerly homeless woman here. This whole thing pisses me off so much. YES I had a rough time of it being female and homeless, but did men have it any less bad?

Here are some shitty truths though:

1) It was safer for me to sleep on my own than in shelters. (And the same was said by men to me who made the same choice.)

2) The shelters were not easily accessed by me because I was female. This is bullshit. Housing (permanent) was easier for women with children, and families in general, but the waiting lists were forever. If I were a domestic violence victim (for which I was not) there are definitely more resources for women than men, but for chronically homeless people who are not clearly fleeing legal assault cases or some such, there is no preferential treatment, at least in my state where I was houseless (California.)

3) I was constantly told (both while and after my ordeal - Im not homeless anymore - I was for about 4 months total) that all I had to do was "shack up" with a dude to not be homeless. Being dependent on a stranger was the absolute last thing I wanted and again, I preferred to sleep in my car (edit: alone) than risk abuse (in a shelter or split hotel room). Other homeless men would tell me "if I were a woman that's what I'd do" which I would think would absolutely not be true if they were actually women.

4) I only knew one other homeless woman while I was homeless (out of like - 10 total people - obviously there were waay more than that that I would see at church meals and shelters etc) and she, like me, experienced daily harassment, propositions, stalking, prostitution offers and even, yes, someone tried to pimp me (sold me the whole game and showed me his other "women" who worked for him out of the hotels - it was extremely frightening because one of them later confessed she was beaten by him.) After I was not homeless anymore, I continued to be stalked for over a year by one of the homeless men I met ( I never had a single relationship with any of them btw- he was crazy and 'fell in love' with me), such that I had to get a restraining order and feared for my life. Now, I know there are men who went through violence, mugging, and yes, even prostitution, so this is just my experience. . .

Tl:dr This is a stupid disgusting image, a majority of men suffering homelessness imho were mentally ill and needed help that our society does not provide. No one should be homeless, and my points above are just clarifying what was true from my experience about being female and homeless.

[–]rinkima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hinote1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blahblahblahger1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CARVERitUP1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Apexk91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeverAgainTheSame1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fizar1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Godhand_Phemto1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StargateMunky1011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's actually more to do with the male attitude of not wanting to ask for help.

If you actually ask the male run, male targetted homeless support groups, they say that the biggest problem is not women getting more money or support, it's that more men are refusing to ask for the help they need.

It has very little to do with the actual people treating women as a priority. The same goes for drug problems and other health issues.

So it comes down to more the male's attitudes here that need to be overcome than anything to do with women.

Here's the full actual article from that cutting: http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html

Where it doesn't mention anything about the disproportion, as the main story is about the overall level of homelessness increasing.

It literally only mentions the 1 in 4 statistics once with no follow up. Essentially you could view it as them saying it's a lot lower than you would expect, i.e. 50/50.

[–]ElHombreDeNasty1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SushiGato1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuggestiveMaterial1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DolphinsAreOk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lonedub1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakedelight1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misfitx1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrButterCat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]surv1vor1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polakfury1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ihatefeminazis11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladyparole1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aona471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaddyPutinIsMad0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zandrick0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]c_Six0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You neglect to mention that the priority isn't just for women, it's for women and children. Both of these facts skew this statistic - and I know this statistic, it's used very frequently and always out of context by people who want to rag on homeless shelters in general. This is the first time I've seen it used in a gendered context. So please, allow me to explain. A minor has a much better chance at getting in anywhere, and a woman with children has the best chance of all. Why do you think that is? Because homeless shelters hate men? I guarantee you they don't. Homeless shelters are mostly composed of men and they always have been. Women - especially women with children, or lone children - are taken in with priority because they are much more vulnerable on the street to violent assault and violent sexual assault. I know I'm probably posting this in the wrong sub to hear this message, but look: the problem isn't prioritizing women. The problem is that homeless shelters have to prioritize at all, and that homeless shelters exist in the first place. Even with no sexual divide, the vast majority of homeless people are turned away from any given homeless shelter because there just isn't enough space for everyone. These places run on a shoestring budget subsisting mostly off of volunteer work and donations. They prioritize based on many different criteria and it's sad to hear that ya'll think they do so maliciously. I guarantee you that any good homeless shelter does not. The quotas only exist to ensure that they make space everyday for other people, but no matter how they divide it there is not enough to go around.

I think that anybody who is serious about homelessness isn't going to complain about how the meager support is dived up. That's fighting over scraps. That's pathetic and counter productive. We need to tackle serious systemic issues with homelessness that fights the problem at the source- or various sources.

I see things like this from both the MRA and Feminist camps and it's just really demoralizing. The gender divide isn't being fought in fucking homeless shelters. They are just trying to do their best to support a variety of people with different issues, including battered women. The people who dedicate their lives to running these places aren't making very much money. The people who volunteer aren't making any. This is a selfless pursuit that most people really don't understand the difficulties and significance of.

Source: I've been a volunteer at different homeless shelters for going on 5 years, both religious and secular, women-oriented and diverse, participated in funding drives, food drives, blood drives, and various forms of activism and outreach. This is the only time I will probably ever post here but I'm ashamed to see people using an issue that is so close to my heart as an excuse to bash some petty social issue that pales in comparison to the regular despair of poverty. That goes for both the infographic itself and your comment - equally shitty and uninformed. I literally spend my free time on the streets arguing with people like you who want to morph a public health crisis into a wedge political issue. In my experience you people just bitch and do nothing to help anybody. Basically; fuck you.

Anybody else; feel free to AMA if you're curious about how homeless shelters actually work.

[–]sunrainbowlovepower0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PhilbinThaison1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rodvanmechelen 986 points987 points988 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrAndross 677 points678 points679 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evan9512 470 points471 points472 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrAndross 363 points364 points365 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CannedWolfMeat 366 points367 points368 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superboy309 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NATIK001 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Superboy309 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dick_Fart_Champion1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]timo1032 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AppaBearSoup1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ramot11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrEPnewb 74 points75 points76 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]magnora7 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]slake_thirst 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]magnora71 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]slake_thirst2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]magnora71 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5510 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5510 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Caloricfoil98 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

-Sabasco Tauce

[–]sabasco_tauce1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheOneAboveAll 74 points75 points76 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

After you're dead you have no responsibilities

[–]Shtruntz 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]revolvingdoor14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]johnnie-fuckwit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alkomb1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Educational-Treat2231 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]___jamil___-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ufcsgjvhnn 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmbiguouslyYou 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]timo103 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jake0024 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ufcsgjvhnn1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Salamanderisbae2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taco474 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]flee_market 948 points949 points950 points 9 years ago (129 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hartifuil 205 points206 points207 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 211 points212 points213 points 9 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

I am. With the VA healthcare system I was able to get medicated for the (nearly crippling) ADHD that I had to spend the entire six years of active duty trying to work around.

See, the Army, they consider any psychiatric disorder, even a "harmless" one like an attention span of a butterfly, to be equivalent to full on hallucinatory schizophrenia, so the way the regulations are set up, if you're under active treatment for any mental disorder your ass is out on medical discharge.

So I had to deal with that. Which was fun.

But once I got out I started medication (Strattera/atomoxetine) for my ADHD and my life turned around in a fucking hurry. Got employed. Got a girlfriend.

For years before the Army I had stubbornly tried to just "beat" ADHD, like cancer or something, and persevere over it through sheer will, but what I was really doing was hopping around on one leg instead of getting a wheelchair or one of those sweet prosthetic legs.

ADHD is never going to not be a part of my life, because it's in the way my brain itself is structured. Something in there is broken, and we don't know how to fix it, but we can at least help it with the right chemicals at the right dosage. And with that medicine my life is finally back on track. I'm finishing up my Bachelor over the next couple of years, and after that I have a few leads on getting my foot in the door with my preferred career field (digital forensics).

Literally, I went from not being able to remember what I was told to the point that I had to carry a notepad and pen around with me in the Army to substitute for an almost complete lack of short-term memory, to working towards a career where detail orientation and accuracy are paramount (because if I fuck up a report that is later used as evidence in court the wrong guy could go to jail or walk free).

That's how much of a difference it makes.

I'm doing a lot better now, but it took several very lucky dice-rolls to get here. I could've been mugged or killed while homeless. I could've died in Iraq. These aren't things that had a small chance of happening, they were substantial risks.

I somehow made it.

I don't think people should have to rely on luck, as I have, just because of a Y chromosome they had no say in being born with.

[–]Hartifuil 64 points65 points66 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]damenleeturks 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hartifuil1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mach10X 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ImAnIronmanBtw 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sababa123614 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]throwaway75693 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]throwaway756931 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Retspihi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Retspihi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Retspihi2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Retspihi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Retspihi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hencethus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hencethus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AssAssIn46 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Thund3r_C0ugar1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thund3r_C0ugar1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thund3r_C0ugar1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotUrAvrgNarwhal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorGirby1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NapalmKnight131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullOfShite1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rektorRick0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]k3rn3 points 9 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Plus you're considered lucky for being able to get in

What if you're too old, or have medical or mental problems preventing you from being enlisted? If you've ever self harmed, you can't join. Etc

[–]flee_market 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]k3rn3 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

This is also pretty troubling to read as my sister has just begun the VA process to try to receive treatment for her traumatic brain injury

[–]flee_market1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SovAtman 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

found out real fuckin' quick that shelters and aid orgs give preferential admission to women and women with children in tow.

Well first off the kid thing you probably don't even have to mention, all of our social systems elevate the welfare of children. But secondly the problem is homelessness in general anyways, I wouldn't try to pit men and women against each other when they're both being fucked over by the same thing. While there are legitimate, theory-backed reasons these sorts of divisions are made, would leaving half the women on the street or exposing them to danger in co-ed buildings really do a whole fucking lot to further the justice of the whole situation? It's a false equivalency.

Male privilege is having to literally risk your life in Shitfuckistan for some asshole oil baron's profits just to have a chance at getting your life on track and one day going to college and getting a real job.

This is a separate problem from male privilege, this is class inequality. Poor women sell their bodies as well, but in other ways.

[–]ladedafuckit 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_your_cats_n_racks 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheNewestofNew8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aksoullanka3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SovAtman-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In all honesty, this whole thread is a little terrifying.

Notice the original post is just a supporting graphic isolated with no context of the article itself.

That graphic could perfectly support an article that's actually written about how women's homelessness presents unique challenges when homeless women are a minority in the system but also disproportionately less visible to the public. The fact that women can't safely even sleep on the street is maybe part of the reason they get preferential treatment because there's not enough beds for everyone anyways, someone will always be on the street, the question is always deciding who gets less not who gets more. Men, as a measurable generality, face less danger traveling alone and sleeping outside. This is well known even by people who do these things recreationally. It doesn't mean the danger men do face should be marginalized, but it's not a zero sum game that means accommodating a woman's unique challenges is inherently the victimization of a man.

Seriously, the top comments here seem to be scarily mislabeling the real problem. And the post itself is just the worst kind of inflammatory exert from an article that might be trying to make an actual point.

[–]ladedafuckit-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market19 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TooFakeToFunction-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TooFakeToFunction0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TooFakeToFunction2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where did I ever say it was the number one thing (besides your argument of "who wants a bag lady as a sex slave" is ridiculous. Insinuating that every homeless woman looks like a "bag lady) homeless women have to worry about? I didn't. I used a singular example of something homeless women face in a thread full of people acting like they have nothing to worry about at all and have it easy. There are all sorts of issues that uniquely or disproportionately affect women just like a number of things that uniquely or disproportionately affect men which is something I have said repeatedly.

My point. As I have said. Over and over again. Acknowledging a problem that one group faces does not mean you are ignoring the other group (l have said this no less than four times and yet here we are. You are still talking to me like I'm ignoring the challenges men face. I'm not). Pointing out that 1/4 homeless people are women does not mean the 3/4 men are being ignored. It was a statistic used to discuss diversification in the statistics and nothing more. In the article it came from (linked several times near the bottom) it mentions women only once...In that statistic.

You are arguing in circles with yourself over shit I haven't said and points I have not made. You said exactly what I said in my post before this one. Each face unique challenges and it's important to pay attention to all of them. I never said women alone are vulnerable I just used a statistic in which they are typically disproportionately affected to make a point that they are still affected (and for many other reasons. Just like men), but again...That is not to ignore the other side.

[–]pacmatt272 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TooFakeToFunction2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Perhaps my grand mistake was airing a general frustration of this thread through your reply and for that I apologize. I am not op. Yes both genders have reason to feel unsafe and I have never once denied that or made excuses for it. I'm frustrated by the general theme in this thread that homeless women are livin' easy at the expense of men when it's not true. They face their own challenges that make living on the streets unsafe. Both genders no doubt face assault both sexual and physical and each in disproportionate numbers for one or the other. and the unwillingness of others to come out and say it and move beyond the theme of contest has annoyed me.

I'm sorry if my generalized comment came across specifically targeted at you but I do feel generally frustrated that you seem to not be reading my comments. We are saying the same thing.

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt275 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Making a comparison to the situation for females isn't making the situation about women. Arguing that women have it worse despite increased funding and lower rates of homelessness is. Arguing that women deserve the vast majority of resources despite being the vast minority of those affected makes it about women. Arguing that they're more vulnerable than homeless men despite facts suggesting the exact opposite makes it about women. Men are saying "Women get all this and what do we get? Nothing." That is about men. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse there or genuinely misunderstanding but the presence of the word "women" doesn't make the issue about women. Context is key.

No, it's not the place for feminism. Many men on here are victims of female-perpetrated rapes, assaults and abuse cases. They don't generally appreciate being told how much privilege they have and how much worse it is for women when that is arguably untrue. They don't require a framework which is divisive, outdated, sexist and unfalsifiable in order to understand social injustice. Sometimes there is anger towards women and even hatred, I'm more than willing to accept that. However, as justified that might be in certain cases, I think this sub is pretty good at shutting down purely hateful commentary. This isn't one of those times. Men here aren't saying women are bitches, they're saying women are allocated more resources than is necessary and that is wrong. I don't think /u/TooFakeToFunction's comment demonstrated anything beautiful. I think it demonstrated ignorance and an attitude with which many men on here are incredibly familiar; i.e. "cry as loud as you like but we will find some way to ignore your problems and make them about us instead".

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

[–]returnofthrowaway5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]returnofthrowaway7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]flee_market2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]internetnolife1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]IolaireEagle1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_UR_SECRET_RECIPE0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market28 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_UR_SECRET_RECIPE11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jklvfdajhiovfda11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jklvfdajhiovfda2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flee_market2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NYPhilHarmonica7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_UR_SECRET_RECIPE6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NYPhilHarmonica5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladedafuckit0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NYPhilHarmonica3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't see any inherent reason a shelter wouldn't be able to address the circumstances of each group separately where they are in fact different. If they provide mentorship, family and employment services, etc., I just don't see why those can't be combined or separated where appropriate. I'm also not sure homeless shelters address the issue of danger on the streets, but if they do, why couldn't they address the separate risks?

In reality, there's a relatively set amount of funding made available for these kinds of services. You can change things at the margins by advocating more or less effectively, but it's not going to change the overall pool of funding all that dramatically. In that circumstance, and given the tendency to separate men from women in the provision of these kinds of services, more money available to one group means less, on the whole, is available to the other group. In the abstract, this is what I think is the strongest argument for not separating men from women in this way. It, by its very nature, creates a zero sum game where it shouldn't exist. Everyone deserves access to these things. Pitting one group against another where they are, in most ways, similarly situated, makes it likely that one group could be excluded or underserved in ways that can be really damaging.

[–]jklvfdajhiovfda3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_UR_SECRET_RECIPE4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain 2027 points2028 points2029 points 9 years ago (281 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phylar 1409 points1410 points1411 points 9 years ago (147 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreatTempenstein 248 points249 points250 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]czech_your_republic 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phylar 93 points94 points95 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chibibaki2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atheist101 98 points99 points100 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HasAnArchmageFetish8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Atheist101 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]funkymoose123 263 points264 points265 points 9 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wannabkate 351 points352 points353 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]MMChemist 63 points64 points65 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frontporchtreat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wannabkate2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wannabkate3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]woofpupper-20 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SexyGoatOnline38 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]woofpupper-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocklobster39 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sharing your home with a homeless person is not smart, and it shouldn't be expected of anyone.

A guy I contract sometimes has a big shop that he makes SIP panels in for construction (I'm a GC). Every winter when it gets cold he lets up to 75 homeless people stay in his shop every night. He stays up most nights at the shop while the homeless sleep there, and he tries to take naps during the day. The shit some of those homeless people pull is disgusting and just sad. They've stolen air compressors, impact drills, a portable table saw, hand tools, materials, forklift keys (the guy who stole them later tried to steal the whole forklift). I could go on and on, there have been fights, drug use, and a bunch of other awful stuff. But he still opens that shop up every night and let's people stay there. He's a lot more patient and much better man than me. I couldn't do it. But what I'm trying to say is you can help the homeless without letting them into your home. It's honestly unsafe to do that. I'm not saying all homeless people are bad or are going to fuck you over. Some people just get a little down on their luck. But a lot of them got there by their own choices, and a lot of them are bad people. Simply speaking up, donating money, or volunteering at a shelter are all ways to help. Just because someone isn't contributing in line with "your standard" does not mean they aren't helping.

[–]Boopy7771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SexyGoatOnline7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostOfGamersPast15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wannabkate12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hisroyalnastiness9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RanaktheGreen4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wannabkate3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustBrowsinAtWork-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BrianLemur11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drasha1-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustBrowsinAtWork-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AmbiguouslyYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jroddie41 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuminderJi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaTwatWaffle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vmont0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]randallross4200 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zombiehive-78 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dontwannareg143 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jostler5729 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_wild_fusa_appeared21 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]420N1CKN4M35 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jooize-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gigafood17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me think: I can maybe, possibly, contribute to actual trans women not being taken seriously in society, while definitely not freezing to death. Alternately, I could possibly freeze to death while definitely not contributing to actual trans women not being taken seriously in society. Oh, the moral quandary. A slight chance of having some nebulous negative effect on other people's feelings, or fucking dying. I just don't know what I would do in that situation. It would probably be best for society if I martyred myself for human rights. Because society remembers homeless men who die in the streets. A statue would be erected where my cardboard box once stood, a movie would be made of my life, and sonnets would be sung of my heroism. My life may be meaningless, but my death could change the world!

[–]woofpupper4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kkubq4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kojima_Ergo_Sum3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jooize1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a problematic consequence with the approach. I'm not necessarily saying you should freeze to death over it, but the trick is unsustainable and doesn't solve the situation. We don't have unlimited resources. Hijacking a women's only shelter that may have valid reasons to exist as one doesn't seem right, but there are times when you simply have to lie for survival. In a life and death situation, I'd expect there to be some sort of care available they can forward you to, but yes, life can be extremely harsh. Not that I have experience, since I do live comfortably.

Transgender people already face violence and murder. Those issues are very real and important. What's bullshit is that identity politics still needs to be a fucking issue. Too many don't make an effort to learn what's actually going on with different genders and identities and instead ridicule them without the slightest real understanding of it. People freezing to death would indeed be better to spend money and energy on.

[–]Kojima_Ergo_Sum1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you can pass, fine whatever, Transgender people have been using their preferred bathrooms for decades and nobody knew until this became an issue, now we've given perverts a pass into women's bathroom under the guise of a legitimate situation. My problem is with redefining what 'man' and 'woman' are, when you're 6'3" with linebacker shoulders and stubble you are not a woman and never will be, regardless of how you feel, it's a shame but that's just the way it is, I want to have a 12 inch cock and Nordic features, but no matter how much I feel like a sexually charged viking that isn't gonna happen and I have to deal with that because life doesn't give us everything we want and feel.

I have no problem with people being happy and doing what they want but forcing everyone to pander to a group that is less than one percent of the population is asinine, their personal comfort and self-confidence doesn't trump everyone else's because there are less of them.

Trans women should be able to pick up people from bars but they should disclose, normal people should be able to say no to dick, and shouldn't make a big deal about it but we live in a big chaotic world where all sorts of people live and interact, not everything goes the way it should. It's a sin but we can't try to carve a special place for them out of our regularly functioning society,we can't ask people to deny millenia of evolution because of a tiny group of people's feelings or lives for that matter, it just isn't feasible or fair

[–]TheMarlBroMan37 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zombiehive-34 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BRAlNlAC38 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sir_Beatles21 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Strbrst10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zombiehive-8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boner-b-gone2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not being snarky or sarcastic - when I see someone who seems to be as angry as you I try to understand why, because I was (and largely still am) a very angry person, and I've come to understand that there is always a reason, always a context that has to be taken into account. I read through your comments, and you seem like a good person who has to watch a lot of really fucked up shit happen in front of your eyes that you can do next to nothing to help, and you're taking a small misunderstanding here as an opportunity to let out some of the bullshit you've got pent up inside because Life in general and fucking terrible people in particular dumped their shit in your soul. If I'm even close to being right, Jesus fuck I'm sorry.

