Perfect

[–]Junkbunkfunk 820 points821 points822 points 9 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 190 points191 points192 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]moon_no_rise 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (61 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]beck1670 132 points133 points134 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]gamer3014 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

I have to agree with you, this subreddit does raise some awareness about inequality but sometimes it's just too obnoxious.

[–]titaniumjew 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

I got told feminism is a terrorist organization for saying that the goal of feminism is gender equality.

Was "terrorist organization" the word used, or are you paraphrasing? Because while I've seen a few extremist views on feminism (so it's entirely possible this was a word-for-word quote), the over-all vibe on this sub isn't expressed this way. The view I come across more frequently is one of "Feminism as an ideology has a deleterious effect on society, and its male members in particular. That doesn't mean that all feminists are bad - many are in fact well-meaning, but ill-informed. The problem are those feminists that sit in positions that inform society, governments, and their views and laws, and are actively trying to suppress any notion that would actually lead to more equal rights - at least when it comes to any benefits for men. We're against feminism, not against every feminist we meet, and wish that those that are in feminism for 'equality' would actually stand up to those are affect laws and societal pressure."

[–]jaib9 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Adanu0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nforne 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MusicTheoryIsHard 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]all-round-good-egg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

it doesn't change the fact that this post was pretty obnoxious too

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

[–]Blatoons1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]super_ag 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]KalebMW99 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kittypadding 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]KalebMW991 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]thehunter699 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]DirHR 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wine_Country 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Legally we all have equal rights.

Unless we don't. Men in the US still don't have access to the same rights and programs (driver's license, state or federal employment, FAFSA) unless they sign up for the draft. Women, on the other hand, have all those rights from birth. It's worth noting that failure to register is a felony, which, if convicted, means you also lose the right to vote in many states.

Women also have the innate 'right' to be absolutely sure that their kid is actually their offspring. Men (at least in my country, Germany) don't even have the right to a paternity test unless the mother agrees to it. edit: And just to hammer out the difference: This doesn't mean that there's simply no law going "men have the right to know if a child is their genetic offspring", or somesuch. It means that there is a law that goes "A man may not test for paternity without the consent of the child's mother, and if he does it anyway, he will be fined, and the result may not be used in court proceedings.": It's not "legally not covered" - it's explicitly illegal.

Men also have no right to bodily integrity, even though they should have it, as it's one of the Human Rights in both the US and Germany. In fact, in Germany, there currently are an entire three laws that cover bodily integrity: One that's used for anything but the genitals and applies to everyone. One that governs the genital integrity of girls, and conveys harsher sentencing for violating it. And one that deals with the genital integrity of boys, and explicitly exempts male genitals from being subject to "bodily integrity", making it legal to cut off parts.

No, legally we all have not the same rights.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]nforne 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The issue we have in 2017 is that women's rights are acceptable and men's rights are not. It is not politically correct to ask "what about men" when an issue that affects everyone is being discussed from only the female perspective.

How can we ensure new laws being passed are fair to all when valid opinions are being self censored for fear of being labelled a woman hater?

By way of example, Philip Davies is the only British MP who speaks for men's issues. He has stood in the way of some appalling legislation that would criminalise men but not women for the same act (the act assumed only women can be victims of domestic violence). For daring to speak out he's been vilified by the press, branded a bigot and misogynist, and even had the leader of a feminist political party stand against him in the recent election.

The problem is the message being sent to other politicians. Basically feminists are saying cross us at your peril. How can we ensure laws are fair to all in this climate of fear?

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]jaib9 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]jaib9-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]falconsoldier0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Pokecrafter88-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuckpildpepegarrison 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Junkbunkfunk 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

well this is one thing I appreciate: you didn't just blow me off, thank you dude

This is out of genuine curiosity: are there that many people in this movement who aren't just in it for the clickbait and are people actively working to de-sensationalize the discourse? I'm firmly of the opinion that male psychological/social issues need to be discussed with the same compassionate tone that women's issues are and I recognize that we tend to be demonized harshly but this kind of toxic (and honestly misogynistic, I'm just going to call it what it is) clickbait circlejerk is literally only going to make it harder for us since it fuels a belief that all men are unjustifiably angry/bitter (I mean if it's going to be called the "mens rights movement" and it's just full of bitter overzealous rage how could it possibly improve anyone's life at all or start levelheaded discussions that can end up influencing culture in a positive way?)

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

[–]ENTP 760 points761 points762 points 9 years ago (171 children) | Copy Link

[–]xx2Hardxx 197 points198 points199 points 9 years ago (166 children) | Copy Link

[–]DatGrass14 190 points191 points192 points 9 years ago (150 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

I'm guessing this is in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Discrimination_Act_1975

[–]WikiTextBot 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]littlewhiskyneat 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

There have been attempts to pass the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) for the US constitution since (afaik) 1923. It reads:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Every time it was voted on, it failed to pass. This is likely due to the presence of the (apparently little known) Hayden Rider, an attachment to the ERA that goes like this:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

Or, in common parlance: "The ERA is for women only. G'day, Sirs."

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

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

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

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

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

[–]haveacigar4200 141 points142 points143 points 9 years ago (138 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DirHR 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]joyofsteak 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]DirHR 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]speedisavirus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]speedisavirus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]joyofsteak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]speedisavirus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]joyofsteak0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]haveacigar4200-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaheiner16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42000 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaheiner17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]DirHR1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShiverinMaTimbers 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]adamwolfpack1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]S3xb3ard6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42003 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]speedisavirus3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Akitten 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]haveacigar4200 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joyofsteak0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Akitten10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42002 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Akitten10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmkiii1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Akitten5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]joyofsteak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Akitten4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]joyofsteak2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Akitten7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmkiii1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42002 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche19 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't want a kid?

Don't have sex.

Wear a condom.

Those are the exact same arguments anti-abortionists use. You're a hypocrite.

Make her sign a contract abdicating you of fatherhood.

That doesn't work. The State can still force you to pay child support if she falls on hard times. And I seriously doubt any court would enforce the contract if she changed her mind, since child support is legally viewed to be a right of the child, not the mother.

Men do not have the power to avoid child support in the event of an accidental pregnancy. They can only choose to abstain from sex or get vasectomies. Abortion was implemented to give women control over their biology, but men's biology means they have no say over their sperm once it's inside a woman. Men should not be forced to finance women's reproductive choices.

Your bias on this subject is precisely why it is a good thing MRAs are critical of feminism.

[–]haveacigar4200-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, women aren't the ones that refuse to wear condoms cause "they can't stay hard with them" so it is a different issue.

And I seriously doubt any court would enforce the contract if she changed her mind, since child support is legally viewed to be a right of the child, not the mother.

That is your opinion. When you sign a contract you sign your rights away.

Those are the exact same arguments anti-abortionists use. You're a hypocrite.

It is not my fault that there aren't as many options for men. Once we have male birth control it will be different. We can never abort though, it isn't our body. We can't make medical decisions for others.

Men should not be forced to finance women's reproductive choices.

No, we the taxpayer should have to pay to feed, educate, medicate, and house the child. Are you fucking retarded?

I don't think men and women are equal. We just have to have laws that are least shitty.

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, I know plenty of women who prefer sex without condoms, because it feels better for them. It's not just men out there being stupid about condoms, sorry.

But just replace condoms with birth control in your analogy if it really bothers you that much. It's still the exact same excuse pro-lifers tell women about abortion, and the fact that you reject it over abortion, but accept it over men's reproductive issues makes you a hypocrite.

That is your opinion. When you sign a contract you sign your rights away.

I'm pretty sure it's not my opinion, it's the rule of law. As I said, child support is a right of the child, meaning the mother can't just sign them away by signing a contract with the biological father. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's some precedent for this in law, but it's still absurd to expect every guy to have every girl he ever sleeps with to sign a waiver before doing it. That is not a solution, get real.

No, we the taxpayer should have to pay to feed, educate, medicate, and house the child. Are you fucking retarded?

No, are you? Because that's the law right now--fathers pay child support. The State provides welfare if the mother needs it, but if it gets involved, it goes after the father for child support if he isn't already paying it. Ergo, men are expected to finance the reproductive choices of mothers, even if they never wanted to become fathers. They are compelled by law to pay. That is the state of things.

This is not hard to understand, but you seem to have a double-standard when it comes to men and women on this subject that goes beyond their biological differences. Abortion gives women control over when they become mothers, but you think men should have to pay for children they never agreed to sire. That's just plain sexist, and you're using sexist arguments to make your point, and resorting to petty insults as well. It is completely feasible to give men control over their parenthood, and it has no negative impact on women, since they need not enter single motherhood if they don't want to. Saying women deserve that right, but men don't is pure bigotry.

[–]Akitten6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SinisterMJ7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]TomHicks1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]haveacigar42000 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DezypherTheDez0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DezypherTheDez4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DezypherTheDez1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Taylor139111 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vestigial_snark6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]spinwin3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spinwin2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13911 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13910 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13911 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42002 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42003 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinguCannotLose1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42000 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DatGrass14-4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar420011 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DatGrass14-3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42004 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DatGrass142 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valac_0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13917 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valac_2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bewolfs1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valac_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13911 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valac_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13911 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valac_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taylor13911 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valac_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]haveacigar420031 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can get an abortion in Mississippi. Placing terms on it doesn't remove your access or violate Roe v. Wade.

Placing burdensome regulations on clinics is bullshit, and you know it. There is one clinic in the entire state. The law is meant to inconvenience women to dissuade them from getting the abortion.

And most women get abortion for health reasons. Your average woman getting an abortion has already had a kid and is in her late 20s to early 30s. If she could have had the kid, she would.

Birth control does not.

So, so, very wrong.

Ovarian cysts are treated with birth control, for example. My friend gets them chronically so she NEEDS it. Insurance should pay for it despite their ideological objections.

There are other hormone disorders that it treats too. These are far worse ailments than a limp dick.

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

Placing burdensome regulations on clinics is bullshit, and you know it. There is one clinic in the entire state. The law is meant to inconvenience women to dissuade them from getting the abortion.

I don't presume the intent of the law. Thus far, the Supreme Court has decided that so long as the one clinic remains open, the law is upheld. I'd agree it's indisputable at least one clinic remain open in the state, but I fail to see how the law was not upheld otherwise. The Supreme Court shares my view.

And most women get abortion for health reasons. Your average woman getting an abortion has already had a kid and is in her late 20s to early 30s. If she could have had the kid, she would.

This is incredibly frequently stated, and never well-cited. You have little to no chance of proving any part of your statement.

So, so, very wrong.

Ovarian cysts are treated with birth control, for example. My friend gets them chronically so she NEEDS it. Insurance should pay for it despite their ideological objections.

There are other hormone disorders that it treats too.

All of which do not require birth control. It is highly debated whether birth control actually helps with cysts. Here's a source from someone who largely agrees with your viewpoints but handily refutes the cysts argument. Happy to provide further sources, but this has links to studies and such as well, so it's a reasonable start. Regarding hormone disorders, please show a case in which someone with a diagnosed hormone disorder was refused medical treatment (note I do not add "of their preference"; insurance doesn't cover every type of medication I want).

Are you willing for condoms to be covered under insurance as well? If not, why? If so, should bicycle helmets and safety gloves also be covered?

