"For safety we do NOT allow men"

[–]vegidio 143 points144 points145 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]hugolp 33 points34 points35 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chervenko 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Johnthereader 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hughtub 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Coinin -25 points-24 points-23 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Coinin -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Coinin -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Coinin -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 94 points95 points96 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thesilence84 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Geohump 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAlphaRanger 36 points37 points38 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]bored-guy 13 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not a huge fan of this analogy. For a gun to function as a gun, it needs ammunition. For a mosquito to function as a mosquito, it doesn't need malaria at all.

[–]Curebores 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mxalo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Geohump1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Geohump 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlyfalcon89 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mattlohkamp 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]herbandmargie 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Geohump 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I did actually mean "men".

While it's unpalatable to MRAs, it's hard to deny that most of the violence in the world is done by men. Though of course, most of the victims of that violence are also men.

While violence isn't as common as many people think, it does occur, and it has had an important role in the evolution of our species. There's a reason why men are typically larger and more muscular than women.

However, violence is not the default. We also have strong mechanisms, especially social ones, to prevent violence. And we're getting better at it, with declining rates of violence per capita in a lot of places.

Nevertheless, when men do get violent, they tend to be pretty effective at it. No other species has harnessed so many forces of destruction, and men did most of that harnessing.

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

[–]herbandmargie -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

They're only facts in the cases you're thinking of, and there are plenty of exceptions. Men can be dangerous - but being a man doesn't make you dangerous necessarily, and being a man doesn't make you any more dangerous than women in general, necessarily. Sure, you can name plenty of anecdotes of men doing dangerous things, and so can I - we can both also come up with plenty of stories about women doing dangerous things. We can even come up with examples of men and women who refuse to do dangerous things, or are incapable of doing dangerous things.

'Men' aren't anything any more than 'women' are - and if you want to talk about evolution, or some sort of natural biological / non-cultural difference between men and women... I mean, sure, sexual dimorphism is a real thing, but it's an evolutionary adaptation that isn't good for much these days, all things considered. Hunting? Aggression? Defense? Dangerousness? What good is any of that in a first-world nation in the industrial age? What we we hunting? What are we fighting? Whom are we defending against? Who fears our dangerousness?

[–]Coinin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Mymyilikepie 43 points44 points45 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shitbruh 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unexpecteditem 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]s1500 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlyfalcon89 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Coinin 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]emboarrocks 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]petemate -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]petemate 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Now you are mixing two things.

1) If you chose not to associate with women personally, that is your choice. No question. You can also choose not to associate with blacks or Muslims or whatever. That is your personal choice.

2) If you are a business owner, you can not differentiate between persons, based on sex, race, religion, etc. Its as simple as that. You can't deny certain people to participate in your club, just because its what you want.

Do you honestly want to tell every fraternity, every sorority, every men-only hunting lodge, every women-only sewing circle or book club, and every other single gender institution that what they are doing is or should be illegal?

I am not a lawyer, but i would expect fraternities to not be included in these discussions because there are alternatives for females - sororities. However, your hunting club or your sewing circle probably does not fall into those groups. If a female want to hunt and she is told that she can't join the club because, then it is illegal. And so it is, if a man can't join the sewing club. However, there is most likely some sort of case-by-case judgement on this.

No one can take away your personal right to dislike certain people for whatever reason, but fact of the matter is that if you are "an employer, authority, organisation within public management or an authority, organisation or a person that supplies goods or services to the public within the public or private sector", then you are not allowed to discriminate. You are discriminating people if you do not have a legitimate and objective reason to differentiate.

(What i quoted was from the Danish law on equal treatment, but i would expect any civilized country to have a similar legislation.)

Unless there is an actual reason to differentiate, then it is illegal and it should be. Your own retarded reasons for not liking a particular group is not valid reason to keep them from having the same rights as anyone else. Society is never going to make any progress unless it is illegal to hate people without reason. Its the simple truth.

[–]elebrin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

To my mind there is no difference. We either can choose who we interact with at any level, or we cannot. Very simple binary.

(What i quoted was from the Danish law on equal treatment, but i would expect any civilized country to have a similar legislation.)

This explains a lot. The only time we can't discriminate on gender in the US is when we are selling something or when we are hiring someone for a job, and this only applies to the private sector.

In the public sector (when I say that I mean government entities and groups that receive public funding on a large scale, like schools or colleges/universities), you can't discriminate on gender at all, ever, unless we are talking about a job that specifically demands a particular gender (think strip searches, they generally require a person to be searched by someone of the same gender).

I realize you don't consider the US to be civilized, but I don't particularly care. I value my freedom (what little I have left) more then I value your "civilization".

[–]petemate 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I realize you don't consider the US to be civilized, but I don't particularly care. I value my freedom (what little I have left) more then I value your "civilization".

I was thinking more along the lines of Saudi Arabia or something like that. I don't consider the US to be particular uncivilized.

I value my freedom (what little I have left) more then I value your "civilization".

