TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

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

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

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Canada openly deems men second class humans.

AAKurtz

December 19, 2015
487 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.rt.com/news/323196-canada-syria-male-refugees/
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Canada openly deems men second class humans.
Author

AAKurtz

Upvotes 487
Comments 149
Date December 19, 2015 12:52 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3xevhn/canada_openly_deems_men_second_class_humans/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/canada-openly-deems-men-second-class-humans.964875
https://theredarchive.com/post/964875
Top posts by AAKurtz

Woman masturbates on crowded NYC train and then touches dude. Nothing happens.

361 upvotes
April 21, 2016
/r/PussyPass

Dr. Warren Farrel, often referred to as the father of the men's issues movement, has a great YouTube channel that is criminally underviewed. Many videos have fewer than 500 views. Let's give this guy some love.

188 upvotes
January 31, 2021
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Yet Another "Inappropriate Relationship"

47 upvotes
March 10, 2023
/r/MensRights

Advice for men who want to get married.

0 upvotes
August 27, 2020
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Comments

[–]drgk23 90 points91 points92 points 10 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Idiotic, since ISIS also uses women and children as suicide bombers.

[–]tempaccountnamething 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

See Also: Tashfeen Malik, the female shooter in the most recent American terror attack.

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

What percentage of terrorist attacks would you say is carried out by women?

[–]HisokaX 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure we could see that number increased. If not that many people see women as potential terrorist (not saying all Muslims are terrorist) then ISIS could try to use that to get ones into the country.

By the same token, excluding all these singles males could force more of them to end up joining if they have no other options.

[–]tempaccountnamething 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I see you are wandering into that territory...

Let me answer your question with a rhetorical question:

Would it be fair to judge people based on other demographic information? Should we be allowed to profile people based on race?

[–]yolo_swag_tyme 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Is it fair to judge people based on race/age/gender/religion? No its not fair.

Is it sometimes smart to judge people based on the above? Yes. It may not be politically correct to say so but deep down everyone knows that those 4 factors can allow you to make predictions about peoples attitudes and behaviours. Obviously not going to be 100 percent correct but still statistically valid.

[–]wanderer779 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

which is more likely to be a terrorist, muslim woman or (insert any other group) man? seems excluding muslims would be the way to go about it.

[–]tempaccountnamething 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay. Then fine. That's my point.

Then you have to use all those factors. It's absolutely not fair to only target men when it's politically correct but then not use those other factors.

So if you are willing to block men then you also have to be willing to use race and religion to judge people in all aspects of life.

All I'm asking for is consistency from people on this issue.

Somehow I doubt that the Canadian prime minister is willing to agree to racial profiling or discrimination on the basis of religion... But fuck men, right?

[–]yolo_swag_tyme -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that's where we disagree. I think using 'discrimination' to keep the citizens safe is valid.

[–]wanderer779 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

and for the record I don't want to exclude muslims either. We should come up with a way to treat people equally. Either let them all in, kick them all out, or sift through them on a case by case basis. You can't just say man=evil and make that your policy and expect for people to respect that.

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

I disagree. I believe some charity is better than no charity. We just disagree on this one principle that I don't think everyone should always be treated equally in every situation. Also Canadian public would not be on board if we accepted everyone equally.

[–]--Visionary-- 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno -- what percentage of people we let in that commit acts of terror are committed by muslims?

[–]Lurker_IV 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a well known phrase, "Behind every great/terrorist man there's a great/terrorist woman" which I think is relevant here.

[–]Minkatte -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Holt shit, down voted for asking a question? Is this sub for real sometimes?

I'm also interested to know.

Edit: found this article. The parts I read didn't say much about western world terror attacks, but still interesting. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/female-terrorists-feminist-denial/

[–]leftajar 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It also merely defers the violence a generation, as the disaffected children of single immigrant mothers come of age.

[–]definitelyjoking 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men with families can come. It is exclusively single men being discriminated against.

[–]Detox1337 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HEY HEY ! You can't go interjecting facts into the conversation without a trigger warning..what about muh feels?