I can't tell if you're the "tough because I absolutely gotta be to survive" type or if you'd ever want to just rant about Life's bullshit to someone who gives a fuck. If the former, all the good luck to you dude, and thank you for hanging on so long. If the latter, I'm always here.

And if none of the above, I'll fuck off and leave you alone. I hope it makes sense that I'm not doing this to feel superior or iamverysmart, I just don't want to pass up the chance to make someone feel understood. Cheers.

[–]zombiehive2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boner-b-gone3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stutteringarmycarney3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alkazaro11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drewski34610 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CreampieLegend4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]funkymoose1234 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RustyRundle2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANUS_CONE2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YouSaidWut1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TS_SI_TK_NOFORN 89 points90 points91 points 9 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

Male victim of domestic violence here.

It is rare that Domestic Violence Shelters accept men. In my case, the shelter put me in a hotel under an anonymous identity until the shelter ran out funding (I'm living with PTSD and can't work because of it). The shelter simply does not have money to assist men, and the entire budget they had for men for the year was used putting me in the cheapest/skeeziest motel where my Xbox One was stolen, never to be returned.

They ran out of funds before I got housing assistance, and for about a week I slept in my car (with my Service Dog in the middle of winter) in the back of the Domestic Violence Shelter (they said it would be safer there than some random parking lot due to local police response to the shelter and they had cameras and always someone on staff at the shelter 24x7).

The night person on duty there let me come in after curfew one night to stay in the living room. Broke the rules, but I was very appreciative of it, and I had been at the shelter long enough during the days that I got to know most of the women and kids there. The kids liked seeing my dog too. They knew enough about my situation too, so they felt probably more comfortable around me.

But anyway. One of the victims had a story done on her by one of the local news stations because of how severe it was and whatnot, but the shelter manager who really helped me a lot made it a point to talk to the reporter about my case (keeping things confidential, obviously), and she wanted to make it a point to convey that it is a lot harder for men for so many reasons, and there aren't as many resources available for men, etc., and she ended up mentioning that in the news piece (highlighting male victims, not just women).

It was really tough for me, still is for a lot of reasons, dealing with PTSD and other issues, but I know the shelter I went to really helped me out as much as they could, but it's a cold hard fact there just simply is not same support for men as there is for women. I mean, I had help and I spent a week sleeping in my car with my Service Dog in the middle of winter and had my Xbox One stolen that was my primary coping method for PTSD. There are plenty more men out there that need help, and it is something people should keep in mind, DV shelters get A LOT of support from local businesses (Target donates clothing, Starbucks donates expired (but still good) food), but shelters typically have a separate budget to assist men (e.g. putting them in a cheap hotel since they can't stay in shelter), it's usually a small budget, and can be used up quickly.

I think I've posted this before, but there was a victim in Canada, and he got his life turned around and ended up starting the only shelter in Canada for male victims. Unfortunately, he struggled to get funding and support, and he ended up losing the shelter. After he sold the shelter, he committed suicide in the garage. Here is a news article about it.

[–]xyifer12 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage-33 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TS_SI_TK_NOFORN34 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage-27 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TS_SI_TK_NOFORN46 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage-27 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TS_SI_TK_NOFORN27 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TS_SI_TK_NOFORN20 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're a fucking embarrassment. You have no clue how many men are affected because they rarely come forward. I could even show you studies that estimate that MEN are victims a lot more than women, and with MORE severe consequences because women use weapons to compensate. This guy had boiling water thrown on him by his wife. Plus there are countless incidents of male victims being treated as the perpetrator for no reason other than their gender.

So shut the fuck up about your gender issues. When was a woman ever assumed guilty in a domestic violence call? When did a woman ever receive a more severe sentence than a man for molesting or raping a kid? Women are just as lethal as men. And men are no more able to defend themselves than women.

You have NO CLUE what the fuck you're talking about. You're a tough guy on the internet. Good for you. Keep making things worse for male victims. You'll be able to brag about you totally destroyed some random guy on the internet and made yourself feel better about "your gender".

You're a fucking disgrace to humanity.

[–]age_of_cage-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SubjectDeltaIA12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhistorist10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhistorist11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WorldCommunismNow6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WorldCommunismNow13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GallowsBoobs6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flomar862 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

age_of_cage, OP laid it out for u pretty well. I have to add, cuz u need to know, THE same women u sit here putting on a pedastole are the SAME ones who will let u take care of them and take half ur shit once u outlive ur use

humans take advge of situations. Women play the volnurable card. its getting old though. Equal only counts when it extends both ways.

edit: and also, i love how u white knight these women, calling them victims, yet u now sit here trolling on a ACTUAL victim of abuse. forget what i said above, cause it aint going to change ur mind. Baby like urself just has to live it i guess. Some washed up 30yo slut will settle down w you cuz ur "safe". Ull come home one day, see her sucking off some big fella. THEN ull cry about it, but guess what bud, no one will give a fuck. Because like u said, men are not vicims

[–]suckslumps2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MWalls12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MWalls9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MWalls9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]age_of_cage-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MWalls5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Padomaic5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AppaBearSoup1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peaches66661 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BodybuildingThot 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fancymoko 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I can attest to that one. Storytime!

When I was 13 years old, my mother and I went through a period of homelessness while we were in Kansas City. After our money ran out, we couldn't stay in the hotel we were staying in anymore and we found a homeless shelter which would allow us to stay for only 30 days. Well we found an apartment and the night before we were to move in, we had to move out of the 1st shelter and stay in another. Well this was a shelter for women, and since I was 13 at this time and they almost didn't let us stay there. Eventually after my mom argued with them for about an hour they did, but we had to be out by 8 a.m. and I wasn't allowed to leave my room (I had to get escorted to the bathroom). Basically I was a threat because I was a 13 year-old boy. Fun times. My mom told me later that if I had been any older they wouldn't have let us stay.

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

[–]ScowlEasy 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]degaman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stumpdawg1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]matt675 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hadntCSGO1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ordinaryrendition5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phkn-Pharaoh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DumbledoresFerrari8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ScowlEasy2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andnbspsc2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]3058248 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]infinitezero81 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]infinitezero82 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnbornParadox2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pushka-9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NayGiggerz-18 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]burkechrs111 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phylar9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NayGiggerz4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haberstachery 114 points115 points116 points 9 years ago* (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]drgncabe 91 points92 points93 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Not a homeless person but in Orlando, FL (we have a lot of homeless here) it's extremely easy to get on the internet. First, all of our libraries offer internet access but we also have a crap-ton of open wifi access points all over town. On top of that, you can get a cheap android phone for $25 and just connect to open wifi using that. I've bought a few of these that I use for remote location projects (i.e. gps tracking or telematics) running a rooted android phone that I have wired up to a longer battery and a few other doodads. The whole setup costs me $25 to start and around $10/mo for about 200mb of data and however many minutes they come up with. I can totally see a homeless person doing that, especially since you can get free minutes/service through a few of the local government aid providers.

[–]comejoinmynewcult 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

You should've invested that money in stocks instead of wasting it on bare life necessities. No wonder you're homeless /s

[–]BrianLemur2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IcelandicBanks3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack3 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FinalMantasyX 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain 243 points244 points245 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]gruesomeflowers 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]magnora7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jb23861 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bathroomstalin3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-mechasaurus7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marianwebb2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_CrookedMan2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]ARedthorn 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Presumably a library. Maybe a YMCA or shelter.

The homeless population is highly variable. Chronic homelessness is defined as being homeless for more than a year, or temporarily homeless for the 4th time in 3 years... and it's relatively uncommon compared to short-term homelessness. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates 2,000,000 homeless per year... but only about 112,000 fit the definition of chronic homelessness. Far more accurate local studies suggest it's a bit higher, but this is pretty close. Oh- and about 45% of them have jobs (and that's just official, taxable jobs... off book work is estimated to bring the homeless employment rate in line with the national employment rate)- just no home, in between homes and relying on the YMCA or shelters to get them through the gaps.

For those of us who have experienced short-term homelessness, libraries and the YMCA are how you tread water, and look for a way out.

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

I've been short term homeless before. For 8 weeks in 2008, the peak of the financial meltdown, I found myself having to choose between food or rent.

I had a job and wasn't lazy. Thought this period, I worked every day. I was an unlucky victim to the mortgage crisis. I was one of thousands of mortgage guys making 6 figures who suddenly found himself making far less in a very short time frame.

In 16 months, I had two companies go bankrupt underneath me owing me thousands in pay. One sent me a check months later that I happily deposited. I quickly used the money to pay bills, only to see that check bounce along with all the checks I had just written. I was further in the hole. A third company decide to just not pay me and instead fired me just before pay day with the promise of a pay check in the mail that never arrived. I was told to sue but couldn't afford the filing fees.

I always had a job lined up in 24 hours so I just buried myself in the work and try to dig out.

This Great Recession sucked and because it was stretched out over such a long period, I depleted my emergency fund. I cut expenses but some I couldn't get out of quick enough. Only when filing taxes the next year did I realize that my income had fallen 90%. From 175,000 in one year to just over 18,000 the next.

I finally said fuck it and packed everything I owned into my car and slept in it for 2 months. I wore suits to work so I'd hang them up in the passenger seat. I'f shower at the office gym early in the morning. I used the office fridge to store food. I'd be the first in and the last out the door. To keep people from asking questions, I'd park my car at the farthest corner of the lot. It was embarrassing.

I lied to my mom. I lied to my coworkers. I hid. I also realized that several of my coworkers in my finance job were in the same situation. They gave financial advice during the day but were all in desperate financial straits themselves.

The old guy who lived in the minivan, the young guy that wanted to be a DJ was living in his Eclipse, the other guy that wore a dress shirt with a tear from the armpit to the waist hidden beneath his suit jacket was obviously Couch-Hopping. We were all desperate, hungry, broke liars.

When they fired the DJ with the eclipse and the guy with the tear and a shirt, I panicked. I saw the hurt and the fear in their eyes as I walked out the door and realized that I could be next.

I had met a woman who was older than me, lonely, sexy, and living her own financial lie but she had a home. She had asked me out and we had met for dinner a few times. I told her that my apartment was converting to Condos and she invited me to stay with her.

She was my way out of homelessness. It was a little over 8 weeks of living in my car, showering in a a gym, eating baloney nearly every meal, and pretending everything was okay. It took another two years before it really was.

My wife doesn't know about my homelessness. She thinks it's sweet that I give every dollar I have on me to homeless with hustle. She doesn't know that I give that money because I know that it's just a series of bad days between me and them.

[–]ARedthorn1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the-capitan 91 points92 points93 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]AustinRivers25 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]1Mn1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maddkid5314 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sniperzoo3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I feel like I could have went down that hole. My family had been homeless for a month before and it was so shitty. After that month we got split up between LA, San Diego, and Florida.

I'd been living on my own for a while, barely holding it down. One day I spent half of my paycheck on weed and booze and I was already behind on a ton of bills. When I got that paycheck I felt like I was going to be homeless soon anyways so I said fuck it. I walked around drunk one night hoping to run into a gang banger and start some shit - I was hoping to get shot that night.

I've been getting better though. When the depression lightened up a bit I studied and paid for a certification test and got a 40% raise (still have a fuckton of debt tho).

I believe I've had depression since high school. I'm 24 now and just 2 weeks ago I was diagnosed with PTSD, depression, and anxiety.

[–]thewindandrain2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kioni1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gnostromo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dekar173-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deradius2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Saint_Erebos1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]panther455 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sam0wise1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]panther4551 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack3 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]-weinerbutt-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rouseco0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoneWolfRoofRider 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hahnsolo11 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]andnbspsc1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xzillerationer3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andnbspsc1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AmbiguouslyYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maddkid53 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_over_lean2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSavageWay8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Powderedtoastman_4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]McJagger881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mj3j002 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lived in Burlington, VT for ~5 years (mostly grad school at UVM) and outside Burlington in smaller towns.

Burlington: great summers and falls- Lake Champlain and the mountains make for some of the best scenery you could ask for. Winter is meh in the valley. The mountains are 30-60 minutes away and have the best skiing in the east by far.

It's a very liveable in terms of lifestyle, but NO JOBS or you really have to sacrifice to live here. If you're in healthcare, work at UVM in admin or as a professor, or can do some form of (java) programming there is some tech here- then you can be comfy.

Otherwise, Burlington is quite touristy and surprisingly affluent- everyone is astounded by housing prices. A housing crunch is driven much in part due to an anti-development mentality (Vermont markets itself as such in a way) draws in a high number of independently wealthy people- second home owners, retirees, trustafarians, hedge funders/finance people from NYC/Boston. You see extremely high end sports cars, Bentleys/Mercedes/BMW's, Teslas galore and fancy SUV's. Lots of private jets flying in and out of BTV airport. It's like you're in a major metropolitan area with a strong economy. Yet the population is like 150k for the area and there is a very small, meager economy...

So, if you can afford it, and can find work- it's really nice. Starter homes are high $200's. A quite nice house will run anywhere from $350-600k.

source: have STEM MSc. Outta grad school got offered $40k/year- the going rate for my line of work around here. I'd get paid closer to $60-80k elsewhere (Hartford, Boston) for the same job. It's not twice as expensive to live in those places!

[–]fat_over_lean1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hahnsolo111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maddkid531 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gankless1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PaulMurrayCbr1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]G-E-B 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]djkaty2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RandeKnight1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thekamara 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mahthrowaway7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dont4geturhere4ever 69 points70 points71 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]bean_boy9 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nerga 90 points91 points92 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]folgersclassicroast 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]25russianbear251 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]heebiejeebies_turtle 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Supertech462 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rigel2112 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]miharuhojo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cosworth99 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]onewrongstep1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cosworth991 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Returnofthemack32 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lakerswiz1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FowD91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dont4geturhere4ever3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SamuraiJakkass861 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dont4geturhere4ever1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]thewindandrain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]enkae7317 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anomanopia2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goodguy9981 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaddenMan731 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goddamnraccoons1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goddamnraccoons0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LiberalBear1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aware_building1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boopy7771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boopy7771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Weird bc LITERALLY just last night I had a horrific incident. How do I do am AMA btw? Because it would have been interesting to me in the past to understand how someone ends up accepting this. Still is since there is a type of person who accepts abuse, or gets to the point at which he/she doesn't. I know why I have at least. And I also know why people might think that women falsely accuse men of this too often. I found the law does try to circumvent this because they KNOW this. So, they were FULL UP at the local women's shelter, but they even managed to find me a room with people and kept trying to get me to go to it. Now this isn't homelessness this is a violent situation. But they also tried the homeless shelter and it was full up! In the end I was fine -- stayed at a friend's right next to the damn police station, luckily enough. And btw this is in a extremely safe and small town, so the fact they had no room there makes me think it's worse in big cities. Just weird for me as I hadn't been homeless in YEARS and I wonder if I jinxed myself by seeing this particular post. Staying at the friend's still, and considering getting a gun.

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fun-Dragonfruit-55121 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IolaireEagle1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cdk_aegir0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TYRito0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fizics 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jockin052 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IolaireEagle2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jockin052 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Educational-Treat2232 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ApprehensiveAd55461 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

(Im about to go on a really long yap session on a year old Reddit comment so before anyone says anything, no I don’t have anything better to do I’m bored and home all day) You can dumb it down to make it sound bad. It’s not. The majority of modern feminists aren’t even trying to stand for equality anymore, they’re trying to make men less. They take the minority of men that are bad people and use that to justify treating the entire gender as if they’re all worthless creeps. But you can’t tell that to those feminists because as soon as they feel their power trip is threatened they start role playing a brick wall, nothing you say gets to them and just bounces off. Or it just becomes a game of “whose had it worse” which they know full well they’ll always win since they were discriminated and oppressed for a LONG TIME, and while it’s true that they did, and it wasn’t right, the fact is it’s not like that anymore. We moved on and are trying to change as a society, but as we’re making progress the “feminists” decide they aren’t happy with things being good for everyone and want it to just be for them. Instead of moving forward together they have the mindset of “we were treated bad before most of us were even alive but we still somehow blame you all for it and want you to feel like shit”. The they’re doing to men the thing they claim to be against the most. Look at it from an outside view, who’s really suppressing who in today’s world? And just in case anyone tries to say I’m sexist, I am in no way saying all men are good and all woman are bad. As with everything there’s always going to be people who are assholes, regardless of gender. I completely understand that the way women were treated was horrible and disgusting. And I know that it still happens even today, and I don’t blame women for being upset about it, but that doesn’t mean repeat the same mistake again. On that note I’m also not saying all woman deserve more praise, we’re equal, remember? There’s bad woman too, men can be taken advantage of and hurt too. Regardless of opinion it’s a fact that men and women are biologically different, and to ignore that would be ignorant. Women naturally build muscle slower, and naturally have less muscle. That’s not to say they’re weak, a lot of women are very strong but it’s more difficult to achieve that physical strength for them comparatively to men. And I’m also not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth since I’m aware this isn’t how all people feel, because I understand that there being some bad women doesn’t mean all women are bad. Same thing goes for men, there’s men that think they should be above women and “go back to how things were” and they’re pieces of shit. As a whole it’s not all about what you said that “big strong men” who want to “preserve masculinity” think that they should “put women in their place”, I agree that it’s our right as people to have these groups (woman only, men only, etc) since they allow for talk about private things, but it shouldn’t be about what it is about, that’s why I’m not apart of this sub and disagree with it, to an extent. I also disagree with the feminists subreddit, to an extent. It’s because what they stand for not just who they are. The feminists subreddit is basically a mask for a men’s hate group and is pretty much just those who hate and want to suppress men. This subreddit is mostly just men trying to fight fire with fire. Which isn’t at all successful since it’s just drove a farther barrier of hate between men and women. It’s a major setback, and for some reason all people are doing is butting heads. Neither group will admit their mistakes/faults, and it’s shitty. I’ve been yapping and saying shit people already know, but it needs to be said until people actually understand that its not a game of “who had it worse” or “who’s the victim” or “who deserves more sympathy”, we’re all, as a whole, victims of life. Men and women are all stuck on this rock in space together with the unfairness that we will all die at some point, and yet we choose to spend our time fighting whether the intelligent ape with a dick or the intelligent ape with a vagina is better. Life’s unfair, people need to get over it and grow up. People can disagree with me or hate me or say I’m wrong or whatever but at the end of the day I’m just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else.

[–][deleted]1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShadowFalcon11 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeoTheHorse1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveAlternative010 points 3 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cannon0006 484 points485 points486 points 9 years ago (143 children) | Copy Link

[–]MindCrypt 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 134 points135 points136 points 9 years ago (133 children) | Copy Link

Men are always going to be seen as more disposable, because on a purely reproductive level (a level so deeply rooted it informs a lot of higher functions) men are more disposable.

Now that says nothing about individual worth, but society cares little for that anyways. What past societies figured out - and which we will eventually once the costs of feminist idiocy grow high enough to collapse the largesse necessary to spawn it - is that part and parcel of men's disposability is men's greater utility as well. Men make most of everything, repair most of everything, and defend most of everything.

Men used to receive a concomitant amount of respect and legal authority due because of their greater responsibility, again in societies that worked with nature and not against it.

Feminism and the larger equality cult has destroyed that, and will continue to do so until it starves itself out, is replaced by a culture that does not operate on such false precepts, or a combination of the two.

[–]Friendly_Fire 81 points82 points83 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

True, I don't want to seem like I'm arguing for some halcyon past where everything was perfect.

And yet, in the past the West did a much better job in circumstances like child custody, where even a poor man was presumed the custodial parent provided he worked, contrasting with our own age where the homeless and millionaires alike have their lives ruined and livelihoods stolen by the family court racket.

In Late Middle Ages Germany a man was liable for his wife's debts and could even be imprisoned for his wife's overspending while she remained free. But he also was the only one who had a say in the local council. Superior responsibility balanced by superior authority. Nowadays not only can all women vote but men are still imprisoned in their thousands each year due to inability to pay the court costs and alimony and child support that go to women >90% of the time, even if the child isn't his. And we call that equality and the Middle Ages barbaric.

[+]Stenanosaurus points 9 years ago* [recovered] (106 children) | Copy Link

Who could possible think MRAs are sexist with comments like yours.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 64 points65 points66 points 9 years ago (101 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX138 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 77 points78 points79 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]maggiedean2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maggiedean-8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shaella_11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maggiedean-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shaella_8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but its just really not comparable. Its just biological fact, this is why even a bottom tier male fighter can beat the shit out of even the best women fighters, the difference that testosterone and the greater upper body strength aren't like a few percent, its a massive amount.

So it was largely biological, which is why even in hunter gather societies men are the one doing the hunting and warring, not because of any structural oppression, but because they are biologically so much better at it than women its not even fair to compare.

This is the problem with wanting to put women in active combat roles, I'm ok with it if they can meet the same standard as men, but what you'll discover is that the requirements are such that the gender imbalance is going to be massive, because women do not have the same upper body strength a man does.

You also have to think about why those 'historical gender roles' developed, nobody just waved a magic wand and made women do the domestic work while men warred and hunted, that was an evolutionary strategy because women at home were less likely to get hurt, and thus could reproduce, and because men are quite simply better at physical activities because of biology.