That doesn't make sense. You value your freedom, which means that you value that everyone can deny you certain things for whatever strange reason?

Fact is, as long as people are hating/disliking each other without reason, you will have to force them to work together in public. It has nothing to do with freedom or the lack of that, because you can still sit at home and hate everyone you want. But in order for society to make progress, you will need to put your petty hate aside and look above your own world and towards the better of the entire community. And apparently, the only way it can be done is to force people to collaborate.

[–]elebrin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]petemate 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]giegerwasright -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not about taking things 'literally'. You straight up misread what he said and then, instead of just taking the time to reread it, you posted several annoying comments about how you don't understand what he said. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a troll and help you deconstruct it just so you understand that it wasn't 'misogynistic':

New Rule. Any woman who wants to run, work for, or patronize a women's only service, organization, or business, they have to sign a waiver that says they will never bring suit against any other organization, service, or business for discrimination of any kind. Watch the playing field level.

So he is proposing a new rule, and it will apply to women who are affiliated with women's only services, organisations, or businesses. The rule is that they are no longer able to sue other organisations for discrimination (for example, discriminating against women in their hiring practices). Why? Because the very nature of a women's only organisation is discriminatory, and if a woman should be allowed to partake of such discrimination, she should not be allowed to complain when others do it to her. He is not saying that all women shouldn't be allowed to complain about discrimination, only the women who partake of it themselves and for some reason seem to get away with it these days. A big example of this is the huge number of women's only services for domestic violence victims where no equivalent service is provided for men.

It's a bit tongue-and-cheek and a round-about way of solving the problem. Really, women's only organisations should not be allowed to discriminate in the first place, but what I think OP was suggesting is that if you did make it so that these people weren't allowed to sue for discrimination, they probably would open up their services to men.

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shinokiba 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Geohump 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MisterFriday 46 points47 points48 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]_________lol________ 53 points54 points55 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ihmhi 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]_________lol________ 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Geohump 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ihmhi 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]_________lol________ 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_________lol________ 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]_________lol________ 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]_________lol________ 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not sure where your from, but in Ireland you can't ban someone from a public business on the basis of gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation etc. You're either open to the public or not. Noone forces anyone to run a business.

Forcing the Hotel owner to be a decent person might drive their hatred deeper, but that's just something they'll have to deal with. They weren't prepared to act in a civilised manner on their own so the government had to force them to.

No, the hotel owner isn't being oppressed at all. If you want to run a public business in Ireland you have to respect everyone's rights regardless of your own prejudices. Once a person books a hotel room it is considered under Irish law to be their home for the time they have paid and they have a corresponding right to privacy. A hotel owner has no more right to say what goes on in their hotel rooms than a landlord can interfere in their tenant's private lives (unless of course they're damaging the building or using it for a non-residential purpose, like running a business or dealing drugs).

[–]_________lol________ 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No one forces anyone to run a business.

Right, but they're forcing you to not run a business if you really really want to discriminate against someone for some reason.

They weren't prepared to act in a civilised manner on their own so the government had to force them to.

The market also forces them to, but it takes a little longer. Discriminating against customers means you're losing money by not serving people who would otherwise be giving you money. Instead, their business will go to your non-discriminatory competitors. This punishes discriminators and makes them less powerful and less wealthy. No force is involved because they are doing it to themselves.

No, the hotel owner isn't being oppressed at all. If you want to run a public business in Ireland you have to respect everyone's rights regardless of your own prejudices.

You are forgetting about the hotel owner's right to operate a business as (s)he sees fit and do business with whom (s)he wishes. Forcing them to take customers that they would rather not serve is infringing on their right to be "uncivilized".

Once a person books a hotel room

That's probably okay (depending on the terms of the contract for the room that the guest signed), but the hotel owner should have the right to refuse anyone who they wish to refuse for whatever ridiculous reason they might have. The hotel owner is providing a service, and if your mandates mean that they simply close their hotel instead of complying, then no one gets the use of that service, which punishes everyone. Letting the market punish discrimination is a better and longer-lasting solution, with no unintended consequences like institutionalized racism.

[–]Coinin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why should society put up with someone who really really wants to discriminate against someone?

It takes alot longer, if ever, and it's not reasonable to expect the people being discriminated against to wait.

"You are forgetting about the hotel owner's right to operate a business as (s)he sees fit and do business with whom (s)he wishes. Forcing them to take customers that they would rather not serve is infringing on their right to be "uncivilized"."

No such right exists.

"That's probably okay (depending on the terms of the contract for the room that the guest signed), but the hotel owner should have the right to refuse anyone who they wish to refuse for whatever ridiculous reason they might have."

Why should they have such a right? How does this make the world a better place? At any rate, the couple in question had booked the room long in advance. The hostel decided they didn't like the idea of two guys bunking together and told them to find a new place to stay.

"The hotel owner is providing a service, and if your mandates mean that they simply close their hotel instead of complying, then no one gets the use of that service, which punishes everyone."

