Men's Rights Movement

[Olfc]

This is lol-worthy in every conceivable way, but you also resurrected this treasure trove of a thread, so you're forgiven.

Explain how it is lolworthy that women are free to murder babies because they couldn't keep their legs closed.

[Velaniz]

Reduced rates of STI transmission.

Those were very few studies, that were carried out of course by a team from the US, on a sample of men that were from Africa.

But if you really think there are benefits to circumcision, no one's stopping anyone from going ahead and doing it to themselves of their own free will. The fact that this irreversible mutilation is done on unwilling babies is what people are upset over.

[meathead]

men are door mats for women these days and that has to stop.example= women is the US military can now fight on the front lines with men and receive the same pay.yet women still have lower requirements physically then men do to get into and stay in the military,why is that=bias?if women can do the same job as a man then they should be held to the same standard right?women still can not be drafted in to war but yet men can,why is that= bias.

there are 1000's of examples but i dont have the time ever wonder why women protest/lobby for equal rights and equal pay and all that crap.yet women never "protest/promote/lobby" that they want to be draft eligible,they want all the positives without the negatives.

[Velaniz]

Sure there is - men are generally in a wildly advantageous spot relative to women. That's a pretty good reason to knee jerk against a movement that paints men as oppressed. If the focus is simply on advocacy for a couple specific issues (I personally think family courts are the biggest problem that men face, structurally), that's all well and good though.

The general status quo is useless when you consider individual cases of men being screwed over solely because of being men. Men aren't advantaged in every possible way, and even if they are, that isn't true of all men. That should be more common sense than anything. It is for the few that this doesn't hold true that some men's rights activists campaign. Scoffing at that because you think men are "generally" more advantaged is silly, and misconstruing that as men just trying to paint a more oppressed picture of themselves is even more so.

[Deleted]

Rarely.

Reduced rates of STI transmission.

So direct feeling loss due to the removal of stimulai nerves is "rarely" and it's in fact an UNCUT Penis that has a reduced rate of STI transmission.

Let me put this in terms you can understand.

How is a small sheathe of skin being removed magically stopping STI? When most STI infections are caused via fluid transferance. The tip of a Penis lubricates itself ever so slightly, the sheathe protects it and ensures it does not dry out. Removing that causes tons of problems for the Penis.

Really, do some fucking research.

No gential mutilation should be done except for purely medical reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure there is - men are generally in a wildly advantageous spot relative to women. That's a pretty good reason to knee jerk against a movement that paints men as oppressed. If the focus is simply on advocacy for a couple specific issues (I personally think family courts are the biggest problem that men face, structurally), that's all well and good though.

It doesn't paint men as Oppressed though, that's a cover all used by hilariously out of touch feminists.

It points out that Men have problems too in the modern world. These problems need to be solved too.

Quite simply, your own ignorance is getting the best of you.

There is no global MRA group.

[Velaniz]

Explain how it is lolworthy that women are free to murder babies because they couldn't keep their legs closed.

That's because women aren't free to murder babies at all.

[Deleted]

The general status quo is useless when you consider individual cases of men being screwed over solely because of being men. Men aren't advantaged in every possible way, and even if they are, that isn't true of all men. That should be more common sense than anything. It is for the few that this doesn't hold true that some men's rights activists campaign. Scoffing at that because you think men are "generally" more advantaged is silly, and misconstruing that as men just trying to paint a more oppressed picture of themselves is even more so.

I'll just point out, this general status Quo is causing stuff like forced Gender recruitment rates. a Woman can be chosen for a position over a man, for no reason other than her gender simply to fill a tally.

This is a direct example of Privilege.

[Spectral]

Those were very few studies, that were carried out of course by a team from the US, on a sample of men that were from Africa.

There's actually quite a bit of epidemiology that's been done. Here, click through and check out some of the studies: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...%2C21&as_sdtp=

It's a pretty clear effect. Whether it's worth it or not is another question, but to claim that it has no benefit is just inaccurate.

But if you really think there are benefits to circumcision, no one's stopping anyone from going ahead and doing it to themselves of their own free will. The fact that this irreversible mutilation is done on unwilling babies is what people are upset over.

This is silly; we carry out all sorts of medical procedures on babies. It's a fair question to ask whether this one is worthwhile or not, but it's silly to suggest that consent is necessary from an infant.

[Olfc]

That's because women aren't free to murder babies at all.

Yes they do. If the woman suddenly decides she does not want a kid then the man is screwed when she murder it with abortion.

[Deleted]

There's actually quite a bit of epidemiology that's been done. Here, click through and check out some of the studies: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...%2C21&as_sdtp=

It's a pretty clear effect. Whether it's worth it or not is another question, but to claim that it has no benefit is just inaccurate.

Looking up a majority of these studies show they analysed two groups over long terms, the circumsized and the none, and then judged the data of each to see who got the most STIs.

A rigged game right from the start.

