Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Spocket

And another right that women have that men don't is protection from non-consensual circumcision. Not a big deal to me but it is still bodily mutilation based on religion rather than any health rationale.

There's a pretty substantial difference between the removal of a clitoris and the removal of a foreskin.. the former is objectively far more harmful. That said, I don't think either procedure should be done on infants as they are far too young to consent to it. I'd make an exception if there's genetic grounds to suspect the boy will grow up to have phimosis as circumcision is a much easier procedure to perform on infants than on adults.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

There's a pretty substantial difference between the removal of a clitoris and the removal of a foreskin.. the former is objectively far more harmful. That said, I don't think either procedure should be done on infants as they are far too young to consent to it. I'd make an exception if there's genetic grounds to suspect the boy will grow up to have phimosis as circumcision is a much easier procedure to perform on infants than on adults.

Well, generally speaking, I agree that it's an order of magnitude of difference. That said, there are deaths from male circumcision every year. It's a completely unnecessary procedure.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Well, generally speaking, I agree that it's an order of magnitude of difference. That said, there are deaths from male circumcision every year. It's a completely unnecessary procedure.

Circumcision rates in Canada have declined dramatically in the past few decades, mostly because provinces stopped paying for them and done privately, it's about a $200-$300 procedure. Whereas the majority of men born in the 1970s and 1980s were circumcised at birth, only about 30% of baby boys are circumcised in Canada today. By contrast, in the US circumcision rates remain high (although I believe it's dropped there too).

There's regional variations on that 30%, though. In Alberta, it's a lot higher.. about 50% I believe.

There are some upsides to male circumcision.. it can prevent infections (although that advantage is more or less completely negatable with proper hygiene) and phimosis (inability to properly retract) can be a very annoying condition for those unlucky enough to have it.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how useful this is as a way of looking at the world though.

I'm not really sure either, tbh.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Spocket

And I suppose you think I can't find a misandric quote anywhere?

Not from me, you won't.

Yours at least helped me understand what I was dealing with.

That said, I agree with you on the issue of circumcision at least insofar as I don't believe there is much reason for it anymore. However I don't think it (male circumcision) really has much to do with gender inequality, and I'm not sure it ever did.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Let's face it, The National isn't the paragon of news provision that it might once have been, such as when Nash was anchor, and Mansbridge is no Knowlton Nash. Much of it is now infotainment garbage, and the same goes for all the other television "news" providers in Canada.
.

Still a lot better as a true news source than the likes of Stewart, Colbert and Oliver. Plus you actually get to learn at least a bit about what's going on in the country you live in!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Circumcision rates in Canada have declined dramatically in the past few decades, mostly because provinces stopped paying for them and done privately, it's about a $200-$300 procedure. Whereas the majority of men born in the 1970s and 1980s were circumcised at birth, only about 30% of baby boys are circumcised in Canada today. By contrast, in the US circumcision rates remain high (although I believe it's dropped there too).

There's regional variations on that 30%, though. In Alberta, it's a lot higher.. about 50% I believe.

There are some upsides to male circumcision.. it can prevent infections (although that advantage is more or less completely negatable with proper hygiene) and phimosis (inability to properly retract) can be a very annoying condition for those unlucky enough to have it.

It's astonishingly variable among provinces, to the point where it's probably government policy as opposed to "culture" that's influencing things.

All of the "old Canada" (Quebec + Atlantic) is extremely low, except for PEI for some reason:

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html

In Quebec you can still get it done for a fee but the Ministry of Health more or less actively discourages it, even if they haven't gone as far as to ban it outright.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

On tenth of the population is homosexual?? I believe that was an old estimate by Alfred Kinsey that was very inaccurate. A sociology course I took about a decade ago taught me that about 2 to 3% of the population identifies as gay or lesbian. Haven't checked out any research since then.