[–]Involution88 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Getting female Peshmerga/FSA fighters involved kinda backfired in a big way.

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

Well, doubly because single parent households are statistically far more likely to produce problem children.

[+]Judean_peoplesfront -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Statistically it makes sense. I feel like this title is sensationalising a rational (although equality wise, incorrect) reaction to a real world trend.

E: Wouldn't want reality to get in the way of a good story now would we? Which other group does that remind you of...

[–]Apellosine 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Best place to put disaffected young men seeking refuge from war, in camps and told that they are not trustworthy by the rest. This will in no way lead to radicalisation of anyone.

[–]Judean_peoplesfront -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're just begging the question and not really contributing anything. Good thing the people of reddit go off by what's right instead of blindly following their feelings.

[–]tprice1020 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How does it statistically make sense?

[+]yolo_swag_tyme -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A huge majority of terrorists and the people who plan out terrorist attacks are men. Therefore, by prioritizing women and children, there is a smaller chance of allowing someone entry into the country who may carry out terrorism. It makes perfect sense to most people. But by using buzz words like 'discrimination' and 'racism' you stop seeing issues rationally. It's actually shocking that you were upvoted and Judean was downvoted.

[–]deaftoexcuses 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

By your own reasoning then, Islamist's should be kept out. As virtually all of the terrorist activities, in these regions, are caused by Islamist extremism. Are you okay with disallowing Islamist's into the country?

[–]yolo_swag_tyme -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lol I didn't say keep all Muslim men out. I said we should allow a subset of the population that is thought to be the least likely to carry out terrorim. Unfortunately yes it happens to be men in this case. Is that fair to the innocent men? No. But it's the best course of action. Remember this is all charity costing the Canadian tax payer $100 mil when already running a deficit. Don't make this into a gender issue it's.

[–]deaftoexcuses 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I never implied you did, but banning single men because some are violent, is much more specious reasoning than simply going for the root of the issue and banning the religious group, that is generating the violence. Given that all members of that group, (including women) have the propensity to inculcate and act on the beliefs, that lead to the justifications for terrorism. Married women and men indoctrinate children, single women also engage in terrorism. It would seem that those who make it about male violence but not religious violence, are the ones making it into a gender issue.

[–]yolo_swag_tyme -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're not wrong saying that letting in any Muslims has the potential to result in terrorist attack, I just don't think this should be made into a gender issue. The issue is that millions of people have become displaced. Canada has generously offered help to people in the area. Canada has reasonably chosen to be cautious take in the least threatening demographic in hopes that this $100 million act of kindness not blow up in their face (literally). You're just looking for things to use the gender card on.

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

And you're just looking for excuses to invalidate any defense against the gender card that was already used. The least threatening demographic would be non-islamists. It has been made into a gender issue by those who believe: that blaming all males for the actions of a few is more valid, than blaming the extreme tendencies of religious sects. Which is actually more apt as an argument: if ones aim is to prevent the most direct vector of said violence. The impetus is ideological and not rational.

[–]tprice1020 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I was just wanting clarification on his statement.

I think it can be looked at from a different way. I don't have a source to back this up but I feel young men are far more likely to be victimized by Isis, al Qaeda of the taliban. If you've watched any of the ISIS propganda videos, I think you'll see that most of those being murdered are men and young men.

I'm just playing devils advocate here. I can see legitimacy to both sides of the argument.

And for the record I didn't down vote anything ^ there.

[+]Sonnington -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm probably going to sound unpopular for saying it, but I don't think this is about safety. To me, I hate seeing young to middle aged male refugees. Women, children, and the elderly can't fight for their country, they're innocents in my eyes. But these young to middle aged men should be fighting for their country if they give a shit about it.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fighting who, exactly? The Americans? These people are victims of circumstance and somebody else policies that have nothing to do with "good or evil".

This isn't like WWII where the Nazi's have to be stopped at all costs. Remember, it was the absurd pretext to an illegal war 15 years ago that got us here.

It didn't make much press in the US at the time, but The rest of the world was screaming about the implications. And guess what, we were right.

We invaded them, remember.