These are far worse ailments than a limp dick.

BPH is quite serious. Your flippant attitude will help you ride through the vote brigading on these comments for now, but does nothing to prove your points.

[–]haveacigar42003 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't presume the intent of the law. Thus far, the Supreme Court has decided that so long as the one clinic remains open, the law is upheld. I'd agree it's indisputable at least one clinic remain open in the state, but I fail to see how the law was not upheld otherwise. The Supreme Court shares my view.

I don't care what the law is. It is using regulation to put clinics out of business.

You seem to be unaware of the tactics used.

The states have passed laws that make the clinics have to abide by ER standards. This means they have to be affiliated with a local hospital (you're SOL if all the local hospitals are catholic) and your building has to be up to ER code. This means you can be shut down due to having too narrow hallways. It is bullshit and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise.

I can support this:

This is incredibly frequently stated, and never well-cited. You have little to no chance of proving any part of your statement.

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/

All of which do not require birth control. It is highly debated whether birth control actually helps with cysts. Here's a source from someone who largely agrees with your viewpoints but handily refutes the cysts argument. Happy to provide further sources, but this has links to studies and such as well, so it's a reasonable start. Regarding hormone disorders, please show a case in which someone with a diagnosed hormone disorder was refused medical treatment (note I do not add "of their preference"; insurance doesn't cover every type of medication I want).

The pill helps with the irregular bleeding, dipshit, caused by the cysts. Read your own source. I didn't say it cured it.

My cousin is anemic and also needs the pill. She bleeds like crazy. Your own source says that this is a good method for treating this.

Are you willing for condoms to be covered under insurance as well? If not, why? If so, should bicycle helmets and safety gloves also be covered?

Yes, I'd rather my insurance company pay for that rather then treating a disease.

BPH is quite serious. Your flippant attitude will help you ride through the vote brigading on these comments for now, but does nothing to prove your points.

I was just pointing to the hypocrisy. People don't think we should cover pills for women's sexual activity, but have no qualms when it comes to enlarged ball or limp penises. I'm not pro-limpdick, it is just a double standard.

[–]JayLenoBlows 73 points74 points75 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's so perfect to me that such a moronic subreddit with moronic posts has morons participating in it.

Peruse the rest of the sub with an open mind and I think you'll find that it's not as moronic as you think. Any political sub has its biases, but there are important issues being discussed here that just aren't anywhere else. Feminists claim to support men, but almost never address men's issues, and when they do, it's usually just lip service, not actual activism.

THE LAWS AREN'T EVEN THE SUBJECT OF MODERN FEMINISM. It's about gender roles within society, which negatively affect men AND women... which bothers the shit out of most feminists I know.

But there are legal changes that need to be made on the men's rights front! We need laws that protect men from having to pay child support for children they never consented to have, for instance. Male circumcision needs to be banned. We need to either have women be required to sign up for the draft or stop requiring it of men.

And feminists may verbally agree that men are discriminated against in society, but they don't do anywhere near enough to actually combat that discrimination. The criminal sentencing gap between men and women is 60%! I don't think I even know of a more blatant and severe form of institutionalized sexism, and feminists won't even touch it. As a matter of fact, they're trying to get even more lenient sentences for women—that's a higher priority to them than correcting the gap.

Before you write this sub and it's anti-feminism off, you should take a hard look at feminism and ask yourself if some of it isn't deserved. Feminists have controlled the gender rights arena for decades and have historically fought tooth-and-nail to prevent men from discussing their issues publicly. That still goes on to a great extent. Presently, they maintain that MRAs are unnecessary, because feminism has men covered—that would be a bad joke if the issues weren't so damn serious.

[–]PietroGori7 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Aaron18O98 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]randomaccount2017d 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Will they accept victims of female-on-male sexually victimization or consider their needs as important? I highly doubt it. Some feminists might claim that they are bothered when gender roles negatively affect men, but the mechanics of the movement at large actively leverage male disposability in society. The language even supposedly more "egalitarian" initiatives such as HeForShe uses is teeming with that strategy.

If you want to play the anecdote game, many of us know literally of no feminist irl who gives a damn about male issues. In fact many of us know feminists who find the idea of male issues laughable. In my country, laws regarding sexual victimization still reference the genders of perpetrators and victims, and attempts to get this recognized and changed are chided and mocked by its feminists and gender studies intellectuals. If you and your acquaintances who consider themselves feminists do REALLY care, then that's excellent and I thank you for it, but for a lot us - and I say this as a guy who has been sexually victimized by female perpetrators - your experience with feminists in your local context is discordant with our experience with them in many of our local contexts and (with all due respect) with the aggregate effects of feminism

[–]lbutl25 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]haveacigar4200 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

THE LAWS AREN'T EVEN THE SUBJECT OF MODERN FEMINISM.

And yet feminism and "women's rights" go hand in hand. If laws aren't the subject of modern feminism, why do so many feminist groups advocate for and against legislation that pertains to women? (that's a rhetorical question).

It's about gender roles within society, which negatively affect men AND women...

It should be about those things, but it usually isn't. If you disagree you probably haven't been paying attention

For example, I volunteer at a sexual abuse shelter near me named Chrysalis, which accepts men

Shelters in my city don't accept men and shelters in my state that DO accept men bury that fact in their websites. There's also a program that provides group therapy in jail and connects "returning citizens" to transitional employment following their release. Doesn't accept men.

This subreddit is a hotbed of idiocy and strawmen

Oh the irony...

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

THE LAWS AREN'T EVEN THE SUBJECT OF MODERN FEMINISM. It's about gender roles within society, which negatively affect men AND women

Exactly.

If you paid attention to this sub you'd notice that there are quite a few major legal inequalities against men. For instance, in France it's illegal for a man to get a paternity test without the mother's consent (i.e. they made paternity fraud de facto legal for women). Men basically have no right to opt out of financial parenthood anywhere, even if the child is a product of the mother raping the father when he was a minor. Mutilating girls' genitals, even if it's a "symbolic nick" and not full clitoral hood removal, is banned throughout the developed world. Mutilating boys' genitals isn't banned in ANY developed country. Hell, we can't even manage to get through a ban on sucking a baby boy's bleeding dick with your herpes-ridden mouth.

Later in life, we still don't have bodily autonomy. In the US, young men must symbolically sign our lives away to the government through Selective Service registration: in many countries, even developed ones, men are forced into military service even in peacetime.

If that shit was happening to women in the US, Feminists would be up in arms to get the unjust laws changed, guaranteed. But instead, Feminists have collectively said: "Well, we've fixed all the laws discriminating against women, time to move on to issues like manspreading, catcalling, and female video game characters wearing immodest clothing."

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

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

[–]i-am-a-genius 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]joeylxd 747 points748 points749 points 9 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kittens_in_panties 546 points547 points548 points 9 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kittens_in_panties 118 points119 points120 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I studied what is often called feminist economics, really it's household economics (not the cooking class you might do in high school!). Instead of looking at households as a single economic unit, like a lot of economics does, we look inside the household and what it's made up of. Specifically, I looked into bargaining models between the husband and wife and health outcomes for the family. I'd encourage anyone who completely dismisses feminism to look at some of this research and some of the benefits of focusing on women's issues. BUT (please don't stop reading there)

What I learnt about feminism from that research is that there is a place to focus on women's problems and equally, there's a place to look at men's problems. To dismiss feminism (or men's rights movements) because of loud and angry people is throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is a case for focusing on gender issues separately, but we also need to recognise that were all after the same thing, it's mutually beneficial for us to work together.

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

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

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

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

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

[–]reverendchubbs 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]equality2000 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]equality2000 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"All men are X" is not a generalisation, it is claim of a practically universal rule.

"Men are X" is a generalisation. It does not claim all men are X, so it is inappropriate to reply with NotAllMen.

"all men are inherently misogynistic" is not an accepted view in any substantial group I'm aware of, and I have been to some way-out places. I've even hung out a little with radical feminists, who attract the more extreme opinions.
.
Generalisations are useful, we can't do without them. Slurs don't go so well as generalisations though. Men are dogs. Women are airheads. Some people take it personally or can't stand to see their gender criticised so I think they are best avoided.

There are double standards. Feminists will defend their right to generalise a complaint "men don't listen well" but would freak out if the same is done to women. To be fair, maybe the generalisers and freakers are different groups. It is not necessarily hypocrisy.
MRAs do the same, we often generalise women on here but then freak out when the same is done to us.

Feminist subs often ban gendered slurs, and sometimes generalising a gender. It can be irritating and limiting but it is educational to live under that discipline.

Our right wing Culture War guys are always hating on 3rd wave feminism but one nice thing about 3rd wavers is they reject a lot of the generalising that 2nd wavers and before did. They also reject gender essentialism, which is the scheme under which 2nd wavers declared all the nice personality traits to be female and the destructive or uncool traits to be male.

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

[–]equality2000 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JcbAzPx1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]falconsoldier0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminist attention towards men's issues is both narrow in scope and part of a theoretical framework that fundamentally misunderstands the causes behind the problems they are trying to address. They are pretty exclusively concerned with men's emotional lives, and argue that men are conditioned to neither express nor even acknowledge feelings of vulnerability, shame, depression, etc. the flaw in this understanding is that men actually do acknowledge those emotions, and their reasons for not expressing them publicly have to do with them being conditioned to solve their own problems, rather than ask for help—we are not conditioned to be in emotional denial. In actuality, men can express these feelings, they just do so in different ways than women do. I know this, both because I am a man, and because I treat men regularly as a therapist. Feminist intentions in this area are good, but they fail to understand the problem, because they are not men.

Furthermore, they do not attempt to address the actual systemic forms of discrimination that men experience in society. They are not trying to address anti-father bias in family courts, male circumcision, male reproductive rights, the prison sentencing gap, false accusations of DV and rape, etc. these are all real issues for men that feminists don't seem to want to touch (and often actively oppose efforts by men's groups). Again, they focus only on male emotions, and do so from a female perspective, focusing on primarily on aspects they can relate to. Just as a movement composed primarily of men could not hope to adequately address women's issues, a movement composed primarily of women cannot hope to address men's.

So, I disagree with your contention that feminists as a whole are genuinely interested in addressing men's concerns, and that they are even truly capable.

As for MRAs and feminists being pitted against each other, I obviously would prefer it if they could cooperate, but my understanding of history and human psychology does not make me hopeful it will happen. Civil rights activism has always been ruled primarily by demographic interests, rather than commitments to the principles of equality themselves. They are outcome-driven, rather than opportunity-driven, and too often impinge on the rights of other groups in their effort to help their own demographic. As such, a competitive system seems to be the only answer. I don't think it will always be as contentious as it has been between feminists and MRAs, but I don't see them banding together overall either—at best, I think they might learn to respect each others' turfs, but there will always be points of collision.

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

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

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

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

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

[–]Raptorfeet0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kittens_in_panties0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kittens_in_panties1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]voksul2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]mustafa28120 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Literally_A_Shill 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Becks91 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Literally_A_Shill1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]trolloc1 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Galadriel26 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]thehunter699 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Becks91 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Literally_A_Shill1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Literally_A_Shill1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ITS-A-JACKAL1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carrot0101 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[–]i-am-a-genius 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]i-am-a-genius 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]i-am-a-genius3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Orsonius1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]i-am-a-genius2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Andpeggy1231 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GCSThree0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy 356 points357 points358 points 9 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

This thread has actually shown a lot of good, valid points, including things I don't agree with.

