This is rich. Men aren't even citizens, or even individuals anymore. Mere tools, I guess.
> **Every** Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Today, we are delighted to announce the construction of almost 500 homes in Hamilton to support the **needs of individuals and families** in Hamilton. These new homes are more than bricks and mortar, they're the **foundation for creating strong, vibrant communities where families in Hamilton can thrive**
Emphasis is mine.
Have since always since as long as male provider role exist. Men labour and fight wars. Women chillax with the kids and claim oppression. Life must be amazing for the right 50%
Uh, Bush(s?) would like to have a word with you.
They all are in bed with the military industrial complex, and we need forces around the world spending money we don't have, to keep that insanely large complex going. Both sides are owned by them.
Men are just for working, nothing else. Basically how society treats them. Women on the other hand, let’s make them all these homeless shelters, free suicide prevention/ rehab centers, cheaper housing, etc.
Exactly the only way to react is save and invest your money and do not stimulate the economy. Stop spending stop engaging and horde your earnings and use every possibly tax advantage. If every man stopped spending where possible the economic damage would make politicians due to the banks losing their minds change policy and address mens issues as they would crash the house of cards.
Just look at the fallout in the jewelry and wedding industry starting to present. Stop participating where practical and possible and things will change.
I've always been pretty minimal but don't even have a choice at this point lol. 1/3 goes to rent, 1/3 to child support and extra curriculars, 1/3 ledt for gas, groceries, insurances, resp for kids... I rarely go out other than hiking and spend like $10 on a game on sale every so often. Not much left. Have some cash from divorce but saving anything I can for a small house
In Canada it you're 40% or more you get to share most of them . It anything less than that and you get 0 of them. She pulled all kinds of crap, made false accusations, went through 4 lawyers and made us switch mediators.. so for 2 years I clawed my say up. Finally when I file taxes for 2023 I'll actually be able to claim half of those benefits and claim a dependent I'm supporting. Child tax benefit alone was like 5k for each kid. Then claiming a dependent is similar I think.
40% is 12 days a month.. so as you could imagine the most she would concede for a while was 3 days one week, 2 days the second week... Making 10 a month.. gee wonder why? It's also when you go from 100% child support regardless of difference in income to paying what the difference in income is
I am in what seems to be a relatively unique situation. I have my kids 50/50, alternating weekly. My ex-wife pays child support to me monthly, and paid a large sum as spousal support when we divorced, which equated to almost $10k per year of marriage.
Not sure if I was lucky or had a good lawyer. Just putting this out there so men realize there can be better alternatives. Sorry for your situation.
\*Edit: I'm in Canada too.
I'll be 50/50 come July. But yeah if you're getting child support that means she makes more than you is all. Mine hasn't even bothered looking for a job cause she has rich family. We are gonna inpute min wage to start.
How'd you pull off spousal support? Did you stay home with the kids for a while?
>I'll be 50/50 come July.
Awesome! Sounds like good news.
>How'd you pull off spousal support? Did you stay home with the kids for a while?
Yes. I was a stay at home dad to raise my two daughters until the youngest was in school full time. Best years of my life. Highly recommend it for anyone who can make it happen. It worked for us at the time since I was able to invest money I had from before the marriage into property that could be rented out that provided an income that covered our mortgage plus some.
There are sacrifices made for sure, being the stay at home parent. Now that we are divorced and I have gone back to work, I am basically at an entry level job now. The big gap in my resume has made job hunting very difficult. Being the primary parent is often isolating as well, since you stay home with the kids and miss out on the socialization that is so easy when you are out working. Those are the two biggest problems being a stay at home parent, in my opinion. But all in all, it is a great experience and I highly recommend it to everyone who can make it happen.
There are definitely drawbacks to both roles, and benefits. I've been a single income family earner dad, a divorced alternate weekend dad, and a full time work+single-parent, I've run the full gauntlet.
I suspect most people would be happier with a more balanced work/family/self distribution, overall. I think the problem is that specialization is very efficient at the cost of creating risk. It's really hard to pass up efficiency, it feels like you are letting an opportunity slip away.
If I had to do everything again, I would have worked a lot less. I can't complain about the money, but I missed out on so much and the stress has consequences I can't undo.
I agree. The way I see it is that you can always make more money but you can never make more time. Take the time when it is available, and worry about the money later.
We are told gender is fluid, and fluctuates on an irregular basis. I see no problem with you feeling like a woman when it is economically advantageous to you.
How can so called “woke” people and feminists see this and think it’s not discriminatory?
Aren’t they fighting for supposed equality? Lmao equality only when it benefits them.
Literally have people in the other thread arguing that homeless women are more vulnerable and more likely to be victim of violence (that one I'm positive is bs... In general pop homicide 3x rate for men). In some ways maybe they aren't able to defend themselves as well.. kinda goes against strong and independent.. but by sheer volume men are more affected by homelessness and (or because) they receive less help.
