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
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • 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

Needle exchange program put in place... for FEMALE addicts only.... because if you have a penis and an addiction issue, you don't matter

TheEssexian

March 31, 2016
800 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-needle-exchange-women-1.3482535
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 Needle exchange program put in place... for FEMALE addicts only.... because if you have a penis and an addiction issue, you don't matter
Author

TheEssexian

Upvotes 800
Comments 227
Date March 31, 2016 5:13 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4conpo/needle_exchange_program_put_in_place_for_female/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/needle-exchange-program-put-in-place-for-female.952883
https://theredarchive.com/post/952883
Top posts by TheEssexian

Deadbeat dad or pro-choice? Thoughts?

1021 upvotes
March 18, 2016
/r/MensRights

Two parents found guilty of the same crime: father gets jail time; mother gets house arrest

604 upvotes
June 25, 2016
/r/MensRights

A room full of women support lying about birth control and getting pregnant the slide. But let's not generalize.

219 upvotes
December 7, 2017
/r/MensRights

Iggy Azalea says she was more likely to get sexually assaulted by women in concert than men

176 upvotes
September 6, 2015
/r/MensRights

Kevin Smith apologizes to daughter on behalf of men because we 'suck'? WTF?

125 upvotes
February 6, 2016
/r/MensRights

Anti-rape campaign infers people should overlook the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'

107 upvotes
January 16, 2016
/r/MensRights

Mother has ex-husband arrested for confiscating his daughter's iPhone

95 upvotes
January 29, 2016
/r/MensRights

The Epidemic of Isolation Among Young Men

80 upvotes
April 28, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Mike12344321 104 points105 points106 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

"Women in the community are at a greater risk and vulnerability because women generally borrow and share needles more than men do,"

[[Citation. Fucking. Required.]]

[–]MalibuStayZ 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Even if it were true, I couldn't see any reason why they exclude men from this program. It's not like men would take anything away from women. I would assume that they don't care about the few cents a needle costs and they already give needles to men at other offices as mentioned in the text.

This is just blatant sexism.

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

Even if it were true, I couldn't see any reason why they exclude men from this program.

Because it benefits them, and they can.

People are shit. It's the government's job to stop them from being shit. Canada has failed it's citizens in that regard, by allowing legal discrimination.

[+]JebberJabber -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Consider the word NIMBY.

The exchange is an additional service to the needle exchange in the town centre. It is hosted in an existing refuge.

I guess a refuge made sense because they tried the local florist, coffee shop, pharmacy, library and school, and none of those establishments wanted to run a needle exchange.

Is there a suburban men's refuge next door which desperately wanted to host a needle exchange too, but which was cruelly denied participation by the feminist city council, with the goal of exterminating men? Yes of course there is. I'm absolutely certain of this because I've been on MR long enough that I just know there is. Everybody else here agrees, that's why nobody else mentioned that the new exchange is supplementary to the main one and is done by a women's refuge.

Another thing that might have played a part: consider the unattractiveness of male addicts vs female addicts to suburban citizens, and the greater number of men. Sorry guys, you're just not welcome in suburbia. Why do you think the council pays the higher rent to put the main exchange in the commercial district?

Another thing. A women's refuge tends to be discreet (WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?). They don't go for big windows on the street front and a door onto the street. More typical features would be a car park hidden around the back, and a rear entrance. All that makes it much easier for the city council to get the exchange running without being overwhelmed by a huge public protest.
But a women's shelter can not allow men on the premises (WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?) so men in this case have to use the main exchange in town.

[–]ranterskanter 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Women are classier junkies, their looks keep even after their teeth have fallen out.

Seriously now, I think you're trying to imply that male junkies might attract more attention? Partly true, only because there are many more of them. And there are many more of them in part because the much larger prevalence of alcoholism and addiction amongst males is considered at best gender neutral, because Canada doesn't believe that any problem could harm men more than women, in spite of some pretty strong numbers.

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

There are obvious reasons why a refuge for women fleeing domestic violence can not serve men. AFAIK male visitors are never allowed in any women's refuge. The last thing they want is for men to enter the grounds or the building. There is no discernable difference between a man wanting a needle exchange and a homicidal ex bent on murder-suicide.

Female visitors are sometimes allowed, sometimes not. I was surprised to see this one's address is advertised - often this is a strict secret which is why there may be no visitors at all allowed.

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

I guessed there would be a lot more men than women.
So what we have is that a women's shelter has tacked on a low-volume service which allows women to get needles in privacy if they can trek out to the 'burbs. It was explained why some women would want to do this, and it is obvious why it would be a great deal more expense to offer the same extra service to men.

People are acting like men are somehow missing out. Actually, feminists created the women's shelter in 1989. Nine years later the city asked them to provide emergency refuge care, which was presumably paid. How about watching how big sister takes care of herself instead of just whining about it not being provided on a plate by parents?
.
This is what made the women's needle exchange possible:

five women concerned about social justice and poverty issues came together to begin exploring the need for a women’s agency. During the following six months, a “needs” assessment was conducted and gaps in services were identified. The process of incorporation, obtaining non-profit status and developing fundraising initiatives was established. In 1990, service delivery began.
Volunteers became a vital part of the organization.

1998, the shelter was approached by the Social Services Department of the Corporation of the City of Windsor to provide emergency shelter to women experiencing homelessness. New quarters were purchased. In 2005, the Welcome Centre underwent major revisions, increasing from 8 to 11 single beds. The shelter now offers programming to assist women in ending the cycle of homelessness, poverty and violence.

This is why feminists have such contempt for the MRM. They have been doing the work for decades, learning how to get stuff done in the real world. They have been supporting DV and sexual assault victims, running co-op housing and women's art galleries and events and all kinds of support groups at a grassroots level, then after a track record of success has been established they have got funding from city councils etc. in some cases.

[–]99639 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even if true it's bullshit. Men are at greater risk of dying by violent means, does that mean we should only send ambulances to men and ignore women who need help? Obviously that's insane. Or how about this, minority women are at higher risk of needle sharing than white women. Should we turn away white women?

[–]TheEssexian 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I give them the benefit of the doubt on that, assuming that the implication is that they are more likely to share needles, and therefore more likely to contract diseases through that.... assuming they did surveys among the people who use their service.

But yeah... there is no way to know that for certain.

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

Even knowing for certain, why bar men from services?

[–]Cagg 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a women's shelter.

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

Well, that would do it then

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

Also even so, the safer the drug using population in the area the safer each individual.

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

The citation is at the top of the article - a frontline HIV prevention organisation. "Kim Levergood, women HIV outreach coordinator with AIDS Committee of Windsor."

ITT, Chavelah, who works in this field confirms it is much harder to get women with children to use needle exchanges because they are scared of getting reported and losing their kids.
Who would be reporting them? For the new exchange to make sense, it would appear they are worried (reasonably or not, it makes no difference) about being reported by one of the kind of people that is found at a mixed exchange but not at a women's exchange.

HIV reduction organisations are always struggling for money, they don't piss it away on silly things. They are the experts in their field and they think an exclusively female exchange is worth doing. The only professional with relevant experience in this thread agrees with them, and notes that taking kids off addicts is not automatically the best thing for the kids.

As the former husband of a social worker I can confirm that last line. Anti-abortionists and anti - domestic assistance grant right wingers push a lovely fantasy about the quality of foster care available, and it is very, very much worse for older children.

[+]Eryemil 10 years ago* [recovered] (44 children) | Copy Link

This is vile. Like literally monstrous.

It seems like the only way you can get sympathy as a man is to get your limbs blown off in a war or doing something else "heroic". For men, humanity is something that must be earned.

Sometimes it feels like I'm the only person around me that even sees male suffering as an inherently bad thing, without qualifiers.

[–]TheEssexian 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why men being beaten is public by a woman is something to laugh at, while a woman being beaten (as it should be for both men and women), an instance where one should intervene.

But, yes, men are expected to 'earn their humanity'. Great wording. It is sad.

[–]mwobuddy 67 points68 points69 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

For men, humanity is something that must be earned.