I would just like to put forward that it's possible to a) defend men's rights in a world that frequently doesn't consider them, b) simultaneously understand that there are aspects of the world (even in western society, though admittedly more frequently elsewhere) in which women have it a LOT worse than men. It's not an inherent issue that men dominate some spheres of life, nor the same for women. It is, however, an issue when those predispositions genuinely preclude people from getting involved in spheres they're interested in.

I hate to ramble or be unclear, because that's the kind of thing that becomes downvote bait on this sub of ours. But I'm an active advocate on my campus for men's rights, and I'm also a defender of feminism and the rights of women on campus. This is location and situation specific. I've been the victim of sexual assault and seen untold criticism for being a man who got raped, but I've also had several female friends who have been drugged or assaulted multiple times. I've been catcalled on the streets, but I have female friends who struggle to walk around without being catcalled every other day at the least. It's dumb to pretend other people don't struggle just to highlight your own (justifiable) struggles.

This post is a big indication of that too. Feminism is necessary, just not the bullshit that - surprise - you only see on subreddits like TiA (fun to observe but the comments get pretty dumb). This sub shouldn't be about "wow feminism is horrible;" feminism should be irrelevant to us if we claim that feminism is about women, and this sub should focus on pro-men rather than anti-feminism. I almost said anti-women there, since a lot of the comments of a lot of posts in our sub are pretty goddamn horrible, but I know that myself and probably the majority of this sub don't hate women or constantly disparage them.

I've said a lot, I guess, but I just think it's ignorant to pretend like women don't have it worse than men in a lot of ways. Men have it worse than women in a lot of ways too, but how the hell can you justify sayin women have no problems/live in a gynocentric world when we fight so hard to have our problems acknowledged. It's the same thing, guys. There are some seriously sexist people out there. As much as the "rich white dude running everything" jokes are annoying, it's frankly true in a lot of places, and there are a lot of douchebags running things who actively shit on women. Can we be a bit more cognizant moving forward?

[–]sex_panther_by_odeon 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Yeah, feminism needs to be more respectful of us, too. But when they see a small group of mostly men who chastise their (majority) group for their beliefs, it's going to be hard for them to offer the respect first.

MRAs and feminists have the same fight. Women have inequalities they are fighting to overcome, just like we do. Some of ours are hard-coded into our society, like prisons, domestic violence support, and childcare. Some of theirs are broad societal views, like choice of profession, sexual power, etc. But they're the same fight. We should default to respecting that, because we are a small voice begging to be heard. We see our inequalities and think, how can the world not see this? How can the world not stand with us? That same way of thinking should, by default, allow us to see their perspective on their fight as well.

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

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

[–]midirfulton 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

Well, I don't know about individual organisations, but feminist funding does run to the billions.

Just from off-hand memory about feminist funding in the USA:

The VAWA act provided USD1.6 billion to feminist causes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

Emily's List has raised and spent a quarter-billion USD on feminist candidates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMILY%27s_List.

Globally, of course, the totals would be much higher.

Research and tote up some of the additional totals yourself:
https://www.backher.com/toolbox/women-specific-grants
http://www.unwomen.org/en/trust-funds/fund-for-gender-equality (between a quarter-billion and a half-billion annually)

The above took just a few seconds and is not meant to be exhaustive. An exhaustive, global list would certainly run to the billions.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]midirfulton 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]Becks91 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]captainAwesomePants 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Onion_Guy 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough! The Duluth model is pretty terrible, considering a little over half of both-people-abusing domestic violence is started by women. It's a. It hard to justify, however, when 87% of lethalities are suffered by women from DV. I always vie for increased awareness of male victims in any case but it'd be a crime for me to ignore the women.

You know what I'm saying? I can care about multiple groups' issues at the same time. In order to say "hey men get fucked over in family court and a lot of domestic violence policies," I don't have to end that a lot more women die because of abusive partners, who tend to be (but are not exclusively) men. It's not men's fault, but it's something that deserves attention and maybe it's society's fault for not allowing men to express emotions in a healthy and accepted way outside of anger and violence.

[–]Becks91 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Onion_Guy3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Onion_Guy4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Onion_Guy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

The following is a very informed and highly reusable comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

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

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

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

[–]Literally_A_Shill1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]midirfulton1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MindS1 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]natur3ify 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]natur3ify 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]HasAnArchmageFetish2 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you generally, but feminists have historically shat upon men quite a bit. This sub is anti-feminist, not anti-woman. Feminists have denied until only very recently that men had any issues whatsoever, and they still fight tooth-and-nail to prevent groups trying to address many of them from gaining any traction. The anti-feminism here isn't about stripping women of their rights, it's about countering misandry among feminists. Few people outside men's rights circles understand that they've been trying to get men's issues addressed since the 1970s, and that the main (and highly successful) opponents to that end have been feminists. There is a reason for the anti-feminism. Yes, it goes too far a lot of the time, but that's because a lot of us are fucking pissed as hell at this point—and for good reason.

[–]Onion_Guy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree with everything you've said.

I think this sub should be pro-men rather than anti-feminist, however. I think that it's an issue to promote it as anything but a positive movement.

Feminists have arguing points. So do we. Why not agree that people have it rough and shouldn't? Why are half our posts laughing at/crying about people on tumblr saying dumb and horrible shit? Why don't we promote things we can make a difference on?

Feminism is a label that anyone can take, as is men's rights activism. I don't want to be associated with the people who actively act horribly toward women on this sub - and please don't act like they don't exist - but I don't have that choice and I'd like to be part of the positive movement without being expelled by people who think women are goddesses or something. Same thing as the opposition, really.

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

Cross-criticism between feminists and MRAs will never be completely extinguished, and it shouldn't be. Much feminist criticism of the MRM is valid (and yes, there are misogynists here, just as there are misandrists among feminists), but much of the criticism of feminism here is valid too. Saying we should just avoid it entirely when plenty of feminists and feminist organizations are actively standing in the way of progress on men's issues is just not reasonable.

The biggest problem for the MRM, IMO, is the extent to which it attracts social conservatives who are interested in rolling back rights for women. But in my experience, their numbers are dwindling here. As men's issues gain social acceptance, more and more liberal voices are showing up here, and the conservative ones will eventually be drowned out. That is my hope, at least. But criticism of feminism is something I truly hope remains, because it is essential to the fight for men's rights.

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

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Sakiel_1-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sakiel_1-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sakiel_1-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sakiel_10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sakiel_11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]video_descriptionbot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SECTION	CONTENT
Title	The Man Card
Description	buzzword buzzword bad buzzword. =============================================== Go here for regular fun and geekery: http://www.HoneyBadgerBrigade.com Go here for alerts and occasional brainfarts: https://www.twitter.com/DrRandomercam Go here for miscellaneous cartoons what I done: https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkCheeseTV Go here to put money in the hat: http://www.patreon.com/doctor =============================================== Thanks to everyone who's putting money in the hat! Paul ...
Length	0:13:23

I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | Info | Feedback | Reply STOP to opt out permanently

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

[–]Onion_Guy22 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onion_Guy9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, we can't compare men being jailed when their spouse attacked them to being catcalled.

We can, however, look at the numbers of husbands killing wives (iirc 87 or so percent of DV fatalities are men unto women) and kind of understand where it came from. Is it fair? Absolutely not. Should it be changed? Yes. Should there be a movement to help women in those places, when they're the primary victims? Absolutely. Should there also be an MRA movement to help male victims? Equally yes. Get what I'm saying?

We can't compare men being jailed when their spouse attacked them to being catcalled, but a more appropriate comparison is not catcalling, but to the more frequent fatalities or hospitalization of women due to DV, both from male and female abusers. I personally think everyone should have a support system, and a lot of women do and a lot of men don't, but to imagine that catcalling is the comparable issue to horrible institutional discrimination like the Duluth policy is just plain erasure of what a lot of women actually do go through. I think I'm being pretty reasonable here, given that every side is correct and every side is going abou fighting for their rights in a suboptimal way.

[–]Literally_A_Shill1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluefootedpig 1252 points1253 points1254 points 9 years ago (361 children) | Copy Link

[–]77jamjam 142 points143 points144 points 9 years ago* (250 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOfficialJoeBiden 817 points818 points819 points 9 years ago (204 children) | Copy Link

[+]kakamalaka 9 years ago* [recovered] (52 children) | Copy Link

Not shocking /r/mensrights believes institutional racism isn't real; hell, it's more or less the same demo

Edit: when I posted this, the above comment was in the negative

[–]GenuineSounds 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]jmkiii5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lionessssss0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmkiii1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]midirfulton 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tsiru12-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]OhLookANewAccount 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tedesche6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're judging this entire sub and movement on a single post? Isn't that exactly the complaint feminists make when MRAs bring up misandrist statements by Jessica Valenti (who is similarly hugely popular among feminists)?

I'm not trying to deny that the anti-feminism here gets taken too far at times—lord knows I've been critical of MRAs here myself—but that doesn't mean all of it is unwarranted. You should lurk here a bit more; you'll get quite the education into feminist misandry. And maybe, once you understand the breadth of it, you'll understand why some MRAs have lost the ability to see feminism in a rational light. I'm not defending that, I'm just saying there are two sides to the coin, and most people don't appreciate just how anti-men's rights (forget anti-MRA) feminism has been/still is.

[–]AlwaysAngryyy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlwaysAngryyy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlwaysAngryyy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlwaysAngryyy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlwaysAngryyy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

I'm here a lot too, but rarely participate anymore. It's more like watching a train-wreck in progress. Part of what made me stop participating in MR and related communities was at the very least the tolerance of people espousing very bigoted ideas, which then fostered a lot of really bad conversations.

Those Vice, Buzzfeed and other media sources that paint a certain impression of Mens Rights Movement didn't pull the impressions out of thin air, and I certainly won't buy into the catch-all excuse that is so pervasive in the MR that it's because feminists have infiltrated media. Media taps into popular opinion because they want to generate views, so yes they're going to exaggerate things, as they have, because I do see plenty of reasonable discussions on MR, but media will only exaggerate things they think people will agree with.

It's not a conspiracy that the public image of MR is tarnished, it just plain is tarnished and that's because of a lack of leadership and the tolerance of a constant feed of rhetoric that drives up rage porn against feminists, a huge overlap with other men's communities that are just plain evil or dumb as nails, and the huge overlap between those particular values and the values of Alt-right movements.

Mensrights has not done NEARLY enough to distance itself from the bad apples, and that makes me and many other reasonable people believe it condones or accepts those apples.

[–]Tedesche15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BigAngryDinosaur0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nice reply, doing exactly what I already said I won't give credit for, which is dodging responsibility for your community by pivoting on the feminism conspiracy bogyman again.

I don't need to disavow myself from crazy feminist communities and radical feminist blogs and shit like that, because I don't spend time in those communities nor condone hate of any kind. If I see a group generalizing and attacking another group hatefully, not recognizing the struggles that all people face, not recognizing that we all need to help each other and not exclude anyone, then I take that group to be an enemy of actual progress.

