Why are men the most unhappy of the genders?
Suicide rates are mostly men. Depression rates are mostly men. Loneliness rates are mostly men. It just goes on and on.
I don't think I've seen women face as much suffering as men do. Not even close. And they say girls have it hard.
Most women have an ingrained emotional support structure and talk about their feelings, most men don't. Bottle that for 20 years and Bob blows his brains out over the same stuff Alice let go a decade ago.
Men are generally different from women in a psychological perspective, if you were to generalize then this is evident even in early childhood.Does this affect suicidal thoughts? Don't know.
The other reason is men have it harder in life(contrary to what propaganda from the 50's tells you), they have more disadvantages in society, harder to survive.
>And they say girls have it hard.
Time to turn off the TV before it's too late.
They're more sensitive to pleasure, enough to a point that's it too much to handle. Yet strangely they're hard to please in bed (don't know how that works). Plus, society still kind of demonises female sexuality, even in private.
I don't know what to think about any of those 3 sentences. Sounds unreasonable.
I never felt it's "too much for handle" for or that they are not satisfied or enjoying the fuck out of it.
But while I'm horny, need to get rid of it, and never say no to sex, the girlfriend must be put in the mood.
Basically, there's still not as much a guarantee that the woman will achieve orgasm (at least in casual hetereosexual sex) as men, so they don't put as much effort into even trying.
Aside from menstruation women have it easy. All a woman needs to do is be pretty and she'll have her life made while men will need to do actual work. Men focus on women and pleasing them, virgin beta males will do anything just to be walked over by a woman. Meanwhile living in a society with a narrative that women are oppressed when in reality there are hundreds of organizations devoted to helping women and none devoted to men, trying to even discuss that men have their needs to is labelled bigotry. Funny since this is supposed to be egalitarianism but only one side is always considered.
And on the topic of loneliness, a girl can be anything above 6/10 and be guaranteed sex while as a man you'd need to be 9/10 to solely depend on your looks.
inb4 you don't know what it's like being a woman
By that same token you don't know what it's like being a man so you can't compare these experiences.
Also my quarrel is not against women just the beta males who overpower them at their own expense.
It's okay. I find all papers written by women to be bullshit. Even Madame Curie's or Jane Goodall's. Women can't write and do science worth shit. And then they wonder why we can't take them seriously.
>Totally comparable to that aussie journalist, dumbass.
Either way, women can't write articles worth shit, nor do science. Neither Goodall and Curie were capable of that, they just get special treatment for being women. They're about as worthless as that Ausfag writing this article.
Having a decent vagina and not being absolutely repulsive imbues any woman with inherent worth regardless of any other factors. No matter how bad it gets, they have that scrap left, and that can be enough to get a man to take care of you.
But things don't work in the other direction as well.
Yeah, all those filthy liberal 1920's French male scientists were just giving special treatment to the Polish woman. I'm sure you'll win two Nobel prizes with your shitty comp-sci undergrad. You can accept if on behalf of men's right's activists everywhere.
That aussie journal proves absolutely nothing
Male circumcision is still legal in the US, males are highly disadvantaged in court systems regarding parenting and allegations, men are the ones drafted
Not the guy but nice strawman there
I used to make generalisations of this type.
Its a logical fallacy.
You know who has it hard in life? Everybody.
On the balance its probably a wash you underdeveloped children.
I'm nearly 40, and I didn't meet "her" until I was 37. There was lots of loneliness and struggle and shit, but you know what? You either work hard, overcome shit, develop yourself or die. The daily pain of life is something you either embrace or you get ground up.
As for chicks, really, the only way you're going to find happiness is looking beyond the physical. Practically no one under 35 in this country (USA) is worth a shit. Really, what risks have you taken in life? What values do you work for? What potentials have you developed? What value can you offer?
Half of you aren't worth shit, I can tell you that right now. I know because I was there. I wasn't shit, all my relationships were fucking trainwrecks. Everything you know is wrong. Everyone around you is a stupid lost idiot trying to grope their way out of some personal hell.
The best possible chance is you unfuck yourself of your stupid notions about life, people, and the universe and try becoming more human, then appreciate people who have made it through their own struggle. I mean, you guys are so superficial- real love is about nonphysical things.
Oh yeah and don't wallow in negative / freaky porn shit for too long.