Everyone put this as signatures in forums.

[–]TamidMT 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Logged in to quote that very sentence.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, that could easily be misinterpreted.

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

Agreed. Us saying that takes on a much different meaning then when the feminazis say that.

[–]grayfox6644 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it can go either way, it sounds harsh but at the same time inspirational. so i guess context...

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

I have never seen a feminist say that, and I have seen some very crazy feminists.

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

"For men, humanity is something that must be earned."

I've been feeling this way for some time. For women, it is granted they will start a family and have children, thus being full members of society. Many men don't do these things, and from a young age are never given the benefit of the doubt. Men must earn their right to have a voice. They're on trial for their very existence from the day they realize they're alive. What good is a man to society anyway, if he isn't providing income for his wife to spend on all the third world products that litter the home? I've been wearing the same pair of jeans for 15 years. I'm worthless to capitalism unless I can give my value to someone who will use it.

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

"What good is a man to society anyway, if he isn't providing income for his wife to spend on all the third world products that litter the home?"
Or killing and subjugating people in third world countries or even at home to further the profit/consumer/growth madness? Killing brown peoples is the ultimate turn on...

edit... /s

[–]JackBond1234 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That derailed quickly

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

Brown People

Lol that's a funny joke

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

Feel free to fuck right off.

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or killing and subjugating people in third world countries or even at home to further the profit/consumer/growth madness? Killing brown peoples is the ultimate turn on...

Because the 95% of men who have ever fought in wars wanted to go there, right? Conscription has never been in force, right? The millions sent into the meat grinder of Belgium wanted to die, right? The thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan decided to invade, right? The millions of men who join the military because they have no future otherwise and simply want to provide for their mothers and wives are absolutely vile, right?

I think you fail to realize that there is a vast disconnect between people like Bush and Cheney (who orchestrated wars to further their profits and power), and the boots on the ground who are looking for an education or some money to get out of the mud that they and their families are in or were simply conscripted against their will to absorb enough bullets for victory. The fact that you even place the blame on people who go into places like Iraq wanting to oust dictators and liberate the population when the real villains were those who lied to them and you, is despicable and you deserve to be shamed, perhaps the same way that men have been throughout history for not going to wars, you pathetic fool.

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

What do you mean by "brown" people?

[–]EeeeeeevilMan 34 points35 points36 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not only that but it's shortsighted and stupid.

So Junkie Girl gets free needles and Junkie Guy doesn't. Junkie Guy ends up with Hep C or HIV. Junkie Girl and Junkie Guy end up together as a couple, he gives her the ol' "Hey baby I'm clean" and they start sharing her needles because that's what dumbass junkie couples do and she contracts his Hep C and HIV.

All of which might have been prevented if they'd just given the men needles too.

[–]TheAngledian16 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Karen Straughan quoted this and I thought it was fitting.

"Society reduces men to human doings."

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

It seems to be a place that already existed for women but it branched out and now does needle exchange so not nearly as bad as it sounds.

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

It actually seems to be a place which discriminates against boys and men from the outset.

[–]never_said_that 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Read tfa

This latest harm-reduction initiative is spearheaded by the AIDS Committee of Windsor, which already offers needle exchange services to men and women in the downtown.

[–]manicmonkeys 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

But why restrict any given location to one gender? I can't see any benefit.

[–]chavelah 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction, Levergood explained. Instead, they choose to share needles, which increases the risk of contracting diseases.

This squares with my experience. For most public health services including STD testing, I have way more trouble getting male clients to access the existing resources. For anything related to drugs, it's female clients who shy away, because they are afraid of getting a case opened on them and their kids taken away.

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

Do you think one gender needing more assistance justifies not allowing the other gender with that same issue to get assistance?

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

Not at all. Assistance is available for male addicts in this region.

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

Assistance was available for female addicts in the region before adding a segregated facility.

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

So the kids get to suffer because we are giving women a soft handed treatment.

The kids SHOULD be taken away from addict junkie mothers where it's possible to give them to sane, safe relatives.

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

I understand what you are feeling, but that approach doesn't generally produce the best outcome for the child. Most addicts don't have any "sane, safe relatives" - that's one of the reasons they are addicts. The best option is usually to offer rehab services. And then offer them again. And then offer them again.

If there were fit and willing families lined up around the block to adopt the children of junkies, I'd probably advocate for a higher rate of removal. Babies are removed from junkies more often than older kids, because we can find good homes for babies. But as things stand now, if the child's basic physical needs are being met and they are attending school, putting them in foster care only serves to inflict pain with no likelihood of them having a better home life.

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

Because they were finding a higher incidence of women becoming sick from dirty needles. Read tfa

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

Let's assume that's correct....so fucking what? Men commit suicide more, does that justify suicide hotlines only men can call?

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

YES.

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

Why? What is to be gained be restricting help to one gender?

[–]JebberJabber -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Can nobody read any more? Just read the article and think about the information given. It says that a shiny new building was errected to provide a needle exchange to women only.
Actually, it doesn't. Read what it does say FFS.

[–]manicmonkeys 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I did read the article. Even if women ARE more likely to share needles, that isn't a reason to keep men from using a needle exchange service. Can you think of any reasons?

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It is very hard to find locations for exchanges.
They found a location but it can only serve women, because it is in a women's shelter. But privacy for women was in the original specification for the extra service, so that is not really a problem.
Sometimes women need things that men don't need as much. It isn't an evil plot. Women are different, bless them.

[–]manicmonkeys 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Let's ignore for a moment the irony of this welcome shelter being for women who are homeless, even though that's something that men need that women don't need as much...

And then move on to the fact that I still don't see any reason to not let men use that location for the needle exchange service.

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

Some women's refuges allow female visitors, some don't. None allow male visitors AFAIK.

The refuge is not for the long term homeless, it was started by feminist volunteers for women who are homeless due to DV. It had been operating nine years before the city started paying them for clients it sent to the refuge.

One thing I'd not mentioned is that junkie women's exes are often also junkies, and given junkies social skills they are particularly likely to be hostile breakups. So a needle exchange they can use without the risk of running into the ex is attractive.

Remember this program was initiated by AIDS experts, not by evil feminists. I'd be inclined to trust the AIDS experts to know their job. ITT Chavelah, who works in this field, confirms there is a big problem in getting women to use needle exchanges because they are scared of losing their kids. She also rejects the fantasy that good foster homes are available in adequate numbers, especially for older children.

My three comments below cover some more reasons.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4conpo/needle_exchange_program_put_in_place_for_female/d1kqoqn

[–]manicmonkeys 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When I read up on this more, I'm actually not against it anymore.

Partially since it was, like you mentioned, started by individuals, not gov't funding, and partially because it's specifically for victims of DV.

I still am very much disappointed in the fact that despite F>M DV being as bad as M>F DV in many places, that M>F DV gets way more funding and attention, but at the same time, this also (IMHO) has a lot to do with men being taught that refusing to ask for help or acknowledge weakness or helplessness is a positive trait. There's definitely a time and a place to stow away your feelings and get shit done, but unfortunately it is often pushed too hard.

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

Indeed. I have been helping out on our subs for suicide support and some related mental health ones for over a year and it is really notable how fewer males ask for help. There are plenty, but a lot don't. The other thing is that they are quite often naive about mental health stuff, it is obvious they have not been talking about it.

F>M DV and particularly emotional abuse is a much bigger problem than most realise, but I wouldn't call them equal. The extra ingredient of physical terror is important. Also it seems that women may be more biological susceptible to PTSD. Boys get just as messed up from childhood emotional abuse but adult sexual and physical abuse in relationships typically hurts women far more deeply than men from what I've seen. Not that I see an unbiased sample.

[–]manicmonkeys1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

F>M DV and particularly emotional abuse is a much bigger problem than most realise, but I wouldn't call them equal. The extra ingredient of physical terror is important.

I'm not saying it's always equal, but plenty of women are physically abusive to men, and I firmly believe it's much harder for men to do something about it when they're being abused because of social stigmas (Perpetuated by men and women alike).