Well, I do stay on reading at least one group that often demonstrates an uncanny acceptance of hate and intolerance. I've stayed on reading MRM because as a man, men's issues matter to me, only the real issues though, I can't really find a lot that makes a difference to me and my loved ones when the front page is literally entirely a wall of "this is the bad thing feminist did to this man" rage porn.

Meanwhile there are some very serious men's issues that are getting ignored because MRM's radical anti-feminist stance has hurt itself and as collateral every issue it attempts to speak out about.

The reality is that most people who identify as MRA or as feminists are good, chill people who want to see the world a better place and don't hate anyone. The thing that's hurting everyone is that the loudmouths and the rage-fueled extremists in both worlds are making everyone look bad.

So I cannot for the life of me understand why the community that I should identify more with isn't taking the higher ground and instead spending all its time in the mud responding to stupid blog pieces by angry young girls in college and boycotting female leads in movies.

I'm here as a man talking to men's rights and I'm once again being told about some kind of feminist conspiracy theory that's keeping MRM from having any kind of success. You guys are stuck on a hamster wheel.

[–]findingmrnemo6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nice reply, doing exactly what I already said I won't give credit for, which is dodging responsibility for your community by pivoting on the feminism conspiracy bogyman again.

Too bad there's no boogieman to be had here. But its no surprise a mod from Menslib would deny such a thing exists. You doing what every other feminists does which is spout feminism can do no evil or that feminists can do no evil for that matter. Sexism against men doesn't exists nor does misandry exists according to you feminists

I don't need to disavow myself from crazy feminist communities and radical feminist blogs and shit like that, because I don't spend time in those communities nor condone hate of any kind.

And yet you take part in and that a mod of Menslib, irony much?

I'm here as a man talking to men's rights and I'm once again being told about some kind of feminist conspiracy theory that's keeping MRM from having any kind of success. You guys are stuck on a hamster wheel.

And you wishfully ignore reality. There's been numerous cases/times of feminists fighting against men's rights. One would think how much you feminists claim feminism is all about gender equality feminists would want to help MRA's when they actually attempt to do something or something done for men's issues, but instead you feminists fight it because its not focused on women. Maybe if you had bit more self awareness you can see this. Yes MRA's do blame feminists more than they should, but its not like feminists share zero blame like you are painting things.

Also you are here talking to men's rights as a feminist, a mod of a sub that isn't about men's rights and you take part in AMR a sub that is 100% against men's rights. And you wonder why you get the recation you do. Like I said if you had more self awareness you see this.

[–]BigAngryDinosaur1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

sorry to deflate your narrative but I'll end this here and let you have the snide last word and everything, but menslib doesn't allow hate rhetoric from either "side" and we are pro-feminism in that we believe it can be a toolset for finding equality and abolishing gender stereotypes on every side, and work to include gay and transgender communities into men's rights as well.

edit: holy shit I didn't know it was you Nemo, I had no idea you were still obsessively stalking every member and mod of menslib, how's that working out for you? Seriously, I don't know where you get the time. Most of us forgot about you by now and have lives outside reddit.

I mean, you're digging through years of our post history and you post daily about menslib in an explicitly anti-menslib sub with daily linkbacks and discussions. I'm not even mad. That's some real... dedication? i have no idea what to call it.

[–]findingmrnemo3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I never said anything about a conspiracy! I said feminism doesn't tend to get criticized in the media due to societal taboos--that's very different. I don't think the mainstream media is controlled by feminists; I think it's simply already societally taboo to criticize feminism, because it's conflated with criticism of women.

Meanwhile, people aren't used to the idea of men having gender issues, so the mere idea that men would speak up about that garners skepticism and incredulity. The media tends to play on societal perceptions that are already present, so it's not surprising at all that it amplifies those perceptions by focusing on the negative aspects of men's rights movements. I'm not denying that there are some true whackos and misogynists associated with the MRM, but there are also plenty of well-intentioned, reasonable people, and yet the media focuses on the extremists for men's rights, but ignores the extremists within the feminist community. This isn't some big conspiracy, it's just the media pandering to social biases that already exist.

And, in my experience, people do this too. You say you don't need to disavow yourself of feminism, because you're critical of feminist extremists, but you do disavow yourself as much as possible from the MRM, simply because it has extremists. That's a double standard.

Did it ever occur to you that feminism used to be far less sympathetic than it is today? When it first began, it was reviled by society at large, in part because the women running it were very brash and antagonistic. They ruffled a lot of feathers intentionally as a way of getting noticed. As time went on though, and their numbers grew, they didn't need to be that way anymore, so they mellowed out and focused more on the issues. The MRM is going through the same transition process. Also, remember that feminism used to be anti-capitalist; it was only later on that it developed patriarchy theory and started blaming men for women's problems, which coincided with the time it took off. Social movements often need a concrete, identifiable enemy to rally people against, and as much as they like to engage in double-speak about it, feminists blame men for women's problems to this day, even though they know the issues are more complex than that. It's a way of getting women worked up against a common enemy, which motivates them to participate in the movement. The MRM does the same thing with feminism. Of course men's issues are complex and not solely created/maintained by feminists; but feminists are involved in impeding progress on getting them addressed, and so are a convenient enemy to rally against. Everything you're upset about the MRM doing has been done by feminists, and still is to one extent or another. It's just that feminism is now mature and sophisticated, whereas the MRM is still a fledgling rights movement.

I'm not of the opinion that MRAs are any better or worse than feminists; to me, they're hilariously similar, and pretty much deserve each other. The only reason I really side with MRAs (aside from the fact that I'm male) is that they're the underdogs, and I honestly believe that, for gender equality to be achieved, feminists need a men's movement that can check it's oversteps and extremists. I wish we could all just be gender egalitarians and work together, but my reading of history and human psychology suggests that just isn't likely to happen. We seem to identify with particular causes that relate to us, which lead us to developing biased mindsets, whether we realize it or not. So, we seem doomed to a system of equality achieved by civil rights competition--identity politics. Rather than staying being motivated to fight for the principles of equality, we seem much more likely to be motivated to fight for particular identified-with demographics. I don't like it either, but if that's how it's got to be, so be it. So, I support the MRM, because feminism needs a counterbalance at this point in history.

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

[–]Tedesche14 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SinisterMJ13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandmasterSexay7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arizth5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandmasterSexay3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]voksul0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandmasterSexay3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]voksul0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]solara01 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kakamalaka1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]austin101123 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thewittynamee1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Akesgeroth1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Smilme 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well now let's look at this. That's not institutionalized. It's illegal to discriminate against race in North America. That's a law, but it's definitely true that African Americans get harsher prison sentences. This is more likely in part due to how they present themselves (education wise), the judges prejudice (likely influenced by the media), and the fact that a lot of crime is unproportionally done by African Americans.

With that said it's not a race thing, it's entirely a poverty issue. And there is the act that no less than 50 years ago there were actual laws that prohibited block people from buying property in certain places.

To conclude I don't think there is institutionalized racism anymore, but there is definitely some things that need to be addressed from past inequalities, particularly with ghettos and education availability.

As for how to address these, I think there needs to be more discussion had-primarily by people in those areas about what they could do to improve their area and lives. I'm not saying black people weren't mistreated, but if they want things to get better it needs to happen at the individual and community levels first

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

[–]Smilme2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coherent_thought1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Smilme2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coherent_thought0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Smilme2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cclemenst281 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thisprofilenolongere 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (131 children) | Copy Link

[+]jcboarder901 9 years ago* [recovered] (40 children) | Copy Link

Decades of research have shown that the criminal courts sentence black defendants more harshly than whites.

Edit: Better study done by ACLU

[–]ExtremelySmartGuy 330 points331 points332 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bravoredditbravo 87 points88 points89 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]lbutl25 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]scyth3s5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LogicalEmotion7-7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]karmassacre 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]austin101123 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]austin101123 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]jcboarder90113 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]jcboarder9011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wtjones1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcboarder9011 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's pretty obvious you are either being intentionally obtuse or don't understand the context of the sentence that you quoted.

Although this report is principally a discussion of methods, findings are also discussed. For the purposes of this study, the broad research question is—

• Do non-Hispanic African American or black (hereafter black) offenders receive prison terms that are longer on average than the prison terms received by non-Hispanic white (hereafter white) offenders, accounting for the apparent facts surrounding the crime and the offender’s criminal record? We call observed differences disparity, although based on the evidence we cannot attribute disparate decision-making to racial bias.

All they are saying is that the authors are aware that a disparity in sentencing cannot necessarily be exclusively attributed to racial biases, and subsequent evidence is presented to prove there is in fact one. Did you just read the first two paragraphs and choose one out of context sentence and then dismiss the entire report?

What do you say about the conclusion of the paper?

What we find is that black males receive harsher sentences than white males after accounting for the facts surrounding the case, and we also find that the sentencing disparity has grown over the 8 years since Booker.

Pretty clear what the actual findings of the report are.

I've read the sources cited in the ACLU paper.

And? What light can you shed on their methods? What sources can you share that dispute their findings?

[–]TheVineyard00-6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tsiru1250 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheVineyard00-8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheVineyard003 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I subscribe to the theory of implicit bias, which is basically the idea that as humans we associate certain traits with different objects, including other people. It explains that when it's dark out and you're walking down an ally-way and you see a guy with a scrappy beard in torn clothing muttering to himself, you get more frightened than if you see a grandma in the same scenario. You've associated in your mind the idea that torn clothing and bad hygene could be the characteristics of someone who's unstable or violent, while you've associated grandmotherly women with kindness and warmth and wouldn't feel as freightened. (Since we're zooming in on implicit bias, we'll temporarily ignore the physical difference for this example).

Now research has shown that people associate black people with violence more than white people. This is for a lot of reasons, black people have lived in poverty in the US essentially since they've been here, and poverty is linked to crime. But also, there has been a lot of propaganda linking black people to crime throughout history (Think black people stealing our women types of things, the movie birth of a nation is one example that stands out). The effect though, is that people generally see black people as more dangerous, and so in the ally-way example, a black person would be seen as more threatening than a white person of similar physical size. For you and me, it might not be a big deal, but for police, it can be the difference between deciding to shoot or not. And that would in part explain why unarmed black people are shot by police so much more than white people. (much more complicated than just one theory)

Now it's really hard to control for implicit bias. I know about it and study it, and sometimes even I'll do something without thinking that could be a result of my own bias. But for police it can be a matter for life and death, for prosecutors it can mean being harsher on black convicts, etc. And so even with bias training, people will still come with their own experiences. This can extend to more than race. If you were bullied as a kid by a redhead, and then you become a police, you could see redheads as more threatening, or whatever. And so when we try to eradicate racism, it becomes incredible difficult. So I see it as easier to fix the criminal justice system in general, things like fixing the drug laws will cut down on the number of black men incarcerated for essentially bullshit. While it might not end racism completely, the better the criminal justice works, the more it can begin to help people of color instead of hurting them.

[–]TheVineyard001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tsiru12 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOfficialJoeBiden 128 points129 points130 points 9 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

[–]raxical 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]tsiru12 87 points88 points89 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tsiru12 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]testmypatience1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saidsker3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheOfficialJoeBiden 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]aParallax 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOfficialJoeBiden 71 points72 points73 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]frivoflava29 9 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

It's been admitted that crack was introduced to black communities by the CIA. The war on drugs as a whole began as a thinly veiled attempt to easily target hippies and minorities. Even the name marijuana was introduced by Anslinger so people would associate it with Hispanics -- nobody called it that before. This has been going on for a very long time.