>Male circumcision is still legal in the US
most men here in the us are for circumcision. why do you think they request their newborn sons to have them?
>males are highly disadvantaged in court systems regarding parenting and allegations
the same reason a man being alone with children is a social stigma.
>men are the ones drafted
we don't even have a draft anymore.
>most men here in the us are for circumcision. why do you think they request their newborn sons to have them?
Couldn't care less why they would request it, it's a human rights violation equivalent of female circumcision.
>the same reason a man being alone with children is a social stigma.
Again a demonization of male sexuality, proves my point
>we don't even have a draft anymore.
Never heard of this.
Are you trolling?
>article by woman about how she, a woman and other women she knows, have trouble enjoying sex.
>OH MY GOD. SHE'S WRITING SUCH BULLSHIT.
It seems like every time a woman writes about herself or her gender, men shoot it down because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notion of how women are. If a woman talks about herself, her tastes, her interests, etc. Men accuse her of lying because what she's saying doesn't fit with their beliefs.
>it's a human rights violation equivalent of female circumcision.
Except male circumcision doesn't have as detrimental and damaging effects has female circumcision does.
>Again a demonization of male sexuality, proves my point
A demonisation because the majority of sexual predators caught, even to adults, are men. Same reasons why if you associate yourself with a white supremacist group, you're immediately labelled a bigot.
>Never heard of this.
I don't think any first world nations have had a draft since early-to-mid twentieth century.
So is claiming "fallacy fallacy."
>but the person trying to bring "personal experiences" from other people as a source.
Those tend to be valid in areas like social/cultural issues, social sciences, opinion generalisations, political polls, etc. Especially if you have a multitude of experiences you can derive averages from.
>Except male circumcision doesn't have as detrimental and damaging effects has female circumcision does.
Yeah, pretty much confirmed troll at this point and no point in responding. If not then do some research on circumcision.
Unless you're talking about getting circumcised as an adult, yeah I really don't recommend it.
Troll post. No objectivity, biased, opinions are "analysis", no observations, no evidence, nothing quantifiable, no predictions can be made from the evidence.
There is literally nothing scientific in your post.
Even /x/tards try to include something scientific sounding.
The average female has it easier than the average male. They have an advantage in jobs, relationships, and courts. They have more support groups and support in general than men while males have higher expectations put on them to be successful and work out their problems on their own.
>A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
The surgery INCREASES the odds of infection because it is SURGERY. There are more cases of infection because of the surgery than there are cases of UTI.
>A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
A debatable protection compared to mutilating 100,000 nerve endings for an questionable benefit.
>Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
The one study for this was proven to be crap.
>Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
BATHE! THIS ONE LITERALLY MEANS "WASH ONCE A WEEK".
>Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
The surgery to fix phimosis and paraphimosis does no damage and requires no stitches.
>Not him but circumcision is a major human rights violation.
No more a humans right violation than simply surgery.
>None of your links cite how female circumcision is worse, in fact, those links work for female circumcision.
Good to see you didn't read them.
And for FCs/FGMs:
Female circumcision is mostly done, especially in third world countries, as a means to prevent women from, er, "slutting around" basically. While the intent was the same with male circumcision when it first came up in Judaism, as a means to make sex less pleasurable. However, an alarming number of benefits arise from circumcising a baby boy (fighting off STDs, for one). Same cannot be said for female circumcision, because of how much more sensitive the vaginal area is to begin with.
The idea of male circumcision being detrimental and inhuman just simply isn't true, and tend to stem from racist/antisemitic origins.
Except actual removal of genitals would be the humans right violation in this case, since it's taking away an important anatomical feature. To suggest the removal of foreskin is the same is basically like saying that removing the appendix is a humans right violation.
1). American circumcision is still of Judaic origin, regardless of who started it in American history (something that's still recent).
2). 
3). False attribution
4). It doesn't make the procedure any less beneficial to the child.
(I wasn't aware they sliced off the clitoris too).
Slicing off the clitoris would be the same as slicing off the head of the penis, instead of the foreskin. Slicing off the clitoris is more closer to straight-up castration than it is circumcision.
>The idea of male circumcision being detrimental and inhuman just simply isn't true, and tend to stem from racist/antisemitic origins.
So human rights activists are racists and antisemites.
JIDF id that you?
>So human rights activists are racists and antisemites.