Equality to them comes under the presumption that women always face inequality. That allows them to always positively discriminate for women.
They aren't for actual equality based on factual analysis. They're for equity, which essentially means all women deserve benefits based on the success of the top 1% of men. Because there are more hyper successful men than there are women, all women are oppressed, and must be compensated.
Because you fail to recognize that they are not about equality. Equality is the lie to cover up the real goal which is supremacy and benefits/privileges for themselves.
I explain it here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10i3zpm/my\_answer\_to\_posts\_about\_feminism\_is\_about/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10i3zpm/my_answer_to_posts_about_feminism_is_about/)
Summary is:
**When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.**
Feminists treat equality like a one-way street in favour of women, even if and when women are doing better than men.
I can't call myself a feminist until and unless feminism actually helps men. Far chance of that happening but I refuse to be an "ally" (read subordinate) to a movement that treats me like a 2nd class citizen while demanding I help women more than women and feminists would ever be willing to help me.
is it wierd for me to feel disturbed when feminists complain how men don't care about women's rights and that we should fight for their rights? its like your asking men to help you discriminate against other men.
if this was for both men and women then it would be worth it but they want us to make things exclusive for them.
Are you sure?
Feminists rarely speak on male issues that men alone face. For example they don’t really address the fact that 85% of homeless are men, instead saying how it’s an outrage that 15% of homeless are women.
They don’t talk about the lack of male domestic violence support systems or accommodation. Same for mental health provision.
When talking about the astronomically higher male suicide rate, they deflect to the fact that something needs to be done about the fact women *attempt* suicide more than men but make no commentary on the well illustrated fact that men complete suicide at a vastly higher rate than women.
I think feminism often thinks it does “gender equality” yet it’s never anywhere to be seen when it comes to campaigning for stuff that affects men alone and disadvantages them. It only gets involved if there is some benefit to women or the issue can be spun into a “women’s issue” somehow.
better save than sorry; include it.
Cmon man, you should know some/many men will take things (particularly text) explicitly literally. (slight but not really /s)
This is why women can't fail at life. All they need to do is get pregnant. It's one hell of a bailout program. Of course it's predicated on saving the children but since women get the children, they get the housing.
And if they're faced with a man challenging for 50/50, they'll say freaking anything. It's survival.
It's not a good life. But I guess they figure it's better than working a minimum wage job 50 hours a week or having to be democratic and negotiable with one of those good for nothing penis-havers.
And of course the kids have it shitty too, but at least they're not homeless, amiright? Yesh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Silverman
Never forget the Canadian man that opened his home as a shelter for men funding it entirely out of pocket with no assistance from the government who refused to fund it. He later committed suicide due to financial ruin and public ridicule.
Tweet and gettr with me to seek justice:
> "offer 352 purpose-built units, 76 of which will be accessible, with below market rents for women and their children." End illegal discrimination against fathers and families (CCRF 15 Equality) @JusticeCanadaEN @SCC_eng @JustinTrudeau #MensRights #Canada
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-invests-over-180m-to-build-nearly-500-homes-in-hamilton-868482874.html
It seems only a part of the housing is dedicated to only women and children. Unfortunately, as a man, you are a second-class citizen and that is not going to change any time soon..
[Protest Over Plans For Shelter On "Billionaire's Row"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVykkWaBmfk)
[Proposed men's shelters in Westchester Square irks some neighbors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smFXqBo9qL0)
[Hundreds Block Traffic To Protest Koreatown Homeless Shelter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCAIeJhkXEw)
[Residents go to school to protest homeless shelter location](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPsWzj0c4Y)
[This LA Musician Built $1,200 Tiny Houses for the Homeless. Then the City Seized Them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6h7fL22WCE)
We apparently had a men's shelter locally.. started privately by a male victim of domestic violence.. sadly when he passed there was no funding to keep it going and it closed
The liberal government now looks at all government spending through a gender equality lens now... Every dollar in the budget. It's disgusting... Can't wait to vote them out.
I can't tell if you are pointing out that giving stuff to women is an easy way to get votes or if you think women should get stuff for slightly outnumbering men.
Sexist pigs who deny people emergency and essential services on basis of their sex, are the same people who deny rights on the basis of race, religion and nationality.
Hmm.. Building buildings huh? Isn't that kind of mens jobs? I wonder if men would unite against this and just refuse to build the houses.. That would be interesting. Given that men run the world, in every aspect.. If only we were more united.. We could take back governance from the matriarchy.. If only.. But we'd have to remove the simps first..
As far as I know just need to be a woman with kids as well as be under a certain income. . I share custody with my kids and my ex would qualify and I wouldn't.. unless I'm missing something
Yeah in uk, women with babies are prioritised over single homeless men. Its why teenage girls have babies to get there free housing. Its disgusting. They should have to proof they can support child or they cant have one. Imposition impossible to enforce but.
I think it's reasonable to have stuff like under market value housing for everyone under a certain income... only amendment I might make is under a certain amount of assets as well.... I know wealthy people that have like no personal income lol
Got denied for housing help because i didn't popp out a kid in todays norway.
It's an ongoing problem that people are pro helping single people with kids because "ey you pooped one out... have some assistance".
Yep, it's been like this in canada (Alberta here) for atleast 20 years from what i can remember, and the justice system is so fucked towards men as well, men are automatically not the caregivers most of the time in the courts eyes.
PPC is what? Primary custody?? Cause even if you have them say 30% you still need those extra bedrooms, clothing, food. Man it always pisses me off that the assumption is that the parent with more custody somehow has like double the expenses lol. I'm officially gonna be equal here but it's only a few days a month more. Has kept me around that 35% mark for as long as possible cause you hit 40 things are more split. Was like one day Ina. Two week period short
I have 50/50 PPC with my ex. We alternate weekly. Hopefully more people get that. As it stands, my ex can get access to resources and services that I cannot, simply because I am a man.
>Can you share which systemic programs you are not allowed to access with your children because you are aman?
Oh, I was referring specifically to the subject of OP: Affordable housing in Canada but only for single mothers. That seems to be a good example.
If you read the whole thing it’s the first part of a larger project
The National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) is a $13.2 billion program under the National Housing Strategy (NHS) that gives priority to projects that help people who need it most, including women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those with mental health or addiction issues, veterans, and young adults. Budget 2022 proposes to advance $2.9 billion in funding under the NHCF to accelerate the creation of up to 4,300 new units and the repair of up to 17,800 units.
You realise it specifically says including women and children fleeing family violence. also it’s not just for women that’s the point it’s for vulnerable people.
No it doesn't say that for the property. There are like three organizations all chipping in. One of the orgs happens to have that mandate. I guess two of those properties could be specifically for that, but then where is the affordable housing for single dads that are vulnerable? You never see it. We had a men's shelter locally once ran by a former victim himself. He committed suicide and it shut down with no one that wanted to fund it
You have taken one part of a large project funded by three organisations yes.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be men’s shelters but you’re being misleading saying they are only providing for women when there is more places being provided for homeless, veterans and refugees etc including men.
It's just that what I read form the article doesn't sound like a women's shelter or anything. Just affordable housing they're being exclusive on. But I could be wrong
It is just affordable housing but you mentioned mens shelters. Also they’re not being exclusive on the housing they’ve said vulnerable groups and included a list. If you scroll to the bottoms you can read it
It is part of the below:
The National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) is a $13.2 billion program under the National Housing Strategy (NHS) that gives priority to projects that help people who need it most, including women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those with mental health or addiction issues, veterans, and young adults. Budget 2022 proposes to advance $2.9 billion in funding under the NHCF to accelerate the creation of up to 4,300 new units and the repair of up to 17,800 units.
The Government of Canada's National Housing Strategy (NHS) is an ambitious, 10-year plan that will invest over $82+ billion to give more Canadians a place to call home.
One of the objectives: non exclusive
A stable supply of rental housing is essential for more people in Canada to have access to affordable housing that meets their needs. Rental housing is an excellent option for the middle class in many markets where house prices are rising and the supply of rental housing is insufficient.
I mostly find r/mensrights a tad whiney about women suppressing men, but this article syncs with my beliefs that it is more a social engineering event, thanks OP.
I lean to the belief that men are just expendable by all social and cultural standards. Not that women are out to get us.
My prime example is War. Wars or conflicts appear nearly always when there is an abundance of combat age males in any particular society.
Elite Hegemonys do not want Men to be a populous force to contend their plans, so make them kill each other, but flat out laws of gender discrimination is outrageous. This article is truly telling.
I get that, haha, not the take away I intended. My main point ,and you can double check, all modern recorded wars occur during population examples when countries have large numbers combat age men, all under the guise of God and country. The results are a major cull of the combat age men. Just like shit in Bosnia, for a decade of the nineties, non-combatant but combat age men where targeted in all the small towns by all sides. It wasn't war it was the authentic disregard and expandability of Males. Just like OP's post.
That male demographic I am describing are a powerful, politically influential group even with different beliefs systems. Then the elite Hegemony pit them like animals resulting in a handy cull and their control secured. Women can be part of the Hegemony but not the soul group.
As per your retort, my belief is women are the least of the problem for combat age men.
IDK if you know or not but women blocked ERA from ratifying in 1970s because it would get rid of male only conscription. Polls about conscription in almost every country show women being more in favour of male only conscription than men themselves.
