What do you think of this?
Why does this try to make women seem so unfortunate when it shows men are so much more unfortunate?
the woman is ingrained in our brains as a commodity so we are indignant, and our brain 'believes' the men are more responsible for themselves.
But the woman is a delicate precious princess who needs protecting. We need to help them live their natural independent lives
This picture is feminism in a nutshell. I might get a t-shirt of this and wear it ironically because I think this is the funniest shit ever.
no woman should be homeless ever
that's equality ;^)
There's no way that 1 in 4 of what we think of as homeless (drifters with literally no home or social network) are women.
>>29222586
Because it's a lot easier for homeless men to protect themselves?
How hard is that to grasp?
Not to mention that men like to exploit anyone weaker than them, so being exposed to them in a place like a homeless camp isn't going to turn out too well
>>29222705
I think they are using a weird 'homeless' definition cause I'm pretty sure like 96% of all unsheltered homeless (aka real homeless people) are men.
>>29222755
>>29222755
Probably California rules. Sheltered homeless + people who live in state supplied rooms without individual kitchens or bathrooms
>>29222586
Well what's the context? What is the article about? Also women have a different set of needs than men do. Such as a homeless woman on her period. How will she afford pads/tampons? These sanitary things are really necessary when you don't have access to facilities in which to clean yourself on a daily basis. Some of those probably have kids with them too. And that's a whole different set of troubles. What about when a homeless woman gets raped? Should she be expected to throw herself down a flight of stairs in the event of a pregnancy? When/how will she know if she's even pregnant? Shits a lot more complicated than what you think, anons.
They use some bullshit definition of homelessness to mean "Someone who does not have a permanent residence"
I am technically homeless since I move from place to place for my job under that definition
>>29222845
>how does she afford pads
on her knees, or from welfare.
>kids with them
family shelters are a thing from my time homeless, they're empty when male shelters have lines waiting to get in.
>what about when she gets raped
San Francisco General
>>29222845
Because they're women they're more likely to find other homeless people to help them out as opposed to homeless men that end up fucked because men are deposable and no one gives a shit about them.
>>29222586
Actually it would be 100% better if 4 out 4 homeless people were women:
>There'd be a much smaller amount of homeless people.
>Homeless women would have the entirety of both gendered and non-gendered homeless resources to themselves.
>Homelessness would stand a better chance of being completely wiped out, since it would be a women's only issue.
>Homeless women wouldnt have to be worried about being raped, robbed, or killed by crazy homeless men.
>Homeless women would have the benefit of a society-wide white knight complex to save and protect them.
>>29222986
>on her knees
Do you not see that as a problem?
>family shelters
I heard those can be pretty bad. Like your child gonna get raped bad.
>>29223042
If that was really the case then why go through the trouble of mentioning anything I just said plus the picture/article in op??
>inb4 because wimminz need attention!!1
That's not really a point than can be argued intelligently and you know it.
>>29222724
Do you exploit anyone weaker than you?
Women are less likely to be homeless due to two major facts.
There are more women's shelters than men's. Women have an easier ability to shack up with people than do men.
>>29223622
>much smaller amount of homeless people
How?? Male to female ratio in US is nearly half. It wouldn't be a very large difference.
>access to gendered and non gendered resources all to themselves
But there would still be the same amount of homeless people therefore the resources would still be being used as before, not really resulting in "more" resources
>better chance of being wiped out
That doesn't make any sense. Despite feminism's "best" efforts, lots of big ticket issues are still ignored because most policy makers are men. If anything there would be a huge increase in homeless people/women because all funds and programs would shut down because "it's only women lol"
>wouldn't have to worry about being assaulted by homeless men
Yeah, just other homeless women and non homeless men looking to take advantage
>benefit of white knight complex
That doesn't really help them now so???
Tl;dr you're just an idiot misogynist
>>29222845
Oh fuck off.
>wants to be treated equally
>demands special treatment as weaker sex
pick one and only one
>>29223807
>being this deluded
origami
>>29223807
>you're just a misogynist
Do you know where you are?
every time until you lose the trip.
>>29222612
I like this view, good idea. In the future I'm going to tell self-centric feminists that they have internalized commodization of their own sex.
Please make one fucking thread for this bullshit
>>29223864
I don't see how it can be special treatment when it's literally a whole different set of problems. If you want homeless men to get free tampons too, that's fine, but they wouldn't have any use for them.
~equality~
>>29223968
>I don't see how it can be special treatment when it's literally a whole different set of problems.
it's not. there is overlap and obviously women get more help with the overlap. retard.
>>29223916
Someone has a fixation on a tripfag
>>29224053
Wow I didn't realize men get pregnant and periods and those issues as a homeless man aren't being met. Thank you senpai for enlightening me.
>>29224107
>intellectually dishonest normie pretends they're literally so stupid they don't understand the difference between there being overlap and all problems overlapping
>>29223807
Bait, bait as hard you can! You can't troll me, I'm the Gingerbread Anon!
>>29223968
you're fucking homeless who gives a fuck about tampons
no they are not a necessary item you prissy entitled cunt FOOD AND SHELTER are necessary. homeless men don't that shit either, nor do they receive any medical treatment. men are also overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of ALL kinds of violence so don't start talking about muh safety either bitch.
accept that homelessness is very firmly a MEN'S ISSUE and that homeless men are extremely disadvantaged to homeless women. homelessness as a woman just means waiting around a few days for a man to save you, which they inevitably will, very soon. in fact i'm quite sure that if i had timestamped a 'homeless woman pls help' post on reddit or even /r9k/ i'd have someone setting me up with a free hotel room and promise of continued support RIGHT NOW, tonight.
>>29224107
Normie, and or roastie found,
One of those is the woman's fault, don have sex.
The other can be taken care of the same way it was before tampons and pads were sold at dairy marts.
Not to mention for every dollar a man makes begging, a woman makes 12 because she "needs" it. They don't know what it's like to have nothing, someone will always give them something or take care of them.
>>29224107
So what you're saying is women are the weaker sex and need special treatment? That's fine. But then they shouldn't expect equal rights if their meat holes make them that biologically predisposed to being fragile.
>>29224107
origamidesudesudesudesu
>>29224146
But I am only talking about what doesn't overlap and anon kun is talking about what does which isn't what I'm talking about. What doesn't overlap is the most important part because y all ignore it because you don't experience it therefore you don't care
>>29224160
Read above. Trust me, if more women walked around free bleeding for a week straight and you had to look at our bloody crotches as we inhabited the same space you do we wouldn't even be talking about this issue, all women would get free tampons. They are not a luxury item. They are necessary to a comfortable living for both men and women.
>>29224171
"Don't have sex," he said, while at this very moment a homeless woman is being raped in a dark alleyway without a condom, possibly contracting AIDS or another STI.
>>29224178
I really don't understand how this doesnt make sense to you unless you are trolling, then well done. Men and Women are -different- and have -different- needs. However, these differences make us neither -weaker- or -stronger- because in theory we are -equal-. So if we are to be truly treated equally, all needs for both sexes need to be met. However, there are needs for BOTH sexes that aren't being met. So why not work to change that for both sexes without taking one away from the other.
>>29224342
Can you die from having a messy period? No, you can't. It's a fucking luxury item, like clean underwear.
>>29224342
But the point there is no equality in treatment between homeless men and homeless women you dense cunt because they're far more homeless men than homeless women. If you think that's "equality" then you're clearly retarded.
>>29224342
>What doesn't overlap is the most important part because y all ignore it because you don't experience it therefore you don't care
>food and shelter are less important than tampons and abortions.
ok. and none of this changes the fact that i said women receive more help on things that do overlap and you started tarding out about how this is somehow contradicted by tampons because you're an absolute idiot.
>Men are 49% of the general population
>Men are 75% of the homeless population
>there are literally people who think this society disadvantages women and advantages men
I want out.
>>29224342
Have you ever seen a homeless woman? They're all old and ugly. That's because the attractive ones use their meatflaps to secure food and shelter and we come full circle to why you need to kill yourself.
>>29224447
After some research, I can conclude that you are right, men's facilities are worse off and there is a disproportionate amount of funding that goes to women's facilities. So, like I said, fix IT ALL and not take away from what is there. Equality doesn't mean "take it away from one side" but "give it to both sides."