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

what was it called previously? hemp? /edit oh probably cannabis. i am dumb.

[–]frivoflava293 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Noshamina1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OnlyRev0lutions1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Trucidar 9 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

It's fairly well established that certain drugs that are more widely used by african-americans are scheduled higher than more dangerous drugs that enjoy more equal distribution... That's merely one example.

They aren't overtly racist, but they are systemically racist and America is jampacked with them.

[–]midirfulton 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Those laws don't say that a member of X group can be punished while a member of B group is not to be. The implementation of the laws do vary, but not because of institutionalize racism.

I hate it when people see one damn statistic, and assume they know what's going on. The nature of statistics pretty much lets up draw any correlation you want. Just look at the stock market and technical analysis.

Or even better, look at the recent Puerto Rico vote where 97% percent voted for statehood. If you dive into the number you quickly realize that its complete bullshit, but still 97% voted for it and is a pretty damn convincing that they want statehood (at least to someone who doesn't take a few minutes to dive into the numbers).

If you want some real institutionalized sexism, look at the Duluth Model, which is STILL USED by what 26 police departments. Basically, it assumes that domestic violence took place without actual physical proof, and that the male was the cause:

Straight from wiki: The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence against women. It is named after Duluth, Minnesota, the city where it was developed.[1] The program was largely founded by Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar.[1]

As of 2006, the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States.[2] It is based in feminist theory positing that "domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners

Yet, at least in the UK, males make up 40% of the victims. Seems pretty fair right?

Now remember, that cops are just regular people who have shitty paying jobs. Even if it is clear as day that the WOMEN committed violence (and the Duluth Model isn't used by your state), its 1000x easier just to arrest the guy.

But with all that said, I am for criminal justice reform. Especially, against privatization of prisons.

[–]Benjamminmiller11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Taco_Miser13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Taco_Miser6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair Sentencing Act

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220) was an Act of Congress that was signed into federal law by U.S. President Barack Obama on August 3, 2010 that reduces the disparity between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. Similar bills were introduced in several U.S. Congresses before its passage in 2010, and courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 implemented the initial disparity, reflecting Congress's view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder cocaine. In the decades since, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the sentencing disparity is unwarranted. Further controversy surrounding the 100:1 ratio was a result of its description by some as being racially biased and contributing to a disproportionate number of African Americans being sentenced for crack cocaine offenses.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove | v0.2

[–]scyth3s2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Taco_Miser1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lbutl251 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HelperBot_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]midirfulton1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lets look at it from a different point of view.

Let's say that your statement 100% correct, then you have to agree with MRA's that men are also institutionally discriminated against as well. The same statistics that show that black men make up a disproptional amount of inmates in prison also show that males receive 40% longer then similar situated females.

You cannot logically aknowledge one without the other. So my next question is do you try and discredit / pick fights with BLM groups as well, or just generic male rights groups because you think males are privileged?

So when males say hey the criminal justice system is kinda fucked for us, it doesn't fit your narrative?

Actually, let me explain in another way. I read this somewhere on Reddit in regards to BLM, but it fits here as well. Imagine two people are at a table (male and female), and criminal justice is 2 slice of pie.

Well, imagine now that the female ate her piece, and is now going for seconds. The male stops her and says, hey I haven't had any yet. She interrupts and says, "So? Quit complaining, The African American family next door only got a cupcake!" Then proceeds to cut your slice of pie in half and eat it.

People here are using American American incarceration rates to try and discredit the mens right agenda, and not to draw attention to the suffering of African Americans.

It would be the same thing as if/when feminist complain about equal pay, people bring up the fact that people in China make pennies on the dollar/women in Saudi Arbia aren't allowed to vote/drive. It has nothing to do with the original statement of equal pay.

[–]falconsoldier1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What are you talking about?

So my next question is do you try and discredit / pick fights with BLM groups as well, or just generic male rights groups because you think males are privileged?

I freely acknowledge that the criminal justice system abuses men more than women. Even through a racial context, it abuses black men the most, the focus is more on black men in the criminal justice system more than black women because black men are put in jail so much more than black women. The analysis my Mom's work takes is that in poverty, men are sent to jail, which disrupts the family, and then women are left by themselves to raise a family, which is so much more difficult when the fathers away in jail.

Well, imagine now that the female ate her piece, and is now going for seconds. The male stops her and says, hey I haven't had any yet. She interrupts and says, "So? Quit complaining, The African American family next door only got a cupcake!" Then proceeds to cut your slice of pie in half and eat it.

I don't understand this metaphor at all. People are not trying to use racial analysis to discredit the MRA movement, they're just insisting (rightfully so) that racism exists because there was a comment alleging that it doesn't. You're coming off as crazy defensive even though I'm literally not attacking MRA at all.

[–]Trucidar4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Noshamina1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean gerrymandering is a pretty solid example of institutionalized racism where there are numerous accounts of surgically carving districts [especially that recent one with north carolina] along racial lines in order to sway elections. And this shit has been going on for a looooong time.

Supreme Court Rejects 2 N.C. Congressional Districts As Unconstitutional http://n.pr/2rNZR5h

I don't think that many other forms of what people think are institutionalized racism are exactly as...well institutionalized as they are systemic within people and their communities that bleed into the institutions and then have real life statistical effects such as what many people here have purported. It's not on paper but it's in the hearts of man that you find it and it's harder to eliminate then just saying the words "justice for all"

Radiolab's more perfect had a podcast all about jury selection [batson law] and sentencing too that made a pretty convincing argument that would be hard to refute, the legal system in America has it out for African Americans in a massively disproportionate way. And it very much so focuses on how it's not written into the law, in fact it was the Batson case where they change the law specifically to try and make it more fair for people of color, yet it is still engraved in the hearts of man and it eventually ends up becoming a useless law cause they just go around it any way they possibly can. Really fascinating story you should all check it out. In the end the prosecutor knows getting an all white jury trying to convict a person of color is going to be wayyyyy easier then if they put any poc in the jury especially a black person so they very specifically target this to their advantage cause they want to win, and in the legal system winning isn't always when justice is served for the lawyers, it's when they get paid.

[–]midirfulton1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well let me ask you this? Do you think that there is institutionalized sexism against men?

The same statistics that you use to describe your institutionalized racism also show that males receive about 40% longer sentences then females. Combine this with suicide rates, combat deaths, workplace deaths, homelessness, family courts (statistically saying men are unfit to be parents) etc. Easily shows that society does not value male life, that men are disposable.

Not to mention, you better not draw attention to those statistics, because if you do... We (society) will label you as weak, that something must be wrong with you, and that real men stand with feminism. Why can't you be selfless, there are more important problems out there like the war (hypothetical) and racial inequality. We (society) will work on your pretend problems later.

[–]Noshamina1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Trucidar0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]testmypatience1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Trucidar0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]testmypatience1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Throwabanana69 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheOfficialJoeBiden 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheOfficialJoeBiden6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coherent_thought1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

I mean gerrymandering is a pretty solid example of institutionalized racism where there are numerous accounts of surgically carving districts [especially that recent one with north carolina] along racial lines in order to sway elections. And this shit has been going on for a looooong time.

Supreme Court Rejects 2 N.C. Congressional Districts As Unconstitutional http://n.pr/2rNZR5h

I don't think that many other forms of what people think are institutionalized racism are exactly as...well institutionalized as they are systemic within people and their communities that bleed into the institutions and then have real life statistical effects such as what many people here have purported. It's not on paper but it's in the hearts of man that you find it and it's harder to eliminate then just saying the words "justice for all"

Radiolab's more perfect had a podcast all about jury selection [batson law] and sentencing too that made a pretty convincing argument that would be hard to refute, the legal system in America has it out for African Americans in a massively disproportionate way. And it very much so focuses on how it's not written into the law, in fact it was the Batson case where they change the law specifically to try and make it more fair for people of color, yet it is still engraved in the hearts of man and it eventually ends up becoming a useless law cause they just go around it any way they possibly can. Really fascinating story you should all check it out. In the end the prosecutor knows getting an all white jury trying to convict a person of color is going to be wayyyyy easier then if they put any poc in the jury especially a black person so they very specifically target this to their advantage cause they want to win, and in the legal system winning isn't always when justice is served for the lawyers, it's when they get paid.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

[–]Zefuhrer450 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zefuhrer452 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zefuhrer451 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]helisexual1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zefuhrer451 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]helisexual1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zefuhrer451 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1a2b3c80 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]tsiru125 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zurrain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Sure, but will you actually read it or will you just dismiss it and attack the sources. Only to ask for evidence when it's brought up in the future and proceed to do the same.

Black youth are arrested for drug crimes at a rate ten times higher than that of whites. But new research shows that young African Americans are actually less likely to use drugs and less likely to develop substance use disorders, compared to whites, Native Americans, Hispanics and people of mixed race.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/

Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002.html

Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new federal data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

http://fusion.net/martin-luther-kings-hate-mail-eerily-resembles-criticis-1793850027

"Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback."

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

"He met with the superintendent, and the superintendent said, 'I'm very sorry, but the apartment is rented — it's gone,' " Morse says. "So the gentlemen said to him, 'Well, why is the sign out? I still see a sign that says apartment for rent.' And the superintendent said, 'Oh, I guess I forgot to take it down.' "

When Morse went to the building to ask about the same apartment, she says, "They greeted me with open arms and showed me every aspect of the apartment."

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case

For much of the twentieth century, discrimination by private real estate agents and rental property owners helped establish and sustain stark patterns of housing and neighborhood inequality.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/fairhsg/hsg_discrimination_2012.html

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/28/evidence-that-banks-still-deny-black-borrowers-just-as-they-did-50-years-ago/

There's more but I figured that's enough of a start.

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

Redlining

In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas. While the best known examples of redlining have involved denial of financial services such as banking or insurance, other services such as health care or even supermarkets have been denied to residents (or in the case of retail businesses like supermarkets, simply located impractically far away from said residents) to result in a redlining effect. Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets particular neighborhoods that are predominantly nonwhite, not to deny residents loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than in a non-redlined neighborhood where there is more competition.

In the 1960s, a sociologist named John McKnight coined the term "redlining" to describe the discriminatory practice of fencing off areas where banks would avoid investments based on community demographics. During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods.

^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.2

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suede_head6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Those are different statements though. Considering the context

It’s a real statistic, but Sanders didn’t really describe it the correct way. He twice used the term "unemployment rate" and once used the variation "real unemployment rate," a vague term that doesn’t have any official definition at BLS and wasn’t mentioned in the EPI research he was quoting.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

So where did Trump come up with the eye-popping 59 percent? We can’t say with certainty, because Trump’s campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our question. But Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University, offered a clue.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

The unemployment rate can obviously be used politically. The difference between the statements is that Sanders at least backed up his answer (although again using a weird definition of unemployment rate) Trump didn't back up his claim with anything, so his statement is just compared the actual unemployment rate for African Americans which is around 20% I believe.

[–]theadj123 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Literally_A_Shill 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theadj123 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.2575 ^^What ^^is ^^this?