I've been on the receiving end of domestic violence from an ex, and I know for a fact I would've been laughed at if I'd made an issue of it. So I sucked it up for the time being, and then divorced her (There were other reasons that factored in, but that was definitely one of the big ones).

adult sexual and physical abuse in relationships typically hurts women far more deeply than men from what I've seen. Not that I see an unbiased sample.

That's a very broad statement...since on average, men are less likely to ask for help in these situations, I think it's very likely that we simple don't see it as much from the outside....like you said, a biased sample. Also, the average man has been told from a young age to suck it up, deal with it, man up, etc, so they're more used to dealing with their shit quietly, where women are typically encouraged to seek help for all their problems. I say it's partially biology to blame, and partially society's influence on what behaviour is expected of each gender.

[–]JebberJabber2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are lots of stories of men trying to report DV and getting brushed off or told that if an arrest is made, it will likely be them.

But as you say few people report it. The female reporting rate for DV is low but the male rate is close to zero. I imagine police will become more receptive as the incidence statistics are better known now.

A henpecked husband gets sympathy but it is nothing like the level of support that women give to another woman in that position. Men can do better here, we can't blame feminists for that one. In fact feminists are more supportive of abused men than non-feminist women in my experience.

The people I come across have lost the ability to suck it up, but men still don't ask for help enough. Especially older men, when they do ask it is sometimes painfully obvious that they have kept their pain to themselves for far too long.

I'm glad you got away from your ex.

[–]manicmonkeys2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But as you say few people report it. The female reporting rate for DV is low but the male rate is close to zero. I imagine police will become more receptive as the incidence statistics are better known now.

Absolutely. I'd wager we'll never see men reporting it proportionately to women, but we can at least try to make it reported more often than it is.

Men can do better here, we can't blame feminists for that one. In fact feminists are more supportive of abused men than non-feminist women in my experience.

I agree mostly with the first part, the second part I'd say is questionable IME. Obviously that is subjective to my experience, and I don't have hard stats on it. It also largely depends on who we define as "true" feminists, which is always a trainwreck with something as vague and often redefined as that term. But to be frank, I think the main issue with men not doing enough about other abused men has to do with the whole "suck it up" mentality, and the main reason for women not doing enough about abused men is a lack of empathy for them, combined with the "men should suck it up" mentality, as compared to someone of their own sex. Each group has their struggles.

I'm glad you got away from your ex.

Thanks :) I'm infinitely happier in my life now.

[–]Wargame4life 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

so the message is loud and clear, don't expect society to help you, take it by force.

If they pulled any blatant shit like this in my country i would pull every loophole to never pay tax again, and bleed the government dry with every justifiable expense i can.

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

The simplest way to curtail future taxes is to NOT reproduce. Yes, you'll still have to pay taxes during your life (I'd still encourage any/all ways to legally reduce one's tax burden) but you won't be leaving a legacy of tax payers.

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

Lol. No you wouldn't.

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

He so would brah. I've seen'm in action, tax loopholes 'n lack of payment (in theory) up the wazoo!

[–]vhisic 50 points51 points52 points 10 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

This is such blatant sexism. But its cool cause "fuck men" right. Maybe they will just kill themselves off if we only help women. Making things about gender that have nothing to do with it pisses me off.

This though... this is appalling. Its not even a service i will ever need (i hope) but just thinking there are people being denied help because their gender, all this does is promote males to leave their needles in whatever park they were shooting up in. Its counter productive to its own cause by segregating men and women unnecessarily.

[–]TheEssexian 56 points57 points58 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

And on top of it, part of the reason is because

Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction, Levergood explained. Instead, they choose to share needles, which increases the risk of contracting diseases.

Like... um... FUCK YEAH the should lose their kids. They are essentially saying: "This program helps mothers hide their addiction so they can continue to neglect their children."

I understand the concern, that the alternative is to hide it by not getting help so the child is neglected AND they get HIV, but really?

And that argument doesn't even explain the need to segregate.

[–]SSapplejack 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I can see why a mother would be nervous about asking for help, sure. but what's gonna happen if they open it up to men as well, a man might find out?

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

Sooo the idea is to help junkie mothers keep their kids which allows the cycle to continue?

[–]holzy444 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sure they're only junkies because of how their father treated them. Women are wonderful.

[–]gellis12 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or their husbands/boyfriends. Or it's somehow the patriarchy's fault.

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

Drug use really needs to be treated as a medical problem and not a criminal problem. I'm in favor of helping these people and getting it out into the open. While drug use is inherently harmful, much of the harm comes from the criminalization aspect.

And that argument doesn't even explain the need to segregate.

Yeah, there's no way to spin the segregation that doesn't come off as blatantly sexist. Also a comment from the article: "Also, any time a service is sex-segregated, you get into gender policing, and that's always bad for trans people."

[–]Revoran -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Like... um... FUCK YEAH the should lose their kids. They are essentially saying: "This program helps mothers hide their addiction so they can continue to neglect their children."

A drug user is not necessarily neglecting or endangering their children, though there's certainly a correlation.

[–]TheEssexian 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I agree with that sentiment in theory, but not in practice.

There's a box with a cat and bullet holes in it. Is the cat dead or alive or both? Sure... it's both, but we all know the cat if fucking dead.

In practice, if a mother is an addict, and she has children, she is certainly, 100%, neglecting her children. Simply bringing that problem near them is neglect. Maybe she is independently wealthy and is able to provide for them financially and still afford her habit, but what about when she's high and they have an emergency, or need her support emotionally, or need a meal made?

Sure... an addict could care, and love, but the very definition of an addict is somebody who is not in control of themselves, and therefore will certainly neglect their children in some capacity.

If you could point out a single addict you know who has custody of their children and doesn't neglect their children in some way, then I will eat a piece of shit with a grin on my face.

[–]SchalaZeal01 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If you could point out a single addict you know who has custody of their children and doesn't neglect their children in some way, then I will eat a piece of shit with a grin on my face.

I'd say one who hires help like a nanny would qualify. They're still 'single parenting', but they delegate the work.

[–]TheEssexian 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Nope. That is neglect. When your own mother can be bothered to take care of you, it fucks you up emotionally.

"Sorry son/daughter, I can't play with you because I need to go get high, but I've paid a stranger to do it, and she seems qualified."

And yes, this applies to wealthy people who simply can't be bothered to raise their own children. They are also neglectful in this respect.

I understand the polemic aspect of this. Yes. But it simply doesn't translate in reality.

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

Sending your kid to sports camp for a few weeks is neglect?

You sound like you'd be a helicopter parent which would fuck up your kids worse.

[–]TheEssexian 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that, did I. It is a sure sign you are losing your argument when you feel the need to re-word what somebody said and then try to argue against that thing they didn't even say.

You offered an example where somebody pays another person to take care of their children. You used a nanny specifically. I spoke to THAT example. If you can't be bothered to raise your kid in your own house and pay somebody else to do it, that is neglect. There is a BIG difference between raising your kid on your own and not needing somebody else to do it because you are high, and 'helicopter parenting'. If that is the jump you are making here, then you are not arguing in good faith.

If you want to speak to the merits of what I said, fine. If you want to make a case for an addict not being neglectful, you are in a losing battle. I empathize with addicts. I know several that I care about. I want them to get help, but all of those who have children neglect them in one way or another.

Addicts, by their very definition, are incapable of making reasoned choice, hence they are addicts. If there were able to do so, they wouldn't be addicts, they would be recreational users.

Now... if you can point to a person you know who is an addict and doesn't neglect their children in some way, I'd be happy to hear it.

[–]r_u_srs_srsly -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Cool down Al Sharpton I'm not OP

Recreational users could still exchange needles under this program. You'd lump them in with addicts, but then now you wouldn't. Interesting that recreational drug use is less neglectful than wealthy parents providing additional paid supervision.

[–]TheEssexian 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There you go again, putting forward an argument I didn't make and then debunking it.

I don't recall saying that recreational users were less neglectful than wealthy parents providing paid supervision.

Rally grasping at straws here.