[–]Fake-Professional 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Women might not be naturally as strong as men, but that makes no difference when the only strength required is to pull a trigger or wear a bomb vest.

Make no mistake: women are just as dangerous as men.

[–]Sonnington -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Stronger, better hand eye coordination/dexterity, and feels pain less. There are many reason men are more suited for war than women. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that war comes down to pulling triggers.

[–]Fake-Professional 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say war is comprised solely of pulling a trigger, did I? A good soldier needs to be able to follow orders, think clearly under extreme pressure, and be able to make difficult decisions in stressful situations, among other things.

That being said, militant extremists are not good soldiers. For the vast majority of these terrorists, training ends at aiming and firing, and does not cover battle tactics, first aid, interrogation resistance, and the like.

Do you have sources for your claims of women being inferior in the areas of dexterity and pain? I'd like to read those.

[–]Sonnington 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Studies done at McGill university show that women feel pain moreso than men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3143347/Women-suffer-pain-men-discovery-lead-n-painkillers-say-scientists.html

Quite a few studies have been done on male and female dexterity. It shouldn't be hard to find studies outside of this one in hand eye coordination.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/mental-mens-and-womens-brains-wired-differently-120713

[–]Fake-Professional 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks! I had heard of the pain one before, Though it's good to read the source. How does inferior hand-eye coordination impact the number of female surgeons and other professions requiring dexterity? Do you know if there are less female surgeons than male? Also, do you know any examples of attributes such as these where males are inferior to females?

[–]Sonnington 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How does inferior hand-eye coordination impact the number of female surgeons and other professions requiring dexterity?

I have no idea about surgeons, but I think you can see a disparity in sports and especially e-sports where the only female gamers are transgender.

Also, do you know any examples of attributes such as these where males are inferior to females?

Physically? I suppose being able to bear children and create large amounts of breast milk would count as advantages. Psychologically women are found to be more empathetic than men. I think that's a double edged sword when it comes to sales and management skills. On the one hand being more empathetic allows you a better ability to explain to someone what you want from them in a way they can appreciate better. On the other you might feel less ethical in doing so.

[–]Fake-Professional -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It hadn't occurred to me how rare professional female gamers are. Also your point on empathy makes a lot of sense, and I've definitely noticed this in my experiences with female customer service workers.

Thanks for the discussion! Merry Christmas :)

[–]Dead_HumanCollection 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Considering that men are the hardest hit of the Syrian refugees. If you are a man or boy in Syria you will be conscripted into either Assad's army, ISIS, or the rebels. There is no choice to sit on the fence, if you don't pick a side they will kill you.

[–]TheAngledian13 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And if you pick the wrong side they will kill you.

And if you pick the "right side" (right being the one that doesn't immediately get you executed) and somehow avoid losing your head from someone on your "side" while actually in service, you'll be killed in combat.

Great life to be sending these men back to. That certainly won't create any more terrorists who openly hate Canada right?

[–]ThePigmanAgain 142 points143 points144 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Religious profiling bad, gender profiling good. Typical liberal assholes.

[–]kaesylvri 56 points57 points58 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It's not like the Conservatives would have played it different.

[–]3happy5u 63 points64 points65 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They wouldn't discriminate, they would outright not accept any refugee. :p

[–]franklindeer 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They were bringing in more refugees the month of the election than Trudeau did after he took office. Not that I like the conservatives, but taking in refugees has never been a right left issue in Canada. We have always done out part rather quietly and without incident.

[–]Martini1 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They were bringing in more refugees the month of the election than Trudeau did after he took office.

The only source I found supporting this (via a quick google search) was the previous government has brought in 2500 refugees as of early September. This number may be higher since the election finished on October 19th, 2015.
The current government has brought in 1100 as of December 16, 2015.

The election has also been longer than the number of days the current government has been formed. Number of days of the Canada's 2015 election: 78 days Number of days since the new government was sworn in: 46 days

While your point may be valid as of today, I believe its unfair to compare 78 days of bringing in refugees vs 46 days with a new government.