>>29224423
So you dont care about women walking around all bloodied from periods? You wouldn't feel uncomfortable seeing that? It's as much for your benefit as it for ours. You're welcome.
>>29224470
See above.
>>29224507
This doesn't really make sense. If this is what you feel to be true then you're part of the problem because you seem to believe that the old ugly homeless woman doesn't deserve the same treatment as a young and beautiful homeless woman, if there is such a thing. Which also rustles my jimmies.
>>29224571
A homeless man struggling to even survive disturbs me much MUCH more than a woman bitching about her messy pants.
I mean holy shit if it bothers you that much go in a public bathroom and clean up with toilet paper, or stuff it up with a cloth or something.
>>29224571
I hate nu-r9k
>>29222586
but that means 3/4 of all homeless people are men
but lol theres one homeless woman, what a tragedy, i cri evertiem
>>29222724
A tripfag and a white knight. Please kill yourself.
>>29224669
>but that means 3/4 of all homeless people are men
Gender isn't binary, shitlord
Don't homeless women end up being whores or victims of human trafficking and shit?
>>29224571
>I can conclude that you are right
Good, now leave.
>So you don't care about women walking around all bloodied from periods?
No.
>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh tampons waaaaaaaaah
Still a huge overlap in more basic needs.
>beautiful homeless women existing
They don't.
>>29224732
homeless women end up with a 'boyfriend' who they may or may not have sex with at their own choosing.
while staying at their 'boyfriend's' home they get a job or find a new, better boyfriend and then they break up.
so no, basically the worst that can happen is that they maybe have to pretend to like a guy they don't really like.
>>29224800
Are you actualIy this retarded?
>>29224622
So then why doesnt a homeless woman struggling bother you as much as a homeless man struggling ?? That's inequality. The very thing you're apparently against.
>>29224627
Been here for a long time, my dude. Get used to it.
>>29224694
This
>>29224732
This, exactly what I'm talking about. A different set of problems. There are programs in place n shit to manage these problems but it's only managing, not really addressing or making a dent in. Especially since these sex crimes are being perpetrated by men.
>>29224800
This is basically retarded, I can't believe you took the time to write that garbage.
>>29224674
>replying to metric's bait
Summer
>>29224833
Hey go fuck your mother
>>29224800
this
I've met homeless women and they all just end up finding a boyfriend to take care of them or prostituting. Only the most worn out junkies stay homeless. To be fair most homeless men will get off the streets in like a month if they have family/friends.
>>29224831
>>29224833
well i've literally never seen a homeless woman so it's hard to even take the idea seriously
>>29222586
WOMAN ARE VALUABLE
WOMAN ARE EXPENDABLE
>t. woman's brain, men's brain, media, tradition, instincts of every single creature in this planet
If you live in the western world, then homelessness is a choice.
We have so many social programs and so many charitable practices that it's almost impossible to be homeless unless you try.
The government is handing out money by the truckfull to people who don't work, and with housing commissions and other programs, all you need to do to fix homelessness is fill out a few forms.
Why the fuck should I feel sorry for these "poor homeless women". if you are using your welfare to buy drugs, then that is your choice. I respect your choice. And part of respecting choices isn't feeling bad for you being "misguided" or whatever.
>>29224937
Yeah, so far i've seen like 1 or 2 homeless women in my life and they were basically grannies (dunno if they were just old or wasted junkies or both). So i guess it makes sense that younger women end up either doing prostitution or some other shit like that.
Judging by what happens in prisons/military with gays/trannies for example, i guess it wouldn't be weird if good ol' cletus and his niggas gangbanged naive homeless women in whatever abandoned wasteland they made their home.
>>29224980
where the fuck do i get all this free money? i'm the poorest sorriest fucker you'll ever meet and i've been denied every handout.
>not doxxing tripfags and harrassing them IRL
newfags all of you.
btw metric is a regular here and /g/, every single post je makes is bait.
>>29224980
>We have so many social programs and so many charitable practices that it's almost impossible to be homeless unless you try.
wrong
I have a severe physical disability(reactive arthritis) and I can't get any gibsmedats.
>
The government is handing out money by the truckfull to people who don't work, and with housing commissions and other programs, all you need to do to fix homelessness is fill out a few forms.
Only for women with children. Literally nothing for men
>if you are using your welfare to buy drugs, then that is your choice. I respect your choice. And part of respecting choices isn't feeling bad for you being "misguided" or whatever.
I agree with this one. Lots of poor people are shitty parents who use welfare as a quick buck.
>>29224694
underrated post
oirignianlas
>>29225034
>>29225057
Bullshit.
There are people with hardly any disability getting free money and living off the taxpayers dime.
You don't even have to press social services that hard to get it.
If you don't try to get it out of pride, then that is your choice.
But I'm sick of being told I need to feel sorry for people who make that choice.
Like I'm supposed to be shocked at the statistic that one in four homeless are women are homeless and think "oh what a terrible society we live in abloobloobloo"
Fuck off. Homelessness is a choice. Sort your shit out and stop looking for attention
>>29222586
I think it would make even more impact if the woman sign was on the left instead of the right since we're taught to read from left to right it would give the woman an even more privileged position.
>>29222675
This seems like a good idea.
>>29225160
It takes 3 years of joblessness and neet/homelessness to get neetbux.
>>29225160
>There are people with hardly any disability getting free money and living off the taxpayers dime.
Yeah, there are. They're almost all women.
>>29225160
I've applied and been rejected. It's hard af to get disability
Homelessness isn't always a choice. I know of people that were homeless at 14. Their parents just didn't want to parent anymore. What makes it disgusting is that the parents were collecting welfare checks
>>29224833
god damn, you're fucking dumb. holy shit.
>vast majority of homeless people are men
>somehow thinks that this issue is of equal importance for women
????????
>>29225255
I think any human rights violations should be of equal importance no matter which gender is involved? ???
>>29225224
Maybe in the third world shithole you live in.
That's kind of backwards because welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing, not a long term thing.
>>29225238
Exactly, because men are more likely to make the choice to contribute to society and not leach off others. A few men choose to take benefits and live in projects. And a few men choose to be homeless. But it's a choice, that's the word of the day. Choice
>>29225243
You mean kids choose to not contact social services and try and make it on their own. Maybe you can consider it admirable to try, but it's still a choice
It's only biology.
Women are more than happy taking their privilege, it's strange that men are gradually refusing to take theirs.
>>29225348
>You mean kids choose to not contact social services and try and make it on their own.
contacting law enforcement is not acceptable for a lot of people. Just like you can't call the police on a crack dealer, you can't call them when your parents shun you. I know people who had their kids selling drugs for them and everyone got pissed when they got arrested
It's not a choice to be homeless until you're like 25. After that age you should be able to take care of yourself
>>29225426
We, as a society, are trying our goddamn hardest to help these people, and at this point, there is not much more we can do. If people don't want to reach out and get help because it's not "acceptable" to them for whatever reason, then all we can do is just let them be.
I sort of agree though.
Every homeless man I've met has been resourceful as fuck.
There were a couple of them that lived near my uni, I walked past their shanty in my lunch break and we shot the shit for a while.
They had made an enclosed fire pit for heating, light and cooking from scrap, and had the beginnings of a simple rainwater system.
I threw 50$ their way, and one of the guys used the money to make a shitty solar powered lighting system.
They even had a garden of sorts and chickens.
When I get home I'll try and find a picture. I was genuinely impressed.
I can't imagine a woman who was homeless being able to manage any of that.
>>29224937
I've never seen a bear but that doesn't mean I doubt they exist
>>29225527
You fucking pig. How dare you say women are not resourceful! Women can
>lay on their backs for money
>lay on their backs for dinner
>lay on their backs for shelter
>lay on their backs for showers
>lay on their backs for drugs
Women can do anything.
Women have been biologically selected for to fit in to society better. Big boobs and pretty whatever come out of helping them, whereas helping men has a small chance to work out since society expects a lot more from men.
I support equality because I think shit like this is unfair to men.
Or actually I don't really care since all men are women and vice versa (our children - our genetic code can become either).
