TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

--Visionary-- Archive

View 5 posts and 639 comments by --Visionary-- on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Are there clinical studies showing that a man suffers mental health problems from their partner having an abortion? LOL, the first time anyone even conceives of that study publicly, he'd probably be fired from his job in academia. Hell, we don't even have a men's department of health (but do for women) for REGULAR things, let alone those that might destroy feminist pablums.
/r/MensRights19/07/19 01:20 AM
3

And I guess men don't think of the physical toll that a pregnancy takes on a woman That's semi-absurd considering "how hard women have it" is blared at the top of modern society's metaphorical blowhorn, the idea of defending a defenseless pregnant woman during a calamity has made the top of almost every male member of every group's priorities that I've been involved with, and the process of delivering a child is literally called "labor" in modern parlance... ...but sure. Men aren't constantly re…
/r/MensRights19/07/19 01:18 AM
1

Nah, this is a more effective way. Let bigots live under the rules they wish upon others.
/r/MensRights20/10/18 10:02 PM
2

Yes -- people not agreeing in lockstep with him on this sub. That is the thing that he finds unforgivable, empirically.
/r/MensRights20/10/18 09:33 PM
6

But it's fine to attract the crowd of people who think free tampons are one of the most pressing gender based problems on earth. ​ Sure. It's "laziness".
/r/MensRights06/10/18 11:25 PM
1

Unfortunately, I tend to prefer almost every version of the girls. You prefer every version? Like even the ones that are smart and studious over the male ones? And then we wonder why men are increasingly more likely to drop out of western society. Why on earth would you take a risk when, even if you succeed, society is basically being taught that a female version of you is preferred (and sometimes even try to replace you with her once you make it)?
/r/MensRights07/04/18 08:08 PM
16

In some countries like sweden, prostitution laws are designed to be against men. FTFY.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 03:55 PM
1

I’m completely calm and unimpressed. No one is frothing at the mouth. Indeed, tossing ad hominem nonsense around in lieu of an actual point totally shows that. Do you even know what you’re fighting for? Pretty sure I do. Do you? Just to be clear, it's fine to consult your hackneyed 90's feminist manual at this point.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 12:44 AM
1

...you actually can, you're just currently metaphorically frothing at the mouth. The idea that women "have it hard" because of some conjured up stat about male VC's not permitting a vanishingly tiny slice of them to the billionaire's club is bonkers considering far more men toil in much more laborious jobs that women barely do. But next time add a hashtag and some vulgarity to perfect your response.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 11:18 PM
1

You should use more ad hominems. They make you sound smart.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 10:23 PM
1

You seem threatened that women might one day have to shovel snow. It's a horrible thought to the raging feminist, I know.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 09:16 PM
3

...Uh that while women have "hard odds" in getting to be VC funded millionaires (poor things, that's totes like the only thing that matters), they seem to do quite well avoiding doing shit jobs like shoveling snow (because ewww, someone else does that, natch). Shovel snow -- and do the rest of the laborious work that props up much of society -- like the men do and maybe rational people will give more of an eff about women being unable to get VC funding?
/r/MensRights30/03/18 12:22 AM
4

Only if women shovel the sidewalks of NYC after blizzards to permit others to get to those meetings like the men do.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 11:56 PM
1

It clearly has never happened in the US in recent memory.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 03:40 AM
5

As if machines will have any use of women in this advanced scenario.
/r/MensRights28/02/18 01:08 AM
5

Huh. I guess sex selective abortions that target, say, girls, is all well and good.
/r/MensRights28/02/18 01:07 AM
3

The disabled combat veteran for sure is.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 09:10 PM
1

Eh, I'm fine with using words that accurately describe the situation I see. But thanks for the unsolicited help!
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:31 PM
272

pretty much the argument strategy of a child It's actually the argument strategy of an identity fascist.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 02:04 AM
5

.#MenAreAwesome .#WomenAreAwesome .#GetTheFuckOverYourselves .#RememberTheAboveFeminism .#OhWaitFeminismGetsToGeneralize .#ItsDifferentWhenWeDoIt
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:13 AM
5

Totally. The only time it's ok to generalize is when we're saying men are rapists and stuff. -Feminism
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:12 AM
8

For the last 35 years they've been graduating high school and college at a greater rate, along with the myriad of educational affirmative action programs for them during that time. I fail to see how they couldn't make Twitter or Instagram with those absurd advantages.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:11 AM
6

Indeed.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 05:16 AM
1

Just to be clear, do you feel the same sense of catastrophic eventuality when, say, a 17 year old minor's name is with-held, which we do routinely?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 03:37 AM
17

So he agrees with the majority of women and people, then?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 03:26 AM
23

If it had come out that Sarah Silverman liked to masturbate in front of people, every feminist in the world would be defending that as perfectly normal, a strong independant woman, and you'd be lucky to be invited to stand in the splash zone. Yep.
/r/MensRights15/01/18 09:15 PM
2

I just find it intriguing that all it took was metoo hitting a brown liberal smug celebrity who comes from a muslim family to turn the tide on reddit. Feminists apparently are << muslims on the identity politics game. I don't care about the means -- the ends are fine with me if they end this ridiculous witch hunt in society.
/r/MensRights15/01/18 09:12 PM
1

Again the court doesn't have to trace it. Sure they do -- there are several ways to show a "loss of 5000" -- most regularly it's via a capital loss. Crypto to crypto transfers are so volatile that a 5K loss is easy. Heck, merely sending your crypto to the wrong address can lose you your entire amount -- I highly doubt family courts even understand this fact, let alone can determine actionability over it. I think you think that it's easy to simply throw people in jail for small remittances becaus…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 03:53 PM
1

Possibly. They have to find it first. Anonymous coins like, say, Monero would make it exceedingly difficult to trace. This actually isn't simply "hiding one's assets internationally". If I shunted 5K monthly into Monero over the years along with other assets into other more trad forms wealth storage, it's entirely possible that that isn't remotely traceable at the moment. It's hard enough for the NSA to get at who owns what -- let alone the pro-feminist divorce court that's basically designed to…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 07:10 PM
6

Not all feminists! Yes all MRAs. Even PUAs who say they're not MRAs.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 07:04 PM
10

Oh - hah I forgot that labelling people made them aware of one's post. That being said, obviously this person won't respond. Such a person cannot control the discourse in here, and so, spewing bigoted nonsense wouldn't go unchallenged. These are not moral people.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:57 PM
16

A modern feminist.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:52 PM
13

Fair enough, but I highly doubt /u/parsnippity would, in response to a woman saying she didn't have any evidence but that she was raped and asking for legal advice, state to those who suggest that her rapist should still go to jail that they should take their "feminist bullshit elsewhere" and then, absurdly, sticky it to the top of the page. The audacity with which someone who is, presumably, tasked with being a neutral moderator on a sub about legal advice, posting that without fear is suggesti…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:49 PM
1

Especially when we live in a society when men are viewed suspiciously as the null hypothesis.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 01:34 AM
2

Keep in mind that the logic of the person to whom you're responding is the same logic people used in the Jim Crow south to basically lynch the Scottsboro Boys. Then consider why such a person would support this type of cultural adjudication of perceived crimes. A (large) hint: it has virtually everything to do with the identity of those accused a super majority of the time in such climates.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 01:34 AM
1

Sort of -- you're not acknowledging that it's immoral to solely apply rules to one cohort. This one remedies at least that part of it.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 04:14 AM
1

Sure -- so you think the rule is immoral. I agree with you. But applying the rule to everyone is decidedly not immoral.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 08:21 PM
1

I think that rules that punitively target one cohort of society and not others simply because one group isn't liked as much is immoral, yes. Why, you think it's cool to target one cohort of society and not others?
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:21 PM
3

American politics has nothing to do with marxist leninism. I think you need to recognize that simply because you say things, they don't make them true. The us has hyper capitalism. The communist bogyman is used to manipulate voters on the right. No, the US has oligarchy. That's very similar to marxist/communist societies in practice. The difference used to be that the US had more social freedoms to acknowledge differences in people. That is slowly being destroyed -- as you'd see in marxist/commu…
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:18 PM
1

Again, moving the goalposts. And, again, you define goalposts weirdly. It's completely obvious that people -- yes, including the media -- downplay when women do horrible shit to men, or when men suffer, than in the reverse gendered scenarios. That was his point. You linking to the "yeah, but look they reported on the news that one time" links as if it counters the sheer tonnage of pieces written on how men as a class are to blame for individual men committing misconduct is incredibly misleading …
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:14 PM
1

Obamas economic policy would have been considered moderate republican in the 1980s. And his social policy that effectively argued that women and men are the same, with an aristocratic political class of baptized opinion makers who effectively slander and remove people from their livelihoods if they run afoul of that policy? That's closer to lenin-marxism than moderate republicanism.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:00 PM
1

Eh, having the same rules enforced on all cohorts of society, and not just the arbitrarily defined out-group, is actually quite right.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 06:55 PM
1

They publish conservative stuff all the time. Really? They publish stuff about how the female libido is brutal and how these things are a woman's problem? One of those articles is from someone who's literally on staff at the NYT. So at the very least, which hired staff member of the NYT is writing articles on how this is a "woman's problem" you argue are "published all the time"? Since it's all treated so totally equivs, yo. Hashtag equality too.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 06:48 PM
1

Dunno -- you tell us. Your literal response above was: Never said that. My presumption is "actually saying something" is the bedrock of your logic. Increasingly it seems that such logic only applies to critiques of your comments. Because, reasons, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 05:14 PM
1

I see you're more interested in moving the goalposts than staying on topic. Indeed, the mainstream media doesn't include the NYT's articles. These are weird goalposts you've got.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 05:13 PM
3

Can we also expect articles that talk about the brutality of the female libido and about how "this is a woman problem" too? Since there's total equivalence in how we treat these offenses regardless of gender in the MSM? Can't wait to see those links too, since it's all about equality and stuff.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 02:18 AM
3

Oh noooooo not my post history, you learned I don't like Trump! How will my reputation survive? Your post history is littered with strawmen worthy of the most ridiculous ideologues. Congrats! They make you sound smart. He's stunned that a female-centric subreddit isn't celebrating male sexual harassment. Why the hell would he be that surprised if he didn't think women in general would celebrate it? Uh, I was wondering exactly what I asked. Where did he say that there was "an evil cabal of all wo…
/r/MensRights17/12/17 02:15 AM
2

And then she can simply claim she was tipsy or blackout drunk and didn't remember all of the consensual things she said.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 11:56 PM
5

an evil cabal of all women cackling gleefully at male rape and sexual harassment Wait, where did he say this? Since you're so invested in the exactness of what individuals say? Hang on...just read your post history. I'm sure you're cool with strawman construction when you're the one constructing them. My bad.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 11:05 PM
2

Yup. Same way the US used to view irish republicans. Frankly we have football teams that have caused more serious problems far more recently. That's a weird choice, considering the US DID consider irish republicans terrorists, literally putting them on a terror watch list and blocking them from raising funds, regardless of the fact that they weren't "American". It's almost like you're just hoping something sticks because "feminism ok, MRA bad"? No I'm saying they are the reason that people assoc…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 04:47 AM
2

Groups are assessed on the basis of the issues they cause Britain. Naxalites for example are not going to be a significant concern. So you're asserting that an ideology that commits potential assassinations in another country might be considered fine and "not a threat" simply because its UK members don't do it? I find that difficult to believe if you're equally arguing that the UK is rightly considering MRA's "extremists" on the level of terroristic threats. Combat 18/David Copeland and various …
/r/MensRights14/12/17 03:55 AM
2

Those would be americans. Wait, the ideology itself is solely relevant insofar as they're UK citizens? What the ideology does elsewhere isn't relevant for being placed on a type of terror watch list by the UK government? Really? Just to be clear, does the counter-terrorism unit do the same thing with, say, Nazism or ISIS? Like, the does the UK version need to be shown to be demonstrably the same as the global ideology, otherwise the UK Nazis and ISIS members get a pass? Why would they need to be…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 03:33 AM
3

However they haven't actualy done it. What do you mean? I can point to feminist groups in history actually trying to assassinate people. You're not familiar with the history of Fathers for Justice? Compared with what? Lunatic Feminists doing lunatic things, but all feminists conveniently not being targeted for terroristic aims the way MRA's are?
/r/MensRights14/12/17 03:14 AM
2

Eh Father's for justice's history is enough to land them on the list. Using that standard, one could point to a gamut of self-described feminists and even groups that have advocated far far worse. While groups that purely describe themselves as feminists probably wouldn't be picked up we know that enviromentalist groups (which tend to be at least nominaly feminist) like anti-fracking campaigers have been targeted by prevent. I fail to see why this is the case if tenuous claims of "Fathers For Ju…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:30 AM
4

Eh, if it weren't for lunatic feminists droning on and on about how any disagreeable-towards-them ideology is "extremist", MRA's wouldn't have been included in such a sweep. Considering that "lunatic feminist" isn't in the same boat despite being characteristically more extremist than most categories of people. Unless people are also reporting feminists under the aegis of this program and I missed it.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 12:21 AM
2

rape is penetration without the consent of another person. Dunno, would you find physicians reaching into the vagina of a woman to remove a child that is threatening her life, against her wishes, rape too? What about someone sticking their finger into the ear of someone against their consent? What about sticking a fry into someone's mouth when they're not looking and talking? All qualify as rape by your apparently "legitimate" definition. As an aside, it seems like you're arguing the slippery sl…
/r/MensRights23/11/17 07:05 PM
53

Just to be clear, he has to be shown to be enthusiastically consenting, or it's default something nefarious. Right?
/r/MensRights21/11/17 12:33 AM
18

If “assaults” and “misconduct” are only credible because of who has “power,” then men are politically the only ones who will be crucified. Women will continue to get away with abusing, even when it’s abuse against children Hasn't this always been basically the practical endgame of feminism? To create a world in which we "crucify" men, but absolve women?
/r/MensRights20/11/17 11:47 PM
2

Ok, let's just use the first bullet point of your last line, so I can understand where you're coming from: The whole reason why men are less willing to provide CPR to women in the USA is due to the fear of being falsely accused of something, right? Well I just pointed out that that is a non-issue in Australia thanks to the legislation in place (and the follow-on effect that has on how society views first responders). You're saying that this Australian legislation prevents false accusations in th…
/r/MensRights15/11/17 04:23 AM
1

Why do you keep trying to misrepresent what I'm saying? I don't think anyone's actually doing that. You just keep suggesting that what you're saying is relevant to dismissing why someone wouldn't engage in CPR here in the US, when it's actually irrelevant to the point we're making, since the point we're making is universal to human psychology. I disagree. If someone requires CPR and someone performs it there is not going be anyone who would object to that, even those on Facebook who like to smea…
/r/MensRights15/11/17 04:04 AM
1

Frivolous sexual harassment claims never get made in Australia? It's within the context of that. We all understand that legally people may be fine. Yes, definitely, except as I've shown that isn't a concern in my country as there are legal protections for qualified First Aiders and no one has ever been charged or prosecuted for performing CPR or First Aid on a woman or child in Australia. I've not even been able to find a record of an accusation. But you have found a record of people being takin…
/r/MensRights15/11/17 03:10 AM
1

I've been unable to find any record of an accusation against a good samaritan in Australia, so your point doesn't really work. Considering we live in a climate where people who never were accused of harassment are now being accused publicly with ease, I fail to see how you could simply conclude that his/her point "doesn't really work". It absolutely makes sense why people would be more gingerly approaching touching women's sexual regions without overt consent compared to men, given how much incr…
/r/MensRights15/11/17 02:29 AM
1

This wasn't my theory; I was the one dissecting it as being fundamentally impossible. For which you've done nothing of the sort. It's almost like you don't understand how markets work? You have a peculiar way of interpreting things. If by "peculiar" you mean "literally reading and subsequently paraphrasing", then sure. You've dragged this discussion all over the place, implanting vaguery and misdirection from the original point to desperately find some way to prove me wrong. Anything that you've…
/r/MensRights22/10/17 03:56 AM
1

Well, we are talking about using sex robots as a political tool, while you apparently seem to be talking about just having a good time. You literally just made up your own point and pretended that's what we were discussing this whole time. Yeah, or you're drawing circles around arbitrary parts of your own strawman and then tilting at that windmill full blast. Wonderful job so far, I must say considering the post to which you went bananas over included the words: the only way to end pervasive mis…
/r/MensRights22/10/17 01:43 AM
1

The sheer level of vaguery you've built upon what was previously a rather concise argument from someone else, is bordering on impressive. Uh, sure. I think it's more impressive that you apparently have such clarivoyance on future social trends that result from novel sexually freeing technologies, and, even more so that your conclusion differs from past empirical evidence. But then again, that's just me -- and probably other people who hew to a rational framework of analysis. As perceptions about…
/r/MensRights21/10/17 09:23 PM
1

Hmmm...not really. To wit, I'm not entirely sure how you can conclude that considering that the cacophony of women lamenting the dearth of male mates has risen in the era of widespread porn. Heck, you've even got famous feminists arguing precisely that in decidedly liberal magazines in the here and now. The "goal", if you will, is simply understanding market forces -- at the margin there will be more men who will choose the easier and more realistic robotic option for sexual gratification than a…
/r/MensRights21/10/17 08:56 PM
1

I love technology as much as the next person, but I doubt humanity will abandon sex with one another to fuck human-shaped sex toys on a full-time basis. I'm almost certain there are proportionally more men today who are masturbating (with porn) in lieu of relationships than there were in the past (when such easily accessible porn didn't exist), so I'm not certain how you can argue such technology won't have an effect on society at large.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 02:41 PM
2

What plan? The highest quailty sexual gratification with the lowest possible effort plan? I don't see how we need some kind of centralized cabal to plan how to get men to use way way way better and more realistic porn. You just make the product, and it likely will sell itself.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 01:32 AM
1

I just don't see it as being viable, considering the men's rights movement can't seem to muster men in the hundreds of thousands, let alone hundreds of millions. And then you still have the issue of whether those women will respond to not getting sex from men. Why would the mens rights movement be needed to convince men to have sex and get off with a life-like female robot that requires no care? Is the mens rights movement required to convince men to look at porn?
/r/MensRights19/10/17 11:12 PM
1

And how did those women's brains respond to watching those men be selfish versus those who were kind? My guess is the "feminine dopamine surge" suddenly will be rewarding watching "anti-social behavior".
/r/MensRights11/10/17 12:49 AM
9

Uh no. In my opinion, it literally results from everyone knowing that no woman finds that attractive. If women actually found men who were sensitive and sad and emotive incredibly attractive, the vast majority of men would be at poetry slams and forming emotional sports teams.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 03:37 AM
1

Re-read what I wrote. I'm agreeing with you on all counts.
/r/MensRights01/09/17 10:31 PM
2

Said individual is also leaving out the sheer disparity in absolute numbers of messaging. Men message most women more than women message the most messaged man.
/r/MensRights01/09/17 02:10 AM
1

Women attempt suicide about 3 times more than men. So we're literally just 12 times better at killing ourselves than women are. If you replaced men with women in this sentence, we wouldn't even hear about the "attempts" as being remotely relevant. We would only concentrate on the fact that women died more. In fact, I'd argue you'd be viewed as a horrible misogynist for merely bringing that fact up.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 10:20 PM
3

All you have to do is make men the primary beneficiaries of child support, and the government will easily find a way to do what is claimed to be "burdensome" in that thread. To wit -- men pay the most taxes, and thus, are the primary beneficiaries of claiming itemized deductions. Let's see if anyone here can find a massive government agency does the burdensome task of sorting through every claim via receipts and the like....on a yearly basis.
/r/MensRights21/07/17 11:41 PM
2

