What are your problems?

[–]Nesman64 115 points116 points117 points 14 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 107 points108 points109 points 14 years ago* (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShetlandJames 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 135 points136 points137 points 14 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShetlandJames 75 points76 points77 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Embogenous 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

First thing I don't buy into the idea that men simply need to man the fuck up.

That's the point of the image; that it's a bad reponse.

I've personally never felt pressured into expressing my feelings and have no problems whatsoever crying in front of another person.

Enough men consider it an issue that I believe your experience is a minority one.

My girlfriend is often made to feel very insecure as a result of stuff she gets shouted at her on the street. This is often overtly aggressive sexual talk. This isn't new, and it isn't getting better.

There are people who care about it, and people who want to fix it. They aren't necessarily successful (though they may be - "getting better" isn't the same thing as "disappearing completely, everywhere).

there's also evidence to suggest that it has many health benefits (cut in chances of getting HIV being one)

Hotly contended. Know what's even more effective than circumcision? A condom. But wait, since when were infants putting their dicks in things, anyway?

is used to correct many problems relating to the penis such as Phimosis.

Infants can't get phimosis; at birth, the foreskin is not supposed to retract, it's physically fused to the glans.

But that's all irrelevant; it's a matter of choice, yadda yadda. The only benefit an infant will gain is a lowered chance of UTIs, however the complication and infection (open wound in diaper) possibilities pretty much erase that.

It's also something that many, many men aren't forced to have.

If they aren't forced, then what's the problem?

As far as being the providers I feel this is a role that isn't changing but is being relaxed on men. I have a few friends who live in a household where the mother earns the most money.

It's certainly being relaxed, but far less than the "women as homemaker" role has.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]afndale12 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Embogenous 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But I don't feel it's one that I need to hold to myself.

Good for you! That's what we want.

could easily argue that those who feel this way are a vocal minority, but even then there's nothing substantial to back it up.

It's a stereotype that fills media and discussions. "Vocal" minority it would have to be. But anyway, either way it's enough men for it to be a problem.

GF and sister both say it hasn't gotten any better over the years.

They are two people, who live in one particular area, who interpret everything through a cloud of bias. It might be happening 10% less than it was 5 years ago and I guarantee they wouldn't be aware of it - that's how confirmation bias works.

And it's possible for success to be had in one area, but not another.

If this is referring to circumcision at child birth then I'll say the same as I said in another post. It's not a Government enforced procedure and I don't think it's the role of the government to stomp out a procedure that has a very strong religious background.

Nobody here objects to an adult choosing to get a circumcision; when we talk about MGM we're referring to when it's done without consent to an infant.

But anyway; that exact same argument you made also applies to FGM. FGM has a religious background.

And, a minority of circumcisons are religious in nature.

If the parents believe their child will benefit from a circumcision, or if they feel they need for religious reasons to let

If the parents believe their child's pneumonia will be fured with aquamarine crystals or praying, we should let them then, right?

Again, you're also arguing for FGM here.

I live in the UK where it is very uncommon to see this occur.

From wiki, it happens to about 1 in 30 male infants (or so, extrapolating a little).

If 1 in 30 women in the UK were being beaten or raped, wouldn't you want to stop that?

But the majority of people here are from the USA, where the rate is 10 times as high.

You said earlier the abuse women recieve on the street is getting better

No, I didn't. Here's the quote;

There are people who care about it, and people who want to fix it. They aren't necessarily successful (though they may be - "getting better" isn't the same thing as "disappearing completely, everywhere).

although not disappearing to support your arguement that society is working on things for women.

I didn't support the argument people are working on it for women. There are public campaigns against it, it's an issue with a lot of awareness. There are female-only train carriages in a lot of places.

Society is working towards this, and although it hasn't cleared completely it's getting there.

Obviously, there are people who care about it; all of us here, for instance. But the image is talking about general society, random people on the street. Men and women both have issues, but men's are not taken seriously (and are vehemently denied by a lot of big- people).

But the resolution of the issue can be attributed simply to more men becoming homemakers, which results in their portrayal as such in media. Not so long ago, male homemakers were basically non-existent, so it wouldn't make sense to portray them as such, and the common person would have no perception of it. But now that it's happening, and the number of stay at home dads are increasing, people are realizing that it's not impossible.

Women got into careers with a large amount of deliberate opinion shifting, that women are capable of working just like men.

[–]porn_flakes 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sufrt -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

That's the point of the image; that it's a bad reponse.

and generally you stop hearing it once you're no longer 16 years old

Enough men consider it an issue that I believe your experience is a minority one.

you really think "enough men" feel so pressured by some perceived role they need to play that they can't express their feelings? is this a problem with society or with these people's warped perception of the world? i don't know if you're surrounded by emotionally-retarded macho manchildren or something but no normal, intelligent person judges another man for expressing emotions, give me a fucking break.

It's certainly being relaxed, but far less than the "women as homemaker" role has.

you realize you can do whatever the fuck you want in this regard as long as you're not cripplingly insecure, right

it's a lot easier for a man to decide to become a stay at home dad or something than it is for a woman to secure a job held predominantly by males

[–]Embogenous 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

and generally you stop hearing it once you're no longer 16 years old

Maybe you did, but r/mr clearly disagrees with you, as does a ton of the internet.

you really think "enough men" feel so pressured by some perceived role they need to play that they can't express their feelings?

Are you claiming that few or no men struggle to express emotion? Do we live on the same planet?

but no normal, intelligent person judges another man for expressing emotions, give me a fucking break.

Yes, they do. Including wonderful parents (boys more likely to be told not to cry, to be brave, yadda yadda).

you realize you can do whatever the fuck you want in this regard as long as you're not cripplingly insecure, right

Of course you can do what you want. Seriously, by this argument gender roles can't exist, because we can violate them if we want to.

[–]sufrt -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Of course you can do what you want. Seriously, by this argument gender roles can't exist, because we can violate them if we want to.

again "it's a lot easier for a man to decide to become a stay at home dad or something than it is for a woman to secure a job held predominantly by males"

seems kind of ridiculous to argue otherwise

Are you claiming that few or no men struggle to express emotion? Do we live on the same planet?

of course people struggle to express emotion. if they're struggling because they think it's "unmanly" then they probably haven't entered the adult world yet or their ideas of how different genders act and interact come from shitty sam kinison standup routines or bud light commercials instead of the real world

Yes, they do. Including wonderful parents (boys more likely to be told 7not to cry, to be brave, yadda yadda).

if a man as an adult has trouble crying/feeling feelings because his parents told him to be brave when he was five, there are much deeper issues present there, and blaming them on "society" is pretty blatantly passing the buck

[–]Embogenous 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

again "it's a lot easier for a man to decide to become a stay at home dad or something than it is for a woman to secure a job held predominantly by males"

I'm not talking about the process... I'm talking about cultural pressure.

There is negative pressure that stops people working in fields dominated by the opposite gender or perceived as suited to the opposite gender. There is also negative pressure that stops a man becoming a homemaker or stay at home dad.

The latter is greater than the former. Unless you want to claim it's rooted in biological reasons; there's a reason there are more working women than male homemakers.

f they're struggling because they think it's "unmanly" then they probably haven't entered the adult world

The "adult world" you live in is not the same as what I judge to be the greater majority of men. Apparently your "adult world" doesn't include movies or TV.

or their ideas of how different genders act and interact come from shitty sam kinison standup routines or bud light commercials instead of the real world

Your world, you mean.

if a man as an adult has trouble crying/feeling feelings because his parents told him to be brave when he was five

That was one example. Obviously. And it's not once when he was five, it's all through his life until he moves out at 18 or so.

there are much deeper issues present there

You.. think that being influenced by your upbringing is an "issue"? So if I work hard in school because my parents raised me like that, there's something wrong with me?

blaming them on "society" is pretty blatantly passing the buck

That was one factor... but the parents treated them that way because of society. It's not like every parent has a unique style that was passed to them by their parents that is in no way influenced by other people.

[–]sufrt0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Embogenous2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the concept of living in a world where you take dr. pepper commercials and shitty romantic comedies so seriously that it damages your self-worth just seems really strange and childish to me

If you plan to argue that you aren't affected negatively by advertising or entertainment media, hold my coke for me so I don't spill it when I'm rolling on the floor laughing at you.

nobody gives a shit

Wow, you're saying nobody that you personally know has a grievance that you personally know of about a grand total of two stay at home dads?! I guess that proves, once and for all, that nobody ever has a problem with it!

like this whole subreddit is just people who, out of fear of being laughed at, are terrified to act beyond some bizarre constructs that nobody mature or perceptive actually takes seriously.

You latter sentence is crap. Sseriously, I don't know how somebody can seriously think their perceptions must be universal.

Second, most people avoid doing things because they don't want to be laughed at. People are often too shy to sing; most people won't care if they're bad, but they still feel anxious about it. If somebody really wants to do something, it will rarely be an issue.

i hope you all find the ability to see past it and live fulfilling lives at some point

It certainly doesn't bother me, personally. The only consideration I take of other's opinions is when I'm negatively affecting them.

[–]sufrt1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you plan to argue that you aren't affected negatively by advertising or entertainment media, hold my coke for me so I don't spill it when I'm rolling on the floor laughing at you.

i do plan to argue that advertising and entertainment media aren't teaching me what it "means to be a man" or whatever you guys are so fragile and insecure about, yeah

you don't seem devoid of critical thinking skills so i'm not sure why you'd feel any different

Wow, you're saying nobody that you personally know has a grievance that you personally know of about a grand total of two stay at home dads?! I guess that proves, once and for all, that nobody ever has a problem with it!

selective quoting aside, isn't my point clear? why would you associate with anyone who does have a grievance with something so trivial? are you (as in this subreddit as a whole) honestly that frightened of being judged by homophobes (because a lot of this shit stems from homophobia) and morons clinging to antiquated gender stereotypes? their opinions concern you?