[–]veetkoosh8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Antrophis2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Swissguru2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillnotreplytoyou 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

women are entirely capable of making, repairing and defending.

Not in a society based on capitalism. Women can do a lot of things that men can do but there are physical jobs that would take 2 women to do the job of 1 man. 2 employees cost more money than 1 employee. In a capitalist society, this doesn't make financial sense.

I will use the job of a roofer as an example but this can be applied to many labor jobs. You just aren't going to find many women who can haul 100 lbs bundles of shingles up a ladder and onto a roof. 2 women with 2 ladders could get the 100lbs of shingles up on the roof but then the roofing job cost just doubled and they will go out of business. Men are born with about 60% more muscle than women and this means that most men will be able to do hard manual jobs better and quicker than most women.

In my city, they won't let women cops patrol by themselves every since a female police officer was overpowered and beaten by a teenager.

[–]faptimussprime3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillnotreplytoyou10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BigMac8493 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AmbiguouslyYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BigMac8491 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillnotreplytoyou0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BigMac8491 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iwillnotreplytoyou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nick12506-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]howaboutyougetfucked 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX138 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

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

You know what he said, and it wasn't that.

He mentioned physical requirements being lowered to allow women in the role. If your physically fit woman in her prime was 4'9" and unable to lift 60lb, then yes, maybe the fatass is more qualified.

You're being purposefully obtuse in a shitty attempt to defend an incorrect stance.

[–]PotatoJamzX1384 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nick125063 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1386 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sabasco_tauce 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX138 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]PotatoJamzX138 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabasco_tauce-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1383 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sabasco_tauce2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1382 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sabasco_tauce2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whales962 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]howaboutyougetfucked1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

no im not for having unqualified individuals serve and protect our society, regardless of sex, which happens to disqualify the vast majority of women.

the difference though is that those men were once in fact capable of meeting hte physical requirements, after which their leftist unions fought for their members to become exempt from retesting.

which is a little different from lowering hte standards so that unqualified individuals can get in. both are bad but at least the servicemen were once capable...

Are you saying that an obese 40 y/o beat cop is more capable at protecting the public that a physically fit policewoman in her prime? You would be delusional to say yes.

its has been shown that psychologically men do not respect the physicality and authority of women. young boys learn better from male teachers and criminal male suspects are more likely to resist or attack female police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-utc4IEQws

she looked she was in shape and what good did it do her? having women serve as police creates this situation more than it should

[–]AstroMechTechSupport1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1381 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nick125060 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ScienceYouMonster7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nick125061 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1386 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]faptimussprime4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nick125065 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1380 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zue3 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX138 40 points41 points42 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

And the same responsibility

[–]TracyMorganFreeman4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1386 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1381 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PotatoJamzX1381 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deathofosiris1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jazzinyourfacepsn 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

Gender roles grow out of biology.

White people will always own more land than blacks in America because there are more whites people. Blacks have also owned property since before the revolution and a few even owned slaves, all of which is an argument that has nothing to do with the point.

For all the differences between of race and culture and time and geography and technology, there has never been a civilization where men were not overwhelmingly the builders, repairers, and fighters, and where women were the nurturers and family caretakers. Not the Sumerians, nor in ancient Egypt, nor in Greece, or Rome, not the Middle Ages where pagan or Christian, nor in China, nor India, not even in Polynesia or the Americas that had so long been separated from the "traditional" societies of Eurasia. Why do you think that is?

You speak as if equality is ensuring that everything has an identical outcome. That is not so. And as much as I agree that injustice has always existed in the world, feminism is completely uninterested in changing those evolved gender roles that it benefits from.

[–]jazzinyourfacepsn 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]jazzinyourfacepsn0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men and women have different brains. I'll source if you want to. The claim that "Other than physical limitations, there is nothing that should prevent a man from taking on a feminine career path and a woman taking on a masculine career path" is just simply entirely wrong.

No one is denying that. No one is denying that we are biologically different. I'm sure you could bring up some argument from a left wing extremist that claims "men and women are biologically identical", but that doesn't even closely represent what the majority believe in.

The problem is that you believe what the majority wants must be what everyone should want, and that's just not true. Yes, a majority of women may want feminine careers, but that does not mean that no women want and are capable of exceeding in masculine careers. The same thing goes for men and feminine careers.

Our biological influences are just that: biological influences. An influence is not an end all conclusion. There will always be outliers that are not changed by those influences, and to deny anyone an opportunity just because "thats the way it should be" is barbaric.

There's no point in having this discussion, anyway. No one can stop progress. It may be hindered and delayed, but progress will happen as people like you with your mindset begin to grow old and die off.

This brings me round to my main point earlier. These gender roles were influenced by biology, but they were enforced by society. Anyone who wanted to step outside of these biological influences (women who want to lead, build, create, repair, etc.) were shut down and told to learn their place. That is why you can look at history and say "men have created it all". It's not that women were incapable. Women were not allowed to in fear of social suicide.

[–]MR_SHITLORD1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Personally? The false rape claim that destroyed my first college attempt that feminists not only claim doesn't happen but who press for more oppressive laws and Title IX star courts that destroy young men's lives without even the protection of a court like the one that threw my allegation out.

In a larger sense? That "women's lib" reliably destroys relations between men and women, does not enrich those nations that attempt it, and is historically only attempted in the first place in decedant societies.

None of which, by the way, means that I think women should only and ever be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. There are the minority of women always that are drawn to science and technology and business, and they were allowed to do so in the past, even in the supposedly "oppressive" past of the European Patriarchy, which I'll prove with sources if you like. What I am saying, is that authority in society must be balanced by responsibility to society. Feminism has always clamored for the authority men have but have largely attempted to shirk all responsibility, and those costs add up.

[–]MadDingersYo4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MR_SHITLORD-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whales962 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rikudou_Sennin0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_N0Tvargas_3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Surfincloud98 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Padomaic3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Surfincloud92 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AppaBearSoup2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leithz61 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjams 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There's some truth in what you've said re: greater utility = greater responsibility.

The problem with your post is that it ignores that women weren't ALLOWED to participate in those areas of greater responsibility.

In your post, the scenario reads like "Men offered to share responsibility, women refused, men took up the reigns and so were due a greater amount of respect and authority."

In actuality, the scenario was more like "As a result of their bondage to gender norms of the past, men continued to dominate areas of responsibility and often denigrated or denied women who sought to share that responsibility."

Does this mean that female engineering students should have access to networking and job opportunities that are denied to men? No, that's just perpetuating the crime you're supposedly abolishing.

Fact: Men so heavily dominated art and STEM largely because there wasn't equitable access to those fields.

Should this fact decrease our perception of the value of those men's contributions in those fields? No, but it does anyways amongst many in the Left.

Should this fact decrease our perception of the value the contributions that women can and do bring in those fields? No, but it does anyways amongst many MRA's.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a continual loop, and I'm inclined to agree except that I think your making the error or believing that there was ever a time when men and women were perfectly equal until one day men tricked women into "bondage" (even though most chicks are into that.... wonder why lol) and proceeded from there.

As for those areas of responsibility, yeah, they were, but there were very good reasons for that and it wasn't as oppressive as you think. Society didn't have the safety bubble of fossil fuels that it has today, meaning that well meaning ideas that failed had quite literally the possibility of destroying a society.

Think about it, in any society from Ancient Rome to medieval England to eighteenth century China, warfare was largely endemic, work was reliant on musculature and birth control nonexistent. What that meant was that women were simply pregnant on a scale orders of magnitude larger than now, and that alone prevented them from going on campaign as a soldier or working full time, though many went to war as helpers to their husbands or to work as assistants to their men.

Fun fact: in the Nordic countries where there is the greatest freedom to choose a major, work was split the most on gender lines. You want rooms of female engineering students? Go to Iran or China, where they do not offer unlimited numbers of psychology or humanities degrees, and even there the majority of female engineering grads drop out quickly to become mothers. As, even do women in the West, a fact which is beginning to cause a doctor shortage in places like the U.K. and parts of the US as women in medicine regularly drop out in rates over 50% and do not re-enter full time once becoming mothers.

Society takes a balance to function. Feminism explicitly seeks to destroy that balance and shove any related costs on to men.

[–]fuel_rod_ohm1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fuel_rod_ohm1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You really don't seem to be aware of the presence of women in medicine. "Full career"... as what kind of doctor? General practioner? Surgery? OBGYN? Please don't speak in generalities. You seem very certain of yourself, so I think you should get your citations straight.

A female surgeon gets to where she is because she's suited to the profession. A male surgeon gets to where he is because he is suited to the profession. The current crop of astronauts is split 50/50. It's senseless to discourage girls from working toward maths and sciences by telling them those women are exceptional for their gender, so why bother. I think it's weird that your argument against feminism is based on some notion of deep-seated differences, because a) your stats are vague and aren't presented in good faith and b) there are living exceptions to all of your arguments. Not all men are suited to STEM and manual labor, and not all women are suited to domestic life. This is the point of gender equality - that people have the freedom to develop their skills in a role that suits them.

[–]Blutarg2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]howaboutyougetfucked0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women shouldn't have abortions. Abstinence is 100% successful. Women shouldn't have birth control. Abstinence is 100% successful.

If someone is complaining about starving in the US, it would be right to point out what actual starvation looked like in places like Africa. Feminism complains about things far less severe than that. Like credit cards.

By the way, the wife not having credit in her own name was sprung from the same idea that a man should pay alimony and child support to the woman in case of divorce. Superior authority balanced by superior responsibility. Women can get credit on their own now, but they and feminism are certainly still clamoring for alimony and child support, even as women initiate the majority of divorces. Superior authority unbalanced by inferior responsibility. Or in other words, feminism.

[–]SockSage0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

women shouldn't have birth control

You missed the part where I advocated for vasectomy. It's a shame that there aren't better birth control options for men yet. But you're basically agreeing with me that women's reproductive rights are important! So yay.

like credit cards

I said bank credit. You know, like mortgages and auto loans? Like small business loans? You know...things that are terribly consequential to one's ability to live an independant life. If it weren't for modern feminism, I wouldn't be able to finance my education, let alone be considered capable of the work I do.

sprung from the idea that...

women aren't full people in the eyes of the law, and men are heads of household.

Alimony stops being relevant in a world where women are wage earners in the same capacity that men are. Feminism fighting for women in the workforce and shared parental duties solves the problems you're griping about.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women's reproductive rights are important. So are men's. One is lawfully protected. One isn't. Feminists are trying to keep one unprotected.

As for credit, sure, but that still holds for my main point. And women as a whole still aren't independent: see the New Zealand study from 2013 that showed that, even as the majority of women worked, none were net contributors to government coffers. In other words, women as a whole are still dependent upon outside help, tax based help, from a tax base where men pay 75% of all taxes.

I'd agree that alimony stopped being relevant a long time ago but it hasn't stopped, nor has child care payment that is not predicated on actually being in the child's life. Women aren't wage earners in the same capacity as men because the overwhelming majority of women don't want to, a decision made all the easier because feminism likes to keep around the vestigial remnants of old-order intersexual relations when it benefits women while mandating that they be abolished when they don't.

[–]aksoullanka2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aksoullanka2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wisemanner-13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Azurenightsky35 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one32 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're getting downvoted because you're putting all of the responsibility on men for things that are done to them by others, but you're not entirely wrong. Men are hardwired to protect women: as studies show, women have an in-group bias for women, and men have an in-group bias for.... also women. As well, in societies like England you have a truly continuous society for nearly a full millennium (will be in 2066) where men provided for women and women cared for men. Entire centuries of English Common Law were enacted around this practice, it's one of the bedrocks of European strength and the English in particular were stand outs in their adoption of nuclear monogamous families.

Those mores and laws and expectations don't change in sixty years. That's one of the reasons feminism is so evil and destructive: it assumes men will continue to play their parts as workmen and wallets while losing their rights as fathers and family heads. What's more, it provides no alternative to men even if they wish to behave differently, which all adds up to a long, long list of things that are always stacked against a man in England a priori regardless of whose name he checks in the ballot box.

[–]burkechrs13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]uyoos2uyoos22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you read the one line in the article that relates to this, I think you might read this differently:

Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html

I think the point from the editor here was not to just brazenly gloss over what you might interpret as "reverse exceptionalism", although that is an interesting reading of this. Ultimately I think the editor is trying to shock his audience by appealing to their sense of chauvinism. Basically the editor bets that his/her audience will see females being homeless as being especially bad because of those stereotypes that equate femininity to being fragile and co-dependent. This statement is not only a slight to the instances of homeless men but also is derogatory to women.

But It's not important or useful to reverse the statistic and say "75% of men are homeless" because this also doesn't really give us the whole picture. A Scientist or statistician would say "why is this gender ratio in homelessness not reflective of the gender ratio in our general population? Is there a corollary we can draw?".

There's no point in getting butt hurt about not being considered a "protected gender" deserving of random mentions in amateur statistical analysis. Ask any woman, that's not all it's cracked up to be.

[–]LionSlicer131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]faptimussprime1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dragonatorul1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Antrophis1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IolaireEagle1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cannon00061 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IolaireEagle2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus27 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HailTheMoose 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unlucky-Breath25011 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Background-Fox-5171 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DescriptionGeneral251 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mayo_man121 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

7 years later i know… but i was sorting by top upvoted and stumbled across this post, then this comment, and this was beautifully worded.

i don’t really think i can have a say in how women feel as a man, but i think that’s a prognosis that’s become even more relevant since you left this comment. this is a meaningless example since it’s something that doesn’t really matter anymore, but when we started getting black and female representation in media, it was awesome. black widow in iron man 2 was awesome, scarlet witch in civil war was awesome, war machine in iron man was awesome, etc. having a cast be equal in presence, and more importantly, in essence is great, but i brought up marvel examples before so i could draw on marvel examples now. now it’s not about being equal anymore, it’s about gloating over and putting down white guys, see falcon and winter soldier, she hulk, etc. this is not a deep issue to me, im not whining about it, i don’t suddenly think that white guys are a marginalized group, but it fits beautifully with what you said here. equality, not revenge against men for things my great great great grandfather did.

[–]mosthatedperson-13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Asdr_Is_A_King3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]checks_out_bot2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Preebus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]iammrpositive points 9 years ago* [recovered] (43 children) | Copy Link

I'm gonna need to read the article before I get butthurt.

[–]pacisbeautiful 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[+]iammrpositive points 9 years ago* [recovered] (33 children) | Copy Link

Thanks... so it's just one of several random statistics in an article about the homeless problem and nothing more.

[–]Ronnocerman 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The article is trying to drum up sympathy for the groups mentioned by pointing out how they are over-represented.

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population.

Instead of continuing this trend to up sympathy for men by saying

...and men (77 per cent) are over-represented...

they choose instead to frame it in the context of women being homeless because they know that people view men as disposable and would shrug at the 77% statistic, but people would be more upset about women being being homeless, thus they focus it on them, instead. This is blatantly apparent in the fact that they gray out the men in the infographic.

Yes, the statistics are accurate, but the presentation of it hints at misandry by continuing the trend of focusing on the hardships of women, even when men are clearly the ones at a disadvantage.

Statistics can be true and presentation of statistics can be tone deaf.

For example, if I listed the number of white people shot by cops and called it a travesty that we were shooting that many white people, it'd be both true and tone deaf to the fact that white people probably have the least per-capita deaths via cops of any race (well... maybe not Asians. Not sure. I digress.).

[–]iammrpositive-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pyba8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pyba2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pyba5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pyba1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ronnocerman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ronnocerman4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ronnocerman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spamhit 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spamhit3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iammrpositive2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not saying the cause is foolish. I'm saying that shit like this where someone cuts out a piece of an article with a harmless stat and makes a big deal out of it is foolish. Obviously when people think about homelessness they equate it with men, so the article is pointing out that 1 in 4 homeless individuals is a woman, which may surprise some people. It's a completely innocuous thing and you guys are making a big deal about it like a bunch of triggered feminists.

I think the MRA cause has a lot of extremely valid points behind it but this bullshit ain't it. People love to appeal to the lowest common denominator when trying to take you down a peg, so next time you guys are complaining about feminists making a big deal over something silly, they could pull this up and say "oh yeah?" That's what I mean by idiots against you pointing out the foolishness, or foolish people, surrounding your cause.

[–]Badgerz92 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The issue is they point out other groups that are disproportionately homeless but don't include men in that sentence. Instead, they only mention homeless women. It might not seem like an issue on it's own but remember that MRAs on this sub have seen this happen time and time again with a variety of issues. This isn't a coincidence or a one-time thing, there's a consistent pattern of mentioning when something is more likely to affect other groups (like Aboriginals or LGBT in this article) but refuse to mention when it's more likely to affect males.

You'll see this with other issues too. When you read articles about the war on drugs or mass incarceration or police brutality they'll talk about racism, but never mention that it's almost all men who are being targeted. And in some cases they even emphasize women and try to make it sound like women are the victims. It's just an extension of male disposability, like when you read an article saying "12 people were killed, including 1 woman."

[–]MessisTaxAccountant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MessisTaxAccountant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MessisTaxAccountant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MessisTaxAccountant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MessisTaxAccountant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SomeonePrivate1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The issue is male disposabliity.

The argument is that since the industrial age we should not longer think of men as being disposable.

The issue is we still think that men are disposable. This is not an issue of a "victim complex". Having a victim complex is hearing a tragic story from someone and then saying, "well what about my problems?"

What they are saying in this article is that 23% of these homeless are women. Yet neglect the fact that men make up the number of homelessness by a MUCH larger margin than women. When bad times come or the economy starts to fail, who leaves the home? Men. It's expected of these men to do so as well. Why? Because society feels that men are disposable.

This is a male issue that is unique to men. It has nothing to do with women and trying to act like we have a victim complex because we bring it up is sexist. You are saying our problems don't exist, when they very clearly do.

[–]MessisTaxAccountant1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]RedRaiderTravis points 9 years ago [recovered] (28 children) | Copy Link

So apparently we should concentrate on the bigger problem of homeless men. Thanks for the info, feminists.

[–]baskandpurr 104 points105 points106 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SovAtman4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]503AccessDenied 110 points111 points112 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Nick125061 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Trarc_2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RustyRundle 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]RustyRundle 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SovAtman 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The article was posted below. It is literally just a broad-spectrum article on the state of Vancouver's homelessness. The relevant quote that included this graphic in the print paper is here:

Nearly a third of those living in shelters year-round are employed, according to the survey.

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population.

Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

Note that in this context "over-represented" means relative to their representation in the city's population as a whole. For example when less than 11% of Vancouver's total population are veterans then their "disproportionate representation" in the homeless population indicates a systemic problem facing veterans. Which you've probably heard about before.

Note that the statistic on women is not indicated to be over-representative nor contextualized with any political statement. It's delivered purely for public interest. So has that changed your criticism of the article at all?

In all honesty if you read actual articles on the subject by people dedicated to solving these problems, they're usually pretty sensible about the whole thing. In fact they have to be if they're results oriented.

If all you read are punch pieces from either side published on the cheap for online or daily news, it's full of some shit opinions because nobody spent the time or money to do the research.

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

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

But it is given precedence, even though men are the biggest victims.

Except everyone has already pointed out how it just illuminates how women are a smaller part of the overall problem.

On one hand it's the one statistic in the article that can most easily be converted into a filler graphic. But would agree that the use of colour could indicate some bias. The phrasing itself, emphasing 1 in 4 of the total population, fits the way the statistic is expressed. They don't say 89% of them weren't veterans.

Also, women, as a demographic, aren't to blame for men being homeless. Especially in context with the modern epidemic, I'd suggest you look to the state and financial institutions for the cause of those problems. I don't understand who could trick you into thinking women have anything to do with this. And if you're going to blame a group of politically active women for focusing their attention on issues applicable to them personally instead of an issue you think is more important, you can just as easily apply that criticism to the American Diabetes Assocation or the NRA. In fact I'd suggest you apply it to the politicians that continue to cut and obstruct proper funding or progressive solutions to these sorts of problems.

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

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

[–]Stenanosaurus6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedRaiderTravis16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What the fuck are you talking about?

No, the article in fact does not say that we should concentrate on the obviously more substantial problem of male homelessness. The image supplied implies the opposite--that we should care more about the roughly 25% of homeless individuals who are female. The article itself makes that estimate.

My comment is clearly sarcastic. Because common sense would dictate that, given the statistics stated in the article, male homelessness is a more serious problem and is thus in more need of being addressed.

Do you get it now, or do you need to be walked through this again?

And what the hell is with the personal accusations? I don't recall ever calling anyone a "SJW." Stop trying to stuff everyone with whom you disagree into one box. It makes you look stupid.

[–]Stenanosaurus6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedRaiderTravis10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedRaiderTravis9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]glitterwrists5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]glitterwrists3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]glitterwrists4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RockfordZ 129 points130 points131 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pewpewmcpistol 78 points79 points80 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Risikabel3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheEssexian 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's from Vancouver.