A lot of so-called human rights activists tend to be bigots themselves. People become prejudice from being a victim of someone else's prejudice all the time.
>JIDF id that you?
Good to see how much /pol/ populates /sci/.
except the person getting circumcised never consented.
Go hear the screams for yourself if you need to be convinced.
With your posts you are defending female circumcision too, remember that.
Male circumcision isn't. It keeps the penis intact, and helps usher in improvements that happen in adulthood. Foreskins have a history of medical complications to male specimen, much like a burst appendix. And surgical removing of the skin is more comparable to removing baby teeth than it is castration.
The glans is supposed to be protected and lubricated to function the way it is supposed to.
It gets destroyed.
You are saying an eye with no eyelids is still an eye, even if it has been blinded.
>except the person getting circumcised never consented.
When they're not capable of consent.
>Go hear the screams for yourself if you need to be convinced.
Children scream when getting booster shots and vaccinations. Or having a dentist work on their teeth.
>With your posts you are defending female circumcision too, remember that.
Kettle logic and straw man.
>When they're not capable of consent.
Proves his point, troll. Screaming out of pain is enough of a "no", isn't it?
>Kettle logic and straw man
I almost forgot that I am a male and inferior and my genitals are worth nothing, I'll just go commit suicide now and increase OP's charts because of people like you.
Thanks for answering OPs question.
No, you refused to confront a non-functioning organ.
It is an organ. So is the tissue removed in circumcision. You cannot say losing 100,000 nerve endings is bad for women and good for men.
>I thought you had a problem with people that don't consent. And here it is that you just don't consider them people.
Tu quoque and false dilemma. No one here, either me or you, said they weren't people. That wasn't even suggested in the beginning of the thread. If you're talking about consent, people can't really consent to much until ages 17 - 20, when the cerebrum fully develops. If you're talking about children screaming during a painful procedure, same with dental hygiene and vaccination shots, necessary at the consent of the parents (as is male circumcisions).
>EVERY WOMAN NOW GETS GENTILE MUTILATED, NO SAYING NO!
Gentile, eh? Non-Jews?
Weirdest part about you guys is that you keep perpetuating your own weird traditions. Fathers teach their sons to bottle up their emotions and insist on cutting each other's dick-skin off. I get that you think that internal struggle, mindless tradition and misery make you feel manly but it's really not healthy and you guys need to stop.
>It is an organ. So is the tissue removed in circumcision.
No more an organ than the skin on your arms.
>You cannot say losing 100,000 nerve endings is bad
You can lose nerve endings from scraping your skin, or having surgery done on you.
>is bad for women and good for men.
Circumcision for women basically just to disable a sensitive organ, in order to reduce her sexuality. Some tribes in Somalia not only do this to girls ages three and below, but also sew up the vagina with stitches until she is married (often given away to a male once they hit puberty). It's more closer to castrating a male than male circumcision is. It's not done for the same reasons, and doesn't have the same effects on the same scale as with girls. This isn't a matter of opinion or position, it's just how it is in our world. And most dads want their sons to be circumcised so they can look more like him (same with uncircumcised dads wanting their son to remain uncircumcised).
Men are more competitive. That I think is clear.
You can then speculate (unless someone provides evidence) that suicide is an evolved tendency to limit the number of men if they don't die otherwise enough, that depression is an evolved tendency to get you to drastically change your life if stuck, and that loneliness is just a consequence of competition and excess number of males.
Because their parents are consenting to it. It's often the parents wanting their kid to be circumcised.
>Most adults don't want...
False consensus bias. There are some adults who are uncut, but want to be cut, and thus get the procedure done (though it's more disastrous to an adult than it is an infant). Most adults just stick what they already have: uncircumcised prefer uncircumcised, circumcised prefer circumcised.
>And most dads want their sons to be circumcised so they can look more like him (same with uncircumcised dads wanting their son to remain uncircumcised).
Do dudes really think like this?
No. They just don't argue because they don't get to.
REAL MEN GET THEIR DICKS MANGLED AT BIRTH.
THEN THEY LET THEIR SONS GET MUTILATED TOO, BECAUSE "WHY BOTHER".
HOO-AAH! ROUGH RIDERS!
>You are still denying choice
With a person in a state that cannot make consensual choices? Not a lot, if any, you can do to deny or approve them.