Second, most people avoid doing things because they don't want to be laughed at. People are often too shy to sing; most people won't care if they're bad, but they still feel anxious about it. If somebody really wants to do something, it will rarely be an issue.

how is this relevant to your point at all

[–]Embogenous2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i do plan to argue that advertising and entertainment media aren't teaching me what it "means to be a man" or whatever you guys are so fragile and insecure about, yeah

There are basically no biological components to gender roles. Certain aspects of them are based on biology (men's physical strength, for example) but the roles themselves are purely social. Those roles came from somewhere. You might like to think that you've got total free will, complete control over yourself, but everybody is a product of their upbringing. With different parents, with a different upbringing, you could far smarter or far stupider, you could be racist, heavily religious, and so on. Your personality will be based on certain genetic factors, and your choices when growing up will be too (e.g. people who have perfect pitch are more likely to get into music, people who are physically strong and aggressive are more likely to get into sports etc). But these only make up a small component of your personality; your political beliefs, your religious beliefs, your ideas of yourself - they're based on your upbringing.

Now, the places those roles come from? All over the place, and a huge variety of factors can change what affects you. Your parents will be a huge factor; your friends as a child; your perceptions of the general population (which will be mostly derived from parents/friends/teachers etc); and, as well, entertainment media and advertising. You probably aren't aware of their affect on you. But that's how they work. How many people do you think will admit to being strongly influenced by advertising? Probably not that many, but despite that, advertising works - you just can't tell how.

why would you associate with anyone who does have a grievance with something so trivial?

It's not necessarily a matter of association; as far as I am aware (not very, but anyway) I don't know anybody who actually objects to it. It's very very common for people to think black people are more violent than white. Not a conscious belief, not in a way they'd notice, but they'll get more scared or suspicious of black people than they would white. The same is true of involved fathers; people have a biased view that mothers are the default parent. This is largely due to pedophilia scare culture and the (false) gendered association of men with child abuse.

And I'll take this opportunity to remind you that you don't actually know the exact opinions of all your friends about it. There's a good chance you know a (serious) racist without realizing it, there's a good chance you know a rapist, or a rape victim, or somebody who was beaten by their parents as a chil, without you being aware of it. Unless everybody you know trusts you well enough to tell you their most intimate secrets, and you've actually asked them about it or put them in a situation where they would tell, you can't actually know for sure; you're just assuming based on what you know of their personality.

The people you know also aren't the only factor. Here's one example; I don't personally know anybody that thinks girls are worse at computers. Despite that, do you not think that is a belief that causes for women that are into them? Many women report discrimination and such viewpoints being expressed. Men who get into childcare are a similar story. There are double standards like women being able to change both genders but men only being allowed to change boys (same for assisting to bathroom), parents complaining about male teachers, men being harassed for being around their own children, and so on. You don't choose who is in the mall when you go shopping, or the parents of the kids who sign up at your school, so you can't choose everybody you associate with.

And then there's media. Even if you have a magical brain that somehow works differently to everybody else's, many men do base their notions of manhood on media. Don't forget, there are a huge number of boys who grow up with single mothers with mostly female teachers (including myself). Are the men in movies, admired by all, not their natural role models?

are you (as in this subreddit as a whole) honestly that frightened of being judged by homophobes... and morons clinging to antiquated gender stereotypes?

No. It doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

how is this relevant to your point at all

It was an analogy; men might sometimes like to, say, play with a child on a bus, but avoid it because they feel anxious about it. Even if nobody around them cared, they could still not do so. This extends to greater things; even if a man's friends and family have assured him they don't see anything wrong with him being a stay at home dad, he may still feel ashamed of it.

[–]sufrt1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are basically no biological components to gender roles.

this is pretty disingenuous given your next couple points but i guess this issue's beside the point anyway

and tangentially related but since we're talking about biology don't you think it's also disingenuous to mention circumcision in the OP, since it has nothing to do with cultural perceptions of gender roles while the far more barbaric practice of female circumcision does?

You might like to think that you've got total free will, complete control over yourself, but everybody is a product of their upbringing.

well yeah but completely ignoring all agency regarding the types of influences you choose to consume and reject once you're capable of doing so is a pretty serious cop out. let's not pretend personality/self-image is entirely static

It's very very common for people to think black people are more violent than white.

i know you're trying to illustrate a point but conflating the cultural stigmatization of black people with apocryphal stories of isolated incidents of men "being harassed" for taking their kids out in public doesn't really strike me as the proper perspective on this issue. certainly doesn't make the self-pity on this subreddit seem any less hyperbolic

The same is true of involved fathers; people have a biased view that mothers are the default parent.

this is pretty clearly a biological thing. but aside from custody issues which i agree are definitely problematic, you still haven't really given me any reason to move beyond "who cares what some shortsighted idiots think" ("men can't change diapers at daycare," when compared to institutional legislation over women's bodies, doesn't really seem proportional to the warpath this subreddit is on)

and as far as the "default parent" stereotype goes, i'd guess that's not so much related to society believing "men are by definition unfit to be single parents" as it is related to the biological freedom of men to abandon the mother of their children and the relative frequency with which it happens vs. the other way around, as well as the stronger bonds that often develop with mothers and children given how couples choose to raise their kids

And then there's media. Even if you have a magical brain that somehow works differently to everybody else's, many men do base their notions of manhood on media. Don't forget, there are a huge number of boys who grow up with single mothers with mostly female teachers (including myself). Are the men in movies, admired by all, not their natural role models?

shallow, one-dimensional role models aren't unique to men, and there's certainly nothing equivalent to or as ubiquitous/insidious as the objectification rampant in media presentation of females

This extends to greater things; even if a man's friends and family have assured him they don't see anything wrong with him being a stay at home dad, he may still feel ashamed of it.

i still think the problematic aspects of issues like this are more related to homophobia and stereotypes associated with gay men than anything else, and that's a separate issue from the cultural stigmatization of women

and i mean just to address the other issues in the OP, (iraq war deaths, workplace fatalities, "provider" role etc.) aren't those things some of the obvious repercussions of a historically patriarchal society?

[–]Embogenous2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

this is pretty disingenuous given your next couple points

Aspects of the roles are developed from biological differences, but we do not adhere to the roles if we are not raised with them - in a society where gender roles were reversed, the average person's ideals would be very different, but those reversed roles are unlikely to happen.

and tangentially related but since we're talking about biology don't you think it's also disingenuous to mention circumcision in the OP, since it has nothing to do with cultural perceptions of gender roles while the far more barbaric practice of female circumcision does?

It's a double standard where the harm of girls is abhorred and the harm of boys is shrugged off.

completely ignoring all agency regarding the types of influences you choose to consume and reject

But the choices you make are influenced by your upbringing. With a different upbringing, you would choose differently.

i know you're trying to illustrate a point but conflating the cultural stigmatization of black people with apocryphal stories of isolated incidents of men "being harassed" for taking their kids out in public doesn't really strike me as the proper perspective on this issue.

I didn't say they were as common as each other, it was an analogy.

this is pretty clearly a biological thing.

So why is it that there are many species where the female produces the children, but the father raises them? Is there some secret to their reproduction that makes it different than for humans? Is ours biological and theirs cultural?

("men can't change diapers at daycare," when compared to institutional legislation over women's bodies, doesn't really seem proportional to the warpath this subreddit is on)

You're arguing that dismissing men's issues is okay because women's issues are worse (and in fact, saying that one specific women's issue is worse than one specific men's issue)? If not, please reword without the oppression olympics because that's how it reads.

if i'm wrong but i'd guess they're not so much related to society believing "men are by definition unfit to be single parents" as they are the result of the relative biological freedom of men to abandon their families

It affects men when they do want to stay with their children, so clearly not.

the stronger bonds that often develop with mothers and children given how couples choose to raise their kids

Any evidence a mother's bond is stronger?

shallow, one-dimensional role models aren't unique to men, and there's certainly nothing equivalent to or as ubiquitous/insidious as the objectification rampant in media presentation of females

How is this relevant? Nowhere have I argued there aren't complimentary issues for women. You are moving the goalposts.

The argument is that men's decisions are influenced by media. You have disputed this by saying women have the same media affecting them.

i still think the problematic aspects of issues like this are more related to homophobia and stereotypes associated with gay men than anything else, and that's a separate issue from the cultural stigmatization of women

I'm sure it's entirely possible to rationalize that, but even if it's true, it's still creating a problem - if a particular type of misogyny causes a problem for men and not a problem for women, then men are the ones who need aid and mocking their struggles is not productive.

But as I said, I think that's poor rationalization anyway. Men are shamed for liking children for two main reasons, in my opinion; there's pedophilie hysteria/the perception men are the only abusers/often abusers, and the shaming that comes from doing something that is traditionally feminine. Now, the latter is purely a male problem; the second is a problem for both genders. However, it is typically portrayed purely as misogny - saying women are inferior, rather than just saying men should act like men (and in cases where women are shamed for acting like men, it's again misogyny, demonstrating pretty clearly how bullshit it is).