[–]Pimppit0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]BushDidSixtyNine11 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]Torchwood7772 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gamer4021 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]qemist2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gamer4021 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tsiru12 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LawBot2016 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The parent mentioned Death Row. Many people, including non-native speakers, may be unfamiliar with this word. Here is the definition:^(In ^beta, ^be ^kind)

Death row is a special section of a prison that houses inmates who are awaiting execution after being sentenced to death for the conviction of capital crimes. The term is also used figuratively to describe the state of awaiting execution ("being on death row"), even in places where no special facility or separate unit for condemned inmates exists. After a person is found guilty of a capital offense, the judge will give the jury the option of imposing a death sentence or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It is then up to a ... [View More]

^{Note: The parent poster} ^(tsiru12 ^or ^jaib9) ^can ^delete ^this ^post ^| ^FAQ

[–]skfdjsdlkf 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]coherent_thought1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skfdjsdlkf9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_not-the-NSA_3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]N1XT3RS0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skfdjsdlkf3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coherent_thought0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cclemenst282 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coherent_thought0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cclemenst281 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]autranep13 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Torchwood777 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]Wolfe244 9 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

you know what, i wouldnt trade that for being gunned down by cops or followed in stores.

edit: wew i triggered some racists lol

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

[–]Wolfe2441 points 9 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Wolfe2441 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iBreakAway1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]caitsu1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolfe2444 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ILoveMeSomePickles4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkstar102 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Torchwood7771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolfe2441 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Torchwood7771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iBreakAway1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PHUNkH0U53 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cclemenst28 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]77jamjam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cclemenst28 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]77jamjam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]havestronaut1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatDamnedImp1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SarahC0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MoreWhiskeyPls 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]tsiru12 85 points86 points87 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ali3nation 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]___jamil___ 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheTurtleBear 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Saerain0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluefootedpig3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]foulplay2-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would say the one with black skin would on average have a harder time, largely due to inherent biases we all have (we tend to like people that are similar to ourselves). The majority of people interviewing are most likely white (because whites are the majority of the country), so they're probably more likely to hire people that are like them. It has nothing to do with any laws that favor one race over the other, if anything the opposite (see: affirmative action).

I grew up in a majority Italian neighborhood, a friend (Italian) and I (Irish) both interviewed for a job, the manager hired him, and outright told him he liked having other Italians working with him. It's unfair, and arguably immoral, but it wasn't due to some systemic discrimination that I didn't get the job. Individual racism will still exist, but there isn't any laws that apply differently depending on race.

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

[–]bluefootedpig3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]qemist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluefootedpig2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DatGrass14 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]villin609 109 points110 points111 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwabanana69 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]villin6091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]villin6092 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]villin6091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]villin6091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]villin6091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]jaib9 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]villin609 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]villin609 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]villin6091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]villin6091 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jaib91 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Trucidar24 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]villin6097 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]SpiritofJames1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Torchwood7770 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]video_descriptionbot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SECTION	CONTENT
Title	The Moment LARRY ELDER changed DAVE RUBINS Mind Forever (Systemic Racism)
Description	In 2017 Dave Rubin was asked which moment had the highest impact in changing his mind on politics throughout his career at the rubin report. His answer was, when Larry Elder challenged him on systemic racism. This clips shows this moment. Larry Elder (conservative radio host) joins Dave Rubin to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement, systemic racism, and more. Watch the full interview with Elder about Conservatives, Black Lives Matter, racism, Hollywood, and more, quoted under fair use: http:...
Length	0:08:17

I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | Info | Feedback | Reply STOP to opt out permanently

[–]Throwabanana69 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redditis4virgins-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]ScottyBrown -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kittens_in_panties 78 points79 points80 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]agentcookie096 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]ScottyBrown 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]tsiru12 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MajinAsh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tsiru122 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]MajinAsh 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MajinAsh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falconsoldier1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MajinAsh2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]tchoob 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tchoob 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]tsiru12 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steve_the_woodsman 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Thatonegingerkid 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]tsiru12 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]steve_the_woodsman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hang on, I didn't say it was right. Am I'm a lot more sensitive than to call someone a faggot. I have practicing Muslim friends, orthodox Jews as friends, Christians, atheist, etc. All who consider me to be extremely sensitive and one of their closest "white" friends.

What I'm saying is that it's horribly wrong to get someone fired out of an insensitive joke. TALK to the offender first - if they're a complete asshole and defending their comment, then take it to HR. But give a person the benefit of the doubt if a poor joke is made. I'd never call someone the N word or p*ssy - that's intentionally derogatory. But sometimes people say things in jest that they don't realize it hurts, and a honest and vulnerable conversation about it can fix that - making society as a whole better.

Just running to HR and getting someone fired is everything we hate about the feminist movement.

[–]tryfap3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steve_the_woodsman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're clearly reading your own bias into what I said. I'm not calling anyone anything and never would. Friends of color or not. And I'm not defending my friend for saying that - I called him a racist to his face when he said why he got fired.

What I'm saying is that this culture of ruining someone's life without even trying to tell them that they hurt you is actually making our society into polar opposites. We've got to be better than that. People need to know their strength (i.e. having the internal fortitude to confront the person that hurt them) before running to HR to get the person fired or worse acting out in physical violence for some verbal thing said like you're suggesting.

We're not talking about physical violence here, so stop making something that this isn't. Physical violence should never be tolerated or overlooked. And the perp should be punished.

What we're discussing is a hurtful word, slur, etc. Physical violence or getting someone fired over it is a disproportionate response and something I won't take part in. That's everything wrong with you.

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They're an adult who knows what the slur means. They're fully cognizant of what using such a word entails. Stop acting like your friend has no agency. Words mean things and saying them has consequences. It's not the fault of their victim for not being a footstool and bearing it for the sake of political correctness. They have no obligation to keep working in a environment hostile to them. They don't need to confront your friend who "jokingly" called someone a "fag". They used their power to report it to HR, just as your friend used his power to use the slur in the first place. Maybe you don't think it's proportionate, but tell that to those on the receiving end who just get called sensitive and are expected to put up with toxic workplaces and slights and threats against their identity.

It sounds to me like you don't like people actually being held accountable. If I call you a piece of shit, I don't need you to tell me that's hurtful or aggressive first. Do you also tell women who are being beat to confront their husbands first? How about you stop victim blaming and try to accept that your friend is the perpetrator and culpable here? Maybe he should have been better than that? Not everything in the real world is something that needs a debate, not every argument needs both sides to be considered, sometimes we as a society need to make clear moral judgments, just as you say violence is wrong. Your friend learned an important lesson that society doesn't tolerate such behavior. I'm not saying he deserved to be fired, but the HR at his workplace made a decision based on his standing as an employee and that's their prerogative, just as it was the person's to report him.

[–]steve_the_woodsman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steve_the_woodsman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tryfap1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]steve_the_woodsman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]steve_the_woodsman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Maybe you're not as sensitive about your skin color, which is obvious to all who see you, than your coworker who just recently disclosed a very personal secret which no one knew about?

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

[–]bluefootedpig1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]provocateur__-10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ItsACommonMistake 122 points123 points124 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrackow 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ItsACommonMistake 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]ItsACommonMistake3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Throwawayingaccount2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pillagerguy 178 points179 points180 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]deadadventure24 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Throwabanana69-11 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pillagerguy30 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DezypherTheDez2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Throwabanana692 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_k_i_n_g2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drwilliams95 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Galadriel26 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ace_on_the_Turn 132 points133 points134 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]K3TtLek0Rn 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]K3TtLek0Rn0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghazi3641 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]K3TtLek0Rn0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghazi3641 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]thatsnogood21 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Valesparza 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]20000Fish 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SinisterMJ0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YHallo2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SinisterMJ2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YHallo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SinisterMJ2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YHallo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SinisterMJ2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YHallo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The suggestion for 3 is fiscal abortion. If the man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay child support. He should pay the abortion, but not be on the leash for 18 years.

You're trying to compensate for a biological inequality. Is it fair that men are stronger than women? No. Is it fair that women are the only ones who can carry a child? No. But instituting laws to try to compensate for either is not equality. Worse, it's a step backwards that hurts children in the process.

If the government spends basically 100% of the money for domestic shelters on women's shelters only, while being payed by tax money (67% or so by men), and virtually none to male shelters, that is text-book definition of sexism.

Then that's a good point. Related to this, I'd like to know the breakdown of homeless shelter usage by gender. I'd also like to know the relative frequency of requests for domestic shelters by gender. Women needing more domestic violence shelters wouldn't necessarily be sexism any more than men needing more homeless shelters would be.

[–]4GAG_vs_9chan_lolol1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Poolibs 76 points77 points78 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OhLookANewAccount 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]theothermod1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[+]wandrinsheep 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Hi there I'm intrigued by this sub, are you guys saying that men and women have been treated equally all these are years in the world? Just curious

Edit: after reading through the opinions and looking at the up votes and downvotes, I will refrain from engaging this sub further as there are some mental gymnastics at play not even ethereal being could understand.

Ps there are definitely instances where men are unjustly wronged but there seems to be a gathering of anti-feminist semantic which will hinder this subs "cause" greatly

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_WHALE9 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]angrybread 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]SunnyDrago5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]RobaBobaLoba 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePiggyRider 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

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

I'd agree that women have far more options than men. In the situation of no longer wishing to have the child they may legally abandon it (at a police station door etc) or may put up for adoption (without the father's consent) or abort before birth (the man cannot choose this). The man is subject to 18 years of payments.

If the woman steals the man's sperm or deceives him over his paternity then there are no legal consequences .... for the woman. Again, the man is subject to 18 years in costs. in some countries, it is illegal for the father to check the paternity of the child. Should the man take off his condom to attempt to impregnate, this can be rape in some jurisdictions.

i appreciate your concern for men's rights. The obsession with women's rights, along with an overwhelming empathy for women by both men and women, have tended to hide these issues behind trivial concerns of a few hundred dollars for abortion options of the woman.

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

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

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

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

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

[–]RobaBobaLoba 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]Ghnarlok0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Ghnarlok0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Ghnarlok0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]provocateur__ 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]bravoredditbravo 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

It's no one's responsibility to endure harassment under the guise of "toughing it out" or trying to change a bigoted person's mind, male or female, and it's actually a pretty big mens issue that men aren't allowed to easily express themselves without being seen as weak. Stop shitting on people just trying to exist semi-happily without being harassed for their gender. Your mentality is ignorant and rooted in the fact that you've never had to deal with crushing constant harassment. I "stepped up to the plate" to counter every terrible sexist/racist thing I heard, and frankly it was exhausting, and their minds never changed, and it took me away from focusing on my work. So I documented it all and fired them, a thousand times easier and H.R. didn't have to get involved or anything. And now when people call to confirm their employment with my company, I get to tell them exactly why they were fired because everything is so fantastically documented! I took to carrying an 8 hour voice recorder around just to make sure they were very much unemployable if they listed their employment with me. And because of all the written warnings they recieved and ignored, I look even better if it came down to a court case for leaving! Now my employees are happier and more productive now that they don't have to worry about stepping up to the plate. Ah to battle ignorance. :⁾

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

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]provocateur__1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghostparasites 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[+]cn5neuralgia 9 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Same here.

