~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
foresthill
[–]Nesman64 115 points116 points117 points 14 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link
I think the choice of picture for the women might detract from the argument a bit. I get the point that it makes, but I feel that it's going to immediately put off any women that see this before they get a chance to consider the points below. The pictures of the men and women should be similar.
[–]foresthill[S] 107 points108 points109 points 14 years ago* (48 children) | Copy Link
Good point.
Edit: I've made a revised version based on your comment: http://i.imgur.com/p2v9J.jpg
[–]ShetlandJames 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link
I think that they shouldn't be smiling on the female side and not really on the male side [/asshole pedant]
[–]foresthill[S] 135 points136 points137 points 14 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link
Okay, okay. Revision 2: http://i.imgur.com/WGqnE.jpg
[–]ShetlandJames 75 points76 points77 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
OP delivers repeatably. Two enthusiastic thumbs up
[–]Revoran 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Do you have a repository of stock images somewhere lol?
Seriously though good on you for delivaring.
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We all do, it's called WikiCommons :)
[+][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
[–]Alanna 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
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.
But you're okay with government banning all forms of FGM? Including ceremonial nicks that cause no permanent damage?
[–]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.
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.
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
Yes it is. But I don't feel it's one that I need to hold to myself.
And if more women thought this way they might not have so many body issues or insecurities.
[–]sufrt -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link
and generally you stop hearing it once you're no longer 16 years old
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.
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
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).
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
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
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
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.
[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
(cut in chances of getting HIV being one)
That's a 60% relative reduction. The actual decrease was only 1.31%. Also, condoms have an 80% reduction rate, and are 95 times more cost effective. [Source]
[–]foresthill[S] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
there's also evidence to suggest that it has many health benefits
Cutting off your legs decreases your chance of getting a sprained ankle. Shall I grab my saw? The fact that it has some benefits does not mean it's right. It's not even recommended as a medical procedure. Don't you think it's a little strange that you would be charged with child abuse if you cut off any other part of your newborn baby's body, but somehow this highly sensitive, functional part of his penis is totally up for the slicer?
this is due to the fact there are far more men than women in the military.
You do realise that women can't serve in direct combat, right? The people on the front lines literally have to be men because women aren't allowed in those roles.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
it is used to treat health issues.
Please cite one health organization which recommends using circumcision to treat a health issue.
But I also understand the religious background of it and understand why it happens. Is it the Government's role to put an end to this? I don't think so.
The fact that it has a religious background somehow makes it immune from the law? I guess we should have female circumcision, stoning of adulterers, and we should execute gay people. Totally outside of the government because you understand the religious background, right?
You should be a little more conditional on your challenge:
Please cite one major ("reputable" would also work) health organization which recommends using routine and/or universal infant circumcision to treat a health issue.
Because WHO does recommend circumcision of adults in countries with large HIV/AIDS populations. AFAIK, they are not recommending routine infant circumcision (yet). Incidentally, a good, thorough debunking of the "circumcision cuts HIV transmission in half" thing (among others) here.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
The World Health Organisation does.
[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And that's being hotly contested as well.
[–]foresthill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Hold it right there.
"WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."
Do you think that describes the people we're talking about? We're talking about developed countries without epidemics.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Put this on posters and sell them.
Condense it for a T-shirt, and sell them.
I'd buy.
[–]darkgatherer 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I would also replace the circumcision thing with the fact that men have essential no reproductive rights and are no where near gaining the right to choose because that shows the juxtaposition with women's reproductive rights. Not that circumcision isn't an important issue.
[–]eirawyn 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, that bothered me. All these problems, on both sides, are completely legitimate concerns. Showing the women off that way is misleading.
[+]Dranosh -39 points-38 points-37 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Wanting sugar daddy government pay for your birth control is NOT a legitimate concern
[–]RalfN 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Its not about controlling birth. Without those meds females are in pain every time they have their period. They get moodswings. Those pills help with that. Its a health issue, and its the only way for many females to be productive every week. And society does expect them to be productice 4, rather than 3 weeks a month.
So make your pick. Either females get 13 weeks of sick leave, or we all help pay that 2 dollar pill, that also helps her not hate your ass that much.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
While your reasons for the pill are legit, you can't say 'it's not about controlling birth,' because it is sometimes, and further, controlling birth is absolutely, 100%, most definitely a health issue. Pregnancy poses significant risks to a woman's health.
[–]RalfN 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Im from Holland. Many girls are on birtcontrol pills here, that dont actually prevent pregnancy. And even when the pill dies prevent pregnancy, it is seriously downplayed.
The government, school and everything have obe clear message how to prevent pregnancies: condoms, condons, condoms, condoms. Because of the SOA's obviously.
I dont disagree with your arguments, my point being that it is a health risk even without taking sex into consideration.
[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Bullshit. I've never been on the Pill in my life, and I've never missed school or work in twenty years of getting my period. Some women have issues with painful or irregular periods that, for some of those women, birth control pills may help. BC pills have their own side effects, which for some women are worse than their periods. You make it sound like almost every woman is on birth control, and that we're all on birth control because we'd be raging hormonal bitches when not curled into a fetal position from the pain. It's your period, it's annoying, but it's not fucking childbirth.
I think you're confusing birth control with Midol or Pamprin or something.
[–]RalfN 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My point was just that these pills have a purpose for certain females completely outside of the morals related to sex.
Some females do suffer because of their cycle. Some do not. Some people have migraines, some do not. Some people have cancer, some do not. Healthcare is about providing medicine to lesser suffering, or in the best to cure the cause.
How are these pills any different, morally speaking, than any other health related pill? I dont see it.