[–]sufrt1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a double standard where the harm of girls is abhorred and the harm of boys is shrugged off.

not saying you can't make a case against circumcision but they're so vastly different in intent and lasting harm that there's nothing even close to a "double standard" here, and it's certainly much less of a "men's rights" issue than it is a religious one, while female circumcision is certainly related to the perception of females and their supposed roles

But the choices you make are influenced by your upbringing. With a different upbringing, you would choose differently.

not really convinced that that's the case to such an extent that it's a legitimate basis for some kind of anti-male cultural epidemic. everyone raised in a racist/homophobic/gender-role-enforcing household carries those views with them?

I didn't say they were as common as each other, it was an analogy.

right, but invoking that analogy reinforces that there's little if any reason for this subreddit to exist. i mean, like i mentioned, most of the shit you guys are invoking as "problems" are direct or indirect results of a historically patriarchal society

So why is it that there are many species where the female produces the children, but the father raises them? Is there some secret to their reproduction that makes it different than for humans? Is ours biological and theirs cultural?

not trying to justify it, just clarifying

It affects men when they do want to stay with their children, so clearly not.

edited to clarify before you posted this

oppression olympics

easy way to brush off a relevant concern. it's not that women's oppression is "worse," it's that i have yet to see any demonstration of male oppression proportional to the hysteria and self-pity of this subreddit. beyond custody issues (which, again, i agree are problematic) and feeling embarrassed to listen to tori amos or something, what issues have you raised that are cause for concern? i mean yeah of course a man should be able to interact with a kid in public without being called a pedophile, but that requires invoking the concept of civil rights?

Any evidence a mother's bond is stronger?

you don't think the vast majority of couples choose to designate the mother as the nuturer/caregiver/etc. (another holdover from a more aggressive patriarchy)? it may be a stereotypical "role" but it's a remnant from the times when "men's rights" was redundant, and when it becomes easier for women to enter the workforce it'll be less prevalent

How is this relevant? Nowhere have I argued there aren't complimentary issues for women. You are moving the goalposts.

they're more than "complimentary," as i pointed out

I'm sure it's entirely possible to rationalize that, but even if it's true, it's still creating a problem - if a particular type of misogyny causes a problem for men and not a problem for women, then men are the ones who need aid and mocking their struggles is not productive.

the entire concept invites mockery though, given that policy, discourse, norms. etc are still largely dictated by men, and the examples of the struggles that you're claiming men have to deal with are infinitesimal compared to the struggles of legitimately marginalized groups. who instilled what you perceive as the cultural shame for stay at home dads? can't you see why it's ridiculous to complain about the "shame" of that role when it's a product of women having been historically forced into it?

But as I said, I think that's poor rationalization anyway. Men are shamed for liking children for two main reasons, in my opinion; there's pedophilie hysteria/the perception men are the only abusers/often abusers, and the shaming that comes from doing something that is traditionally feminine. Now, the latter is purely a male problem; the second is a problem for both genders. However, it is typically portrayed purely as misogny - saying women are inferior, rather than just saying men should act like men (and in cases where women are shamed for acting like men, it's again misogyny, demonstrating pretty clearly how bullshit it is).

you lost me at the unclear antecedent in the fourth sentence, can you clarify this

[–]Embogenous2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

they're so vastly different in intent and lasting harm that there's nothing even close to a "double standard" here

There are multiple types of FGM; including ritualistically drawing blood from the clitoris by pricking it, removal of the inner labia, removal of the clitoral hood etc. All types of FGM, including these, are illegal.

not trying to justify it, just clarifying

No, I'm seriously asking; you said it was biological in nature, I want an explanation of how you know that, factoring in other animals with the same reproductive method and different child-raising paradigms.

easy way to brush off a relevant concern

It's not relevant to this particular topic; I'm not brushing it off, I'm saying that you are not actually supporting your point by bringing it up.

you don't think the vast majority of couples choose to designate the mother as the nuturer/caregiver/etc. (another holdover from a more aggressive patriarchy)?

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you meant that the bond was naturally/inherently stronger, rather than that they generally are in our society.

they're more than "complimentary," as i pointed out

But you're still moving the goalposts, you aren't supporting your argument - that doesn't disprove me in any way.

the entire concept invites mockery though, given that policy, discourse, norms. etc are still largely dictated by men,

Policy is dictated by men - but you are fallaciously assuming that means it is dictated FOR men. The people who deal with laws happen to be male; but just because we share genitalia, doesn't mean they're acting in my interests. There is far more legal pandering to women than there is to men.

The same is true of norms; it's a group of people who happen to be male, not "men" as a group. And women have plenty of control in this arena.

the examples of the struggles that you're claiming men have to deal with are infinitesimal compared to the struggles of legitimately marginalized groups

Here's my post listing some men's rights issues. Can you please explain how women's problems are so great that they make all of these trivial?

Also, the issue is the entire point of the image - that people actually care about the struggles of other groups, but not men.

you lost me at the unclear antecedent in the fourth sentence, can you clarify this

A greater elabortion of the prior paragraph.

I was complaining about the a double standard. When a man acts feminine, he is shamed - the reason for this shaming is asserted to be because femininity is viewed as inferior, and thus it is misogyny.

When a woman acts masculine, she is shamed - the reason for this shaming is asserted to be because she is reaching above her station, taking power that belongs to men for herself, and thus it is misogyny.

This should automatically smell fishy. Two situations that are complimentary - and in both, the woman is a victim and the man is not. I'm saying that the reason for this is a bunch of bullshit rationalization by people who want to portray it that way - it's not taking the information and drawing an unbiased conclusion, it's setting out to prove that men are never oppressed and women always are and looking at information that helps "prove" that.

[–]Alanna1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

don't you think it's also disingenuous to mention circumcision in the OP, since it has nothing to do with cultural perceptions of gender roles while the far more barbaric practice of female circumcision does?

How do either of them have anything to do with gender roles? Both are designed to control sexuality by minimizing sexual pleasure. Seriously, compare this:

A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.

and

a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice

with these Islamist ideas on female circumcision.

apocryphal stories of isolated incidents of men "being harassed" for taking their kids out in public

There's actually a number of posts of news stories of men harassed by mall security, airport security, random people, or law enforcement for being out with children. They are not apocryphal, nor do they seem to be all that isolated.

That's if you want to call the dozens and dozens of men who have shared personal stories of similar incidents in this subreddit liars.

apocryphal stories of isolated incidents of men "being harassed" for taking their kids out in public

Yeah, you want to know why it matters? Beyond feel-good social engineering gender role bullshit? Because of NOW's consistent and vehement opposition to shared custody and fathers rights:

NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder - Regardless of whether you think PAD is a real thing or not, this page would leave you thinking that women never say horrible untrue things about their exes to their kids (with or without the intention of alienating them) and that only abusive dads/partners would bring up these nasty lies in custody hearings. Note the effort to discredit fathers' rights groups (like Glenn Sacks's Fathers & Families) as "populated" with "batterers, child abusers, and pedophiles," that they offer no scientific evidence that it's not a real disorder (though they claim it is "scientifically discredited"), and they imply that all men going through a divorce or breakup are in imminent danger of killing their kids or exes.

The Crisis in Family Law Courts - All about how women face discrimination in family courts because men who do abuse will (surprise, surprise) continue to attempt to abuse through the court system. However, the implication is that any man who seeks custody of his children must only be doing so to abuse them or, at the very least, abuse his ex by depriving her of her kids.

Custody Preparation for Moms - Not actually on the NOW website, but linked by the NOW Foundation as a good resource for mothers in custody battles. Note the assumed primacy and supremacy of motherhood over fatherhood, and the demonization of fathers as abusers and all around terrible people.

[–]sufrt1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RathboneLLJK -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RathboneLLJK1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RathboneLLJK0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]foresthill1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RathboneLLJK1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your study on penile cancer appears far from conclusive. The American Cancer Society says:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

This site, admittedly anti-circumcision, rebutts the penile cancer arguments with a number of studies and facts.

Penile cancer is ridiculously rare. NO organization recommends routine infant circumcision to prevent it. The closest they come is mentioning it as a possible benefit and saying it should be up to the parents.

Am I missing something on the genital warts study? It doesn't seem to mention circumcision at ALL. However, I am willing to bet any amount of money you like that the HPV vaccine and condoms are both more effective at preventing HPV than circumcision.

And did you even read your study on genital warts?

Circumcised men were more likely than uncircumcised men to have genital warts

Plus, these are not organizations recommending routine/universal infant circumcision. They are simply studies showing statistics on various correlations between male afflictions and circumcision.

I can save you the trouble, though; there is no major medical organization on earth that recommends routine infant circumcision. None. Even in the US. And there are several that recommend against it (Sweden, I believe is one), and are moving to ban it altogether.

[–]foresthill1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]eirawyn 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dranosh -39 points-38 points-37 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]RalfN 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RalfN 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RalfN 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

My point was just that these pills have a purpose for certain females completely outside of the morals related to sex.

That's not how you phrased it, particularly in this comment (you posted a similar one further up). You made it sound, as I said, as if every woman is on birth control and requires it monthly to function as a human being.

Could you please, also, stop consistently calling us "females?" You sound like a Ferengi.

Aspirin can help with heart issues, but it's not classified suddenly as a beta-blocker, it's still an analgesic. Birth control pills are still contraception, regardless of other reasons they may be prescribed.

How are these pills any different, morally speaking, than any other health related pill? I dont see it.

That's a different question. I was primarily objecting to the blanket way you were saying all or even most women need birth control to be productive.

For men's rights, the difference is that they are exclusively needed by women, while several medications for men, such as Viagra, are not.

Edit: I see in your other comment you're from Holland; I'm guessing English isn't your first language? That explains the "females" thing, and there's probably a cultural difference in how we view birth control. It would be nice if it were less stigmatized in the US, that's for sure.