I don't delude myself by lying so much it sounds true to me: Women are weaker. They need more to be 100%safe, which is how I'd want my daughter and sister if I had one to feel.
I hate nu-males and feminists for pulling women down and generalizing. Women can do whatever as individuals, but in order to be healthy (get sex, resources, reproduce, age happily) they require companionship. Instead of pressing statistics like this in our face, why not research things like 'advantages and disadvantages of huge tits' or even 'when does sex become too much' (to avoid slut problem).
This homeless shit just brings women down. "3/4 are men" - women die more as honeless? - women get more help as homeless and should try less hard? - women can't manage so society is always helping them?
What the fuck are these stats anyway. Who's ass have they been pulled out of? There's no way 3/4 are men. Maybe 60% due to military vets being more men and other mental disorders being more prevalent in men.. But not 75%. Nope.
>>29222586
that statistic seems like it is from surveying people going to shelters and distribution centers.
homeless women go to distribution centers and shelters more than males and from my own personal experience it seems like at most there's 1 female for every 4-5 males
>>29225918
>blaming women for thinking this is right
>not blaming society for making this right
W A K E U P S H E E P L E
A
K
E
U
P
S
H
E
E
P
L
E
>>29224833
I actually agreed with you about there being different problems for both genders, and that stuff like tampons and being able to deal with the physical results of sexual abuse are important for homeless women, but it's clear you're just trolling mate, no-one legit thinks that gender identity matters as far as living needs.
>>29227412
If you phrase it that way, you're right. It's sex, not gender, that determines living needs.
>>29222845
are you seriously implying that its more okay for men to be homeless? how about anyone being homeless is sad why is it especially sad if its women?
>>29222586
Wait, 1 in 4 homeless people are women? You mean to tell me 25% of all homeless are women? Clearly we have to prioritize them first and create organizations and donations specifically to help only women because 1 in 4 is way too much.
Forget about the 75% of men. Disgusting fucking sexist and racist liberals.
>>29222586
Women are the key to reproduction. We're all wired to protect them and help them on a subconscious level.
Notice how the expression is "women and children first", not "children and women first". Because women can make more children.
So in all emergency situations women will get saved first. And in all conflicts, women are assumed to be the victim, by default.
Men look after women, women look after women. If you're a man, you have to look after yourself, because no one will help.
>>29224107
Tampons aren't a need. Women did fine for millenia without them.
>>29222586
>children can't be homeless
>>29227490
Well yeah, I agree with that then, I thought that was the entire point.
>>29228002
I think they were trying to say that the article might have been focusing on the particular needs of homeless women as opposed to homeless people as a whole, so saying that homeless women are pretty common is relevant rather than sexist. It's possible I guess, but without context it's hard to say either way.
I think people mix up that equality doesn't mean "I'm worse give me more than the other guy", both ways really. And generally speaking, men don't have any particular needs the same way as women, so more food and more facilities will help both, but stuff like tampons and access to other gender specific items is only going to benefit homeless women.
I agree that it's sad both ways though, and I don't mean to write this as a "homeless women are worse off than homeless men", because they're not, both are in very shitty situations and deserve our help equally.
>>29222586
Because people assume that all homeless people are men. Or atleast that the percentage breakup is different.
It's not meant to say take the focus off of homeless men, it's meant to disprove and assumption that most people make about homeless people in general.
It's like if you assume that all piolets are men, and then a statistic tells you "well actually, 1/3 of all piolets are women!"
It's just meant to disprove assumptions, not to specifically argue anhthing
>>29228002
I wasn't implying that at all and if you keep reading you'll discover that. I can't even imagine how you could jump to that conclusion.
>>29228122
This is backasswards. It's a millennia later, no one should have be subjected to that kind of shit anymore. That's like saying homeless men shouldn't have access to razor blades because they survived without them for a millennia. Though the tampon thing is a little more extreme than razor blades.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? AND WHAT ARE THE OTHER THREE PEOPLE?
>one out of 4 homeless people are women.
Do they fucking want to be just homeless men in the world? Are they fucking mentally psichopathical or just plain fucked up? holy shit, the drugs made so much damage to these woman's brains...
>>29222586
all women are homeless, they live in homes that men pay for
why are women so entitled to the best life?
>>29230331
Because Thats how the world is. Being a feminist, I can assure you that women are required to be taken care of by men. (Sarcasm)
>>29222586
What about the 3/4 men? WHy is it a problem when women are subjected to a hard life?
Fuck every white knight beta brainwashed by women to do his bidding.
>>29229692
>>29230331
>>29230368
>>29230382
R E A D T H E T H R E A D
E
A
D
T
H
E
T
H
R
E
A
D
>>29230479
but im op
>>29230491
So you just ignored the whole part where people assumed the data was probably not in reference to how terrible women have it, but rather that it's still a sizable population with unique issues that need to be addressed? Posts like this with just a single part of a whole article are dumb, because we have no idea the context.
>>29230722
i em op
>>29230722
Oh my god those poor 25 women!! Boo hoo *camera snaps picture* Boo hoo
b-but what about the 75 me-
BOOHOO THOSE POOR 25 WOMEN
>>29230794
Congratulations on being the exact same sort of person as the tumblr feminists who say that rape cases involving men don't matter because there's less of them.
Did you even read my post though? I flat out said it's probably not in reference to how terrible things are for women, as in it's not trying to say "These 25 women is such a terrible thing, we should help them!" and ignoring the men.
>>29231053
Rape cases against men arent a big deal, and rape cases against WOMEN arent a big deal. Provable rape has a punishment! People dont need to be told rape is wrong, if someone is going to rape you they'll do it regardless of the consequences.
>>29231053
In fact, wearing slutty clothes just makes you more attractive to men who want to rape someone, and being drunk makes them think its easier
>>29230722
I agree with you. Homeless women face some different challenges to homeless men - but everyone mad at this picture seems to think we should just forget about that and focus on men men men men as usual
>>29228199
>men are dying in the cold of the street because no shelter
>BUT LOOK there is THREE WOMEN in this city who can't BUY TAMPONS
thanks white knight cucks
>>29231268
lmao dude you cant win against these guys.
>>29228318
Yeah, homeless men DON'T have access to razor blades retard.
>>29231186
>>29231209
Okay.
>>29231268
But what you're forgetting is that homeless women face those same fucking problems. Why are you ignoring what I'm saying completely anyway?
I'm claiming that shit like more shelters, substance abuse treatment programs, food, all of that shit helps both men and women, and doesn't need to be a gendered issue. But things that are gender specific do need to be addressed too, it being less common doesn't mean it's not an issue.
Seriously, right there at the end of my fucking post anon, I said this
>I agree that it's sad both ways though, and I don't mean to write this as a "homeless women are worse off than homeless men", because they're not, both are in very shitty situations and deserve our help equally.
Can you not fucking read or something? Why are you so interested in making sure this is a gender issue?
>>29231221
I really don't get why we need to make fucking homelessness a gendered problem at all. Help all homeless people in whatever way they need, women needing some things that men don't actually need at all doesn't mean that men should be left on the streets to freeze to death while the women get 5 star hotels and everything they want like so many people seem to think it does here.
>>29231402
Why are they differentiating
Just say homeless people and leave it at that.
M-muh women.
>>29231402
>I really don't get why we need to make fucking homelessness a gendered problem at all
It does disproportionately affect men, though. I'm a feminist and one of those people who cares about men's issues (NOT an MRA - they are disgusting), and I think we need to look at many of the root causes of homelessness that come down to how we view men in society.
>>29231444
>NOT an MRA - they are disgusting
Why? They're your counterparts.
>>29231402
Humans have always had a dynamic of women and children first and that has not changed at all. The 93percent workplace death gap has to be evidence of this, if only because theres nobody with any kind of importance or power whos interested in changing it at all. In fact I remember reading an article in a British Columbia paper not long ago that described the increasing proportion of female injuries on the job as a huge problem, and the insane thing was the change reflected a decrease in male injuries rather than an increase in female ones. Mens injuries on the job had gone down because the economic downturn had put so many men out of work in the resource sector that there just werent as many trees or pieces of heavy equipment falling on men as there had been before. And yet, this was framed as a huge problem for women that required immediate action to solve. Its like if men arent dying at work that 20 times the rate that women are, we must be doing something wrong as a society. Karen Straughan
>make of this a gender issue
because if society has the choice between helping a lot of men or helping a handful of cunts, cunts will get help every time
>>29231511
No they aren't. They only care about tearing feminism down, rather than identifying and working to improve men's issues.