Look... the only people I know who thinks addicts don't necessarily neglect their children are addicts. And I assume I will now add philosophers who ironically use logical fallacies to defend polemic arguments.

[–]r_u_srs_srsly0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You just said addicts don't make reasoned choices. If they did they would be recreational. What was the point of saying that if not to differentiate from an addict?

A fair reading of the article is: Recreational female users are worried about coming forward because they don't want to lose their kids over their recreation.

Then you lumped wealthy people with Nannys into neglect.

What point are you making? Neglectful parents should lose their children? Under your definition of neglect?

Or are we just circle jerking because women can be bad parents too and this specific charity doesn't help men?

[–]TheEssexian2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you still talking?

You argument was that addicts aren't necessarily neglectful. I agree in principle, but assert that in practice that is not the case.

Is there something else to be said here?

[–]r_u_srs_srsly1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Not only addicts will use this program.

[–]chavelah -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I could point you to a dozen addicts I've encountered in real life who are doing better than many sober shut head parents, and WAY better than many of the foster placements that their kids would be sent to if they were found out. It's just not that simple.

[–]TheEssexian 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Right. And? Did I make an argument that all sober parents are better at parenting than all addicts?

Nope.

How about we stick to what I said instead of what you feel like projecting onto me.

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You said that addicts are absolutely, 100%, neglecting their kids. That is absolutely, 100%, naive and stupid. It's also naive and stupid to assume that taking the children of addicts away will result in them having a better situation.

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

It's also naive and stupid to assume that taking the children of addicts away will result in them having a better situation.

Again... where did I say that? You keep making up arguments, saying I said them, and then disagreeing with them.

Get your head on straight and speak to what I said.

As to 100% of addicts being neglectful, perhaps you don't know what the definition of an addict is. But yes, if they have children, and they are an addict, they are being neglectful in some respect. If you care to point out to me a well adjusted addict that makes great parenting choices, I'd love to meet them and the unicorn they are riding. Until then, know that you are the one being naive about how effectively a person with an addiction can parent.

There is a song titled 'All You Need Is Love'. I'm guessing you took it too seriously, because, no, love is not all you need. And when you have an addiction, it doesn't matter how much you might love your child, your addiction is going to lead to you making bad choices. That is part of what being an addict is.

If you don't know that you are either utterly unaware of what addiction is, or you are an addict in denial.

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

ITT: Suburbanites who don't know what being an addict really entails and gets information from TV shows.

[–]Revoran 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People are going to contract incurable terminal illnesses because of these fucks. Wow.

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

They're not being denied help. There are still programs available for men. They didn't shut those ones down. Jeez.

[–]kylemon10 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Rosa Parks wasn't denied a ride on the bus, but that's not the point.

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

Are you seriously comparing the status of men in today's society to the status of black people in Rosa Parks' day? For fuck's sake that's the stupidest thing I've read.

[–]kylemon10 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

By that logic black people of the 60's had no right to complain because the jews in the 40's had it worse. Injustices should not be permitted just because we can think of worse things that have happened.

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

Rekt2

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Now you're comparing it to the Jews in WWII? ROFL that's ridiculously ignorant both of history and of the status of modeern man.

[–]kylemon10 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

how so?

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

If I even have to explain to you how men today are not being treated like Jews in WWII...are you being serious? Are men being made to wear gold stars on their coats so everyone will know that they're the social pariahs? Are men being rounded up and exterminated? Are they being driven out of the cities and towns where they've lived all their lives? Give me a fucking break. You need to educate yourself if you think it is in any way an apt comparison. There was a fantastic documentary series about the war made in the early 70s called "The World At War". Go watch it and then come back here and try to spout more of this ignorant bullshit.

[–]kylemon10 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

if I compared a 1 dollar bill to a 100 dollar bill would that be completely absurd too? If I said they were both green and shared the same dimensions would you accuse me of suggesting they were equal in every respect?

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

I'm finished with this absurd discussion now.

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

So man walks into this one, desperate. They wont turn him away? Because otherwise... they are denying him help

[–]Imnotmrabut 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

But women are at a higher risk of contracting diseases through sharing needles, which is why the group needs this additional service, said Kim Levergood, women HIV outreach coordinator with AIDS Committee of Windsor.

I never knew that Women were more susceptible to blood-borne infection than men? You learn a new claim that needs debunking every day.

[–]Quintrell 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even if that's true, it doesn't justify turning men away.

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

They aren't, looks like about 1-5% here read the article.

[–]99639 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but even if that incorrect claim were true, it makes no sense. Men have a higher risk of dying from heart disease, should we refuse to do cpr on women? Like what angle is this trying to take? What bullshit.

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

I give them the benefit of the doubt on that, assuming that the implication is that they are more likely to share needles, and therefore more likely to contract diseases through that.... assuming they did surveys among the people who use their service.

But yeah... there is no way to know that for certain.

[–]Misogynist002 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are actually at considerably higher risk at getting stds from sex on a per session basis. I think that might be their logic but its completely irrelevant here considering its about needles being shared

[–]Atheist101 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

RTFA, the reason they are using to backup that statement is that women dont ask for help with their addiction because if they have kids, people who know about their addiction will contact the authorities who will take away their kids. Thus these addict women share needles and hide their problems. Which increases their risk for STDs. Just so they can keep their kids...

[–]Misogynist002 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol rfta. Fuck off "atheist101", what a joke.

[–]99639 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

?

[–]Revoran 34 points35 points36 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

HIV and hepatitis don't discriminate, so neither should these people.

They're going to let men suffer and die because they're sexist fucks.

Wow.

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

There's still a program available for men. Read the article.

[–]dalef77 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

While there may be a program for men in another part of town, why discriminate based on sex in this program? What is the advantage of only assisting females, not males, in this program?

[+]coldgears -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

A safe space for women to go where they aren't at risk of having their child taken away from CPS.

[–]tylerkelly43215 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If they're an addict, do you truly think their child should be left with them? That sounds like a bad idea

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

Yes and no.

Force the parent to go through rehab but don't take the child away.

My sister was an addict and the only thing that stopped her was her love of her children.

[–]tylerkelly43215 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But there is evidence showing that the child of an addict is much more likely to be abused. Personally, I'd examine the situation carefully, but the initial response should at least be a suspension from custody of their child.

[–]coldgears -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's evidence that you're a douchebag.

[–]tylerkelly43215 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look no need to get personal. I thought we were going to have a fun an interesting conversation regarding both sides of the argument. I'll cite my source if you'd like to fact check.

Psychiatry, 42, 171-174. Goodwin, D.W. (1985). Alcoholism and genetics. Archives of General, 42, 171-174

[–]dalef77 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How does sex discrimination prevent a woman from having her child taken away from CPS due to neglect? I do not understand the correlation.

[–]coldgears -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you even read the article?

It clearly explains this.

[–]dalef77 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction, Levergood explained. Instead, they choose to share needles, which increases the risk of contracting diseases.

The above quote directly from the article is the only text that I could find that is relevant.

Are you arguing that if men were allowed to visit the facility, that they would be more likely to contact CPS than other women?

[–]Wargame4life 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

well then you can also fund it without mens tax dollars you fucking bigots

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

I don't even understand this statement. It's a women's clinic expanding their services. What you've said here is equally as vile as the discrimination you imagine is happening in this situation.

[–]double-happiness 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Will they refuse supplies to a male addict who turns up and aks for them? (Drug addicts are not well known for being organised or good at rule-following, so it will happen).

What about MtF trans folk? Will they get service?

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

Sounds like they already have an exchange program for M&W , this is just an extra women's only location.

It's like the gym. They don't want men seeing them working out or getting needles, so they need an extra location

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

Or Lady Foot Locker, even though regular Foot Locker already has women's shoes and apparel, WTF?!

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

That is a sales model, which might make sense. But as a public service, trying to help out addicts there isn't any business case I can to justify it

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

But women are at a higher risk of contracting diseases through sharing needles, which is why the group needs this additional service

They must get these statistics from the same place they got the statics to say that women receive harsher punishment than men in courts.

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

...aren't men more likely to engage in substance abuse in women? And similarly, aren't there more male users than female users? I almost want to walk in and ask them where the hell their priorities are at.

[–]Misogynist002 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is legitimately enraging for me. My local needle exchange helped keep me from making stupid decisions and may have even saved my life. Now im doing research in an engineering lab as i finish my degree, opportunities i may have never had if not for the exchange. Fuck these cuck faggots.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Canadian ex prescription opiate addict here. Clean 7 years.

There is a direct relationship between this issue (our general lack of empathy for men suffering addiction) and the disproportionate suicide rate. I would have certainly killed myself in 2008 except my daughter was born and I had no choice anymore.

The key to understanding the opiate epidemic is two fold:

1) Opiates, especially short acting opiates (oxy contin, Fentanyl, etc) are the MOST EFFECTIVE anti-depressants known to man. Period. And this is well known in the industry.

2) Big pharma choose to market short acting opiates as if they are low risk for addiction. Prescriptions went up by 700%. It turned out, not only were they wrong, but they knew full well that short acting opiates are, in fact, the MOST ADDICTIVE.

So what do we have? We have a substance that is the best anti-depressant ever invented that turns out to be extremely addictive. What could go wrong?

I coined the term Opiate Addiction Industrial Complex. I'll leave it there for now, but this is a major issue for the MRM.

Good post, OP.

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

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience.
I hope your sobriety continues brother.

Best of luck to you in the future sir, and thank you for illuminating this conversation with your valuable and insightful experience. It is appreciated.

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

Congratulations on getting clean. Oxy and its molecular relatives are right up there with meth in terms of "things that I pray to God aren't mentioned in this new case file." It's so, so hard for people to get off that shit permanently.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey, thanks. Yeah it's a nasty, evil substance.

I was prescribed it as a result of a bad car crash in 2003. Everything was fine until doctor asshole was implicated in a "sex for drugs" scandal locally.

The fallout led to about 1000 people being abruptly cut off from their prescription, thus creating the opiate epidemic in Newfoundland.

Lucky for me (or not), this was about the same time that an insurance company dumped $140 000 in my lap (from the accident). Oxy 80's were $20 at that point. They were $100 within about a year.

Long story short, my daughter was born on 08/08/08. It was shortly after that when I had an Epiphany. I was holding her in my hands, this gorgeous little blueberry-eyed creature that I made (not by myself, obviously), and it just hit me: Of all of the humans on earth who loved me unconditionally, there was only one who I hadn't betrayed. And she was right there in my hands! Kaboom!

It took multiple attempts at rehab, detox, self detox, supervised tapering down, mental hospital, etc etc before I was finally able to break free, but I was determined. And I did it on May 29th 2009.

You're right. It is extraordinarily difficult to get away from it. It takes the strongest of humans down. The majority of people have to die or go to prison to get clear.

I'm nobody special, just that I had one thing left to lose and she was counting on me.

Thanks again for the supportive words. I have to go hug and kiss my children now. :)

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

it just hit me: Of all of the humans on earth who loved me unconditionally, there was only one who I hadn't betrayed. And she was right there in my hands! Kaboom!

Damn, that's beautiful. I've struggled in the past with abusing drugs and got a little 1.5 year old now. That's powerful man.

[–]abusementpark 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This will likely get downvoted, but straight from the article:

"This latest harm-reduction initiative is spearheaded by the AIDS Committee of Windsor, which already offers needle exchange services to men and women in the downtown.

But women are at a higher risk of contracting diseases through sharing needles, which is why the group needs this additional service"

Seems like men have somewhere to go, are not being denied help, and statistics support an increased demand for assistance for women.

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

No facts and logic allowed in this thread! Ideologically-driven outrage only!

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Seems like men have somewhere to go, are not being denied help, and statistics support an increased demand for assistance for women.

Statistics of police arrest is how they justify not helping male victims of DV. Regardless of actual need, they conclude the need doesn't exist because it would show without campaigning.

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

Do you have a citation for that?

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Check how many funded male shelters exist in Canada. Look up the government justification for doing nothing. Then look at stats can.

They clearly have to rely on police stuff to say there's no male victims, if their own surveys say there are more male victims.

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

Had to scroll down really far to find the one sane comment in this thread.

An existing organization that provides needle exchange to MEN AND WOMEN is expanding its operation to include service at a women's shelter. There's just no cause for rage here. At all.

[–]TheEssexian -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There is no argument for segregation here. There is no argument that points to a reason why they can't simply open up a second location that also serve men and women.

Women are getting more access, and have more location. That is not equity or equality.

And theirs have no basis.

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

There is no segregation. The new clinic is opening up inside an already existing women's center.

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

That men are not allowed to access, so they are segregating the service.

Look, if they were handing out tampons and they didn't have a location for men, I'd have no issue. If there are bathrooms, or exercise facilities, I'd totally understand the desired privacy. If this were a business, and they were catering to women and were selling needles that women like more, fine. But it's not.

This service is saying: Men get one location that they have to share with women: women get two locations, one of which they have exclusive access to.

Men and women don't use different needles. There is no need to say: Men aren't allowed to get help here.

If there were stats saying "White people use need condoms more, so we are opening up a dispensary where only white people get free condoms" would that be ok? Obviously not.

Men are facing the SAME problem, but are being given fewer points to access the service.

If you don't see an issue with that, then you are being wilfully blind.

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

Are you saying that a women's clinic should not be able to expand their services? Because that's pretty much all that's happening here.

[–]jmg83 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is why I only give money to homeless men. Too many people feel sorry for women on the streets, while ignoring men.

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

I've only ever seen 1 woman for every 10-20 men on the street anyway.. We live in different worlds and want equalization.

[–]jmg83 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've only ever seen 1 woman for every 10-20 men on the street anyway.

I don't know the exact numbers, but this is probably right.

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

Luckily there appears to be at least one gender neutral needle exchange in the area. link

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

Special treatment when they are the majority of victims, special treatment when they are the minority of victims -- such is the way of the matriarchy.

"Women in the community are at a greater risk and vulnerability because women generally borrow and share needles more than men do,"

Good evidence that women are more stupid than men.

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

"Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction"

Shouldn't they have their kids taken away if they're slamming drugs? WTF?

Apparently children's welfare is only important when it comes to men paying child support.

[–]TheDude41 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]NrthnMonkey 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The article says there are existing needle exchange services for both men and women, but these additional services were needed to manage the higher number of women sharing needles.

[–]TheEssexian 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but it doesn't explain why the service needs to be segregated.

If you had a grocery store where 20% of the clients were men, and 80% were women, would you open a second store that only serviced women? Of course not.

[–]Folamh3 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's only a matter of time.

[–]NrthnMonkey -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If I was running food banks or a support line, and saw there was a very high demand for services from a particular gender, I might consider opening up a gender specific service in response.

I don't think I would use your example, as needle exchange users aren't exactly comparable to profitable customers of a grocery store.

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

Churches in my area run programs that specifically target homeless men. Since there are also adequate programs for homeless women, I have no problem with it.

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

Why is this a problem? It's like this subreddit sees anything for women and gets up in arms. You people claim to be more rational than the feminist movement you oppose, but I'm pretty sure most people here read the thread title only before becoming outraged. Maybe at most skimmed the article. Very few seem to have read it.

So, tell me why this is a problem. Is it because they're excluding men? Nope, this initiative is an ancillary program to help an at risk group, and men still have access to Windsor's other needle exchange programs:

This latest harm-reduction initiative is spearheaded by the AIDS Committee of Windsor, which already offers needle exchange services to men and women in the downtown.

Is it because men need the service more, but women are given premium access? Nope, and the article claims that women are actually more hesitent to use such services, hence this targetted program:

Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction, Levergood explained. Instead, they choose to share needles, which increases the risk of contracting diseases.

Is it because they spent extra money on a new building, or somehow favoured women in providing a new facility? Nope, this program is in an already existing women's shelter, which also explains why it's women only:

Welcome Centre Shelter for Women will be offering clean needles and literature on how to avoid contracting blood-borne illnesses as part of the pilot project.