[–]franklindeer 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The comment I was responding to was suggesting that the conservatives were somehow anti-refugee, which is not the case at all and no conservative government has really ever held that position as far as I know.

Beyond that, it was the NDP and Liberals that made refugees a political issue and Trudeau has had to hold himself (unsuccessfully thus far) to an unreasonable goal in a very short time frame because he made a rather stupid promise for the sake of political advantage. The Conservative government, as much as I don't like them, was holding to a number that could actually be accommodated by the existing bureaucracy and infrastructure. There were no politics involved because until the election, refugees have never been a political issue. As I said, we've rather quietly gone about bringing in refugees for the last half century without much fanfare or incident. The Conservative government was no exception to that.

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

Except they would by their own plans. They would just accept the Druze, Yazidi, Christian Arabs and so on that are on the verge of extinction rather than the Majority group.

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

You are either biased or ignorant, because the Conservatives were already bringing in refugees dude.

Maybe you should pay attention a bit.

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They would probably have told them all to fuck off, which would be fine by me.

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

At least they are not hypocritical about it

[–]FindMeTheTruth11 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, it is 2015...

[–]seriousgamerkid 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Goddammit Justin.

[–]Antrophis 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure his agenda is just getting started.

[–]ZimbaZumba 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Tunis disputed reports that single men would be excluded, citing a technical briefing from David Manicom, the assistant deputy minister with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Manicom, she said, directed that families, women, children and sexual minorities at risk take precedence.

"Those are where priorities are but we haven't said that we're not taking any single men, it's just that those other cases are going to the top of the list," Tunis told The Canadian Press in an interview.

"Single males will be coming as part of this population."

What a complete load of fucking crap. They leaked their intent to the CBC, saw the reaction and now are simply reframing and rephrasing their intent to snow the public.

These people are used to saying what the fuck they like and getting away with it. People are getting sick of this bullshit

[–]BookOfGQuan 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since sexual minorities are more at risk of violence and are topping the list, why not make males higher on the list than females, seeing as they're more at risk of violence?

Oh, no. That would be discrimination.

(Not that I'm seriously suggesting this, just pointing out their wafer-thin bullshit justifications).

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

Sooo...Leave the people most likely to be killed by ISIS? :| What an ingenious maneuver, can we have more Canadian tactical advice?

[–]DougDante 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait until they're dead, move in, and take the oil.

[–]ajyablo 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

oil.
syrup.

[–]rg57 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The Justin government Started with Sexism.

  • a gender test for cabinet
  • a gender test for government jobs
  • a gender test for which missing and murdered indigenous persons would be investigated
  • a gender test (and an orientation test) for which refugees would be accepted
  • gratuitous slam of GamerGate, in favor of feminism

This is the most sexist government Canada has had since before Justin's daddy was PM.

[–]Cthulu2013 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference this time is that jtown pandered to a feminist base vs being a sexist himself.

I think making it heard that there is a large group who's not happy about it would greatly affect him.

[–]_canadianpotato_1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which is actually why I didn't want him to win in the first place. I knew something was off when their platform wanted 50% women and men as MP's.

[–]Kestyr 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They've had Men being second class humans in legislature for years. White men have the benefits in Canada of being the only group that it's considered okay to have legally mandated discrimination against them.)

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points59 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Trump claims Islam leads to terrorism, wants to block Muslims from entering the country, gets savaged by the left for "racism" (which race is unclear).

Left then actually blocks Muslim men from entering the country, because terrorism. Deemed OK, because lefty hero is doing it.

Hypocrisy 101.

[–]alaysian 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Don't make this left vs right. Don't divide the movement.

[–]Funcuz 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And when the left and the right pick sides ?

They both deserve criticism for their dogma. In this case it is a case of left wing discrimination. It doesn't really matter what we think or how we arrived at our conclusions because they've already made their choices and since they're the ones dictating policies based on their bullshit ideological dogma we can call them out for it precisely because of politics.

[–]alaysian 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Name names, don't alienate your support by casting the left as some unanimous man-hating block. That is pretty much playing the "Your either with us, or against us" card.