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
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.
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
I think it's more of a world concern. There is simply too many people in the world. What's cheaper - funding contraceptive or funding an infant which becomes a toddler which becomes a child which becomes an adolescent which becomes a teenager etc.
Look I think people should take responsibility for sex - but they don't. So govt helping out could really help reduce the numbers of people - including unwanted kids.
[–]RalfN -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Those pills are nt about birth control, they are about regulating your cycle, and keeping a female productive ( school, work ) when they thir periods. Birth control is a side affect.
[–]ShetlandJames 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't agree. But that's besides the point. I think things will change when they make an effective "pill" for men. Give both genders control over their reproductive system. Don't just give it to one party and expect the other party to trust it.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I really don't think a job of the government should be reducing the numbers of people. Just... no.
[–]ShetlandJames 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Who else is going to do it? People? People are animals. We fuck and fuck and fuck. People are shooting babies out like there's no tomorrow - and that's after a global reduction (in the West).
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
And the problem with that is?
[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How do you think we can be environmentally sustainable, maintain current standards of living, and increase our population?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How do you think we won't? Population has always grown, and they've been predicting imminent doom for a couple hundred years now. The earth coore peopuld support FAR more people than it does, right now, without even considering future advancements. These days, the idea of "oh, overpopulation is such a huge problem " is a cover for "the wrong sort of people keep having babies" -- eugenics all over again.
More people more problems.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Depends on your (non-MRA-related) political and economic beliefs. We should stay neutral from that kind of discussion.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe not, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for the kids.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You are mistaken, birth control is not paid for by the government in Canada. Abortion is paid for though, as is virtually all health care.
[–]geodebug 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Birth control is a public health issue and any sane (not a religious zealot) and fiscally responsible person would favor it. It's much cheaper to give women BC through health plans (govt or private) than have society pay for an unwanted pregnancy.
Never mind that for some women, BC is used to control non-reproductive health issues.
Never mind that BC is beneficial to men too, women aren't making unwanted babies on their own.
Your comment shows that you are being more interested in being petty and anti-women instead of being pro-men.
Maybe the shallowness of the OP's pic just brings in shallow thinkers?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Birth control prevents that whole men-having-to-pay-child-support thing, y'know.
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Except when the woman says she's on it and she's not.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Unless jobs that are entered into are not employment at will, neither side has legitimate concerns (at least for the government to do anything about). Picking a risky or illegal job is not an issue if it is chosen by the worker as a better alternative than another (perhaps lower paying) safer or legal job. It is just ironic that men's issues are bigger, yet the government does backflips for women's issues.
[–]feddau 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Also, the problems listed are pretty arbitrary. Anyone could rewrite this list 10 more times, list completely different problems for both the males and the females, and make either gender seem like they have the more difficult lot. Almost seems like the intention here is to piss off women and not make any resounding point.
[–]foresthill[S] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't trying to show that one gender has the more difficult lot. I was trying to show that the problems are similar but the support for solving each is different.
[–]xatmatwork 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Shameless /r/GenderEgalitarian plug
[–]feddau 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ah. I just really didnt get that from the image and the problems listed. These choices dont seem all that similar to me..
[–]Pooballs 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think the fact that the problems listed on both sides is kinda the point. We keep getting into heated debates over which side has it worse, and comparing the problems between men and women. That exercise is utterly useless though because both sides of the arguement actually do have problems, but they are different problems and comparing the 2 just confuses everything.
[–]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
Is there a women's issue that is objectively worse than genital mutilation?
[–]feddau 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Kinda tough to be objective about such a thing. Why do you ask?
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I guess my question was a bit of a non-sequitur, sorry about that. My point is that the most important men's issues usually have to do with being maimed/killed/destitute, which most would agree are pretty awful problems.
What are the most important women's issues? I'm honestly not sure anymore. The wage gap is debunked. Rape culture is a myth. Most women's issues these days seem to revolve around media-influenced self-esteem/body image issues and access to reproductive health services (not to say that these are not deserving of some attention).
So, then, which of these are objectively worse? Feminists will mock and decry this type of argument as "oppression olympics," which is a convenient way to stifle the discussion. I wonder if they're afraid of who might "win" such a game?
[–]Irrel_M 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not really, it'll just turn into a "It's INSULTING TO COMPARE THE TWO!" circle-jerk.
[–]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
So strapping a helpless newborn to a table and slicing off the most sensitive part of his genitals is a lesser crime than making it difficult to have an abortion? Nice priorities. I guess "my body, my choice" doesn't apply to baby boys.
Also, rape is already illegal. MGM is not.
[–]geodebug 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Ah, so your plan was to troll anybody who answered honestly but didn't agree with you. How productive.
If male circumcision is your number one priority then don't get all pissy because it's not for me. Go out and do something about it. Here's a tip (no pun intended) being a flaming jackass about it will turn more people away from your cause than engaging them.
Of course, if your goal is just to be a flaming troll then, um, mission accomplished - well done.
Also, rape is already illegal.
Yes, because being illegal means our work is done in preventing it. Tell that to all the men raped in prison each year.
[–]ArchZodiac 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That means work has actually been put into it.
[–]geodebug 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
not following....
[–]ArchZodiac 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The fact that rape is illegal and people get punished for it means there is a real reason not to rape. There's no laws against MGM because nobody has pushed to punish people for it. Just because some cases aren't punished correctly (prison rape) doesn't mean rape is acceptable like MGM.
[–]geodebug 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd hope legality and punishment isn't the only thing holding people back from rape. I'd say that it is wrong and destructive is 'real reason' enough.