[–]issamaysinalah 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]okcthunda35 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Galadriel26 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]provocateur__ 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider22-8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oreo_15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider22-2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider220 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds117 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider224 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider223 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds113 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider223 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider222 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds111 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GhostRider222 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds110 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds11-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Furah7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aesthetic-as-fuck3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Boredatwork_466 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]hoofburger 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]hoofburger 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's part of the issue. No one can entirely agree on what feminism is anymore. I'm a female-born person who was a very active far-left activist for about 5 years (aka SJW) and I eventually left after I realized the hypocrisy in how feminists treated the perceived privileged others, usually white het cis men, and took this as an excuse to baselessly treat them like shit.

There are plenty of feminists who think like I do and want to promote men's rights while also identifying as feminists. But there are also feminists under the same exact flag who think all men are nasty and inherently aggressive, sexual, etc.

I don't like how broad of an umbrella term it is, and how the different sects of it do not agree at all. It's become a useless term. I also find MRA a useless term and don't consider myself one but I sub to this subreddit to have discussions on the hypocrisy towards men found in feminism with cis men, and unfortunately when i was an SJW this sort of honest discussion was frowned upon or immediately shut down when the idea of a cis male being socially oppressed was brought up at all.

There are good feminists and bad feminists, some who think men are socially oppressed and others who believe men are natural-born monsters. But since no one can really agree on what the unifying goal is anymore, and many narcissistic people have used it as an excuse to treat others badly on some sort of high-platformed stance, I can't really call myself one anymore.

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

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

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

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

[–]falconsoldier1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]theegrimrobe 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasmacarthur 179 points180 points181 points 9 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon 72 points73 points74 points 9 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Saerain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men's nipples are sexually stimulating too, many people find pectorals sexual, and a cut guy with a nice physique will often turn women on more from seeing their chest than their dick. There's a difference between women and men's hair as well, does that mean we should make Hijab's mandatory?

Why does breast feeding make them sexual? I can feed a baby with my hand so should I wear gloves? Or is it the fact they produce milk (that men sometimes can to yet as I said don't have to cover up).

So let me get it straight, both can lactate, both are erogenous (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sites/womenshealthmag.com/files/2013/10/03/hot-spots_0.png) and btw women's nipples are almost less erogenous than a man's lips, so do we cover up our mouths? Mouths are also used more in sex than nipples for a lot of people. A woman's mouth is more erogenous than her nipples in this source.

And your last point is literally describing a sexist justification for a law, wtf would you say if I said men can't be teachers because women regard men as bad teachers? Wtf kind of stupid logic would that be?

Arbitrary doesn't mean they aren't different, you could have a law that prevented brunettes from exposing their hair in public, their hair is different so it's not the same but there's no justification why they should cover up but not blondes so it's arbitrary.

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men's nipples are sexually stimulating too, many people find pectorals sexual. There's a difference between women and men's hair as well, does that mean we should make Hijab's mandatory?

The entirety of the human body can be considered sexually attractive, but it would obviously be impractical to force everyone to cover up everything, so here in the West we (somewhat recently) decided to limit only the display of reproductive organs, both primary and secondary. Oh, and ass holes as well, I guess.

Why does breast feeding make them sexual?

You have it backwards. All reproductive organs are sexual by definition. Whether you are breastfeeding or not, breasts are still sexual organs. Your uterus is a sexual organ whether you're pregnant or not, same with my balls.

Or is it the fact they produce milk (that men sometimes can to yet as I said don't have to cover up).

Now you're getting it....sort of.... You keep going back to this men can lactate to point, as if it were somehow relevant. That men 'can' lactate doesn't change the fact that they are not meant to. Male lactation has nothing to do with reproduction. It is a bug, not a feature, and a vanishingly small percentage of men suffer from this bug.

A tiny percentage of men lactating due to a disorder does not turn men's breasts into sexual organs. Women's breasts don't stop being sexual organs when they're not or are incapable of producing milk either.

So let me get it straight, both can lactate, both are erogenous

Very, very few men consider their nipples to be erogenous zones. They are not sexual for the vast majority of men. If by erogenous, you mean sexually attractive, then so what? Again, it's impractical to cover up everything, so we drew a line somewhere.

And your last point is literally describing a sexist justification for a law, wtf would you say if I said men can't be teachers because women regard men as bad teachers? Wtf kind of stupid logic would that be?

This is a ridiculous comparison. Men do not decide to find breasts sexual; they don't have a choice. It is not an opinion and it cannot be right or wrong. That's just the way it is. Deal with it. Men have to. Btw, the vast majority of women regard breasts as sexual as well, so please don't try blaming society's attitudes towards breasts all on men.

women's nipples are almost less erogenous than a man's lips, so do we cover up our mouths?

Lol. No. This is painfully untrue. But, even assuming it were true, we don't do that because, again, it would be incredibly impractical.

so it's not the same but there's no justification why they should cover up but not blondes so it's arbitrary.

If there's a difference between the way men's and women's breasts function, and that difference is the reason for women being forced to cover themselves, then it's not arbitrary. You tried arguing that they should both be treated as sexual organs (or non-sexual, in either case the same), implying there was no substantive difference between them that would justify one being treated differently than the other. This is a silly assertion.

In any case, if you want to crusade against the way society perceives women's breasts, go right ahead. I doubt you'll convince many people, but do your thing. Once you've desexualized breasts, you can start crusading against the injustice of having to cover anything at all.

My argument is that men have to cover up what society considers their sexual organs, the same as women. Just because we have different sexual organs in different places does not mean women are being discriminated against. It's reality, not sexism.

edit: formatting

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've explained they are different. You say that reason is why they are forced to cover them, and claim that means it's not arbitrary. However you've yet to connect the dots as to why being different means they should be covered. You've yet to explain why you should cover up things people find sexually attractive.

By definition you acknowledge it is arbitrary by stating that any part of the body is sexually attractive to a degree, if the cut off point is breasts, why? If there's no reason other than "there are really sexy compared to the rest" then that is arbitrary, you pick a certain degree of sex appeal and decide "beyond this you cover it up and less than this you don't" but the line is arbitrary, that's what arbitrary is for describing, that exact drawing a line for no other reason than picking a threshold by preference with no logic beyond that.

Again, your last statement. If that's not discrimination just because society decided X body part is okay but Y body part isn't on a woman. Then hypothetically would you consider it discrimination if society decided men shouldn't be primary school teachers if general opinion of both sides thought it was more likely to attract male pedophiles. I mean it's not discrimination to not hire men by that premise then right? After all to use your words

"My argument is that women can't take jobs where people consider them at high risk of committing pedophilic acts, the same as men. Just because we have different sexual desires in different places does not mean men are being discriminated against. It's reality, not sexism"

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You say that reason is why they are forced to cover them, and claim that means it's not arbitrary.

You clearly don't understand what arbitrary means:

adjective: arbitrary

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

By definition, if there is a reasoning behind the action, then it is not arbitrary.

You've yet to explain why you should cover up things people find sexually attractive.

I haven't explained it because it's not the topic of the discussion. The issue is whether women being made to cover their reproductive organs is sexist. It is not. Men and women are both expected to cover ALL of their reproductive organs; therefore, there is no double standard, therefore not sexist.

If you want to argue that covering up sexy bits is generally wrong, again, go do your thing, but it's got nothing to do with my point.

By definition you acknowledge it is arbitrary by stating that any part of the body is sexually attractive to a degree, if the cut off point is breasts, why?

The cut-off point is not breasts; it is reproductive organs.
This applies to both men and women.
Breasts are reproductive organs.
Do the math

The cut-off line is also not arbitrary. It is based on what people, men and women, are comfortable with. If you want to argue that nipples should be allowed, go ahead and make the case, but all you're doing is setting another line based on what you think people should be comfortable with. Again, a non-arbitrary line.

If that's not discrimination just because society decided X body part is okay but Y body part isn't on a woman.

If you want to demonstrate discrimination, you have to compare apples to apples. As I have stated many times before, society is singling out reproductive organs for censure, nothing else. Men and women have different reproductive organs in different places; therefore they have to cover up different things. It's not that hard.

Then hypothetically would you consider it discrimination if society decided men shouldn't be primary school teachers if general opinion of both sides thought it was more likely to attract male pedophiles.

What are you even talking about...? Yes, of course this would be discrimination, but what does that have to do with anything I've written? It doesn't even follow from the previous sentence. Double standards (what I'm talking about) and sweeping generalisations (for some reason, what you're talking about) are not the same thing. How did you even come up with this nonsense?

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So a consensus on who should be allowed to teach primary schools isn't arbitrary either? And it's not discrimination because the rule is "people with a high suspected risk of being paedophiles" which isn't a sexist law on it's own. So hypothetically if there was a consensus that all men were at high risk of being paedophiles if they try to get a job as a primary school teacher I can't see by your logic how it'd be sexist to deny them jobs.

Also a consensus is a collection of personal whims, I fail to see how that stops it being arbitrary, that'd be like saying a collection of people saying white people deserve to die isn't hate speech anymore because it's a group.

It's all suspected paedophiles vs all sexual organs
It's consensus on what constitutes a person at high risk of being a paedophile vs consensus on what is a sexual organ
the law itself is sexless vs the law itself is sexless

Please explain why they are different?

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So a consensus on who should be allowed to teach primary schools isn't arbitrary either?

No! A consensus cannot be arbitrary. People, and reality, don't work that way. Please acquaint yourself with the definition of the word. If the consensus is to explicitly exclude men, then there is a reason, even if the reason is bad, meaning it is not arbitrary!

So hypothetically if there was a consensus that all men were at high risk of being paedophiles if they try to get a job as a primary school teacher I can't see by your logic how it'd be sexist to deny them jobs.

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Yes, in this bizarroverse of yours, it would be perfectly logical to discriminate against the abusers. But "people with a high suspected risk of being paedophiles" =/= men or even a significant percentage of men. You are again confusing sweeping generalisations with reality. Why are you even bringing this up?

"Also a consensus is a collection of personal whims, I fail to see how that stops it being arbitrary, "

Again, look up the definition of arbitrary! You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

It's all suspected paedophiles vs all sexual organs

This makes no sense at all. I challenge you to explain this shit. How drunk are you right now?

It's consensus on what constitutes a person at high risk of being a paedophile vs consensus on what is a sexual organ

Yes. And the general and accurate consensus is that the overwhelming majority of men are not paedophiles and that women's breasts are sexual organs. Most men AND women realize this. The idiots who don't have my pity.

the law itself is sexless vs the law itself is sexless

This is....how drunk are you? It's the same thing.

Please explain why they are different?

Go to bed :(

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not a fact independent of consensus, words have definitions, those definitions are derived from people. Much like saying blue is electromagnetic waves between XHz and YHz, different values can be decided on but ultimately scientific bodies have probably settled on exact numbers for different colours and have a consensus on it.

Much like the consensus is that sexual organ means an organ of the reproductive system, it could easily have another similar definition if the consensus was different.

In fact there isn't a consensus that breasts are sexual organs, for example Wikipedia (not an official body, but does represent a portion of people especially on significant articles to constitute denying a consensus if it disagrees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_organ, breasts of any kind are not listed as sex organs in mammals.

