Black Dog

As usual, the issue of IPV gets complicated by simplistic readings of statistics like this. From the same statscan report: So claims about men and women being equally violent ring false when they ignore the severity of the violence and the context in which it occurs (eg self-defence). A shove is not a punch, a slap is not a choke. Nope, just the most prominent and vocal parts of the movement. Oooh I'm, so close to MRA Bingo! "White Knights" THERE IT IS THAT'S BINGO!

The combine global sea and surface temperature is around 15-16 Celsius. A 50 degree increase would almost certainly make the planet uninhabitable for most forms of life, including humans. So the question boils (pardon the pun) down to: would you rather live under ISIS or be dead?

So did Timothy McVeigh.

I assume you have a study or something that disproves the one I linked to? Some men are more valuable than others. Also it's worth looking at the reasons women are excluded from combat roles: women are too weak, too emotional, too sexy and so forth, none of which speak to a particularly exalted view of women. Indeed, if you're asking the question "are women valued more than women?" it's worth asking what one means by "valued." After all, a slave on a southern plantation in 1850 was "valued" by his owner. The flip side, obviously, is that men are expected to be stronger, more competent, more intelligent, more rational,more trustworthy than women, which is one of the reasons why they are put in the positions discussed. If it helps I read a transcript. It's mostly BS, rife with MRA misinformation about IPV. Again, it's a case of any good points being lost in a tide of bile. Right, because to consider the actual full picture of suicide would completely sink your theory. Best just ignore those parts that are inconvenient. be specific. They already do that and worse.

Like generally or people in a position to make a difference? It is a well-documented phenomenon. And, as I've said in the past, it's also a bit misleading as men and women attempt suicide at roughly equal rates. The real mystery isn't "why do men kill themselves more", it's "why do men choose suicide methods that are more likely to be fatal?" (Which itself can be explained partly by asking "who owns guns?") LOL. I'm sure swapping the patriarchy with "reproductive utility" or "feminism" is gonna solve the problem. If your theory holds true, there probably is no solution. But why let an opportunity to seize the victim mantel pass you by? Cite required. Again, you're claiming I'm "dismissing arguments put forward by gender egalitarians and MRAs". Which argument have I dismissed? Strange: at one point feminists didn't have the political power to do anything and now, according to you, they run everything. How'd they do that? Is there a lesson there? Anyway, I'm not attacking them for not having results: I'm attacking them for not even having an interest in results. As I've said before, the MRA movement is less interested in solutions (because in solving these problems, they'd have nothing to complain about) than in snatching the title of Most Put-upon Sex. This is what I'm talking about. So, if I get this right, the argument is men's rights organizations can't change anything so they have no choice but to rant ineffectually about feminism (in this case, an ill-defined hobgoblin that controls everything and upon whose feet all men's problems can be laid; kinda like how people used to talk about Jews, actually) from the margins in YouTube videos at people who already agree with them. Of course, the fact that the line between "attacking feminism" and "attacking particular women who identify as feminists and making ourselves look like raging psychopaths" is blurry, if not non-existent to these people, is well, meh! Cool "movement" guys!

But it's not what people talk about when they talk about FGM. T People have been aware of this issue for a long time (these. Long enough, surely, that some solutions could be proposed). However, some MRAs, like Christina Hoff Summers for example, are open about maintaining rigid gender roles for men. For example? Again, most of this stuff, for me, came out of feminist theory.

And how often, when people talk about FGM, are they talking just about clitoridotomies? I'd bet almost never. Conflating the two is an exercise in Orwellian word association. Here's some info on FGM (warning: talks about lady parts). Treat what as a fact? I do. It's not clear your MRA heroes do. They certainly aren't doing much to put forward solutions to the issue of male disposability. Getting dem mad YouTube hitz tho.

So: twice?

Only a double standards if the two were comparable procedures with similar intent and impact. But they aren`t at all. You can be against both, but pretending they are the same thing in practice is simply a false equivalence. I didn`t scoff at the OP for attacking women. I was pointing out that his sources (MRAs every mad jack one of them) use the subject of male disposability not to advance male equality or solve the problem, but a base to attack feminists. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on things when you lack basic understanding of words.

We don`t. That`s a myth.

If humans were incapable of rising above primal instincts, we never would have come out of the caves. Our enormous intellectual capacity and ability to problem solve (versus reacting to the world on a purely instinctual level like most animals) is why we were able to become the dominant species on the planet. That and thumbs. The existence of differing opinions is itself evidence of our capacity to overcome our primal instincts.

More examples in this thread of MRAs taking a well-worn feminist idea (of how strict gender roles hurt members of both sexes) and using it as a platform for attacking feminists. If, as the OP says somewhere in that TL;DR word salad above, "men's issues are scoffed at or are looked at as 'an attack on women' and therefore should be ignored," it would behoove those trying to raise men's issues to not make attacking women a central part of their philosophy. And yet the entire movement is predicated not on advancing any men's issues, but blaming feminists and ensuring men are privileged as the "real" victim class. There's a reason why there's so much overlap between MRAs, white nativists/racists and other fringe reactionary groups. And why else are there no actual solutions being offered up?

This is exactly what I was talking about above, the black and white world view. And it's already been asked and answered. Good question: why did you make that comparison? Yes we're all familiar with your smug blend of triumphalism, goal post-shifting and "just-so" stories that have been your stock in trade on this issue (and this issue alone: you seldom comment on anything else, even before you inexplicably came back from being banned). The connection with the larger debate in the U.S is, however, non-existent, no matter how much you'd like to associate yourself with a "winning" side.

Your failure to understand things that aren't in black and white is entirely your problem. Here's another example: Nope. The United State's gun culture (as opposed to New Zealand's or Canada's or Switzerland's) is partly to blame for gun crime in the United States.

Maybe you should read it, it's pretty clear. Yeah: and...?

-del-

Nope: that's an Eastern thing.

There's no long-term threat from there either. The threat is and will continue to be from within from people radicalized by anti-western beliefs and motivate by the idea of the west waging war on Islam, which our (minuscule) contributions to the effort will only encourage.

Nobody is saying Harper is the cause of the crisis. Good lord, man: it's too early to be hitting the bottle.

There's no threat from "there" and our being there only makes the threat here worse.

And why would we expect them to? We know what these places are all about.

Nope. Some of us are familiar with the fable of the frog and the scorpion.

I haven't heard much from government either beyond some platitudes about fighting ISIS (which isn't really the problem and which Canada isn't doing anything of note about anyway). So if you're castigating the opposition for not having a fully costed and fleshed out plan, the same should apply to the party in power. Oh and the "mass influx of refugees" you're talking about is, at most, 25,000, or about half the capacity of SkyDome. Are you telling me we're so hard up here that we can't possible add 25,000 people? If that's the case, Harper's stewardship of the country has been worse than anyone could imagine!

I wonder if you've actually read any Orwell because I suspect he'd be spinning in his grave at your abuse of his name.

I know nuance and subtlety are foreign concepts to you, but there's an important qualifier there. Of course gun laws vary from state to state. While in NZ: "The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive." they might have a gun culture but it's not the same as in the U.S. what with it being a completely different country and all. But great false equivalence! Nope. My logic is consistent. You can't make a coherent point if you had a gun to your head.