I've never claimed that MGM isn't socially acceptable in our culture. Of course it is, I've only to look down at my own cock for proof.
I made the point that MGM just isn't as high a priority to me as other wrongs in the world. If it is to you then don't get angry at me (I'm against it), go out and advocate.
If that's what puts them off, it's pretty obvious that they were looking for a reason to not give a shit. I didn't even look at the pictures personally.
I suggest populating it with widely regarded feminists: Oprah Winfree, Amanda Marcotte, Hillary Clinton, Julie Bindell, Sandra Fluke . . .
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If somebody is dumb enough to be influenced by the choice of pictures, then he will not get the point anyway. Wait. Let me rephrase that: Women won't get the point anyway.
[–]foresthill[S] 96 points97 points98 points 14 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link
Sources:
US workplace fatalities: 92% male vs. 8% female.
US prison population: 93.5% male vs. 6.5% female.
US homeless population: 74% male vs. 26% female.
US Iraq war fatalities: 97.7% male vs. 2.3% female.
US homicide victims: 75% male vs. 25% female.
[–]ENTP 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
You are doing it right. Thank you.
[+]mainsworth -35 points-34 points-33 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
No he's not. He is just listing a bunch of random statistics.
[–]ENTP 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Better than listing a bunch of absolute bullshit based in nothing but fantasy. Statistics are based in reality, and the reality is that men get the short end of the stick, more often than not.
[+]mainsworth -33 points-32 points-31 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
men get the short end of the stick, more often than not.
And that's when I stop taking this subreddit seriously.
[–]ENTP 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
When you have some evidence to back up your reasons (if you even have any reasons, other than your own misandry and bias) for not taking this subreddit seriously, then we can all take you seriously.
[+]mainsworth -26 points-25 points-24 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
your own misandry
ha, I'm a man you jackass.
[–]A_Nihilist 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
> Please pay attention to me ladies
FTFY
[–]ENTP 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Men can be misandrists, too. Some of the worst misandrists are men.
Case in point? Most SRS posters are dudes.
[+]mainsworth -20 points-19 points-18 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You got me. I hate men because I think this subreddit is silly and the people here are silly and you talk about silly things and don't actually accomplish anything worthwhile (or anything at all other than making yourselves feel better about how oppressed y'all are as white men in America).
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
i wasn't aware that it was called white-american-men's rights.
I guess you think it's ok to discredit people by ignorantly assigning them racial characteristics that you find to be unsavory?
[–]ENTP 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep, because suicide, homelessness rates, homicide rates, high school dropout rates, literacy rates, etc are "silly"
BTW: it's not "white men's rights" it's "men's rights" minority men are disproportionately affected by these issues.
[–]johnmarkley 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
or anything at all other than making yourselves feel better about how oppressed y'all are as white men in America)
No one brought up race or suggested that these problems are suffered primarily by white men. But for some reason, when you hear the word "man," you simply take it for granted that "white" is built into the definition- as if adult males of other races are something other than men in your eyes. Typical.
Get a dictionary.
[–]Kuonji 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, you had your mind made up well before that.
[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
And that's when we stop taking you seriously, so, I guess that's that.
[+]mainsworth -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Mensrights doesn't take me seriously? Shucks.
[–]Alanna 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Then why are you posting here? You are literally adding nothing.
[+]mainsworth -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because y'all are so endearingly precious.
[–]kragshot 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well, then why don't you take your shaming attitudes and don't let the virtual doorknob hit you on the way out, eh?
You brought nothing to this discussion but cheap insults and shaming language rather than facts.
Peace out, dude.
[+]mainsworth -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Peace, bro!
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hey man, you might consider having citations at the bottom of the image; in the case that your image gets distributed, there's fewer questions about the veracity of the info.
[–]Energy_Turtle 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
These are intersting statistics but we need to disseminate why the numbers are like that. Men traditionally work more dangerous jobs because they require greater physical ability. It makes sense that more men would die on the job than women. There's nothing wrong with recognizing and utilizing physical differences in the sexes. Also, like it or not, men tend to commit more violent and sexual crimes. Its not a knock on them or a society against them. That's just the way it is probably because we are biologically different from women. These stats are dramatic but they don't really hit the root of the problems in mens rights.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It makes sense that more men would die on the job than women. There's nothing wrong with recognizing and utilizing physical differences in the sexes
Then women shouldn't complain when lumberjacks make more than nurses.
Also, like it or not, men tend to commit more violent and sexual crimes
The majority of those in prison are for non-violent crimes, and we fail to sentence or convict female suspects at the same rate and degree as male ones. We don't even count women as rapists most of the time.
[–]Energy_Turtle 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ok women shouldn't complain but they do. What are you going to do about it? Complain back? You can't keep people from complaining.
As far as the prison rates I'm in total agreement that men are often punished more severely than women. However its indisputable that men commit more crimes, violent or otherwise. It would be foolish to think that the prison rates would ever even out. Men act in riskier ways. Its always been that way. The focus should be on even the punishments for the same crimes, not evening out the prison rate.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
True. I'll amend it to say "women shouldn't expect such complaints to be taken seriously".
However its indisputable that men commit more crimes, violent or otherwise. It would be foolish to think that the prison rates would ever even out. Men act in riskier ways. Its always been that way. The focus should be on even the punishments for the same crimes, not evening out the prison rate.
Total agreement. We shouldn't have quotas just because one group is overrepresented, but we should make sure those who do commit crimes are punished similarly regardless of sex/race/etc.
[–]foresthill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
like it or not, men tend to commit more violent and sexual crimes.