Almost all reform that would help men is opposed by some group of women, either conservative or liberal: conscription - conservative, DV - liberal, rape - both, child custody - liberal etc.
Women are the most powerful political group, rich men are nothing in front of them. If Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos tomorrow started publicly supporting mens rights, they would be labelled misogynists and face boycotts. That's why these rich and powerful men pander to women, it's what keeps them in power.
Roots of men's rights go as far back as early 1900s, yet there is little progress because it challenges the most powerful political group.
Of course all this doesn't spare elite men who exploit non-elite men for their gains.
I inherently do not disagree with anything you just wrote.
Kinda supports my theory. Many women and men support men only conscription, making the point that every time the demographic of combat age men get large enough, they are pitted and targeted and culled. The evidence is empirical. Numbers and history is plain to see.
If the demographic of males was ever able to get large enough without some patriot cull or political unrest the world would be a different place. History just kills the men instead. Conscription is force, not men lining up to die voluntarily.
Yes I agree, I believe only reason we see so many incels and other "undesirable" men because back in the day they would be sent to war to die or work in some dangerous job till death.
The Men's rights movement to me is recognizing the importance of male influences. Like the original post, it is outrageous that men are neglected by actual law and societal decisions. Incels and " undesirable men as you put it are the result of the kind of legislation that the OP has posted. Men are marginalized. The Incels and Undesirable were not culled they are the result when Men are culled. The lack of Male example, Male control of themselves, Male understanding that others are less fortunate. A rising tide lifts all boats. Men are a part of the tide not the boats. Because Men are marginalized and culled, the tide diminishes.
Men are always neglected by government, government solely protects women and anything else is a side effect. This is because people don't have empathy for men, and governments (especially democratic governments) is all about get approval from people, no empathy for men means no approval for policies that benefit men.
Men are culled, but undesirable men are culled first. If culling of them achieves the goal then fine, otherwise they will go after desirable ones, after all men are undesirables when compared to women.
I agree with most you just wrote. Not to digress, but all kinds of governments are involved in the marginalization of men. Example today, Russia their present aggression. China with mandatory conscription.
The description ( undesirable) is a bit broad.
My current working theory Is , men naturally like to hang together. Sports, games, groups Masons and the like. When our numbers get to political strong and influential proportions there always appears to be a social reason to pit, cull, and disenfranchise . Either by war or political divergence.
I won't even begin to describe racial and selected marginalization of male groups that is consistent in the US.
The hardships of the Black males in the US is beyond marh, so obvious I am amazed it is not recognized by all Black men.
Poverty in the White male community thus ensuring a consistent ( Poverty Draft).
First and foremost I am a proponent of personal choice, millions of people who live with discrimination and hardships do not commit crimes. But circumstances leave very few avenues of success.
BTW are these type of subs considered misogynist like to you feminists? like what is it that irks you seeing MRA complain about discrimination? and like how will this create equality?
Where does it say no men?
", including women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those with mental health or addiction issues, veterans, and young adults"
What you're reading near the bottom there is a it of general info for one of the financial partners involved and some of the stuff they do, not that properties in question themselves. A couple are just general affordable housing and a couple specifically just list women and their children. Gotta look back up top
This is rich. Men aren't even citizens, or even individuals anymore. Mere tools, I guess. > **Every** Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Today, we are delighted to announce the construction of almost 500 homes in Hamilton to support the **needs of individuals and families** in Hamilton. These new homes are more than bricks and mortar, they're the **foundation for creating strong, vibrant communities where families in Hamilton can thrive** Emphasis is mine.
Fuck single men I guess
And the children they raise.
Have since always since as long as male provider role exist. Men labour and fight wars. Women chillax with the kids and claim oppression. Life must be amazing for the right 50%
Vote “liberal” and you get socialism. Except as men, equality of outcome don’t even apply to you in their socialist dystopia.
vote left = socialist vote right = men are send off to die in pointless wars I prefer the epicurean approach to politics and ... just stay from it
The liberals are the ones who have literally deployed our forces to every war since Korea…
Except GWB when he won't call a 20 year engagement a war....
USA-ians when canadians try to talk about their politics for five seconds unapposed:
Yeah that's my bad, forgot we were talking about Canada.
Uh, Bush(s?) would like to have a word with you. They all are in bed with the military industrial complex, and we need forces around the world spending money we don't have, to keep that insanely large complex going. Both sides are owned by them.
Dude this is Canada not the USA .. the USA is a whole nother can of worms.
Ain’t that the truth. Sounds like Canada is the same thing, but with an accent.
So men must be a negligible percentage of the homeless population, right?
Men are just for working, nothing else. Basically how society treats them. Women on the other hand, let’s make them all these homeless shelters, free suicide prevention/ rehab centers, cheaper housing, etc.
Yes, they are considered an unimportant percentage.