>your "benefits" are debatable at best
It's not like even the most universal and undeniable scientific research are excluded from debates. It's how the community works.
Men just really like it when they have kids that looks as much similar to them as possible. From an evopsy POV, it basically stands as proof that their genes are being spread out in the world, and continue the bloodline. This is also why men sometimes worry if the child is really theirs, and whether or not the mother was faithful to them or nil.
But it generally goes like this (apparently): circumcised men prefer to have their sons circumcised, while uncircumcised men prefer their sons to have their foreskin remain intact.
I'm pretty sure my beef curtains and clitoral hood aren't entirely necessary. Everything would look a little more tidy (and prepubescent) if they were gone. I'm not cutting them off for muh aesthetics though.
>You don't have 100,000 nerve endings on both your arms.
You have tons of nerves wired throughout your arms, legs, and ends wherever there's an appendage.
>Now, why is it bad for women to lose 100,000 nerve endings on 2 inches of flesh
Because the clitoris is pretty much exactly like the head of the male penis (pic related). It's not just cutting off some extra fold skin, it's basically cutting the head off of a penis.
>but it is okay for men to lose 100,000 nerve endings on 2 inches of flesh?
1). Length differences in flesh vary between person-to-person.
2). It's more closer to having skin surgically removed than it is removing nerves.
>You're saying that an INTERNAL ORGAN THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED WITH SKIN OR IT DOESN'T WORK RIGHT does not need skin on men and women.
And where did anybody explicitly say that?
>So stop bitching about Muslims.
Did anyone even mention Muslims ITT? I only saw references to Jews and Christians so far.
>That is understood by the way it is covered in skin
But did anyone explicitly say, not assume, not allude, but explicitly say that here?
>and the way women complain about sex
Genital mutilations tend to be more culturally influenced than religiously (even if that culture has strong religious connotations). General circumcision is more originated in Judaism than Muslim or Christian. But no one really mentioned Muslims here, so it's still a random thing to bring up. Or moving the goal posts, if you will.
But did anyone flat out say "needs to be said," "an organ that needs to be covered in skin," and "needs to be covered in skin?" Otherwise it's just a personal interpretation, and argument from ambiguity.
Depression is more common amongst females.
Your source about depression is from a magazine article.
>I am now confusing the people who are replying to me whilst roleplaying at the same time on an online imageboard devoted to anime
Men have an unbalanced attraction to women while women have a more balanced to men.
More the 60% of Male's attraction to a female is physical and sexual.
The ratio for Women is more balanced compared to men.
Depression and suicide are mostly men? What are you fucking stupid? I think it is hilarious people actually think they know what they are talking about, take their own false thoughts as facts, and doesn't even bother to actually look up depression and suicide rates.
We actually can have more than two genders, even with todays technology. Since gender is basically the social definitions of a man and a woman. Sex is the biological, and it's only possible to have two sexes as of now.
It's because life is simply much easier for women, they don't have to go through the hardships that men do. Men are the people who make the whole of society run, basically the only contribution that women make to humanity is having kids, they don't have the same worries that men do. It's even worse now since men are becoming more and more devalued over time, and more of their entitlements are going to women instead.
Circumcision is bullshit.
I fucking hate my parents for circumcising me.
I don't give a fuck WHAT you think or what benefits you think it has (protip: it doesn't), it's a human rights violation solely based on the fact that the baby can grow up to not want it to have happened.
I think it has to do with this world generally being a mans world. They get tired of having so much weight and the responsibly always having to be on top. Most don't even want it but society differs. I know I don't want to.
If I were to be honest, if you have cancer in your arms, it can get worse to the point that amputating them would be the wiser move (to prevent it from spreading to the rest of your body).
ARE YOU FAGGOTS REALLY ARGUING ABOUT CIRCUMCISION IN THIS THREAD?
MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST KILL YOURSELVES FOR GETTING TROLLED THIS HARD
Hey, no one told philosophers to post on /sci/, and let's be honest, /sci/ has been acting pretty retarded lately. We ALL know and acting retarded attracts real retards like philosophers and /x/philes, and /sci/ was basically begging to turn into shit.
It is not fair.
It is not right.
It is how it happened.
Women are the main sexual selectors
We share DNA from twice as many females than we do males.
This corresponds to a 40% reproduction rate in men to 80% in women. Our minds are programmed to form a society in which women are protected and men have to earn their place to survive.
Here is the translation :
Once women of my generation have depleted their looks and their vagina could fit an entire football team at the same time, i could finnaly got one who wanted to "settle", that is, anybody with money who'll accept beyond used goods.
You never grope your way out of your personal hell mate, you simple gave up and surrendered to reality. Good for you.
As someone that did get out of hell for a couple of decades, I prefer hell. Reality sucks much worse, and the entertainment is cartoonish at best, pathetic at worst.
Seriously, there is way too much bad sex being sold as good these days. Not even worth the time to fap for most of it.
Oh, he's talking about your prostate. Yeah, it's a fun button to tap, but you don't need another guy to do the tapping. There are plenty of chicks that know how to get that spot
If you feel that is too shameful, marry her.
In countering people who would suggest that a baby's cry is in no way acceptable as a protest or explicit statement of revocation of consent on the basis of vaccinations and or dental work eliciting this response.. Consider the following:
Those babies who cry upon administration of vaccination and dental care simply know that you are harming the evolutionary viability of our species by keeping the weak among us. They are urging you with their blood-curdling shrieks to cease this grievous assault on the billions of years of hard work that produced us and on our descendants.
You must accept reality. The only thing you have any control over is yourself. If you can't take pains to develop yourself, you're a weak piece of shit who forgot what it meant to outswim 50,000,000 of your sperm brothers to reach the egg.
Women are just people who struggle too. If you can't empathize, you just haven't developed your humanity and/or your perspective. You aren't guaranteed anything in this life except a shit sandwich. Your fucking soulmate isn't going to fall out of the sky into your lap. You aren't going to get anywhere without working for it. You better learn to love physical pain or your life is going to be an anemic wasteland of limited horizons. Life is struggle, everything else is a lie. The old world tribal societies with their child marriages and cult religions is the miserable alternative.
You better prioritize practicing opening up, being socially forward, being unambiguous about your feelings, being self-confident, not being a controlling, needy fascist, etc. You have to be fine with yourself, fine with being alone, interested in life, and oriented toward something positively greater than yourself.
If you want love, you have to be able to explain what it means for you. Without that, you can't identify what it is not and can't communicate your standards. You have to find the criteria for what that is, and it is imperative you communicate about it to your prospective partners, early and often. Women love to talk about it. They are evaluating: Do you follow your ideals? Can you respect someone else's ideas/feelings/thoughts? How does your actions line up with your words? Are you consistent? Or are you a bullshitter? At the same time they reflect on their own ideas and feelings. You'll get their love if you get their admiration and respect, and not before.
>I don't think I've seen women face as much suffering as men do.
Its axiomatic that you cannot really understand how much anyone is suffering by looking at them.
Do you ever realise that words are just meaningless sounds that don't begin to describe the tiniest fraction of what goes on, and that you consciously developed your personality over years so that you could have lofty hopes and dreams only to have them inevitably torn to shreds by the ravages of time?
>If you want love
Meh. Not really worth it. Empathy is easy, people are simple. I do know that all the games mean nothing, and there is no such thing as "forever in love".
So, what you are promoting is basically a MMORPG with bad graphics and no rewards. There are LOTS of those, and the ones that are worth looking at are free.
From an unbiased point of view, women have it pretty shitty too. They, too, have to desire to live up to unrealistic standards and have done it for longer than men. That being said, some skinnyfat slut is ridiculously more likely to be asked into a relationship than a skinnyfat man.
We were the dumbasses who imposed similar unrealistic standards on ourselves. Now if you don't lift weights, you'll never be considered even remotely close to attractive by women, when in the past it would suffice that you showered, kept your hair neat and didnt let yourself turn into a tub of lard. What if I just dont have enough time to lift weights seriously enough so that it makes a noticeable difference? And the older I get, the less time I expect to have for that shit.
Why did we let this be done to us by us? As if it wasn't enough that we have to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to social interactions, now we also have to live up to ridiculous standards in the way we look.
That's easy to say. If you didn't already know there's a huge stigma on men crying.
If you are in a state where you can ignore that stigma I don't think there would be the need for crying anyway.
Men are more likely to own guns, and are thus more likely to succeed in their suicide attempts than women.
Actually (as is confirmed by your citations) women attempt suicide more often than men (but succeed less often) and are about twice as likely to be depressed (assuming male depression isn't underreported). So it looks like women are at least as unhappy as men.