I can't find a print version of this article, but I found one online by looking up: "affordable housing, and people on welfare can't afford to pay rent" Here is the link:

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/metro-canada-vancouver/20160601/281479275669812

And another: http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html

Now, even these two versions are slightly different. Slightly different publication dates, but the one that follows through with the "Sixty-one percent" and has the same quote marks doesn't even mention women in the article.

The other article, which the one pictured here seems to be quote, since it put their words in quote, does say that '23% of homeless are women' (not 1/4), but it is listing marginalized groups and puts aboriginals and veterans ahead of women, even though they are a lower percentage.

Now, there may be a print copy of this that somebody has and can share, because I know that online version get updated and changed, and are formatted differently, but it seems like somebody is trying to get the MRA community riled up about a doctored document.

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

[–]ApocalypseWoodsman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MindBody360 57 points58 points59 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Just a comment re: the glass bottom. I believe that the rules differ from state to state. Here in Cali, Los Angeles specifically, there is a huge homeless population. A homeless child (excuse the expression) trumps an adult, always. A woman with a child trumps men. However, there are a cornucopia of shelters in L.A. that co-exist; men's only, women and children only, women no children, etc. There are more men that are homeless. There are more women that remain with their children even after collapsing into homelessness. There are more male veterans, but more women get raped on the street. Some shelters have rules about capacity as mandated by the Fire Marshal, so if the rule is get to intake by 8:00 A.M., it's a hard number, not a suggestion. And lastly, in terms of getting help, there are programs for people of all kinds that assist individuals and families getting back on their feet. It generally would provide vouchers for immediate housing, but even if that runs out, a Case Manager or Social Worker can help get SSI, SSDI, GR, job training, clothes and medication with absolutely no discrimination. Homelessness is a huge problem for human beings, so one quarter of beds going to women is not inappropriate, to me. Source: Me. Social Worker in L.A. and, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.). They do a homeless census every year in L.A. and provide funds that are allocated by need.The department is likely to be eviscerated by the Trump administration.

[–]vadarpoo11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7x4I-eGr6fC8V18 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vadarpoo0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MindBody360-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

a Case Manager or Social Worker can help get SSI, SSDI, GR, job training, clothes and medication with absolutely no discrimination

Nope. Not even close. The amount of paperwork required to get food stamps rivals that required to apply for a small business loan.

I've witnessed the utter absence of help for homeless people just by watching the plight of people I know. The harder they work to get out of it, the more resistance they encounter.

Food stamps are just the warm-up. God help you if you try to get an apartment with fewer than fifty benjamins in your fist. After that beats your ass for a year, try to get a job or a phone without an address.

The only reason homelessness is a problem is because one thing the entire world can agree on is that obstructing the homeless should be a team effort. If you believe otherwise, you have no fucking clue how wrong you are.

P.S. There is a higher chance than you think the person next to you at work lives in their car. If the rest of the world has its way, that's where they will remain.

[–]MindBody3602 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I have obviously touched a nerve. That wasn't my intent, however, there is no need to swear at me. I get enough of that at work. You misunderstood, I think. I was not implying that it's easy to get off the streets, I was responding to the OP. His claim is that men have it tougher than women when it comes to services for the homeless, I disagree. The ad was attempting to open the eyes of those that are under the impression that homelessness is for men only. I agree with you on the paperwork, that's why anyone seeking permanent support should work with an agency that has Social Workers and Case Managers to do the paperwork or at least do it with you. As I mentioned, I work in L.A., and there are likely more resources here. But the scapegoating of problems onto women is truly ridiculous and invalid, and the anger doesn't help anyone get back on their feet.

[–]choofychuff1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy2 366 points367 points368 points 9 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjams 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population. Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

...which means they're under-represented in the homeless population, while men are over-represented.

I sincerely appreciate your "What if's", your attempt to cull yourself from any potential groupthink, but the article was generally about homelessness, it quoted several statistics about the make-up of homelessness, but it avoided saying that 3/4's of the homeless are men.

Beyond this, the perceived lack of recognition of the ways in which modern society harms men is a sore-spot in any men's rights movement. For such people, I can see how galling it would be for the over-representation of men amongst the homeless to be presented as a hardship for women.

The article is trying to drum up some support and empathy - always a worthy and thankless task. They do that by talking about the kinds of people that evoke sympathy from the general public. White men are not on that list. Women are.

So: they've taken a stat that shows the over-representation of men in the homeless community and inverted it to be about women because they want people to care about the homeless and people care more about women than men. (Who wouldn't. They're wonderful.)

Regardless of your politics, there's information here. The inversion is information (upon which I've posted a possible interpretation). The relative value of men is information. The tack of your response, and mine, is information. This is how we speak to ourselves, and while the individual voice is priceless, we also need to listen to the subtext of social conversation.

Accepting and using only those pieces of information which support our current world view is tribalistic and inherently corrosive to a modern society. It's inhumane to simplify all of humanity in order to satiate the demands of our ego, picking out the facts that we don't like until all we have left is a very precarious Jenga tower.

We're better than that.

[–]Kyoopy2 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unlikely_lad 175 points176 points177 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]rouseco 117 points118 points119 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]MjrJWPowell 68 points69 points70 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ponyrides4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VillageBridge1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beetholder4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]rouseco0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]denlolsee 59 points60 points61 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Indigoh2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]outsidetheboxthinkin1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Indigoh3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wharblgarbl1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hypernova21217 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dr_Smoothrod_PhD4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjams2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sabasco_tauce1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]user_826501 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JeenyusJane0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Nonamesleft_atall points 9 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

Here is the article. Title: "Vancouver homelessness at record levels: 2016 count." Some attention is devoted to homeless youth, some to mental health, and one sentence about homeless women ("Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population."). The words "man" or "men" don't even appear in the article. This is a pretty good example of male disposability.

[–]Augustus_Caesar1 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjams2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GreenSnowday 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ErosExclusion 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]zue3 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]camster1123 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ATownStomp1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]journey_bro 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]CJL13 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]journey_bro2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aksoullanka3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Walter_jones2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aksoullanka6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]ATownStomp3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just to play devil's advocate, I think a lot of people might be upset that the emphasis on women's physical vulnerability out in the world (which is usually true) seems to always trump that of men's vulnerability.

I don't mean to be rude but I think that this is obvious. It's the MRA subreddit and that grievance is aired openly. What the person you're responding to is saying, and for what I am in complete agreement with, is that while this might be a valid social problem this post is just a contextless image that says that "X number of women are homeless".

It isn't a reasonable thing to get angry about. I could say that "ten percent of homeless people in Canada are Asian" but that doesn't mean I'm purposefully ignoring the rest of the population. I may be writing an article focusing specifically on Asian homelessness, or the changing demographics of homelessness, or I may just be presenting information about homelessness by race and later on in the article I cover every other conceivable demographic. If someone took a photograph with just the "ten percent of homeless people in Canada are Asian" quote and they wanted to be angry about me "excluding everyone else because of my Asian bias" then they could do that and make a post just like this one and it would be no different.

What is this article about? You don't know. Nobody does by just looking at the post but there's a classic "I'm offended" title with an "I'm offended" tweet slapped on the bottom and that's all the excuse most people are going to need in order to justify collaborating with each other to vent their impotent rage while reinforcing their positions with nothing but feelings based on nonsense.

[–]Risikabel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't worry, it's not rude. That's why I said I was playing devil's advocate, and not just stating my opinion. Because there's literally no way to know what the article was about by the picture alone, and I think most people know that.

What I wrote was just my take on what I would assume people could take insult at by such a picture without the rest of the article.

Statistics don't have to have any true reason behind them, but they are usually used in some sort of way to garner some sort of response from people (after they are collected). Honestly, I do believe that a huge number of people reading that article would be more inclined to care about homelessness by seeing that 1 in 4 are women. Not because they don't care about men at all, but because women (and children) appeal to the masses as the most vulnerable. I can see that being very disheartening to men.

[–]ponyrides3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Risikabel5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oscarius11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Kyoopy23 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheExplodingKitten2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy23 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheExplodingKitten3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are lots of good reasons to base it on gender. Men and women have different healthcare needs, so there is a good reason to analyze gender statistics in suffering groups. What if homeless shelters had equal health coverage of mammograms and prostate exams, even though men make up a much larger percentage of the homeless? What if homeless shelters don't provide tampons/pads, even though females make up a sizable amount of the homeless population? That would be silly, and failing to understand the homeless demographic would be a good way to lead to one of those situations - which aren't good for homeless men or women. I also don't see why such an analysis of gender would lead to men being increasingly represented in homeless/suicide probe/uneducated groups. Those are a result of bad cultural and societal customs, not good statistical understanding of groups.

[–]TheExplodingKitten2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Only looking at" does not equal "viewing with more importance". It is important to be a well informed member of the public, and as such publishing a piece about a less well represented group (female homeless), is important. What if legislature went through in a local community based on needs of homeless shelters, as it pertains to women's care? Then it would be incredibly important that the public understand how many women constitute the homeless population. Every article cannot address a wholistic issue, everything has to have some lens to it. If we only reported on majorities every single minority group would be unrepresented - a large problem. Now if somebody's argument was that there is an overly representative amount of articles being published on women in the homeless population, there is no fundamental flaw with that. However stating that reporting on women in homelessness is flawed inherently is, well, an inherently flawed statement.

[–]FireHazard111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]uyoos2uyoos2 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're right, there doesn't seem to be any basis for outrage based on this post alone because it completely lacks context. It smells fishy.

But here's the article. http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html

All in all it's a fine article except for this line

Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

Assuming the paper is operating off of a gender binary perspective the statistic DOES appear to be somewhat out of place (unlike the other statistics). Things like "39% aboriginals" seems ok to report if this is disproportionate to Aboriginal populations as a whole.

On the other hand - I assume that Vancouver doesn't have fewer than 23% female population, which would be not only an unremarkable statistic for reporting on "record levels of homelessness" as it represents a statistical advantage for women but it blatantly ignores that men are actually an afflicted category in this context. But I think because being "male" is sort of like the same thing as being "normal", it doesn't sound as good to an editor.

Also we should consider that male chauvinism might be coming into play here. That might be a controversial thing to bring up in this circle jerk but ultimately I think the intention of this like was to say "Homelessness is a travesty but a WOMAN being homeless is especially egregious". Ala. women are delicate and need to be protected. By allowing women to be homeless we males in power are failing to protect them.

So all around just kind of a stupid line in that article. Not any big deal though.

[–]peanutbutterjams1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also we should consider that male chauvinism might be coming into play here. That might be a controversial thing to bring up in this circle jerk but ultimately I think the intention of this like was to say "Homelessness is a travesty but a WOMAN being homeless is especially egregious". Ala. women are delicate and need to be protected. By allowing women to be homeless we males in power are failing to protect them.

Men wanting to protect women results in more women being protected from the ravages of capitalism and mental illness than men. While I would also like to live in a world without gender norms, please don't pretend that the protection is worse than the affliction. Homelessness is a horror and so avoiding homelessness because of a sexist attitude is a net benefit for women.

Moreover, you can extend that line of thinking. If you accept that women are more protected than men, you can also see why men would also often be afraid of walking home alone at night (especially since they're more likely to be attacked by a stranger), or why some angst reasonably exists about the men who are killed or mutilated extracting resources we all use or fighting for rights we all want.

But I think because being "male" is sort of like the same thing as being "normal", it doesn't sound as good to an editor.

Fair point. But consider all perspectives of normalcy. It means that the male perspective is assumed to have been expressed through corporate media, because corporate media is largely comprised of white men, despite the fact that the only goal of corporate media is profit, not the expression of a white male perspective, and said profit is derived from marketing products that mostly women buy.

Even if you don't accept the premise, imagine, for a minute, that you feel that the (white) male voice has been delegitimized solely on the basis of its whiteness and its maleness, an action antithetical to the cornerstone of liberal ideology, and then you see a stat that should speak to the disposability of men but instead speaks to the need to protect women.

Try it out. I suggest this not to change your perspective, but so that you can empathize with those of a differing perspective of yours, making you a rounder, more complex person who will be better able to contribute to the modern society we all envision.

[–]uyoos2uyoos21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Homelessness is a horror and so avoiding homelessness because of a sexist attitude is a net benefit for women.

Subjugation and objectification is also horrible. You could argue so horrible that a not insignificant portion of the homeless population chooses that life in the vein of escape.

I'm not impressed by your moralizing sexism.

specially since they're more likely to be attacked by a stranger

Is that true?

Fair point.

I wasn't making this as a positive point. As if this is the way it should be. It was meant to highlight the gender biased "normative" attitudes that pervade society. I'm not sure if you picked up on that.

despite the fact that the only goal of corporate media is profit, not the expression of a white male perspective, and said profit is derived from marketing products that mostly women buy.

Admitting that corporate media is largely comprised of white men is a big first step. But I'm perplexed at where you get "monolithic human perspective + free market capitalism = objectivity". The free market doesn't work like that. There are plenty of instances where marketing, media, and product design work together in a successful way financially that still promote sexist attitudes towards women. Just look at the Screwball comedies of the 1930's. This is an example of industrial leaders deciding that the largest potential base of mid-day movie watching is women - because they don't have jobs. They start to market movies towards women based on what they think women want to see - The dashing middle aged hero with borderline abusive tendancies, the adolescent female who acts out only because she doesn't have a man to fill a void in her life.

Did women go to see these movies? Yeah some did. It's because the movies were funny and they had glamorous movie stars in them and there was nothing better to do. Do the movies still contribute to a dialogue of subjugation and diminished female worth? Yes, they certainly do.

I think my first post, had you read it, seeks to have people like you do a little altered thinking. Instead of "one or the other" (does this represent the disposability of men?) you could look at it in a scientific manner that removes unnecessary gender bias to make some semantics based angsty point about male subjugation.

[–]peanutbutterjams1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Subjugation and objectification is also horrible. You could argue so horrible that a not insignificant portion of the homeless population chooses that life in the vein of escape.

Men are over-represented in the homeless community possibly because of a sexist attitude towards women that makes them a more protected class, and your complaint is atypically not about the over-representation of an identity group in a irrefutably and fully literally shitty situation, but about the possible sexism that results in women being under-represented in ye olde categorie of "Death by Exposure". I point this out in my effortlessly elegant fashion and your response is that...

...women choose to be homeless to avoid Dat Male Gaze?

Is that true?

Yes.

I wasn't making this as a positive point. As if this is the way it should be. It was meant to highlight the gender biased "normative" attitudes that pervade society. I'm not sure if you picked up on that.

I did. That's why I didn't say "good point", but "fair point", which normally expresses a relaxing of the guard, an appreciation of a point that is not necessarily in your favour in the midst of a discussion, but is undeniably true, and I, being the virtuous and gallant man that I am, must recognize its veracity in the face of adversity.

I'm not sure if you picked up on that.

However, I suppose the definition of "normally" excludes a conversation where I happen to disagree with you.

Admitting that corporate media is largely comprised of white men is a big first step.

These are so incredibly patronizing. How do you expect to properly represent an ideology based on a love for all of humanity when you act so hatefully?

But I'm perplexed

Yes, clearly. I'm talking about the demonstrable harm done to men by normative attitudes. Demonstrable, because an article about an affliction in which men are over-represented doesn't talk about men but instead other 'protected classes'. I extend this by referring to the assumption that the white male perspective, rather than the corporate perspective, has been expressed by corporate media and so no longer deserves a platform.

I'm sure this would have been clear.

Had you read it.

[–]uyoos2uyoos21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I point this out in my effortlessly elegant fashion and your response is that... ...women choose to be homeless to avoid Dat Male Gaze?

I shouldn't be responsible for your failure to read my response but I guess I got myself in to this conversation. You seem to be taxing yourself intellectually attempting to use what I'm sure passes for "elegant language" in your circles but I'm afraid in doing so you must be missing the point. So lets get back to basics.

You said: subjugation/objectification is fine because women get protected this way. It's not worse that homelessness.

I said: This is a matter of perspective - some people feel that objectification is bad enough that they would do anything to escape it - including being homeless. I didn't specify gender here.

You said: Boo hoo your'e defending women but look at these poor men over here. You're such an SJW that you can't see the forest for the trees - you're focused on male suffering of women's comfort.

What I'm saying now: Homelessness is a problem but it's not THE problem. There are lots of underlying problems with homeless. It's not just "x person is poor and forgotten". The underlying issues have more to do with mental health than anything else. Most people in a homeless situation struggle with mental health which prevents them from achieving some foothold in stability. Your assertion that this is somehow gender based might or might not be valid but one has to recognize that it's more complicated than that. Furthermore, my point in pointing out that your characterization is more complicated than it may seem for women is to perhaps point out that women may not necessarily be represented in homeless populations but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have it "easy". I don't know how many times you've had to watch "Pretty Woman" to assume that this is the experience of every poverty level female but most women afflicted with the kinds of mental disorders that keep men in homeless situations are more likely to wind up in the home of Jack the Ripper than Richard Gere.

You can make your arguments about the issues afflicting men on a gendered basis. Cool, it's a good start. Make your arguments that normative attitudes towards men prevents these issues from being seen on a gender basis. Cool, good point. Where you undercut your arguments is when you try to make some facile point about how women have it great and nobody should worry about issues that afflict women because men have it so much worse. It's not a contest my friend. Make your good points, leave your bad ones out. You're clearly not half-stupid I would encourage you not to get all edgy on me.

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

[–]A_Parked_Car1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OsmerusMordax1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyLastNameIsIceCream1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gafftaped1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zue31 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]77maf 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_LAWN_GIRL1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]undreamt_odds9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy253 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DervishHaydar36 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cavscout559 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's the swing to the far side. Whenever one side rises up in an extra fashion, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction. However extreme feminists get, there will eventually be just as extreme meninists. Just like republicans and democrats. The far right and far left will always extend in the opposite direction to the extent their opposition extends. It doesn't matter which side you're on, you've noticed it a hundred times during this election. The extreme liberals turning a blind eye to how bad Hillary would have been to the country, excusing her transgressions and holding the super huge Women's March are one side. The other are the extreme conservatives that voted Trump, turned a blind eye to his mistreatment of women and continue to support his wildly stupid behavior. Extreme Redneck Christians vs Extreme Terrorist Muslims. Feminists vs Meninists. KKK vs Black Panthers. It literally doesn't matter. As extreme as one side goes, the other side will eventually swing. You think there's lots of equality talk on feminist subreddits? No. You're in a place with high concentration of people that are anti-feminists. However I'd wager that as extreme as both feminists and meninists can be a large portion really do just want some level of equality. Most don't want to banish, enslave or kill the entire other gender. Most want society striving towards a peaceful middle and to leave the extreme sides however that takes maturity, honesty, trust and for one side to take a position of peace. When you're facing militant movement, it's a very difficult thing to do. So because many men have seen the hundred of thousands of #KillAllMen and other incredibly extreme posts on tumblr they have begun to become more and more militant themselves. More aggressive, less likely to strive for peace. Which, of course, feminists love because they get to point at all the cases men turned militant in real life or on the internet as and justify all their actions. And the pendulum swings. We need a movement like Ghandi or MLK lead. Only a widespread movement of peace can really bring both sides together to the middle.

[–]Stenanosaurus9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cavscout553 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cavscout55-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cavscout552 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cavscout551 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]artificialsoup3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cavscout553 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]motorhomosapien4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PurpleSkua6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RosneftTrump20202 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PurpleSkua2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC18 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rhose3225 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He's not "pointing out discrimination".

I am. I'm saying society treats homelessness among women differently to men. I'm saying people on the streets (overwhelmingly men) often don't even get counted in these kinds of statistics and/or they get compared with women who are living in shelters or couch surfing.

He's claiming that women aren't really homeless because to women "homeless means something along the lines of not having exactly every luxury interior design you saw in a magazine"

No. That's your gynocentric bias making you interpret anything that an woman might not feel good about, as misogyny. Try thinking straight and reading more carefully.

What I'm saying is that homeless means literally without a place to live and there, men outnumber women by what I said I suspect is far more than 200%. But because society treats men and women differently, it counts all sorts of other living arrangements for women as homelessness, thereby skewing the statistics.

He's claiming that women aren't really homeless because to women "homeless means

This is also false. I said "Homelessness seems to be defined differently according to genitalia". I never said women are doing the defining though some of them are probably women.

Learn to read. Learn to think and, frankly, shut your dumb mouth until you've done those things.

[–]rhose328 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You literally said that with no evidence whatsoever that women who claim to be homeless are lying or their claims of homelessness can be dismissed because to women

No. I explained above that this is not what I said. And if you want to claim that I "literally" did say that, then prove it. Find the quote where I say "women who claim to be homeless are lying".

Quoting your exact words

Out of context. Here: is some more of what I wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the gap was far greater. Homelessness seems to be defined differently according to genitalia. ....... i.e. spending the nights on the street. I doubt 25% of the people doing that are women.

As you can see, I'm questioning the gap in homelessness, not the existence of homeless women. Why would I otherwise say "the gap is probably far greater" If I then proceed to say there are no homeless women. Only to finish off saying I doubt 25% of those on the streets are women. What I say about definitions is simply one of the reasons why the gap is false.