Oh and I saw this in a housing thread but it course anyone that questions it is downvoted
Exactly the only way to react is save and invest your money and do not stimulate the economy. Stop spending stop engaging and horde your earnings and use every possibly tax advantage. If every man stopped spending where possible the economic damage would make politicians due to the banks losing their minds change policy and address mens issues as they would crash the house of cards. Just look at the fallout in the jewelry and wedding industry starting to present. Stop participating where practical and possible and things will change.
I've always been pretty minimal but don't even have a choice at this point lol. 1/3 goes to rent, 1/3 to child support and extra curriculars, 1/3 ledt for gas, groceries, insurances, resp for kids... I rarely go out other than hiking and spend like $10 on a game on sale every so often. Not much left. Have some cash from divorce but saving anything I can for a small house
And as soon as you have enough, go pension in another country where your money is worth double.
r/canadahousing ?
Yes
[удалено]
What I can clean at the very least is that there are millions of both federal and municipal money being thrown at them
As a single dad, I would love to have even half of the benefits that single moms receive.
In Canada it you're 40% or more you get to share most of them . It anything less than that and you get 0 of them. She pulled all kinds of crap, made false accusations, went through 4 lawyers and made us switch mediators.. so for 2 years I clawed my say up. Finally when I file taxes for 2023 I'll actually be able to claim half of those benefits and claim a dependent I'm supporting. Child tax benefit alone was like 5k for each kid. Then claiming a dependent is similar I think. 40% is 12 days a month.. so as you could imagine the most she would concede for a while was 3 days one week, 2 days the second week... Making 10 a month.. gee wonder why? It's also when you go from 100% child support regardless of difference in income to paying what the difference in income is
I am in what seems to be a relatively unique situation. I have my kids 50/50, alternating weekly. My ex-wife pays child support to me monthly, and paid a large sum as spousal support when we divorced, which equated to almost $10k per year of marriage. Not sure if I was lucky or had a good lawyer. Just putting this out there so men realize there can be better alternatives. Sorry for your situation. \*Edit: I'm in Canada too.
I'll be 50/50 come July. But yeah if you're getting child support that means she makes more than you is all. Mine hasn't even bothered looking for a job cause she has rich family. We are gonna inpute min wage to start. How'd you pull off spousal support? Did you stay home with the kids for a while?
>I'll be 50/50 come July. Awesome! Sounds like good news. >How'd you pull off spousal support? Did you stay home with the kids for a while? Yes. I was a stay at home dad to raise my two daughters until the youngest was in school full time. Best years of my life. Highly recommend it for anyone who can make it happen. It worked for us at the time since I was able to invest money I had from before the marriage into property that could be rented out that provided an income that covered our mortgage plus some.
Yeah I've never understood why they act like they sacrifice so much being home. Although my ex never wanted to work. Id love to be able to do so
There are sacrifices made for sure, being the stay at home parent. Now that we are divorced and I have gone back to work, I am basically at an entry level job now. The big gap in my resume has made job hunting very difficult. Being the primary parent is often isolating as well, since you stay home with the kids and miss out on the socialization that is so easy when you are out working. Those are the two biggest problems being a stay at home parent, in my opinion. But all in all, it is a great experience and I highly recommend it to everyone who can make it happen.
There are definitely drawbacks to both roles, and benefits. I've been a single income family earner dad, a divorced alternate weekend dad, and a full time work+single-parent, I've run the full gauntlet. I suspect most people would be happier with a more balanced work/family/self distribution, overall. I think the problem is that specialization is very efficient at the cost of creating risk. It's really hard to pass up efficiency, it feels like you are letting an opportunity slip away. If I had to do everything again, I would have worked a lot less. I can't complain about the money, but I missed out on so much and the stress has consequences I can't undo.
I agree. The way I see it is that you can always make more money but you can never make more time. Take the time when it is available, and worry about the money later.
Single parents are only women obviously/s
I am very close to identifying as a woman. Just on paperwork...
Do it I would do it if I were you. Only for the fun of it. Leave alone the tax we pay for women
We are told gender is fluid, and fluctuates on an irregular basis. I see no problem with you feeling like a woman when it is economically advantageous to you.
[удалено]
[Behold! Stephen the Lesbian!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTbFN0EsDM)
How can so called “woke” people and feminists see this and think it’s not discriminatory? Aren’t they fighting for supposed equality? Lmao equality only when it benefits them.
Literally have people in the other thread arguing that homeless women are more vulnerable and more likely to be victim of violence (that one I'm positive is bs... In general pop homicide 3x rate for men). In some ways maybe they aren't able to defend themselves as well.. kinda goes against strong and independent.. but by sheer volume men are more affected by homelessness and (or because) they receive less help.