[–]ShetlandJames 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RalfN -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShetlandJames 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShetlandJames 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShetlandJames 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strange_Dragons 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nathanjosephcole -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feddau 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xatmatwork 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feddau 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pooballs 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]l80 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What's scary about both is that there's this idea that men should have more "rights" than women, and it keeps coming up again. What's scary about the men's issues is that they almost never enter a conversation, and when they do it's awkward. Edit: To clarify, this isn't meant to undermine the importance of men's issues. They aren't MEN's issues any more than "women's issues" are exclusive to women. These are human rights issues. What's frightening is that the conversation of rape in prison is either joked about or ignored. Presumably because we just can't handle having a frank discussion about these very real problems. The same goes for a lot of the other items on that list.

With regard to circumcision, however, it is a relief to see that more parents are educating themselves about it. It's no longer taken for granted, as it is a difficult decision. Right or wrong, at least people are thinking about it a lot more.

Not really a full response or point by point discussion, just my thoughts. Overall, definitely good. I think the problem that you address (but kind of don't overcome) is that there's this idea that one is worse than the other. These shouldn't be comparisons, so much as, "Okay, that's a really important issue. But so is this."

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]feddau 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]geodebug -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm circumcised and while it has changed the look and possibly the sensitivity of my cock I don't spend any time thinking about it or has it reduced my sexual function or enjoyment by any measurable amount. I don't feel like a victim because of it and millions of would agree.

That is not the same as saying I support circumcision. I chose not to get my son nipped because I feel it is useless and don't follow any religion.

So yeah, there are tons of women's issues and men's issues that are orders of magnitude greater in importance than male circumcision; especially when you consider issues beyond first-world problems.

That doesn't mean I don't support more education and pressure to get rid of circumcision. Just you asked for a ranking and I place it way below parental-rights, abortion rights, devorce-equity, rape (men and women), over-imprisonment, homelessness, poverty, failing education system, ....

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchZodiac 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchZodiac 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 96 points97 points98 points 14 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -35 points-34 points-33 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -33 points-32 points-31 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -26 points-25 points-24 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -20 points-19 points-18 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mainsworth-7 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]ENTP5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]throwaway62372 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcoe3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]mainsworth -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoegazer666 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Energy_Turtle 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]fwekeeto 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't really understand the "women don't do an equal amount of work" part. I've really never met a stay at home mom in my generation. I think the main argument is that women who do the same amount of work don't get paid the same wages for the same job. A different argument is that men could get paid more because they have different jobs with different work. But, that's more of a hiring bias than anything. In all of the jobs I've had where there was heavy lifting to be done, where the wage was slightly higher, the management always hired men. I'm a girl and I wouldn't mind doing some heavy lifting. But I know no one would ever give me that job, because people see women as weaker. Maybe it makes sense if you're hiring all muscly men to do it versus cushy girls, but a lot of the guys look pretty lean and small.

[–]Celda 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't really understand the "women don't do an equal amount of work" part.

They work fewer hours at far less dangerous jobs. That is pretty simple to understand.

Women work [(44/56)x100]=78% as much time as men. (Kind of explains the pay gap by itself doesn't it?)

I think the main argument is that women who do the same amount of work don't get paid the same wages for the same job.

Except that they do(not always, sometimes they get paid less and sometimes more). The gap disappears when you account for hours worked. Also note that men work more overtime and full time jobs while women work more part time. The first two are supposed to pay more so there actually should be a pay gap. Also hazard pay stemming from the fact that men die on the job [(93/7)x100]=1329% as much as women do, should make it a pretty big gap. But it doesn't, when you account for hours worked, the gap suddenly goes away. So who is really being paid unfairly?

[–]nycjohndoe 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nycjohndoe 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women work less. Therefore women don't do an equal amount of work

this does not follow. saying women work less hours at their job in aggregate across the entire employed labor pool is not the same as women do less work. simplifying the point down to fewer words in this case is lazy and needlessly combative. firstly because saying that one 'works' only if one is paid by an employer for it is a poor definition of work, secondly because defining work as a function of 'hours spent at the jobsite' is also a poor definition of work. questions of efficiency, productivity and effectiveness are the natural and obvious follow-ups.

you cannot compare meaningfully the amount of work a teacher does to a what a lumberjack does because they do vastly different things. Inherent to the compensation of those things are risk, supply/demand, and the availability of substitutes profiles of the applicants which again is too varied to be meaningfully compared. ie should teachers be paid more/less than lumberjacks regardless of gender?.

[–]shady8x 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

saying women work less hours at their job in aggregate across the entire employed labor pool is not the same as women do less work.

English is not my native language so I may not be understanding this correctly but, I though that is exactly what it meant. Both are talking about women in general rather than any specific woman that may do less or far more work than most/any man... Can you explain the difference? Why does no one call feminists out on this when they shorten things to 'women earn less'?

firstly because saying that one 'works' only if one is paid by an employer for it is a poor definition of work, secondly because defining work as a function of 'hours spent at the jobsite' is also a poor definition of work.

Take that complaint to the department of labor. I am using their definition of work. I think I heard that it includes volunteering and unpaid internships(though I am not entirely certain about that, might have been something else). Personally I am pissed off that they don't include forced labor done by prisoners which are paid 40 cents an hour...

you cannot compare meaningfully the amount of work a teacher does to a what a lumberjack does because they do vastly different things. Inherent to the compensation of those things are risk, supply/demand, and the availability of substitutes profiles of the applicants which again is too varied to be meaningfully compared.

Which is why I don't attempt to do so. I merely show hours worked, which is what people are paid for and what our government considers to be work.

ie should teachers be paid more/less than lumberjacks regardless of gender?.

Everyone should be paid regardless of their gender. As for which profession should have greater wages, that depends on societies need for that profession and the amount of people willing to go into it.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shadowsoal 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wasniahC 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dr_Scientist_ 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This lays out in some fairly well spoken and easy to understand terms for real challenges within masculine culture. However, I'm worried that the juxtaposition of the women's issues is overly combative. Why should the picture representing women be one of glamorous dilettantes and the men be a mosaic of diverse solidarity? The cause and effect relationship explaining the decades old phenomenon of lower real wages for women makes it sound like women are making an independent choice to work less rather than one which is forced. It's also hugely untrue for many people and getting into it goes back a few weeks to a supposed gaffe an Obama staffer made in saying Mrs. Romney never worked a day in her life.

Of course raising children is difficult. Of course it requires labor equal to or greater to that of a nine to five job. That is not the point. For most women in America the option to stay at home and not work was never theirs. To stay at home and not make money is a enormous luxury not on the table for many women. Having kids does not eliminate your demand for resources but magnifies it; it should increase societal factors pushing you into the labor force and not out of it.

But again, you do a great job of spelling out the other side of the equation. This is a very neat reminder that it's not perfect being a man. Just like magic, the consequences of Gender roles are like a sword with no hilt. There is no safe way to wield it. I think you've capture the male side of this excellently. The way it is supposed to be used to interpret the female side of the image though is leery.

[–]tanalilt 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfallibleBiship 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sicinfit 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You say this now, but when push comes to shove which voice is louder? Which platform gains ground faster? In fact, uttering the words "men's rights" detracts credibility from a lot of conversations because it's so heavily stigmatized.

You do realize that the reason this subreddit exists is because the idea of "women's rights" have been around for so long, and so thoroughly campaigned throughout the world that it's stomped out any similar discussion for the opposite sex? In the ideal world, we don't need to discuss either subject, or we could just merge it into a single "rights for all humans". But that isn't the case, and female-specific policies are pushed out faster and more smoothly than anything else because it gains support exponentially faster, while similar policies regarding males are often completely ignored or even ridiculed.

I could draw on the case of rape for both genders to support my argument, but I'm afraid the self-serving cunts of SRS are already on my case, so I'll spare them the trouble. The bottom line is: you need to make up your mind. Either treat both genders absolutely equally, or suffer topics like this being posted in subreddits like this. It's really that simple, however illogical it may seem.

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]RyanLikesyoface 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatGuy20 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandalin 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandalin 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Corsaer 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

This only "needs" to be stated because people mistake opposition to feminism as opposition to women's rights and/or misogyny.

Edit: Just read your reply to the original comment -- how on earth can you post, in the same comment thread, that "Gender rights aren't about 1 gender vs. another gender. It's about 1 gender vs. society's treatment of them." needs to be said more often in here, and then turn around and blame "a lot of the ideas of the ideal female form" on the "male gaze"? Isn't that exactly what you're doing???

OP's point was that women do put this pressure on themselves. They may do it for male attention, but that doesn't mean that it isn't still in their heads. They think guys want anorexic thin, that doesn't mean that they do. And actually, if you read comments from "pro-ana" sites, it's rarely about male attention at all, it's all about control over your life and your body and a personal ideal of beauty.

[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

First of all, it's empirically false. Certainly some things are marketed to straight men, but if you watch daytime television, for example, almost nothing is marketed to men at all-- it's all to elderly people, stay-at-home moms, and kids. Prime time it's a pretty even mix, but I have to say the few commercials I do see (I don't have cable, but I see commercials on YouTube and Hulu sometimes) are generally horribly insulting to men-- like many sitcoms, they feature hapless, stupid dads and husbands getting verbally and sometimes physically beat up by their wives and children. It's like generalizing beer and male soap commercials and rap videos to all of pop culture.