Like it or not, women don't do an equal amount of work and therefore don't get paid the same. When I've brought this up with feminists they claim that society should put programs in place to specially encourage/propel women into higher paying roles to make the totals equal. I.e. Affirmative action. I don't see the same ideas brought forward for specially reducing the causes that lead men to jail and homelessness. I think the idea that it's 100% biological is highly suspicious.
[–]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
I don't really understand the "women don't do an equal amount of work" part.
Because feminist liars falsely say that women earn 77% of what men do, except that figure compares all women to all men, and does not compare hours worked per week.
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.
That argument is false, because the statement is not true.
I've really never met a stay at home mom in my generation.
I'm facebook friends with tons of them that I went to school with. But even if they're not stay-at-home moms, they probably took maternity leave, and have to take sick days to take care of their kids when they're sick (in addition to their own illnesses).
[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That would be an argument...if it were true. It's not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
[–]shady8x 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
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?)
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
your quote does not address 'women don't do an equal amount of work'. i.e. being a teacher requires less work than being an lumberjack? just because one is more likely to end up dead does not reasonably affect the analysis of which does more work. or even suggest that they are comparable in a meaningful way.
[–]shady8x 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Women work less. Therefore women don't do an equal amount of work
Also, the likelihood of ending up dead does point out which jobs are harder.
So women work fewer hours at safer/easier jobs.
I work in a safe little office with air conditioning, I am not even going to pretend that my job is as tough as the job of a firefighter.
[–]nycjohndoe 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
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
Good points... but wording could be better
Should mirror the problems. Women being called out in the street should be matched to lack of judicial equality.
Standards of beauty to standards of success/wealth, and divorce rates.
[–]Shadowsoal 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I agree with this 100%. The problems on the left are measured and well thought out. I was looking forward to the analogs, but instead got largely unrelated topics and statistics.
You mentioned government infringement of reproductive rights for women, mention government bias against ment with respect to custody of children.
In the second point on the right I would more emphasize dangerous and stressful jobs, which in turn lead to the higher suicide and death. It contrasts well with the point that women are discouraged at a young age regarding STEM fields.
Consistency!
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, put reproductive rights together, contrast the "need to be a provider" with the higher workplace-penalties for mothers (which is a much more legitimate concern than just the misleading "gender gap" so oft squawked about), as that can tie in with how stigmatized SAH dads still are.
And pairing the STEM fields issue with the fact that boys drop out at much higher rates and go to college in much smaller numbers now would be a better pairing, as well, I think. Or perhaps the fact that males are discouraged from fields working with children.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A good one for women's problems would be that they are that they aren't allowed to volunteer to serve in an infantry unit in the military while a man's is that we are forced to register for the selective service and women aren't despite women being allowed in the military.... They have CHOICE to serve, albeit limited in how they serve. We potentially do not.
[–]Pooballs 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I disagree that the problems should mirror each other. There are problems that are faced by both genders that don't have an exact opposite match and this would also encourage the whole oppression olympics thing that usually just obscures any kind of rational discussion of a topic.
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah, sorry. It was just something I whipped up in 10 minutes, there's a ton of ways it could be improved.
[–]wasniahC 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Felt way too biased and aggressive. Almost comes across immature. Gotta be careful with the presentation, man
[–]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
And... why can't we acknowledge that both sides have legitimate concerns?
Because they are, both sides, legitimate concerns, and have no reason to be compared.
[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because only one side is saying that one half of that graphic is not legitimate concerns. See this guy further up and his lame attempts at shaming all of us as "silly white males" (which is funny, since I'm a woman).
[–]InfallibleBiship 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whoosh.
[–]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
Though it sucks that the stigma exists, it doesn't take much digging in this subreddit to realize why mensrights is stigmatized.
[–]Lecks 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've done some digging in the time I've been here and haven't found a reason for it. Could you elaborate?
[–]RyanLikesyoface 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You need to add the issue of custodial rights which is in my opinion the most pressing issue for mens rights.
[–]ThatGuy20 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
the media image thing appiles to men to, it's always about the muscular cocky guys...
[–]pandalin 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
This type of imagery and comparison makes men and women enemies of each other, instead of standing together as HUMAN BEINGS to create a more just world. Yes, men have certain problems. Yes, women have certain problems. Why can't we acknowledge that both sides have legitimate concerns?
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's kind of the point.
[–]pandalin 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Was it? I took it as "You're problems are trivial, look at my problems."
I don't think the image conveyed that, though I think that view can sometimes be hard to shake if you spend too long in some of the discussions here.
I think OP, both in his images and his comments, has shown a great example of how these issues should be shown as legitimate problems for men AND women, not contests in which one of the two genders needs to defeat the other.
[–]pandalin 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for your answer, I appreciate the response. I can see how it could be taken both ways.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sounds like you either have preconceived notions about the other side's problems, or you're projecting concerning your own problems.
[–]Corsaer 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
One thing I always point out to my friends who make claims about the unattainable female image being imposed on them... is that it's not men perpetrating it, but their own gender. The easiest way to illustrate this is to open up an adult magazine for men versus pretty much any magazine for women. You've got a "healthy" size versus rail thin, respectively. And if they say, "Oh well it's just because men like big asses and tits." Well so fucking what, get that by weighing more, the whole point.
[–]foresthill[S] 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, but it's still a problem even if it is their own gender. Gender rights aren't about 1 gender vs. another gender. It's about 1 gender vs. society's treatment of them.
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Wow. I never thought I'd see a comment like this here.
Thank you, for stating what needs to be stated so much more often here.
[–]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
Do you know what male gaze is?
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Just to be sure I wasn't missing some nuance of feminist theory, I consulted Wikipedia and Finally Feminism 101 both. I'm sure entire books have been written on "gaze" in general and "male gaze" in particular, so I won't pretend to a full understanding, but how does that negate the underlying idea that the "male gaze" is something done by men to women?
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's not an active "men telling women to do something" thing, but in a male dominated society it is the adjustment of everything in our culture to the view of the straight male. Not really something individuals can actively try and disspell imo, but there nonetheless. Thus the way that women are dressed in ads, movies, shows are typically with the straight man's view in mind.
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
I wasn't saying it's not a problem, I'm saying they are placing the blame on something that would actually be doing the opposite of perpetuating the problem, let alone causing it. You can't fix or change something if you're completely blind as to it's cause. This wouldn't be an issue if I didn't hear women complaining about the image their supposed to have according to society if it wasn't almost always linked with blaming men.
[–]Lecks -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes, but it's still presented as being perpetuated by men, this needs to change first or there will be blaming and bad blood.
[+]significantshrinkage -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women love to blame everything on men and vice versa.
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Do you consider the male gaze to be a real thing? I can never tell in /r/MR who does and doesn't.
I think it is, and I think that's a lot of where these ideas of the ideal female form come from. It isn't as if women just up and said "we should all be skinny as shit!"
[–]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
"dangerous jobs which are sometimes illegal" - I don't quite understand this part.
[–]foresthill[S] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Selling drugs, robbery, extortion, fraud, etc. Crime where money is involved.
[–]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
18 years, 18 years She got one of your kids got you for 18 years
18 years, 18 years
She got one of your kids got you for 18 years
And on the other end, you have women bitching they can't get any child support because their baby-daddy is a drug dealer and his income is all under the table, and they're too scared to turn him in. So, moral of the story, guys, is if you want to avoid CS, be a drug dealer from the start.
[–]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
great song i love me some kanye
i dont really have anything else to add
uhh
sorry
[–]American83 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't understand why you are downvoted.
[–]larsao3 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Am I wrong in thinking that the ideal male shape is way harder to accomplish than the female?
Women: Skinny.
Men: Crazy ripped.
It takes a lot more to build muscles then to be skinny...
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dranosh -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, I wish they'd stop showing overweight as being acceptable, because it's not healthy and causes a lot of problems.
What I don't want to see is a burnt burlap sack being seen as sexy; I liked the marilyn monroe body type because it shows she is capable of supporting a baby, wide hips, and has access to nutrition, I can't see her bones.
Honestly, I think it's up to parent's to inform their children that pictures can be photoshopped and that being comfortable with your own body is the first step to gaining confidence, and confidence means a lot
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jahasalknife -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
supply and demand, they do it for a reason
[–]Democritus477 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, you are wrong. The "ideal" woman does a lot more to maintain her appearance than simply not overeating; e.g., skin care, hairstyling and makeup.
[–]Grapeban 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yes, but at the same time, a guy being fat generally isn't considered a big issue but when a woman is fat everyone hates on her. For example, no-one calls "ugly" or fat men "it" but people do call "ugly" or fat women "it".
[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
a guy being fat generally isn't considered a big issue
Ask a fat guy sometime.
[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Depends on how fat we're talking. Men and women, once they hit excess of 100 lbs overweight, will probably be discriminated against equally.
There is a big difference between how a 50 lb overweight man and a 50 lb overweight woman will be treated, though.
I think something you're not realizing is that women CAN'T build muscles like men. It's physically impossible. If a woman wants to be skinny, she has to exercise a lot. Just because she doesn't have bulging muscles doesn't mean that she doesn't work out just as much as those ripped men that you see.
You also have to take a look at the media. Sure, they're going to cast a pretty buff guy for a role in an action movie, but in comedies, dramas, etc, there are plenty of guys who are lanky and regular sized and even overweight. In movies, you only see women who are skinny and fit unless their character is supposed to be unattractive.
[–]Big_Shot_Jack 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Don't forget that for a man to be desirable, he also has to be wealthy.
[–]Lecks 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I was never bothered by how the men looked (OK, the ripped guys get to me sometimes) rather I was intimidated by their accomplishments.
Maybe in your country.
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men of most body types are able to put on muscle without too much struggle (you have to show up, you have to eat sort of well, and you have to avoid injuring yourself). Men that don't get really muscular usually aren't at a completely terrible disadvantage sexually. Men that are a bit chubby, or a bit scrawny, still have a decent shot in the dating world.
A fat woman, even one similarly fat to many men who do ok, is in no such luck.
For men it is sort of a bonus to be ripped, but okay if you aren't. For women it is not really okay at all to be fat, and that's kind of bullshit.
Granted though, this gets into our culture's treatment of obesity/fat people and stops being entirely a gender issue.
[+]A_Nihilist -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Yup, society's ideal female body can be achieved by most women by a lot of running and some light weight manipulation. Men require a lot more work.
Of course, attraction occurs outside these extremes, but the absolute ideal is more easily achievable by women.
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
To be fair, a decent belly is very very very very hard to come by. My understanding is you have to do brutal amounts of crunches (after 25 or so). Double that after you have a kid, ugh.
[–]Chollly 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You can't spot reduce.
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No, but I was 113 pounds at the beginning of my pregnancy with my first, about two and a half years ago, and, at 33, I still couldn't get away with shirts or tanks I could ten years before. My problem wasn't extra poundage, just a complete lack of tone.
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Lack of tone is due to bodyfat usually, not lack of muscle. Core/ab definition is all about low bodyfat.