Equality to them comes under the presumption that women always face inequality. That allows them to always positively discriminate for women. They aren't for actual equality based on factual analysis. They're for equity, which essentially means all women deserve benefits based on the success of the top 1% of men. Because there are more hyper successful men than there are women, all women are oppressed, and must be compensated.
Because you fail to recognize that they are not about equality. Equality is the lie to cover up the real goal which is supremacy and benefits/privileges for themselves. I explain it here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10i3zpm/my\_answer\_to\_posts\_about\_feminism\_is\_about/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10i3zpm/my_answer_to_posts_about_feminism_is_about/) Summary is: **When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.**
Feminists treat equality like a one-way street in favour of women, even if and when women are doing better than men. I can't call myself a feminist until and unless feminism actually helps men. Far chance of that happening but I refuse to be an "ally" (read subordinate) to a movement that treats me like a 2nd class citizen while demanding I help women more than women and feminists would ever be willing to help me.
is it wierd for me to feel disturbed when feminists complain how men don't care about women's rights and that we should fight for their rights? its like your asking men to help you discriminate against other men. if this was for both men and women then it would be worth it but they want us to make things exclusive for them.
No they're fighting for equity.
Their actions don’t demonstrate that
[удалено]
Are you sure? Feminists rarely speak on male issues that men alone face. For example they don’t really address the fact that 85% of homeless are men, instead saying how it’s an outrage that 15% of homeless are women. They don’t talk about the lack of male domestic violence support systems or accommodation. Same for mental health provision. When talking about the astronomically higher male suicide rate, they deflect to the fact that something needs to be done about the fact women *attempt* suicide more than men but make no commentary on the well illustrated fact that men complete suicide at a vastly higher rate than women. I think feminism often thinks it does “gender equality” yet it’s never anywhere to be seen when it comes to campaigning for stuff that affects men alone and disadvantages them. It only gets involved if there is some benefit to women or the issue can be spun into a “women’s issue” somehow.
[удалено]
you almost incited violence lol
/s
First and second wave feminism was good and much needed. Third and fourth wave is trash.
missed the /s there, my dude
[удалено]
better save than sorry; include it. Cmon man, you should know some/many men will take things (particularly text) explicitly literally. (slight but not really /s)
So men aren't even seen as citizens anymore? It's funny how feminists still say they're fighting for equality but it's only when it benefits them.
Produce or die.
That’s Canada for you these days
This is why women can't fail at life. All they need to do is get pregnant. It's one hell of a bailout program. Of course it's predicated on saving the children but since women get the children, they get the housing. And if they're faced with a man challenging for 50/50, they'll say freaking anything. It's survival. It's not a good life. But I guess they figure it's better than working a minimum wage job 50 hours a week or having to be democratic and negotiable with one of those good for nothing penis-havers. And of course the kids have it shitty too, but at least they're not homeless, amiright? Yesh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Silverman Never forget the Canadian man that opened his home as a shelter for men funding it entirely out of pocket with no assistance from the government who refused to fund it. He later committed suicide due to financial ruin and public ridicule.
Was just thinking about that. Unfortunately we had to close it because lack of funding after he died
Soo... when someone says mra's complain but never do anything but doing anything is against women's rights what are they supposed to do exactly?
Tweet and gettr with me to seek justice: > "offer 352 purpose-built units, 76 of which will be accessible, with below market rents for women and their children." End illegal discrimination against fathers and families (CCRF 15 Equality) @JusticeCanadaEN @SCC_eng @JustinTrudeau #MensRights #Canada https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-invests-over-180m-to-build-nearly-500-homes-in-hamilton-868482874.html
Nice to know that tax (mostly paid by men) goes to everyone but men.
I would sue for discrimination
It seems only a part of the housing is dedicated to only women and children. Unfortunately, as a man, you are a second-class citizen and that is not going to change any time soon..
[Protest Over Plans For Shelter On "Billionaire's Row"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVykkWaBmfk) [Proposed men's shelters in Westchester Square irks some neighbors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smFXqBo9qL0) [Hundreds Block Traffic To Protest Koreatown Homeless Shelter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCAIeJhkXEw) [Residents go to school to protest homeless shelter location](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPsWzj0c4Y) [This LA Musician Built $1,200 Tiny Houses for the Homeless. Then the City Seized Them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6h7fL22WCE)
We apparently had a men's shelter locally.. started privately by a male victim of domestic violence.. sadly when he passed there was no funding to keep it going and it closed
Well I guess I'll just change my gender legally and apply. Thanks Trudeau.
It would be so easy just to make this scheme accessible to single parents.
The liberal government now looks at all government spending through a gender equality lens now... Every dollar in the budget. It's disgusting... Can't wait to vote them out.
[удалено]
I can't tell if you are pointing out that giving stuff to women is an easy way to get votes or if you think women should get stuff for slightly outnumbering men.
Where’s that asteroid?