In many cases, what feminists are doing is already helping men. There are some issues which are male-specific, but any study of gender imbalances starts with an understanding of how women are structurally discriminated against. If people aren't willing to see that, there's no way they are fighting for equality - and that sums up every single MRA I have ever encountered.
>>29231554
>"""helping men""""
>with concepts such as "toxic masculinity"
ah yes
very impressive
>>29231511
Look at this:
>>29231525
See, here's a prime example. If Men's Rights Activists *actually* cared about helping men, they would be discussing workplace safety legislation with unions and elected officials. They would be lobbying governments for stricter standards in the manufacture of protective gear. They would be discussing safety campaigns with employers.
But nahhh. Instead, just see if there's any way they can use it to bash feminism. They see it as more important to tear women down than help men at all.
>>29231554
So like feminists?
>>29231554
>but any study of gender imbalances starts with an understanding of how women are structurally discriminated against
So basically, you start with your conclusion.
Also, what are feminists doing to help men? All you do is demonize us. Fuck off.
>>29231591
Toxic masculinity is 100% about helping men. Anyone who says it isn't doesn't understand the concept. It's not saying 'masculinity is toxic'. It's asking why society pressures men to perform certain behavours which often harm themselves, other men, and society.
>>29231597
Except that they do address issues effecting men, for example with suicide hotlines. All feminists do is label such initiatives hate and obstruct them.
>>29231603
If you can't see how society is biased against women, you fail the very first class in equality 101. It's like you walking into an astrophysics discussion and stating the moon is made of cheese. It's just something you have to understand before it's even possible to discuss other issues.
Feminism is about female superiority not equality. They want to prop us women at the cost of dragging men down
>>29231638
Yeah, I see the thousands of feminists protesting against CALM... oh wait, no I don't.
They label things 'hate' if they try to empower man *at the expense of women*, who are already getting the raw deal in society. Gender equality isn't a zero-sum game, and only stupid people think it is.
>>29231631
So toxic masculinity is about being a normal man then?
>>29231597
>MRA conferences on campuses
>feminists organize a counter event so the press don't cover them
>use the fire alarm
>harass the speakers
every fucking time
also did you read
>nobody with any kind of importance or power whos interested in changing it at all
most men think mra's are pussies because feminists are shaming them "not real men lol"
isn't that toxic femininity? Why isn't this issue ever discussed?
>>29231675
up*
orgi
>>29231675
>Feminism is about female superiority not equality
Nice catch phrase, but doesn't really stand up to any form of scrutiny.
>>29231631
>y pressures men to perform certain behavours which often harm themselves, other men, and society.
Such as?
>>29231685
>who are already getting the raw deal in society
Working class women, maybe. Middle and upper class women are some of the most pampered people to have ever existed.
>>29224674
>having a basic understanding of human empathy makes you a whiteknight
>hurr
Kys
The other day I heard some ad for a group that raises money to treat lung cancer in women and for a second I imagined the feminist outrage if the same group had existed but for men. They would all lose their shit that women were being excluded, but when it's the other way around, no one bats an eye.
>>29231691
> So toxic masculinity is about being a normal man then?
Toxic masculinity is one root cause of homelessness, male suicide (which is a huge issue), the decline in male teachers, the lack of male nurses (both of which used to be fine professions for men), and many other issues which deeply affect men. Dismiss it if you like, but be aware you are only harming men's issues if you do so.
And yes, funnily enough people will protest if you hold a talk with the title 'Feminism is cancer'. Feminism is the only reason why women are starting to see some parity with men - if you're anti-feminism, you're anti-equality. You don't want women to start life on the same foot as men. That is protest worthy, don't you agree?
>>29231685
>Gender equality isn't a zero-sum game
Bullshit. For feminists it absolutely is. Men's issues must be understood within a feminist framework or else you obstruct and demonize. Fuck off with your platitudes.
>>29222586
notice how they only give a shit about homeless women in the first place and they don't even bother to mention homeless men.
>>29231713
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
>>29231736
Most medicine is tested exclusively on men. We have only recently even realized heart attack symptoms in women are different from those in men. We have only just scratched the surface of whether other diseases affect women differently, in a way medical science has just turned a blind eye to.
>>29231421
Because women require some items that men don't. We have no idea the context of this article.
>>29231444
>It does disproportionately affect men, though
Absolutely, I'm not arguing this fact at all.
>I think we need to look at many of the root causes of homelessness that come down to how we view men in society.
I agree completely here once again, though I'd argue that the causes are nearly always addiction and mental illness issues in some form.
I'm not debating this stuff at all, the causes can be gendered issues that do need to be addressed appropriately. I'm talking about actually caring for homeless people, the ones that are already in that case. That doesn't need to be a gendered issue. Women needing some extra items to live healthily (periods without tampons or pads are highly unsanitary and can cause infections, it's not just a bit uncomfortable) doesn't mean it's somehow a sexism issue where women are getting more attention, there's just not an equivalent thing that guys need. Shelter and food are gender neutral, and help both.
>>29231525
You've turned this into a completely different issue in an attempt to argue why it should be sexist, I'm not interested in discussing this topic. You're trying to turn something that's inherently an issue that effects both genders (men a lot more, but it's not an unsubstantial amount of women either) into some stupid fucking excuse to make feminism look bad, which isn't what I'm talking about at all
Work place safety isn't related to the thread. Stay on topic.
Also, if you refer to women as cunts instead of women, no-one thinks you're rational and thinking logically, they just assume you're very angry at women in general and are letting your emotions dictate your beliefs.
>>29231762
You can start outside the feminist 'framework', but as soon as you start looking at facts, you soon realise that 'framework' is actually 'reality'. Happened to me. I was really anti-feminist... until I actually decided to do something about how unequal I felt, and did some research.
>>29231761
How? By what mechanism does "toxic masculinity" (very objective term lmao) cause male homelessness?
>>29231761
the protested conference were about male suicide
nice try though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q
really makes you think
>>29231631
>It's asking why society pressures men to perform certain behavours which often harm themselves, other men, and society.
>society
You men women. Women run away from men who dare to express their feelings, women are the ones that reward violence and ruthlessness in men, women are the ones to stimulate the competition among men.
>>29231816
So basically feminism is your religion. No scientist would state that their model is reality, they would instead talk about the probability that it is true or false.
This is just typical. The older you get the more you realise that women have always had immensely more power than men and always will. Everything exists for women and women by nature are self-interested and gender-narcissistic. Women exercise collective social aggression and social bullying towards males and will never stop.
'Patriarchy' is literally an inversion of the reality. At no time in history have men helps other men just for being male. Women and men have always helped women just for being women. The prevalence of belief in things like 'historical patriarchy' are actually just a function of female power and manipulation. That why you had women in their 20's-60's handing white feathers and shaming boys as young as 14 into signing up for brutal death in ww1. Or why when men were being drafted randomly by birthdate to be possibly made into a murderer, maimed, burned alive, etc - that's when women decided thy needed subsidised job and contraception. Why as men were burning draft cards which involve the force of state and threat of imprisonment... Women were burning their bras (something nobody forced them to wear ann which helped women anyway).
>>29231816
>I was really anti-feminist... until I actually decided to do something about how unequal I felt, and did some research.
You've never heard of confirmation bias, then?
>>29231797
>http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
yeah those are legit issues
>>29231815
I was staying on topic you retarded mouthbreather :^]
>>29231819
Emasculation associated with asking for help is probably #1. Be it debt, a mental health issue, a relationship breakdown, whatever - feeling like they cannot discuss it with anyone until it's too late and they are on the street.
Then with need to look at other patriarchal issues, such as the high incarceration rates of men, which even after release limits employability (see the ban the box campaign, which is an actual men's equality issue as it disproportionately affects men).