So the state should only subsidise something if it would otherwise result in physical pain? Uh, no again? It's when there's a demonstrated disability that impedes function. It's not simply that a person has to pay for something that someone else doesn't. Otherwise the entire totality of the market should be subsidizeable, merely because people pay for stuff that others don't. I don't believe that subsidising sanitary items for a group which is forced to pay significantly more for them will lead …
/r/MensRights15/07/17 07:44 PM
2

So, isn't providing for albinos the same as paying money for something that itself is the disability? Uh, no. The proof for albinos is that they're actually injured by being in the sun on average. Not that they simply pay for sunscreen while others don't. Which would preclude them from certain ventures, I'm sure. Like living a normal life without physical injury that debilitates them. On the other hand, women face no long term disability from this "disadvantage". It's actually problematic to NOT…
/r/MensRights15/07/17 07:29 PM
2

I mean, but are we going to extend this to every putative group that has a "biological difference" but not one that causes a functional problem? So, do we pay for short and tall people to have their clothing better fitting, so they don't need to make the increased costs associated with that? Do we pay for hirsute women who need to pay to remove unwanted body hair? What about the aging, who pay for botox to remove unwanted wrinkles? The sunscreen for those who sunburn easily? Part of the reason w…
/r/MensRights15/07/17 06:57 PM
3

We don't limit the rights of disabled people just because we're subsidising them, we do it because, as you said, it's dangerous for them. It's danger and lack of perceived capability (in the case of children), among other things. In other words, if women are so disabled so as to need societal subsidies for their various biological functions, then we should also convene a study to figure out how that biological function disables them for other professions/activities (say, being a soldier, or fire…
/r/MensRights15/07/17 05:01 PM
4

If it could be argued that women are significantly disadvantaged due to their biology, if we are to provide for disabled people I don't think we can get around also providing for women. Whereas, based on what you've said, it seems you feel that we should provide for disabled people (if we can afford it as a society) but not for women, even if they are biologically disadvantaged, because "[they] are not entitled for anything [they] don't work for". Sure, but then we should constrain their rights …
/r/MensRights15/07/17 04:26 PM
6

Nor do you need to do anything to sign up for selective service, have your genitals mutilated, or not have federal departments for health for your gender. You just need to be born and identified as male.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 04:24 PM
2

but women also face gender-based problems. I'm pretty sure the super majority of all discussion focuses on this aspect, even when it's something idiotically trivial like being called "bossy".
/r/MensRights15/07/17 04:23 PM
6

I know right? Gender Biased Selective service, whatevs. On the other hand, the amount of women who are at real risk of dealing with things like manspreading? Well, that requires tomes of mainstream coverage.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 04:22 PM
2

If only that were understood for men by the most powerful cultural and academic movement that proclaims to be about gender equality. We can only dream.
/r/MensRights14/07/17 12:07 AM
6

Whenever I forget why this sub is important, I think of my male friend who once contemplated suicide, and my other male friend who died alone via a drug overdose, and read those lines.
/r/MensRights14/07/17 12:05 AM
1

Well, it's a debate sub—demands for evidence are going to be pretty common for that reason alone. That would be a fairly narrow and self-serving distillation of my statement (which also involved internecine discussions of finer points grammar after demonstration of reasonable evidence). I'm not saying corroborating a point isn't needed -- it's that unrepenting not-in-good-faith lines of query often dominate threads (without objection) but calling out said queries often do lead to objections. I f…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 02:07 AM
1

You can critique ideologies like feminism there, you just have to be careful about how you phrase your criticism. You can't say things like "feminism is bad," but you can say things like "I don't like feminism, because it involves x." I'm not disputing that the sub is less overtly bigoted (partially because it's basically dominated by like 5 voices who say the same things over and over again). Then again, the non-good faith pseudo-socratic questioning that some do on there to totally derail thre…
/r/MensRights24/06/17 11:29 PM
1

r/FeMRADebates provides a pretty good example of what moderate, intelligent feminists and MRAs coming together to discuss the issues looks like though, and shows it's at least possible. The problem is, I don't think it's something all feminists or MRAs are capable of engaging in, since it requires one not to be a complete zealot, and instead demonstrate some open-mindedness. Eh, sort of. You quite literally cannot name certain ideologies (read: "feminism") for critique at risk of being banned, p…
/r/MensRights24/06/17 09:10 PM
2

You spoke of "getting" her specifically to take a position that she has long since taken. A position of equality for men? Once again it's weird that this ruling constituted the entire scope of that ideal! I'm surprised that the illiteracy problem extended to your own posts! Considering you're repeatedly failing to comprehend my own posts, I find your comment amusingly ironic.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:21 AM
5

"Finally"? I'm sorry you're illiterate. Ginsburg has been fighting for this for a long time. Which is actually not surprising, because, you know, feminism isn't what you think it is. Weird, I didn't realize the entirety of equality was constituted via the scope of this ruling. Strange. If only people like Lincoln understood that.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:39 AM
2

Totally. Sweeping marriage equality is utterly the same. We should be celebrating in the streets for this narrow narrow victory for equality. Edit: Though to be sure, the rarity of such a ruling would be something to celebrate.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:37 AM
2

Why is upvoting this thread about a narrow victory for what amounts to treating men like equal human beings to women, mean we're not "full of shit"? Like it's some absurdly huge accomplishment to get a feminist supreme court justice to finally see men, if only in a massively narrow scope, equal to women? It would appear that we have a reeealllly long way to go.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:02 AM
4

Uh, I don't think I need to applaud when men are treated like human beings, using the same standards as we treat women. I just expect that to be the norm. Apologies.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:00 AM
8

Be Kind AND Just. Not just kind.
/r/TheRedPill04/06/17 09:37 PM
2

Now I fully expect this to hit -50 by morning because I'm in disagreement with the angry folk. And yet your criticism receives Gold on the MR subreddit. But it's the MR subreddit that's the homogenous viewpoint that permits no counter criticism. Obvi. ...just makes you look like a feminist-hating douchebag. I can't wait for your similar criticism of MRA-hating douchebags gets more than 100 upvotes and Gold on a pro-feminist subreddit. Let us know when that happens! They're just as good, amirite?
/r/MensRights03/06/17 06:52 PM
1

With Gold.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 06:50 PM
2

Thank god.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 06:49 PM
6

I wonder if you would have felt the same when the degree gap was in favor of men, not women. When women were underrepresented in all education levels, only federal grants, scholarships, and affirmative action would combat the obvious sexism and discrimination. Now? well, now women earn over 60 percent of all degrees and no one gives a shit about the males. DING DING DING DING. Now it's "divisive" to view this from a gendered lens, but if it favors males, it's totally fine to drive tons of public…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 06:47 PM
3

Do they chastise mothers (about things like infanticide and child abuse) on Mother's Day?
/r/MensRights30/05/17 02:03 AM
1

"Gym Bros More Likely to be Right-Wing Assholes and also lusted after by Women, many of whom self-describe as Feminists, Science Confirms" FTFY Shrin.
/r/MensRights28/05/17 10:59 PM
12

They also outlaw divorce due to "preservation of peace within French families" as well, right? Bueller? Bueller? Huh. Weird how that works.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 03:24 AM
2

Yep. She just keeps repeating it hoping it's considered true at some point.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 11:09 PM
2

Why is no one studying transfer of wealth from men to women? Because it's the basis for all of modern western society, the removal of which would cause trouble for those western society has been created to uphold (the average woman and the high status male)?
/r/MensRights24/05/17 11:06 PM
23

When women have to pay the majority of it, you'll hear all about it in earnest I'm sure. See: arguments about the draft.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 08:54 PM
2

People are starting to notice and it's starting to be talked about. The deluge of women's programs in education is beyond measure. Being "talked about" when men are proportionally dropping in education attendance isn't enough. How do I know? It wasn't enough when women were the minority in overall education but, ironically, the MAJORITY in computer science/programming.. At that time we weren't talking about the most pressing need in education being getting "boys into computers". Funny how that w…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 02:18 PM
2

In a world with fixed resources and where men's issues virtually always take a backseat to women's issues? Yeah, going to have to disagree with you there.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 02:15 PM
18

Sure, but again, in a triage scenario, the group that's dying should be focused upon before the group that has a cut and needs a bandaid. At least in my book. There's no equivalence between "group that's more educated but isn't more educated in this small ass field of study" and "group that's less educated over all". The latter group should take precedence. Right now, we're metaphorically making the entire ER about scratches and bandaids, while barely giving a stretcher to the half of the popula…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 12:07 AM
12

Many female eugenicists who want to put men in concentration camps agree with the Feminist movement (and do so openly, unlike most of trp). And they sometimes write for mainstream sources like the Guardian. Can't wait to see u/belil569 go apeshit on those feminists because of that association, an association which is openly endorsed by some of those hateful eugenicists. Oh wait. That's totally not fair. Only reddit commenter boards that openly say they're not MRA get to be conflated with MRA's, …
/r/MensRights29/04/17 11:07 PM
15

When it stops being a thing to the degree it is, I expect to see this sort of thing less. What on god's green earth would make you think this statement would be true given the way we've treated gender issues over the last half century? Even when women move past "equality" (so they're being advantaged numerically), we don't shut down gender based programs in those areas that help them. Take, I don't know, education for example.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 11:01 PM
45

It's just a reality that girls tend to get shut down in these kinds of classes when they're mixed. Really? Aren't we getting to a point where boys literally are dwindling across all of education proportionally? How are girls getting shut down in education when virtually every gendered program focuses on them and objectively they're doing better in almost every way?
/r/MensRights29/04/17 11:01 PM
31

True. Bandaids are necessary for bleeding scratches (STEM field for girls), but when you're pretty much doing nothing for the hemorrhaging and dying people all around you (Education overall for boys), I find the argument that one is merely focusing on what's "necessary" insanely dubious.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 10:58 PM
44

That's the kind of crap companies throw at our kids. To say to girls, "Hey this is a thing that boys do, come give it a try in a girl's only setting, so there's no pressure from boys ok Kong on you or whatever" that's fine. I'm all for it. As long as we have "college preparatory classes only for boys, 5th to 11th grade" to go along with it, given the objective data and the "boys are stupid, girls are awesome" that comes out of mainstream news sources on a weekly basis.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 10:57 PM
5

Wait, this was posted on HuffPo? I'm actually shocked.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 01:49 PM
2

Not having to work during the marriage, and being financially supported by another person the whole marriage sounds like a benefit to me, not a cost. Think of all the money she cost him by not working. Being a divorcing woman is literally the ONLY place where not working makes you entitled to stuff more so than working.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 01:04 AM
2

Contrast this with the bestof and menslib desperate argument that such bias simply doesn't exist. The only court where illegitimate bias doesn't exist is apparently family court. Yeah.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 01:02 AM
3

Prolly time to go back to your feminist approved safe space, where taxation doesn't exist, people aren't financially literate, and men being shot for court mandated payment is just totes no biggie.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:56 AM
5

I'm simply stating facts and letting the reader come to their own conclusions. Yeah, implicitly juxtaposing upvotes with activism is the hallmark of just stating facts. Next time post a photo of a cute puppy and see how much more "activism" you can claim. I'm also comfortable letting the reader come to their own conclusion about your apparent outrage at the fact that we're promoting an organization that helps gay men. Sure broski. If only you'd help the swaths of other men that don't fit identit…
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:51 AM
3

Uhhh... basic logic argues this, friendo. Child support recipients would be required to collect records on all their child-related purchases, then those would need micromanagement oversight. That's a heavy burden, especially for the state. Like, again, we do for vast swaths of the American populace and small business owners. Child support is gender-neutral, sir! Although it's worth thinking about why women get it more often 🤔 I think this is how racist white southerners used to argue about racia…
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:44 AM
5

Friend, itemizing tax deductions once a year != documenting every thing you buy for your child with child support money THROUGHOUT the year. You are presenting an obviously false equivalence and it's not going to escape notice. Thanks for the strawman, yo. Who's arguing it must be THROUGHOUT the year, friend? Oh wait, only you! Cool beans. Just to be clear, quite literally ever financially literate person does what you're arguing is impossible. It's called budgeting and accounting for your expen…
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:58 PM
4

This isn't micromanagement. This is tax collecting. Uh, you've clearly never worked anywhere near the IRS. The vast, vast majority of taxes are simple. Documenting every bit of expenditure on your child that you drew on child support for, then having someone from the government oversee it? That's micromanagement. Uh, 44 million households itemize every year. You make it sound like it's 2 people in a Dodge Durango somewhere. Again, not micromanagement. Your assertions are flawed to the point of b…
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:45 PM
11

How is that remotely proof of activism? You guys going to chechnya to fight these people? Status signaling to feminists that "we care about men too -- specifically the ones that are gay which means we're playing the right identity bingo not to piss you off -- but we make sure to bend the knee to you all when it counts" isn't activism. It's status signaling. Using this logic, one of my posts had 700 upvotes, so it's the pillar of activism, yo. It was about a cat boxing. The rest of the comments a…
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:25 PM
8

Yep. You can even laugh at men committing suicide and it's no biggie. The real crime is criticizing the people who laugh.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:24 PM
8

Is your solution for the state to micromanage child support expenditure? Because that's the only other option I see. You mean like we do to basically every citizen in the country around April 15? Weird. I guess it's not that cray, yo. On the other hand we seem to have no problems micromanaging the finances of a father, at the point of jail time, and sometimes a gun.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:21 PM
6

Sure, when actively being used in the best interests of the child. But, for instance, enforcing child support to continue a "stable living situation" and providing for the "special needs of the child" but then never enforcing that said support goes to the child is an egregious example of what the term "Best Interests" means. Using critical thinking is always good. Obviously. That's why I disagree with your knee jerk acceptance of court directives. Using your logic, the racially neutral Jim Crow …
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:18 PM
8

I don't even understand what this means. You're telling me that just because the courts created some legal framework, it must be something that's legitimate ethically? There are plenty of scenarios where the courts do things that are objectively not in the actual best interests of the child, but in the Best Interests (TM) of the child (which means the Best Interests of the Mother, who makes up the constituency of people (women) who vote for the people who appoint those judges).
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:14 PM
5

Uh, I don't believe "Best Interests" actually is in the "Best Interest" of the child, nor do I believe that default equal custody would necessarily mean aspects of other conditions are mutually excluded from analysis. Both of which are assumed in the comment to which you're referring.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:02 PM
7

It pretty much simply agreed that equal custody is a "bad" idea (it even uses italics!) and makes unsubstantiated claims that somehow starting from a default equal custody arrangement necessarily means other things can't come into play -- like, say, parents being alcoholics, or whatever. Which isn't remotely true, nor would it be legitimate to force something AWAY from default equality in any other circumstance.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 10:57 PM
1

I generally dont like being labeled at all, even positive labels. That would make you a non-advocate of pretty much anything in society. The moment you do so, you become labeled.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 10:50 PM
5

A tip of the cap to you. Also, just as a side comment, where do you think many of us came from to begin with? How do you think many of us know our studies so well, and can point out gaping hole after gaping hole in them? We were feminists. Were.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 12:10 AM
14

Interestingly, it's basically a pro-feminist sub that's become specifically anti-MRA.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 12:03 AM
13

It's yet another feminist sub. Specifically it's a place where feminists who are fairly misandric but reeeally would like people not to consider them as such to have a safe space/echo chamber, with all of the censoring and anti-MRA/misandric commenting that entails. As if the real western world wasn't enough for those folks.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 12:01 AM
2

Obligatory onion article.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 11:58 PM
5

Just to be clear, is there any precedent where, say, some mob had gone and killed one of the falsely accused men, that she would be held responsible?
/r/MensRights23/04/17 01:58 AM
1

Remind me when we deprive kindergarten girls with access to any sort of resource as a matter of an Federal NSF funded grant, and we'll concede to your retarded hyperbole.
/r/MensRights19/04/17 12:38 AM
12

This is a feature of the feminist system, not a bug.
/r/MensRights16/04/17 11:20 PM
7

Yet if the company instead went bankrupt and in the proceedings creditors secured liens to the rest of his assets, I'm almost certain she wouldn't have to pay for any of that. Since her divorce was before the company went public, so she doesn't have anything to do with that failure of a company. (...company rebounds and now starts making money...) Um, so the company is totally half the wife's since she was totes there the whole time, and deserves it and stuff. FeminismYo
/r/MensRights06/04/17 12:51 AM
1

I understand precisely why you're saying custody is "off the table" because custodial arrangements are precisely what is "earned" by a lower earning spouse (who basically doesn't have to work as much). In other words, it's insanely relevant to your discussions of "marriage in a legal sense" as custodial arrangements are utterly material to any divorce proceeding that deals with "sharing assets" and "community property" -- but I get if we're trying to hose the "higher earner" (read: man, as usual…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 12:37 AM
1

How is it not fair? You mentioned zilch about custody, which definitionally is "earned" by the lower earning spouse who stays home more, but mentioned splitting the assets, which definitionally is "earned" by the higher earning spouse who goes to work.
/r/MensRights28/03/17 10:09 PM
63

We don't hate you or women. However, most of us despise feminism as an ideology that claims to be about equality but hurts swaths of men, and often does so gleefully.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 11:28 PM
1

Of COURSE men matter you stupid fuck It's not even remotely obvious you believe this given your comment history. Never once did I say men's rights don't matter. I'm saying it's atrocious that a government would FORCE you to stay married to someone you don't love...regardless of gender. The government does far more atrocious coercive things to men. Solve that, then get to this "atrocious" situation, or your retarded indignance is, well, retarded. Do they have anything to do with this case that we…
/r/MensRights27/03/17 11:26 PM
1

It's certainly more frequent than it used to be, but it's still woefully short, and certainly gender biased. Typically men have to have the resources to ask for it in addition to being gainfully employed in order to obtain JOINT custody arrangements; otherwise the default goes to the mother.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 11:22 PM
1

Obviously it's a high risk to you since you live with someone who has no income, and I'm guessing you're not providing for their health insurance or rainy day/ retirement savings as a person would be expected to provide for a dependent loved one. It's easy to say marriage is too high a risk if the partnership is limited so as to never provide the safety and security that spouses typically want to provide for each other. I mean, that's a pretty large leap. Virtually expenses are borne by me. For …
/r/MensRights27/03/17 11:20 PM
1

If you spend the best years of your life washing some shitty mushroom farmers grimy clothes, cooking for him and raising his children, you better fucking believe you're entitled to a part of the income. Yea, because that's the standard we use to adjudicate whether women get paid out after marriage. They ask "did you wash some shitty mushroom farmer's grimy clothes" (the same "shitty farmer whose massive assets you now want, but remember, he's shitty for all purposes other than this), "did you co…
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:36 PM
1

For tax benefits, there's no way to see the increased benefits of marriage such as higher combined deductions than for two single payers, and higher tax free contribution limits for married couples. I mean, I claim head of household with my domestic partner as a dependent and I come out ahead on my taxes, so yeah, there are ways. For inheritance, there's absolutely no way to pass an inheritance to a domestic partner free of hassle, cost, or taxes like that which is done automatically for a spous…
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:33 PM
1

Your obvious feminist apologia? Me too.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:29 PM
1

The court can throw a man in jail in (insert current year) because one party wants more money for child support. The court can throw a man in jail in (insert current year) because one party claims abuse. The court can send a man to his death in (insert current year) because one party wants them to go to war. The court can evict a man from his primary residence in (insert current year) because one party asked for divorce. All in the (insert current year)!!! Like I said, clutch thy pearls!!!! Oh w…
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:27 PM
1

I mean, if she openly said that, your apologist ilk likely wouldn't be here making any comments.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:21 PM
1

Nowhere does it say anything about her going after money Just like nowhere does it say that women asked for a majority of tax expenditures, or primary custody, or divorce assets. They just wind up with all of that, through no fault of their own, those poor angelic flowery people, them. I love how we're supposed to assume complete virtuousness from a group that routinely receives the above because to do otherwise makes one a "fucking mouthbreather".
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:19 PM
2

Women divorcing men is really the only instance where not working and getting someone to pay for your things (even if those things were nannies, cooks, chefs, and other amenities) throughout your life is viewed as contributing as a null hypothesis. Even if you have a fling. What a time to be a woman, eh?
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:09 PM
2

If either of us should want to leave the marriage, even though I earned 99.9% of the income that contributed to our savings and assets I would honestly not have a problem with an even split, heck she might even deserve a bit more since I'll have the benefit of an existing g career. All would make sense if we also "split" the custody half way as well by default, which NOW is against.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:05 PM
1

Unless she has kids and claims abuse -- then she can retain the house as the primary residence, keep the kids, and freeze his access to his assets.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:04 PM
1

You can literally get all of that outside of marriage.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:03 PM
1

women have more rights there What does that even mean? You mean privileges?
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:01 PM
2

Custody to larger wage earner, since finances are apparently so absurdly important in child care that we throw people in jail for not doing providing it and charge them interest on their debt. No genders.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 08:00 PM
1

Why should anyone 'force you' to work on your issues? it's your life, if you've at a point that you can't stand your spouse, who is the government to tell you have to stay? That's what they do in SA-like countries. Does the government force you to wait 5 years before you get married? The government forces citizens (particularly males) to do quite a few things so I'm not sure what you're getting at, outside of this particular one being onerous for divorcing women wanting assets.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 07:59 PM
2

Don't drag facts into this. It's your typical "women are evil, men are the truly oppressed" snivelling that's so prevalent here. Intriguingly, go into academia, politics, or the real world, and you'll see the opposite increasingly indoctrinated in policy. But a subreddit exposing stuff from the side of men? Clutch thy pearls at the sniveling!
/r/MensRights27/03/17 07:57 PM
1

If there's anything I've learned from modern feminism, it's that women basically have to exist to have assets (even those from the state like tax revenue) be "theirs".
/r/MensRights27/03/17 07:54 PM
1

You just while away your days on a sub where everyone looks for sentencing extremes to justify how furious they are about whatever it is that's got you all so wound up. I know. It's not like there's a literal sentencing disparity for the same crimes between the genders that's been documented repeatedly. Oh wait. ... Nahhhh. Gotta just be r/MensRights. Or some lying fake news from the patriarchy because women are the best and mean fedora people. Also equality and wow just wow.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:14 AM
8

SIX articles in 9 years? Boy howdy is that a heckuva laser like focus on male victims over the years! I'm guessing there are slightly more than six articles documenting female victims of anything, possibly just from the last week.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:09 AM
2

Only time it's ok to randomly paint an entire group of people as deadly by liberal folk.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 01:24 AM
7

Until mom wants to drop the kid off at a fire station and foist the burden on society. Then it's cool for the state to pay for the baby. So, mom's interests.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 03:34 AM
1

Unfortunately not much, unless you have swaths of money to build your own shelter and enough self-strength (and effective immunity from losing your job) to take the insults and threats that many powerful and influential feminists will throw at you when you do try to help suffering men.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 04:36 PM
1

But neither did yours - or at least not in this sub-thread it didn't. Yeah, I'm saying it makes no ethical sense. You're suggesting that "men being part of a family" somehow is material to it making sense. I'm asserting that that "mitigating factor" doesn't do anything for that argument.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 11:05 PM
2

Your point doesn't address why, say, we pour swaths of money (taxed from men) into helping specifically women in areas in which they're doing better -- in some cases far better -- than the average man. In other words, the "family unit" is meaningless when we're talking about male educational achievement, health, etc.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 11:58 PM
2

For instance, I do not live in a flood zone but that doesn't mean I resent the government money spent on flood defences to protect those people in my country that do. Again, sure, but in this case, the analogy would be you paying taxes for people who are at a lower risk for flood than you are, because they have a vagina and you don't. Meanwhile, very little is being done about protecting you from your higher risk of a flood. And all the while, people saying the above is representative of equalit…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:42 PM
3

Well, fair enough. But your original post could easily have been taken to imply evidence of a gender wage gap as noted earlier. I mean, sure -- but women control the majority of wealth, work fewer hours, pay less overall tax, receive the majority of taxable spending, all while having better longevity, health, education, and many other social metrics used to judge the health of a cohort. So yes, men probably make more "income" in a vacuum -- but women either own or get the majority of the wealth …
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:40 PM
6

Unfortunately in this era of feminist controlled governmental media, unless that stat were showing that women were disfavored, we'd probably never hear of it. BTW, that's actually the most difficult part of the gender "war", if you will. You cannot even get research done by any reputable journal that shows the full extent of how society disfavors men because it goes against the narrative. So you're forced to rely upon things like Breitbart or AEI, or whatever, which then allows the "average pers…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:04 PM
1

Men not marrying and/or not having enough disposable income. In other words, the feminist utopia that we're all headed towards.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:16 PM
2

But the fact that the paper is willing to give page space to an unpopular sentiment is a noble act, and more significant than it pandering to mainstream readers. Sure, and that's why they get lauded for when they do that in that instance. But one can still be critical of the institution as a whole while still maintaining the ability to offer praise when something good is done. Otherwise theoretically having 1K articles that call for the gendercidal death of males would be mitigated by one articl…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 11:50 PM
3

All feminist roads lead to rape.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 11:28 PM
4

Whether it's a shitty paper is determined if, on an arbitrary balance, they publish good things more than bad. In other words, if you publish 1000 articles on how horrible men are to the point where it's easy to find one each week, and maybe one article in a blue moon on how they're not so bad, you can still qualify as being a shitty paper on this issue.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 11:20 PM
3

Again, I'm not following. You're divorcing the act from the institution doing the act? In other words, in the other situation, we should only laud the "act of publishing Hoff Summers" but not laud the Tribune itself for doing so?
/r/MensRights10/12/16 10:01 PM
14

People ought to contain their criticism to the article, and respect the fact that the paper is providing a balanced perspective in this instance. I reject this analysis, particularly considering they republished a WaPo article. In other words, how many bad things can one do after one has done one good thing? I submit the philosophy of lauding them for doing the good thing, and criticizing them for doing the bad things.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 09:33 PM
1

You don't think modern feminism has anything to do with this situation? I'd be interested to hear how you determine when someone is a feminist, then? It's clearly not actions.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 05:19 AM
1

You believe that the thought that modern feminism and its well documented double standards had something to do with the audacity of a bunch of girls putting up a shaming wall of boys they've had sexual relations with openly with tacit acceptance by the administration is tantamount to believing the illuminati is behind everything? Uh, ok.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 05:03 AM
1

That explain why high school girls made a shaming public wall of dudes they had sexual relations with all with a blind eye from administration? With no evidence of a gender switched wall with a similar blind eye treatment from administration? I'm pretty sure only A would fit that mold. Just a hunch.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 04:41 AM
1

The great thing about not prioritizing my ideological tribe over facts Considering you're trying to conflate pick up artists with men's rights activists based, quite literally, on reddit subs, even in light of actual PUA's publicly disavowing men's rights, I find your retarded argumentation rich. I'm sorry for triggering you. By saying "fuck"? I'm used to bankrupt arguments filled with vulgarity from people like you, no worries. "One key difference is we have proof of feminisms bullshit, while t…
/r/MensRights04/12/16 12:08 AM
8

Nothing in the article suggested these girls or their teachers were feminists. Totally. It's more likely these teachers and girls were traditionalists from the 1950's, a time in which putting the sexual exploits of women on the walls publicly in order to shame boys was both appropriate and commonplace.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 04:13 PM
2

I wish I had a trophy to give you for most ill-thought analogies in a conversation. Considering you think genocidal maniacs are somehow equivalent to two dudes accidentally stepping on the shoe of an old woman, I'm fairly certain no one really wants you handing out logic trophies. I mean, seriously, do you really want to drive a discussion you've framed as Men vs Feminists toward atrocities like genocide? Dunno -- do you really want to wander around suggesting that differing groups with differen…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 02:54 PM
2

Uh, your own source even makes mention that "guns and fountainpens" are concordant given its methodology., so I guess 18th century calligraphists are right wing NRA members? Or maybe, just maybe, using coefficients of "group subscribers" isn't exactly the best metric to judge commenters in those subs? Oh fuck off with your persecution complex, you know perfectly well that the overlap between the two subreddits is significant. Considering no one's anointed you and your bigoted ilik the arbiter of…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 02:43 PM
2

Isn't it hypocritical to hate all feminists then? Not particularly. Feminism is the advocacy of women's issues and manifests itself as policy initiatives, often hurting swaths of innocent men, with the cultural power of what amounts to a secular religion in Western Nations. Even minority groups don't have the voting mandate power, control of wealth, and cultural strength that feminism has in our society. One can hate the ideology and thus that part of those who adhere to it without hypocrisy in …
/r/MensRights03/12/16 05:37 AM
3

S/he is trying to conflate the TRP group with Men's Rights in order to tie certain misogynistic commenters to Men's Rights, thus "proving" an equivalence between bigoted feminists who have the power to censor speech in western nations with PUAs who post on a sub reddit. PUA's, of course, that are, somehow, MRA's because reasons and stuff. It's a classic conflation gambit by feminists, permitting them to operate with the power they have, but above criticism commensurate for groups with that sort …
/r/MensRights03/12/16 05:30 AM
4

It's not about whether group A is as bad as group B Uh sure it is. If a nation of millions commits genocide while some dude and his kid somewhere accidentally step on the shoe of an old lady, Group A being worse than Group B is decidedly relevant to whatever retarded equivalence you'd like to make between them. If you want to change reality, learn to deal with reality. So now people who talk about game are the same as men's rights? Weird, considering they literally disavow Men's Rights openly. I…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 05:20 AM
2

Also, of course people who earn higher incomes are going to pay more taxes. They still get to keep a large portion of their higher income, though. Considering that in similar countries (say, the US), women control the majority of wealth, I'd find that last statement wanting.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 01:17 AM
7

we're being lumped in with them now. Probably in part because it benefits feminists, who live on the left, to paint the MRM as a bunch of Nazis -- but they can't do that openly (though they sometimes do), so they often conflate ANOTHER group with us that is ALSO conflated with Nazis.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 03:36 AM
0

the Conservatives are now trying to take away my choice to marry another man All of them do this? even if Neo-Liberalism has helped strengthen the Federal Government it did so in the name of attempting to expand protections for minorities. Uh, you mean protections for special identity groups that vote for them, which they then classify as "minorities". To wit, "women" are minorities, but poor white men, of course, are not.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 03:34 AM
1

Thank God Karen Owen from Duke was a woman. Then you get sympathy for doing such things.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 11:44 PM
14

Guys, I've said it before and I'll say it again: The time when feminism stops becoming the dominant ideology of our time is the moment when the ratio of taxes men pay to the state versus payouts they get from the state starts approaching 1. Right now it's something like 2.72, but moving down (e.g. men are starting to claim disability in the states more and more than they used to, and are unemployed more and more than they used to be). Regardless of what amped up bigoted feminists say, do, or wan…
/r/MensRights16/10/16 05:33 PM
1

And yeah, it probably sucks living in a world mostly controlled by men, Like I said, it's strange that the cohort that controls the voting electorate, wealth, lives longer, pays less taxes, but receives more social spending and is educated more doesn't have "control" in this society to you. To the point of lack of agency in all things. But hey, what would we do without retarded modern feminist unidirectional notions of the oppressor/oppressed dynamic, eh?
/r/TheRedPill16/10/16 12:51 AM
1

Totally yo. She was just fucking him out of fear, because, as you've put it, this is a "culture where men have power" and thus women cannot have agency. So weird that they control the majority electorate, majority wealth, live longer, pay less in tax, and receive more in social services relative to men while still retaining none of that agency, eh?
/r/TheRedPill15/10/16 11:03 PM
2

Well no, I'm fairly sure she was saying she didn't report sexual assault out of fear of being fired, which is unfortunately a danger women face in a culture where men have power, like ours. Uh, after fucking him to get the job in the first place. Just to ensure everyone remembers that. That's like someone saying "Because I needed access to his billions and his lifestyle" and then you saying "I'm fairly sure she was saying she didn't report sexual assault out of fear of being homeless and poor wh…
/r/TheRedPill15/10/16 01:04 AM
3

You forgot: 4 - Their parents will use every tactic in the book to make them as Blue Pill as possible, almost to the point of their own physical self-harm.
/r/TheRedPill13/10/16 11:09 PM
1

Do you go to feminist subs (or I guess, to yourself) to hold yourselves accountable for every publicly misandric act or policy? Let's check your posting history.... ...aaaand nope. Of course not. Also: In fact, by my definition of feminism I consider myself to be a feminist. I do not consider my definition to be the same as many here and so do not label myself a feminist for the purposes of sharing this opinion. What in god's name does this mean? You're literally saying "I'm a feminist, but not …
/r/MensRights11/10/16 03:11 AM
1

She would be banned if she did that in r/feminism. A major meta difference.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 03:08 AM
1

Hopefully you will have money, but it is going to be someone else's child making your food, cleaning your house, probably changing your diapers someday. Really? They're going to be doing ALL of this for free? They're taking none one of those taxation dollars when those kids are young or for those mothers or her pregnancy or the kids schooling or anything ever happens? Also, those kids are going to be unconditionally loving us and being there totally for us the way they will be for those women wh…
/r/MensRights11/10/16 02:52 AM
20

So you can discriminate on selling cakes to lesbian couples in NYC?
/r/MensRights10/10/16 11:11 PM
0

Mobs are just collections of individuals with individual rights. If you give individuals the right to do something, they can do it en masse. Totally. That's why we codified the right to peaceably assemble in the constitution -- because individuals and groups are totally the same, and not distinct whatsoever, and thus would never be treated differently in both concept and practice. Oh wait.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 09:57 PM
-14

Who cares? Your argument is misleading based on your likely intentional lack of consideration for post-conception options.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 09:57 PM
-5

This far more recent article (in this millenium) would seem to utterly disagree with you that the sex of the present parent doesn't matter to outcomes: http://freakonomics.com/2011/10/19/fathers-and-delinquency-in-the-american-family/
/r/MensRights09/10/16 09:54 PM
-15

But a birth can solely happen if a woman wants it to happen. So, uh, there's that too.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 09:46 PM
1

That's because I want the right to tell Emma Sulkowicz to fuck off, should she happen to ask me directions on the street. You're not a mob. There's a distinct difference.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 09:31 PM
1

Then you should have OJ Simpson over for dinner sometime. You're arguing for extrajudicial justice because of the OJ trial? Should I bring up the swaths of times when such things have harmed innocent people? Like, say, a boy committing suicide because he was accused of rape (which was later withdrawn) and couldn't stand the subsequent ostracism, and then his mom doing the same? You're saying people should supplant their personal assessments of an accused's guilt or innocence with that of the cou…
/r/MensRights09/10/16 08:44 PM
1

but not speaking to him or cutting off a friendship with him would not be. You implied that the "mob" should treat him a way distinct from adjudicated lack of guilt, because he's "probably not innocent though we have no evidence of such" or something, which to me is nuts in a free society. You could use this to justify any horrible but legal behavior by society. Sometimes yeah, ostracism happens and is legal. It doesn't mean we should be justifying that sort of treatment, particularly as extraju…
/r/MensRights09/10/16 05:23 PM
1

You're saying we shouldn't adjudicate based on the sentiments of the mob, and that's true, but we also shouldn't tell the mob it needs to accept the findings of a court and treat the accused entirely in accordance with that. Honestly man, I have no idea how you could conclude such a statement in a free society. You're literally arguing for extrajudicial mob justice.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 01:27 PM
5

Sort of. I'm saying if we didn't have so many alt-right MRAs spouting hyper-conservative nonsense on this sub and others, aligning men's rights with voting for Trump, using really angry, expletive-laden rhetoric instead of calm, rational arguments, and generally just ranting as opposed to making insightful comments, the perception of this sub and the MRM in general would be different. Yes, I am saying that. Yea, I whole heartedly disagree with that. I think it would make for a better sub, sure, …
/r/MensRights08/10/16 12:39 AM
2

I mean, for all the people sort of mitigating this behavior, if you just switched the genders, it's likely people would call that domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 11:53 PM
5

but one still has to acknowledge that some users here really do feed those stereotypes. Wait, back up here. You're telling me that if no such stereotypes were represented here, these people banning would cease to do so? Like if MRAs just tone policed themselves better, feminists and their allies would totes be more welcoming? Instead of, I don't know, totally just elevating some other tangential group that openly says they're not MRA as though they were MRA in order to delegitimize and ban MRAs …
/r/MensRights07/10/16 11:45 PM
2

Well, everything everyone said and also the ability to whine that they have no such privilege to obtain more. It's like this awesome meta-privilege they have.
/r/MensRights01/10/16 02:12 AM
1

The article specifically cites an HBR study that says that women control 51.3 percent of wealth in America.
/r/TheRedPill27/09/16 10:31 PM
1

It doesn't matter what "you accept" when you argue that there's no additional value to our ability to assess the veracity of a claim after the sole example you've given to prove you claim has been DISPROVED. That's a ridiculous logical paradigm to have.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 01:24 AM
1

Bayes is inductive logic. It is literally an inductive logic system. Taking into account Bayesian probability factors can literally have no deductive value. Who cares? You saying that it has "no deductive truth value" means nothing relative to the fact that you putting forth an example that has been DISPROVED DOES give us valuable information as to whether your claim is probably true or not. Literally does not matter whether anything is "Deductive" or "Inductive" relative to determining the vera…
/r/MensRights24/09/16 11:42 PM
1

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that proving Neptune isn't made of green cheese does not disprove and can have no deductive truth value on the claim "some planets are made of green cheese" on its own. Again, YES it does. It shows that Neptune isn't made of green cheese which furthers the possibility that planets ARE NOT made of green cheese. In other words, it makes your initial claim more unlikely than had you not even brought UP the example. This is Bayes Theorem in action, literally logic…
/r/MensRights24/09/16 11:35 PM
1

An obvious corollary to the above is that they need less government aid, since they are, on average, richer. Based on the fact that women control the majority wealth in this country? Weird definition of "poor", eh?
/r/TheRedPill24/09/16 11:26 PM
1

the reason why women receive a disproportionate amount of tax dollars is because they are the ones who typically raise children. And also don't die. Medicare and Social Security don't go to children, last I checked. We're reallly ok with men dying. We're not ok with women dying.
/r/TheRedPill24/09/16 11:23 PM
1

No, it's because men die earlier and don't use healthcare nearly as much -- which we don't mind (we don't even have a men's department of health while we have numerous federal programs for women) because, heck, dead men who weren't being productive don't cost anything and are a net benefit if they're dead. Source: I'm a physician, and yea, I can show you the stats on male healthcare costing nearly as much, and yes, you could easily find this data on your own.
/r/TheRedPill24/09/16 11:18 PM
1

He implies that the same holds true for the USA. So I provided the numbers, proving that it really doesn't. So...using your data, men pay 1.72 dollars for every 1 dollar women pay in tax. They pay 72 percent more in tax. In the US. This somehow disproves a NZ/USA similarity? I'd be willing to bet that despite that, women receive more in social spending that comes FROM those taxes. In fact, let's see. The two biggest domestic spending programs in the US are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. …
/r/TheRedPill24/09/16 11:06 PM
3