In any case, it's heavily implied throughout that this phenomenon of the "male gaze" is something that is instituted and perpetuated, consciously or unconsciously, by men for the benefit/advancement of men, at the expense of women. The very phrase "male gaze" implies an ownership or responsibility to men. The "Finally Feminism 101" FAQ I linked to above says, "According to Wikipedia the gaze is a concept used for 'analysing visual culture… that deals with how an audience views the people presented.' The types of gaze are primarily categorized by who is doing the looking." Emphasis mine. I never said it was something active that "men are telling women to do," but it definitely appears to be something men are (supposedly) actively doing to women.

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

[–]Lecks -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]significantshrinkage -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Senor_Porfirio 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is why the reddits men's rights movement blows. Hard. Instead of seeking empowerment, and putting forth a confident, dignified voice, it wails about phony injustices that just make them look like little bitches. This is why no one takes you seriously. You play the victim card constantly, for the most ridiculous things.

There's nothing wrong and everything right with pointing out flagrant injustices, like false rape accusations and rigged marriage laws. But seriously - crying about dangerous jobs into which men enter willingly and excitedly? About how most prisoners are men!?!? What sort of reality do you live in, that these facts bother you? Men today are not so androgynous that they commit violent crimes at a rate equal to women.

It seems like a ton of the guys here identify with 'men's rights' precisely because they HATE living up to masculine ideals. They are the male equivalent of feminists, who have made feminism from the outset a strident attempt to be like men and suppress femininity. These are the sorts of men who want to see women working in traditionally male jobs. These are the men who want women to take combat positions in the military, despite the inevitably deleterious impact on combat effectiveness, just to obliterate any remaining distinctions between the sexes. Manly men make them look bad and feel bad, so they want to abolish sexual distinctions altogether, just as girly, attractive women motivate feminists to try and abolish femininity.

Me, I like being a man, being confident, funny, aggressive and ballsy. I like it when women act like women, eg sweet, feminine and loving.

*OTOH, I think prison rape is a scandal and that 'ladies first' is nonsense.

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But seriously - crying about dangerous jobs into which men enter willingly and excitedly? About how most prisoners are men!?!?

The point is the double standard. When there is a statistical gender skewing favoring men, feminists call it discrimination against women-- such as in education, politics, and high-level executive jobs. It's not enough to show that, for instance, men prefer STEM jobs more than women, we have to examine the social causes beyond that-- are we sending messages to little girls that math and science and computers are too hard for them? But when 90% of the prison population is male, or 90% of workplace deaths are male, or men commit suicide at 3 times the rate-- that's all men's fault.

Regarding prison, there the issue of bias in our laws and courts against men-- men are more likely to be charged and convicted of a crime, and receive harsher sentences for the same crimes. You yourself mentioned false rape claims-- see The Innocence Project for a heartbreaking look at just how many innocent people, almost all men, who have been wrongfully imprisoned or sentenced to die. That's aside from any sociological reasons for male criminals-- especially minorities-- that are less obvious.

Regarding dangerous jobs and workplace deaths-- one important component of this is that a perennial complaint of feminism is the wage gap. However, the popular 77 cents figure used almost everywhere was arrived at by comparing how much men make to how much women make-- not comparing hours or type of work. In fact, several studies have now noted that the wage gap does not, in fact, come from different pay for the same work, but women tend to gravitate towards certain fields (nursing, teaching, etc.) that do not pay as well. And then the issue becomes why we are "discouraging" women from these fields, or not encouraging them, and from there it's a short jump to, "why are you men keeping women from being doctors/lawyers/executives/President of the United States!?!?"

I agree there needs to be more focus on the real, practical effects of these issues and less general bitching. Still, a lot of these guys need a place to vent.

[–]cthulufunk 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yup. I know several guys who sell drugs in order to make their CS payments. Two in particular ended up in that rut because they had well-paying jobs that dried up. They went to court to get their payments reduced and the judge denied their respective petitions. They ended up in jail under contempt of court for failure to pay and when they finally got out, they had jail time on their records and couldn't find any other reasonable work.

So now they sell drugs to keep up their payments and keep out of jail. There was another guy who also did it, but I just got hired to DJ his "End of CS" party. Yup...he's having a party to celebrate his last child turning 21 and the end of his having to make CS payments.

Isn't that the ultimate irony? These men have to risk possible incarceration for one crime so they can avoid certain incarceration for another one.

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only one of those guys who is a baller is the one who's throwing the party. The other guys are small time and just selling weed. The one who is doing the party is big time. But he always prided himself on being a stand up guy who paid for his kids.

He had children with three different women and he made sure to put "a little extra" in his CS payments. The mothers weren't going to turn him in because they didn't want the gravy train to stop.

The funny thing is that family services does no accounting for where the money comes from. They don't care; just as long as they are getting their cut above board, they are perfectly happy. What I'm waiting for is for Family services to deny a petition from either the IRS or the DEA about one of these dealing baby-daddys because they don't want the loot train to stop.

[–]blackkevinDUNK -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]American83 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]larsao3 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dranosh -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jahasalknife -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Democritus477 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Big_Shot_Jack 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lecks 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]A_Nihilist -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chollly 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]spicy_jose -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jahasalknife -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, getting ripped is like 2-5 gym sessions a week, perfect diet with cut and bulk cycles, somehow avoid getting injured, and keep it up for a couple of years.

Achieving the 'ideal' female body, slim, is as simple as reducing calorie intake by 20% a day. Do they do that though? No, they do retarded weight-loss programs, repetitive cardio, and gimmick classes, designed to keep the hamster on a constant cycle of novelty and quick fixes.

I have gone from 100kg to 85kg in just over 2 months before. Its not hard. The standard for women (What they have the power to change) is fucking easy compared to men.

And I think, for younger guys, being ripped, is the aesthetic ideal, and we do see it in a lot of places and will continue to see more of it, as the markets and advertising capitalize on our evolutionary / learned desire to project strength. Not to mention a lot of men will look to this as a means of attracting women, who, are predisposed to like a healthy body, but for the most part, will still be attracted to you based on social proof anyway.

[–]ignatiusloyola 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]found314 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrJMaxted0291 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FisherKing22 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FisherKing22 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]foresthill[S] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStonedOne 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStonedOne 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]foresthill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]pkurk 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]zacheadams 14 years ago [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why you have listed circumcision on there. It is not an all-risks, no-reward thing, and it is hotly contested in the medical community.

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]rlaptop7 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mchaydu 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mchaydu 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree with your last statement. As a parent, it is your job to make important decisions for your child.

Everything from what they eat, where they sleep, where they go to school...etc. When they can't decide for themselves, you decide for them.

That being said, circumcision is totally within the realm of parental decision making, as the parent is making a jugement call on behalf of their child. They are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of their child (descrease in UTI susceptibility growing up, cosmetic ideation). Up until you are cognizant of the world around you and can make your own decisions, your parents are in charge of making these decisions for you. For better or for worse.

There are tons of ways parents fuck their children up. Too many. And they happen daily. Electing to have their child circumcised is, honestly, the least of my concerns and, in my humble opinion, one of the least-damaging "evils" a parent could do.

All of this being said, I am not a parent yet. When I am, I will do my research, consider the more relevant studies, and make my decisions from there.

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with your last statement. As a parent, it is your job to make important decisions for your child.

To a point. It is not your job to make permanent cosmetic or religious decisions for him though. You might think it is, but that child will be an adult someday, who has the right to an intact body and will worship as he pleases (or not).

I was raised Jewish, and I am especially against the religious arguments. There are no Jewish newborns, only babies born to Jewish parents. They want to bring him to services, put him through religious school, teach him Hebrew, whatever, none of that's permanent and the kid can make his mind what he wants to believe as he gets older. But he can never get his foreskin back.

Almost every non-religious circumcision is done due to some kind of social pressure or ignorance.

That being said, circumcision is totally within the realm of parental decision making, as the parent is making a jugement call on behalf of their child.

It's not for parents of girls.

They are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of their child (descrease in UTI susceptibility growing up, cosmetic ideation).

If parents think children look better with their eyebrows permanently removed with electrolysis, or their ears cut off, should we let them do that too? Do we let parents take their kids into the hospital and order them to remove tonsils or appendices?

All of this being said, I am not a parent yet. When I am, I will do my research, consider the more relevant studies, and make my decisions from there.

Please do so. There's a lot of information out there. There is literally no good reason to circumcise your son. The health benefits are all either of a very small margin, better accomplished other ways, or so rare as to be irrelevant. Fewer and fewer boys are being circumcised, so it's no longer a social issue, if that was ever a good reason. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits there is no link between circumcision and better hygiene. And there's always the chance, however small, that your child could end up like David Reimer. While it's true that severe complications like that are relatively rare, considering it is (usually) an entirely unnecessary procedure, there's no reason why any child should end up like that.

[+]zacheadams 14 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

That's quite the generalization there.

I'm going to take the cue and leave here, but this is a gentle (albeit obvious) reminder that logical fallacies and aggressions/personal attacks against minor dissent are not going to help your cause.

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mchaydu 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]forgotpasswordd -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zacheadams1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]significantshrinkage -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]NutsChasingSquirrels 14 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I think this is counterproductive. It isn't about us vs them or who has it worse, it should be about equality. True equality. This only serves to undermine the cause, and make it look like bickering back and forth with feminists, which won't get anyone anywhere.

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

[–]RedHyphen 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is is that you aren't showing problems that ARE similar.

Similar in that they are both legitimate problems. I wasn't going to try and make exact mirrors, I just wanted to show that both sides have problems.

And then you make two statements at the end that came from where? The "man the fuck up" is usually said from other guys in my experience.

This is from my own experience. Yeah, a lot of the times it is men saying "man the fuck up" but it doesn't matter that they are men. The problem isn't that women ignore/denounce men's rights. The problem is that society in general does, men and women both.

men's genital mutilation problem mostly came from a religious background/health problems from a long time ago.