[Spectral]

The general status quo is useless when you consider individual cases of men being screwed over solely because of being men. Men aren't advantaged in every possible way, and even if they are, that isn't true of all men. That should be more common sense than anything. It is for the few that this doesn't hold true that some men's rights activists campaign. Scoffing at that because you think men are "generally" more advantaged is silly, and misconstruing that as men just trying to paint a more oppressed picture of themselves is even more so.

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think people that identify as "men's rights" advocates are generally tone deaf and oblivious to the advantages of being male. I have no problem with someone pursuing legal avenues to improve certain inequalities that exist, but I'm unimpressed with someone that just wants to generally improve the lot of men.

[Deleted]

This is silly; we carry out all sorts of medical procedures on babies. It's a fair question to ask whether this one is worthwhile or not, but it's silly to suggest that consent is necessary from an infant.

Then clearly we need to Mutilate female babies. Because hey, it may be worthwhile? Let's just promote Mutilation of men for no reason.

Go back to tumblr.

[Spectral]

Looking up a majority of these studies show they analysed two groups over long terms, the circumsized and the none, and then judged the data of each to see who got the most STIs.

A rigged game right from the start.

This sure reads a lot like, "I don't like the results, so I'll just say it's rigged". Could you provide any sort of specific critique, or do you just think epidemiology in general is useless?

[Deleted]

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think people that identify as "men's rights" advocates are generally tone deaf and oblivious to the advantages of being male.

I have a working class life, a low paying job and a terrible apartment, Show me what advantages I have of being male please.

I work in the service business, specifically I am a waiter. Now, I work at a pretty good waiting job at a high class resturant, but women are still getting a higher rate of recruitment here.

Is this FAIR?

[Spectral]

Then clearly we need to Mutilate female babies. Because hey, it may be worthwhile? Let's just promote Mutilation of men for no reason.

If you can provide some citations showing medical benefits, it'd be worth discussing whether it was a worthwhile procedure or not. Since it's not clear what the cost/benefit analysis on circumcision results in, I'm fine with it being discretionary.

Go back to tumblr.

Do you realize how whiny and childish you sound?

- - - Updated - - -

I have a working class life, a low paying job and a terrible apartment, Show me what advantages I have of being male please.

Your personal failures don't reflect on men as a class.

I work in the service business, specifically I am a waiter. Now, I work at a pretty good waiting job at a high class resturant, but women are still getting a higher rate of recruitment here.

Is this FAIR?

Life isn't particularly fair in general, but I don't really see a great reason to whine endlessly about it. Women with equal qualifications fare more poorly in my field (biomedical research) than men; I don't think stopping to whine about it will help them more than simply being good and working hard.

[Deleted]

This sure reads a lot like, "I don't like the results, so I'll just say it's rigged". Could you provide any sort of specific critique, or do you just think epidemiology in general is useless?

It's a pattern Fallacy. Cause and effect do not match up. Circumcision reduces pleasure drives, thus a lowered sex drive, THUS less chance of sexually transmitted diseases being contracted, they didn't account for this in their data. They have used Epidemiology to try and explain something and not biology.

Show me a study on WHY circumcision would reduced STIs and not a study on it APPARENTLY does.

Epidemiology is never a solid foundation for an argument, it is merely a starting point for a research endeavour.

Circumcision has no biological benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

Life isn't particularly fair in general, but I don't really see a great reason to whine endlessly about it. Women with equal qualifications fare more poorly in my field (biomedical research) than men; I don't think stopping to whine about it will help them more than simply being good and working hard.

I never said my job was super terrible, I live alone while my friends need room mates, I am just saying I have had no inherent advantages as a male, at all.

And then you came out with this hilarious line of shit.

If life isn't fair, why do men have some kind of magical privilege? Here is a clue, those women with the same Qualifications in your research field? yeah, they didn't. They were nannied through it all, if they were good, they would have gotten the job.

I have never had any Privilege in my life, nor has my father or my mother. You are full of shit.

[Spectral]

It's a pattern Fallacy. Cause and effect do not match up. Circumcision reduces pleasure drives, thus a lowered sex drive, THUS less chance of sexually transmitted diseases being contracted, they didn't account for this in their data. They have used Epidemiology to try and explain something and not biology.

I enjoy that you just outright make shit up, don't even consider providing a citation, and conclude that it's a better explanation for an observed phenomena than what's presently published. If you'd bothered to do any research about this rather than just hunting for a self-serving conclusion, you'd be aware that there's a fair bit of mechanistic research that's been done as well.

[Halyon]

Explain how it is lolworthy that women are free to murder babies because they couldn't keep their legs closed.

It isn't. Your view on it is overrated.

[Deleted]

my field (biomedical research)

This is especially hilarious.

You used epidemiology to try and refute biological comparisons.

If you DO do anything related to biology, tell me this then.

Why do people say FGM causes urinary infections cysts and other problems.

Yet circumcision, also a removal of flesh, is said to do the opposite.

Biologically, this does not make sense.

[Deleted]

Uh, hint; The male & female sexual organs aren't the same.