[–]rhose322 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rhose321 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rhose321 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rhose322 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I accused you of making an unsubstantiated claim

If that was all you had done, I'd not have argued with you. It's the other stuff you said that's bullshit. Such as:

and that that claim was based on assumptions about women (that women consider "homelessness" to be "not having the latest items out of designer catalogues"),

One more time: I said nothing about what women consider. Try to imagine a world in which not everything is about women. I was referring to how society and researchers treat homelessness differently for women than they do for men. Not how women treat it differently. Are you capable of understanding the difference?

So that puts the burden of proof on you, not me.

Your accusation that I "literally said" women lie about being homeless is something that you must prove if you're going to want to maintain even a shred of credibility. That's called taking responsibility for what you said. Let me show you how it's done:

My claims in the initial comment were hyperbolic. I have no problem with them being dismissed for not being backed up with evidence. They never meant to be academically rigorous.

[–]artificialsoup5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]artificialsoup1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure. Go ahead and turn my argument into a straw-man, why don't ya'? Who the fuck are you to tell me, that I always want to portray women as suffering less than men? In social situations - at least for women who by today's standards are considered pretty - women have it easier on many accounts, in many customer-faced positions women have a big advantage in terms of tips and customer friendliness, women have it easier in custody hearings, have it easier in getting support from their community and the state, the list goes on.

What I can't stand is your shitty attitude that forbids me from pointing out any situation in which women don't get treated well, because "oh you sexist." Fuck you. Men have it easier in their career trajectories, easier in negotiating higher pay, easier in team-based competitions, easier in intellectual debates where they are seen as more competent opponents, and have it pretty easy by comparison when it comes to doing any job that is under public scrutiny.

I will never claim women are always worse off. But your claim to the contrary, that men somehow have it worse on every single aspect of life than women do is fucking disgusting. We can disagree on the situation all we want, but I take issue with you trying to dispute the god damn facts. Women are MUCH more likely to suffer sexual exploitation or physical abuse when homeless, typically because they couch surf and the host expects "something for something" even if it wasn't agreed prior to her moving in on the couch. If you can't even accept that fact because your fragile little manhood feels exposed, well, then you're a dick.

[–]adoptinglilkits3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tacopower692 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheEssexian8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What's annoying is people who do pretend to be for equal rights when they are really only advocating for extended privileges to for a category of people they identify with.

If you go onto a feminist subreddit, you will not see women advocating for longer prison sentences for women, nor will you see them advocating for more women in mines and jobs that involve danger pay where women can be killed. You will not see them advocating for addressing the suicide issue among men, especially when it related to divorce and custody issues, and you most certainly will not see feminists advocating for men with body issues that are so bad they are willing to inject themselves with steroids to look good (which if far more common than cases of eating disorders).

Why? BECAUSE THE DO NO FIGHT FOR EQUALITY. They fight for women's rights. They shouldn't be expected to fight for those things because they are addressing issues that are unique to women. I won't fault them for that for a second, nor will I fault men who do the same.

I don't expect Black groups to advocated for the LGBTQ community. I don't expect the LGBTQ community to advocate for police. I don't expect police groups to advocate for aboriginals.

I myself am an egalitarian, so I do believe in equality. I think men and women should be equal, but there are issues unique to every category of people, and only those within those groups know and care enough about those issues to advocate for them. It's why patriarchal governments never gave women the right to vote: because they didn't understand why it was important to women because they weren't women. You needed women to advocate for women.

Men face issues too, from high suicide rates, to unemployment, to homelessness, and yes, body issues (which are just as prevalent, if not more so, but manifest in a different way).

So if you are going to come in here and complain that the MRA is not fighting for equality, then go into the feminist subreddits and tell them the same thing.

This subreddit is here to highlight issues men are dealing with. If you don't want to read about those issues, don't read articles and posts here. It's common sense.

I don't like Mama's Family, so guess what: I don't watch it.

It makes life far more enjoyable.

[–]orcscorper5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Golnarth3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fail_Panda15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tatostix14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tatostix19 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tatostix15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tatostix15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tatostix2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]adoptinglilkits2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]adoptinglilkits2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheThunderBringer9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Koolachoo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tatostix1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Koolachoo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stenanosaurus2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Take the obvious hyperbole out of what he said, and you get:

homelessness for men is mainly living on the street. Homelessness for women is more inclusive-- it can include couch surfing, living in shelters, and other circumstances that fewer men have access to than women.

This is what you're condemning. I don't know if these are factually true, but they certainly aren't blatantly sexist like you're making it out to be.

If you take mother fucking obvious hyperbole literally for the sake of your argument, it really does make you look dumb.

Beyond that, the article mentions in no uncertain terms that the statistics it has are low estimates. They can't find everyone on the streets, and not everyone wants to participate in the study. Thus they mostly get people are shelters.

In the US, most people at shelters are women and children. The article itself implicitly states that the data is probably skewed towards women due to using mainly shelter folks.

[–]scyth3s1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]motorhomosapien3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chlomyster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theycallmeponcho8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7-_-6-_-78 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troubleshooter117 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fail_Panda15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troubleshooter114 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingwroth7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]mistersys 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

I love how your comment is in "controversial" simple for posting a link to the actual article.

[–]czarist7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]pickymeek 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YuriJackoffski6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vadarpoo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheEssexian5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't find a print version of this article, but I found one online by looking up: "affordable housing, and people on welfare can't afford to pay rent" Here is the link:

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/metro-canada-vancouver/20160601/281479275669812

And another: http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html

Now, even these two versions are slightly different. Slightly different publication dates, but the one that follows through with the "Sixty-one percent" and has the same quote marks doesn't even mention women in the article.

The other article, which the one pictured here seems to be quote, since it put their words in quote, does say that '23% of homeless are women' (not 1/4), but it is listing marginalized groups and puts aboriginals and veterans ahead of women, even though they are a lower percentage.

Now, there may be a print copy of this that somebody has and can share, because I know that online version get updated and changed, and are formatted differently, but it seems like somebody is trying to get the MRA community riled up about a doctored document.

If somebody has a print copy, feel free to take a pic and share and get some clarity on this.

[–]leStarryNights5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thank_mr_skeltal_bot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]delowry6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dranic1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]denga-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leStarryNights4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib95 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]olican101 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_TIPS_GRL-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheExplodingKitten5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_TIPS_GRL1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]olican101-10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just so you know, LGBT includes B and T which are not necessarily gay, in the UK less than 1 in 10 people are gay.

And I'm not attacking the statistic, a statistic is a statistic the only way you could attack it is by accusing the methods of generating it to be flawed such that it isn't a valid statistic.

I'm attacking it's use, you think people wouldn't throw a fit if instead of all the talk about women's breast cancer it was replaced with talk of men's breast cancer which is the minority of breast cancer.

The annoyance is because of in this case a general trend, not just this article, that men's issues are under represented. In real life I've come across posters with similar statistics (in this case it was 1 in 3) women are homeless, please call us at X phone number to help these women. Never once in my life despite them needing 3x more, a poster asking for money to help men specifically. And while I can't stop a charity giving preference to a sex, and afaik it's not illegal for them to, it's still stupid, there shouldn't be any preference, homeless people are homeless who gives a shit what's between their legs and fucking help them if you wanna help them.

[–]twodinosaursfucking2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eof4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twodinosaursfucking1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]olican1011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twodinosaursfucking1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]olican1011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twodinosaursfucking1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]olican1011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just so you know, LGBT includes B and T which are not necessarily gay, in the UK less than 1 in 10 people are gay.

source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports#cite_note-24 proves you wrong.

I'm attacking it's use, you think people wouldn't throw a fit if instead of all the talk about women's breast cancer it was replaced with talk of men's breast cancer which is the minority of breast cancer.

meanwhile this can be found at my local doctor's. I don't see anyone taking issue with it. This isn't replacing anything, it is more info. You are literally complaining about being educated because the education is about women.

The annoyance is because of in this case a general trend, not just this article, that men's issues are under represented.

What? men are getting almost 3x the coverage when people talk about homelessness because 3/4 of the homeless population is male. It's like being mad at LGBT people asking for equal rights because only 10% of the population is LGBT.

In real life I've come across posters with similar statistics (in this case it was 1 in 3) women are homeless, please call us at X phone number to help these women.

Women are more likely to donate to charities that focus women. That is how association works. Every $1 that goes to a homeless woman through these charities is a $1 that doesnt have to come from a gender neutral charity (which still makes far more). And that's only if this charity only donates to women.

Gay people are more likely to donate to an LGBT charity. Is that heterophobic?

Never once in my life despite them needing 3x more, a poster asking for money to help men specifically.

because they are already getting 3x more from the gender neutral charities. (because they are 3x the population).

And while I can't stop a charity giving preference to a sex, and afaik it's not illegal for them to, it's still stupid, there shouldn't be any preference, homeless people are homeless who gives a shit what's between their legs and fucking help them if you wanna help them.

If you don't care then why are you making such a big deal over it?

[–]JoelMahon2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anagram88 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brs6770 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ohshhhhmamas4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

If you read the article - they're simply reporting the results of the survey:

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population.

Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

The only real gripe I have is that it would have been more appropriate to include men in that list of over-represented groups of people. I'm surprised an out-of-context infographic inspired so much outrage and attention.

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

[–]lcg3092 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Quiznasty1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TooFakeToFunction1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sheerpariah 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]baphometsayshi points 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I doubt it's even as high as 1/4

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

[–]FowD91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Nick125060 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Borkborkbingo194 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Borkborkbingo194 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]conrad_w4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dcbcpc4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]conrad_w5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Entropy_Sucks4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JB37831 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lukesmithisgay3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]True_Truth1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coheedcollapse 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]coheedcollapse 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]coheedcollapse4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They're reporting the interesting numbers. Most people understand that the majority of homeless are male considering their everyday interactions and observations, so the paper is dropping percentages that people may not know. They likely aren't assuming that their readers are idiots, so the fact that the other percentage of homeless are males is kind of, you know, implied. They don't explicitly have to say "23 percent of homeless are women - that means that the other 77% is men!".

I have no idea why people want to be persecuted so badly that they play dumb to fit their own narrative. I'm sure you can find plenty of real situations in which men are being unfairly discriminated against (being assumed as pedos, for example - I run into that plenty as a photographer), but this simply isn't one of them.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Want to be persecuted?

How about it's more about recognizing disadvantages that group faces?

If everyone already knows men are the majority of the homeless, and this is bring to light women who are homeless, what does that say about how much the readers care about male homelessness that an article highlighting the minority of the victims garners more attention?

Same thing with suicide, and violence, both of whose victims are primarily male, but there's a greater focus on violence against women, and how women suffer in silence. Your reaction is a microcosm of the problem: even when men are the majority of the sufferers, even when people know men are, there's more reason to highlight the suffering of women, and any objection to the idea that doing so further renders male suffering to obscurity or indifference is met with dismissal.

[–]coheedcollapse3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We've had like four back and forth comments and it's still pretty clear that you haven't actually taken the few moments to go check out the article. It does mention the disadvantages the groups face. It also mentions the number of total homeless in Vancouver, where they can get assistance, and opinions from people who are helping them.

You're bringing up a bunch of issues that are completely ancillary to this, and associating some high-level discrimination-wishing to like seven words in a ~700 word story. Written by a guy, by the way.

more reason to highlight the suffering of women

This again. The whole article was about the suffering of homeless in general, men and women. The info about women was a total of a single sentence. It had nothing to do with playing up pity, it was a statistic highlighting a minority within the homeless population that people might not be aware of. If they were looking to push the "female agenda", they would've spent more than a few words on it.

any objection to the idea that doing so further renders male suffering to obscurity or indifference is met with dismissal.

Not to distill this down to a single issue, but you might be taken more seriously if you didn't trivialize your movement by losing your shit over stupid stuff in this echo chamber. Go into the real world a bit. There are many organizations that are friendly to the cause of issues that affect men primarily.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it was a statistic highlighting a minority within the homeless population that people might not be aware of.

Sooo you're saying that people are aware men are the majority of the homeless but somehow aren't aware the remainder of the homeless are women, and that's why there was this noteworthy entry?

So the readers are simultaneous idiots and not idiots.

Not to distill this down to a single issue, but you might be taken more seriously if you didn't trivialize your movement by losing your shit over stupid stuff in this echo chamber. Go into the real world a bit. There are many organizations that are friendly to the cause of issues that affect men primarily.

Funny, because when I try to talk to feminists and women's groups about-the ones who have a monopoly on the narrative and funding-suddenly they don't want to hear it.

Hell, in several states when equal custody laws have been proposed the state's NOW chapter organizes and gets it shut down by misrepresenting as protecting child abusers.

I've lived all over the US, and have seen much of the real world. Don't presume my experiences based on the positions I hold.

You say there are many organizations sympathetic to men's problems but guess what: the largest institutions: education, family and criminal courts, are not, and they happen to be the arenas where men suffer the most.

But apparently pointing out the biggest problems and the hurdles to overcoming the largest institutions of power is "trivializing the movement".

Which would mean either you have a profound misunderstanding of the movement or the facts, or you see what the movement brings up as problems as trivial. I suspect it's the former, but I've grown cynical in my striving to give the benefit of the doubt.

[–]coheedcollapse1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sooo you're saying

Uh. No? 23% is still probably an interesting statistic for most people, which is why they led with it, plus they were already talking about "minorities" within the homeless population, so it made sense to progress to females. The part that I deemed "too stupid" was spelling out the remainder (men).

try to talk to feminists

If you're using these talking points, that might be why. I'm not a feminist myself, but I've talked to plenty. They're mostly reasonable folk looking for equal treatment. The illusion that some of you guys have here that they're man-hating, angry, irrational people who just want everything to go the way of the woman is, in large part, fabricated and the only reason you're of that mindset is because you're constantly pounded with the worst examples of what feminism is like it's the norm.

misrepresenting as protecting child abusers.

What does that have to do with anything we're saying here? I never said there weren't real instances where men got the short end of the stick, I have no idea why you feel the need to continue bringing this stuff up as if it justifies the fact that this place is an echo chamber.

Perfectly unreasonable people can gather behind perfectly reasonable movements. It happens all the time.

apparently

No, falling prey to bad information and spouting talking points formulated in an echo chamber is what trivializes your movement. Not once did I say that men didn't have issues where they're getting a shitty deal. I'm just saying if you keep on getting infuriated over stupid stuff like this - manipulated, information lacking, clickbait equivalent, bullshit - it makes you look bad.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uh. No? 23% is still probably an interesting statistic for most people, which is why they led with it, plus they were already talking about "minorities" within the homeless population, so it made sense to progress to females. The part that I deemed "too stupid" was spelling out the remainder (men).

So why focus on the minorities of the sufferers again?

When women are the majority of victims, the narrative focuses on that.

So when women are the minority we can't forget about them, and when they're the majority it makes sense to focus on them, but this isn't evidence of bias in favor of empathy towards women's suffering how?

If you're using these talking points, that might be why.

How so?

hey're mostly reasonable folk looking for equal treatment.

Odd how they cite results and infer unequal treatment, or at least have been taught to as such then.

The illusion that some of you guys have here that they're man-hating, angry, irrational people who just want everything to go the way of the woman is, in large part, fabricated and the only reason you're of that mindset is

Nope. The problem is most self identified are grossly misinformed, and have been given a line of reasoning that obscures male suffering and prevents productive discussion.

Most are well meaning, but the unwitting accomplices of the institutions of feminism found in politics and academia.

because you're constantly pounded with the worst examples of what feminism is like it's the norm.

Or it doesn't matter what the majority of feminists think, but what feminists with influence do.

What does that have to do with anything we're saying here?

It's an example of feminists lying to protect their monopoly on the narrative and maintain unequal treatment in favor of women, and it is via a powerful institution-the family courts.

That's not what I mean, but that "some organizations are sympathetic to men's problems" fails to recognize the major problem in getting progress for it, namely the currently narrative in major institutions of power that feminism has helped shape.

It would be like saying "guys, I know fugitive slave laws are a thing, but cmon there are some people who are abolitionist. Sure they aren't in power in any meaningful way, but since they care you need not get so riled up."

No, falling prey to bad information and spouting talking points formulated in an echo chamber is what trivializes your movement.

a) no argument has been made as to what information is bad and b) "talking points" and "echo chamber" isn't a rebuttal either.

So you're focusing more on the rhetoric than the merit of the points themselves.

I'm just saying if you keep on getting infuriated over stupid stuff like this - manipulated, information lacking, clickbait equivalent, bullshit - it makes you look bad.

Sure, as long as we assume your conclusion regarding the article is sound, but that is the very premise in contention.

[–]aksoullanka2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]franklindeer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troaweymon42 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]pacisbeautiful3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]youdidntreddit4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]TheF0CTOR 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]J1OO 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]SolongStarbird 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]wileyrielly4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SolongStarbird1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SolongStarbird1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StrikeZone1000 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Cd206 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]marty82 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cd206-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marty8213 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cd206-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marty8215 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]p_rite_19935 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lord_overlord_trump1 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]franklindeer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack3 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SockSage 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack3 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SockSage6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack312 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Returnofthemack316 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aimeelamas2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xu7 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]3y3-000 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Kyoopy2 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ohshhhhmamas7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheEssexian2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LiberaToro1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheEssexian2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LionSlicer131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheExplodingKitten1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ForgottenFart1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]My-whatever-account 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]pacisbeautiful 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TiePoh 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TiePoh 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]pacisbeautiful4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Victor38220 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abend954 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For those who dismiss out of hand the message that this image is trying to convey, I would strongly urge you to put aside your bias for a moment. Yes, I agree that we don't know the context of the article.

But what some men and women are trying to say, and whose voices are being shouted down, is not that men's problems are worse than women's problems. What we are trying to say is that men have issues too. Men's Rights Activists can't even speak about their issues without being called racists, misogynists, pathetic, privileged, cry babies, and women haters. Men have some very serious issues facing them today and no one wants to hear it.

I would encourage everyone to take a long hard look at your immediate response to be dismissive when presented men's issues and I challenge you to watch "The Red Pill" movie with and open mind and an open heart.

[–]DervishHaydar 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adynaton 98 points99 points100 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]coheedcollapse 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrabEmByTheBalls 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlkylDiHalide 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cye604 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Adynaton-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful24 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ladyk209311 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tele_paths13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rhose322 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hey_-_-_Zeus 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]czarist 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tuesdaythe5th 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]sneakpeekbot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imphatic 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheExplodingKitten 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]imphatic0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheExplodingKitten2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]astheriae5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tacopower690 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clean_Midnight_33791 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GottaStayFrosty4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PaulMurrayCbr3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mstwerkalot2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dr_Smoothrod_PhD1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DervishHaydar1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Vult__1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guacamolly_Im_Sweatn-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mcmur 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreedDrugsTinyGuns7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreedDrugsTinyGuns2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreedDrugsTinyGuns1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreedDrugsTinyGuns1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreedDrugsTinyGuns1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]majavic1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreedDrugsTinyGuns3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]majavic1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frekkes2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]longshot 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]A_Change_of_Seasons 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tetrapharmakos_-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tetrapharmakos_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tetrapharmakos_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Perception isn't reality. And I haven't read the paper you're referring to but there is no doubt IMO that constantly highlighting women's issues without context contributes to women's largely false sense of insecurity. Take ads like one that circulated in Canada for instance that stated 1 in 2 women would be victims of violence at some point in their lifetime. This was based on self reported surveys, included pretty much any kind of violence one could imagine, and didn't give rates for men for context. The reality is that 50% is an admirable figure when you consider that getting slapped by another woman on the playground would make you part of that stat. The figure for men is likely near 100% and still not a big concern since the bar is so low. That's just one example of thousands that are part of a daily barrage of what really just amounts to fear mongering at this point. Women are extremely unlikely to be attacked or assaulted in public in the west and are less likely than children to suffer from violence. This is a good thing. We should stop creating fear via activism and the media for the sake of solving a problem that doesn't result from a lack of awareness.

[–]tetrapharmakos_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]snow_bob172 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SamsAdams2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SamfromCowtown2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]othervinny4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BartlebyGetsIt2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nice_halibut2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Itsjustagameok2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuesdaythe5th2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IAmTheJudasTree2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So I've never posted in this subreddit, and I only saw this post because it hit /all, but I have a question.

Why does the tweet end with "#feministlogic"?

Unless the article (which we can't see because it's cut off) is written from some kind of feminist perspective, arguing that feminists only believe homelessness matters when it involves women, I don't see what the connection is between this infographic and feminism.

Do the regulars here ever stop to think that people don't take the Men's Rights subreddit seriously because it seems like it's way more about attacking feminism than it is about bringing light to struggles that are unique to men?

Edit: Also, since a number of posters that have received a lot of upvotes have talked about there being no shelters or services for men available, I just want to add that I worked at a very large homelessness housing and service provider in Boston for awhile, and the fact is that the largest single demographic of the homeless were very young, single mothers. That is why a great deal of attention was paid to them - because they were the largest group, and between their young ages and the fact that they were raising infants alone meant that they were in extremely vulnerable situations.

