I hate that is true but even moreso that folk are so fucking dense to see
Political Memes
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
THAT!
when i was younger and stupid and in the (glass) closet i was dating the son of a pharmacologist. this man had made millions developing medications. he was fond of me and privately told me i was too funny and smart to be dating boys.
he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are "for women" - will not be clinically tested on my body.
the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved.
to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant.
once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about "the effects of New Medication on the body."
instead, the trial would fail - the results would be "the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient."
it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus.
that's how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.
at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this -
- that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.
i remember him shrugging. "that's not to say it doesn't happen," he said. my ears were ringing.
i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant.
when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.
how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment.
how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.
it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to "save" our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren't we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can't get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually. who cares about you and your actual safety. think about what you could be carrying.
That's rough. Thank you for that explanation.
I knew about pregnancy concerns preventing pregnancy related medical things (tubes tied, etc) but not about health in general like a broken bone. WTF. I get people not wanting to hurt a fetus, but its wild that it's more important than the person that may be carrying it, let alone it when it doesnt exist and its just a woman that 'is pregnant or may become pregnant' with an injury.
jesus, that was a haunting read
how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment.
You would be extremally disgusted hearing what happens in poland since 2020.
women are also dismissed or outright ignored in the ER OR AT appointments, as having a period or being hysterical when they have serious symptoms of a disease.
Here in Tennessee, if I get a boner in public (fully clothed), it’s indecent exposure and I can be arrested.
That’s not the case in most states.
Granted, I doubt it’s a common issue, but I’m a nerd and saw a claim that’s technically wrong, so here I am.
This is just blatantly false, men's rights do vary wildly state by state. I get what this is saying and I agree with the message but presenting a good message behind a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Honestly the point that it tries to make is not the point that it makes either. It could be understood as "let's ban abortion everywhere", and I don't think that is the point that it tries to make.
I am in favor of bodily autonomy and I don't care what the law currently is anywhere, it should be a given.
The irony is that the issue they're talking about involves women losing, in some states, rights that men have never had in any state; men have zero legal means of opting out of parenthood, full stop.
If this was about women losing something that men aren't already without, they might have the foundation of a point. But it's still a fact that women haven't really given a shit about advocating for giving men the equivalent rights, throughout the decades that they had them nationwide.
There is quite a big difference between parenthood + possible life threatening situation + all the "normal" changes that are part of pregnancy; and parenthood.
If it would be purely about parenthood, you would have a point but it is not. And maybe a conversation about the ability to opt-out of parenthood should be had but the conversation about abortion rights is not about parenthood.
I strongly encourage you to inform yourself about the consequence of the recent changes of abortion rights in America. It is not about parenthood, but health care.
Edit: https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-abortion-ban-amber-thurman-death a little starting point
I'm fully aware of the healthcare aspect when it comes to abortion, because of what pregnancy entails, but it shouldn't be ignored that in the vast majority of cases, abortion is elective, sought because the would-be mother simply does not want the child to be born—in other words, she wants to opt out of parenthood.
If the law across the board in the US was that abortion was always allowed in cases where the pregnant woman's life was in danger, but never otherwise, women wouldn't be any less outraged than they are presently, even though that would put them on pretty much on an even keel with where men are, re reproductive rights.
The normal changes that happen in pregnancy are not to ignore. And what about pregnancy through e.g. rape? Do we dismiss the mental harm it would cause to have a daily reminder that someone did that to you?
Stop comparing.
Just say, "i think there should be an opt-out option for men" and move on. You can't compare pregnancy and it's implications with simply parenthood, but you don't need to. Just argue for what you want without punch down. Women are not your enemy. You can have more rights and they can have more rights.
Do we dismiss the mental harm it would cause to have a daily reminder that someone [raped] you?
Of course I don't dismiss that. But you say this as if aborting such a pregnancy would actually do anything to meaningfully reduce that trauma. You need counseling/therapy regardless.
Stop comparing.
Generally speaking, this is not a productive thing to say to someone who has fewer rights than you do.
Make no mistake, I want everyone to have full rights here—and in cases where it's literally impossible for one of the sexes to have right X because of the biological realities and/or recognized bodily sovereignty (e.g. males would obviously make no use of a right to terminate their own pregnancy, nor should they be able to dictate whether any pregnant person terminate or not terminate the pregnancy), they should be legally afforded the closest equivalent possible.
Just argue for what you want without punch down. Women are not your enemy.
Your implication is frankly offensive. This is not, at all, a fair characterization of anything I've said here.
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Worth knowing: although they attract a lot of anti-feminist losers, the "men's rights" activists are absolutely correct that men do not universally have the same support programs or even legal presumptions that women do. These can vary widely from state to state and even from court to court.
It's not nearly as big an issue as "they want her to die from a miscarriage", but "they presume he's the inferior parent" or "they presume he caused the violence even if he's the one bleeding" are also sexist oppression.
(Comparisons to the anti-woke "all lives matter" bullshit are apt -- men can and should recognize that relatively minor slights and injustices are not nearly as urgent as denying pregnant humans life-saving care!)
The simple fact is that the right to legally opt out of parenthood is something men have never had. Ironically, women losing some of those rights (there is still adoption and legal abandonment, the other 2 of the 'three A's) in some places, brings them closer to where men are, re reproductive rights.
Yup.
We live in a country where if I get in the car with my girlfriend on the west coast and drive to the east coast, she gains and loses basic human rights multiple times before we reach our destination and nothing changes for me.
We can't even treat our women with respect. Trash nation. Full stop.
Trash nation. Full stop.
And so many women vote for this?
Unless those men are black, Hispanic, or neurodivergent.
You realize those prejudices get compounded, right?
What's the name of that highway in canada, where they raped and murdered and dumped the corpses of native women?
Never a lead on any of those cases. I don't think one was male, but hey, maybe there were a couple
Indiginous men were taken on star light tours by the cops
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_killings
If a right varies from state to state, it’s not a right, it’s a conditional privilege.

It’s kind of inherent to the concept of rights that they exist in some framework of authority.
Cavemen could have shouted that they have human rights to the other cavemen bashing their heads in and it would have been utterly meaningless.
Men's rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant