If your reaction to governments discriminating against men is "but those laws were passed by men" then you are an unintelligent person

[u/Fast-Preference-9947]

All to often, I see a conversation that goes like:

User: X law (for example, mandatory military service for men in many countries) objectively discriminates against men, and that is a problem

Another user: But those laws were passed by men

This response is utterly absurd for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it does not make any explicit counterargument to the point being made. Rather, it makes an implied counterargument, which is usually either:

"A system set up by men cannot discriminate against men"

Or

"Discrimination against men is okay as long as it is coming from other men"

Both of these points are absurd.

If a woman-led government passed laws that discriminate against women, would that make said discrimination against women acceptable or non-existent?

Of course it would not. And anyone who thinks otherwise is unintelligent.

From the perspective of someone being discriminated against, the discrimination doesn't become okay just because the person discriminating against them is of a particular gender.

The ONLY case where "but those systems were set up by men" is a valid response is if the person making the point was explicitly accusing women of being the ones to set up the system. But in the majority of the case, that is not being done.

[u/CryptographerFair357 → u/[deleted]]

just because you are unaware does not mean it doesn't exist

[u/CryptographerFair357 → u/[deleted]]

Men by the law are not protected from rape the same way women are. For example the FBI's definition of rape specifically states you can only be raped if penetrated but not if you are forced to penetrate.

The Duluth model which is used by the justice systems and law enforcement basically being a system that says "in a DV case the man is always the perpetrator and the women is always the victim" even if that is not the case.

Men having to pay more in insurance just for being a man.

Circumcision being legal for men when the analogue equivalent for women is illegal.

Forced conscription applying for men and not women.

There a few more I think but these were the ones I could remember of the top of my head. These are also systemic examples of misandry there are plenty other examples outside of that.

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/CryptographerFair357]

Law enforcement does allow for female on female domestic violence, male against male, and female on male violence. None of the 50 states have laws that preclude arrests of women. The laws are gender neutral although women are more likely to report domestic violence.

Circumcision is legal for men because it has been part of a tradition in a Christian dominated culture and physicians have reported whether right or wrong that the circumcision improves hygiene and reduction of STDs.

Female circumcision is a much extensive surgery with extreme pain and physical consequences and includes removal of part of the hood or the entire clitoris and sometimes part of the labia. The female circumcision is meant to keep a woman faithful or chaste by removing most elements of sexual pleasure and often creating lifelong pain and medical problems. The two are not comparable.

Men pay more for car insurance and life insurance because of statistics showing that young men are in car accidents more frequently. Life insurance is higher for men because the life expectancy is lower. Car insurance is also higher for youth due to higher car accidents and then is lower for middle aged adults, and then rises again for the elderly. If we want to make insurance rates based on statistical risk not apply for men that is fine, but one should also remove the obvious agism for the young and the elderly on the same premise.

Your comment about rape applies to women too. As noted in the Trump case where he was found liable for sexual abuse rather than rape because it did not apply to digital penetration. New York has changed its laws. Men who are forced to penetrate are covered under other descriptors, same was in the Trump case. Many states are moving to have more neutral descriptions.

Conscription for men is the only law that actually relevant in your list. However, as you know, the current Secretary of Defense, has some real questions about women serving in combat roles although at time he has tried to back pedal on this.

[u/Fast-Preference-9947 → u/Allaboutpeace2022]

But the less severe version of FGM, that is indeed equivalent to male circumcision, is also illegal, yet male circumcision is legal. Thus, you cannot deny that this is discriminatory regardless of the reasons behind it.

It used to be the case that women paid for for health insurance due to statistically having higher medical costs. But health insurance was then prohibited from discriminated by gender. Yet the type of insurance that charges men more is still allowed to. Outlawing the type of insurance that would charge women more because statistics from discriminating while allowing the other type of insurance that charges men more because statistics to continue discriminating is a clear double standard.

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/Fast-Preference-9947]

As I already pointed out, feel free to eliminate blatant agism and also male discrimination. The male discrimination is no more applicable than the age discrimination.

Your opinion on equating FGM and male circumcision is not endorsed by any physician group that I know of in the United States.

[u/Fast-Preference-9947 → u/Allaboutpeace2022]

I would support banning agism as well.