It's many issues, and that's just two.
>>29231885
How exactly is anything you posted related to the issues that homeless people face? It's related to you trying to twist the issue into something else to make it gendered, sure, but not the issues themselves.
>>29231850
So, no scientist would ever tell you that, in reality, the moon isn't made of cheese?
What a useless argument you have there.
>>29231675
equality is bullshit anyways because you have to hurt men first by handicapping them in school so women can keep up with men. men were doing much better in school but then they change the whole school system to please women and teachers are now giving men lower scores for the same answers as a girl would have. also affirmative action has made it so men have to do all the real competition to find jobs while girls are guarantee a jobs even if they don't have the qualifications for the job. you literally can't have equality unless you hurt men first.
>>29231916
What I mean is that they wouldn't express such certainty in their model. They would be open to the idea that it doesn't explain everything. You are not.
>>29231897
Honestly, I think most /r9k/ posters agree with the points you're raising, there are a lot of standards put on men that aren't healthy, I think the issue is in the wording.
Patriarchy implies it's mens fault it exists, that we're somehow a power model oppressing everyone at once and also not oppressing everyone at once. It's a poor term for it.
As is toxic masculinity, which outright implies it's masculinities fault, and that women don't have the same issues, as you never hear about toxic femininity, despite similar things being argued for women and men.
The actual points you've raised here are pretty reasonable ones, but the wording makes people feel attacked from the very start, and is honestly kind of sexist on its own.
>>29231931
So, no scientist would be certain the moon isn't made of cheese?
Come on, pal. It seems like you picked up this idea of an 'argument' from someone you think is smart, but didn't quiet understand it.
>>29231897
>Emasculation associated with asking for help is probably #1
Funny how women are probably the first to do that though. You are missing the point so hard.
Men are like women wants them to be. Women wants risk takers, stoic guys who go out into the world.
Do you think whiny betas (the emotional men women claim they want but really don't) get women?
>>29231957
You idiot. You are comparing a single proposition (the moon is made of cheese) to a whole model (patriarchy "theory"). Yes, one can have a high degree of confidence that the moon is not made of cheese. However, thinking that you have a comprehensive model of society that you can use to interpret all the data (with 100% confidence) is deluded.
>>29231952
>Patriarchy implies it's mens fault it exists
No, it doesn't. That's a very poor understanding of it. It is defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it". Notice that it doesn't say "in which ALL MEN hold the power". Take a look at world leaders, and tell me that women aren't largely excluded from power. It doesn't mean all men hold power, just that relatively few women hold any.
> As is toxic masculinity, which outright implies it's masculinities fault
Again, no. Some people choose to read 'Toxic Masculinity' as meaning all masculinity is toxic, but that's absolutely not what the phrase means, and an iota of research would reveal that. It is referring to the specific parts of masculinity and masculine behavior which is toxic. It's like saying 'the fluffy bunnies are jumping' doesn't inherently mean all bunnies are fluffy.
So, it's not sexist, and when people claim it is, they are basically out to attack it from a semantic angle, rather than to discuss the important points it raises.
We live in a patriarchy, not in a Patriarchy.
The patriarchy is, and was always, about protecting women at the cost of men's lives.
>>29228318
>This is backasswards. It's a millennia later, no one should have be subjected to that kind of shit anymore
In the 21st millennia no one should be subjected to homelessness at all in civilization but we still have it. We still have murder and high suicide rates as well.
We shouldn't but humanity still does and you can't forcibly change all of humanity.
>>29232004
So, I take it you're not sold on evolution, then? You know, it's 'just a theory' and all that, right?
>>29232032
>Take a look at world leaders, and tell me that women aren't largely excluded from power. It doesn't mean all men hold power, just that relatively few women hold any.
Maybe because one of the reason to want power is so you can get laid easily and women don't need power to get laid easily.
And why is no one addressing the idea of toxic femininity on the feminist side again? Surely it must exist since we thrive on making equality a real thing??
>>29232039
Nah, that's just how they packaged and sold it to impressionable young men. "Die like a hero to protect your women!"
In truth, it was protecting rich men's resources at the cost of poor men's lives.
>>29224571
>you seem to believe that the old ugly homeless woman doesn't deserve the same treatment as a young and beautiful homeless woman
are you legitimately retarded?
>>29232053
OK, now you are just being thick as shit. I put theory in quotation marks because I don't see patriarchy theory as having validity. And it certainly isn't as robust as any given biological theory.
>>29232085
Because surely if an enemy army comes through the front gate there's is zero (0) risk they will rape your sister, mother, aunt or wife.
>>29232032
you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded. you could just express your ideas without resorting to retarded buzzwords that are almost always used with anti-male overtones but instead you just want to hide behind them so you don't have to form a coherent argument yourself and pretend you don't know how you sound
>>29232085
>In truth, it was protecting rich men's resources at the cost of poor men's lives.
Which makes it an oligarchy, or whatever more adequate term you want to use, but not a patriarchy.
>>29232116
Not him but why are women entitled to being protected by men? Fucking retards.
>>29232074
> Maybe because one of the reason to want power is so you can get laid easily and women don't need power to get laid easily.
So? If that was the case, is that still a reason to exclude women from it?
> And why is no one addressing the idea of toxic femininity on the feminist side again?
Toxic masculinity refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth. Do you think you can find some way to apply that to women, that isn't already covered by the theory of patriarchy?
> Surely it must exist since we thrive on making equality a real thing?
Looks like you don't really understand what 'equality' means.
>>29232124
Patriarchy is defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it". Take a look at world leaders, and tell me that women aren't largely excluded from power.
>>29232074
>toxic femininity
but women are perfect and they can't do wrong :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuS8bTZ-maQ
>>29232032
Please re-read what I said. I'm not saying that's the definitions of the terms, I'm saying that the terms conjure a certain image on their own that makes males feel attacked or like they're somehow at fault for it, which isn't true.
My point is that most people would agree with the basic tenets of what you're saying, stereotypes are harmful, especially ones like the ones you're describing. But when you use just inflammatory terms, people assume you're unreasonable and attacking them before you ever get to talk, and understand what the points mean.
I'd argue that patriarchy is a bad word anyway, because it's dumb to act like there'd be some huge change if Hillary got in. Germany has a female leader, and still suffers from the same issue, there's little evidence that gender of the people in power actually matters, it's more that they're in power. They're not conspiring to keep anyone but the people below them down, gender doesn't matter.
>>29232053
a theory which can be observed. unlike feminism which is just a bunch of retards standing around, noticing things aren't equal, and pretending that it's inconceivable inequality is anything but culture
>>29232142
>that isn't already covered by the theory of patriarchy
The way that you can tell a theory is bullshit is when it claims to explain everything about a given area.
Just admit you have a faith and stop pretending you have a social science.
>>29232164
>Take a look at world leaders
yeah and he is a huge pussywhipped mangina who bend over backward for women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFtqque2IeU
>>29232170
Like I say, that's just twisting it to be an argument from semantics rather than a discussion of the actual issues it raises. It would be called 'menarenothingbutwalkingsperminjectors theory' and still we should look at the points it raises and not the name.
btw electing Hillary won't automatically erase the patriarchy. It shows how far we've come, certainly, but until 50% of presidential candidates or world leaders are female, then women are still 'largely excluded', as per the definition.
>>29232085
The suffragette movement was incredibly powerful, had literally zero organised opposition, and consisted of women from all classes. They never once said "give us the vote AND the same responsibilities as men!" They never collectively supported an end to conscription in fact most suffragettes supported conscription of males for fighting specifically and an exemption from fighting for women. The more privileges women collectively got, the MORE they aggressors against men's basic rights. Hence feminists not only creating prison gender segregation which allowed men to be disposed of by being sent to the sausage factory, but they have over the past 100 years sought more gender-specific laws against men and male sexuality (the laws use to chemically castrate Alan Turing were feminist created laws), while increasingly seeking privileges at law and instituting sexism (they've literally legislated it).
Women were getting things like Title 9 passed by government at a time when young men were being selected to die in Vietnam.
>>29222586
i bet my ass they count only people not owning a home as homeless as people who rent are also homeless
>>29232227
Yep, look up the white feather campaign.