Why didn't any of you faggots point this out?
>They, too, have to desire to live up to unrealistic standards and have done it for longer than men.
They do that to compete with each other, not because a neurotic clown is something men ask for.
>We were the dumbasses who imposed similar unrealistic standards on ourselves.
Actually, the environment did that to all of us as we were fighting for survival.
We didn't tell women to kill themselves competing with each other.
If someone wants to kill themselves they'll fucking kill themselves. It doesn't matter if it's with a gun, knife, rope, drowning, toaster, etc. if they have the legitimate intent on killing themselves they'll get it done. A "survived" suicide attempt is just someone looking for attention.
A man can easily kill himself by swallowing a bunch of pills in his kitchen cabinet, setting himself on fire, drowning himself, or running in traffic.
>A man can easily kill himself by swallowing a bunch of pills in his kitchen cabinet, setting himself on fire, drowning himself, or running in traffic.
Pills are unreliable and can be extremely unplesant. Fire would be painful. Drowning terrible and running in traffic can make you a vegetable.
Exit bags, high-drop hanging, firearms or say, dropping an anvil on your head(or other head-crushing actions) would be the preferable way to go when I find the time has come.
>Why are men the most unhappy of the genders?
>Suicide rates are mostly men. Depression rates are mostly men. Loneliness rates are mostly men. It just goes on and on.
>Actually (as is confirmed by your citations) women attempt suicide more often than men (but succeed less often) and are about twice as likely to be depressed (assuming male depression isn't underreported). So it looks like women are at least as unhappy as men.
>Men are more likely to own guns, and are thus more likely to succeed in their suicide attempts than women.
>>If you want love
>Meh. Not really worth it.
Disagree and cashing those checks. Love is awesome.
>Empathy is easy, people are simple.
It might seem that way if you limit your horizons to a few comfortable delusions.
>I do know that all the games mean nothing, and there is no such thing as "forever in love".
Some of us are into ecstatic states. Love is one such state. For me, its the juice. Doesn't have to be forever.
>So, what you are promoting is basically a MMORPG with bad graphics and no rewards.
top kek. I live in the real world, kid.
>Do you ever realise that words are just meaningless sounds
BY WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
You? Go back to /fa/ bitch.
Oh, i don't want love, i want to hoard money so that i can switch to a robotic body because what i want is seeing the galactic core region from the inside.
I was simply stating what your life is, without the romanticised bullshit and delusions. You are free to fool yourself, but don't fool young, impressionnable minds.
That's in bad taste.
> Literally any news source in Australia
I jumped off that train when 3 or 4 major Australian news companies parroted the "creatine makes u a murderer look at elliot lol!" bullshit.
This is how entitled Australian women have become, where "eligible men" are defined as
> earn over $60,000 a year
> between 25 and 34 years old
and eligible women are defined as
women process monoamine oxidase differently
different dopamine / oxytocin / endorphin responses
estrogen proliferation ruins male testosterone / thyroid system
feminism promotes single parent single mother households giving sons little direction & no father figures to strive to impress with structure & principled expectation
I know what love is.
Love is when you finally find the other human being that makes you complete
>at the begining of creation god made them male and female for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united with his wife and the two will become one flesh so they are no longer two but one flesh
>1. Women can get laid whenever they fucking please.
So can men, they just can't expect to jump up 3 tiers of quality and date outside of their own quality, but there are plenty of horny land whales on OKCupid or AdultFriendFinder who can't get high quality men and will settle for you.
>2. Society expects men to make the most money in the relationship.
Society expects to pay women less.
>3. Women waste mans hard earned money.
Women are expected to trade sexual favors just to have disposable income to make up for the difference in wage.
Unlike women, men are judged by their achievements, wealth, and raging muscles if they have them. Because most men are unable to get these three, it drives them into depression as they deem themselves unsuccessful and rejected by society, their peers, and more importantly members of the opposite sex who aren't interested in them.
>males are highly disadvantaged in court systems regarding parenting
100% bullshit. It's more that males tend to seek out less help during divorce/alimony/child support trials. When they DO seek out legal advice/hire lawyers the court system swings massively in their favor.
>Men are the ones drafted
Isn't it a male-dominated government that made it that way? Why should women be to blame for an obviously arbitrary rule that they had no hand in? Congratulations you just argued for feminism
Why bother investing time and resources in things that are not even named properly?