But we did not, as some people have asserted here as if they are experts on the matter, turn men away or ignore them because of their gender. Not that all homelessness organizations function equally, I'm just speaking from my own experience.

[–]MaestroLogical3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do the regulars here ever stop to think that people don't take the Men's Rights subreddit seriously because it seems like it's way more about attacking feminism than it is about bringing light to struggles that are unique to men?

We discuss that every single week. Every single week the same conclusion is reached. We are NOT attacking women. We are NOT attacking feminists (of the 1970's variety). We ARE attacking radical feminists that hijacked the narrative. The same Redfems that get laughed at by women without actually being called out.

We're just calling them out and that automatically makes us the bad guy. You've been conditioned to see anything even slightly negative about women as being hatred when it's nothing more than simple criticism.

Take a real look at what we're 'moaning' about instead of just glancing. Realize that what we're laughing and bemoaning isn't actually 'feminism' as you understand it, but is modern 'women are superior' feminism that is nonsense.

It ends with #feministlogic because as far as society is concerned, only women matter. So instead of saying 75% of homeless are men, they flip it to say 1 of 4 women. Since women being featured will generate sympathy but men being featured would generate hate mail from radfems.

[–]PaulMurrayCbr2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]proteios12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Traffordman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roderape2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sullyville2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]warmlandleaf2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]51651564562 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djouga2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LiberaToro2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuggestiveMaterial2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drakebillion152 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pointofyou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]equiposeur2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In case anyone wants to see the Empathy Gap in action, take a look at the human refuse swarming in from /r/all to defend this shit, including but not limited to:

Homeless women are magically more vulnerable than homeless men, despite being far more likely to ACTUALLY FUCKING DIE. Also apparently homeless women are much more likely to be rape victims based on a survey that doesn't count made-to-penetrate as rape.
Also apparently the male rape victims were almost all raped by men, based on... you guessed it, excluding made-to-penetrate.
Someone seriously fucking said the following:

Scale of offense isn't proportional.

Forced to penetrate is just plain less invasive than being forcibly penetrated. I'd say female on male rape is more akin to sexual harassment/groping.

"But it's other men who are assaulting homeless men, so their being victimized doesn't matter!"
More or less telling an actual man who shared his story of being a homeless DV victim and unable to get a shelter because he was male to sit down and shut up and accusing him of "self-serving victimhood" while maintaining in the face of all facts that women are the real victims and deserve preferential treatment.
The usual "Well but if men just asked for help they wouldn't be homeless so often" (i.e Trickle-Down Equality, ignoring the fact that the reason men don't ask for help is because they know they'll be fucking ignored).

[–]Arty2party1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]warspite881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thatgirlwithbigboobs3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]warspite882 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bfitzisarat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocolate_frosted1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tongueonfire1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aetiek33 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aetiek14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. So many men are controlling what you can and can't do with your own body. Bullshit. Name one thing you can't do with your body because men say you can't.

Name one job opportunity you were denied, and explain why you didn't sue the potential employer for more money than you would have made actually doing the work.

It wasn't an article about women's homelessness, you dumb fuck. It was an article about general homelessness that used an infographic stating that 1 in 4 homeless people were women to highlight the fact that people who matter are also homeless. It's like saying "40% of homeless people are white", to elicit sympathy from people who don't care about homeless minorities, while failing to point out that white people are less likely to be homeless. If one is racist, then the other is sexist.

P.S. Iceberg. The word you are looking for is iceberg.

[–]Y_u_dum8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Y_u_dum7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Y_u_dum6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let's make this easy. I'll start at the top and work my way down.

They called again for the Equal Rights Amendment to be included in the Constitution. They emphasized again the need for "affordable childcare," "equal pay" and "access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control." They said women have a right to live "free of all forms of violence against our bodies" and that "it is our moral duty to keep families together."

Let's look at their concerns:

Affordable childcare. This affects both men and women. Men more so because they have to fork over child support more often than women. Without getting too deep, this is a non issue for women's rights.
Equal pay. This has been debunked. Plain and simple. There is not a gap in pay that cannot be explained through ones own choices, experience or education.
Abortion & birthcontrol. Men and women have the same access to free condoms wherever they are provided. Men don't have a legal right to have a baby aborted. This is purely a woman's choice. If the man wants to keep or get rid of a baby, they're SOL. So this is actually an injustice for men.
Free of violence. Uh, everyone has this available to them. This isn't something that only pertains to men.
Keep families together. Umm, ok? I'm not seeing an injustice or a right that can be legislated into law.

American women do not, and activists have been pushing for decades for passage of an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What rights are they missing? The article fails to describe what rights men have that women don't. It's basically arguing semantics and adds no value.

I am grateful for the rights and privileges that I have as a citizen of the United States, but my rights and representation are not equitable.

Again, failure to come up with a right that is not afforded to women. Just a feminist feel good piece to further the cause of nothingness.

How Men & Women See the Workplace Differently

Nothing here to suggest men have a right that women don't. This was based off of feelings and thoughts with no regard to why men are promoted or given more difficult task. Something with more depth would be helpful in determining if an actual infringement of rights (or lack there of) exist.

What’s Holding Women Back in the Workplace?

Again, some of this is explained by their own choices. But I'm not seeing a right that prevents women from doing anything.

Women pay more for common household items than men do.

Women's bathroom items are more complex. Razors, for example, are larger and offer more features. Men usually don't color their hair, so they won't need expensive shampoo to keep the color. This doesn't take into account for the complexity of said items.

Women make 16% less money than their male counterparts.

Again, personal choices, education & experience. Rights not infringed.

And for black and Hispanic women, the rates are even worse.

See above.

Women are underrepresented in government.

See above.

5, 6,..., 13, 14

Still not seeing any inherit right men have that women don't. Some are even intellectually dishonest.

I honestly don't feel like going through the rest since it's repetitive. The overwhelming majority is false or extremely dishonest.

So in your own words can you answer the question:

What rights do men have that women don't?

[–]jaib92 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib94 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib93 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aetiek3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DXGypsy24 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DXGypsy15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoLBattleSeraph14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Koolachoo7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Koolachoo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoLBattleSeraph4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoLBattleSeraph1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't say marriage was necessary (actually I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I thought marriage is necessary), but when you replied "don't get married" in a response to a list of issues (child custody cases, rape accusations, and an ex stealing money), not getting married solves nearly none of that. In fact, a large portion of people who face those issues weren't married to begin with so I am a bit confused on why you brought up marriage, or happiness in marriage. I don't even see how happiness in marriage relates to the original comment you replied to. I mean, for divorced couples who face those issues, sure, not getting married would've solved them, I guess. But if "you drive outside and someone hits you with their car and you're killed, oh shit I guess you should've just stayed inside"

And I didn't want to reply since you seem pretty riled up and determined to prove you're right. I just didn't care enough to argue with strangers on the internet. But you're persistent and I don't really want you to continuously chain me in comments for the next year

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DXGypsy3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetobacconicjew3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZOMBIE_MOUNTAIN-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you serious? It's terrifying that you're getting upvoted and I'm not. This is why we have so many social problems.

Your happiness is your own responsibility. If you don't even know how to fulfill yourself, then you are in no state to be with someone else. But if you can fill your own cup, then you have more to share - but at that point it doesn't matter if you are with someone or not, because you're happy.

If you enter a relationship and you don't even know who you are, how to be happy (if you think another person will make you happy), then it's a recipe for disaster. And then add all this talk about money and disputes...it's fucking disgusting that society thinks this is normal.

A marriage should be win-win. Not us vs them. It should be 1+1 = 11, not 2; and certainly not less than 2 (as is the case now days).

I have a list of resources, books, studies, and videos (as well my own experience) if you want to know more.

This is /r/MensRights, right? Or is is /r/ImACryBabyAndNothingIsMyFault?

[–]Koolachoo5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]net00_4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GilbertHamilton1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iamafanofsecretriver3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GilbertHamilton0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vadarpoo4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GilbertHamilton1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iamafanofsecretriver0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GilbertHamilton1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DXGypsy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homelesswithwifi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyLoveHammer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Trump_is_lord_cuck1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thomascampbe1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Conscious_Caracal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]didntseethemovie1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sproket8881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DragonGirlxo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that that argument only goes so far.

Much of it has to do with government funding. Politics and "the narrative" are extremely important.

Women have achieved great gains by pushing a narrative translating that into government funding. Most government programs that apply to gender will favour women - there is absolutely no question of that.

Many men on this sub are hoping to achieve equality in that regard by voicing some of the inequalities in society, change the narrative, and (possibly, hopefully) get some political support for this issue.

I think that's also why feminists hate this sub and this movement so much. They see it as a threat, because when you really begin to peel back the statistics and the realities, you will begin to see that there are in fact many avenues in which men are disadvantaged in society. That goes against the feminist narrative.

Hence the "Red Pill" analogy - once you know the truth, you will recognize that men are treated unfairly in the eyes of society and the law despite what our government is telling us. Maybe you'd be better off not knowing the truth?

A paradigm shift might indeed see more funding going to men. Many feminists believe that this would mean less funding for women.

So I don't think it's fair to say that "feminists have achieved a lot, and you guys are just moaning". I think the proper word for what's happening here - indeed what Feminism would call it: "awareness".

[–]homelesschineseman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vhisic1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clembutts1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruckNutz691 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PLAYBOYD51 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RagingFuckalot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daigotsu1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]greenrangerguy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fartswithgusto1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolligagger30001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]j3rbear1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RscMrF1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vegasgrind1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrSeuss191 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fmlom1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheOriginalAntiHero1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaysun131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goodolarchie1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lonedub1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SupremeRedditBot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmg831 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KrimzonK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Foxxya1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SponsoredByBabyJesus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_____username____1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DeltaForcePanda1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seamonkey891 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sourceofgravy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peaches66661 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mythicalwagegap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SovereignVS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PhessPhi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maanavvcc1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moored291 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IronGates571 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Galyx-E1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deez_NutsX1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TommorowActive1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoLiquidCapital1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PurpleInTheOcean1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whatthefuckisupkyle81 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IolaireEagle1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]creppy_art1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AyuuOnReddit1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IndividualForce18631 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ayothrowaway12341 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReasonableTwo41 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IcyFocus38661 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alarming-Half-32761 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheeSylverShroud1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GoonerT-girl_Alt1 point 6 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ihatefeminazis10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ban_this_nazi_mods2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthFinderPC0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]camster11232 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthFinderPC1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]graphix620 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinlin19950 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sean0110 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maggiedean0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amadeogriz0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rorplup0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flomar860 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Luke_H1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makent0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makent1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skiboot0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suckmuckduck-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulc3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_Peavey-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seaguy69-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]geebees9-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-TheChosenDuck--1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KipsandDip-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]panjialang-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OneBuffalo-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]50PercentLies-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iknoghostmagic-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shot-in-the-mouth3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Videowhales-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheDeliBoyChronicles-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OneBuffalo3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zellyman-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zellyman0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]windy--2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kandy03-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OfficialSRSRep-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chadwarden13371 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]c0ldsh0w3r-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iizkaraa-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paradox242-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CanadianWildlifeDept-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dylothor5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SockSage0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]qounqer-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GaryYourofskyIsDumb4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MerindaElizabeth-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tak7ics8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rambo1stBlood7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MerindaElizabeth-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rambo1stBlood3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vagabondvaga5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vadarpoo2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vagabondvaga3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vadarpoo-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vagabondvaga2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MerindaElizabeth1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaestroLogical5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the world's patriarchal view of women? That we're weak? Can't look after ourselves without a man's help?

That's not Patriarchy.

That's modern feminism.

Did you stop paying attention to what your movement turned into over the last decade?? I won't blame you, everyone else did. At some point feminism became synonymous with 'Holy gospel truth' and people stopped paying attention. That's when the madness started.

Patriarchy doesn't make you feel that way. Modern feminism does.

It's 4th wave feminism that takes away your agency, saying you have no ability to consent if alcohol is involved.

It's feminists that continuously attempt to paint women as weak and needing protection.

Modern feminism has morphed into a movement designed to create perma-victims and we're the only ones that have noticed. When I was growing up, feminism was about 'Girl Power' and equal treatment. I was raised to want a partner, not a dainty flower that wilted daily, because that was what feminism was about.

Now... Now it's about turning you into a perpetual victim, always wronged by society, always being shat on by the mythical 'patriarchy'...

We need real old school feminists to rally and stat calling them out on this bullshit. We've been trying for years but it always comes across as moaning and crying.

When you see a feminist post on your FB feed preaching about removing your agency, telling girls they should cower in fear instead of standing tall... Call them out on that shit. Don't blindly 'Like' it simply because it has the magical word feminism in it.

Take a critical look at what your movement has become and understand that they are the ones constantly undermining you, constantly making you feel inferior. Not us. We laugh at modern feminism for this reason, and that gets us labeled as monsters.

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MerindaElizabeth1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eron69-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tacopower693 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eron690 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]huexolotl-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mjuad-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]liongirl528-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmremote-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mareykan-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackStrapless-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrSeuss198 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackStrapless-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sovietpandas4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackStrapless-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaestroLogical2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you going to do something

Stop assuming and knee jerk reacting and actually research if you care.

We tried that. Presenting valid arguments that focus solely on men, with no negativity towards women, got us labeled a hate group by the SPLC.

Attempting to have calm discussions about male issues results in Fire alarms being pulled at speaking engagements which are routinely cancelled due to the outcry of feminists.

Every time we attempt to talk about male issues in public we are swarmed and shouted down and subsequently vilified by the press which only serves to condition people like you into judging us without doing any actual research.

Erin Pizzey started the first DV shelter for women. You know what happened when she tried to do the same for men? Feminists turned on her with death threats and boycotts. Her career was over because she dared to help 'the enemy'.

You see threads here bemoaning feminism and your conditioning kicks in. You're primed to see anything negative about women as being hatred (misogyny) instead of simple criticism. We only point them out so much because they have proven determined to undermine us at every step. They have proven to vilify and twists our words to turn us into demons every step of the way. They are winning and people like you blindly support them, then wonder why we seem so bent out of shape.

[–]BlackStrapless-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackStrapless0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackStrapless0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deltree711-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deltree7111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I highly doubt you are but I'll try to be patient with you and give you the benefit of the doubt generally. Don't you realise what a total twat it makes you look like given the kind of treatment anyone gets for even discussing men's issues for trying to make it out that women's issues get silenced in the slightest when they are constantly on the front page of news when they get non-stop air time and even get big name celebrities gushing about it constantly.

Meanwhile men's issues get fuck all, maybe a passing comment once in awhile but that's it and then the people who do speak out about men's issues sometimes even get violently attacked and by the very same feminists who come along lecturing us about how feminism is supposed to be about 'equality' and how men can share their 'feelings' too.

You have to have been living under a fucking rock to not see the kind of shit feminists get up to in order to silence MRAs in particular or anybody who simply decides to give men a fair hearing which is why I will always doubt people like you have sincere intentions because it always comes back to 'women' and 'feminism'. Oh and by the way, feminism is an ideology, it does not represent 'all' women in the slightest.

[–]deltree7112 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you think feminism is about equality then why aren't there more people actually putting a stop to the man-haters then? This is what gets me, you're happy to jump in and lecture others but I never fucking see people like you when the man-haters get riled up and go after people. In fact, you immediately disappear whenever there are articles that show exactly how horrible these people can be.

The 'feminism is about equality' mantra just isn't true, if it were about equality, there would be a hell of a lot more feminists backing MRAs up who wanted to have men's issues heard in parliament for example, not openly laughing at them for even suggesting we debate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q

The amount of absolute shit people go through for even daring to suggest we discuss men's issues is ridiculous as I've said and for you to come along here specifically to lecture and ignore all the shit feminists get up to really pisses me off anything you say comes across as completely insincere due to that, in fact, it's fucking cowardly.

If your friend is like a Christina Hoff Sommers type of feminist, then great, we need more people like her, but the fact is that the feminists who come onto this sub for example are more like the twats who just swarmed the sub specifically to mock anybody here. To make matters more insulting, they're not here to make any legitimate points, they genuinely find the idea of people talking about male suicide and domestic violence 'funny'.

What's interesting by the way is, this is all you people have, the 'Feminism is about equality' crap, if that's the only arguments you can bring forward against the opposite side then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your beliefs. People who stay in denial of reality and refuse to even look at problems to try and fix them are rightly becoming irrelevant in politics and I can't wait until all these types are booted out completely.

Your average feminist is more like Jess Phillips than your friend, they simply do not give a fuck and as I've ranted a lot already, you are nowhere to be fucking seen when the man-haters pour in to attack everyone here or in the media.

Oh by the way, check out this classic example of man bashing that feminists love taking part in all the fucking time.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/60fwoi/women_giving_out_free_sex_toys_to_close_the/

I really want to see what you guys have to say about that, or are you just going to join in with them and keep pretending feminism is about 'equality' and act like everyone here is the bad guy for pointing this shit out?

[–]05-032MB0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you think feminism is about equality then why aren't there more people actually putting a stop to the man-haters then?

Because I never see people like that in the real world and only see them on Reddit. I assume they're trolls and don't bother. And what am I supposed to say on a thread about men’s rights? “As a feminist I fully support you guys?” Well sure I could but it really feels like to me that anyone with a shred of empathy would support men’s issues.

Anecdotally all the feminists I know are only about equal opportunity for both sexes and nothing else. If men are getting discriminated against in the courtroom solely based on their gender then yeah, it's bullshit and must stop. No feminists I know in real life are against men's rights and it makes me feel like most of the assholes in this thread are just trolls who want to get you guys angry.

The amount of absolute shit people go through for even daring to suggest we discuss men's issues is ridiculous as I've said

And that's terribly sad and needs to stop. Also all the shit feminists are also pieces of shit too and are not 'real feminists' if they’re not going to stick to the feminism is equality rule.

What's interesting by the way is, this is all you people have, the 'Feminism is about equality' crap, if that's the only arguments you can bring forward against the opposite side then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your beliefs.

What are you trying to say here? That equality isn't something worth believing? If more people spread the word about how “feminism is equality” then it would be easier to smear people who are ‘feminist man haters’ as just shitty people and not feminists.

And lol at the link you posted at the bottom. Sounds like a whole bunch of women who are insecure about their sex life.

One last thing. I'm not 'pretending' that feminism is about 'equality.' Feminism is about equality to me. And that's what I take it to mean.

[–]Lethn3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you really believe all that then help us put a stop to these cunts because they have completely ruined feminism, they're the ones who are lobbying the government, they're the ones in the media and they're the ones constantly attacking men and trying to demonise them.

If you haven't met any of these man haters then I suspect you haven't tried talking to people in real life about these issues. Just recently by the way, a bit unrelated, here's an example of feminists in action in 'real life' and it's at the university of Glasgow where a local student union banned Milo from even having a live stream there.

There are all sorts of incident like this, my favourite one that shows just how disgusting these types of feminists are there was a planned event at York university for international men's day ( Yes that's a thing ) I don't really care for that sort of thing much myself but it was simply a day which was planned where men could get together and talk about issues like male suicide.

Guess what happened?

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/twitter-users-condemn-university-of-york-for-cancelling-international-men-s-day-as-petition-gathers-a6740771.html

There were a significant chunk of people that signed this position, what's so fucking bad about these sorts of universities filled with these types of feminists in particular is they are teaching generations of girls to hate men just for how they were born and consider them as inherently evil, in particular they teach the hatred of they 'straight white male'.

It is not MRAs that are the problem, there's no magical conspiracy on the internet by men to get together to 'harass' women and keep them down or 'troll' them as they like to call it. It's purely these deranged lunatics that keep on attacking people who dare to stand up to them.

What are you trying to say here? That equality isn't something worth believing? If more people spread the word about how “feminism is equality” then it would be easier to smear people who are ‘feminist man haters’ as just shitty people and not feminists.

That mantra has been used for years by the very feminists you claim are shitty people and rather than point out the people who are man haters. The man haters have been using it as a bludgeon against anyone that dares to disagree with them and they immediately claim that in order to care about equality for women you 'must' be a feminist, it's a fucking cult.

Here's an absolute classic example of this in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJiNeCBpCHQ&t=29s

Then when they can't get you to submit to them, they call you all sorts of shit and try to slander you or defame you as much as possible, especially if you're somebody who has suddenly grown quite popular.

I made the mistake of trying to debate anti-capitalist Anarchists a couple of years ago, I criticised their holy tenets, Feminism, unions and Islam ( For whatever reason they still fanatically defend Islam no matter what ) you know what they decided to claim I was in response? An MRA rape apologist, they banned me and that's how I even fucking found this sub, would never have known what MRAs were until that happened.

You really would have to be living in either a bubble or under a rock to have not noticed all this crazy shit going on lately, especially with the recent stuff with Pewdiepie, that was another smear attempt where they tried to claim he was a Nazi.