>>29232136
The ones i mentionned?
Well, because they are your family.
>>29232142
>socially-constructed attitudes
top fucking lel
THEY ARENT SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
this is how male works on a biological level
i'am a beta lanky fag and even I when I cross path with a group of other men I will make way only a certain amount and make sure they do to
this is how shit works
not necessarily unemotional but not a fucking pussy
because you are a fucking man
if you get your shit handed to you it's your fault and nobody is going to take your hand
We're fucking animals
Men don't have a vagina, the capacity to make a being
they don't have a built in reason to live like women do
they need to do or they are nothing, nothing at all
i feel like killing myself every day because of this nothing
Why so little women in places of power? Because places of power are places where you fight to have your ideas heard, where you speak loudly and women aren't good at fighting
They never had to
>>29232183
> The way that you can tell a theory is bullshit is when it claims to explain everything about a given area.
You could use that bullshit 'logic' to reject anything you feel like.
>>29232226
50% of voters are female. 100% of those elected are elected 50% by women. All those powerful rich men have wives.
>>29222724
yeah of course its ok for men to be homeless because they are guilty of not being women why didnt i think about that in the first place?.
Thanks for helping me realize it
>>29232226
>and still we should look at the points it raises and not the name.
maybe you should actually argue the points it raises instead of shouting 'muh menarenothingbutwalkingsperminjectors theory' and expecting to be taking seriously
>>29232226
>excluded
You need to look up what that word means. You are using it wrong.
>>29232263
>Well, because they are your family.
That follows how? Would I be entitled to being protected by them?
>>29232284
>excluded
"deny (someone) access to a place, group, or privilege."
Nope, spot on.
>>29232265
No I couldn't, because not every theory claims to explain everything about a given topic.
For example, evolution claims to explain the nature and diversity of life we observe, but is not concerned with the origin of life, that would be abiogenesis.
>>29224494
Here you go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjV8SHjHvHk
>>29232325
> evolution claims to explain the nature and diversity of life we observe
You're proving my point.
"No see the theories *I* believe in only cover things I define as acceptable areas!"
>>29224494
God, I mean Patriarchy, works in mysterious ways, anon.
>>29222845
>menstruation means i deserve free housing
there are a lot of problems with being homeless, men need to piss and shit too, how is that any better to do in public than replace a pad?
>they have kids
great, lets give the kids free acomodation then, every homeless woman taking free housing is another homeless kid that doesnt get it
>rape
men getr raped too, being a man doesnt mean you deserve it more, who is protecting innocent men from violent men?
>pregnancy
ok, offer to them free morning after pills to take after every raping
>how will she know she is pregnant?
she doesnt have to, she can take the pill after every fucking
>>29232296
No, because the strong protect the weak. Especially if the weak has the capacity to conceive life and is the limiting factor for a successful tribe.
This idea is mostly worthless nowadays but that's how is worked and will continue to work and I can't wait until every baby grows in vats and women lose their innate worth.
>>29232376
>Especially if the weak has the capacity to conceive life and is the limiting factor for a successful tribe.
Why should I give a fuck about that? Seriously, you're chimping out pretty hard here
>muh childbearing abilities
>muh life
>muh tribe
>>29232226
You're clearly just ignoring what I'm saying. The name is a stupid one because it gets people off side immediately. Why would you want that if you're arguing for equality?
>but until 50% of presidential candidates or world leaders are female, then women are still 'largely excluded', as per the definition.
That's stupid anon. There doesn't need to be a neat 50/50 split of men and women in every occupation in order for there to be equality. There's more women in some jobs and more men in others simply because that's where they choose to work. Saying that choice is wrong isn't promoting liberty of any kind, or personal freedoms.
Hillary lost last time because she's just not a very good candidate, and Obama was better. It's not sexist, just that she's a shitty choice for the presidency. Electing people based on gender is the absolute stupidest thing we could ever do in a democracy. Affirmative action in general is a sexist idea, saying that whatever group can't do it on their own, so we should just give it to them for free.
>>29232350
No I'm not. You are claiming that you could be presented with any data and still explain it using feminist theory. That means your position is unfalsifiable (worthless). Unlike evolution, which is capable of identifying a situation in which it may be wrong (useful).
>>29223807
>How?? Male to female ratio in US is nearly half. It wouldn't be a very large difference.
source please, complete with how they made the study and what do they mean by each category or im calling bullshit
>>29232396
calm down your tits you retarded cunt
if war broke out and you refused to go you would have young women handing you a symbol meaning "you refused to fight (die) you are unfuckable"
those are facts, do i look happy about it?
>>29232164
>tell me that women aren't largely excluded from power.
They aren't largely excluded from power.
That's the same fallacy you see with the wage gap hoax. Just because there aren't many women there, doesn't mean they are excluded. Just like with STEM studies and what have you. There's no glass ceiling, no wage gap, just women not interested in some career paths/women who don't want to put in the same work and want it all for free.
>>29232417
Yeah sorry I misunderstood and realized you are actually arguing with me after I sent the post.
Given what you say, only a retard would participate in society to get pushed into a position where he can be manipulated. The strong people are the ones who don't have anything and don't have anything at all to lose.
>>29232411
> The name is a stupid one because it gets people off side immediately.
That's the name of it. If people can't be bothered to do a tiny bit of research before they decide to be offended by it, more fool them. I'm not offended by the phrase 'black lives matter', despite being white, because I read about it, and understand what it means.
And on your second point, I did not say Hillary not getting the nomination before was sexist. But until we see power much, much more evenly distributed, then we're still seeing women excluded from power. Just one female president out of 46 is nowhere near 'equality'.
That's not even looking at the fact that parties are likely to field those they think have the best shot at winning, and that has, in the pat, meant a man 100% of the time. Having one women, and a particularly disliked one at that, won't change everything overnight.
>>29232413
> ou are claiming that you could be presented with any data and still explain it using feminist theory.
When did I say that? All I said was all the date I've ever seen fits the theory. Pretty similar to evolution in that regard.
Besides, wasn't your argument "The way that you can tell a theory is bullshit is when it claims to explain everything about a given area, if I define the area"?
>>29232503
That's stupid anon. There doesn't need to be a neat 50/50 split of men and women in every occupation in order for there to be equality. There's more women in some jobs and more men in others simply because that's where they choose to work. Saying that choice is wrong isn't promoting liberty of any kind, or personal freedoms.
Did you even read his post you fucking hole?
>>29222705
>>29222755
Why are you guys so resistant to believing that women can be homeless? It's pretty accurate and I live in NYC so I see tons of homeless men and women begging for money.
Once saw a dumb bitch begging for a job and she was in her 20s
I understand women may live easier lives at times but you have to understand what they have to do to make it "easy" and not all of them can do it.
Do you have the heart to turn yourself into a prostitute or force yourself to "love" some guy for their money?
>>29232435
Wage gap isn't a hoax, for a start. If your understanding of economics is that bad, we're going to struggle explaining anything of this nature to you.
>>29232526
> There doesn't need to be a neat 50/50 split of men and women in every occupation in order for there to be equality.
I never said there did. But there needs to be more than 1/46 in the president's office for it to be even CLOSE.
>>29232531
Not him, but if women really do earn less for the same work, then how come there aren't SIGNIFICANTLY more unemployed men?
Women doing the same quality work for less, that can bring some ridiculous savings. Or am I wrong? Why aren't the employers doing that?
>>29232547
>muh reparations
entitled whore pls
>>29232503
Names can change. If I called a pro Israel movement Gas the Kikes Race War Now, because I want to raise awareness of anti-semitism, I shouldn't get upset when people assume I'm anti-semitic.
>then we're still seeing women excluded from power. Just one female president out of 46 is nowhere near 'equality'.
But you're not. It's a democratic system. Someone not being the peoples choice doesn't mean they're being excluded, just that they weren't the best option. If you are able to apply for a position and reasonably get it (she's a candidate, and was a contestant for the nomination last time), you're not being excluded.
>That's not even looking at the fact that parties are likely to field those they think have the best shot at winning, and that has, in the pat, meant a man 100% of the time. Having one women, and a particularly disliked one at that, won't change everything overnight.