[–]Scottmk4 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The left already did that when they allied so closely with radical feminism.

[–]alaysian 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem is you are treating half of us here like we did this. Look at how he is talking. He is casting the what Trump has said as Trumps views and desires, while casting the opposition as a unanimous man-hating block. As if we can't be both against Trump and for treating people equal. As if, by criticizing his views, we support this action.

It does nothing to help and only serves to divide and cast out support. It serves no purpose and doesn't belong.

[–]Scottmk4 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you support the left, then you are supporting the people who did this.

[–]alaysian 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just because I hold leftist views does not mean I support the people who are doing this.

[–]Scottmk4 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does if you vote based on those views.

[–]Peraz 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

There is a movement? We're just rage induced men getting trigerred by shit that happens in the world. There's no movement.

[–]CheapShotKO 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The fact that everyone can admit it and laugh about it is what makes this sub great.

[–]Peraz -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Laugh about it? People are just as triggered here as feminists on tumblr

[–]hork23 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're right, I'm clutching my safety pillow as I type this.

[–]Bwhitty23 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh come on you can't deny that some post here do come off as oversensitive. Not a lot but a few. By and large this sub does a lot of things well.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, some people do perceive what others say here as oversensitive. Though that is the rub, it is projection to some degree without knowing where that person is coming from.

[–]Peraz 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because it's 2015!

[–]TheDude415 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Chivalry, damseling are total shit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well men are statistically more likely to commit terrorist acts.

Just like minorites are more likely to commit murder, rape and theft.

But they're not taking remedial actions against the latter.

Which doesn't make sense.

Why just stop at banning men, why not take it further and ban minority Syrians and let only the white women and children in?

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hail Hail to our leader: Prince Mangina PM who sprinkles his eunuching magic powder onto his male peasants.

[–]Noirgheos 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh God what has this country come to...

[–]CaptainRandus 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is what happens when people hated harper so much, that they voted against him as opposed to who they think is the best leader. Now we have PC Prime Minister, and he's going to fix sexism by using sexism...

[–]KingMong 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well, fuck Canada, can the the Queen disown them? because if Scotland can take away Trumps stuff for his shit, the Queen should be able to "give up" Canada for being just as big a cunt.

[–]ZimbaZumba 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A decent article here:-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/canada-exclusion-refugees-single-syrian-men-assad-isis

[–]runcannyvalley 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is really depressing.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MonkeyCB 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So why let married men in? Wasn't the Cali shooting by a married couple? Fact is that if these people pose any risk whatsoever to the native population, none of them should be let in.

[–]bpj1805 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fact is that if these people pose any risk whatsoever to the native population, none of them should be let in.

If any men pose a risk to women, none of them should be afforded the usual civil liberties.

[–]ch4os1337 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fact is that if these people pose any risk whatsoever to the native population, none of them should be let in.

Personally i'm okay with taking the gamble for humanitarian reasons but the ignorance that it even is a gamble is astounding.

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

Shameful thing is, this is the biggest complaint about the migrant crisis.

Why are there men there? Single men should be left behind. Surely the men should be fighting for the country.

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

Predictable from an openly feminist Prime Minister and a feminist activist as a Supreme Court Chief Justice. Equality when it is convenient; Special privileges the rest of the time.

[–]Eddrian32 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say don't let in any refugees until we know they arnt crazy.

[+]snu-snuicide 10 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

OK. Everyone needs to shut up and sit down about this.

What an incredibly misleading and inflammatory title and article.

This has nothing to do with a fictional war on men posed by Trudeau's government.

Also, 90+% of everyone here has little to no understanding of the painful and complicated process that has gone into developing the strategy to meet the seemingly impossible 25,000 Syrian refugee target. This is an incredible feat that has never been done before in this time frame. Might not seem like a big number to you (i.e "why can we only get 25,000 here in that time?" or "it can't be that hard to properly screen single men coming in) but people with immigration are working incredibly hard and in many cases taking a lot of personal risk to help as many people as they can.

I know what a lot of you are going to say. There is a hell of a lot of predictable circle jerk going on here when you get a tiny piece of information and extrapolate your own implications from it.