Not easy to do for anyone, just pointing it out.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm certainly not an expert on fitness, but my impression was that you can diet all you want but it won't give you any definition. As I said, I was 113 pounds (and I got down under a hundred a couple years before that), and I'm 5'2" (short, but not THAT short), and I have never had anywhere close to a six pack. A relatively flat stomach was the best I got.
You have to have some amount of muscle, but a lot of it is body fat (which of course also is affected by exercising a lot.)
[–]spicy_jose -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There was a picture I saw awhile ago that said something along the lines that I thought was pretty funny. Something along the lines: A man has to work everyday for at least an hour and eat right, a woman can't eat too much.
[–]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
That is pretty awesome.
[–]found314 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the wrong way of going about it. If you want Man to be treated better do it in an objective, substantive way. Not as a comparison to women. Men's rights shouldn't be focused on as an imbalance compared to women... it should be focused on as an imbalance compared to a higher standard of humanity.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You missed out a couple of important issues both sexes have in common. Women aren't the only ones being bombarded with unrealistic expectations of what they should look like. Just take a look at insanely ripped/handsome actors and models and you should have an idea of what's being forced down men's throats every day as well as women's.
Both sexes suffer problems in the work place. We have women often being paid less than men (although this issue is being acted on more these days) and meanwhile men (white, middle class men in particular) are often discriminated against when picking applicants for a job under the guise of "equal opportunities" for minority groups.
[–]FisherKing22 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure if the last part was sarcastic, but I actually agree with it. What's wrong with "manning the fuck up" when you have problems that are outside of your control? That expression means, to me at least, to focus on what you can control and push through any problems you have regardless of the cause of those problems.
[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Individually, yeah, do whatever you've got to do to get through your problems. But, social movements can actually cause change. My image represents the message of the MRM, not just individual guys complaining.
[–]FisherKing22 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I feels ya. Respect.
[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Why did you compare the government's policy with a religious one? It seems a little weak.
Circumcision should be outlawed by the government. Just like cutting off any other part of your newborn son.
[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Just like cutting any part off of your newborn daughter.
FTFY to make the parallel clearer.
[–]foresthill[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Nice.
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It actually should properly be "cutting any part OF your newborn daughter" because you don't even have to remove anything or do permanent damage; even a ritual nick is banned.
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
True.
[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
But its a religious ceremony, its not endorsed by the government, whereas forcing a woman to undergo a penetrating ultrasound is forced by certain municipal/state governments I thought. I agree with the purpose of the post, we as men have issues that are not championed by society the way they should, simply because we are men. I am just saying you are comparing two different types of laws.
[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But its a religious ceremony, its not endorsed by the government
It's endorsed in that it's permitted, while ritual nicking of the clitoris that does not permanent damage is a federal crime.
[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well endorsing and permitting are two different things but I see what you are getting at. The nicking of the clitoris is a good way of putting things in perspective, but I just felt the way it was posted implied that they were similar.
[–]MrStonedOne 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
Removal of the foreskin that protects the most senitive part of male genitalia and some senators a senator suggesting we do it more to "stop rape" or to "stop teen pregnancy", because reducing the pleasure boys and men get from sex is the solution, right؟
But at the same removal of the clitoral hood that protects the most sensitive part of female genitalia is illegal almost everywhere.
I'd say its endorsed.
[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I did not know that some senators have taken that stance.
[–]MrStonedOne 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Actually, now that i think about it, it might have only been one, i remember seeing that story on here thou.
You are probably referring to this Colorado state representative, during the recent controversy over whether Medicaid should fund circumcisions:
One lawmaker, Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, elicited laughter in the hearing room when she asked Dr. Johnson if circumcision might help reduce teen pregnancy rates and teen sexual activity by reducing nerve sensation in boys’ penises. [Source]
[–]foresthill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I wasn't trying to make a comparison between each point. Some of them just happened to turn out that way.
The government not banning something that should be banned (harm by omission) is similarly wrong to the government doing something that it should not (harm by commission).
I see what you are trying to get at. I don't know, the direct contrast I saw initially led me to that thought.
[–]hajamieli 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Can't really upvote for barbarisms like circumcision. No such thing here for women nor men. The exception is for voluntary circumcision for adults with consent. Needless to say, about as common as getting your hand amputated, which isn't very common.
[–]alittler 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is not that women are not expected to work in certain fields, it is that, as a child, they are raised to not go towards those fields.
[–]pkurk 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
There are so many more points that arent even highlighted. Like spousal abuse... i was a victim of abuse myself, my ex beat the shit out of me a few times and i did nothing physically to her because i knew if i would swing back i would go to jail. Its a bullshit double standard. Women are preferentially treated in times of crisis, "women and children first"..... fuck you ya dumb cunt, your house wifes of atlanta watching unemployed ass is no more important than my brain with a masters degree and good intent for mankind.
But we have to sit back and take it.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The link you posted shows every single study found, at best, a net neutral for circumcision. Considering the basic issue of bodily autonomy at issue, there is zero excuse for circumcising your son for non-medical reasons.
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Are you circumcised?
The link that you posted says that the data is not sufficient to recommend it. Just because there are benefits doesn't mean it's right. Example: If you cut your legs off there is a reduced risk of sprained ankles. Shall I get my hacksaw?
[–]rlaptop7 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
cutting off somebodies legs is, by a wide margin, not a close analog.
I'm circumcised. It certainly isn't something that is a big enough deal to go at the top of the list where you have put it.
It seems that this circumcision issue is the point that you(and a lot of people on /r/mensrights) are the most concerned about.
I know, downvote away...
[–]mchaydu 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Upvoted because I don't get it either.
It's skin. We function 100% with or without it. To keep or remove is personal preference.
[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Personal preference, exactly. The fact that it currently isn't is what we're against.