In short, attacking the example never works. It's always a fallacy. Uh no yo, you don't get the presumption of veracity when YOU make the initial claim. That's even more true when you haven't proven it with any real life example, and more more true when the major one you have submitted has been disproven. Literally logic 101. Like no, it's not a "quite prominent possibility that some of the other seven planets were made of green cheese" if the only example I've named isn't, you know, made of gre…
/r/MensRights24/09/16 10:19 PM
4

Yea, so me saying "my argument is that planets are made of green cheese, like Neptune and others" and someone shows that Neptune is NOT made of green cheese, that's no biggie to my argument in your insane logical system. Sounds about right. Amusing.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 10:05 PM
5

Nah I just personally never give a shit when someone takes a decorative straw out of my hay bail When you're citing someone as a bonafide example of a general point, and said example is proved to be false, that ain't straw, yo.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 09:58 PM
7

Much like RooshV and other PUA-types who are also MRAs Uh, RooshV isn't an MRA -- he's literally openly said he's not one. The "other PUA-types" I'm not sure are true as you haven't named them. In other words, no, there's no equivalence on that point given your examples.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 10:40 PM
8

And the response from the feminist is, naturally, crickets.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 10:38 PM
2

You've chosen NOW as a representation of feminism over the individual feminists you know who aren't anti-MRM. Right, but your argument of "everything is arbitrary" aside, it's a reasonable choice. Asserting that, say, there's some equivalence between feminism (with its sway within politics -- the President is openly feminist -- academia -- entire departments are dedicated to it -- and overall culture) and MRM (for which this subreddit is one of the largest gatherings on planet earth) is a far mo…
/r/MensRights23/09/16 10:38 PM
1

and then write articles wondering where all the men went.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 11:02 PM
3

I say this every time articles like these happen: The only time society starts caring about men's issues is when it realizes that its taxable base (men) are starting to not be as taxable as before. Because honestly, who will pay for things women want if not men?
/r/MensRights22/09/16 10:48 PM
1

Honest to god I think it's simply because women in mid-20's, particularly those who are educated enough to even understand "SJW" rhetoric and engage see fewer dateable/marriagable/useful men around them, and it probably sort of freaks them out for the future. This generation of women came through colleges where there were probably 2 men to every 3 women (or worse) -- it's likely they don't even get to interact with enough men to hate on them the way some of these feminists want them to. A sizeab…
/r/MensRights14/09/16 10:37 PM
49

Yep. Also, equality. Hashtag Feminism.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 08:14 PM
2

My point is simply that your default should be the negative until proof of the positive. That's pretty much how science and empirical rationalism works. Our justice system is based off of that.
/r/MensRights09/09/16 11:07 PM
-1

So...yea like I said. The Nazis, who controlled all of society under the threat of summary execution, weren't all about Christ. Thanks, history, for teaching us that. Also, try to keep up.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 11:24 PM
1

This sub is OK with it, so long as the accuser is male and the accused is female. Yea, because that happens like constantly enough to make a statement like that. Oh wait.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 11:00 PM
-1

Pretty sure the Nazis weren't all about Christ.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 10:56 PM
2

It's the absolute best way to dehumanize a group you don't like. Why else do you think the Jim Crow South literally used rape specifically to motivate many of its lynch mobs?
/r/MensRights08/09/16 10:55 PM
1

usually for when there's simply no evidence that something occurred. Yes. Hence we can't really say aliens didn't visit earth, or that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus Christ didn't die for our sins, because none have been proven to be false. ... Yea.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 10:49 PM
6

The Japanese actually have a word for this phenomenon: Kenjataimu.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 10:23 PM
4

What's actually noteworthy and fascinating is that LD's perception of what ODB was thinking (i.e. "this chick isn't attractive to me so I'm gonna continue browsing instagram and ignore her as a sub-human animal that doesn't deserve my attention) is actually projection of what most women think when there's some random unattractive guy sitting next to them at a party. That's why she thinks ODB was thinking that -- when it's possible ODB didn't even notice she was there -- because it's a natural fe…
/r/TheRedPill05/09/16 01:29 AM
1

Of course they lied about gender issues. It's as part of Vox's MO as them being liberal.
/r/MensRights04/09/16 03:36 PM
0

What's strange is that I seriously suspect that if, after this incident, Brock jumped into a vehicle and then was found by police THERE, had he refused a breathalyzer test they likely would have booked him for a DUI (merely sitting in the seat looking drunk is usually enough) as well. In other words, there's some weird line where we say a male (and it's most often a male since we loathe to hold women accountable for rape like this) is totally not intoxicated and thus can be a rapist, but SIMULTA…
/r/MensRights04/09/16 12:58 AM
5

Dudes can take a BC pill, IUD, or a patch? News to me! Please, source? Oh wait. You're asking dudes to hand over their respective futures to a woman who may or may not make a unilateral bad decision, and then lambasting those who urge caution. Yea, we're the ones who are retards in this scenario. /s Edit: Downvotes don't negotiate away your retarded logic.
/r/TheRedPill03/09/16 12:13 AM
16

People here actually believe women are trying to trap them. Uh, OR what we're really trying to say is that the state will hold you accountable for a bad decision a woman UNILATERALLY makes and you're shit up a creek under the penalty of jail (or even death if the police shoot you) if that happens. But nice strawman regardless. It almost sounds plausible. Almost. Sure, the "LTR's" are awesome. But you're still utterly fucked if a woman decides to stop taking her BC and you engage doing, wait, how…
/r/TheRedPill03/09/16 12:13 AM
14

Or that plenty of them do precisely that. As a physician who deals with genetics, I'm pretty sure I see far more of that than you can even conceive of (pun intended). Though I should just tell distraught non-genetic carrier fathers who are made aware of their non-paternity of their 8 year old kid's autosomal recessive disease that their angst is "anger phase hamstering". Outta work.
/r/TheRedPill03/09/16 12:11 AM
0

Are Women boring as hell or is it me? It's not you. You're welcome. -V
/r/TheRedPill02/09/16 10:43 PM
19

LOL at this retarded tripe. To wit, guy says: infidelity, and women who are unfit to be wives and mothers. and you say: you don't have to be in TRP mode every fucking second. just after: No condom usually. Yea. People should totally take advice from you.
/r/TheRedPill02/09/16 10:40 PM
1

People ALWAYS forget this part of it. Not only can women abort, but they actually DO have a way to give up maternity if they just feel like doing so at a fire station, or whatever.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 02:51 AM
1

And what? Steve Sailer and Reason were first. Not the WaPo. No matter how many times you want to downvote me for saying that.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 12:55 AM
0

In other words, yea, after Steve Sailer and Reason did.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 12:07 AM
3

Uh, you mean after Steve Sailer and Reason did?
/r/MensRights29/08/16 11:24 PM
1

Pre-freaking-cisely.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 11:23 PM
6

It takes two to tango, and two to fuck. It's not a false equivalence, you have to back that incorrect assertion. I'll repeat for you what I've said in numerous other comments when someone tries the idiotic "it takes two to tango" routine: No, there's no "tango equivalence" when one party has something like 11 more different forms of birth control including and up to unilateral termination of the pregnancy. I hate this retarded false equivalence. In other words, try again. And if we can have a de…
/r/TheRedPill28/08/16 10:43 PM
5

Bias of, uh, what exactly? You do realize that abortion is an option only given to women unilaterally and she chose not to use it, right? Or are you going full feminist "women have no agency when bad stuff happens to them despite them unilaterally choosing to end up in the shit they're in" mode?
/r/TheRedPill28/08/16 09:40 PM
8

Seems kinda hypocritical, yes? No. It's a retarded false equivalence. She has multiple ways and means of avoiding her situation INCLUSIVE of avoiding having sex. He basically has 1/10th of those options. So if you want to parcel blame out, fine, parcel out 1/10th of it to him. Yet, if you read these comments, a good 30 percent or so (so above and beyond what would even be reasonable) are mewling about how unfair it is that we blame her for stuff but not him like totes because waaaah for her. Giv…
/r/TheRedPill28/08/16 09:37 PM
14

When two people have sex, even if they think they're taking every precaution, they are both equally culpable and responsible for the creation of that child. No, they're not when one party has something like 11 more different forms of birth control including and up to unilateral termination of the pregnancy. I hate this retarded false equivalence.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/16 07:54 PM
6

then they absolve the father of all responsibility. The entire state apparatus and mainstream media would pin the blame on this guy while giving this woman every out in the book. If you need your fill of that, merely hop on to virtually any website or read about extant family law.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/16 07:53 PM
12

Where's his responsibility in creating this situation? I know, right? At the very least, he should have aborted the child. His body, His choice. You know how it goes. Wait, did I mess something up there? /s
/r/TheRedPill28/08/16 07:50 PM
0

There are PLENTY of "largely accepted norms" that feminists agitate against. So I'm unclear why "this one" suddenly merits a collective yawn. Oh wait, I know precisely why. This one affects (and often hurts) boys, not girls. So, "yawn", say the feminists.
/r/MensRights26/08/16 10:19 PM
2

Their definition of respect means non-violent behavior. Uh, except when random bystander men are asked to be violent to intervene for catcalling or something. Then men should be violent on their behalf. At its core, feminism is basically a goddess cult that asks for worship of and devotion to its members for merely existing but doing so using modern terms ("respect", "empower", "empathize", etc.). Note that these terms are never used positively for out-group non-cult people.
/r/MensRights24/08/16 02:53 PM
13

Remember that uber guy who was attacked by that small indian girl in miami? He basically had to abandon his vehicle because she got in and started hitting him (and then she proceeded to throw his entire lot of possessions out the window in broad view of everyone). In other words, he basically ran away -- and if he didn't, he would have been arrested, and I doubt she would have been censured or lost her job. http://anjaliramkissoon.org/
/r/TheRedPill24/08/16 01:52 AM
6

Just replace women and men with "whites" and "blacks" whenever anyone does this to you. The statistics will almost always still hold, but they'll start squirming and start changing the subject to their cats or something. To wit, your response would be "Oh totally. Wait, so let me try too. Ok, so I looked up the stats but on race -- who most commonly robs, attacks, and/or murders whites and blacks? Blacks. Did I use your principles correctly?" These people care IMMENSELY about not being viewed as…
/r/MensRights22/08/16 11:36 PM
1

Again, family courts never decide things in the best interests of the child. They decide things in the best interests of the mother. Basically "whatever woman wants she should get" is the guiding mantra. Unsurprisingly, that also happens to be the guiding mantra of modern feminism as well.
/r/MensRights20/08/16 06:25 PM
2

Working class men. Actually pretty much any group with an income below middle middle class is going to on average receive more from the state than they pay in. Even middle middle class is getting a bit iffy. Wait, you're misunderstanding the point. A "working class male" demographic isn't going to ALSO control the most wealth relative to, say, "non working class" people over all (almost by definition), even if they're receiving "net taxes" (which they actually don't in case anyone was still read…
/r/MensRights20/08/16 12:29 AM
2

What we CAN do, however, is note that despite such data in NZ, their government solely focuses on the wage gap with nary a peep about the above. In other words, they act precisely like the US government on the matter, so it's far less risky to conclude that similar forces are at work here.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:38 AM
3

Unless you are going to suggest taxing wealth rather than income that is not a non sequitur. Sure it is. It has nothing to do with the point that women control the vast majority of wealth WHILE RECEIVING net tax payouts and working less. Sure a wealth tax might solve the problem, but that's not relevant to what's occurring CURRENTLY. In other words, it stands in contradiction to your line that "People with higher income pay more tax. This is usualy considered better than the alturnatives.". No, …
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:31 AM
5

Non sequitur. You've got a proportion of the population that controls the most wealth while working less AND receiving a net gain in taxable receipts. That's almost literally aristocratic/oligarchic. In every other demographic that I can think of, people with more wealth tend to ALSO pay more in taxes in absolute terms. Except women (who, "coincidentally", of course, also control the voting electorate).
/r/MensRights19/08/16 01:56 AM
4

Errr, except that women also control the majority of wealth WHILE working less AND getting a positive net tax benefit. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100865295 But a 2009 study in the Harvard Business Review said women controlled 51.3 percent of wealth in America. One could argue they're doing better in literally every way.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 01:24 AM
7

What about "patriarchy" and "feminism"? What do we call those? ... Oh wait. Those are ok, right?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 01:08 AM
4

You know, after all those decades of tilting the scales the other way: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/affirmative-action-white-women_us_56a0ef6ae4b0d8cc1098d3a5
/r/MensRights17/08/16 01:09 AM
1

I don't think one could reasonably state a criteria or threshold that would work for everybody. Sure they could. If the majority of an ideology's dogmatic assertions isn't what you favor, then it's misleading to say you support that ideology with "conditions" because those "conditions" remove, definitionally, more of that ideology than is left behind. To wit: you cannot argue you "conditionally support Nazism" because you support patriotism but do not support racial superiority, homogeneity, war…
/r/MensRights15/08/16 09:43 PM
2

What's really bizarre, however, is that plenty of liberals will sexually select for stereotypically white people. In particular, liberal women.
/r/MensRights15/08/16 09:26 PM
9

If that doesn't demonstrate the empathy gap, pretty much nothing will. You can literally shoot a male baby in the head in his mother's arms BECAUSE HE'S MALE and it garners less press from a gendered standpoint than a woman, say, being catcalled on the streets of NYC.
/r/MensRights15/08/16 09:22 PM
1

Ah modern feminism trying desperately to hang on to the moral ground when the data show they never had it in the first place. Naturally their response is to go full blown hateful of not just men, but BOYS. Because why not attack children when you're allowed to be the only openly bigoted ideology in the Western world?
/r/MensRights15/08/16 09:13 PM
1

Yea, but the argument is to what extent do those ideologies do the things you approve of relative to the things you don't. Otherwise one could find virtually any ideology that's not openly hateful (and none that really exist in the public sphere are stupid enough to conspicuously admit to such aims) as worthy of "conditional" support, even if in practice it's openly hateful a plurality of the time (but totally not in theory).
/r/MensRights15/08/16 09:10 PM
1

I mean I get the desire to view an "a la carte" approach to the largest feminist organization in the country as being legitimate, but using that logic, we'd allow people to not disavow the Ku Klux Klan because they were in favor of the KKK's policy at one point of better public schools and roads for poor people. And, yes, we'd ALL be feminists back in 1950 because feminist policy was almost synonymous with theoretical egalitarian policy. It's not even remotely the same now. As I've pointed out i…
/r/MensRights14/08/16 11:44 PM
1

I'm glad to have the resource for use with the feminists I know who aren't It's tough to be a card carrying feminist after reading OP's link. You'd pretty much have to repudiate the national organization for women or ignore the data in OP's link. And I've actually never found a modern feminist who would openly do the first.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 10:27 PM
3

Also very relevant: http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/12/993.full it was observed that divorced and separated men were nearly 2.4 times more likely to kill themselves than their married counterparts. After taking into account other factors that have been reported to contribute to suicide, divorced men still experienced much increased risks of suicide than divorced women. They were nearly 9.7 times more likely to kill themselves than comparable divorced women And then, if you're considering marriage…
/r/MensRights14/08/16 10:14 PM
3

so it can't be dismissed on those grounds. It's reporting factual data that shows that men are likely to be shafted, so it will be dismissed on those grounds by any feminist leaning person who is invested in keeping the status quo in this arena.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 10:12 PM
1

Are men incapable of simply calling out other men? When virtually everyone basically solely does that in the gender space? Uh, we don't need to. We've got feminists like you to call boys potential killers and rapists. It's always "everyone" and "people" and "society" and "women". Weird, replace "women" with "men" and you've got the last half century of feminist thought -- thought that's basically permeated academia and state policy.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 09:01 PM
1

I'm not. I'm more irritated that everyone in power is okay with men killing each other in wars, and those people in power on our side are elected by a virtual supermajority of women.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 04:55 PM
2

Stop trying to make men's apathy towards each other the fault of women. Yea, it's not our societal obsession with how virtuous women are, often implicitly used as the foundation of laws to protect women more so than men, that has anything to do with it. Naaaaah. It's just "apathy" and stuff.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 01:27 AM
1

I'm clearly asking that you acknowledge male on male crime the same way you acknowledge female on male. We've got bigoted feminists doing that constantly. And society at large. I think we're set.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 01:23 AM
1

Most of the time I see women comforting men more than other men do. Uh, in what world? Literally a recent study was released that showed that your inane representations of the stereotyped man isn't true. And no, I'm not a feminist. If it walks and quacks like a duck...
/r/MensRights14/08/16 01:22 AM
1

Most violence has never been black on black if you look at world history. World History? If you look at "world history", the vast majority of men were sent off to war and be killed by an aristocracy, plenty of which was influenced by aristocratic men and women. The vast majority of women were not.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 01:20 AM
8

Men kill men. Men seriously injure men. Men rape men. Men tell other men to "man up". Don't feminists literally talk about this ad nauseum in their quest to delegitimize plenty of things that would help suffering men? Why not go there?
/r/MensRights14/08/16 01:16 AM
6

I don't think that's how most of those posts are meant to be taken. Those posts are meant to force the other side (generally feminists and/or women) to deal with the rules they enforce on everyone else to demonstrate the absurdity of those rules.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:54 PM
5

Seems like it's impossible to find a woman or a government or a society who cares about you, a man, as a human being instead of someone to exploit for economic gain. FTFY.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:52 PM
2

it still happens frequently. Frequently relative to what precisely?
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:45 PM
1

That makes more sense re-reading your comment.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 09:52 PM
5

I'm not sure why she gets a free pass on that one. Because she's a feminist and society always lets them do and say things that are unbelievably bigoted in any other context.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 09:26 PM
0

You mean avoid going insane on the one time that one white guy did something while we tolerate the multiple times those other non white dudes do the same thing? Yea, I agree.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 09:10 PM
1

That's a little weird to me, because it's very much material to how native men are treated in the West for rape versus the way other men are treated for the same crime by society at large. In other words, it's absurdly relevant to why society goes nuts on a particular male kid who is accused of rape (who then kills himself). AND it's being done by some feminists, one of the primary unified antagonists of Men's Rights as a whole.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 09:07 PM
2

And it does happen often in the West that a man kills his wife for adultery and the court is leniant with him. Yea, it's not remotely in the same ball park as honor killings and stoning for adultery in Pakistan. Like literally not even close. Seriously, do you make absurdly false equivalences only here, or all the time?
/r/MensRights12/08/16 12:54 AM
1

I'm certain that far more organizations have attested to the rape culture that exists in white society, like on college campuses. Yeeaaah. Totally no difference between Pakistan and a random college campus. Honor killings, stoning for adultery, etc, all the same. Also, mattress girl and her ilk are the same as a Human Rights Commission. You're amusing.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 12:18 AM
1

Non of the immigrants are from Pakistan, except in the UK. Uh...again, the people in the story are. Again. And most Pakistanis living in the UK were born there and have never been to these "areas". Yea, you're gonna have to cite that. If a Pakistani feminist movement claims rape is state sanctioned, that doesn't mean it literally is. Or other NGO's or Human Rights Organizations.. Nah. We'll just take your retarded word for all of it instead of those groups.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 10:11 PM
1

Pakistan, perhaps? Which is precisely where these guys come from? You trying to be intentionally obtuse?
/r/MensRights11/08/16 09:44 PM
1

If a Muslim migrant man from a Third world country assaults a woman, it suggests an entire 'rape culture' that needs to be addressed. Uh, when they come from areas where it's actual state policy to allow forms of violent rape with impunity? Yeah, he's coming from a rape culture. But when white guys in their own country assault women in droves, and by assault we mean an interaction which we've now defined as loosely as possible without any need for overt evidence specifically when trying to crimi…
/r/MensRights11/08/16 09:40 PM
14

Condescendingly feminist movies losing money? Uh yea, pretty nice victory there.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 01:00 AM
2

I said it reinforces negative stereotypes, since that was your question. And I don't think policies aimed at correcting stereotypes reinforce them. That's an inane argument. It's like saying that having policies aimed at helping inner city young minority kids do well reinforces that they suck. So, uh, try again. And if men want custody that bad, they should go ask for it. We should tell that to black people in a court room too. Why aren't they just paying these lawyers and winning when they're i…
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:47 PM
2

both men and women negatively Women having quotas for them isn't a "negative" policy. That's my point. Men are less likely to actually ask for custody, making them less likely to get it as well. In many instances, it's tantamount to resource poor black people not contesting a plea because they know they'll likely lose even if they were innocent.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:35 PM
2

That they don't work as much and cannot provide for themselves? Hence, they get a million dollars and become queens of their domain, or whatever. No, that's not "enforcing a stereotype", that's giving them absurd amounts of power merely because of their identity. No, trying to CORRECT stereotypes isn't the same as ENFORCING them, unless you're literally attempting to create a status of forever victimhood for that group even when they're benefitting from it, which you might be doing. A state enfo…
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:18 PM
4

LOL wait -- you're saying that GIVING women benefits to counteract those stereotypes is the SAME THING as playing into those stereotypes? Tomorrow you'll be saying that if we gave every women a million dollars to counteract the mythical wage gap, that's re-inforcing female stereotypes. Ah feminist logic.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:10 PM
2

When it comes to drooling over the opposite sex, men and women are different. Then let the CBC write articles about youthful politicians and how hot they are in equal measure.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:04 PM
1

Really? That stereotype about women is enforced via STATE OR INSTITUTIONAL policy and measures?
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:02 PM
3

Well men who murder their wives tend to be a bit too common for anyone to care about. But they're certainly not given sympathetic ears by world famous media publications.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 04:01 PM
5

It's more scary when institutional policy and state policy enforces a negative view about gender. I wonder which gender gets the shaft for that?
/r/MensRights07/08/16 03:59 PM
5

How hard is it for people to understand the above?
/r/MensRights07/08/16 03:57 PM
0

Yea, but you waxed on and on about a reductio ad absurdum scenario when the person to whom you're responding literally is not talking about abusive relationships in which the abusive spouse is going to kill you for leaving or whatever. S/he's talking about those instances in which someone feels the social pressure or doesn't have the stones to merely say they want to eat a burrito tonight instead of going to a fancy restaurant like their partner, etc. It's like someone saying that it's ok to use…
/r/TheRedPill06/08/16 03:10 AM
1

Now, I'm not saying this applies to generally shitty relationships. But you basically are doing that.
/r/TheRedPill05/08/16 11:08 PM
2

You can look at what happened in each state when no fault divorce was instituted.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 11:06 PM
1

men leaving marriages despite the best effort of their spouses isn't exactly unheard of. Most of those men aren't rewarded financially and custodially when doing so. That's a massive difference.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 12:36 AM
1

To men. Not to privileged white women who usually get pretty much whatever they want in life, while simultaneously whining about how they're not.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/16 06:09 PM
2

Yea, I saw that line too -- like the "decision about it not working" is basically code for "I want to decide, not the guy. He should be all in because I'm smart and awesome and the best because I'm me."
/r/TheRedPill30/07/16 06:04 PM
2

"My girlfriends and I were top students, scientists, artists, and leaders." Why do feminists always need to write retardedly arrogant sentences like these? Like, uh ok, if you said it it MUST be true.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/16 01:48 PM
1

Sort of, but the fact that the state basically supports one form of "nature" while vilifying another is what gives women immense power to "have fun" the way they do. To wit, you also wouldn't argue that a man who finds that his wife was a whore without telling him to physically intimidate/beat the living daylights out of her. Because that too is "nature". Or for the strongest men to rape a woman that catches his fancy during war. Because that too, would be "nature". Yet we ALWAYS argue against m…
/r/TheRedPill30/07/16 12:53 PM
2

But what you cant argue is that women should not be allowed to like sex. Hell tell me if you were given the choice to have sex with different hb10s everyday for a week, would you not do it? (considering youre single) Men and women are different. Your argument is inane.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/16 12:31 AM
1

The difference between me and a female settling down is that myself, I'd date up above my usual standards and treat my LTR more gallantly than all my previous ONS/plates. Plus my sexual value peaks when I get older. The women on the other hand, they date down due to them losing sexual value so they have to compromise and marry that hapless beta 'nice-guy', the kind whom she would've ignored or told to "fuck off" during her youth whilst sucking some alpha-cock that treated her nothing more than a…
/r/TheRedPill30/07/16 12:24 AM
3

Or it clarifies a retardedly un-nuanced statement that bears no resemblance to what happens in practice. So, uh, try again. This time with more swear words, plz.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 10:29 PM
7

"Gotta crack a few eggs on the way to utopia." -Modern Feminists
/r/MensRights29/07/16 10:24 PM
1

They are...in extremely rare circumstances, and those who aren't get off with very little fanfare, sometimes to do so again. FTFY.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 10:22 PM
2

And I've known several female initiated divorces by stay at home moms who had rich husbands working the employment part and nannies doing the childcare and house part STILL obtain cash and prizes and custody afterwards. In other words, women often divorce merely when they feel unhappy regardless of the work husbands (or nannies!) put in.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 12:43 AM
2

Uh, because it's referencing a study?
/r/MensRights29/07/16 12:38 AM
4

The reason is almost always justified as in the child's best interest. Errrr....except when, say, a woman conceives without any male partner at a sperm bank. Then a father's money/time isn't required for the "child's best interest" -- it's totally ok legally to conceive regardless of how much money the mother may or may not have without any paternal assist, if that's what she wants. Or....except when, say, the child support is paid to the mother. Then there's no mandatory ruling that says it mus…
/r/MensRights29/07/16 12:16 AM
2

Like, why is child support enforced so enthusiastically but visitation orders are rarely enforced at all? Because that's not what women want. If you simply take family law and think "what would women want", generally that's what happens.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 12:14 AM
5

Women are not responsible for men anything. FTFY. NOW you've got the feminist mantra correct.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 12:26 AM
8

Does everything need to be made into a political point? When you cede society to feminists, yeah.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:54 PM
2

The only time such things are not allowed is if it's done to girls. Then it requires a UN Convention and possible laws against it. But when it's done to boys it's "not new, and sometimes is done for fun", as I've learned on this comment chain. Weird how clarity and nuance are achieved the moment we reverse gender and consider women aggressors and men their victims. Just so weird. I wonder if this sort of thinking helps to explain other issues in society? Nah...
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:53 PM
2

This is the kind of thinking that allows people to criticize the MRM. So...when feminists and women basically call an action "cyberbullying" which requires a UN mandate to address, but then call those same actions "roasting" when done on a male, we should play along, otherwise WE'LL be criticized? Uh, what? You realize that permitting them to do that is precisely why feminism and SJW's have power in the first place, right?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:47 PM
1

This is the point. It's so orwellian when people who basically screech about "equality" say things are ok to do to one group because it's arbitrarily "different".
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:44 PM
9

Elon deserves everything he gets if he does this again. It's on him.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:42 PM
-1

How on god's green earth did 200 comments get posted about this on TRP, and no one made the most obvious prediction: They will make it a crime for men to use this once it hits that "inflection" point of beta male en masse drop out. If I had to guess, it'd be by the classic extension of the definition of rape/sexual assault (i.e. "when men have sex with sex bots that are quasi-sentient, that makes him either a rapist on the spot or more likely to rape other women so he must be stopped"). Watch fo…
/r/TheRedPill24/07/16 09:44 PM
1

I actually believe the best way to block such an accusation is to counter accuse, foisting some burden (and garnering some of the victim based privileges) onto the accuser.
/r/TheRedPill23/07/16 05:50 PM
14

The math grades don't show the same gap at all. Which, of course, means women are being discriminated against, because they're not doing better. Hashtag modern feminism.
/r/TheRedPill23/07/16 05:43 PM
3

Posted because of this line, under the "Attack Targeted the Young": Three of the victims were 14, two were 15, one was 17 and another 19, while a 20-year-old and a 45-year-old were also killed. Three were female. Soooo....double that were male? No need to point out gender for those 6 because it's not relevant when it's men who die in an attack. I'm sure they'd say, to my objection, that it's "obvious" the other 6 were male, so chill, broski, no harm no foul. Right? Strangely, though, for those f…
/r/MensRights23/07/16 05:13 PM
3

Obviously. Men having rights is an anathema to most openly feminist people. That would require them to acknowledge some form of female privilege, and that goes against their faith.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 08:30 PM
1

That's a ridiculous comparison -- murders actually involve a dead body. You wouldn't "estimate" a murder without one. Rape is based on an action (sex) that's done so frequently every day, but requires extraordinarily good adjudication processes to conclude that it actually happened. There's no such evidence like a dead body to use the same method that one, say, uses for murders. Let alone one that results in numbers so astonishing (and coincidentally so pro-feminist) that POLICY is being made on…
/r/MensRights19/07/16 12:17 AM
2

Again, there's literally no way to say a rape has occurred without the adjudication process happening that DEFINES it as rape. That's like saying 95 percent of felons are never convicted as felons. Uh, how'd you figure out they were felons in the first place? I haven't called anyone inane; I don't need to result to ad hominem attacks to make my point. It's not ad hominem to point out a severe logical fallacy with your point.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 12:00 AM
1

Frankly, I find it a little weird to consider any crime over enforced when 95+% of the perpetrators never face jail, especially when the victim knows the perpetrator in the vast majority of crimes. But maybe that's just my inanity acting up again. It's even weirder when someone assumes that any and all claims of rape are true (without the adjudication process required to say someone was a "perpetrator of rape") to get that 95% number. But maybe that's just our inanity acting up again.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 10:21 PM
12

They still believe in the zero-sum world wherein, if “illigal” immigrants “take all the jobs”, middle-class white people will starve. Or, like say, in Europe, those silly middle-class white people still believe in a zero-sum world wherein if "illigal" imMIGRANTS enter, they might be shot, blown up, or run over by a truck while being shot at some later date. Silly backwards middle-class white people not understanding "trans-malthusian economics" in which their fears are utterly unjustified. ... O…
/r/TheRedPill16/07/16 06:34 PM
7

While I found your post to be an entertaining read, this line (oft repeated by my "G2" friends, I suppose) constantly annoys me because it belies an almost convenient and sudden lack of analysis amongst people who are often extraordinarily detailed and analytical: European social democracies have also managed to create hybrid systems that combine the safety and infrastructure of socialism with the innovation and individual liberty of capitalism: the best of both worlds. To wit: The reason they c…
/r/TheRedPill16/07/16 06:23 PM
52

So, in summary, based on this: Woman calls woman "bitch"? Not criminal Woman calls man "cockface" or "dick"? Not criminal Woman says all men should die and all boys should be castrated? Not Criminal Man winks at a woman, but woman doesn't like it? Possible hate crime If confused, consult "1984" or "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 08:39 PM
3

Wait, the Bahamian government had to say that if you're confronted by police in another nation, you shouldn't be "confrontational" and should be "cooperative"? Isn't that the default for how one should act? What exactly was the recommendation PRIOR to recent events?
/r/MensRights10/07/16 03:39 PM
1

Or I can but you're intentionally being obtuse. "Try not to tone police just one side of the debate" was pretty simple to understand. Definitely move on.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 03:16 PM
1

Barring Milo is not a Title IX violation, but even if it was, they would still have the choice of if they wanted to lose the funding or not. No one is suggesting Title IX is why they banned Milo. In fact, the reason why they're doing that is because he's politically on the wrong side of the fence. But the idea that they're "not public" and therefore can make complete decision with autonomy while the government has an insane amount of control is being intentionally obtuse.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 02:16 PM
1

No, you're adopting the position that "private universities can choose whatever they want" independent of the politics of the situation when literally that's not remotely true for a swath of policies.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 01:53 PM
1

Making decisions under duress from the largest and most powerful institution on planet earth isn't exactly a "decision". That's sort of like saying that you're free to have a choice once the Mafia begins to extort you.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 01:31 PM
2

It's quite a bit different at a private university, though. Sort of. The government has no problems forcing institutions to do its bidding, private or not, via Title IX and sexual assault (to wit, they're indirectly "forcing" all schools that receive public funding to comply, which basically includes most private schools as well). Strange how "private" status doesn't exempt one from that treatment.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 01:20 PM
1

I'm actually fine with them allowing what I referenced, so long as they allow EVERYONE to say things like that. Identity politics, and "which group you like" ideologies shouldn't drive who gets to speak, PARTICULARLY on college campuses.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 12:22 PM
1

Free speech laws apply to the government not being able to jail people for what they say. So while I overall support the ability for people to say what they want, I recognize that universities have a right to deny speakers that don't meet their standards. He should have said that he wanted to kill all men, that white people are fascists, and that Israel is committing genocide on civilians. Then he might have gotten funding from the student body, and perhaps even a spot on their diversity council…
/r/MensRights09/07/16 11:47 PM
1

While this felt very early in the relationship to be doing this, we agreed that she may not get this opportunity again and should at least show up. Uh, a woman won't get the opportunity to be gang-banged by 3 dudes in the future? Literally every hour a woman has that opportunity on a street corner.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/16 11:20 AM
4

a man's prime dating years are 25 to 35 This all depends on how you look to be honest. I look like I'm probably mid-20's ish despite being in my 30's, and I've pretty much sat on that sort of age looks wise for over a decade, but my professional status has made my success with women skyrocket. Likely because plenty of women who are older (28 ish) and think of me as young suddenly go "eyes wide" when they learn I'm actually older than them and thus, potentially am their beta buck provisioner land…
/r/TheRedPill09/07/16 11:17 AM
7

Because "Keep to yourself and don't rock the boat by explicitly stating your ideology" is how civil rights movements win.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 11:13 AM
2

There's more than enough sympathetic media (say, Breitbart, Milo, and other twitter feeds) that are public and have means to make a stir presently. That didn't used to be the case.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 11:12 AM
1

You should have a cross check to see if someone at your work who isn't entirely active on social media -- so no one knows their ideological leanings -- comes out as a feminist, is pro PC, and see what happens.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 11:10 AM
1

Meredith Perry is likely next.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/16 12:34 AM
3

He ain't starvin.' The vast majority of women in the West aren't either.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 11:19 PM
2

I mean, there's a reason why we say Don't get married on this sub repeatedly. Literally nothing he couldn't have gotten that he could via marriage. Except for the divorce rape, of course.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 11:19 PM
1

No, in college. Pre-med isn't a major. Edit: In other words, a double major in Econ and Computer Science is very possible (mathematical overlap for classes), while pre-med can often be efficiently squared away with the use of some college credit from AP classes.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/16 09:32 PM
1

I agree with you that openly defining an issue as "men's rights" won't get you a ton of traction yet. But the ACTUAL men's issues -- say of male suicide or viewing trivial bitching by feminists as being ridiculous -- is being received with far greater impact than it was in years past. To wit, I'm a professional, and when some female feminist topic comes up (say some female based professional group is meeting and we have only females and a few males, so the men have to pick up the slack while the…
/r/MensRights08/07/16 01:04 AM
10

Extremely key point, and likely salient for those new to the red pill, as they've self-selected themselves to be proxy activity hunters, since they're here for a reason. These proxy activities are almost crack and the newbie TRP'er's hamster is almost primed to respond to it. To wit, using your examples: "You're tired" is expanded to "You're tired, but if you read eleventy bajillion threads on reddit fitness, then you actually DID something, while in the meantime your abdominal pannus slowly sta…
/r/TheRedPill08/07/16 12:56 AM
22

A month later . . . . . . . . . several years of excuses later, he still hadn't started. As a physician who majored in economics and computer science (so I'm fairly financially savvy and have a fairly in depth experience to what you're speaking), I know far far far too many of these people. It's somewhat amusing as I'm dealing three orthogonal subjects that people often wish to know about (medicine, finance, coding) and altogether the sheer volume of motivated non-actors that approach me for hel…
/r/TheRedPill08/07/16 12:52 AM
6

That'll definitely help our small, struggling movement improve its reputation. I'd hardly call it a "small struggling movement". If anything, it's nascent as heck, and MRM ideology is leaking out into the mainstream.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 12:19 AM
1

Like I said, I think I'll go with Google's definition on this one. Particularly because it explains virtually everything feminism does in practice.
/r/MensRights07/07/16 11:44 PM
1

Well that very well may be true I just find it hard to believe someone who's lived a day on a college campus still doesn't know what feminism is. Lmao You should inform Google that their definition is wrong and that they haven't "lived a day on a college campus" then. I'm sure it'll go over well.
/r/MensRights07/07/16 11:36 PM
1

Are you educated? Apparently much more than you are.
/r/MensRights07/07/16 10:02 PM
1

The actual definition that google gives you is probably more vetted than your propaganda filled Gender 101 women's rights class. so there's that too.
/r/MensRights07/07/16 03:14 PM
6

The wedding after fucking around for 10 years? I suppose you could argue the Divorce 7 years from now, divorce rape, and remarriage to another alpha guy in his 50's might be equally "APEX".
/r/TheRedPill06/07/16 09:18 PM
3

If you're ever wondering why women do what they do at any given stage, just look at what is fashionable for them to do at that time within their peer group. That's literally how they determine what they do and like -- applying to what hobbies they have, to what music they like, to what activities they do, to yes, even when and how they get married and have children and divorce and go on feelz trips and bang the jamaican guy at the resort and watch Bravo and whatever.
/r/TheRedPill06/07/16 09:16 PM
2

I really don't understand why any man would continue to be with a woman who has cheated. Even fucking divorce rape is better than being with said woman.
/r/TheRedPill06/07/16 09:09 PM
0

Cases like that aren't relevant to the conversation. White women weren't better off than black men, period. Even in this day and age. So regardless, your logic is the height of retardedness. Your better off in a feminist theology sub where your faith in ridiculous narratives will be rewarded.
/r/MensRights05/07/16 01:31 AM
1

Peace. Like I said, don't let the intellectual door of logic hit you on the way out.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:32 PM
6

Or uh, I disagree that "all men had privilege over women" and that there's "no evidence to refute that". Thus, to you, a male black slave had power over the freaking Queen of England. Cause "man more power than women, durr hurr!" You literally have to be willfully obtuse to believe that. It's like you're quoting from a 1990's hackneyed feminist playbook.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:31 PM
1

Eh, I'd read your own posts to find the retardedness of your logic.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:29 PM
2

In other words, you're conflating the noble white dude with a black male slave. Yeah, there's nothing remotely at issue with that analysis, yo. Did you read my post or just that line? I'd wager you got to that and blew your stack and just couldn't wait to post more hateful bs. Honest to god, I'm not certain if you read your OWN posts before you post them.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:22 PM
2

Or I'm just quoting you and it's too easy to find the bankruptcy inherent in your words.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:21 PM
1

Sort of, but the idea that a spouse is making an absurd claim for resources and it's a WOMAN isn't exactly the height of coincidence.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:21 PM
8

However, all men had more rights and power than any woman. Totally man. Those black male slaves really dominated those aristocratic white women. What was I thinking? Try not to let the intellectual door hit you on the way out, "dipshit".
/r/MensRights04/07/16 10:41 PM
5

Dunno. You seem to be calling people with reasonable criticism about your word choice "dipshits" so that might be why you make rhetorical haters?
/r/MensRights04/07/16 10:40 PM
2

Or that I'm not a bigot trying be an utterly hypocritical ass on a men's rights board. There's that too.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 10:32 PM
1

Sure it is. It's an entitlement gap. The playing field has shifted to such an absurd degree that in any marital dispute, women believe that they're entitled to virtually EVERYTHING the man has earned (while banging some other guy simultaneously, of course). So, even if the ex husband received money from being MOLESTED AS A CHILD which he's going to give to OTHER child abuse victims, she'll STILL go after it because she believes that she's got a legal shot at it, since the law is THAT misandric.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 09:18 PM
3

Buuuut you support the current system where men aren't allowed to spend time with their child in a meaningful way, but have to pay for said child?
/r/MensRights04/07/16 09:12 PM
5

Men used to have all the power and it wasn't fair. Today, women have a bit too much power. A very toxic subset of females are taking advantage of that. Hilarious. "Men" generically in sentence one. In sentence two it's women having "a bit" too much power. And then in sentence three it's just a "subset" of toxic women taking advantage of said power. Generalities for one side. Nuanced, splitting, deflecting analysis for the other. Sounds about right.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 09:09 PM
7

Do you even read the articles on this sub? There are like eleventy billion of them which answer your question.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 09:07 PM
2

Huh? Isn't merely having sexual assault with an inebriated person the foundation of sexual assault/rape in the new world of "consent being impossible under the influence of drugs"? Particularly if you're ACKNOWLEDGING in an email that said individual could have been blacked out, and thus not consenting?
/r/MensRights03/07/16 12:30 AM
10

All those bullshit articles are framing nerds to be paragon of misogyny , to justify the invasions of nerd spaces. It's because there is now loads of money in the tech industry, and the gender ideologues (who may or may not believe their own words) want in by reclaiming diversity grants to solve a largely inexistant problem. Ding Ding Ding! Nobody would give a flying rat's behind about nerds and "misogyny" if fame and money weren't coming out of a decidedly nerdy industry.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/16 04:32 PM
2

You know that feminism means men are equal to women? Right? You know that feminism actually DOESN'T mean "men are equal to women"? Right? How 'bout you google it, read the definition SLOWLY, and then get back to us, k?
/r/MensRights01/07/16 10:02 PM
1

Says the shrieking feminist who argued that child support was so self-evidently about taking care of children en toto. No, it's really not in PLENTY of instances. It's not some tiny minority of cases. Though, might not wanna throw stones in a glass house while your own head is up your own ass talking about generalizations. Bound to cause damage, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 12:50 AM
2

Yep. Also look up: Percentage of wealth controlled by women Percentage of consumption by women It's uniquely absurd to consider the group that falls on the better end of those five points the "oppressed minority".
/r/MensRights30/06/16 03:40 AM
3

These facts, however, don't preclude discussion about some of the real issues American girls do have, This line is used to dismiss virtually every attempt to try to triage the discussion to a gender agnostic analysis of which gender actually needs help (and usually, that's because it's men, and we're going nuts talking about women). Like I get your point, but it's like focusing on a person who stubbed their toe over the guy who's bleeding out from a gunshot wound. Sure the treatments might "help…
/r/MensRights28/06/16 11:42 PM
2

And the NYT burying the lede yet again. It's almost comforting to see their bias so open at this point. Second to last sentence: “Girls are the good students now; boys are a mess.” But, of course, we're going to spend the first eleventy billion paragraphs talking about how girls are putatively having a "cognitive failure" induced by a single reading passage or question on the SAT's. Because we're the NYT, and that's what we do. Also, equality and liberal and other words that sound good.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 06:04 PM
15

We should be figuring out why girls are feeling anxious about school work No...we should be focusing on boys and wondering why they're overwhelmingly less likely to succeed in school in virtually everything instead of creating government programs about every trivial thing that putatively affects girls.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 06:02 PM
6

If you are unwilling to look for the reasons behind stastics and numbers you are being willfully ignorant. Again, willfully ignorant of what exactly? The study had a conclusion. You're bringing your point up as a MITIGATING circumstance because you don't enjoy the conclusion. Fine. Go prove that circumstance is true. But it's immaterial to the conclusion. In the same way, say, the reasons why men aren't in the home taking care of children (say, due to expectations to work) are immaterial to fami…
/r/MensRights28/06/16 12:55 PM
2

Or that you seem to have an unclear understanding of how child support works. By the way, I do enjoy the #notallmen reference. How dare some men ask to be considered as individuals outside of the feminist narrative, eh? Useless generalizations indeed! Feminists would be amusing if they weren't allowed to be so openly bigoted.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 12:50 PM
1

Write your local legislature! Where generally speaking women control the majority electorate, voting electorate, and feminists control the gender discourse both in academia and culturally. Yea, that outta work.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 12:47 PM
10

It isnt black and white all the time. What isn't black and white? Women spend less time at work than men. Period. That's the study's conclusion. Why women work less isn't material to that conclusion. That's like saying that a study which concludes that bacterial meningitis kills people isn't "black and white" because WHY people get it is through close living spaces. Uh, ok, but that's a different discussion, and immaterial to the conclusion.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:44 AM
1

Men will probably die a lot. Media however will either sweep it under or report it with little care. Then more men die. This is already true, particularly in feminist academia, so....
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:19 AM
9

I really hate that constitutional amendment that says that women have to go home to make dinner for their husbands. If only it never existed....
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:18 AM
15

I watch many of my woman co-workers leave work much more because there are husbands who don't step up. It may because his job is more demanding or priorities established within the family. Strangely, I watch many of my male friends leave home to go to a soul crushing job, despite wanting to hang with their children, much more because there are wives who don't step up. Oh wait, no one phrases it like that. Weird how that works, eh?
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:15 AM
14

And? How does that imply that women should get paid more for a job they're not doing at the margin? I'm a surgeon. That's like me leaving halfway through my surgery to pick up my kid, and you saying: "well, he should get paid for the whole thing cause he was going to see his child, so that's totes legitimate". Strangely, the above logic never seems to work. Also, if a child is born, it's because women CHOSE it. Abortion is legal in the US. Men have no reproductive rights in that arena, much of i…
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:14 AM
24

It's easier to play the victim card than game the system for maximum pay. To be fair, women playing the victim card is literally gaming the meta system of all things. And they're winning. To wit: Relative to men, women consume more, receive more social services, control more wealth, receive more healthcare, live longer, are better educated, control the voting majority, pay less taxes yet....created a situation in which we all focus on a wage gap when they work fewer hours, use more sick days, an…
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:05 AM
-1

Women value workplace happiness more than men do. Women also value consumption far more than men do. How we gonna make all that stuff, if no one's there to make it, women folk?
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:02 AM
27

Thankfully the courts mandate that child support be spent on the child and keep track in an exceedingly meticulous fashion, so you're totes right. Edit: Oh wait. They don't. They just hand it to the mother to do whatever she deems fit. Hmmmm.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 02:57 AM
1

Sure, just like rich people might have the "mindset" that life is tougher for them than poor people. Any "mindsets" that can be dismissed with less than 10 minutes of real world experience aren't "mindsets" that should be given credence.
/r/TheRedPill28/06/16 02:26 AM
2

I'm aware. That was my point. Is it harder in the workplace if you're a tall black dude? Yeah. Is it harder in the bar if you're a tall black dude? Not really.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/16 02:07 AM
3

I grew up in Chicago, so, uh, yea. Being black isn't a detriment to picking up chicks, particularly if you're tall and not morbidly obese. He's not a small asian guy at a bar. Try to keep up.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/16 02:05 AM
5

I seriously don't understand how a 6'2" early 20's black guy who wasn't morbidly obese actually thought his race was a DETRIMENT to picking up chicks until he worked out. Merely wandering into a bar with a diverse clientele and observing for 10 minutes would disabuse you of that notion. Edit: If he had said that working out allowed him to, say, get a PROMOTION at work, an accomplishment towards which he thought his race was a detriment, yeah, I'd be able to kind of see his point on that issue.
/r/TheRedPill26/06/16 10:08 PM
1

Obviously not. Because that would be racist and make asians and indians and jews in the US sound like they have a genetic advantage. And that's a no no, even for TRP.
/r/TheRedPill26/06/16 10:04 PM
7

Perhaps. Though posting on reddit is posting on reddit.
/r/TheRedPill26/06/16 09:59 PM
22

I've always wondered why TRP, Men's Rights don't basically just do THIS repeatedly as part of their schtick.
/r/TheRedPill26/06/16 04:49 PM
1

Don't they only define "rape" as being something men can perpetrate?
/r/MensRights25/06/16 09:41 PM
5

Yes. It's a foundational tenet of modern feminism.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 09:37 PM
27

What's amusing is that 35 years after this woman's marriage, due to pro-woman in all things state policy changes and support for grrrl power no matter what they do, WOMEN are the ones who do this and their blue pill husbands will be writing 35 years from now these sorts of retarded self-congratulatory public soliloquys about being cucked. Oh how times have changed.
/r/TheRedPill25/06/16 04:32 PM
6

Posted this because it's interesting how hard the mainstream media is trying to exhort men to "have kids" while in the same breath pathologizing men with kids as potentially dangerous pedophiles while telling millenial women to hold off having kids because those women should be "free" and in board-rooms or something. There's a level of cognitive dissonance in our mainstream media that's becoming evident because they're worried that men aren't holding up society in basically every way while they …
/r/MensRights18/06/16 10:29 PM
2

The main reason girls want boyfriends/husbands is because the women they are competing with have boyfriends/husbands. If someone could have struck this line into the stone as the 11th commandment, life for all would have been more clear thereafter.
/r/TheRedPill18/06/16 06:51 PM
13

The level gone to seems extreme, but people can be vindictive and I have no idea how men are treated in divorce courts where you're from and perhaps this kind of stuff is necessary. Want to know how a woman would achieve the above outcome, regardless of infidelity? By simply divorcing and sitting back. Even THIS woman, who openly had the affair, simply had to do that first, and she would have obtained what this guy worked for basically a year to get. The "level gone" isn't extreme -- it's just n…
/r/TheRedPill17/06/16 10:25 PM
5

However, I do not see why public outrage and coverage is important. Really? You have no IDEA how that affects a perpetrator of a crime?
/r/MensRights17/06/16 12:39 AM
3

Although the cases are different, her sentence is not a "Pat on the shoulder" since the "slap on the wrist" punishment is effectively the same for Turner as well as this woman. I missed the part about CNN, the NYTimes, and other mainstream media going nuts over this case. Care to point it out to me?
/r/MensRights17/06/16 12:38 AM
4

I can't wait until the wall to wall coverage on CNN about this horrific crime. Since all this one got was probation and the victim is now suicidal. Oh wait. Hashtag feministsociety
/r/MensRights17/06/16 12:37 AM
23

Wow, that was an annihilation.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 03:37 AM
1

He doesn't call it rape. He calls it a consensual sex act. He wants to go about his life with his girlfriend. You say that he was victimized and that his girlfriend should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why? Because we don't use that logic when a woman is incapacitated and found to be being raped. That's also the law, and what academics have argued should be the standard for rape. Whether the woman pre or post said that she consented does NOT constitute consent when she's incapa…
/r/MensRights14/06/16 02:37 AM
1

Like I said, to argue that with genders reversed and a male victimized, not only should we not call it "rape", but that it wouldn't be even MORAL to do so reeks of absurd, though unsurprising, feminist bigotry. Women and men are the same and equality and stuff, until, of course, women are perpetrators of a crime against men that feminists solely want men to be defined as committing against women, in which case it's totally different and now we must consider arbitrary notions of "human rights" th…
/r/MensRights14/06/16 02:20 AM
1

He didn't have "willpower" while he was incapacitated Period. Thanks for acknowledging that. Maybe at some point we'll also get you to have empathy for men as human beings the way you seem to have them for women. I have never in my life heard of a case where a woman enthusiastically consented to a sex act, passed out, enthusiastically consented after, and then watched helplessly as her boyfriend was hauled away by police for raping her. Just to be clear, this woman WASN'T hauled away for raping …
/r/MensRights14/06/16 01:46 AM
1

Because we don't view women who were incapacitated as having "willpower" during incapacitation regardless of what they say pre and post incapacitation. I just extend that empathy to men, since they happen to be human beings as well. Unlike, apparently, you.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 01:35 AM
1

Are you seriously inquiring about the willpower of an incapacitated person?
/r/MensRights14/06/16 01:24 AM
1

I hope that you're not, but if you're attempting to draw a moral or ethical equivalency this case to a situation in which a woman or a man was violated against their will while unconscious The mere fact that if the genders were reversed, not only would we not call it "rape", but that individuals like you would start arguing that it's not even MORAL to do so speaks volumes for your own "reasonability" as it pertains to ethics, yo. Hashtag feminist equality, amirite? I'd chuckle if your opinion we…
/r/MensRights14/06/16 01:07 AM
3

I don't think you're getting my point. I understand that they've "carved out an exception for traveling around the world and settling in a western country in a totally different life path than their grandparents and near ancestors". What I'm saying is I find that arbitrary since doing so requires SOME degree of breaking with tradition (the vast majority of Indians barely even leave their rural town, let alone travel halfway around the world). Yet they can't understand how birthing a child in a c…
/r/TheRedPill14/06/16 12:52 AM
1

Well yea, but it's not like going to a western nation was "part of the historical contract with the parents" for that generation. They had to break the mold in SOME way. So it's weird how traditional they expect us to be.
/r/TheRedPill14/06/16 12:17 AM
2

Well yea. The US is also responsible for Pharoah's ills, meningitis, and the fact that the day is approximately 24 hours long and not, say, 29, amongst all the other stuff. I mean, didn't you know that the Middle East was a paradise the ENTIRE time before the US Superpower era? The other places and peoples on Earth, on the other hand, never had nor have agency in all things that currently are or were. I'm actually stunned you didn't know the above. Needless to say, /s.
/r/TheRedPill13/06/16 02:09 AM
6

That contract is that they had to endlessly obey and give over their own life to THEIR parents, and they felt that they'd finally get the power and respect of parenthood when they themselves had children, and lo and behold, the ungrateful cunt you are, you're just doing your own thing, living your own life. You really nailed it with your post; however, the one thing that always pissed me off was if the first sentence was true, then HOW THE FUCK DID THEY COME TO AMERICA (or wherever)? Like my gra…
/r/TheRedPill13/06/16 01:40 AM
25

One way or another, you have to stick up to your parents because the truth is, they do not have your self-interest at heart, they have theirs. This line is something that dawned on my recently, but for some reason it ALWAYS pisses me off, despite being true. Like, these are people who would have literally starved themselves to death to ensure that I had enough resources to learn and go to college and succeed in that, but would threaten to disown me if I went out with a white girl, etc. I still c…
/r/TheRedPill13/06/16 01:27 AM
9

We justifiably criticise the biases in the MSM, but we are just as happy to pat ourselves on the back for basking in our own confirmation bias. Because the actually CONTENT is shown to be biased repeatedly, and then we can point to the source as the REASON for it. If a feminist were to say that breast cancer disproportionately affects women, "loling at the impartiality of the source" as though it were somehow relevant would be asinine.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 02:16 AM
12

I wish you weren't so downvoted for just stating that a source is impartial. That's an essential part of any discussion. No, it's actually not "essential" unless the study is actually shown to be biased itself. That's like saying that if Hitler said 2+2 equaled 4, yelling "SOURCE!!!" is a legitimate rebuttal. It's not.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 02:13 AM
16

But the National Organization for Women, Women's studies academia, or things FEMinists say we should certainly take as impartial as it pertains to gender issues, so we're told. Cause equality and stuff. Hashtag logic, yo. Dispute the actual data instead of initiating the discussion via a dismissal of the source due to perceived bias.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 02:10 AM
2

Didn't realize that having raping an unconscious person was contingent on consent pre or post unconsciousness. Might want to tell the feminists and state legal bodies that.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 12:29 AM
1

Because both the law and the promulgation pressed by activists on campuses has no such mitigating factor when someone is having intercourse with another person who is unconscious. It's been repeatedly stressed by plenty of activists/academics/law professors with a feminist bend (with a woman as the hypothetical victim, of course) that not only can a person unconscious NOT consent, but that anything leading up to or thereafter is irrelevant in determining any form of consent. So I fail to see why…
/r/MensRights10/06/16 09:57 PM
1

If you object to his being called a "rapist," would you prefer that we call him a convicted "attempted rapist" or a convicted "sexual penetrator?" How about whatever the woman above who was raping an unconscious man was called? I believe it was merely "publicly drunken" or something to that effect.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 09:53 PM
-2

http://wtvr.com/2015/09/10/kimberly-jackson-arrest/ On the other hand, when you reverse the genders, it's public drunkenness, and none of that silly rape or attempted rape talk. Certainly none of the outrage.
/r/TheRedPill10/06/16 09:49 PM
15

This kid is barely mentioned in the news, it pops up a couple times per day and they move on. This kid is barely mentioned in the news? It was reported on with at least 4 articles written about it, and bumped the muslim terrorist murder of 4 israeli citizens in Tel-Aviv as a front page box story...on freaking CNN. Precisely what news are you reading?
/r/MensRights10/06/16 01:31 AM
6

Wow, holy smokes. That's as good of a "genders reversed, look how we basically do nothing in that scenario" situation as one could get.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 01:29 AM
2

Because men and women are the same except when feminists want men to do something, at which point men and women are different, and men are effectively rapists if they don't do what feminists want them to.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 12:00 AM
5

Because if you are a man and can't imagine stopping a rape, or don't know how to, you are part of the problem, even if you've never hit a women or coerced one into sex. Yup. Even innocent men are part of the problem of rape. Notice nothing said about women.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 11:44 PM
1

I agree with you in spirit, but in reality it's way more than that. It's trying to make as many men as rapists as possible in order to then be able to push whatever feminist agenda -- plenty of which would violate civil rights in any other context -- you want. The easiest way to hurt a group is to dehumanize them and cast them as rapists or murderers. That was literally done to black people in the Jim Crow South. Feminists are merely using an extremely old tool to hurt the group they want to hur…
/r/MensRights06/06/16 06:48 PM
2

To clarify things. I wonder how many women practice similar behavior. http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm Rates of sexually aggressive behaviors among women vary from one segment of the United States to another, but the evidence presented here shows that as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion, and over 50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol (Anderson…
/r/MensRights06/06/16 06:46 PM
0

Or just demonstrating your bigotry. No worries. There'll be a thread about male rape victims and you'll be nowhere to be found, as usual.
/r/MensRights06/06/16 06:39 PM
-1

It's like you're unable to comprehend basic english, which is entirely possible. You're never here when we're talking about male rape victims, but you're trolling our board on solely this thread. Try not to be such an overt bigot next time, though I know it's prolly too hard for ya. Best to get on your way to the feminist bigot subs.
/r/MensRights06/06/16 02:00 AM
-2

I guess not, when it comes to male rape victims not only being afforded any sympathy but ALSO being forced to pay child support to their rapist. Totally has nothing to do with societal empathy for the male victim. Nada. Nothing at all. At least thinly veil your bigotry next time.
/r/MensRights06/06/16 01:16 AM
1

My point is simply that they don't even ACKNOWLEDGE the woman raping the boy and seem to get a free pass. Meanwhile, if EVERY commenter isn't in lockstep condemnation of these a male rapist who gets a lenient sentence for MRAs, then it's requisite to whine about it.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 11:58 PM
1

Feminists are pointless, idle bloggers entirely on the sidelines. Uh, I've literally quoted what I was responding to. Try to pay attention. See the above. Find a feminist blogger, who proposed a change to a law, petitioned and/or pressured a politician into proposing that law, and then that law actually being enacted. Until you do that YOU are the one making baseless claims. Aight, I'll bite (though that's not specifically what I was responding to). I don't have to spend the ridiculous rigor you…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 11:31 PM
1

A hot 24 year old teacher fucks a 16 year old boy and the response is "she didn't have sex with him, SHE RAPED HIM." I tried going to reddit feminism, and other feminist themed subs to find that response, but didn't see that post on the hot 24 year old teacher fucking a 16 year old boy concluding that. Mind pointing it out to us? Unless those ideologies get a free pass to not even acknowledge the above, but MRA's NEED to have EVERY SINGLE PERSON agree in concert condemnation when a male rapist g…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 10:43 PM
-7

It's great people like you also come around when women rape men and get probation. Or force their rape victims to pay child support. Since it's all about principle and stuff.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 10:39 PM
1

You said "Feminists ARE pointless, idle bloggers entirely on the sidelines". In other words, that's what FEMINISTS are to you. No, the efforts of feminists are far more than merely "pointless, idle bloggers", but even those bloggers, in concert with all feminists, do plenty of damage in society. As an example, take a look at the link I posted again. I think you'll be able to "break it down" from here.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 10:26 PM
1

Uh, no it's not. Try to educate yourself PRIOR to making baseless claims: http://www.wsj.com/articles/connecticut-studies-yes-means-yes-sexual-consent-policy-1458343739
/r/MensRights05/06/16 01:36 PM
12

Feminists are pointless, idle bloggers entirely on the sidelines. Who direct culture and academia, the efforts of which then find their way into law journals, which then find their way into politics and into the law itself.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 07:04 PM
3

You're forgetting the part where as children, Indian men are ACTIVELY PREVENTED from developing skills by their parents. I literally would have been disowned if I tried to go out with girls in high school. So I didn't approach and thus was unable to learn anything about mating rituals in this country. Meanwhile, my female cousins merely had to stay thin and were getting hit on by white guys left and right, so they were able to "learn" much more readily. In other words, by the time we become "fre…
/r/TheRedPill02/06/16 11:47 PM
19

She can, and should, be allowed to have sex with whoever do whatever she wants, however she wants, whenever she wants, for any reasons she deems acceptable, even if she is married and ostensibly committed to a man with any consequences taken care of by men. FTFY. The generalizable rule of Feminism. Everything basically follows from the above.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/16 04:08 PM
1

Jeez, the amount of "woman = goddess" worship coming out of you is astonishing. You'd do well to post in the bigoted feminist subs. We should ask all those people who died under Queens how violence is solely a "male epidemic".
/r/MensRights30/05/16 01:50 PM
1

One needs to look no further than spaces in which the sexes are separated from one another and then forced to live in groups with each other in order to see how things would go if one of the sexes was suddenly removed from society. Women's prisons are basically daycare centers compared to men's prisons, for good reason. You mean like those Amazons and their thriving and successful present civilization? Oh wait.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 01:47 PM
2

Which will take women's jobs first.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 10:28 PM
14

Riiight. Men never create anything. They just destroy. Said on a comment board created mainly by men via a technology created mainly by men. Yup. Sounds like the retarded feminist is in the room.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 10:27 PM
1

Right, and the mere fact that it required a freaking Circuit court judge to reverse a decision made upon an inverted notion of our basic foundation of jurisprudence doesn't scare you? A decision based on a law made almost solely to mollify feminist identity politicking activists? What about when someone doesn't have the resources and thus CAN'T appeal? Tough noogies?
/r/MensRights24/05/16 11:44 PM
1

Depends. Are any of them women? That's the key. They only count.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 12:56 AM
6

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Feminism
/r/MensRights24/05/16 12:53 AM
2

The point is that the law itself is nebulous as to what constitutes "positive" and in some cases "ongoing" consent. Indeed, that's the point. On the other hand, the law was very clear on what "revoking" consent meant when that was the burden required for establishing consent -- to wit, saying "no". The entire reason for adjudicating rape in this way is to foist the burden on the accused to PROVE "positive ongoing" consent was obtained, which is literally impossible (and also utterly the opposite…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 02:34 AM
1

The trend is toward requiring more positive evidence of consent. Which, of course, is ill-defined so as to allow every non-verbal "yes" be interpreted as a "no" in a court of law, should the accuser wish it to be so. Tidy arrangement.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 04:50 PM
1

You can't. That's the point.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 04:49 PM
1

Well, to be fair, I'd love to see which justices rule which way. It's actually in no way clear to me who would go pro draft and who wouldn't.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 11:51 PM
2

Yea, but it would be nice to see which way supreme court justices rule.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 11:40 PM
1

Right, or the less educated being solely those who aren't in STEM fields. In other words, anything that perpetuates that women are being shafted and thus require state and cultural resources is the correct statistic, even if it's insanely misleading and leads to tons of suffering for everyone else.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 11:50 PM
1

In other words, they're acting like a bar.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:16 PM
11

I know, right? The repeated instances of the mainstream media ignoring male victims of swaths of tragedies is merely families requesting privacy. But just for the males, of course. No coincidence here, folks. While I do find your unabashed feminist bias amusing on this sub, try to at least thinly veil your overt bigotry next time. It'll go over better.
/r/MensRights07/05/16 02:00 AM
2

"We'll have equal pay -- despite already having it -- when live the same amount of years".
/r/MensRights04/05/16 11:35 PM
2

Again, how on earth can you conclude the italicized? None of what you quoted or linked to gives any evidence to that assertion whatsoever, in major part because UNFOUNDED classifications are, literally by definition, those that have not undergone the investigatory and trial process needed to determine whether something happened or not. Also, as an aside, I find it amusing that in prior comments of yours, you dismiss other people's arguments for being from "1985", yet you yourself are quoting som…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 02:22 PM
1

"Unfounded" can mean a few things, most commonly that it did happen How on earth can you conclude the italicized?
/r/MensRights30/04/16 05:19 PM
1

I'm suggesting that if you're contending that it's ok to generalize on the basis of gender due to crime data, it's utterly arbitrary and nonsensical to argue that we SHOULDN'T do so for race using similar crime data. Do both or neither. Otherwise it's retarded identity politicking hypocrisy. And, as an aside, yea, we totally do consider race as a differing characteristic in plenty of actionable scenarios.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 02:37 AM
1

Dunno. Do those people use the same logic openly for minorities and crime? Something tells me no. "Real life" indeed.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 01:24 AM
1

She allegedly also kicked police officers at the scene, so there's that too.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 12:07 AM
1

Not only that, but at around that time, Best Buy had a commercial making a similar joke about Dongles with Amy Poehler. But that was ok, apparently.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 12:04 AM
39

Because man bad, woman good. Feminism 101.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 11:44 PM
3

If the bus driver is a woman and the lawyer is a man, then the answer is yes. Feminism 101.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 12:32 AM
1

Both. It's the idea that women are totes equal to men in every way, but combat deaths we're cool with being mostly men because reasons.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:12 PM
1

If I said "go ahead and send the women home, I'll pick from the men" I would be gaining nothing. Sure you would. You gain the funds required to test an additional swath of people that likely wouldn't make it. Funds paid for by the taxpayer. You could use those funds to, say, buy better gear for your existing soldiers.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:10 PM
5

This is fucked up. Actually it's another F-word. Feminism.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:03 PM
4

And the predictable response to your answer is: crickets No doubt they'll be spewing the same nonsense somewhere else and go radio silent when they're disproved. It's the feminist way!
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:01 PM
4

Yet another example of how women have no power and patriarchy controls everything, specifically the political system. Oh wait.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 10:02 PM
7

I understand this owner is saying saying no women allowed but aren't things like this always a socially understood to be a little exclusionary? There's no law saying you cant go there but people understand different sexes sometimes go different places that cater to them. I don't know if you meant the answer to be this easy, but Yes, everything you've said applies, but only if it's women who are being sexist for their own benefit. Feminism 101.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:24 PM
1

Most of me agrees with you, but the other part of me would actually be fine with 20 comments of "cis men must die" on the Men's Rights subreddit. It would openly expose that not only are trolls not "neckbearded MRA's" (they're not), but that they often are SJW feminists who have an axe to grind. To wit, when some feminist says -- and they will -- that they're the ones who get harassed because some guy said that men commit suicide more than women and it makes them totes upset that it's not women …
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:21 PM
1

Or places like the guardian and some op/eds in mainstream pubs.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:16 PM
1

To be fair, I'd actually be ok with someone saying "cis men must die" because, not only is it a thought that's often harbored by plenty of feminists making noise today, but it also demonstrates the ideological bankruptcy of our opponents.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:15 PM
1

We won't ban you for having an ideology that's counter to much of ours, if that's what you're asking. In other words, not to worry. We're not a feminist subreddit.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:13 PM
2

This author clearly does not believe that all men are shitty That is not remotely clear when it's literally the topic sentence of the article.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:11 PM
3

Nothing says an enlightened stance on gender relations is coming than an opening line like: How shitty are men really?
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:10 PM
3

This seriously angers me. I am thankful to the Telegraph for printing it, as that's not a given, considering the topic. How anyone can defend feminists, who defend status quo family situations such as these, is beyond me.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:04 PM
1

When Islam takes over (and this is what it always has done, no matter the amount of good heart "moderate" muslims), their current liberal and feminist allies won't be useful any longer Dude let's be real. The feminists and leftists will be the first to convert.
/r/TheRedPill13/04/16 09:31 PM
3

Wait, you didn't know that feminism is the meta a priori paradigm that rules all paradigms, even fantasy paradigms? It is the ether in which all things dwell. I mean come on. Pay attention, broski. Edit: As an aside, I once had a feminist literally tell me that 1+1=2 is an example of an "equality" and thus is part of feminism since it too is about "equality." In other words, mathematics is a subset of feminism. One could not make this sort of shit up if one tried.
/r/TheRedPill12/04/16 12:42 AM
4

Well my post wasn't about placating for the sake of feminists but for the rest of people who have a view of Mens Rights as a hate group But those people are learning that sort of bigoted stereotyping from feminists. It's not like neutral people just walk in, see some posts about feminists treating innocent men terribly, and then conclude that men's rights is a hate group. They're being told that by feminists, the opinions of whom said individuals value enough to base their OWN opinions on. Movin…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 03:22 AM
4

It's so insanely difficult to get NSF research funding, but cast it in a way that's about certain "issues" and you can set up a government police state in the lab to make sure everyone is beholden to the narrative.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 06:52 PM
7

a positive place for wanting men to have equal rights and treatment in areas where we are discriminated against Will be viewed as a place that's just to shame feminists that gives people the idea this place is just whining about feminists Regardless of how "positive" you make a sub about men's issues. Unless we openly say we're feminists and advocate a feminine primacy mindset (i.e. advocate for equality solely where we can help women), ANY sub focusing on men's issues is a threat to feminist id…
/r/MensRights06/04/16 01:10 AM
1

Unless you can somehow prove that she did it because she hates men, rather than just being a horrible human being (of which there are unfortunately many) then it has no relevance to what you're talking about. Oh if society at large only held feminist theologicians to the same standard. Particularly when said theologicians are being consulted for policy.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 01:06 AM
1

Sure, but there aren't literal lynch mobs forming in Western society to punish (and in some cases, kill) rape victims, with tacit acceptance by society at large. On the other hand, even the UVA rape hoax resulted in bricks being through the windows of the accused with spray painted slurs. That was last year. With no consequences for the perpetrators to date.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 12:58 AM
3

Precisely. That line doesn't suggest that s/he was advocating some middle-ground position wherein we should do our due diligence investigating the claims of rape victims without immediately taking their side.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 12:38 AM
3

let's not pretend the entire world instantly believes the woman every time. Uh, let's also not pretend that "people don't believe rape victims". There are literally multiple DOCUMENTED cases of lynch mobs forming to kill accused rapists without a shred of evidence. It was so insanely effective that the Jim Crow south often used it as a tool to energize mobs to kill black people.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:44 PM
2

Feminists.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:41 PM
4

Or women as is often the case lol Uh, if it's a woman and you reverse doxx them, you'll be liable for all sorts of criminal and social retribution that said woman would NOT face for doing the same to you (if you're a man). Let's not be ridiculous here.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 11:00 PM
6

Basically, the feminist movement has decided that women should be paid for for spending time simply being women FTFY.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 10:44 PM
5

But in life, no one gives a shit what you're stupid excuse is, no matter how real and justified the excuse is to you. You could apply that to people who just had both arms shot off and are being asked to return to their box lifting job an hour later as they're actively hemorrhaging. There's a difference between understanding what amounts to Red Pill platitudes and assuming that they apply to every scenario without any degree of nuance.
/r/TheRedPill26/03/16 07:21 PM
1

Either way, it should be consistent, and then one can debate the merits of the policy.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 06:31 PM
1

The issue isn't the "known risk". It's the hypocrisy that we're ALLOWED to generalize negatively about men, but not about women, black people, muslims, or any other group. Perhaps white people and christians are starting to line up with men in that regard in the US).
/r/MensRights18/03/16 05:26 PM
10

You don't have to produce anything, just try not to consume more than you need. And that's just with food. In a perfect world, women consuming more than men in many ways is actually acceptable. It's like only ONE THING that's produced that they're asked not to consume in excess and they do it.
/r/TheRedPill12/03/16 05:57 PM
7

In a normal world, men are much more likely to find a larger swath of the female public attractive than the reverse. Even OK Cupid data found that, and that's via a liberal subset of people who use such sites.
/r/TheRedPill12/03/16 05:54 PM
3

Because man bad, woman good aka the modern feminist dogma.
/r/TheRedPill12/03/16 05:47 PM
8

Actually, there are some interesting studies that show that when dads do go to court to petition for full custody, they're more likely to get it than the moms. The problem is just that most dads never petition for full custody. It's called selection bias. Women receive custody by de facto default (not de jure, of course, because that would be "sexist", but in reality that's precisely who the "primary caregiver" is). OTOH Men have to fight for it, and could lose everything in the process, so only…
/r/TheRedPill12/03/16 05:45 PM
11

That whining about SELECTABLE male voices as potentially being "sexist" is insane when the default is a woman's voice.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 02:15 AM
7

The point isn't whether female voices are "pragmatic". The point is that when the DEFAULT is a woman, nobody bats an eye about "gender bias", but if a male voice is merely SELECTABLE, the BBC (a mainstream source as any) starts to lose its mind, since that's like sexist or something.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 02:15 AM
1

Rubio had none? There literally was like one girl that constantly started screaming supportively even before he finished a sentence.
/r/TheRedPill03/03/16 12:18 AM
2

Thanks -- this post really helps for future discussions. I usually never have access to the data at my fingertips and now I do.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 04:12 AM
7

I mean, yea, you suggesting we don't support suicidal men and then attacking that caricature is precisely a strawman argument.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 04:01 AM
5

You certainly seem to know quite a bit about strawmen, broski.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:21 AM
5

No, it's basically exposing the fact that you're a feminist troll who cares about "manspreading" more than other actual men's rights issues like male suicide, etc. Yet somehow you still feel you can weigh in on whether WE adequately address those issues. The feeling is mutual, though -- I have no problems with you returning to your hug box of feminist gender bigots.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 02:40 AM
5

oh, right, because if i don't whine about it on reddit i clearly don't care All we know for sure is that you DO whine about "manspreading". Since that's, you know, what's really important. Again, try to keep up.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 02:29 AM
4

Yea. Then I checked about all the awareness of male suicide, misandry, male domestic violence victims and came up with this list: .... So uh, yea, "manspreading" is a higher priority for you. Try to keep up. like i know your arguments are flimsy at best but come on you have to be capable of better than that The irony of you making this comment is amusing.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 02:06 AM
6

Considering you focus on "manspreading" more than such issues, I'm not sure why you're remotely qualified to weigh in.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 01:54 AM
5

To those whining about this "not being a men's rights issue" (and, of course, then trying to delegitimize men's issues as a whole because reasons) it most certainly is. Why? Because women wanting men to have resources while SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING that it's really not important (but then punishing men who don't have resources anyway) is the basis for a ton of misandric public and social policy measures. To wit: Legal initiatives that privilege women over men, educational initiatives that privile…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 01:19 AM
2

TLDR: women don't want poor men, men do not want fat women. It most certainly IS a men's rights issue as the basis of plenty of gender based social policy is based on the former, while none are based on the latter.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 01:15 AM
5

It is destroying the credibility of the movement. This is called concern trolling. There are so many men who have been destroyed out there by casual misandry, etc, and they're venting. If your son vented here when he gets older, that'd be fine too. But no, it's not "destroying the credibility of the movement" to point out some of those issues. The entirety of the gender based discussion is effectively pro-feminist in mainstream circles. And in THOSE circles, posting a hypercritical comment about…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 01:11 AM
3

You can always join pro-feminist subs. And who posted a "don't get married or you're a bad person thread"? The idea that marriage is an awful bargain for men today isn't any less true because you're irritated that some men are venting.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 01:09 AM
4

Yes, but men are UPFRONT about this preference. Women, on the other hand, will "offer to pay towards a first date meal" and yet a large proportion of women would "definitely refuse a second date with a man if he expect them to also chip in for the restaurant bill". The survey suggests that, at minimum, 16 percent of women do this bait and switch, and at maximum, 41 percent of women do it. Either way, it's ridiculous.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:58 AM
2

I've met plenty of feminists out there who would have denied the above conclusion despite it being "common knowledge". Hell, you find plenty of feminists who even deny that men are physically stronger than women requiring analysis merely to justify that "common sense" claim.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:55 AM
4

Sure it is a "men's rights" issue -- we literally CREATE an imbalance with education and money between men and women with pro-women social policy and then act confused when such policy is successful and those women are more successful than those men.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:44 AM
13

the claims of doxxing because we laugh at how ridiculous this entire sub is I know, right? We're so awesome laughing at groups of people that advocate for men who are suicidal or victims of domestic violence. "Manspreading" is clearly a far more important issue.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:39 AM
9

Really it's not, but it doesn't fit your ridiculous presumption that "People who ask other people out should pay" and "oh by the way, totally coincidentally, societal constraints force men to ask women out first or they'll never get asked out" is somehow legitimate in the scope of equality, so I get why you can't handle it.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 07:28 PM
8

Sure it does.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:43 PM
9

I mean, this study literally shows that most women are not like your current SO.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:40 PM
6

It's actually far better than your dinner analogy.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:37 PM
9

Do you do this with other people too? Like if you're asking your friend to a movie, do you insist that the person who asked the other person should pay?
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:36 PM
1

So the amount of women being incarcerated is growing at a faster rate then men. Did you literally argue that things are getting better FOR MEN since pre-1980's, then use a stat that started in 2000, and then, absurdly, compared that stat to a completely different group (women)? Once again -- using your time frame, why are men 5 times more likely to be incarcerated now than then if the climate is "better" for them now than then legally? Even 25+ years ago when I was a kid, in many parts of USA if…
/r/TheRedPill26/02/16 12:55 AM
1

You're either missing my point intentionally or obtusely. On this point, whether men are "confrontational" at baseline or not is irrelevant. On this point, whether they're more likely to be incarcerated than women or not is irrelevant. The question is why do you believe men are proportionally more likely to be incarcerated NOW than pre 1980's? Do you think they've increased their "confrontation" in 40 years? Do you think they've become relatively "less intelligent" (than women) en masse? Because…
/r/TheRedPill25/02/16 02:55 AM
2

Hamster/deflection from my key point. There are substantially more blacks in jail then other races. The reason is because of how they interact with the cops. Buuuuut again, the fact that other races also have proportionally elevated increases in incarceration is just a function of "hiring bad lawyers" and "how they interact with cops" as well, given the "much better legal climate" for men? Hamstering indeed.
/r/TheRedPill25/02/16 12:53 AM
1