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]05-032MB1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]somerandomrubbish-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trashpanda866-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tzar_carlos3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peepholepringle2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shinn497-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sovietpandas5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shinn497-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sovietpandas5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaestroLogical2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sennhauser3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JayTheFordMan3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheDeliBoyChronicles-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bendystraw466-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]largeboulder1-10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rambo1stBlood2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rambo1stBlood3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]largeboulder10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rambo1stBlood1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DreDejaVu-10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haurgh-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adynaton17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haurgh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CastielWesker-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme-15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Really? Getting triggered by a statistic? The article could be focusing on women, and what's wrong with that? Not everything is about White men. You hate women so much, you won't even allow them a statistic. Stop the narcissistic circle jerk, honestly.

Edit: Also, I live next to a homeless shelter exclusively for men. They get fed daily and clothed. So you guys think homeless men aren't taken care of, but I see it first hand every day. Focusing on another gender and the cause of their homelessness isn't fruitless. Just because more men are disproportionately homeless doesn't mean women shouldn't be helped either. It's not a one or none deal. It's pretty clear to see you guys just straight up hate women and don't think they should have any help because somehow men always have it worse. Grow up.

[–]CelestialDynamics55 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s23 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CelestialDynamics9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Buhbuhbuh_Broski44 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hey_-_-_Zeus21 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hey_-_-_Zeus5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr19 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]treesyabish6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sidewalkill4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rumblet415 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman11112 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1117 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1116 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sidewalkill1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1116 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1112 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1115 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1114 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1114 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1112 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're right that a statistic is a statistic and that the reader puts their own meaning onto something. However, that doesn't mean that this is free of bias.

When you make a survey, you have to be conscious of the way you frame things, as it can greatly influence the answers you get. For surveys, these are called "leading questions".

The statistic is not a question, but the same principle applies. The way you present information introduces a bias.
In interview tips, you'll often see that they suggest that you rephrase things to paint yourself in a negative light. On an exaggerated end, this can be demonstrated with calling yourself as a "sanitary engineer" rather than janitor.
And there reason such a thing is suggested is because it really does make a difference, even if you consciously pick up on it.

[–]pacisbeautiful4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1112 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman1114 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jonnytechno10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nightjesus-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]candycanejunglegym-18 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake002451 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy210 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy26 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake0024-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rhose327 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're not trying to communicate, but just declaring superior understanding unilaterally. That doesn't really facilitate discussion or mutual understanding.

You could start, for example, by explaining how a picture with

giant bold print saying 1 IN 4 HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE WOMEN in all caps, highlighting (in color) the one homeless woman while graying out the three homeless men

isn't artificially biased in favor of highlighting women's needs. I'm very open minded to hearing an explanation, but so far people act like it's just presented as an un-embellished fact and men are getting "angry at pictures of women that don't have men in them," which isn't even the case here... the picture actually has three men in it. So it seems like you're not actually addressing the topic, but making one up and attacking that instead.

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy24 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An article discussing minority groups in homelessness

Cool, so in this case surely you would be looking at which minorities are over or under represented in the homeless population? Women are by far the most under represented group.

an article discussing groups of economic classes of women

In this article surely you'd be better informed by giving the percentage of women who are homeless, rather than the percentage of the homeless who are women.

an article discussing changes in homes less demographics

This does not apply, since there is no discussion of change over time.

and article discussing misconceptions about homelessness

Do you think there is a common misconception where people believe most homeless people are women? That does not at all seem to be the point of the graphic, and it definitely seems to be highlighting female homelessness as a particular issue, given the bold print, all caps lettering, use of coloring vs grayscale, etc.

Is it really so hard to acknowledge that this graphic is ridiculously biased?

[–]Kyoopy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why would you necessarily be looking at relative representation per capita? That lens doesn't make much sense for plenty of applications, especially of the article is specifically about the lives of homeless people or the operation of homeless shelters. Per capita is often a useful way to look at data, but certainly not always. Your second point is also kind of non-sensical, if you wanted to know how many women are x, y, and z (distribution within a respective group), you wouldn't be helped by knowing what percentage of women are homeless. What if the article was addressing monetary dedication (whether or not over or underrepresented) of feminine care (health products, gyno visits, maternity, etc,) vs. masculine care (prostate exams, increased suicide prevention, etc.)? Then certainly it would be useless to know what percent of women are homeless, you'd have to know what percent of homeless are women. Moving on, why would there not be change over time? You're telling me homeless has the exact same distribution now as it did ten, 100, and 1000 years ago? Moving on some more, I would not have said 25% of homeless are women had you asked me. In media particularly, it seems to my personal bias (misconception) that most are portrayed as men, so I would have guessed more like 5 or 10%. Finally, highlighting and use of fonts/colors is how you draw the eye to anything important to the purpose of the article. It's good design, not stressing that females are more important than males in a societal sense.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why would you necessarily be looking at relative representation per capita?

Because that's the way to find statistically meaningful data. If 50% of the homeless population is black, then that is extremely important information if only 5% of the general population is black. If on the other hand 50% of the general population is black, you would expect 50% of the homeless population to also be black.

if you wanted to know how many women are x, y, and z (distribution within a respective group), you wouldn't be helped by knowing what percentage of women are homeless

Yes, you would. If you were looking at economic classes of women (or any other minority--again, let's say black people), then it tells you absolutely nothing to know that 50% of homeless people are black. Is that significant? Well, if your country is 99% black, then black people are doing amazingly well! If your country is 1% black, then black people are suffering immensely!

You must compare with the general population in order to have any meaningful data whatsoever.

What if the article was addressing monetary dedication (whether or not over or underrepresented) of feminine care (health products, gyno visits, maternity, etc,) vs. masculine care (prostate exams, increased suicide prevention, etc.)? Then certainly it would be useless to know what percent of women are homeless, you'd have to know what percent of homeless are women.

But it's clearly not, and if it was trying to, it failed utterly. It says absolutely nothing about the monetary distribution of homeless care along gendered lines. You're really grasping at straws here. If we were talking about some other graphic that wasn't clearly biased, then you might have a point, but we're not. We have a graphic. Please stick to discussing the reality of the situation.

masculine care (prostate exams, increased suicide prevention, etc.)

Interesting that you label suicide prevention as a predominantly male issue, but you're actively arguing that it's okay to portray homelessness as a predominantly female issue. Why is that?

Moving on, why would there not be change over time?

Are you even reading what I write? I didn't say there would not be change over time. I said that is not addressed in the article.

Finally, highlighting and use of fonts/colors is how you draw the eye to anything important to the purpose of the article

Yes, that is correct. That is exactly why the picture is problematic.

[–]Kyoopy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You didn't counter the fundamental idea that weighted against total population is not always the best way to interpret information. For an extreme example, would you rather know per capita how many serial killers are in your house, or how many serial killers are in your house period? For a realistic example, would a homeless shelter, in buying tampons, rather know what percentage of women are homeless weighted against how many women there are, or what percentage of women are homeless relative to men? What if you were a random member of the public, curious about how many women compose X group of things traditionally thought to be oriented around men? What if you were a prison owner looking into necessary health care professionals and deciding what diseases will most commonly treated? Would you want percent of ethnic groups relative to how much that group represents itself in total population, or what percent of each ethnic group is being admitted period? In all of these situations you would rather have a non weighted example. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we started out discussing, which was whether or not there are situations where this statistic is relevant, not whether or not the particular article is one. You even specifically asked a form of that question, which started our whole talk. My fundamental claim rests on the fact that context is needed, not that, with context, this statistic is justifiable. We are not discussing the article, but of the potential validity of this statistic and this subreddit's biased treatment of it.

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

would you rather know per capita how many serial killers are in your house, or how many serial killers are in your house period?

Again, you're grasping at straws in an attempt to avoid discussing the obviously biased graphic under discussion.

You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we started out discussing, which was whether or not there are situations where this statistic is relevant, not whether or not the particular article is one

That's not relevant to this discussion. There may be other, less biased graphics that can be used in the way you're suggesting. This graphic, on the other hand, is undeniably biased.

We are not discussing the article, but of the potential validity of this statistic and this subreddit's biased treatment of it.

This subreddit isn't treating the statistic that 23% of women are homeless. It is addressing the presentation of that statistic, which used bold lettering, all caps font, and color to draw the attention of the reader to the issue of female homelessness while not mentioning and literally fading out the part of the graphic representing men.

[–]Kyoopy21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

(I can't respond to your first point, as it contains no actual logic. Simply stating that I am grasping at straws without proving my evidence false is not an argument) In many contexts of articles, bold and colored is a relevant way to display information. What if it was an article about tampons being introduced to homeless shelters, and they wanted to demonstrate that more homeless than you may think are women? Then it would be relevant to present the information in this bold and striking way. Neither is that context sexist, as it's simply good reporting on an event, with relevant and well designed graphical statistic. So the graphic itself is not inherently biased, even though it's context may be. Which is exactly what I'm saying --- The point I have made, only ever made, and will continue to make, is that this post and many comments upon it are flawed in that the post did not contain nor reference the original article, and many top commenters do not either. Context may reveal the graphic is indeed sexist, I'm just saying that the graphic is not inherently sexist.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyoopy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Bold, font, and color are used to draw attention to a relevant part of a statistic, which, without the context, you have no way of determining whether or not is relevant in a sexist manner or not. It is not incorrect for me to not mention the context in that statement, because I am not bringing into question the sexism or lack thereof in the article, but rated the flaw in the presentation of the article and the discussion of the article in this thread. The statistic is not sexist, it was incorrect for the poster to not use the context, and most of the popular claims in this thread are either based off of purely a contextless statistic or various other unreliable or anecdotal sources. As my claim is to bring attention to that, me discussing the actual content of the thread is irrelevant, as I am not disagreeing with anybody's conclusions, but rather the means by which they distill those conclusions. The means are flawed, because they use a statistic that is not inherently sexist and fail to discuss the context through which the statistic is presented.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why, in your opinion, is the "relevant part of the statistic" the 1 in 4 homeless people who are women?

And since we do have the context, I'm not just guessing without context (as you keep trying to insinuate).

You only think there is a flaw in the OP's presentation of the article because you evidently haven't read the article. If you would do so, instead of complaining about people taking things out of context, you would find that no one is actually taking anything out of context.

Literally no one has said the statistic is sexist, but rather that the presentation of the statistic in the article is clearly sexist. This is actually rather obvious.

You can keep insisting that the post did not "use the context," but in fact you're the person ignoring the context because you feel doing so furthers your point.

At this point you're being deliberately dishonest, so there's nowhere for this conversation to go from here until you actually read the article.

[–]Kyoopy20 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Jake, I'm sorry but you're arguing in logical circles on the same points which you have yet to be able to successfully defend against my counters. As I said I my previous comment, and my comments before that, and I will say in this comment, MY CLAIM DOES NOT REST ON ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTUAL CONTEXT. If you look at my main comment on the thread, or any comment following, I am trying to bring to light the fact that the people in this thread should not jump to conclusions about the statistic without context, WHICH IS A STATEMENT I CAN MAKE WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IS, AS IT IS NOT STATING THAT THEY ARE WRONG, BUT THAT THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA US FLAWED. People in the first few dozens of comments are comply railing against the fact that there is a presentation of data, without bringing into question any relevant information from the article whatsoever, the post clearly and deliberately attempts to hide relevant information from the article, and to top it all off many of the stop commenters are bringing in their own anecdotal evidence on top of not referencing back to the articles sources for the j formation. This is an issue that, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL CONTEXT, is a fundamental flaw in trying to construct an argument, and use of confirmation bias. It is, like I said in my previous example, like if somebody said "1+1=2 because the sky is blue", IT WOULD NOT MATTER IF THEIR FINAL ANSWER WAS RIGHT, IT IS A FLAW IN REASONING. And you cannon insinuate that everybody in this thread has considered the context, because most of the most scathing comments in the thread were posted at a point before anybody linked the article whatsoever, and even if they all had it was still necessary to call out OP's fault for making a low quality post without linking the article himself. To top it all off, many commenters, even you yourself, have directly stated that the statistic itself is inherently sexist. I have engaged with a number of people, check my comment history, who have insisted vehemently that there is literally no possible situation in which that statistic could be relevant in any way whatsoever. Actually you shouldn't need to check your comment history because, despite your claims that literally nobody insists the statistic is sexist, you yourself, in your failed defense "homes less per women" instead of "women per homeless, did indeed try to claim that the statistic itself was inherently flawed. Remember? I said that there are possible situations which this statistic should be appropriate and you said, "Name one". So I am claiming a falsehood in the logical analysis and presentation of data in the thread, independent of the actual correctness of the conclusions, my claim is criticizing the treatment of the data itself. THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE CONTEXT, AS I STATED IN MY "1+1"= 2 BECAUSE THE SKY IS BLUE EXAMPLE, THE STATEMENT, AS IN THE EXAMPLE, IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUALLY CORRECTNESS OF THE FINAL CONCLUSION IS I REQUEST THAT YOU STOP BRINGING THAT UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE FAILING TO ACTUALLY MAKE IN SORT OF COUNTER TO WHY IT IS NECESSARY FOR MY CLAIM TO CONSIDER CONTEXT. In summary, every single statement you have made in your previous comment rings false. Repeating yourself is the intellectual equivalent of chasing your own tail and hoping to catch it, unless you can make a statement that is new, or present your information in a new way that somehow completely changes its meaning, any following repetition of the same few sentences is just presenting arguments that have already been countered - again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

MY CLAIM DOES NOT REST ON ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTUAL CONTEXT

Yeah, I know--that's why it's wrong. We have actual context, we know it's a biased presentation, and you're arguing anyway.

I am trying to bring to light the fact that the people in this thread should not jump to conclusions about the statistic without context, WHICH IS A STATEMENT I CAN MAKE WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IS, AS IT IS NOT STATING THAT THEY ARE WRONG, BUT THAT THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA US FLAWED.

But since we have the full article, we have the full context, and so your accusation falls short of holding any merit. You can't ignore the context and then project that decision onto everyone else in the conversation, when they're actually looking at the context. Maybe (probably) not all of them, but the context is there, it's readily available, and it happens that you're arguing for the side that is wrong, given the full context, and you have yet to explain why you feel the side arguing without any context gets to accuse the side that is correct (again, in full context) is not using context. It's patently absurd.

People in the first few dozens of comments are comply railing against the fact that there is a presentation of data

And they're right...

without bringing into question any relevant information from the article whatsoever

When you do, they're still right...

the post clearly and deliberately attempts to hide relevant information from the article

No it doesn't... it's a picture of a biased graphic. It's funny how you think a picture of the graphic is "clearly and deliberately attempting to hide relevant information" but you refuse to recognize that the graphic itself is the thing actually "clearly and deliberately attempting to hide relevant information." The irony is thick.

WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL CONTEXT, is a fundamental flaw in trying to construct an argument

And your fundamental flaw is refusing to recognize that you're the one not considering the actual context.

To top it all off, many commenters, even you yourself, have directly stated that the statistic itself is inherently sexist

I absolutely have not. Good try, though. This is why you fail.

despite your claims that literally nobody insists the statistic is sexist, you yourself, in your failed defense "homes less per women" instead of "women per homeless, did indeed try to claim that the statistic itself was inherently flawed

Nope, I was pointing out that the suggestion you gave would be better presented that way, not that there is anything inherently flawed with the statistical fact that 23% of the homeless in Vancouver are female.

I said that there are possible situations which this statistic should be appropriate and you said, "Name one".

Except that's not what happened, because as much as you keep wanting to insist that we're just discussing "a statistic," we're actually discussing the graphic's absurdly biased presentation of that statistic. Literally nobody is arguing that a statistical fact is sexist. This is why you fail.

[–]Kyoopy20 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sorry, I never try to do this, I absolutely hate ending a discussion before it has truly ended, but you are completely and utterly failing to understand something that I have laid out as obviously and simple as humanely possible. I don't comprehend how you don't understand that a conclusion founded on poor logic can be criticized regardless of final correctness of the conclusion. You're trying to argue that there is no such thing as an informal logical fallacy, which is a foundational aspect of logic - one which, if you cannot understand, discussion is not possible. Until you can comprehend that logic can be false while a claim can be true, I see no way that you can ever engage in an even partially successful discussion - unless you do understand this concept and are just ignoring it. Do you mean to tell me that, somehow, a true statement can have any sort of logic defending it - and any logic that describes a finally true statement is correct. You mean to say that cows moo because there are seven days in a week? That grass is green because humans have hair? That wind blows because 3*4=12? If somebody said "I hate cheese because Africa is a large continent" would you defend them by saying, "they hate cheese, which means there is no flaw in their reasoning"? If you were a math teacher and you asked the question "a=b, b=c, and c=d, does a equal d, why?", would you give them a correct mark for "a=d because my mom has blonde hair"? Would you say that anybody criticizing is wrong because a=d? What if an excerpt from a book was shown that read "...women are better than men..." - and people ensued to freak out over the sexism of the comment until it was revealed the full statement ended in "at giving birth"? Would it then be right to criticize them, because they were wrong in the end? Does the fact that faulty logic is in place not justify criticism at all? What if it turned out the statement was in the end, actually sexist, then would they be in the right and criticizers in the wrong? Even though the same fundamental flaw was present regardless of the end result? Bad evidence+good conclusion does not equal good evidence. I honestly don't know how else to explain this to you. Unless you can understand that, fundamentally, an argument an contain flaws while even the end conclusion is true, I don't see how I can entertain this discussion anymore. I can't argue with somebody who thinks that "1+1=2 because the sky is blue" is w valid statement.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

a conclusion founded on poor logic can be criticized regardless of final correctness of the conclusion

Ironically, your argument fails on both counts. The opposition's argument against passes with flying colors on both counts. I don't see where you're getting lost here.

You're trying to argue that there is no such thing as an informal logical fallacy

I'm absolutely not.

Until you can comprehend that logic can be false while a claim can be true

Again, you are failing on both counts. Your actual argument, it fails both logically (in vacuum) and in actual application (with context). I understand what you're trying to say, it's just wrong since you're misapplying it.

Do you mean to tell me that, somehow, a true statement can have any sort of logic defending it - and any logic that describes a finally true statement is correct

No I do not.

Unless you can understand that, fundamentally, an argument an contain flaws while even the end conclusion is true, I don't see how I can entertain this discussion anymore

Great. Then how about you try reading what I've written and we continue the discussion from there?

You are the only person ignoring context.

You can keep asserting that everyone else is wrong because they're ignoring context, but when you open your eyes and discover that everyone else is looking at the context while you refuse to, then your argument clearly falls on its face.

[–]Kyoopy21 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The first mention of the actual article does not appear until dozens of comments into the thread, at the time of the posting of my original comment - there was not a single mention of the original article in the thread. Confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and general sexist remarks appear in most of the top comments on the post. The OP made no effort to elucidate the source of the article, in fact the initial picture is downright blatant in its presentation of the statistic without context. I have received numerous replies to my posts that the graphic itself is sexist, regardless of any possible evidence. It is painfully clear that, no, the collective voices of this thread have not viewed the evidence in full. You continue to comment about my non-mention of evidence - after failing to counter any of my continued proof that the conclusion is not relevant to my argument - the faulty logic is.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Does the presence of any of those things actually change the fact that the graphic is disproportionately biased and sexist? No.

A person can use an ad hominem (for example) and still be right.

I personally haven't done any of those things, so I don't understand why you think I need to defend those who have. I am not their keeper. The fact that someone who agrees with me has committed a logical fallacy sometime in their life does not make me wrong and it does not make me a accountable for their lapse.

There is nothing "downright blatant" about the presentation of the picture. It is centered on the item in question. In fact it would probably be more professional if it didn't include any of the surrounding text--but since none of the surrounding text provides meaningful context to justify the biased graphic, there is nothing that could have been done differently to provide meaningful context. You're holding the OP responsible for taking a "biased" picture of a graphic, when there is no possible way he could have done otherwise (to your satisfaction), since apparently the only way it could be "unbiased" is if the picture included text that justifies the disproportionate graphic. No such text exists. You are holding an unreasonable standard.

You're also acting as if the OP actually took the picture himself, which is almost certainly not the case.

[–]Kyoopy20 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"There are plenty of situations where the statistic being displayed in this way is completely appropriate and relevant." I stated to you - to which you responded "Name one". Now unless you were compiling a list of appropriate uses of the statistic, or unless you have a nervous tick that involves typing "name one" to random comments on Reddit - the only possible reason you could have to say that is that you disagreed that such a situation existed. As such, you, yourself, did indeed insinuate that you believe the statistic itself is inherently flawed - a statement that you defended for a number of comments after. Yes, you did try to defend the fact that somehow the statistic is flawed inherently, and that there is no necessity to have the context of the picture revealed. You were most certainly in the camp of people in the thread I am criticizing, those who simply allowed confirmation bias to take hold without searching for important contextual information. Whether or not the contextual information proved or disproved your and other's case is not relevant to the fact that a failure to search it out is a failure of logic, and is necessary to question. It is a failure of OP, who could have made a certainly foolproof argument by actually citing the article in question instead of leaving a bit of circumstantial-at-best-evidence for users to suppose over, it is a failure of commenters for piling on with anecdotes and comments discussing the article without mentioning any of the content besides the graph, and it is a failure of you for trying to defend that the context is not necessary to judge the statistic.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you responded "Name one"

Great--and none of them apply to this situation. You're just making up situations that don't have anything to do with what we're talking about. How is that relevant? Why are you arguing that the graphic could potentially not be sexist, when in actual reality it is? What are you trying to accomplish?

you, yourself, did indeed insinuate that you believe the statistic itself is inherently flawed

NO. And I never said anything even remotely close to this. Do you really believe this? Is this the source of all your confusion?

you did try to defend the fact that somehow the statistic is flawed inherently

You can keep saying it, but that does not make it true. I said in very specific, in no way uncertain terms that the presentation of the factual statistic is biased. That is NOT the same thing as saying the statistic is inherently flawed. If you don't understand that difference, then you need to think about that before you continue digging the hole you're in.

there is no necessity to have the context of the picture revealed

As I've said a dozen times now, the bias still exists in context and so your argument about taking it out of context to show it's biased holds no water.