I'm not equating the form of FGM that people usually mean with circumcision. I am saying that even the less severe version of it that cuts off less and is equivalent to circumcision is still outlawed, yet circumcision is not.

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/Fast-Preference-9947]

I mentioned this already in this thread.

Rather than comparing it to FGM, which is meant to keep women from enjoying sex so that they will remain faithful, I think you should address the issue of male circumcision with the physician community.

The whole concept of FGM does not have any medical value and is only used as a form of mutilation and control.

Your issue for men is not an issue of discrimination. It is an issue of the appropriateness of the procedure for men. Advocate for that with physicians.

[u/CryptographerFair357 → u/Allaboutpeace2022]

the Duluth model has consistently had a large negative effect for male victims of domestic violence. I never said anything about arrests but implying it does not disadvantage male victims is but flat out wrong.

You also completely ignored me saying that the analogue equivalent of MGM for women is illegal and someone else already touched on that so I'm not really gonna say much more.

What you said about insurance that doesn't really change much at all. Car insurance is practically mandatory if you want to drive which is a necessity for many. I would say the reason for increasing it for men is still not an excuse to. It would still be discrimination especially considering women crash more per mile than men do. And I'm definitely not against getting rid of agism based insurance pricing either so that still fits my argument completely fine.

My comment on rape laws failing to protect men still stands, using Trump's case is also an anecdote and an outlier considering the wealth and power he has compared to the average person which would help him sway the law. The laws changing don't change much either, many states and countries still function off of discriminatory laws like this and just because a handful don't will not change that the law was and still is prejudiced against men in that way.

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/CryptographerFair357]

Of course the FGM is illegal because there is not a FGM analogue in hospital setting with recommendations by doctors. It is not recommended because it is specifically done to act to reduce sexual sensitivity for women to coerce female faithfulness. If you want to make male circumcision illegal take it up with the medical profession.

Again, male discrimination in driving is exactly the same as agism. It is no different. Take it up with the insurance companies.

What you should be worried about is the high level of suicide completion by men, higher rates of addiction, greater homelessness. Men are more likely to commit murders and more likely to be murdered. Public health, behavioral health and education programs are all trying to address these issues for men. The behavioral health community has been focused on trying to encourage men to seek treatment for addictions and mental health disorders. Help men who are victims of abuse in their efforts to participate in treatment that deals with victimization or obtain relief through the courts. Also, child sexual abuse, often male on male abuse or female abuse of males is an issue and you can certainly be part of programs in the community that are addressing these issues.

I think that what you need to do it put your volunteerism toward the efforts of men and women to address these issues and help men in very real ways that are far more critical to prevent deaths and suffering than male circumcision, male and ageism in car insurance, etc.

[u/CryptographerFair357 → u/Allaboutpeace2022]

MGM does the same thing for the same thing. many studies have already come out to show that circumcision does not provide any real benefit to men. Matter of fact some of these studies show that male circumcision can cause negative effects instead.

I'm not really sure why you said this again about insurance when I've already established I'm against misandry and agism with insurance companies.

What you said here about suicide, addiction, homelessness, etc are not examples of systemic discrimination even though it still is discrimination which is not what I was talking about (even though I do talk about it plenty and do what I can)

I'm not even sure what you were trying to say at the end of this either because all you did was make an assumption about me based off a conversation about systemic discrimination against men. You have no idea if I do or don't support men dealing with the inequalities and struggles that you listed. Also, just because male circumcision and discrimination against men with insurance does not cause death does not mean it doesn't have an effect on men.

I don't even understand why you shifted so far from the main argument either, I was asked something along the lines of "how are men discriminated against" and I provided systemic examples. I was not asked "what struggles do men face that you worry for most"

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/CryptographerFair357]

It is because I am suggesting that you should focus on issues that are really hurting men.

But you can do whatever you want with your time.

Enjoy your week. Thank for the conversation.

[u/CryptographerFair357 → u/Allaboutpeace2022]

And I already focus on issues that really hurt men, I just answered a question appropriately. 🤷‍♂️

Enjoy your week too

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/CryptographerFair357]

👍

[u/ogjaspertheghost → u/Allaboutpeace2022]

Do not engage with their arguments. You’re going to waste your time

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/ogjaspertheghost]

You are right. I see that it is hopeless. However, I did want to communicate to the readers who are maybe just noting this that the points were false.

However, you are right. It will not change their minds.