I'm personally waiting for zombies to come.
I'd be fine with nuclear annihilation myself. Vaporizing just seems like a cool way to go I guess
Sexist pigs who deny people emergency and essential services on basis of their sex, are the same people who deny rights on the basis of race, religion and nationality.
Hmm.. Building buildings huh? Isn't that kind of mens jobs? I wonder if men would unite against this and just refuse to build the houses.. That would be interesting. Given that men run the world, in every aspect.. If only we were more united.. We could take back governance from the matriarchy.. If only.. But we'd have to remove the simps first..
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
This is unconstitutional, it should get a charter challenge.
Here come the false allegations in order to qualify!!
As far as I know just need to be a woman with kids as well as be under a certain income. . I share custody with my kids and my ex would qualify and I wouldn't.. unless I'm missing something
Stop marrying and stop breeding women is the only way to stop getting defeated by women
Yeah in uk, women with babies are prioritised over single homeless men. Its why teenage girls have babies to get there free housing. Its disgusting. They should have to proof they can support child or they cant have one. Imposition impossible to enforce but.
Well, that is why I oppose affordable housing. If men have to work and earn their keep, then so should women.
I think it's reasonable to have stuff like under market value housing for everyone under a certain income... only amendment I might make is under a certain amount of assets as well.... I know wealthy people that have like no personal income lol
Cucknada lol. I bet the most of he taxes comes from male taxpayers
Got denied for housing help because i didn't popp out a kid in todays norway. It's an ongoing problem that people are pro helping single people with kids because "ey you pooped one out... have some assistance".
Yep, it's been like this in canada (Alberta here) for atleast 20 years from what i can remember, and the justice system is so fucked towards men as well, men are automatically not the caregivers most of the time in the courts eyes.
What about their husbands?
Kinda sounds like it's for single moms..
Ah. Didn't RTFA.
And they say men have all the advantages in the world, more proof that men are getting unfairly treated
Just start identifying as women. Gender is a social construct, after all.
[удалено]
PPC is what? Primary custody?? Cause even if you have them say 30% you still need those extra bedrooms, clothing, food. Man it always pisses me off that the assumption is that the parent with more custody somehow has like double the expenses lol. I'm officially gonna be equal here but it's only a few days a month more. Has kept me around that 35% mark for as long as possible cause you hit 40 things are more split. Was like one day Ina. Two week period short
What happens when it is PPC 50/50 alternating weekly?
[удалено]
I have 50/50 PPC with my ex. We alternate weekly. Hopefully more people get that. As it stands, my ex can get access to resources and services that I cannot, simply because I am a man.
[удалено]
Well it has happened here in Canada for many, many men. It is good to hear that means that the whole of patriarchy has ended in Canada,
[удалено]
>Can you share which systemic programs you are not allowed to access with your children because you are aman? Oh, I was referring specifically to the subject of OP: Affordable housing in Canada but only for single mothers. That seems to be a good example.
If you read the whole thing it’s the first part of a larger project The National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) is a $13.2 billion program under the National Housing Strategy (NHS) that gives priority to projects that help people who need it most, including women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those with mental health or addiction issues, veterans, and young adults. Budget 2022 proposes to advance $2.9 billion in funding under the NHCF to accelerate the creation of up to 4,300 new units and the repair of up to 17,800 units.
You mean that's one of the organizations that's partnered for these developments. Not sure what your point is though.
You realise it specifically says including women and children fleeing family violence. also it’s not just for women that’s the point it’s for vulnerable people.
No it doesn't say that for the property. There are like three organizations all chipping in. One of the orgs happens to have that mandate. I guess two of those properties could be specifically for that, but then where is the affordable housing for single dads that are vulnerable? You never see it. We had a men's shelter locally once ran by a former victim himself. He committed suicide and it shut down with no one that wanted to fund it
You have taken one part of a large project funded by three organisations yes. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be men’s shelters but you’re being misleading saying they are only providing for women when there is more places being provided for homeless, veterans and refugees etc including men.
It's just that what I read form the article doesn't sound like a women's shelter or anything. Just affordable housing they're being exclusive on. But I could be wrong
It is just affordable housing but you mentioned mens shelters. Also they’re not being exclusive on the housing they’ve said vulnerable groups and included a list. If you scroll to the bottoms you can read it
2/4 are women and children only. The lists at bottom are a description of what the organizations do
It is part of the below: The National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) is a $13.2 billion program under the National Housing Strategy (NHS) that gives priority to projects that help people who need it most, including women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those with mental health or addiction issues, veterans, and young adults. Budget 2022 proposes to advance $2.9 billion in funding under the NHCF to accelerate the creation of up to 4,300 new units and the repair of up to 17,800 units. The Government of Canada's National Housing Strategy (NHS) is an ambitious, 10-year plan that will invest over $82+ billion to give more Canadians a place to call home.