Firstly, I haven't heard of any hotels closing for that reason. Secondly, the Irish hotel market is oversaturated, there's far too many hotels as it is. Thirdly, if there is a market niche there for a hotel, I guarantee you someone else will take it over and everyone will have the use of the service, regardless of their colour or sexuality.

"Letting the market punish discrimination is a better and longer-lasting solution, with no unintended consequences like institutionalized racism."

It's also an incredibly slow solution which punishes innocent people in the meantime. And by innocent, I mean actually innocent, not guilty of bigotry.

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

Why should society put up with someone who really really wants to discriminate against someone?

For the same reason that we have to put up with lots of other things that people do that we don't like: Because it is with in their rights to do so, and to deny them that right means that our own rights may well be infringed in other ways which we don't like.

It takes alot longer, if ever, and it's not reasonable to expect the people being discriminated against to wait.

I don't believe it takes a "lot" longer, and I don't believe either of us has any evidence for either side of that argument. Regardless, the people being discriminated against don't usually have to wait that long. If there are hotels discriminating against people like them, they are perfectly free to open a hotel of their own and make a lot of money from the business that their competitor is freely sending to them. They can also do their business with other merchants by mail-order/internet or with each other. Further, in areas where there are lots of racist/whatever merchants, those being discriminated against will often move away from (or not move to) the area, which further hurts the discriminating merchants. This is a large part of the reason why the American southeast remains poorer than most of the rest of the country.

No such right exists.

See Philosophy of Liberty. Rights are innate. They cannot be taken away, but they are often suppressed by the government or others.

Why should they have such a right? How does this make the world a better place?

It's called liberty, and it's enormously beneficial to the economic and social advancement of the world. Just because I disagree with the way this hotelier chooses to run his/her business doesn't mean that I have the right to force them to do things a different way.

At any rate, the couple in question had booked the room long in advance. The hostel decided they didn't like the idea of two guys bunking together and told them to find a new place to stay.

Do you think this action has positively affected the hotel's profits? They lost money on this sale, and the subsequent outrage has doubtless hurt them even more. This is the market at work. Further, the couple could sue the hotel for breach of contract, depending on what terms they agreed to when they booked the room.

Firstly, I haven't heard of any hotels closing for that reason.

No, because it's one factor of many that can cause the hotel to lose business, and they aren't exactly going to issue a press release that says, "yes, we had to close down because we don't like homosexuals." It's also why the market can take longer to remove discrimination, because the hotel might otherwise be far better than its competitors at providing excellent service for a good price. The market punishes discrimination in a slow and steady manner, eating away at profit margins until the discrimination is dead. Legislation doesn't fix the underlying problem (the discriminatory mindset is still there) and tends to build institutions around it, as Affirmative Action has done in the U.S.

Secondly, the Irish hotel market is oversaturated, there's far too many hotels as it is.

If that is in fact true, and not just your opinion on the situation, it means that they are operating with very small profit margins because there is so much competition. This means that losing business due to discrimination is even more damaging to the offending business.

Thirdly, if there is a market niche there for a hotel, I guarantee you someone else will take it over and everyone will have the use of the service, regardless of their colour or sexuality.

Which is my point. The homophobic hotelier is driven out of business, and someone else buys the hotel and operates it without the discrimination, and more people are served. The market has done its job.

It's also an incredibly slow solution which punishes innocent people in the meantime.

I don't believe that it's incredibly slow. In order to gain support among enough legislators to get the practice outlawed, society already has to be moving in the direction of non-discrimination. Otherwise those legislators wouldn't get elected or the legislation would get overturned after the next election if they managed to sneak it through against the wishes of voters. Instead of legislation based on people voting once every X years, people can "vote with their wallets" each and every day by supporting companies that are not discriminatory, and even by donating to organizations that highlight and embarrass/boycott discriminatory businesses.

And by innocent, I mean actually innocent, not guilty of bigotry.

They aren't being punished. That business doesn't have to even be there to serve anyone, and in fact, if you have laws against discrimination, the business owner may decide to invest his/her money elsewhere so as to avoid the laws they disagree with. In any case, where profits exist to be made, other non-discriminatory investors will see the opportunity and quickly open their doors to serve the unserved people. You yourself may even wish to open a hotel across the street from the offending hotel, with a big sign on it that says, "unlike the hotel over there, we don't discriminate! stay with us!"

[–]gkx -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterFriday -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]JustPlainRude 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mattyp424 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]Thyrsta 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]honoraryorange -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mattyp424 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MeEvilBob 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SAMISNEAT 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]obscure123456789 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SensesEnd 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MysterMoron 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Geohump 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unexpecteditem 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MysterMoron 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thyrsta 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hurtssogood77 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Dr_Plasma 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sibqm_lmvm 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mokadude1 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Gamerp4 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]owigotprcd -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	"For safety we do NOT allow men"
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	505
Comments	159
Date	December 25, 2012 6:42 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15etww/for_safety_we_do_not_allow_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/for-safety-we-do-not-allow-men.1005777 https://theredarchive.com/post/1005777

Comments