I've been here for a long time because I think this is a much needed sub and has helped me personally a lot (on a different account - this one had to be more anonymous).

But this issue is not a men's rights battleground.

[–]Swiggy 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But this issue is not a men's rights battleground.

A process that puts men at the back of the line is a men's rights battleground.

[–]--Visionary-- 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Particularly when the rationale for that process (to allow people in) exists because if you don't, those left behind (which equates now explicitly to single men) will possibly die.

[+]snu-snuicide 10 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Correction: men without families are at the back of the line for this short-term initiative. It is not like we are taking families and then excluding the father or the son of that family.

And unless you have a real grip as to why men without families are at the back of the line for this initiative, then commenting about it is just blowing a horn for no reason.

This sub has been changing a lot from wanting the full picture to get a clear idea of what is going on in the world to biting on just about any hook here and judging without understanding. I'm surprised and disappointed with how little skepticism the audience has had with stuff like this.

Yes the article presents the situation in this or that way. But are we going to ask follow up or critical questions? Apparently nah.

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

And unless you have a real grip as to why men without families are at the back of the line for this initiative, then commenting about it is just blowing a horn for no reason.

I have a "real grip", and that grip wouldn't be an option if we were talking about any other group because it would be unacceptable to discriminate against them.

But are we going to ask follow up or critical questions? Apparently nah.

What makes you think we aren't?

[–]secv808 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This article is from almost a month ago.

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

Its also fucked up that I am not even surprised.

[–]off_the_grid_dream -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This was speculation and is not exactly true. They are taking some in, but they are near the bottom of the list as Canada is claiming they are the "least" vulnerable. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/syrian-refugees-groups-canada_n_8657142.html

[–]ch4os1337 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Since it says "sexual minorities" this leads me to assume the single men they let in are probably gay. More discrimination yay!... You would think after all this time they would realise that's part of the problem they are trying to solve.

[+]TheAngledian 10 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

To be entirely fair, gay men would be summarily executed by ISIS. There's probably no chance for them to keep their lives with a "join or die" ultimatum.

[–]ch4os1337 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Totally, Islamists are barbaric when it comes to persecuting gays. However it shows you how Canada puts straight single men in a lower class. It makes perfect sense we should be taking those most at risk but this method ignores the fact that straight single men are being brutally persecuted as well.

[–]KingMong 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

suddenly,all the men in Syria are now gay, good luck proving they arnt.

[–]snu-snuicide1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Have you ever met a straight guy who thinks gay people are disgusting vermin and seen him pretend to be gay? Pretty easy to see through.

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

From your link:

"Those are where priorities are but we haven't said that we're not taking any single men, it's just that those other cases are going to the top of the list," Tunis told The Canadian Press in an interview."

Top of the list? So how exactly is this going to work. Do they think they will run out of women, children, and families who want to flee to Canada and then they will let in single men?

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

"Because It's 2015"

PM Zoolander

[+]imkuhl -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

misleading title much?

[–]franklindeer 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not really. Single straight men are the only class of people not being prioritized by the Canadian government. That is almost exactly the same thing as prioritizing no specific group and treating single men as second class individuals. The outcome is identical.

[–]off_the_grid_dream -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually, they said they were going to announce the plan on Tuesday, which was actually November 26th. Going to look for an update...

Edit: They are taking some in, but they are near the bottom of the list. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/syrian-refugees-groups-canada_n_8657142.html

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

Bottom of the list means not taking any. We're only taking 25,000 out of millions. They can easily fill that quota just with those they've prioritized. In fact they could continue doing that for years to come without difficulty.

Also, if you pay close attention to the language used by the government they never firmly state that they will be taking single straight men. They say they will be taking men, and single men, but avoid being clear when the questions in fact are quite clear. This is more apparent when you listen to radio or television interviews where the question is included.

[–]joshkitty -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very misleading

[+]joshkitty -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very misleading

[–]insaneHoshi -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think a country has the moral or ethical obligation to ensure equality when choosing who to take as a refugee.