[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It is not just "skin." It is "composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue." [Source] Your penis may work well enough without it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a function during sex.
Regardless, your note that to keep or remove it is personal preference is absolutely true. What we are so against is that it is the penis/foreskin owner's personal preference that should matter-- NOT the parents'.
[–]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.
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?
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.
Where is the logical fallacy or personal attack in foresthill's comment?
[–]mchaydu 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He used hyperbole to degrade the counter-comment. I'd say it is a modified straw man.
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. If your point is that the principle is wrong, then the degree should not matter.
[–]forgotpasswordd -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Good point man. Blame your parents. not society if you're still mad about it.
[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Meh, up until a few years ago it was rarely even questioned. 80-90% of boys in the 70s and 80s (my generation) were routinely circumcised, frequently without even asking the parents, the OB would just do it there in the hospital.
I was saying 15 years ago I would never snip my sons, and people thought I was weird and making a big deal out of nothing. It's good now that I'm actually having sons it's become enough of a thing that it's not as big a deal. :)
[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Your sons are much less likely to have difficult to explain emotional issues and PTSD like symptoms, by dint of not being mutilated at birth.
I am aware of that, but it's not like that's common knowledge even now, let alone 5, 10, 15 or more years ago.
[–]foresthill[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My parents told me that they circumcised me because "everybody else was doing it." Societal pressure is a huge factor in everybody's decisions, including parents.
My husband wanted to circumcise our hypothetical sons (well, hypothetical at the time of that conversation) because he didn't want them to get made fun of in the locker room.
[–]significantshrinkage -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You've got to be shitting me.
The photo is good at showing the pervailing attitude that men don't have issues/ clearly just need to get over them, but it's just kinda.. confronting?
I'd like the pictured better if it were showing a list of gay people on the one side, and men on the other. I hate the idea that the MR movement somehow degrades the WR movement. There are gender based issues in the world, for both genders. That doesn't make one gender more important than the other. I think mr-ers and wr-ers need to realise this alike.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't trying to show that one gender has it worse than the other. I was trying to show that the problems are similar but the support in society for solving each is different. Men's rights issues are often ignored if not outright denounced.
[–]RedHyphen 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The problem is is that you aren't showing problems that ARE similar. I'm confused on this one. 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. As where women will also say suck it up to other women. Where as men's genital mutilation problem mostly came from a religious background/health problems from a long time ago.
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.
[–]Gakukun -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Question: did a man or a woman write this?
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Why does it matter?
[–]Gakukun 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Because it seems pretty damn biased towards one gender, IMO.
[–]he_cried_out_WTF 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I fail to see how something being written by a man or a woman removes the possibility of it being written in a biased way.
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not going to keep drawing you out. Either speak your mind or don't, but the gender of the person who wrote it doesn't keep it from being biased for or against any gender.
[–]PublicStranger -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I like this graphic. It is not mean-spirited, it is not biased by tunnel vision, it gets right to the root of the problem, and it encourages cooperation and sympathy between the genders rather than alienation and mud-throwing.
[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yes, it's very hard being a man.
[–]A_Nihilist 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hurr please pay attention to me and my platitudes
Nope, downvoted.
[–]helllomoto -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Especially a middle class white one.
Because it's SO HARD to be a middle class white woman?
(I am a middle class white woman, and no, it's not that hard.)
I'm actually fine if men and women are treated a bit differently - after all, we are biologically different. But what really gets to me are the double standards.
[+]nottoosirius -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I see your point, however men are genetically heavier built than women so often men are more qualified for these jobs you are talking about. Doesn't take away the fact that women shouldn't expect getting treated better just because they think they should.
The issue is that "biology" is a legitimate argument when talking about reproductive rights (women should have abortions but men shouldn't have LPS because, biology) or workplace death gender disparity (as you point out), but it's misogynistic to suggest biology is behind the wage gap (because women have babies and breastfeed them) or STEM field gender disparities (because there is NO DIFFERENCE between male and female brains; mental/emotional differences between genders are PURELY social constructs).
[–]iLoginToComment -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Any man who seriously listens to the problems of a woman should man the fuck up.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]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.
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 entire point of this thread is to demonstrate this point, and above, if you bothered to read, are the cites.
So? Just because its a good job doesnt mean your entitled to it without earning it.
The entire legal system / cultural privilege of women.
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
Mostly, we just want feminists to stop whining about how women make less. Or are you arguing that because these are volunteer jobs (incidentally, not necessarily volunteer, in theory at least, when it comes to the military, one of the highest risk jobs out there), men should not be compensated for their risk to life and limb?
[–]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?
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?
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.
Research.
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.
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.
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.
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
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]tinyheavyistiny 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
what was the comment?
[–]tinyheavyistiny 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you, now your comment makes sense
[–]ENTP 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think it's hilarious how the butthurt troll is getting on all their alts to downvote you xD
[+]ExpendableOne -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link
people call us out on the streets in ways that are often harassing or demeaning
This would be more accurate if it was stated as: "men call us out on the streets in ways that we interpret as harassing or demeaning". Which is really what this issue comes down to and it primarily stems from this negative predisposition to and vilification of men, male interest, male sexuality and male approaches in general. It is a form of misandry, apathy or contempt that women exhibit towards men, which self-hating men and white knights are happy to defend.
[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Tbh, there isn't really a way I can think of a strange man calling out a strange woman on the street, especially in a sexual manner, that isn't harassing or demeaning, not to mention incredibly rude. I think catcalls are overblown-- it's never happened to me-- but that doesn't mean it isn't harassment when it does.