It means nothing, they will all say something different because collectively they don't understand logic and can't even pick a philosophy to shill for that is logically consistent and named correctly.
>Why bother investing time and resources in things that are not even named properly?
Why bother trying to communicate with someone so spergy that they dismiss a movement because they get hung up on the name? Are you one of those people who make it a point to remind everyone that the US is actually a republic, not a democracy?
No, I am the type of person who reminds everyone that republic and democracy are vague enough generalizations to not be very applicable to real world situations because political science is just a bunch of semantic bullshit with no real measurement or well defined metrics.
The answer, ladies and gentlemen.
While alot of men are more inclined to productivity and most women are more inclined to "whatever they feel like" they can still let out how shit their life is without people thinking "Grow the fuck up and get over it".
If feminism were significantly more pervasive, then perhaps the reasons I listed for elevated male suicide risks (>>6673399) would no longer be reasons for depression, or perhaps they would be less influential.
You say it's not binary, but I think that in a way it is, but regardless it doesn't change my point.
Firstly, we're talking about values: the criteria by which someone measures their own self worth. Frankly, I think it's fair to say that once people are at the age where suicide is a legitimate threat to health and not just a fun word to toss around, at that age most peoples' values are pretty much set in stone. Even if they're not 100% rigid, I think it's fair to say they're mostly rigid.
Secondly, even if you were to insist that it's not a binary issue, that feminism can gradually make its effect, well so what -- currently it's mostly just a fringe in the media, government, and academia in modernized countries. So while some momentum has built up, surely, but honestly not much and so it will be a good while before enough gradual change has occurred for there to be a substantial change in the waters. My point: even if nonbinary, our society is still so far from being feminist at our ideological cores, and progress will be so slow that in this day if you flip to being a feminist you're likely to be rejected in the ways I described.
>Secondly, even if you were to insist that it's not a binary issue, that feminism can gradually make its effect, well so what -- currently it's mostly just a fringe in the media, government, and academia in modernized countries.
Much of what was feminism decades ago is the status quo today, and it's very likely that much of the progress that conservatives and reactionaries rail against today will be the norm decades from now.
>Feminism: equal rights for women
>Egalitarianism: equal rights for everyone
Now if the bottom word were more heard of in general society you can bet your ass people would change to it.
man, you fucking got it
All these fuckers seem to have no empathy, or at least only a little bit.
This is why I hate religion vs atheists vs fedoras vs whateverthefuck
it's all superficial bullshit, all that matters is empathy, the golden rule.
Following the golden rule = everything works out, and the golden rule isn't just about how you do or don't treat others, but how you treat yourself. An explicitly accurate version of it would be something like:
Treat others as you wish to be treated, don't treat others as you wish not to be treated, treat yourself as you wish others to treat themself.
If everyone followed this, everyone who isn't a psychopath would be nice, caring, thoughtful, considerate, and constantly working to improve themself.
Not the person you're replaying to, but seriously when will there ever be an equal society? Even if people are against it, which would be a few stereotypical cultures I'd imagine, how does it make a difference what someones opinion on something that will never happen matter?
>A "truly egalitarian" society would require a lot of corrective measures to remove the influences of past discrimination
>but I imagine you're against that as well.
Haha, so you're saying that because I want equality for all (egalitarian movements for both men and women), I actually want it for neither and especially not for women.
We will never have a truly equal society, in the same way nothing we do will ever be perfect, but that shouldn't stop us from doing the best we can. Perfection is an ideal to strive towards, not a realistic end goal.
>Haha, so you're saying that because I want equality for all (egalitarian movements for both men and women), I actually want it for neither and especially not for women.
No, I'm saying that I get the feeling that you are one of those people who believe in the facade of equality but not the reality of it, because I've heard these sorts of arguments from those sorts of people. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize.
Well at this point anon I feel like we're yelling in the same direction. It's a little confusing figuring out who is who without ID's, I jumped into this conversation half way. However, I think it's fair to say that most people (at least on this board) who criticize "equality" movements do so on the basis of inequalities they would create, not that they're against the equality part. That said, I think we're all really arguing for the same thing in the end. Anyways anon, I'm off to bed. Good night.
>loss of sensitivity (0%)
But that is physically impossible.