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

I completely agree. A country's first moral or ethical obligations are to its own people. Accepting refugees is an act of compassion that must be undertaken only in a limited, controlled fashion in order to keep the refugees from overwhelming or endangering the host population...that is, if the nation decides to accept refugees at all.

[–]adulttalkaccount -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Guys, this isn't the hill to die on.

While there are exceptions, the typical terrorist profile is a male between the age of 15 and 40, or military age. 80% of the "refugees" are military aged men. While ISIS and other hadji groups do use women and children in various capacities, the overwhelming majority of the threat from them comes from military aged men.

If a nation intends to appear sympathetic to the "plight" of the refugees without completely throwing the door open to terrorists the logical thing to do is to allow women and children in while excluding military aged men. It is an intermediate position between rejecting all and allowing all and allows for some use of both compassion and sense.

[–]BookOfGQuan 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then why not ban muslims?

Checkmate, I think.

Banning muslims and profiling them as terrorists = evil.

Doing the same for single men of "military age" (that disgusting old phrase) = only logical.

This political manoeuvring, hand-wringing hypocritical bullshit isn't impressing.

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

Then why not ban muslims?

That's a move I would support. But, to answer your question, because it would be impolitic to do so. Feelz>realz and all that.

Banning muslims and profiling them as terrorists = evil.

Feelz.

Doing the same for single men of "military age" (that disgusting old phrase) = only logical.

Realz. And, because the public is less sympathetic towards men, the feelz aren't strong enough to override the realz.

This political manoeuvring, hand-wringing hypocritical bullshit isn't impressing.

No argument there.

[–]Swiggy 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If a nation intends to appear sympathetic to the "plight" of the refugees without completely throwing the door open to terrorists the logical thing to do is to allow women and children in while excluding military aged men.

I think the children of these immigrants are just as likely if not more likely to grow up and become radicalized than the actual immigrants themselves.

And besides that, once again discrimination against men becomes the only form of acceptable discrimination. Can't only accept Christian refugees, can't put extra tracking on Muslims, but excluding men is just "logical".

[–]adulttalkaccount 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think the children of these immigrants are just as likely if not more likely to grow up and become radicalized than the actual immigrants themselves.

I agree. After reading a few news stories of ISIS kids killing infidels as part of stupid games (and I do mean really taking a human life), I can't see anyone of any sex or age coming out of those regions as anything but a threat.

The point of my post was that this isn't a fight appropriate for the MRA banner, these aren't the kinds of people we want to fight for, and also to explain the "logic" of the people who make the decisions.

And besides that, once again discrimination against men becomes the only form of acceptable discrimination. Can't only accept Christian refugees, can't put extra tracking on Muslims, but excluding men is just "logical".

I haven't seen evidence we are accepting any Christian refugees.

There is a logical reason to exclude men, as I stated above. There are very logical reasons to exclude all Muslims but that would be impolitic. Feelz>realz. I'm not defending it, just explaining it.

[–]Swiggy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are very logical reasons to exclude all Muslims but that would be impolitic.

That is why it is a men's rights issue. It shouldn't be acceptable to tolerate discrimination against men any more than it is for any other group.

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

Sometimes you just have to accept that you're not going to get the perfect solution you want. You have to take the best you can get. The absolute last thing we want to do is to raise a stink and convince them to let in the men too. A partial ban on Muslim refugees is better than none at all.

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

these aren't the kinds of people we want to fight for

I disagree with this sentiment. I advocate for the rights of men - that includes left and right, religious and atheists, criminal and innocent... hell, even feminist.

I do agree that this isn't a particularly important issue. Unless immigration is unlimited, there will always be discrimination. This is a case of pragmaticism, not bias. Similar to the HPV vaccine thing.

[–]Apellosine 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While leaving the young men behind in refugee camps and being told that they are not to be trusted by the west. This is an excellent choice to prevent the radicalisation of young muslim men right?