[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It's just plain rude to yell at strangers. Particularly when said stranger may feel vulnerable/physically threatened, as must often be the case when a woman is obnoxiously catcalled or wolf-whistled at, when she is simply trying to go about her day to day business.
[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree it's rude to yell anything at strangers. I think it's more rude as well as socially inappropriate to yell sexual things at strangers. I also agree with your characterization of catcalling as "obnoxious."
However, women feeling "vulnerable" or "physically threatened" by words, even rude, socially inappropriate, obnoxious words, is mostly in their heads. Women need to get over being so fearful of men.
[–]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
Well, yelling at random people is still rude, regardless of whether or not fear of violence is founded or not.
[+]ExpendableOne -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
What is and isn't "rude" greatly differs between individuals, cultures and situations but, either way, just because you find it rude doesn't mean it's harassment.
[–]ENTP 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Sure, but at least here in America, the general consensus seems to be that yelling at random women is rude.
[–]ExpendableOne -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
People in America yell at one another all the time without it ever being considered rude. One of the very few times where it is considered rude is when it comes from a man and is directed at a woman. The predispositions that constitute that difference, or that make that one thing "rude", is really where the issue lies. If you know someone that thought it was rude for black people, and black people only, to talk to him/her in public, you would be okay with that?
People in America yell at one another all the time without it ever being considered rude.
What? When? Please name one case where it is not rude for a stranger to yell at another, with the exception of someone obviously trying to help someone else out (i.e., yelling after someone walking away from a cab or exiting a store, "Hey! You forgot your wallet!", or someone about to walk in front a car, "Hey! Watch out for that car!"-- both situations in which failing to get the strangers attention quickly will have potentially severely negative consequences for the person about to leave without their wallet or hit by a car.)
[+]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?
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?
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?
It's not "shallow semantics." The two comments show a completely different level of respect for the woman.
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.
I think you need to look up the difference between "assault" and "battery."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Yes, you felt so much pain when you were 3 days old. SO MUCH PAIN.
Actually you did feel a hell of a lot of pain when you were 3 days old, you may not remember it, but it was there.
[–]7oby 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
nope
A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia. The researchers discovered that for those circumcised without anesthesia there was not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing.
A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.
The researchers discovered that for those circumcised without anesthesia there was not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing.
So-- are you buying into the physician/surgeon opinion for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that babies just don't feel pain? Because doctors-- who used to perform open heart surgery on infants with no anesthesia-- got over that in 1984.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Nesman64 115 points116 points117 points (95 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 107 points108 points109 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShetlandJames 42 points43 points44 points (46 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 135 points136 points137 points (44 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShetlandJames 75 points76 points77 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Revoran 13 points14 points15 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (36 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Embogenous 17 points18 points19 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Alanna 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Embogenous 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]porn_flakes 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sufrt -5 points-4 points-3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Embogenous 4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]sufrt -3 points-2 points-1 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Embogenous 3 points4 points5 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 7 points8 points9 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]darkgatherer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eirawyn 36 points37 points38 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[+]Dranosh -39 points-38 points-37 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]RalfN 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RalfN 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]RalfN 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShetlandJames 9 points10 points11 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]RalfN -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ShetlandJames 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShetlandJames 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShetlandJames 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]geodebug 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]feddau 28 points29 points30 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]xatmatwork 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]feddau 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pooballs 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]l80 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]feddau 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Irrel_M 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]geodebug -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]geodebug 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ArchZodiac 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]geodebug 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ArchZodiac 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]geodebug 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Irrel_M 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 96 points97 points98 points (43 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 21 points22 points23 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -35 points-34 points-33 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 24 points25 points26 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -33 points-32 points-31 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 21 points22 points23 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -26 points-25 points-24 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]A_Nihilist 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 14 points15 points16 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -20 points-19 points-18 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kuonji 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -17 points-16 points-15 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]mainsworth -9 points-8 points-7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Energy_Turtle 13 points14 points15 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Energy_Turtle 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]fwekeeto 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shady8x 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]nycjohndoe 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]shady8x 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]nycjohndoe 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]shady8x 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shadowsoal 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pooballs 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wasniahC 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dr_Scientist_ 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tanalilt 13 points14 points15 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfallibleBiship 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sicinfit 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RyanLikesyoface 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatGuy20 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pandalin 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]pandalin 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]pandalin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Corsaer 14 points15 points16 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 28 points29 points30 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Corsaer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]significantshrinkage -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senor_Porfirio 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cthulufunk 4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blackkevinDUNK -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]American83 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]larsao3 15 points16 points17 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Dranosh -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Jahasalknife -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Democritus477 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grapeban 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Big_Shot_Jack 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]A_Nihilist -6 points-5 points-4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chollly 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spicy_jose -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahasalknife -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]found314 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FisherKing22 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]FisherKing22 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 7 points8 points9 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hajamieli 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alittler 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pkurk 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (20 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]rlaptop7 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mchaydu 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mchaydu 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mchaydu 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]forgotpasswordd -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]significantshrinkage -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]foresthill[S] 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedHyphen 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]foresthill[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gakukun -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gakukun 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]he_cried_out_WTF 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PublicStranger -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]A_Nihilist 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]helllomoto -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]nottoosirius -7 points-6 points-5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iLoginToComment -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Jahasalknife 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahasalknife 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tinyheavyistiny 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tinyheavyistiny 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ENTP 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]ExpendableOne -12 points-11 points-10 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 5 points6 points7 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]ExpendableOne -8 points-7 points-6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ExpendableOne -6 points-5 points-4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]MJZMan -10 points-9 points-8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]7oby 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link