It doesn't matter where it came from, it's that it needs to be stopped. Female genital mutilation, stoning adulterers, and executing gay people all have religious backgrounds but that doesn't stop them from being banned in developed countries. Circumcision is still legal because it's a men's rights issue and that movement isn't taken seriously.

[–]Vikingdiapers1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TalesAbound0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gakukun -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gakukun 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]he_cried_out_WTF 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PublicStranger -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sunshine-In-a-Bag-7 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]helllomoto -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]nottoosirius -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iLoginToComment -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bosh-head 14 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

We made up 98% of Iraq War Deaths

It's quite disturbing that the solution you seem to be proposing to this problem is more dead women. Would that really make it better?

It's similar to how you complain about workplace deaths... Now, I'm all for laws that would increase workplace safety, and and I'm all for creating better economic conditions for the average person such that people wouldn't feel the need to take dangerous jobs.

But I don't see how having women die on the job would be an improvement in any way.

The difference between MRAs and feminists, besides the obvious, is that when feminists identify a misery that is inflicting women, they want to eliminate it or lessen it. You want to spread it around, you want women to face whatever it is you do, without actually improving society overall.

Anyway, these are volunteer jobs, what are you going to do, force women into them so that they die? Not to mention, because there are physical standards for some of these jobs, and because of sexual dimorphism, there's always going to be a higher % of men that are qualified to do those dangerous jobs that require strenuous physical work.

[–]Jahasalknife 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're simply implying and assuming arguments that were never made. You're making things up, discrediting them, and pretending as if you've identified some huge non-existent fallacy. Can I also say that, your post sounds like a troll and people won't take you seriously if you word it the way you have. Using words like 'It's similar to how you complain about' and the illogical condescending points. Show a bit of courtesy and give people the benefit of the doubt, it will go a long way.

The reason, as I see it, the post draws attention to the high proportion of combat and workforce deaths, is not to enforce affirmative action where we all die in equal numbers, but to draw attention to an issue that affects men for the majority and to discredit the idea of special treatment for some.

Men are treated as disposable in society, women are not. By juxtaposing the two, we can highlight the inequality, and work on reducing male disposability. By demonstrating the high proportion of men dying in these jobs, we also show why affirmative action and women's privilege is unreasonable.

Why should the value of women face to face with men be artificially inflated? Why should women be given special entrance into University courses among other things? Why should the issue of lower female CEOs and lower female this that and the other stimulate interventionist policy and male guilt, when we don't hear about women wanting to fight in gender segregated units, or have better access to being underground coal miners?

It sounds to me like the women's agenda, the one that gets publicized to the mainstream, wants someone to enforce equality in some areas, but keep it unequal in others. How about a world where you are judged based on your individual skills, knowledge, physical ability, and assets. Where we don't discriminate or make special rules for or against anyone. A world where if a company does not hire a female, who is better skilled than the man for the job, that company made an irrational decision and will lose money. A world where job pay is based on supply and demand. If all the soldiers, and firefighters, and miners and so on are men, it is because they possess the supply -physicality-, and if they are paid more than the women working HR in their departments, then that is perfectly rational. As, for example, perhaps the skills required to do that job, are in greater supply than the skills to be a firefighter.

Get rid of the state-centric rules and regulations. Get rid of the monster feminist privilege clings to. Let the market, an organic entity dictate things. Things sought themselves out.

[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

when we don't hear about women wanting to fight in gender segregated units

I don't know what you mean by gender segregated units, but there are groups fighting to have women allowed in combat roles which they are currently barred.

or have better access to being underground coal miners?

Why would you think access is a problem there? I imagine if a lot of women wanted to go into that industry, and were for some reason being denied, that that is something that would be fought for...

Men are treated as disposable in society, women are not.

The statistic doesn't demonstrate that.

why should the issue of lower female CEOs and lower female this that and the other stimulate interventionist policy

Because those are obviously desirable positions to hold.

wants someone to enforce equality in some areas, but keep it unequal in others

Name something they want to keep unequal.

Let the market, an organic entity dictate things.

How about no. Markets are just tools to get something done. They don't dictate our goals as a society.

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

why should the issue of lower female CEOs and lower female this that and the other stimulate interventionist policy

Because those are obviously desirable positions to hold.

No, not obviously. Those positions require HUGE amounts of personal sacrifice for professional advancement. Personal sacrifice many women don't seem willing to make. That's fine, until some of those women claim it's discrimination to not facilitate their advancement to these positions without the sacrifice that other women and men are making.

My husband makes great money doing what he loves for a major company in his field. But he pays a very high cost for it-- he works 12 hours a day, minimum, often longer, as well as every weekend, occasionally all day and night, literally. I went into this understanding the hours he'd be working, and it's hard, but the only reason it works at all is that I'm willing and able (for the most part) to take care of the kid (soon to be kids) and house. Had I not agreed to be in charge of the domestic side of things, we would never have gotten married in the first place. It's not that he's a traditionalist-- he's not-- but his career is a higher priority to him than having a family, so if he had to choose, he'd choose a career and forego the family.

Are you going to say women must forego families they want for the sake of "equality?" Or do you believe that every single one of us women who wants a family are just brainwashed by society to believe we're only good for childbearing?

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

gender segregated units

All women combat units. If a woman meets the same fitness demands as the men, and can fight in an all women unit to stop pregnancy and such then who cares.

The statistic doesn't demonstrate that.

The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate this point, and above, if you bothered to read, are the cites.

Because those are obviously desirable positions to hold.

So? Just because its a good job doesnt mean your entitled to it without earning it.

Name something they want to keep unequal.

The entire legal system / cultural privilege of women.

How about no. Markets are just tools to get something done. They don't dictate our goals as a society.

EXACTLY. They don't dictate how you should or shouldn't live, its a tool that anyone can pick up, to craft the life they want from it. Unlike the state, which is enslaves people, and FORCES them to do things.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you going to say women must forego families they want for the sake of "equality?"

No, I think it's fine that people make different choices in life. I just want them to be actual choices made on an individual level, and not influenced by any systemic sexism.

Mostly, we just want feminists to stop whining about how women make less.

Is there something wrong with saying: "Hmm, women are underrepresented in these higher-paying fields/positions. Let's see if we can find out why that is, and find out ways of making them more interested, so that we can reduce the current wage gap."?

Had I not agreed to be in charge of the domestic side of things, we would never have gotten married in the first place.

And marriage protects that division of labor arrangement that you have with your husband. In the event of a divorce, your husband would have to compensate you for the fact that you've foregone having a career in order to take care of the domestic side of things. (That decision has forever reduced your earning potential, those years of experience cannot be gotten back).

Of course if MRAs have their way in changing marriage/alimony, in the event of a divorce, you'll be out on the street living in a cardboard box.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I just want them to be actual choices made on an individual level, and not influenced by any systemic sexism.

How can you tell?

Is there something wrong with saying: "Hmm, women are underrepresented in these higher-paying fields/positions. Let's see if we can find out why that is, and find out ways of making them more interested, so that we can reduce the current wage gap."?

Because we did find out why that was-- women like babies-- and the goalposts got moved to, "Well, why do women like babies? Why don't men like babies? Are women who like babies being discriminated against?"

In the event of a divorce, your husband would have to compensate you for the fact that you've foregone having a career in order to take care of the domestic side of things. (That decision has forever reduced your earning potential, those years of experience cannot be gotten back).

True, but why should he compensate me for a choice I made? He did not deceive me in any way. I skipped out on college and career-advancing long before I met him. You make it sound like the sacrifice was all on my side, that I am suffering to meet his needs. Again, he's working 100 hour weeks and barely getting to see me and the kid(s). I'm not saying it's all roses for me-- I'm pregnant with twins and it definitely isn't-- but this is what I wanted. I wanted kids, I wanted a family, and I understood and agreed from the outset that I would get minimal physical support from him for a long time, if ever. I could have said, "No thanks, I'll go find a guy who's more willing to share the physical/time burden," but I didn't, I stuck with this one. Why does that make me entitled to compensation for my lost career time (which I never had before and never particularly wanted), but him not entitled to compensation for his loss of companionship, child care, or housework?

Of course if MRAs have their way in changing marriage/alimony, in the event of a divorce, you'll be out on the street living in a cardboard box.

And if he lost his job, he'd risk the same. Why should I get "job security" just because I'm a woman?

Incidentally, I do work too, so while my standard of living would drop somewhat, I would hardly be living out of a cardboard box.

[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How can you tell?

Research.

Because we did find out why that was-- women like babies-- and the goalposts got moved to, "Well, why do women like babies? Why don't men like babies? Are women who like babies being discriminated against?"

Sounds like those are all legitimate questions to me.

why should he compensate me for a choice I made?

1) It's a choice you made together

2) Because it's fair that you be compensated for your labor that you've agreed to do in service of your family

3) Because the alternative is a situation where the homemaker could be financially destitute after a divorce, and that puts the burden on society: to either let a person suffer or pick up the slack (financially).

And if he lost his job, he'd risk the same.

No, he wouldn't. If he lost his job, his past work has still been compensated for (in salary). If you lose your "job" (through a divorce), without community property and alimony, your work would have been not sufficiently compensated for.

Why should I get "job security" just because I'm a woman?

Nothing to do with your gender, but because you're the homemaker rather than the breadwinner.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How can you tell?

Research.

The problem is that feminists never stop at "Was having a family your choice? Yes? Okay." If a woman says it was her choice, then the question is, as you say, was she influenced to any degree by an outside influence? Well, the answer to that is obviously yes. We're all products of our upbringing, to some degree, of our friends and family and schooling and jobs and experiences. But how do you determine every single influence that goes into something like career preference or the decision to have prioritize a family, let alone determine if any given influence is "sexist," and, if it is, whether it is "systemic" or not?

It's a choice you made together

Right. So why am I the one who deserves compensation? I don't think this choice was to my detriment, but even if it was, my detriment was something I agreed to.

Because it's fair that you be compensated for your labor that you've agreed to do in service of your family

I am being compensated for it. If we were to divorce, I would no longer be performing that labor for him, but for myself and my children. Why does he owe me compensation for labor I am no longer performing for him?

Because the alternative is a situation where the homemaker could be financially destitute after a divorce, and that puts the burden on society: to either let a person suffer or pick up the slack (financially).

I'm not a conservative; I have no wish to see divorced women starving in the streets. But I still don't see why it's the ex-husband's responsibility to prevent that from happening. Not to even get into the outrageous alimonies granted to women who divorce from high-income men-- far, far more than is necessary to keep them from being homeless or starving. At the very least, alimony should be restricted to a subsistence income, and treated like unemployment insurance-- you should be trying to find a way to support yourself, not living indefinitely off your ex-husband.

And if he lost his job, he'd risk the same.

No, he wouldn't. If he lost his job, his past work has still been compensated for (in salary). If you lose your "job" (through a divorce), without community property and alimony, your work would have been not sufficiently compensated for.

Wait, what? Your argument was that if we were to get divorced, I'd be out on my ass with no income, unable to support myself. If he loses his job, he also risks being out on his ass with no income, unable to support himself. We have both been compensated for our past work-- him by his salary, me by food, shelter, clothes, creature comforts, etc. I have made no argument about community property, that's a separate debate; there is an argument to be made, depending on how long you are married, that a wife is entitled to some portion of the marital assets, even if she earned no outside income. There is also an argument to be made that, increasingly, staying at home is a luxury made possible by the hard work and sacrifices of a male (and more rarely a female) breadwinner. Either way, though, it is a separate debate from continuing to support your now ex-wife-- granting her the benefits of being married (income, security) while receiving none of them yourself.

Nothing to do with your gender, but because you're the homemaker rather than the breadwinner.

Yes, and isn't it interesting how, as women's income increases and equalizes or exceeds men's, alimony is slowly disappearing?

We'll ignore for the moment that we both know women make up the vast vast majority of homemakers. Why, then, should a homemaker be entitled to more job security than a breadwinner?

[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So why am I the one who deserves compensation?

You aren't. You're a family unit that the law recognizes. His income is your income. You're both doing work in the family unit. He is earning an income (for the family unit), you're doing domestic duties.

That's at least how it should work.

I don't think this choice was to my detriment, but even if it was, my detriment was something I agreed to.

People may not realize the risks they are undertaking when they make certain choices, and there may be unfair reasons why they end up taking those risks anyway, even if they do understand. Why set public policy in such a way as the risks are kept rather than lessened or removed?

We have both been compensated for our past work-- him by his salary, me by food, shelter, clothes, creature comforts, etc.

You think that's equal? That he gets a salary which he can put in the bank and save for the future, spend it on anything he wants, and you get food, clothes, and shelter? Are you serious?

By 'equal' I mean unless you're eating and clothing yourself in 50% of what his after-tax income is on a yearly basis... then it's not equal.

Yes, and isn't it interesting how, as women's income increases and equalizes or exceeds men's, alimony is slowly disappearing?

No, that means it's working as expected and it doesn't favor one sex over another.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]dona3000 14 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't let you cut a piece of my dick either but I guess when they do it to babies they don't really have a choice, uh?

[–]tinyheavyistiny 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tinyheavyistiny 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dona3000 14 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

He was basically saying some shit like this:

The skin on the end of the penis is different... You wouldn't let me cut the skin of your eyelid...

Not his exact words but I guess you can see it was pretty stupid...

[–]ENTP 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dona30002 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]ExpendableOne -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Particularly when said stranger may feel vulnerable/physically threatened

Feelings and predispositions which completely stem from an irrational fear of men and male sexuality. Not exactly something that should be encouraged or vindicated in the first place.

when she is simply trying to go about her day to day business.

People go about their day ever day. No one is entitled to walk in a public environment free of all public interactions; nor should women ever feel entitle to exert absolute control over others in such public places because they are women or because they have "female sensibilities". I'm sure a lot of men would love to be able to go about their day to day business without ever having to come into contact with certain people, even if that desire is based on prejudice, irrational fears or contempt, but that's not how the world works. That's not what the word "public" means.

[–]ENTP 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]ExpendableOne -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ExpendableOne -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]ExpendableOne -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People trying to get your attention or making a few harmless comments/jokes isn't harassment; nor has it ever truly hurt anyone(The only people who are hurt by any kind of attention are people who are taught they should feel hurt by that attention). Harassment would be making threats or being verbally abusive. Catcalls are neither of these things. If a woman was to yell at a man saying "hey, you're hot! Let's fuck!", how many men do you think would react in fear, contempt or violence? How many would you think would even be mad that it happened in the first place? Virtually none, simply because men aren't explicitely raised to fear, resent or hate female attention. If a homosexual man yelled the same thing to another man and he reacted the same way a woman would for any other men, they would call him homophobic(and rightly so). Those comments might be loud or crass but to define them as harassment, simply because it stems from a man(women virtually never define this type of attention from other women as harassment) or from sexual desires(which is a form of sexual shaming), is absolutely a form of misandry. Why is it still even okay for people to be offended by basic human sexuality/biology.

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

People trying to get your attention

It's unclear what you mean by this. "Hi, pretty lady!" is one thing. "Hey, there, sexy-ass" is quite another.

making a few harmless comments/jokes isn't harassment

You might be able to make a case for a single comment being "whatever," but "a few" lewd comments or jokes is definitely harassment.

nor has it ever truly hurt anyone

That's not the point.

The only people who are hurt by any kind of attention are people who are taught they should feel hurt by that attention

No one is "hurt" by this attention (provided it stays merely in the realm of the verbal). But it's still inappropriate and fucking rude.

Harassment would be making threats or being verbally abusive.

No, making threats goes beyond harassment and into assault. And calling out to a strange woman, "Hey baby, nice tits!" is verbally abusive.

If a woman was to yell at a man saying "hey, you're hot! Let's fuck!", how many men do you think would react in fear, contempt or violence?

Given the rates women rape men, maybe they should. I see-- and approve of-- many posts here documenting sexual harassment of men by women in bars, on streets, at parties, etc. Harassment that's not considered "harassment" because guys always want it, right?

How many would you think would even be mad that it happened in the first place? Virtually none, simply because men aren't explicitely raised to fear, resent or hate female attention.

Just because women overreact (and they do overreact, I'm not arguing that), doesn't mean men shouldn't stop underreacting. It's just as rude, demeaning, and harassing when women do it.

If a homosexual man yelled the same thing to another man and he reacted the same way a woman would for any other men, they would call him homophobic(and rightly so).

Not necessarily rightly so, since, as I said above, it's just as rude and everything when it happens to men. The difference is if that given man reacts hostilely to a gay man but not hostilely to a woman.

women virtually never define this type of attention from other women as harassment

How often do women here "Hey, sexy-tits!" from other women?

They're defined as harassment because they are inappropriate and rude from a stranger. There are socially acceptable ways for men to express their interest. I agree that increasingly those socially acceptable ways are becoming "harassment," but that doesn't make legitimate harassment less so. And "Yo, sugar tits!" from a strange man as I walk down the street is fucking harassment.

[–]ExpendableOne -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

"Hi, pretty lady!" is one thing. "Hey, there, sexy-ass"

Why? Because a woman says so? Because one presents some equated sense of chivalry and the other is slightly less tactful? This is nothing more than shallow semantics. Both comments mean the same thing, why wouldn't you be as equally offended by both?

You might be able to make a case for a single comment being "whatever," but "a few" lewd comments or jokes is definitely harassment.

Repeated derogatory and abusive comments are harassment. The odd comment and brass compliments are not. Exclusively treating the two as thought they were one and the same for men is misandry.

No, making threats goes beyond harassment and into assault.

Assault is assault. Threats, or the verbal implication of possible assault, isn't. There's a difference. One is a form of harassment, one is a physical crime. There's a difference.

And calling out to a strange woman, "Hey baby, nice tits!" is verbally abusive.

How is it abusive to tell a woman that she has nice tits. Crude? Sure. Abusive? No. To even call it that isn't just a form of sexual shaming, it requires a very deep seethed disdain for male sexuality in general.

Given the rates women rape men, maybe they should.

No, they shouldn't. There's a big difference between actually committing rape and making sexual comments/innuendos. Encouraging an irrational fear of women and female sexuality also wouldn't, in any way, reduce the amount of female-to-male rape. The insinuation itself is rather insulting.

I see-- and approve of-- many posts here documenting sexual harassment of men by women in bars, on streets, at parties, etc.

A few men seeking to mimic the same type of negative reaction to female attention that women have towards men because that's the way it works for women doesn't really change the fact that men aren't taught to vilify female attention or that they aren't taught to respond to it with anger, disdain or violence; nor does it make this type of predisposition something that men should be trying to emulate or encourage.

Harassment that's not considered "harassment" because guys always want it, right?

The correlation you just made here is pure projection and an exaggerated one at that. No one has ever said anything about guys always wanting it, nor does it have anything to do with the topic of what is and what isn't harassment.