[–]BookOfGQuan 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's quite simple. A tribalist default assumes that the adolescent and young adult males of other tribes and outsider groups are a danger and a threat. They will automatically distrust and maltreat them. Remember the UN's track record in denying refugee status to young men fleeing forced conscription? The UN claimed to be working to defuse military tensions, yet insisted that young men trying to flee military violence instead stay and participate unwillingly in it. Does that seem logical? What's happening is more of the same. They're pretty much wanting the stranded young men to join some militant faction; that's where their biased tribal assumptions say that the men and boys "should" be (see: all this "military age" bullshit). They see it as a forgone conclusion and one that they instinctively support. And then they'll justify the killing of these men and boys to remove the threat. International politics works on a tribalist system of assumptions and biases. It will always work against outsider males.

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

It's a half-move to placate the crowd while still appearing compassionate. It's politics.

I don't buy any argument that our refusing to accept male refugees causes these people to radicalize. As far as I am concerned, anyone who supports Sharia is too radical to allow within a western country. Unfortunately, a frighteningly large number of Muslims support Sharia and filtering them out is damn near impossible.

[+]please_hell -18 points-17 points-16 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In this case I don't blame them since many of the men are bums and freeloaders, some who have simply abandoned their wives or families.

I don't like the whole migrant thing anyway though. I think they need to have heavier restrictions than this.

[–]Powder70 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you assume single men are bums but single women are not? You are part of the problem.

[+]please_hell -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I think they're all potentially bad news and leeches. But I think a swarm of refuge men in their 20s are a bigger threat.

For what it's worth, I don't think single women should get preference either.

[+]Bowdallen -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I heard about this a while ago and I know this will probably be unpopular here but I'm alright with it, yes it's profiling but I'm not against profiling if stats back it up and I think it's pretty fair at this point to say most terrorist attacks in other countries are commited by single males.

[–]Peraz 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most terror attacks are carried out by men? Most terror attacks are also carried by muslims! Oh, but sorry, Trump's proposal is definitely a racist one, while Trudeau's action is not sexist.

[–]Richo262 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can say bigot, islamaphobe, anti-ideology, but racist does not fit when talking about an ideology.

[–]ch4os1337 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is fair to say that. I'm okay with reason and fact-based profiling but it's incredibly hypocritical to profile only based on gender/relationship status and not other (often more important) determining/indicating factors.

[–]tigrn914 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Essentially why not just take Christians, Jews, and apostates.

Nope that's racist cause religion is a race.

[–]Ellis_Dee_25 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1.2 billion? Are you fucking kidding me?

[+]swishman 10 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

fair enough, these single men are gonna cause more problems than women and kids, its just a fact

[–]adam2969 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How?

[–]blublanket94 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

atleast here in northern europe muslim women have a reputation for integrating far better than the men

[+]swishman 10 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

single men are way more likely to be criminals, drug addicts, a drain on society etc, not to mention being radical suicide bombers

[–]Swiggy 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A drain on society? Yes women and children make very little use of government services.

[+]swishman 10 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

if you dont want the government to service or help then dont bring in any refugees. i think the ones less likely to become a larger problem should be let in first

[–]Swiggy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That depends on what you mean by problem. Yes, a more of the young single men will end up committing crimes, becoming drug addicts, etc. and there will be costs associated with that. But pretty much every single child will need to be educated, that alone will costs much more than what any problems caused by a small % of men.

[–]DylanNails -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LMFAO

[–]RiotArmour -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wtf is up with that title??? No ones deeming them second class citizens. They are simply saying they are not going to take in single males. Although this is still discrimination and bad stop jumping on the tumblr title train.

[–]Swiggy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No ones deeming them second class citizens.

Telling them they are different rules for them than for everyone else qualifies as making them 2nd class.

And then what happens. Nobody will take them in legally so they are forced to illegally sneak into other countries where they really are 2nd class. Then people will wondered how they become easy targets for those who are seeking to radicalize marginalized young men.

[+]Akesgeroth -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This shit again.

The crushing majority of jihadists posing as refugees are single men. They are not welcome in Canada. We will not allow people into Canada indiscriminately.

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

The crushing majority of jihadists posing as refugees are single Muslim men.

Now you are guilty of hate speech.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter