THE World Health Organisation (WHO) has been accused of being "sexist and paternalistic" by suggesting women of childbearing age should not drink alcohol.

submitted by Chipit from express.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Now, now.. let's not be sexist. The WHO is ignoring the menfolk here, and sperm quality contributes to healthy, not-fucked-up babies too.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25277121/

I guess they could force prohibition, since that turned out so incredibly well before.

[–]Airbus320 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

I am so happy that I don't drink

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

That's probably good, although having alcohol like once in a blue moon when you're not doing the do unprotected probably wouldn't hurt if you did. At minimum, you'll know your sperm aren't doing cartwheels into one another like a bunch of retarded frat boys from alcohol though.

[–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

😂

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

First that's whataboutism, second nobody accuses them of misandry. In fact my spell checker still insists that's a misspelling.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I mean, if you have links showing examples of the WHO wanting to bring attention to the limitation of a substance by men of sperm-bearing(?) years, we can talk about misandry. It's available for me with predictive text, so I don't know. Maybe the company that made the device you're using is cucked.

https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2021/06/22/default-calendar/third-who-forum-on-alcohol-drugs-and-addictive-behaviours-(fadab)

This is the link to the forum held, but it was by invitation only. I can't crank out the effort right this minute to try to find the actual discussion that they had, but this warrants an actual examination of that vs what this article is talking about. These fucking media companies will do whatever it takes for clicks, so framing a title in a way that makes the audience guffaw in butt rage is going to get them what they want.