Regardless, I doubt that will make you budge so I'll take a different approach to convincing you that laws requiring breasts not be exposed are sexist.

I'll point to a case study in reality rather than a hypothetical. The crack vs cocaine sentencing, the laws are not in themselves racist, all that's different is that crack has much higher penalties all around despite being roughly the same. As Nixon's advisor later told people, they needed a "non-racist" way to make black people look bad and lock them up, so they made the drug they used more more illegal than the drug white people used, and then villianized it and spread propaganda about it. And even today the laws still are vastly in favour of cocaine.

I'm saying a similar scenario is going on, going waaaaay back to the puritans, where they decided female exposure was sinful so they made laws that were obviously sexist, ankles n shit being off limits for one sex or the other, as time went on however, liberalization and such led to people calling out the bullshit like ankle humility so the people who still wanted women to cover up made "non-sexist" laws, targeting sexual organs. Despite there being no non-sexist reason to require any sexual organs be covered, like there was no non-racist reason to make crack over 10 times more criminal than cocaine.

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sex organ

A sex organ (also called a reproductive organ, primary sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic) is any anatomical part of the body in a complex organism that is involved in sexual reproduction and together constitute the reproductive system. The external and visible organs, in males and females, are the primary sex organs known as the genitals or genitalia. The internal organs are known as the secondary sex organs and are sometimes referred to as the internal genitalia. The characteristics that begin to appear during puberty, such as, in humans, pubic hair on both sexes and facial hair on the male, are known as secondary sex characteristics.

Mosses, ferns, and some similar plants have gametangia for reproductive organs, which are part of the gametophyte.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove | v0.2

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My non-hypothetical (why call it a hypothetical, that's what really happened with crack vs cocaine) wasn't meant to try and draw the line between men and women's breasts being the same, I thought that'd be obvious when I acknowledged female breasts as being commonly viewed as sexual organs.

The case study was meant to show the fact that a law can be made "fair" and not in itself sexist or racist but is intended to effect one sex or race more than the other, the law being made with sexist purpose in this case. Some people wanted women to cover up their breasts and crotch but merely saying that was a no go at this stage, they choose the justification (without any real justification) that all sexual organs should be covered.

A parallel would be the situation where weed was heavily criminalised and the drug war started in an effort to arrest leaders of hippy like groups, with the cold war and such going on drawing stigma to communists was easy but flat out arresting communists violated the first amendment so they made a law with the purpose to use it to arrest hippies and help stigmatise them further so people would vote for nixon again.

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm a loyal sub to mensrights, r/feminism jokes about killing men and doesn't view circumcision of babies for no reason a problem, some even say it's a good thing, etc, not my cup of tea.

Btw what's so outrageous? You said it yourself, many people don't want women flashing their breasts in public, you even said how breast feeding is controversial? Yet you think it's outrageous that a law maker with those beliefs wouldn't make laws to control it?

Or you mean the drug war thing, well unless you consider one of Nixon's aides a non credible source here's a source on what I was talking about https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/

On another note, would you say that places that do ban crotches but not women's breasts are being sexist in favour of women? After all, men have to cover all their sexual organs and the women don't.

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Choosing sex organs as immodest, fine? I mean in itself it's not a justifiable reason, no different from declaring all facial hair as immodest but I'll roll with you.

What if the laws were worded such that the illegality was based on the thickness and spacing of head hair, being that hair within a certain range thickness and spacing was immodest would that be sexist if it just happened that the range chosen was 100% correlated with sex, such as the chosen sex organs do.

Or what if they had a different definition of genitalia? That just included women's hair, since apparently you think it's fine if the law as written as requiring genitalia be covered in the Alabama/Alaska laws was meant as "sexy bits", but their "sexy bits" can include whatever they want without being sexist either surely? Or are you a global authority on the objective definition of sexy bits.

Or if neither of those arguments work, why not just go back to one of your earlier justifications involving consensus, because in most of these countries men and women alike agree that's how it should be, there's a consensus that exposed hair is immodest and immoral.

And if that doesn't convince you, lets just say it was length, obviously not all men/women will have short/long hair, but it's an objective value we can measure, would you not say that a law requiring hair that reaches the shoulders or further in length be covered in public as at all sexist?

If not that then how about if the law required anyone who couldn't curl a weight of X mass, where X mass was chosen to be a value that meant a vast majority of men could curl it but a vast majority of women couldn't curl it, has to wear a Hijab. I'm aware this one and many of the others are arbitrary, but it's not inconsistent, the same rules apply to men and women. But lets say there was a consensus that this was the way it should be done, so it's no longer arbitrary either, is it still sexist?

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've only got so much energy, man. I hope you've got a great point here. If it's more of the same, I'm gonna have to stop.

Since you categorise breasts as sexual organs you claim there's no double standard for treating them like a penis or vagina since they are also sexual organs correct?

Breasts are sexual organs. By definition. It has nothing to do with me. If the standard is sexual organs, then treating them as such is not a double standard. If the standard is not sexual organs, but rather genitalia, then not allowing breasts would be a double standard.

And that there's also no double standard for countries that let people expose breasts but not the other two if they don't categorise breasts as sexual organs, correct?

More accurately, if they define women's breasts as fundamentally different from the primary sexual organs.

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syokudai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Windryder1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MikeyMike01 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasmacarthur 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hackop6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]wegie125 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]FreshOutOfGeekistan 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

No, we don't, not all of us. I don't feel unsafe in a society with men in it. That is because I am biologically female (XX chromosome) and I am attracted to men, and only men. I am not ashamed of being being female. XY men desire me because I am female, biologically, through and through, despite my STEM-y education and career choices, regardless of my choice of attire or hairstyle.

Some women are not like me. Some women are asexual. Some women are attracted to women only. In many societies today, women's preferences are respected. No means no. We ARE safe in Europe, the USA, Japan, China, Korea and many other places on this earth.

Psychologically healthy heterosexual men do not want to force their desires upon women who are not attracted to them. I suspect that this is global, in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas and everywhere else.

Men are not inherently discomforting nor frightening to heterosexual women. Men need to respect the boundaries and disinterest of women who do not desire them. I still believe that psychologically healthy men, globally, realize this.

[–]super_ag1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, we don't, not all of us.

But that is a pervasive narrative throughout feminist groups. They make up and perpetuate false statistics, like 1 in 4 women will be raped in college, precisely to scare women into "needing feminism." They convince women that their life is in danger every time they walk down the street at night and a man is near, despite the fact that men are more often the victims of violent assaults by strangers at night. Rape culture doesn't exist, by and large, in the US or UK, yet feminists still tell young women that it does because it scares them into being feminists. The wage gap is another myth spread by feminists in order to instill anger and fear at "the Patriarchy" that oppresses womyns across the board, from air conditioning to manspreading. In the absence of women being actual victims in societies like the US and UK, feminists need to make up new ways for women to feel like victims. Lying and blaming the boogeyman of Patriarchy to scare women into believing their religion are two very effective means.

[–]Swinship2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]super_ag3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Swinship1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thesquataholic1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]video_descriptionbot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SECTION	CONTENT
Title	Why Office Air Conditioning Is Sexist
Description	Sexist air conditioning: The Telegraph's Radhika Sanghani explains why the standard office temperature of 22°C is too low for most women.
Length	0:02:47

SECTION	CONTENT
Title	Women Try Manspreading For A Week
Description	Check out more awesome videos at BuzzFeedVideo! http://bit.ly/YTbuzzfeedvideo GET MORE BUZZFEED: www.buzzfeed.com www.buzzfeed.com/video www.buzzfeed.com/videoteam www.youtube.com/buzzfeedvideo www.youtube.com/buzzfeedyellow www.youtube.com/buzzfeedblue www.youtube.com/buzzfeedviolet www.youtube.com/buzzfeed BuzzFeedVideo BuzzFeed Motion Picture’s flagship channel. Sometimes funny, sometimes serious, always shareable. New videos posted daily! MUSIC Sledgehammer Licensed via Audio Network Mad...
Length	0:04:34

I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | Info | Feedback | Reply STOP to opt out permanently

[–]chambertlo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]getfuckingreal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackBoxInquiry1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Claireah1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eflaves1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Banned_By_Default1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oniong1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tangerinetrooper1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Orsonius1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dumbass_McGee_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]tjom3ga 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]Mike168 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

Do you know what grates me about these posts? It's only this prominent because she's female. I get it, it makes us feel like the message is getting through...except, what's the message that we're trying to deliver?

That it's not your character or the content of your message, but your identity that matters? This girl isn't saying anything any random person from within these boards hasn't said 1,000 times.

Then again, this is where the problem is. We look to women for validation: 'a woman has said it, that means it takes on a moral dimension - that means we're winning the battle of ideas!' That, in a nutshell, is the entire problem - feminism castigated morality to be about an identity, not substance.

This thread is feminism - it's about the identity of the person delivering the message, not the message itself. It's the problem, not the solution.

Until men stop looking to women for validation of their determined morality, feminism will retain its power - and all its power emanates from the extent to which men are willing to rely on women for validation (a reliance which is underpinned by a male biological need for sex, or sexual prerogative).

Until that shackle is cast aside, you can forget any possibility of anything changing. In fact, I would put all of the problems we face as a society down to this dynamic, and particularly the prevalence of moral relativism, ie, placing the identity (equality for women, or x group) ahead of the principle (equality), or 'black culture' = 'progressive', 'white culture' = 'racist', etc.

[–]DaeusPater0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boredatwork_4660 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saerain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boredatwork_4660 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sluds110 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xavierx220 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Choice777770 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assumetehposition0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]prumzer0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reynoldstown0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]b1ketu58-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7777777e-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SKNK_Monk1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7777777e1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]paulkersey19994 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mijo543211 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have no idea about oppression. Seriously you live in the greatest country in the world where, as a woman, you are afforded a freedom that most of the female population of the world can only dream about. Like seeking an education, leaving the house with out an escort, voting, working, holding public office, driving, having sex when you aren't married, owning a house or business, be in law enforcement, serve in the military, speaking out against a man, being able to choose your husband and then divorcing him, running around pointless protests complaining about not having rights that you already have. Making up conspiracy theories about how there is a gender wage gap, claiming there is rape culture, the unfair advantage of custodial rights in parenting, birth control and abortion, being able to point your finger at any male and accuse them of rape, and then having their lives and careers ruined even if found not guilty, and immunity from prosecution if it's found out that it was a false accusation. If you lived in the middle east or in a 3rd world country all those things I just mentioned would be illegal for you to do, with some of them being punishable by death. So stop acting like there is some sweeping conspiracy of the patriarchal oppression that targets only women in our country because there is not. Go to Saudi Arabia and talk to the women there about patriarchy and oppression and tell them that you are a victim like them. I would love to see how your "oppression" compares to their opression. Maybe you should be a little more grateful for the incredible privileged life you have living in this country.

[–]bearslikeapples0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]orcscorper2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx-10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpoonySam32 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems-32 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP28 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kittens_in_panties23 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Comments

onlyprettygirlsgetupvotes

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Fair Sentencing Act

Redlining

Sex organ

ImWithHer ??? Lol

Title	Perfect
Author	jaib9
Upvotes	6436
Comments	977
Date	June 12, 2017 6:02 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6gtxve/perfect/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/perfect.920624 https://theredarchive.com/post/920624