It's just as rude, demeaning, and harassing when women do it.

The only way these things could be considered rude, demeaning or harassing is when you want them to be rude, demeaning or harassing. Male sexuality/interest is not inherently demeaning or harassing the way society seems to want it to be and what is rude is highly subjective.

The difference is if that given man reacts hostilely to a gay man but not hostilely to a woman.

But it's okay for women to react hostilely towards men?

How often do women here "Hey, sexy-tits!" from other women?

A lot more often than most are probably aware of, as they certainly wouldn't make as much of a fuss over it as they would had it come from a man(when women do it it's funny, hot, innocent, exciting; when men do it it's scary, creepy, rude, insulting, etc). It may even be worded differently or presented in a different tone in some cases but it does still happens all the same and the comments hold the same meaning(I've been witness to this many times over). If the only difference is a genuine sexual attraction, in those cases, than that still makes it a form of sexual shaming.

There are socially acceptable ways for men to express their interest.

Socially acceptable ways defined by whom? Under what context? Under which beliefs? If I said the only acceptable way for women to approach me was on her knees, would that make it okay? If these notions are based on misguided sense of nobility, on sexual suppression, on being easily offended, on irrationality or even on male self-deprecation, why is any of that something worth defending or encouraging? The only reason why people believe these types of comments from men as offensive is because they have been explicitly taught that they should interpret those comments from men as offensive.

And "Yo, sugar tits!" from a strange man as I walk down the street is fucking harassment.

And what makes this man inherently "strange" if not for a negative predisposition towards men in general? and, for that matter, what exactly makes "yo, sugar tits!" so offensive/threatening? If a woman said "yo, big biceps!" to man in public that was already negatively predisposed towards her(look at that strange woman! ew!), and reacted exceedingly negatively towards her(not very uncommon from women to justify getting verbally and/or physically towards men for doing so), would you really call that harassment? As an adult(assuming here), why would the use of sexual/crass terms even be offensive?

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why? Because a woman says so? Because one presents some equated sense of chivalry and the other is slightly less tactful? This is nothing more than shallow semantics. Both comments mean the same thing, why wouldn't you be as equally offended by both?

It's not "shallow semantics." The two comments show a completely different level of respect for the woman.

Repeated derogatory and abusive comments are harassment. The odd comment and brass compliments are not. Exclusively treating the two as thought they were one and the same for men is misandry.

I made it pretty clear several times in my reply to you that while I am treating explicitly lewd comments shouted at strangers on the street as harassment, I am not doing so only for men. Hence, not misandry.

Assault is assault. Threats, or the verbal implication of possible assault, isn't. There's a difference. One is a form of harassment, one is a physical crime. There's a difference.

I think you need to look up the difference between "assault" and "battery."

How is it abusive to tell a woman that she has nice tits. Crude? Sure. Abusive? No. To even call it that isn't just a form of sexual shaming, it requires a very deep seethed disdain for male sexuality in general.

All about the context. My husband is perfectly entitled to tell me I have nice tits. Random men in the street can keep their opinions on my tits to themselves. And expressing it loudly, publicly, in coarse language, and especially repetitively can be construed as abusive.

Are you saying "male sexuality" (whatever that means) requires the crude accosting of strange women by making loud, public, graphic, coarse observations of their anatomy? Because it seems to me, if that's the case, that you have the low opinion of men.

No, they shouldn't. There's a big difference between actually committing rape and making sexual comments/innuendos. Encouraging an irrational fear of women and female sexuality also wouldn't, in any way, reduce the amount of female-to-male rape. The insinuation itself is rather insulting.

The reason women are so wary of, shall we call them, sexually aggressive strangers, is that they have been told repeatedly that one in four women is sexually assaulted. And the reason men are not wary of them is that they have been told repeatedly that men don't get raped, except in prison. I agree, as I said, that women overreact, and I agree that the propaganda engendering fear of men in women (such as "Schrodinger's Rapist") is dangerous and not healthy. My point, not particularly clear, was that if men stopped thinking of sexual harassment and assault as something that only happens to women, fewer of them would be sexually harassed or assaulted.

The correlation you just made here is pure projection and an exaggerated one at that. No one has ever said anything about guys always wanting it, nor does it have anything to do with the topic of what is and what isn't harassment.

You're trying to make me into a misandrist by trying to force me into a position where it's okay for women but not men. I'm pointing out why it's popularly considered "okay" for women but not men. I emphatically don't think it's okay for men OR women.

The only way these things could be considered rude, demeaning or harassing is when you want them to be rude, demeaning or harassing. Male sexuality/interest is not inherently demeaning or harassing the way society seems to want it to be and what is rude is highly subjective.

No, actually, we have pretty good societal standards for what's rude. You said in another comment that it varies by culture, and that's probably true, but, as I said in my first comment, I cannot think of any context in the US (neighborhoods based around foreign cultures notwithstanding) where it wouldn't be fucking rude to yell crude observations of anatomy at strangers. Like not holding the door open for someone coming up behind you, or not thanking someone for holding the door.

But it's okay for women to react hostilely towards men?

It's okay for women to let men know, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is unacceptable. It's equally okay for men to let women know that. It's not okay for either gender to become violent over verbal harassment. That's just my opinion.

A lot more often than most are probably aware of

What? How do you get catcalled without being aware of it?

as they certainly wouldn't make as much of a fuss over it as they would had it come from a man(when women do it it's funny, hot, innocent, exciting; when men do it it's scary, creepy, rude, insulting, etc).

When women do it to men, conventional wisdom is that its funny, hot, innocent, exciting. When women do it to other women in pornos, I guess, it's hot and exciting. In real life, responses would be extremely mixed. Regardless, and I'm not getting into speculating on reasons why, I've never even heard of this being a thing.

It may even be worded differently or presented in a different tone in some cases but it does still happens all the same and the comments hold the same meaning(I've been witness to this many times over).

We've covered different tone or different wording and why it does make a difference beyond "shallow semantics."

If the only difference is a genuine sexual attraction, in those cases, than that still makes it a form of sexual shaming.

Okay, so you're not talking about bisexual or lesbian women catcalling other women, but straight women catcalling other women... why? I'm so confused-- this is no girl-culture I am at all familiar with.

If I said the only acceptable way for women to approach me was on her knees, would that make it okay?

That's certainly your prerogative, though you can hardly expect a woman to know that. And I will grant you, what IS a "socially acceptable way" for a man to express interest in a woman has become murky-- but that doesn't mean that it is ambiguous that lewd catcalls are unacceptable.

The only reason why people believe these types of comments from men as offensive is because they have been explicitly taught that they should interpret those comments from men as offensive.

Again, you're trying really hard to make me into some kind of feminist misandrist, and you're really failing because you have to make up shit whole cloth to put in my mouth to do so. I have explicitly said that these kind of comments expressed this kind of way are rude, socially unacceptable, inappropriate, harassment, whatever else, from anyone.

And what makes this man inherently "strange" if not for a negative predisposition towards men in general?

Okay, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. "Strange man," in the same context as I have been using "stranger" throughout my entire reply, clearly denotes a man with whom I have absolutely no familiarity.

and, for that matter, what exactly makes "yo, sugar tits!" so offensive/threatening?

It's not threatening. It's offensive because this person has no business commenting on me sexually.

If a woman said "yo, big biceps!" to man in public that was already negatively predisposed towards her(look at that strange woman! ew!)

Not a valid comparison between breasts and biceps, and you know it. But we'll go with it anyway.

and reacted exceedingly negatively towards her(not very uncommon from women to justify getting verbally and/or physically towards men for doing so),

Not common in my experience, but I will agree that women have been known to become verbally or even physically violent in reaction to verbal street harassment.

would you really call that harassment?

Wait, would I call what harassment? The woman yelling out to a strange guy on the street, "Yo, big biceps!"? Or the man's reaction? I would certainly call it rude and socially unacceptable and inappropriate. Whether it actually is "harassment" depends on whether the man feels harassed, and how far beyond that it goes.

As an adult(assuming here), why would the use of sexual/crass terms even be offensive?

Again, you're being deliberately, strainingly obtuse. Why is the word "fuck" considered in appropriate for public, casual use? It's a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon word, from the Germanic, indeed, the only reason it was considered vulgar in the first place was it was used by the socially inferior Saxons in contrast to the superior Normons (invading French) with their hoity-toity Latin. But the word "fuck" can get you suspended from school, kicked out of establishments, your song banned from the radio or your movie considered unfit for viewing by children.

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but they're particularly offensive to me because sex is an intimate, personal, private thing. This is in addition to strangers yelling things (anything) at you in public makes a scene, and this is embarrassing; it draws unwanted, undue attention. In the case of a stranger making sexual observations or invitations to me, they are taking this intimate, personal, private thing that I only share with my husband and turning it into something public and humiliating. That's why I'm not "afraid," I'm just grossed out and feel vaguely violated-- this person forced a kind of intimacy that I in no way share or want. I've never been catcalled, but I'm basing this on the few times male strangers have propositioned me randomly, and how it felt. At least they were discreet; it was awkward, but not humiliating.

And, yeah, there is something to be said for the feminist argument about objectification (though, again, it's just as bad when women do it in this context). I'm not a model. I'm not a public figure. I am not seeking attention or soliciting observations from random passers by. So what gives a random person the right to turn me into just a piece of ass?

[+]MJZMan -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]8Dface 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]7oby 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	What are your problems?
Author	foresthill
Upvotes	778
Comments	304
Date	May 24, 2012 1:00 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/u2olz/what_are_your_problems/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-are-your-problems.1021178 https://theredarchive.com/post/1021178

Comments