That theory if anything means Hillary got the nomination purely because she's a woman and as such can play on that to get elected, rather than her being a best candidate. I don't necessarily agree with that (I mean, I don't think she was the best candidate, but her gender doesn't come into that), but it's not supporting what you think it does.
>>29232547
>there doesn't need
>there needs
reading comprehension means something to you? Considering women were allowed to vote relatively recently, how is it even surprising that nearly all presidents were males?
>>29232503
>All I said was all the date I've ever seen fits the theory.
I'm sure you've done a comprehensive analysis of all the data using rigorous feminist research methods :^)
You are confronted by the fact that three quarters of the homeless population are male, which would not be consistent with a society that advantages males, and you come up with some mental gymnastics to explain it. That means you are not willing to accept evidence counter to your theory.
>>29232556
employers care more about oppressing women than profit.
>>29232547
>>29232583
I would add that it is typically feminist to want equality everywhere and not the most qualified people getting the jobs. The only reason Hillary has even a shot is because she has a vagina.
>>29232595
Yeah, that sure makes sense...actually it doesn't. Not at all. We're talking very considerable savings here.
>>29232547
Also, I'm the guy who originally posted that, and you kind of did say there should be a 50/50 percent split, right here >>29232226
You may not have meant that, but you did say it.
>>29232531
The wage gap was debunked by Thomas Sowell, among others. Sorry if I take his explanations over feminist propaganda.
Next thing you're going to "struggle explaining" to me how 3/4 women will be raped in their lifetime, and other interesting statistic "data".
>>29232623
if employers didn't care more about oppressing women than profits they would pay women more because women are currently paid less and so hiring them would increase profits.
given my automatic assumptions i can construct a narrative consistent with them. being a feminist is easy!
>>29232530
For a woman to be homeless she has to refuse. She has to refuse to work, refuse a boyfriend, refuse a husband, refuse the infinite shelters, and refuse welfare programs.
For a man to be homeless he just has to exist, and everyone else will the the rest of the work of excluding him from every opportunity.
>>29232595
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
now i know this was all b8
>>29232665
I think some vein just burst in my brain. Time to take a break from /r9k/.
>>29232556
It's a comparison of pay for hours worked, meaning women earn less per hour than men. It's not as simple as "hurr let's just hire women then as they do the same work for cheaper". It means that, as a society, an average man earns more per hour than an average women.
You might ask why that matters - it's mainly skewed by the huge number of high-earning men at the top. Then we have to look at why there are so many women in low-paid roles - it's often due to things outside of their control, such as becoming a career for their parents, or raising children alone (or even in a partnership, where she is forced to male sacrifices at work while the man isn't). Then we get into unconscious bias holding women back from being hired/promoted/getting bonues and women being paid slightly less for the very same work, then bam, pay gap.
>>29232583
I didn't say it was a surprise. Maybe you should be worried about YOUR reading comprehension?
>>29232579
> That theory if anything means Hillary got the nomination purely because she's a woman
What? No it doesn't.
> You are confronted by the fact that three quarters of the homeless population are male, which would not be consistent with a society that advantages males, and you come up with some mental gymnastics to explain it.
This is hilarious. You simply don't understand what patriarchy means. Do some reading - you'll see male homelessness is actually something to be expected in such a system.
You crack me up.
>>29232639
Okay, that was an exaggeration. My point was that 1/46 doesn't mean equality, and we need to see a HUGE increase to get close.
There's plenty of women who want it, so no bullshit about women not wanting it please.
>>29232655
Yeah but sorry, it's a recognized phenomenon that is still discussed today. Hardly 'disproven' considering many governments are very concerned about it and introducing legislation to reduce it. Not just pointing to some out-of-date textbooks going "what are you talking about?"
>>29225197
Men get to be right in the center of attention.
This is what male privilege looks like.
>>29232585
should have been linked in
>>29232722
this >>29232227
liberal morality is selective and self-serving
They direct millions in welfare spending away from the homeless towards birth control pills and other bullshit. They provide tents and hot meals for Chad "refugees" and illegal immigrants while the homeless have to find an underpass and root through trash.
>>29232722
>It means that, as a society, an average man earns more per hour than an average women.
Okay, but then if employers don't want to earn more women, then only one thing necessarily follows from this. And that is that womens work isn't the same quality as mens work.
>Then we have to look at why there are so many women in low-paid roles - it's often due to things outside of their control
Funny that when short and ugly men complain about having problems in dating. Due to things out of their control, they get told(often by women) that it's just the way it is. Just so funny.
>>29232722
>wage gap hoax
>. Then we get into unconscious bias holding women back from being hired/promoted/getting bonues and women being paid slightly less for the very same work, then bam, pay gap.
>unconscious bias
>feminisminanutshell.bat
confirmed for absolute retard
(You)
>>29232722
>What? No it doesn't.
I agreed with that, but it also doesn't mean that men were elected more because of sexism. You're acting like the main thing that caused these guys to get elected is that they had penises, which isn't true.
>You are confronted by the fact that three quarters of the homeless population are male, which would not be consistent with a society that advantages males, and you come up with some mental gymnastics to explain it.
Was this the quote you meant to attribute to someone else? because I didn't say this.
>There's plenty of women who want it, so no bullshit about women not wanting it please.
It's a democracy. We had several female candidates running, and have in the past as well, but none got the nomination before. It's incredibly reductionist of you to imply that the only reason this is the case is because women didn't want it.
Like it or not, there are far, far more men in politics, and seeing as most people who run for presidency are politicians before they do, it's obviously we'll have more male presidents. Especially when most were at a point where women couldn't even be senators.
There doesn't need to be a female president for there to be equality. Equality would mean if a female candidate was best that her gender didn't get in the way, but if no female candidates were best, it's dumb to say they lost because of inequality.
>>29232785
>And that is that womens work isn't the same quality as mens work.
No, and I really don't understand how you drew that conclusion from what i wrote.
>>29232722
>This is hilarious. You simply don't understand what patriarchy means. Do some reading - you'll see male homelessness is actually something to be expected in such a system. You crack me up.
You haven't explained the link between patriarchy and male homelessness. All you did was bring up issues impacting men and attribute them to patriarchy. You have no proof that they are caused by patriarchy.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wage+gap+debunked
http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/14/there-never-was-a-patriarchy-and-there-isnt-one-now-in-related-news-mr-jb-cant-do-shit-without-running-it-by-me-first/
>>29232819
>It's incredibly reductionist of you to imply that the only reason this is the case is because women didn't want it.
I... didn't suggest this at all?
I think you've build up a totally different argument from the one I'm making.
> Like it or not, there are far, far more men in politics
THIS is the cornerstone of my problem. Why are there more men in politics? Why, from the cradle, do we teach our children that leading is a man's job?
Until we see more women in politics, there is an issue.
> Like it or not, there are far, far more men in politics
YES! Gender shouldn't come into it at all. So there should be a representation of the people in leadership positions, not just a massive majority male.
>>29232859
Oh dear, did you miss this post?
>>29231897
>>29232820
Well women earn less per hour than men. And women aren't getting hired more. That means their work performance must be inferior.
Complaining about pregnancy or other things out of your control holds no ground here, because that's just how it is. It would be like a short man complaining that he has a harder time with women.
>>29232867
SAYS
>Gender shouldn't come into it at all
PROCEEDS TO CONTRADICT XIRSELF
>not just a massive majority male.
>>29232722
>outside their control
>having children
If you have children and prioritize them over your career (which you should do if you are having children) that is a choice that you made and it will obviously make you less valuable to an employer. You will therefor likely be paid less than someone that did not make that choice.
>>29232927
Women don't earn less, they work less, don't buy his fucking point. There's a litteral ton of sources showing this the way the numbers are treated that create a pay gap. Anybody who did statistic know that they aren't enough by themselves if incorrectly analyzed.
>>29232887
No I didn't. You didn't explain how these are patriarchal issues, just that they contribute to male homelessness. You need to draw the link, not me.
Your model currently is:
Patriarchy ? Emasculation etc. ----> Male homelessness
>>29232933
it's a feminist. it can't identify when it's making assumptions, otherwise it wouldn't be a feminist
>>29222586
Society does not care about the well-being of men and likely never will. Fairly simple concept.