Also take a look at the list of risks that a most circumcised men get anyway, genital herpes? HPV? It is so god damn common in america where everyone has their dick slaughtered anyway. These bastards are lying through the guise of a scientific study.
Also take a look at the second link. The bastards say that they are pro-choice, but infant circumcision is actually not pro-choice, as in the first-class party does not, nor will ever have any choice in the matter. This is the god damn party being affected. People who have no affect in the party choose sexual preferences for someone else. They don't even have to live with the consequences. Fucking bastards.
It increases pleasure a bit, it is neither important nor functional for procreation.
STDs are more easily transmitted in folds of the foreskin that harvest bacteria almost as bad as the dirty bacteria ridden vaginal walls, herpes is much more prevalent in many parts of europe, asia, and afrrica, genital herpes usually lives where it is cold and slightly moist and I don't just mean your mother's vagina.
A bit???? As the unwilling victim of a circumcision at age 21, I can say it's more than a bit. I would say that 80-90% of sexual pleasure is provided by the foreskin nerve endings, and in a way I envy those circumcised at birth, because that way I would never have known what I am missing.
>herpes is much more prevelent in many parts of europe, asia and afrrica
The lowest prevalence was in western Europe, where prevalence reached a maximum of around 18% among women and 13% among men. The highest prevalence was in sub-Saharan Africa, where prevalence reached a maximum of 70% among women and around 55% among men.
Western Europe also has the lowest rate of circumcision, while Africa has the highest. The US had a higher rate of infection than Western Europe as well. The same trends also apply to the prevalence of HIV infection, so obviously circumcision is extremely ineffective as a preventative measure for STDs.
Funny, a few years ago, I read a news report on violence perpetrated by Aceh locals on Christians. This woman told of their village being attacked by Muslim extremists, who cut off the clitoris' from all the women and circumcised all the men. She said that she felt very sorry for the men, because of the sheer size of the wound, and that the women fared much better. We are just talking about wounds here, of course, not long-term quality-of-life effects.
There are many other factors, it is bad science to jump to that conclusion without considering all the factors, you link even says it is more related to the amount of development, but the fact is that circumcision reduces the amount of moist soft tissue where bacteria can live, it isn't a preventative measure, but it has been shown to reduce the chances of hosting an infection.
But why go to the lengths of amputating a healthy and functioning part of the body when condoms, sexual education and personal hygiene are all far more effective at preventing STDs?
Obviously circumcision doesn't solve the problem, as there wouldn't be a positive correlation between the high rates of STDs and high rates of circumcision, even if it does mitigate it slightly.
>It would take 56 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of HIV
>a positive correlation between the high rates of STDs and high rates of circumcision
You didn't show a universal positive correlation, you cherry picked a couple of countries, when UK is the lowest STDs and has a moderate rate of circumcision and Latin American countries like Argentina and Bolivia often have low rates of circumcision and high rates of herpes.
Whatever, my point wasn't to show a correlation, it was to refute what >>6673538 said.
In any case, http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html clearly shows the risk reduction ratio is pathetic considering you are permanently removing a healthy, functioning body part. Would you really willingly cut part of yourself off for a one in 56 chance you won't get an STD from unprotected sex with a diseased skank, when you could just use a condom or be a bit responsible with who you stick it in?
The real reason non-Jewish/Muslim Americans are circumcised is because it was presented as a way of preventing boys from committing the sin of masturbation during the late C19th. Once it became normalized, the original reasons were forgotten and parents have it carried out because they don't want their child to be 'different'. However, this obviously isn't the most valid reason for the continuation of the practice, so the reasons have been changed in hindsight to those of preventing disease.
>Would you really willingly cut part of yourself off for a one in 56 chance you won't get an STD from unprotected sex with a diseased skank, when you could just use a condom or be a bit responsible with who you stick it in?
This should be on posters in neonatal wards.
You didn't forget this point, but i'd like to pronounce it some more:
If you are a woman below 4/10 you are FUCKED in the most unliteral way possible, both psychologically and socially, and will only find some desparate beta faggot unless you have some sort of talent, which is probanly not the case. And a lot of women are below 4/10 , atleast where I live.
its because most /sci/entists fail basic theoretical philosophy lectures.
>tfw im studying physics and taking many philosophy classes bc it's interesting to be better than most of the philosophy students (most lack logical thinking)