It is a failure of OP, who could have made a certainly foolproof argument by actually citing the article in question instead of leaving a bit of circumstantial-at-best-evidence for users to suppose over

Except that in reality, the context backs up the obvious implication of the graphic (that is is biased). Why are you criticizing the OP for posting a picture that, on its own, presents a highly accurate portrayal of the full picture? What do you gain from this? Seriously, ask yourself: what do you gain from this?

discussing the article without mentioning any of the content besides the graph

But the outcome would be the same regardless. Your suggestion would have literally no effect on how people interpret the graphic--it remains biased no matter how much context is included.

failure of you for trying to defend that the context is not necessary to judge the statistic.

And it is an ongoing failure on your part for trying to defend the graphic in spite of the damning context.

[–]pacisbeautiful1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ekcunni4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ekcunni2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00243 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ekcunni1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ekcunni2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not biased to point out that the graphic CLEARLY places a disproportionate focus on women

I'm saying we don't know why it's placing 'disproportionate' focus on women. In the feminine hygiene example, it's perfectly logical and to place the focus on women, and in that case it wouldn't be disproportionate. (Because it literally couldn't apply to men, who don't use feminine hygiene products.) Focusing on the 1 instead of the 3 is disproportionate, but that's not inherently bad, depending on what's being highlighted and why. It depends on the point being made.

If we were talking 1 in 4 men under 30 have felt sexually harassed in the workplace, that's disproportionate focus on the group that has felt harassed. If we're bringing that up to shed light on a smaller but still important group for a particular reason, it makes sense to focus on the 1, not the other 3.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm saying we don't know why it's placing 'disproportionate' focus on women

You mean you didn't read the article? Maybe you should! Hint: you still won't know why, because there's no good reason for it!

In the feminine hygiene example, it's perfectly logical and to place the focus on women, and in that case it wouldn't be disproportionate

You're right, but literally none of that is mentioned in the article, so it's not relevant!

Because it literally couldn't apply to men, who don't use feminine hygiene products

Given the disproportionately large number of trans people in the homeless community, this really isn't a very accurate statement.

If we were talking 1 in 4 men under 30 have felt sexually harassed in the workplace, that's disproportionate focus on the group that has felt harassed. If we're bringing that up to shed light on a smaller but still important group for a particular reason, it makes sense to focus on the 1, not the other 3.

If we were that would be true, but a more accurate example would be saying "1 in 4 people harassed in the workplace are male" and then focusing only on men being harassed while ignoring women who are harassed. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?

And, again, that's not what we're talking about here. You can invent infinitely many not-what-we're-talking-about scenarios where it would make sense, but exactly 0% of them will be what we're talking about.

[–]ekcunni2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"1 in 4 people harassed in the workplace are male" and then focusing only on men being harassed while ignoring women who are harassed. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?

If the focus of the article was on the unseen male harassment, no, it doesn't. In fact, I think there are a lot of situations where the male minority issue should be brought to light, ignoring the far more prevalent female role. An awesome example would be domestic violence. Men are still (likely*) the minority there. If you saw a stat that said 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence are men would you be all pissed that it's ignoring the 2 in 3 that are women?

It's shedding light on the forgotten or ignored or just-plain-"didn't know that!" aspect.

It happens that in this particular homelessness article, apparently it's the reverse. There's something to be said for addressing the minority gender/race/etc. in a larger issue, because they're often forgotten (though no less important) than the majority.

*I say "likely" because men are still typically less likely to report DV - for fear of not being believed, of being arrested instead of the real aggressor, of having their masculinity called into question, etc. etc. so we're not totally sure about those stats.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ekcunni2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]olican1014 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In a society where men are ridiculed mercilessly for showing an ounce of emotion

Where do you live? Because it certainly isn't the west. The only people that attack men for being emotional/feminine that I have met have also been sexist against women.

you are perpetuating the most toxic parts of masculinity and patriarchal society.

By standing up for a fact that is getting attacked because it isn't about men?

When a situation that overwhelmingly affects men (by a margin of 3:1) is made about women, and you mock men for "crying" that their problems are not only unaddressed but totally ignored, you are also contributing to worsening a problem that literally kills tens of thousands of people every year.

What? If I say that 1/10 homeless people are homosexual is that heterophobic? no, so why is saying that 1/4 homeless people are women sexist against men? Facts cannot be discriminatory. Women are more likely to donate to charities that work on women's issues. This is showing that homelessness is a women's issue as well as a men's issue.

[–]Jake002416 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where do you live? Because it certainly isn't the west.

California. Interesting that you think you can dictate my experience to me.

The only people that attack men for being emotional/feminine that I have met have also been sexist against women.

If that's your experience, who am I to argue?

By standing up for a fact that is getting attacked because it isn't about men?

No, rather by mocking men for being "emotional babies" for pointing out the (ignored) fact that 75% of homeless people are men. Calling a man an "emotional baby" for calmly stating a fact reinforces the idea that men are supposed to be not only stoic and emotionless, but are also supposed to accept and tolerate dangerous conditions without complaint because they are supposed to be "strong."

If I say that 1/10 homeless people are homosexual is that heterophobic

That's not an accurate comparison for multiple reasons. First, nobody suggested that saying 1/4 homeless people are women is "man-phobic." Second, since homosexuals are less than 1/10th the population, that would mean homosexuals are overrepresented in the homeless community. Likewise, men are 1/2 the population and make up 3/4 of the homeless population, which is also an overrepresented group.

why is saying that 1/4 homeless people are women sexist against men

No one said it is.

Facts cannot be discriminatory

No one said they can. However, obviously if men are 3x more likely to suffer from homelessness than women, and you decide homeless women need more attention, then you are sexist.

Women are more likely to donate to charities that work on women's issues.

What does that have to do with anything?

This is showing that homelessness is a women's issue as well as a men's issue.

Of course it is. No one said it isn't.

[–]olican101-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

California. Interesting that you think you can dictate my experience to me.

I am not dictating your experience, I am informing you that the west is the best place on earth to be a feminine/emotional male. People that see femininity/emotions as an issue are generally the same people that are anti-women.

If that's your experience, who am I to argue?

Why would people that are more feminist have issues with a male being feminine? I am a feminine male and the only person who has had an issue with it was also a MRA who said that "women should be seen and not heard".

No, rather by mocking men for being "emotional babies" for pointing out the (ignored) fact that 75% of homeless people are men.

How is it ignored? It is clear in this picture, of the people are men and one is a woman.

Calling a man an "emotional baby" for calmly stating a fact reinforces the idea that men are supposed to be not only stoic and emotionless, but are also supposed to accept and tolerate dangerous conditions without complaint because they are supposed to be "strong."

what are you talking about? Most men are not MRA, there are also women in the MRA community. how is saying that this subreddit is raging because of a statistic calling men an "emotional baby"? who are you quoting?

That's not an accurate comparison for multiple reasons. First, nobody suggested that saying 1/4 homeless people are women is "man-phobic."

Except almost this entire thread.

Second, since homosexuals are less than 1/10th the population, that would mean homosexuals are overrepresented in the homeless community. Likewise, men are 1/2 the population and make up 3/4 of the homeless population, which is also an overrepresented group.

Actually, more than 1/10 people are homosexual in the west.

No one said it is.

then why is this post upvoted on a men's rights subreddit?

No one said they can. However, obviously if men are 3x more likely to suffer from homelessness than women, and you decide homeless women need more attention, then you are sexist.

who said they need more attention? If men are 3x more likely to suffer homelessness than women, and you decide homeless women need no attention, then you are sexist.

What does that have to do with anything?

really?

Women aren't donating to homeless charities.

Pointing out 1/4th of hemeless people are homeless will take up the amount of women that donate to homeless charities.

More women donate to homeless charities.

Of course it is. No one said it isn't.

Ahh, so this sub just takes issue with people pointing out that women face issues. Thanks.

[–]Jake00245 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am informing you that the west is the best place on earth to be a feminine/emotional male

Are you yourself an immigrant, familiar with culture in and outside the west? Because I have lots of friends who routinely remark on how much pressure they feel in the US to not express emotion. Are your judgments based on personal experience, or just a personal bias against other cultures? I try to keep my feminism intersectional, and freely acknowledge the shortcomings of western culture (just using your terminology--I am hesitant to lump all of the western world together as a single culture, for obvious reasons).

People that see femininity/emotions as an issue are generally the same people that are anti-women.

I think there is a lack of clarity in what you're saying that makes it very difficult for me to respond. It seems like you're trying to lump the specific issue we're talking about into some broad, overly generalized social issue, and I think this discussion requires more nuance than you're allowing.

Why would people that are more feminist have issues with a male being feminine? I am a feminine male and the only person who has had an issue with it was also a MRA who said that "women should be seen and not heard".

If you have only once in your life had a person take issue with you being a feminine male, you have lived an extremely charmed life. This has not been my experience at all (and I don't even consider myself particularly feminine).

How is it ignored?

When you have a problem that affects men at a rate of 3:1 over women, and you focus on the issue as a female problem, that is the definition of ignoring men. You're doing the same right now by pretending not to understand how men are being ignored (and you may not even realize it--that's toxic masculinity for you).

how is saying that this subreddit is raging because of a statistic calling men an "emotional baby"? who are you quoting?

I'm quoting the comment I replied directly to:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/60i0bi/apparently_homelessness_is_only_a_problem_if_you/df6r6dg/

Except almost this entire thread.

Well, I can't speak for anyone other than myself. Who are you quoting?

Actually, more than 1/10 people are homosexual in the west.

Who are you quoting? Most sources I'm familiar with cite a figure in the 3-5% range.

who said they need more attention? If men are 3x more likely to suffer homelessness than women, and you decide homeless women need no attention, then you are sexist.

Now you just answered your own question about why this post is so popular on a men's rights subreddit--because men are 3x more likely to suffer homelessness than women, and the author of the article decided the attention should go to women since men need none.

Women aren't donating to homeless charities. Pointing out 1/4th of hemeless people are homeless will take up the amount of women that donate to homeless charities. More women donate to homeless charities.

What are your sources when you say women don't donate to homeless charities? Why is it important specifically to increase the number of women who donate to charities, rather than the total number of people who donate to charities?

this sub just takes issue with people pointing out that women face issues. Thanks.

LOL, don't be ridiculous. The problem is that the article pretends homeless is a bigger problem for women when men are actually more than 3x more likely to be homeless.

[–]olican1011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you yourself an immigrant, familiar with culture in and outside the west?

no. But I don't need to be to state facts

Because I have lots of friends who routinely remark on how much pressure they feel in the US to not express emotion.

And who do you think it is that would have issue with them showing emotion? It certainly isn't women.

Are your judgments based on personal experience, or just a personal bias against other cultures?

Facts. Homosexuality often comes with femininity and showing emotions. Are you really going to try to tell me that the east is more lgbt friendly than the west?

I try to keep my feminism intersectional, and freely acknowledge the shortcomings of western culture

While we are not perfect we are far better than say, the middle east, where men have been forced to have sex change operations because they were to feminine.

I think there is a lack of clarity in what you're saying that makes it very difficult for me to respond. It seems like you're trying to lump the specific issue we're talking about into some broad, overly generalized social issue, and I think this discussion requires more nuance than you're allowing.

Right, you can't respond to my point so you just ignore it. okay.

If you have only once in your life had a person take issue with you being a feminine male, you have lived an extremely charmed life. This has not been my experience at all (and I don't even consider myself particularly feminine).

Right, and who was it that attacked you for being feminie? I highly doubt it was a woman.

Well, I can't speak for anyone other than myself. Who are you quoting?

Have you not seen this tread?

Who are you quoting? Most sources I'm familiar with cite a figure in the 3-5% range.

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

Now you just answered your own question about why this post is so popular on a men's rights subreddit--because men are 3x more likely to suffer homelessness than women, and the author of the article decided the attention should go to women since men need none.

because men are already getting attention because 3/4 homeless people are men.

What are your sources when you say women don't donate to homeless charities? Why is it important specifically to increase the number of women who donate to charities, rather than the total number of people who donate to charities?

association is a hell of a tool. It is used in marketing all the time. A woman is more likely to donate to a woman's charity.

LOL, don't be ridiculous. The problem is that the article pretends homeless is a bigger problem for women when men are actually more than 3x more likely to be homeless.

Men are 3x more likely to be homeless so are getting 3x the coverage.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't need to be to state facts

Then what are your "facts" based on? It sounds to me like you're simply racially or culturally biased against non-western people. It's actually kind of common knowledge to the point of being a trope that western culture is actually quite stifling of male self-expression.

who do you think it is that would have issue with them showing emotion? It certainly isn't women.

Again, here's another example of a man expressing his emotions and feelings and being told he is wrong about his own emotions and feelings. Have I had women expressly tell me I am not allowed to show emotion? Absolutely. Are you gaslighting me, telling me that certainly doesn't happen? Yes, you are.

Facts. Homosexuality often comes with femininity and showing emotions. Are you really going to try to tell me that the east is more lgbt friendly than the west?

What kind of weird tangent is this? Now you're saying men can only express emotion if they're gay? You are one incredibly bigoted person.

who was it that attacked you for being feminie? I highly doubt it was a woman.

Again, you're going through the motions of attacking male emotion. I know you've been socially conditioned to do this, but you don't have to.

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

The link you cite does not support your claim that more than 10% of people in the west are homosexual (it specifically says 10% of men and about 6% of women, so about 8% overall). Did you even read it?

because men are already getting attention because 3/4 homeless people are men.

Wait, the fact that the majority of homeless people are men is... somehow... proof that men are already getting enough attention? How ass backwards is that!

Men are 3x more likely to be homeless so are getting 3x the coverage.

You understand that's absolutely not true, right?

[–]olican1011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then what are your "facts" based on? It sounds to me like you're simply racially or culturally biased against non-western people. It's actually kind of common knowledge to the point of being a trope that western culture is actually quite stifling of male self-expression.

http://russia-insider.com/en/society/europes-tragedy-too-much-angela-merkel-too-little-masculinity/ri12472 oh look, a russian website attacking European men for being to feminine.

Again, here's another example of a man expressing his emotions and feelings and being told he is wrong about his own emotions and feelings. Have I had women expressly tell me I am not allowed to show emotion? Absolutely. Are you gaslighting me, telling me that certainly doesn't happen? Yes, you are.

So it is all woman's fault that you met a hypocrite? I am not saying your experience did not happen. I am saying that statistically men are more likely to attack other men for being efeminate and showing emotion than women.

What kind of weird tangent is this? Now you're saying men can only express emotion if they're gay? You are one incredibly bigoted person.

No, I am saying that statistically, gay men are more likely to be efeminate.

Again, you're going through the motions of attacking male emotion. I know you've been socially conditioned to do this, but you don't have to.

I am a male. I feel emotion. I have only ever been picked on by a man for feeling emotion.

The link you cite does not support your claim that more than 10% of people in the west are homosexual (it specifically says 10% of men and about 6% of women, so about 8% overall). Did you even read it?

10% of men then. no need to be overly pedantic.

Wait, the fact that the majority of homeless people are men is... somehow... proof that men are already getting enough attention? How ass backwards is that!

If you have 4 people on a poster, 3 of them are male and 1 is woman, then men are getting 3 times the attention.

You understand that's absolutely not true, right?

Except that it is. I bet there are over 3x posters for homeless charities featuring men than women.

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

oh look, a russian website attacking European men for being to feminine.

Great... first of all, Russia is considered part of the west. You're actively ignoring non-western cultures. In much of the world (Africa, India, the Middle East, etc), men commonly hold hands to display friendship and affection. But not in the west. Latin American men are certainly allowed more emotion than men in the United States (both western). You seem to be ignoring nuance.

So it is all woman's fault that you met a hypocrite?

No, and I never said that either (I also don't see why you consider that hypocritical). Keep on gaslighting though.

I am saying that statistically men are more likely to attack other men for being efeminate and showing emotion than women.

This is not my experience, and I question your statistics.

I am saying that statistically, gay men are more likely to be efeminate.

What does that have to do with expressing emotion? Don't you see how sexist what you're saying is? A man has to be effeminate to be emotional? Ridiculous!

If you have 4 people on a poster, 3 of them are male and 1 is woman, then men are getting 3 times the attention.

Except if you look at the poster in this case, the men are greyed out and relegated to the background, and there is large, bold, capitalized print highlighting the woman, whose picture alone is shone in bright color. That's clearly not equal treatment.

[–]candycanejunglegym-17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Senray9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00248 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I imagine that most of this threads members are also the one berating men for being feminine and bitches and not masculine enough

We can work with that, if you are willing to recognize the difference between what you imagine and what's actually going on.

Men are the ones making men feel like shit for not being man enough.

When men express our thoughts or feelings about what helps men feel safe being emotionally vulnerable, we are most often told we're wrong. Women mock "fragile masculinity" (as you just did), perpetuating male stoicism, emotional isolation, etc, all while telling us it is women who support men showing emotional vulnerability (as you just did) and that men are inflicting the problem on themselves (as you just did). I'd point out that is bordering on gaslighting, but that would open me up to all kinds of ridicule for being emotionally sensitive.

[–]candycanejunglegym-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00246 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]candycanejunglegym-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00245 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]candycanejunglegym-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00245 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't freak out because an article mentioned women.

No one did. Men stated an obvious fact that an article is biased in highlighting the problem of homelessness among women relative to the rest of the population, and people (yourself included) accused them of "freaking out" and "being a baby." There was no freaking out. There was no being a baby. There was a calm discussion of facts, and the people looking at men having a calm discussion with a tinge of emotion are now (actually) freaking out and berating those men for daring to discuss male vulnerability. And you're continuing to do so right now.

Look at the picture. It is giant, bold, highlighted, colored, all caps print saying 1 IN 4 HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE WOMEN with a colored graphic highlighting a homeless woman while graying out three homeless men in the background. It really speaks for itself in how biased it is, highlighting the woman in a problem that affects men more than 3x more often. These are just facts, and you're here telling men they are freaking out and being overly emotional, inadvertently reinforcing patriarchal values that men should be stoic, strong, emotionless.

Maybe women don't want to hear about mens emotions because their emotions are 'I want to fuck you but you won't so I'm going to follow you around town and threaten you and tell everyone you're a whore'

Again, in saying this you are actively perpetuating the patriarchy. You are actively telling men they have no emotional depth, they are predators, they are overly sexual and overly violent, even while they're trying to tell you they want to be emotional and express themselves. You're saying you're not willing to allow that.

[–]candycanejunglegym0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00242 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]candycanejunglegym0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00243 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]candycanejunglegym1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jake00241 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jonnytechno6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow, with every sentence you write you show how little you know about this community

Men are the ones making men feel like shit for not being man enough.

Thats BS. We don't suggest anyone should "man up" or be "more" manly, quite the opposite in fact As a collective we believe in men having the choice to express their manliness how they choose is not a tool we beat each other with, that my friend comes right out of your own twisted psyche.

I imagine that most of this threads members are also the one berating men for being feminine and bitches and not masculine enough.

Wrong again and i challenge you to link to any tree in this thread where that is going on, straw man.

It's a self imposed problem

I can't even explain how stupid a comment this is, men as a whole did not impose the law, a few select people have, who on the whole come from very wealthy families and it has been like this for generations, those in power play divide and conquer with our freedoms, slavery, the vote, working conditions etc just because the people who have implemented these laws were men does not mean we all voted for it, that's like saying women are to blame for the position the suffragettes endured

Edit:spellings

[–]orcscorper2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]candycanejunglegym1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hije59 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetobacconicjew1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Biddy_Fiddler2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letstalkaboutuandme1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Biddy_Fiddler15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman.

Comments

I am not questioning the stat itself.

I am not questioning the stat itself.

Misogyny

Vancouver homelessness at record levels: 2016 count

Title	Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman.
Author	Domri_Rade
Upvotes	27869
Comments	2097
Date	March 20, 2017 5:49 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/60i0bi/apparently_homelessness_is_only_a_problem_if_you/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/apparently-homelessness-is-only-a-problem-if-you.1072058 https://theredarchive.com/post/1072058