So we have a new program for women, in a women's shelter, that exists alongside a program for both men an women without excluding anyone, because women are less likely to use the already existing needle exchange program. This program is a response to an existing problem to provide women with equal opportunity access for something they were scared to use before. As a harm reduction initiative, this is exactly what I want to see.

What I don't see is why there's a problem. I'm not sure if it is trained knee-jerk anger (which people really need to stop acting like Tumblr if that's why), or genuine sexists angry at any program targetting women, without consideration as to why it's needed. In either case, I'm extremely bothered by the responses here.

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

Do you see a problem if somebody determines white teens are an 'at risk' group and decide that they will have one location that will both all colours, and another location that will only help white teens? Of course.

This is about access.

ARe you from Windsor? I am. I know the city. The areas where there are higher numbers of people suffering from addiction are in the down town core (hence the first location), and the west end.

Women have access to this service that is supposed to help addicts in both locations: men do not. This is a service that is meant to help addicts. Period.

A male addict on the west end that is about to shoot up but can't get a ride out to the down town area, but is going through withdrawals, is not going to make the right choice if he has to go out of his way. A woman in the same spot will simply say: sweet! I got a location right here.

If you don't see a problem with that, then I don't know how to explain it to you. This is NOT a gender issue, and there is no reason why it should be treated as such, and there is no reason why women should be given more locations.

And anybody who says 'women are more likely to use dirty needles' just because the article says it (without providing any actual source for that claim) are completely ignoring the fact that men are far more like to be suffering from addiction.

The bottom line is that men and women should have equal access. Isn't that kinda what equality is all about?

I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend. I'm getting the impression that most of the people who don't see an issue with this have no clue how addiction operates.

Besides, they are just shooting themselves in the foot by not opening it up over there, because all that's going to happen is that the men in the area will just ask to share needles with the women who have them. And then what's going to happen? Right. They are still sharing needles.

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

What about university scholarships for minorities, because they are less likely to attend post secondary? Is that discrimination, or levelling the playing field?

As for your location, you missed the point. This facility opened within an already existing women's shelter. The program is supplying the medical staff and supplies, while the women's shelter provides the facility itself. The whole place is already women only, so it stands to reason that the exchange program would be as well.

As to your point about people getting different access due to geographic location, what are you suggesting? An exchange on every street corner to ensure coverage? Right now, everyone has equal access to the program, provided they can get there. That condition apples to everyone. This new branch provided an alternative to a demographic that has been determined to be at an increased risk. Should that be ignored?

The needle exchange program was provided a way to expand their aid. If they insisted on gender independent access at a women's shelter, it's likely that no new location would have ever existed. Is that preferable to you?

This is about harm reduction, not harm elimination. Does this reduce harm? Yes. Does it take away from men by doing so? No. Men are not hurt by this, women are just helped more. There is no win-lose here at all, and it's an improvement on the previous state. Sure, men still have a transportation problem, but now more IV drug users can access the facilities they need. I call that a win any day.

To be outraged at an intervention that helps some people simply because it doesn't help all people, without hurting anyone else, is something I don't get. It's a selfish, "well look what they got!" attitude that refuses to see it as anything other than a slight because you didn't get it too.

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

You are moving away from the point.

Equal access. Every street corner? Really? You know your argument is built on sand when you have to started creating a stawman argument and then projecting it onto me, and then debunking it.

I never said 'every street corner'. I said equal access.

Men are not hurt by this, women are just helped more.

Exactly. YOUR words. If you can't see the problem with that, then you are being wilfully blind.

What would you do if a study came out and showed that boys were more likely to be molested than girls and somebody opened up to clinics to help them, one that both could access, and one that only boys could access. Would that be a problem? OF COURSE IT WOULD BE.

This is not about being upset because the program is 'not helping all' people, it is about DISCRIMINATION.

Jesus. You have no clue what you are talking about. You put words in my mouth, jump up and down on them, and ignore the problem.

Are YOU ok with a social welfare program discriminating again women? Obviously not. So why is it ok to discriminate against men, especially when more men are suffering from addiction?

Jesus Christ, your bias is so overt. How do you not see this.

And if you don't like the 'well look what they got' attitude, tell women to stop complaining about the mythical wage gap and LEAN IN instead of complaining they aren't getting enough.

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

What I don't see is why there's a problem. I'm not sure if it is trained knee-jerk anger (which people really need to stop acting like Tumblr if that's why), or genuine sexists angry at any program targetting women, without consideration as to why it's needed. In either case, I'm extremely bothered by the responses here.

It's because people fail to engage their brain on the internet. If everyone slowed down and upvoted based on quality rather than agreeableness, and commented after having considered the topic for more than a few seconds then the signal to noise ratio would be considerably better.

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

Feel free to email Mayor Drew Dilkens with your thoughts:

[email protected]

http://www.citywindsor.ca/mayorandcouncil/pages/mayor-and-city-council.aspx

[–]giygas73 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As someone who was a heroin addict in Ontario, having needle exchanges always confused me a bit. To get needles, all you have to do is go buy them at a pharmacy over the counter (you don't need a prescription) and they are like literally $5 for 20 iirc. Sure, this saves them some money I suppose, but really I'm not so sure sharing needles is as big of an issue in Ontario as it is in the USA (afaik in the USA people can't just buy needles like that, so these exchanges are necessary).

The thing is though, I get it, people need whatever support that they can get, and going to an exchange may lead them to seek help there like conselling or to get more information about methadone treatment or rehabs, etc. The part that I DONT get though is why this is suddenly a gender issue. Males and females both suffer the same from addiction, they both have veins, etc. Going to shoppers to buy you needles is just as shameful to a mother as it is a father, so what is this artcile really trying to poke at with that comment? The part about this that makes me sad is that it's just another example of how women get preference in health treatment. It just doesn't seem rational at all - "you can have a clean needle, you can have a clean needle, oh wait, hang on here, you're a man, sorry but I guess you can just fend for yourself".

I think this is another issue where gender shouldn't even be a part of it at all.

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

This is what happens when your national law allows discrimination for "disadvantaged" groups.

Canada. Sinking ship.

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

Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction, Levergood explained. Instead, they choose to share needles, which increases the risk of contracting diseases.

I would have loved for someone to take my sister and I away from my heroine addicted, prostitute mother. Our childhood was a fucking nightmare. When you get to the point that you're exchanging needles frequently you should not have custody of your children.

[–]RebelWitch 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is yet another example of feminists pretending they bring great female leadership yet it falls flat on its face. Female leadership is the most sexist, bigoted most failed leadership in human history when you tally up all of the abuses and discrimination by feminists excluding men while demanding men include women in everything they have done.

you go girl

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

I was not aware Drew Dilkens, Mayor of Windsor, was a woman.

[–]Ladieswholove 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Shouldn't female drug addicts constantly be in fear of losing their children? Hey are bloody dug addicts and have drugs and needles in the flat... Look at peaches geld off who jacked up with her baby beside her and died. Kid was found with dead mother next day...

Drug addicts should have their children removed!!!!

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Using drugs doesn't automatically make you a bad parent. Yes that's often the case, but it's not a given.

If people are neglecting or endangering their kids, then yes absolutely take the kids away.

have drugs and needles in the flat...

My diabetic mother had drugs and needles in our flat. Most people have drugs in their house. It's possible to store things safely out of reach of kids.


And it goes without saying that I'm not defending this sexist program which allows men to suffer and die. Men and women should both have access to clean needles - after all HIV doesn't discriminate between genders.

[–]Endless_Summer 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Using drugs doesn't automatically make you a bad parent.

Which is why he said drug addicts, and he's absolutely right.

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

Even being a drug addict doesn't necessarily make you an unfit parent, if you're functional. Plenty of people are addicted to their prescription opioid painkillers or benzodiazepines, for instance. Although there's definitely a correlation there between addiction and bad/negligent parenting.

So I would go so far as to say dysfunctional addicts should have their children removed.

That being said, of course in an ideal situation people wouldn't be addicted to drugs, using them around kids or having them in the house.