>>29232927
>>29232969
Nope to both of you.
Wage gap is worked out on HOURLY EARNINGS, so even if women worked less, that's taken into account.
It's also on a socital, not an individual level. Hence why "Hurr durr why aren't all firms hiring women?" doesn't hold any water.
>>29232933
I'm saying if gender didn't come into it, there would be more women. It currently does, so there aren't. If it truly didn't come into it, it would be more equal.
>>29232979
"Emasculation etc" are part of patriarchy theory. I'm getting the impression you don't really know what it is.
>>29232949
And why is it nearly always the woman who has to sacrifice her career for kids?
>>29233043
>Wage gap is worked out on HOURLY EARNINGS, so even if women worked less, that's taken into account.
See this is how I know you actually are a woman. When I say "worked less" I didn't mean "worked less hours". You can work less than someone even if you work the same hours. You can work less than someone even if you work much longer. It's about what you accomplish during the time.
But obviously to some people their employment is more or less just waiting it out.
>>29233043
>work work less
>have less experience
>work less difficult jobs
>do work more poorly and more slowly as a result of less experience
>take more time off because of "family issues" and get more flexible scheduling
>are a real risk because they could sue over anything sexually related and have the advantage
>yet women under 30 still make more than men
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
Swallow your redpill faggot.
>>29232867
>I... didn't suggest this at all?
I think I mistyped, sorry. I meant to say that it was because of sexism. It's reductionist to blame sexism for women not winning in a democracy. My mistake there.
>Why are there more men in politics? Why, from the cradle, do we teach our children that leading is a man's job?
Because far more men choose to run than women. Some women do run, and generally children are taught they can do whatever they want to do, including leaders, we have male and female school captains even as proof of that, with equal responsibility. Women making different decisions is not sexism, and you're taking away from their freedoms by implying that it is or that they should make different choices.
>So there should be a representation of the people in leadership positions, not just a massive majority male
You're right, the leaders should represent us, but not in the way you're saying. They represent our interests, not our physical forms. Gender is irrelevant. If more men are running for those positions, more men will be in them. My local member and her competitor are both women, but they're elected because they represent us best, not because of their genitals. I don't care about that, they may not be a physical representation of me, but they represent what I want locally.
A congress doesn't need to be an equal split of all groups of the population, simply representations of what different areas want politically and economically.
>>29233043
>And why is it nearly always the woman who has to sacrifice her career for kids?
Because it takes 9 months to birth a child, and women make less money than their partner, the person who does not have to carry the child, more than like 80-90% of the time?
>one gender literally evolved to go out and do work
>the other gender literally evolved to be better at managing home affairs
>oy gevalt it's a vagina shoah
>>29222586
because nobody would expect that women are that unfortunate. people actually think women have life on easy mode.
>>29233116
> Because far more men choose to run than women.
But why? I totally disagree that women are 'taught they can do whatever they want to do'. All the people we see in positions of power are male, and that impacts us from an early age. Women are basically conditioned to be well behaved, while boys are given more freedom with the excuse of 'boys will be boys!', which sets them up to be more outspoken and confident from an earlier age.
I'm trans, I've seen this from both sides. Boys and girls are treated VERY differently from the day they are born.
> women make less money
Fuck me this is the damn problem, can't you follow the thread of an argument?
>>29233043
>"Emasculation etc" are part of patriarchy theory. I'm getting the impression you don't really know what it is.
Bullshit. You aren't making a case for it. You're telling me to fill in the blanks as if that is a reasonable argument.
I actually work in research science. If I get asked by a funding body or potential employer to explain a component of my model, I can't say to that funding body/employer "well you obviously don't understand x component!" I have to be able to summarise it such that a lay person could understand it.
>>29233195
> If I get asked by a funding body or potential employer to explain a component of my model, I can't say to that funding body/employer "well you obviously don't understand x component!" I have to be able to summarise it such that a lay person could understand it.
Cool, okay - pay me, and I'll give you a lesson from square 1.
>>29233218
Holy shit, you can't even give me a short summary?
>>29233218
"What you understand well, you enunciate clearly"
>>29233227
No wait, I forgot, I'm a shitlord so I have to educate myself.
>>29233218
if you refuse to form a coherent argument whatever but why do you think anyone should give a shit about what you say over any other retard babbling about unsupported bullshit?
>>29233177
>But why?
Does why matter? If they choose to and aren't forced to, we should respect that decision. Saying they're making the wrong one is oppressive, as it takes away from their freedoms.
>Women are basically conditioned to be well behaved, while boys are given more freedom with the excuse of 'boys will be boys!', which sets them up to be more outspoken and confident from an earlier age.
Neither of these are entirely true and you absolutely know that. Some young women get away with stupid amounts of shit, and some young boys are heavily disciplined. It's generally the heavily disciplined young boys who go into politics anyway, not the outspoken obnoxious kids.
Fisking only works if you address every point brought up, by the way. Ignoring major points to argue the one you see as weakest is very intellectually dishonest.
Also, I'm not sure how, but you've gotten me from agreeing with you, to being off side. Your original points were quite reasonable, but it's become much less so.
>>29222586
....holy crap.... 1 in 4 .... that's... nearly 25%..... woah .... we need to do something about this.... those women .....
>>29233238
Awful, awful phrase. "Aww, you can't compress astrophysics into a sentence a baby could understand? Okay, doctor, better take that PHD away from you."
>>29233227
Google is your friend. Otherwise, just like in your analogy, you pay the person explaining :)
>>29233280
> Neither of these are entirely true and you absolutely know that.
I stand by them. Growing up with a different sex/gender, it was hugely apparent to me. One gender basically got free reign to be loud and boisterous. One got told to be quiet and act demure, and defer to others, in order to do well.
>>29233347
>feminism
>astrophysics
You're really that dumb, aren't you.
What you mean to say is that our society encourages men to risk takers who never show emotion.
This is bad because emotion is good and risk is bad.
This leads to boys being bad and doing bad things and becoming homeless, which is bad.
Conclusion: society is bad because men are encouraging men to be bad.
I'm spent, anybody care to elaborate a rebuttal to this genius argument?
>>29233347
You're not actually debating anything based on any logic at this point, it's just anecdotal evidence instead of any real logic, and you're ignoring most of my points, so I don't see the point of continuing this. Thanks for talking about it without resorting to insults at least, I appreciate the civility you've maintained.
>>29233347
>Google is your friend.
and yours. you should probably google all supporting arguments for everyone arguing against you in this thread since it's not their job to educate you
>>29233405
Actually, you've done a fairly good job of breaking it down very simply.
> This is bad because emotion is good and risk is bad.
This line is kind of iffy, though. Emotion and risk aren't opposites.
> This leads to boys being bad
Not really - it leads to men doing risking things, which isn't inherently bad at all. It also misses the 'not able to ask for or receive help' aspect of the patriarchy.
> society is bad because men are encouraging men to be bad
Not just men encouraging men - women are too. Society is encouraging men to behave in ways which put their lives and security at risk would be a better way of explaining it.
>>29233437
Cool, I haven't been able to articulate my points as well as I hoped.
>>29233456
Been there, done that. I've been in this game a while - it's very frustraiting as someone who cares about men's issues to have to struggle through anti-feminists garbage all the time, but I never saw anything that convinced me it was wrong.
>>29233347
>Awful, awful phrase. "Aww, you can't compress astrophysics into a sentence a baby could understand? Okay, doctor, better take that PHD away from you."
Astrophysics is an entire field of study. Patriarchy theory is - well - a discrete theory, and should therefore be relatively easy to present in bullet points.
>Google is your friend. Otherwise, just like in your analogy, you pay the person explaining :)
Basically, "educate yourself, shitlord!"
>>29233497
>Basically, "educate yourself, shitlord!"
Yep! I have no problem with that. It's not my responsibility to wipe your arse to stop you looking stupid.
>>29233539
You're the one who looks stupid because you can't even briefly summarise the theory that you base a lot of your inferences on.
Or is it worse than that? Is the truth that you can't comprehend it yourself because it isn't a coherent idea?