Kinsey may have been a bit high but 2-3% just seems way too low. It's probably in the 7-8% range given a number of factors cited by people on here. These factors push the figure both downwards and upwards:

- The legacy of homophobia means that a lot of people are still in the closet or living in denial as heterosexuals. People who remain "discreet" about their private lives - which is perfectly fine of course. But hetero people aren't generally discreet about their sexual orientation, so it shows there is still a stigma. We can think of at least two big city mayors in Canada for whom this is the case. It was also the case of my former MP, now a radio show host.

- The fact that in youth culture it's cool to be different, and for some any sexual orientation that is not straight hetero is seen as a way to stand out from the crowd. Obviously many young people are gay and they know it and will identify as gay all their lives. But most of us know people who said they were "gay" at some point in their youth but who are happily living in a white picket fence house with kids and a hetero partner these days.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Kinsey may have been a bit high but 2-3% just seems way too low. It's probably in the 7-8% range given a number of factors cited by people on here. These factors push the figure both downwards and upwards:

I think most people tend to lump bisexual in with homosexual. In that case, yeah, 2 to 3 percent is probably on the low side. If they don't include bisexuality then that figure seems reasonable.

I've worked with plenty of homosexuals and at some places there were more and at others there were less. It's really difficult to get an idea based on daily life observation because the environment definitely plays a part.

For example, in my current job I've worked with at least %15 homosexuals. At other jobs I'd be surprised if the number was any higher than zero. There may have been homosexuals but they never said so and nobody asked. Not a don't-ask-don't-tell thing, just the general sense of this-place-don't-tolerate-no-fancy-pants-types. Not that I think I've ever worked with many people who would have had any problem with it but were I gay, I'd probably be reluctant to make it publicly known as well.

Originally Posted by vorkuta

Not from me, you won't.

Yours at least helped me understand what I was dealing with.

That said, I agree with you on the issue of circumcision at least insofar as I don't believe there is much reason for it anymore. However I don't think it (male circumcision) really has much to do with gender inequality, and I'm not sure it ever did.

Well, first of all, you know nothing at all about me so don't get it into your head that you do. You know your narrative and how you apply it to people. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Secondly, had you been paying any attention you'd know exactly why I mentioned what I did.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Well, first of all, you know nothing at all about me so don't get it into your head that you do. You know your narrative and how you apply it to people. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

What?

Secondly, had you been paying any attention you'd know exactly why I mentioned what I did.

I'll go re-read then.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

What?

Do you even pay attention to what you, yourself write ?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's astonishingly variable among provinces, to the point where it's probably government policy as opposed to "culture" that's influencing things.

All of the "old Canada" (Quebec + Atlantic) is extremely low, except for PEI for some reason:

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html

In Quebec you can still get it done for a fee but the Ministry of Health more or less actively discourages it, even if they haven't gone as far as to ban it outright.

In the case of Quebec, Alberta, and the NWT I feel like cultural differences are influencing the rates.. in the rest of the country it may amount more or less entirely to different stances by provincial health ministries.

In Ontario, the health ministry takes no stances other than advising parents that it's not covered by provincial health care.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Do you even pay attention to what you, yourself write ?

I do. I was just confused why you would think I was claiming to "know" you by anything more than what you've written. That's all I've had to go on. What I got was that you are angry about a perceived inequality between men and women. I then commented that it at least was consistent with your username tagline.

Well, first of all, you know nothing at all about me so don't get it into your head that you do. You know your narrative and how you apply it to people. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It appears I've misinterpreted what you mean here, then. Can you elaborate?

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Actually the divorce rate has fallen in recent years. People who got married in 2005 were a lot more likely to still be together after 10 years than people who got married in 1975.

The anecdote "half of all marriages end in divorce" was true in the 1970s and 1980s but it's not true anymore; it's more like 30% now.

The main theory for this decline is that changes in attitudes have meant more people getting married for the right reasons and fewer people getting married for the wrong reasons.

The legalization of same sex marriage, the reduced stigmas about interracial and interreligious marriage, and the rise of the belief that in-laws have to accept their partner's choice of spouse (as opposed to being able to reject it) means people are free to marry who they really want to be with.