[–]Endless_Summer 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of people are addicted to their prescription opioid painkillers or benzodiazepines, for instance.

Yes, these people would not be functional, and unfit for parenting regardless of gender. How the fuck can you parent in a permanent blackout?

[–]Revoran -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I guess you've never known someone who takes prescription medication daily. You can be dependent on say, benzodiazepines without being in a permanent blackout. You can take oxycodone every day without sleeping all the time (in fact that's one of the reasons oxycodone is used over morphine and such, although one can build resistance to traditional opioids anyway).

[–]Endless_Summer 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You're not describing addicts, you're describing people taking medication as prescribed.

I'm sitting in my surgeon's office, scheduling my second back surgery right now. I take percocet everyday, and have for months. I don't get high on it, and I'm not addicted.

[–]Revoran -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If your percs are working to relieve your pain, then you're high. You may not be as over the moon as someone who took double your daily dose, but still.

I'm not addicted.

See how you feel if you stop taking your daily dose of opioids.

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

I have. I just feel the pain they're usually blocking. You don't even know what my daily dosage is.

Pain relief does not mean high. That's fucking laughable buddy. Sorry you've been so misinformed about drugs.

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

"High" is a nebulous term that has no clearly defined border with "not high". Granted, I don't know your daily dose, all I know for sure is that you're under the influence of oxy.

You don't even know what my daily dosage is.

Sure, and you don't even know what the daily dose of some hypothetical person is.

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

Pain relief does not mean high. That's fucking laughable buddy. Sorry you've been so misinformed about drugs.

If you take opiates (perc) every day for more than a few weeks, then stop taking those opiates, you will suffer withdrawal symptoms within three days.

I 100% guarantee that if you take opiates every day for more than a few weeks, you are physically addicted to them.

You don't have to get high at all to get an addiction to opiates. Its the way they work. Ask your doctor.

The thing is you wont even know until you stop taking them for a few days. Then you wont just feel pain. You will feel like you have the flu, at first....

[–]Endless_Summer1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow, you missed the first sentence of my comment. And it was only two words. I only take 10mg a day. Withdrawal affects are minimal to non-existent.

[–]Kirril0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have

I didn't address it as you didn't say how long you'd not dosed for.

Ask your doctor. He will explain I am correct

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

"This latest harm-reduction initiative is spearheaded by the AIDS Committee of Windsor, which already offers needle exchange services to men and women in the downtown.

But women are at a higher risk of contracting diseases through sharing needles, which is why the group needs this additional service, said Kim Levergood, women HIV outreach coordinator with AIDS Committee of Windsor."

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

That's still not a reason to segregate the services.

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

It's adding a needle exchange service in the women's shelter.

[–]holzy444 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

According to their logic the problem isn't that people are spreading diseases and possibly dying from sharing needles, but that women are getting these diseases at a higher rate? They really take 'equality of outcome' seriously.

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

Using that same logic, they need to have more men-only suicide-prevention programs since men commit suicide at higher rates.

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

Correct. Also, suicidal males often (not always) require different therapeutic approaches than suicidal females.

[–]Folamh3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've read in several places that men, as a whole, are more likely to become addicted to drugs than women. Is that true? Does anyone have sources?

[–]TheEssexian 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you Google it, there are tons of studies/articles/posts about it.

My understanding is that it is a generally accepted fact.

Also, women suffering from addiction who go through the court system on possession charges, or charges related to their addiction, are more likely to get light sentences or even rehab, while men are held accountable for their actions. So not only to men suffer with greater frequency, but women get more help.

It is part of this culture that expects all men to be self sufficient and is always framing women as helpless. It is not only prejudicial toward men, but frankly, it is condescending to women. If a woman commits a crime, she is just as culpable as a man who commits is, and if a man is suffering from addiction, he needs just as much help as a woman suffering from addiction.

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

So is there also a needle exchange program for men, or is this it?

Not sure why you'd need start out with sex discrimination here. I could see maybe some specific cases of PTSD leading to persons not being able to be around persons of a certain gender, but that only means you need to figure out how to accommodate them, not how to exclude anyone else.

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

Mothers are particularly reluctant to ask for safer supplies because they fear they could lose their children if anyone knows about their addiction, Levergood explained. Instead, they choose to share needles, which increases the risk of contracting diseases.

So..how does a needle exchange change anything?

You dont' get hepatitis or HIV from reusing your own needles, you get it from sharing them...so what does exchanging your old needle for new do to stop sharing?

It's such a logical disconnect that I suspect the article author is using the term "exchange" improperly.

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

You know what? Let them have it. But the next time someone starts up an initiative to help only I dont want to har a fucking thing about it.

[–]7hunderpants 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And men are more likely to be substance abusers.

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

We really are just disposable needles to them.

[–]Zoidbergluver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This is not saying men do not matter. At all. There is limited funding and resources for anything, so it makes sense that the most vulnerable population get the most help to combat it. Females suffer more from the effects of sharing needles, so they get a needle exchange program. This isn't some conspiracy men, it's allocating the resources to the most needy.

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

You can allocate more needles to women without limiting access to men.

[–]xynomaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Except that when an issue disproportionately effects men we don't just ignore the needs of women. For instance, far more men than women are in prison for minor crimes, and yet still there is tons of effort being put into keeping women out of prisons. Boys are much more vulnerable to being recruited as child soldiers than girls, and yet feminist groups are always eager to remind charities that they need resources to help girl child soldiers as well. Etc, etc.

But when it comes to issues that disproportionately effect women and girls...suddenly I guess it's not important to help the men and boys effected too? I still don't see what harm including men would do here. Men are more vulnerable than women in many areas. I challenge you to find one where men are being supported but women are being denied support.

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

I don't see how any thing you just wrote relates to this argument at all. You just copy pasted your standard "pick fights with people I disagree with" message.

[–]xynomaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I didn't copy and paste anything. You're arguing that charities should be allowed to discriminate against certain groups in order to focus on helping only those most vulnerable, correct?

I'm just pointing out that this argument is only ever used when the more vulnerable group is women, and when the more vulnerable group is men this argument is called "sexist". There was an article posted here sometime last year about a program designed to get more grade school boys to read which had to be cancelled after it was protested for not including girls. Despite the vast majority of child soldiers being boys, the UN mandates that its support organizations provide amenities for helping girl child soldiers as well. Despite the fact that men are more vulnerable to conscription / death in combat zones, women are typically evacuated first.

I am using all of this as evidence that when men are the more vulnerable population, we are still not permitted to discriminate against women to help men.

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

No, I'm a feminist and I think it should be used in areas where men suffer more too. I completely agree that things like child armies should be helped as well. I'm not arguing against that at all.

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

I completely agree that things like child armies should be helped as well.

I agree too, of course. What I'm saying is that groups that help child armies are mandated to have accommodations for both girl and boy soldiers, even if the girl accommodations go underused because there aren't as many. And I think that's a good requirement...could you imagine telling some traumatized 12 year old girl who has just been through hell that she's going to have to try and survive on her own because she's not a boy and you only help boys? It's horrible, and everyone realizes that.

But that's exactly what this is doing. Only no one thinks it's horrible because the people being turned away are boys rather than girls.

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

Did you read the article? The men still have a needle exchange program, just in another part of the city.

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

Ok, yeah. I want to emphasize that I don't think this in particular is a huge deal, but I take issue with the idea of "it's okay to help only certain groups that we decide are more vulnerable". In this case that may only mean going across the city to get help, but when it becomes refusing to accept single male refugees (including widowed men and orphaned teenage boys) to your country, as Canada has done, it becomes a serious problem.

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

But women are at a higher risk of contracting diseases through sharing needles

Citation please

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

You mean like the one the article doesn't provide?

Funny how you don't need a citation when it supports your argument, but when it doesn't all of a sudden you have academic standards. lol

A cursory Google search will give you overwhelming results supporting my claim, and I've never read a study that suggested women used more than men. Since you are apparently too lazy to be bothered to look it up, and clearly don't have a grasp of the most basic, common, and rudimentary information about this, here's a few links fro you to look at.