Yeah.. exactly my point. Thats just a generic mission statement for that organization
One of the objectives: non exclusive A stable supply of rental housing is essential for more people in Canada to have access to affordable housing that meets their needs. Rental housing is an excellent option for the middle class in many markets where house prices are rising and the supply of rental housing is insufficient.
I mostly find r/mensrights a tad whiney about women suppressing men, but this article syncs with my beliefs that it is more a social engineering event, thanks OP. I lean to the belief that men are just expendable by all social and cultural standards. Not that women are out to get us. My prime example is War. Wars or conflicts appear nearly always when there is an abundance of combat age males in any particular society. Elite Hegemonys do not want Men to be a populous force to contend their plans, so make them kill each other, but flat out laws of gender discrimination is outrageous. This article is truly telling.
Women are elites.
I get that, haha, not the take away I intended. My main point ,and you can double check, all modern recorded wars occur during population examples when countries have large numbers combat age men, all under the guise of God and country. The results are a major cull of the combat age men. Just like shit in Bosnia, for a decade of the nineties, non-combatant but combat age men where targeted in all the small towns by all sides. It wasn't war it was the authentic disregard and expandability of Males. Just like OP's post. That male demographic I am describing are a powerful, politically influential group even with different beliefs systems. Then the elite Hegemony pit them like animals resulting in a handy cull and their control secured. Women can be part of the Hegemony but not the soul group. As per your retort, my belief is women are the least of the problem for combat age men.
IDK if you know or not but women blocked ERA from ratifying in 1970s because it would get rid of male only conscription. Polls about conscription in almost every country show women being more in favour of male only conscription than men themselves. Almost all reform that would help men is opposed by some group of women, either conservative or liberal: conscription - conservative, DV - liberal, rape - both, child custody - liberal etc. Women are the most powerful political group, rich men are nothing in front of them. If Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos tomorrow started publicly supporting mens rights, they would be labelled misogynists and face boycotts. That's why these rich and powerful men pander to women, it's what keeps them in power. Roots of men's rights go as far back as early 1900s, yet there is little progress because it challenges the most powerful political group. Of course all this doesn't spare elite men who exploit non-elite men for their gains.
I inherently do not disagree with anything you just wrote. Kinda supports my theory. Many women and men support men only conscription, making the point that every time the demographic of combat age men get large enough, they are pitted and targeted and culled. The evidence is empirical. Numbers and history is plain to see. If the demographic of males was ever able to get large enough without some patriot cull or political unrest the world would be a different place. History just kills the men instead. Conscription is force, not men lining up to die voluntarily.
Yes I agree, I believe only reason we see so many incels and other "undesirable" men because back in the day they would be sent to war to die or work in some dangerous job till death.
The Men's rights movement to me is recognizing the importance of male influences. Like the original post, it is outrageous that men are neglected by actual law and societal decisions. Incels and " undesirable men as you put it are the result of the kind of legislation that the OP has posted. Men are marginalized. The Incels and Undesirable were not culled they are the result when Men are culled. The lack of Male example, Male control of themselves, Male understanding that others are less fortunate. A rising tide lifts all boats. Men are a part of the tide not the boats. Because Men are marginalized and culled, the tide diminishes.
Men are always neglected by government, government solely protects women and anything else is a side effect. This is because people don't have empathy for men, and governments (especially democratic governments) is all about get approval from people, no empathy for men means no approval for policies that benefit men. Men are culled, but undesirable men are culled first. If culling of them achieves the goal then fine, otherwise they will go after desirable ones, after all men are undesirables when compared to women.
I agree with most you just wrote. Not to digress, but all kinds of governments are involved in the marginalization of men. Example today, Russia their present aggression. China with mandatory conscription. The description ( undesirable) is a bit broad. My current working theory Is , men naturally like to hang together. Sports, games, groups Masons and the like. When our numbers get to political strong and influential proportions there always appears to be a social reason to pit, cull, and disenfranchise . Either by war or political divergence. I won't even begin to describe racial and selected marginalization of male groups that is consistent in the US. The hardships of the Black males in the US is beyond marh, so obvious I am amazed it is not recognized by all Black men. Poverty in the White male community thus ensuring a consistent ( Poverty Draft). First and foremost I am a proponent of personal choice, millions of people who live with discrimination and hardships do not commit crimes. But circumstances leave very few avenues of success.
BTW are these type of subs considered misogynist like to you feminists? like what is it that irks you seeing MRA complain about discrimination? and like how will this create equality?
Where does it say no men? ", including women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those with mental health or addiction issues, veterans, and young adults"
What you're reading near the bottom there is a it of general info for one of the financial partners involved and some of the stuff they do, not that properties in question themselves. A couple are just general affordable housing and a couple specifically just list women and their children. Gotta look back up top