Conversely, the availability of contraception and increased social acceptance of single parents means fewer people are getting married just because they accidentally created a baby (one of the worst reasons for getting married; marriages conducted for this reason are far more likely to fail), and arranged marriages which are far more likely to produce a loveless marriage are much less common.

This is such crap.

Divorce rates are down because no one is getting married or having kids.


This situation ends up being the same. Women in their 20s are fundamentally better off in contrast to women in their 40s.

Being the matriarch of a family had and still has huge social benefits. That go beyond external signifies like money.

This is where the delusion of gender equality comes in.

Men and women are not equal and how they attain status is not equal.

We live in a world where femtards are propagating the notions that women can compete with men on a 1:1 level.

The reality is our biologies give us very different advantages.

And the femtards are sabotaging a generation.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The point is that the list of potential disadvantages for non-white, non-males is much longer than that for white males. And that's basically it. You don't really have to feel guilty about that, it's more of an awareness thing than a guilt thing.

Yes if you focus on one parameter.

When you start focusing on more information it's just one part of the equation.

All lands further north of the equator suffer from less sunlight, less heat, and shorter growing seasons.

No one is disputing this logic.

However when you factor is other parts of the equations you realize that only a complete idiot(or someone trying to create political capital out of a single issue) would consider one factor as being remotely a determinant to ones life.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how useful this is as a way of looking at the world though.

It reminds me a bit of people who talk about men and women in the abstract and argue that women can't be good firefighters or basketball players.
Women might be shorter and physically weaker on average but a lot of women are taller and stronger than a lot of men.

Actually this bit is complete pseudo science.

Yes some women can be tall, strong, etc.

However the odds of having multiple factors is very low.

i.e. many tall chicks(just being 6 ft etc) suffer from health problems because while they do have one aspect that compares them to men, the rest of their body doesn't keep pace.

Originally Posted by someone123

In the same way there are many, many white men who have worse lives than people who are not members of that group. Gender and race aren't a guarantee of anything, and actually in a previous post I gave a list of ways that society is less forgiving and compassionate when it comes to males (they get longer prison sentences, they are more likely to be homeless, they are more likely to die on the job, etc.). It isn't clear that males are statistically better off as a group, let alone individually better off.

Some might say this is all obvious but I see a lot of behaviour that indicates otherwise. People like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama are frequently portrayed as victims of discrimination while randomly chosen quasi-literate Trump supporters tend to be the villainous oppressors. Neither Clinton nor Obama are hapless victims in need of defending; they are two of the most powerful people on the planet. Meanwhile a lot of the people who get on TV because they go on racist rants have no actual power or wealth (often they end up with even less after their TV appearance because many of them get fired from their jobs).

I do agree with most of this.

If you have to think hard to realise that a 40 year old male at mcdonalds has a better life than your random women working as a nurse you need to learn that you may be in fact a fucking idiot.

[Aylmer]

I fear that we may be slowly drifting towards shark-jumping territory...

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'm always skeptical of these estimates. Anecdotally, for example, the number of people who identify as bisexual amongst millennials is way higher than amongst older generations, probably due to the reduced stigma. My coworker, for example, who has been in a monogamous relationship with the same girl since his teens and has never actually had any gay sexual experience identifies as bisexual. It's very unlikely that he would have if he were 20 years older.

I blame for porn for this one.


Anyone that watches a tonne of porn can't really claim to be 100 percent straight.

Part of the reason I think it's so odd that people still have a hang up on being gay.

Virtually any guy under the age 30 has seen more throbbing penises in their lives than any man born before 1900.

It really is almost a joke among me and my straight friends how little this shit phases us.


At the same time the bisexual bit gets thrown out the window 10 seconds after you discuss having an actual relationship with someone. .


Alot of people claiming to be bi, are just overly prideful that they like every other normal person doesn't collaspe into a meltdown upon being close to another mans manhood.

[theman23]

Speaking of pseudo science, Stryker's here.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by theman23

Speaking of pseudo science, Stryker's here.

Hilarious coming from a leafs fan.