Next time ask your feminists for citations FIRST, otherwise your bias becomes overwhelmingly clear.

https://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Prevalence.html https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-addiction/study-between-genders/ https://www.thefix.com/content/addiction-global-gender-gap-women-equal-opportunity8151

[–]RobDog101 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is gendercide.

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

"This latest harm-reduction initiative is spearheaded by the AIDS Committee of Windsor, which already offers needle exchange services to men and women in the downtown."

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

And there is no reason that the facility that opened in the west end of the city can't do the same. Unless of course the men in the west end aren't as high a priority as the women in the west end.

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

The only difference is it takes place in women's shelter. Men have access from the broader needle exchange program. This isn't worth getting mad about.

[–]Reddit1990 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck? This legitimately pisses me off, I have family whos used and the thought that they would be denied just because of having a dick really upsets me.

[–]MrZexyz1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Women are at greater risk.."

Herein lies the heart of this offensively sexist article. Women are at greater risk for osteoporosis. diabetes, back pain all because of the physical attributes of their bodies. This verbiage is appropriate because it's all medical.

Drugs, you get into the social and mental. Women are at greater risk of infection because, "women generally borrow and share needles more than men do." In other words, Women take more of these risks more often to keep their addiction secret, (he said, blaming the victim and whatever..) All I'm saying here is this doesn't inspire hand-wringing to me; I think this point backfires.

It sounds like education is needed. Teach these women how to get clean supplies without risking their freedom. Giving them a super-secret needle club seems like the wrong move, (especially if the risk of infection is supposedly greater. ) I wish I could understand why these bleeding-heart acts always want to shelter people deeper instead of helping them stand.

[+]questionnmark -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I think it's a reasonable explanation. The only issue is not that it exists as much as there is little desire to set up similar services for men. I have no issue with the service perse.

[–]Kirril 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I have no issue with the service perse.

I do. If they provide a service, it needs to be provided for both genders. No special treatment.

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

It's OK to discriminate if there's a good reason.

But there's no good reason here. HIV/hepatitis don't discriminate and neither should the needle exchange program.

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

It is a specific service for a specific group of people. Having these kinds of things isn't bad in itself because they can better target a particularly underserved group of people. If you remove gender and have a service that provides a specific program for a small high risk and underserved part of the community then would there be a problem?

[–]Paladin327 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you remove gender and have a service that provides a specific program for a small high risk and underserved part of the community then would there be a problem?

if it was not allowing women to have free prostate cancer screenings or not paying mor men to get checked for ovarian cancer, sure, but addiction is not a gendered issue as it affects both genders pretty much equally. Besides, did they actually provide any evidence that women are more susceptable to drug abuse than men?

[–]questionnmark 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They provided evidence that mothers were more susceptible to the negative health effects of sharing needles as addicts. Considering that their health status also gravely affects children then I don't mind in this one case that there is a service specifically targeting them -- especially given the fact that generalised needle programs are very effective at getting to the male population of drug users.

[–]Paladin327 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Considering that their health status also gravely affects children

Did they also do studies involving dads? I would imagine it would be the same or similar a parent getting sick really hirts a child, regardless of gender

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

Well in the context of addicts I would presume that the father is not around, and is as incompetent if not more so as compared to the mother.

[–]Paladin327 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow... Such stereotypes...

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

Happy well adjusted people are not addicts.

Fuck it -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html

Addiction fills a hole. It is a symptom of the sickness in society. One of many canaries in the proverbial coal mine.

[–]TheEssexian 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

My only issue is that I don't see a purpose or benefit to segregation in this instance. Bathrooms? Workout facilities? Sure. Addicts getting clean needles? Not sure where the purpose of segregation fits here.

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

Because the service is specific to an underserved part of the community. It is something that happens a lot in healthcare because you get niches that need specific considerations. Feminists complain when health-care services offer specific heart checks target men, and we really don't want to emulate the attitude that the only thing that matters is gender.

[–]TheEssexian 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think is an instance of 'the only thing that matters is gender'. I think it's about getting helping for everybody in the community. This is especially important because these people (men and women) interact with each other, and if you are only protecting half the population, you really aren't protecting any of the population.

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

There are major addict programs that are ungendered pretty much everywhere.

See: http://canadianharmreduction.com/node/171

in Canada, we have in operation a number of Harm Reduction services. Needle Exchange is usually one that springs to mind first. Despite the controversy which it has generated - and continues to generate - Needle Exchange, when run in a client-centred way, has proven its worth. That the HIV rate is still below 10% in injection drug users in Toronto, as far as we have been able to determine, can be credited to the Works Program of Public Health and the satellite needle exchanges in the City of Toronto, which made new needles available across the city. On the other hand, Needle Exchange played a major role in the extremely high HIV and hepatitis C infection rates in Vancouver. It all depends on how it is done.

This isn't the main program at all. It's a gendered extension to an already existing and successful ungendered program, and it is addressing a specific failing of the program.

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

I would say perceived failing. They donèt really have the stats to back up the claim that women are at higher risk, and there are overwhelming stats demonstrating that men use with greater frequency.

Again, I cannot stress this enough, this is about access. Living in the city, those suffering from addiction on the West end have a long walk to down town (few have vehicles or even bikes, and most that I know can't afford a bus pass).

There is no reason to gender this issue. In fact, doing so is counterproductive, because if you aren't addressing all of the users, you might as well not being addressing any of them as they run in the same circles, and not only is there more than one way to transmit the diseases, but if somebody has a fresh needle, and another person doesn't, they are just going to ask to share. If the purpose of this is to stop people from sharing, putting men in a position to ask women to share with them is only going to undermine the entire program in that part of the city.

Again... this is an equal access issue, but it is also a pragmatic issue.

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

Again... this is an equal access issue, but it is also a pragmatic issue.

Then your pragmatic complaint really ought to be: They don't fund needle programs well enough to have enough places to get them from. Other areas such as Toronto on the other hand don't appear to have the same problem based on the HIV statistics. Another issue probably is that they don't have the men's shelters to site the needle programs in either.

Is the problem really that a few women's shelters have needle programs? Take a step back and look at it wider.

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

If there were equal access, no. There would't be a problem.

And again... there is no point to talking about stats as the article just mentions stats that back them up, but provide no source for them.

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

There are still programs available for men, so pulling this "men don't matter" shit is pointless. Men matter and they can still get clean needles if they need them.

They felt they needed an extra one because more women than men share needles. Perhaps there were more women coming to the program than they were able to help so they launched a program just for women.

Didn't anyone here actually read the article?

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

Right, and during the segregation, when Black people still had access to education, the 'black people are treated equally' shit was pointless?

Right. This is about accessibility. If an addict on the west end is going to shoot up, they are going to walk all the way down town to get a needle. They are an addict. They make bad choices. If the service is available in both the west end and down town, it should be made available to men and women in both locations.

If you care to put forward an argument that justified segregating the service, I'm happy to hear it. But this is not EQUAL service. If this service were only accessible to men, would you be arguing the same?

You have failed to address the need for segregation. Nothing in their stats suggests there is an issue with men and women using the same location, so why segregate it? There is no need. You hav no argument here.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is about accessibility.

MEN STILL HAVE ACCESSIBILITY.

If you care to put forward an argument that justified segregating the service,

Go read the article. Women are more at risk so they've included an additional clinic at an already-existing women's shelter so that women who are even more at risk (namely, women fleeing abuse who are already afraid of losing their kids) won't even have to leave the shelter if they need a needle and risk someone finding out that they're going to a needle exchange program. Calm your tits. This is a simple supply-and-demand issue - there's a greater demand for clean needles from women so they need to supply them more needles than they supply to men.

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

Women have more access and more location.

Again, there is no argument here that points to the need to segregate.

All this does is tell male addicts on the west end to go ahead and share.

[–]dalef77 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are at greater risk at being victims of violence than women. Therefore, police resources should be prioritized to assist men first, women second. "This is a simple supply-and-demand issue."

Does this sound equitable to you?

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