The rest of your post is pure hamstering. You're telling me that a FIVE FOLD increase in the incarceration rate for men, in an era where you claim things are better for men LEGALLY, is pure hamstering? Yea, you're gonna have to submit more than randomly inserting RP phraseology as though it were evidence itself to demonstrate your point. To wit: there being more "single fathers" != things being better "legally" for men overall. Also, there are more men from EVERY RACE in prison since the 1970's,…
/r/TheRedPill24/02/16 11:34 PM
1

Uh, the male incarceration rate went up SUBSTANTIALLY since the 1980: https : // en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States Despite your claim of "better primary custody for men now", PLENTY of that "increase" was for child support: http : //www. huffingtonpost. com/2015/04/10/walter-scott-child-support-_n_7036174.html And all of this is in an era of, on balance, increasing legal equality and primacy for everyone else's cohort, the classic case being, of course, women. Indeed, ju…
/r/TheRedPill24/02/16 10:20 PM
13

I suspect it's getting traction now that increasing amounts of women are at risk for potential alimony. Sort of like how "abolishing the draft" is becoming quite popular now that increasing amounts of women are at risk for a potential draft.
/r/TheRedPill24/02/16 12:08 AM
5

The only way out of this for men's activist is to push their message into the mainstream where it can get support from average people who's interest are more in justice than protecting a particular ideology from critique. One major way MRA's can do so is to find certain unalienable wedge issues that put modern ideological feminists on the wrong side morally and, more saliently, EMOTIONALLY. People forget that the entire fight is for hearts first, THEN minds (i.e. it's the emotional argument that…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 11:51 PM
1

crickets I love when misandric TrollX posters just go radio silent when you confront them.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 11:41 PM
3

A big problem is that feminism doesn't see female privilege. Precisely. To put that another way, modern feminism is not the belief in female equality. It is the belief in female oppression. Everything then follows from that.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 11:41 PM
3

Because they're men.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 07:37 PM
6

Yep. Pluto is made of green cheese. You find out why, otherwise it's true, cause I said it.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 07:36 PM
1

Uh, AND his mother had political and professional connections. You're backwards rationalizing his success with the platitude "there are few men in this world who have this kind of vision" when he had PLENTY of help to begin with. Just because someone is successful doesn't automatically require you shoehorning them into the summit of Red Pill archetypes (Bill Gates is Dark Triad level 99? I mean jesus...). The person you MIGHT have a case with in the list I referenced is Larry Ellison. But the re…
/r/TheRedPill19/02/16 08:05 PM
0

Pithy. But baseless. Disprove what I've said instead of mewling.
/r/TheRedPill19/02/16 12:05 AM
1

You need a basic amount of familial wealth to be wildly rich if you haven't inherited it. Of the top 10 non-inherited wealth families, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page (perhaps not Ellison) all came from professional, upper middle class families. So it's not merely "creating a viable product and marketing it to the masses". I mean, Bill Gates went to a private middle school and had access to an early GE computer in the late 60's, early 70's. Downvote me if you'd like, but he didn't get th…
/r/TheRedPill17/02/16 01:09 AM
1

Well, the Japanese also have similar "emotion specific" words. To wit: "kenjataimu": http://www.japandict.com/%E8%B3%A2%E8%80%85%E3%82%BF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A0
/r/TheRedPill15/02/16 07:15 PM
0

Because it gets them more power in our society. You don't get power in our current society by claiming you're strong.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 05:19 AM
2

In reality most of the shaming of male parents seems to come from women. FTFY.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:00 PM
15

Even if she's found to have zero evidence (see UVA case).
/r/TheRedPill07/02/16 04:11 AM
3

Yep. The Anjali Ramkissoon (Doctor in Miami) demonstrates that fact very well.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 06:14 PM
3

I've concluded that were I to be in this sort of situation, a trial has to happen. Even if it's biased, an "admission of guilt" will likely kill me for longer than a prison sentence.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 06:10 PM
2

Yep. Notice which party of the three (instigator rugby women, attacked first guy, attacker white knight) gets off without any punitive action. And, coincidentally, of course, what gender they are.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 06:08 PM
19

Yep. Not saying it's a bad thing, but given the state of the economy and marriage in modern times from a gender perspective, the fact that men might start claiming it from women now? Gotta get rid of these entitlements! It dovetails with the notion that if there's any sexist law, you have to make women at risk of dealing with the consequences to get any traction. If it's just men suffering? Tough noogies.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 05:59 PM
1

I agree with you but intriguingly, women understand competition on a visceral level when competing for a high status mate.
/r/TheRedPill04/02/16 12:28 AM
1

Why aren't we doing more to stop men dying of cancer? Because feminism teaches us that man bad, woman good. Was there more to the article?
/r/MensRights27/01/16 12:50 AM
2

Modern feminism's extreme voices ARE often the ones that are in high positions -- to wit, Jessica Valenti writes for the 5th most read newspaper in the WORLD -- and she does so on specifically gender issues. Using your example, it would be like the Westboro Baptist Church main priest being proclaimed a top 5 archbishop, and then constantly spewing his garbage from there. If that were occurring, we'd all be expecting him to lose his job shortly thereafter, and certainly receive massive criticism …
/r/MensRights26/01/16 02:45 AM
1

Then you remind them that there's a Klan meeting tomorrow, and watch them run off to buy some spare rope... Or post photos of their cats on instagram at that moment. Since there's nothing to see anyway.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 04:52 PM
5

Doctor here. Pretty sure she'll be just fine in a few years or so, provided she can finish her residency in something somewhere.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 12:05 AM
3

So you're ok with that happening to guys? And because that bullshit happens to guys then we should demand it happens to women too? No. We're saying that if the pleas for moderation aren't heeded for the group that gets "beat", "jailed", "sometimes killed", and yes, "witch-hunted" the most (men), then we certainly shouldn't be choosing THIS incident as our prototype for "moderation" now when, coincidentally of course, a woman is facing consequences.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 12:03 AM
0

If a guy did this he'd be cuffed, spend a humiliating night in the drunk tank and be fined/do some community service. Or he'd be, you know, dead.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 12:00 AM
2

The point being is that white males have no room to bitch about things like college admissions White women should be bitching the least.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 03:55 AM
0

No, I merely pointed out that feminists usually don't give a shit about non-white people. Unless they're their nannies.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 03:29 AM
2

whiny white adults. I'm not white. Wait, you're a feminist? My bad, white people only exist to you all. Carry on with your hypocritical screed.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:49 AM
1

MIT, Harvard, Princeton, CalTech all privilege women? Eh. Them's the breaks. Nothing to see here. Let's go and post photos of our cats on instagram! Columbia and Brown privilege men? Indicative of systematic bias against women which requires social policy changes and possible upheaval of the status quo. Let's go protest this injustice! The modern day feminist is so ideologically bankrupt sometimes it'd be amusing if it weren't so tragically hurting half the population.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:46 AM
2

You still haven't answered the fact that your own article CLEARLY stated this: However, Fitzsimmons said, women were accepted at a slightly higher rate than men. In other words, your own data contradicts your feminist whine.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:45 AM
3

Not cool, for either... But definitely happens to both. I mean, to be fair, for years we've practiced affirmative action for women, who have benefited FAR MORE than even minorities: it's actually white women who the numbers suggest have benefited disproportionately from affirmative action programs. Your anecdote aside, this scenario seems to be in the favor of women far more often than not.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:36 AM
1

Wow, thank you for doing this analysis. I often don't have the numbers to back me on this exact issue but now I do.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:27 AM
3

And who, pray tell, would enforce such a curfew? Since, you know, men can't be out there.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 10:23 PM
2

Because the goal of modern western feminist liberalism is to destroy the second most liberal feminist group of people in the world (modern western conservatives). Anything that hurts that latter group, they do as much as possible.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 05:34 PM
1

This is why women fought so damn hard in the 1970's for No Fault Divorce. Now they're trying to find a way to force marriage on men regardless of male consent, so that the entire cycle is entirely within their control.
/r/TheRedPill08/01/16 11:07 PM
1

I had three-figure comment karma in /r/Feminism and a lot of healthy conversation with members of that sub Again, you're pro-feminist, and utterly unlikely to be critical of feminism, even when it's harming swaths of people. So yea, you'll have great conversations with like minded people. I would like to start a community that isn't pro-feminism, or anti-feminism, but bans the discussion of feminism entirely. Great. Start one. It would be even more "men's lib-y" than men's lib is. But regardless…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 04:10 AM
6

I never claimed to be neutral. I think MRA's are disgusting human beings. I mean, of course you do. You're pro-feminist. Here, we try to help men, and fight any force that makes them suffer as a group. That's counter to virtually everything you guys do in practice. They wanted to discuss actual issues. Unfortunately that's a mission failure, sherlock. You try to protect a hateful ideology that, at it's core, has caused much of the male suffering that we see around us, and often does so gleefully…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:59 AM
1

I mean, you could use that logic in the feminism sub reddit as well. It's a different forum with less noise (from anyone pro-men), and all men's issues must be done with a really narrow "conversational filter". But no, you absolutely COULDN'T call spaces like the above a "safe space" for men's issues where you must toe a line like that. Menslib LITERALLY started by putting the words "without blaming feminism" in its title and sidebar -- it's changed it now so as to not be so explicitly pro-femin…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:41 AM
5

Mainly because it is not a sub based off hate. Riiiight. You sound like a neutral arbiter of the discussion with that type of a statement. No wonder you fit in a pro-feminist sub like that one. And no. You're not. You just want people to think that even though "not blaming feminism" was literally a founding principle of the subreddit.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:41 AM
3

You are allowed to criticize feminism. No, you're really not. You have to couch it in terms of not actually criticizing it. You must be thinking about Men's Rights, which you totally ARE allowed to criticize, and in the most explicit of fashions. Which is great if you're, you know, a feminist who wants to appear to be pro-men but actually isn't. It was created to be a space to talk about men's issues without trampling on women's issues anything feminist. FTFY.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:26 AM
1

Yea because it's a bannable offense to criticize the ideology. That's not remotely healthy for any group claiming to help men with a "better approach".
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:11 AM
2

Nah -- you can't explicitly criticize feminism but you CAN explicitly (in some cases, absurdly) criticize men's rights. There's a blatant asymmetry that exists.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:10 AM
2

Considering you're posting implicitly in defense of men's lib, which started by EXPLICITLY disallowing criticism of feminism, yea, that's pretty much what you're saying.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:08 AM
4

"Has the women’s movement now become so normalised that we cannot conceive of needing to take positive action to secure equal education outcomes for boys?" Yes.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 12:26 AM
1

Using the word Mansplaining is quintessential Vaginalysis.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 11:31 PM
8

In fairness, shouldn't medical care go more to men since they're more likely to suffer and die earlier than women? In fairness, shouldn't educational policy go more to helping men since they're less likely to do well in school than women? In fairness, shouldn't women pay more in taxes since they're more likely to use social services than men? Oh wait. That's not the "fairness" anyone is looking for. My bad. Carry on.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 12:04 AM
3

I don't think they're actually supporting censorship. It's more a list designed to demonstrate the idiocy of some of the word choices and phrases we use each year.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 06:44 PM
3

How about we triage dudes being executed over women being unable to drive? Deal?
/r/MensRights03/01/16 12:08 AM
24

Brian Banks' story just galls me every time I hear of it. It's just so awful, tragic, and absurdly predictable all at once in every possible way.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 12:03 AM
1

Nope.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 12:02 AM
2

Yea, I've been one since about 6 years ago, and back then the MRA was basically like fight club (the first rule was to never talk about it). Now it sometimes makes the mainstream press (WSJ, etc.).
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:44 AM
19

Generally speaking, even if you're the most morbidly obese person, if you're in the gym and trying to work out with 2 lb dumbbells and failing, not even the most ripped dude lifting 200 lb dumbbells will make fun of you. Why? Because every one of those guys had to be able to lift the equivalent of 2lb dumbbells at one point or another, and every one of those guys knows how hard it is for people to even BE at the gym.
/r/TheRedPill29/12/15 09:00 PM
2

Well sure, but the OP isn't asking us whether what occurred is legal. We all know that currently kidnapping is illegal while male genital mutilation is legal. The answer to whether what happened is legal or not is trivial -- it was illegal. The OP is asking us which "side" we're on, which implicitly is a question of morality.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:47 AM
3

I back the woman. She's right in this case. Which makes us massively different than most feminist ideologues.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:40 AM
1

Wow, I can't believe that the NYT ever published that. It makes women look less than stellar without really any postulation of a mitigating factor (which they'd NEVER do in this day and age because man bad, woman good).
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:35 AM
1

The women feel invulnerable and act without fear of the consequences. I'd argue this is precisely the reason why you see women doing it more often. Men probably are equally as racist or whatever, but they understand that yelling racial slurs at people might result either in arrest/ostracism or straight up violence on the spot. Such considerations are far further from a woman's mind when she's hurling verbal abuse on someone.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:33 AM
2

To riff on this comment, as a doctor who works in an ER, I've seen men who have been bludgeoned by their girlfriends/wives (usually a sucker shot with some type of weapon) and brought in unconscious actually HANDCUFFED to the stretcher while the unharmed female offender is given sympathy, resources and, and this always made me smirk, STANDING FREELY WITHOUT SUPERVISION NEXT TO HER UNCONSCIOUS VICTIM. Because man bad, woman good, and reasons.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:24 AM
2

It's an anti-male hugbox for the most part when dealing with anything that pits woman versus man even slightly. It's perfect for the current millennial generation of women (and I say that as a millennial).
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:21 AM
1

Wrong. Feminism has taught me that that's male privilege too. Because reasons and man bad, woman good, and other stuff.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:16 AM
5

Yep. The college campus is apparently the only place where the fewer men there are in the population, the more rapes of women occur in that population. Contrary to virtually EVERY other study on rape, of course. Because trust and believe.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 02:22 AM
13

More precisely, as the marriage rate dwindles overall, the pool of married people are more and more only made up of people who REAALLLLY want to be married. Which skews the data.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 02:18 AM
2

Hmm, while I understand somewhat where you're coming from, this idea that any opinion put forth by someone requires "imminent double blinded large powered study sourcing" to support an anecdote that they feel is representative of a broader trend is difficult to take a face-value when you ask for it here. Why? Because, generally speaking, feminists and other mainstream ideologies make far far far worse generalities, often leading to massive sweeping policy changes IN ACTUALITY, and there's usuall…
/r/MensRights24/12/15 09:42 PM
5

Ah, but instead, he's dead, and now you can celebrate eh, feminist troll?
/r/MensRights20/12/15 04:06 AM
3

I've seen the opposite: many more instances of women giving up their seat for elderly and disabled men and than men taking bullets for women. I travel on the NYC subway daily, and I see pretty much the opposite - men are far more likely to give up their seat than women.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 06:06 PM
2

Particularly when the rationale for that process (to allow people in) exists because if you don't, those left behind (which equates now explicitly to single men) will possibly die.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 05:59 PM
2

I dunno -- what percentage of people we let in that commit acts of terror are committed by muslims?
/r/MensRights19/12/15 05:55 PM
1

Innocence? The only one being accused of a crime is Deen.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:01 AM
2

Just like it's wrong to dismiss James Deen's presumption of innocence, it's also wrong to assume that the accusations against him are definitely false. As we lack of sufficient information, we should maintain an impartial position regarding this issue. I don't understand this position. If someone said that Alpha Centauri was made of green cheese while someone else argued that such a claim was false, why would we "remain impartial" regarding the issue? The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the individ…
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:50 AM
2

....and 2 tweets and approximately 20 seconds later, he was a rapist. It's amazing how fast the feminist zeitgeist can turn.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:47 AM
1

Dude, you can't be judging the sub based on "ratings". Judge them based on what's being said overall. By the way, the top post on this article highlights the nuanced nature of these "gender flipped injustice" issues.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:15 AM
2

Another change sees the fairy godmothers being replaced by the "Wise members of the Women's Institute". Isn't this a clear example of Poe's Law? Because I honestly couldn't (and still can't) tell if that was satire or not.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 08:40 PM
5

While I agree with you, I think there's a literal mathematical tipping point when people will "legitimately" freak out about the underinvestment in boys and men. And that is when the tax burden to domestic social service receiving ratio moves towards men past some threshold point. The fact that men die earlier or are homeless or whatever doesn't really matter to the gender politicians; otherwise we would have seen policy to reverse that. It's that tax:receipt ratio that REALLY matters. Right now…
/r/MensRights28/11/15 07:32 PM
1

The simple issue is that societally we're ok with women having their own space but lose our minds when men do. And then claim it's all about equality. I think most of us here take massive issue with the hypocrisy of it all. Either every demographic cohort has the "right" to a homogenous space defined by them or NO ONE does.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 03:52 AM
1

Well kind of. It is a one-time effect. They are getting married later. The overall lifetime "ever got married" rate is going down but only a little. Sort of -- but I still think the amount of people who aren't getting married is dropping in absolute numbers fairly substantially. We are assuming that the remaining younger non-married cohabiting cohort is going to eventually marry, but that simply may not be the case for a significant minority of them. The ones that are, are college-educated and h…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 03:47 AM
1

To be fair, this fact is primarily driven by two reasons: 1.) Fewer people are getting married overall in absolute numbers (and the rates of splitting up in cohabitation settings are waaaaaay higher than that of divorce in marriage). 2.) Those that do get married likely are more "desiring" of marriage as a self-selected pool -- and that "strong self-selected marriage couple" cohort divorce rate and timing could be the same as their similar cohort in years past, but we just don't have the longitu…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 05:55 PM
3

Well, I mean if we accept that those young men are capable of suicide bombing uniquely, we can also acknowledge that PLENTY of young women birth children who they're more than happy to assist in indoctrinating their children with an ideology that promotes such suicide bombings. In other words, if we're going to generalize about men, let's do so about women. Women as mothers often hold tremendous sway over the ideological leanings of their children, particularly those in extreme religious househo…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 05:33 PM
1

Yea, what's basically going to happen is enough people are either going to opt out of these people's sphere of influence -- i.e. not go to college -- OR they're going to be utterly unrepentant about protesting things like being called a rapist pretty loudly. I think this horrible part of the SJW movement is going to reach its summit in the next few years. Right now the defenders of freedom of speech and actual equality haven't really had the time to organize, but it'll happen as these bigots pus…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 04:23 PM
2

The feminist argument is that a woman's word IS proof. Hence, a mere accusation constitutes proof, by definition. It's all part of the man bad, woman good theme they've got goin' on over there in bigotry land.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 06:03 PM
9

Did the courts get confused because his last name was "chick"?
/r/TheRedPill21/11/15 02:27 AM
1

I'm a man, French, and I lost two friends in this tragedy. Fuck you. Then I find it EVEN MORE IMMORAL that you call people who honor men who sacrifice their lives for others in this tragedy (and MOST tragedies) a "circle-jerk", fucktard.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 07:21 PM
1

This is why you'll end up your days alone and bitter. You think this is actually an insult and that I'll feel offended. Uh, I don't think you'll feel offended. You're a modern feminist. Dead men don't matter to you. On that we agree. Oh, you mean an hegemonic community that cares about something more than white men? Uh, it IS hegemonic because it's feminist, which is the most dominant ideology on gender in western society. Dissent against feminism isn't tolerated. That's why men who die don't ma…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 07:17 PM
1

You will shoehorn criticism of feminism anywhere, even if that means using the deaths of my fellow countrymen and friends. I would spit in your face if you were in front of me. You are scum and I don't want you false sympathy. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if a feminist like you spat on one of those men who took a bullet for someone else. They are men, after all. Nah, we'll keep fighting a modern feminist movement whose most loyal adherents denigrate men for the most trivial offenses (manspr…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 07:10 PM
1

No thank you, I'll go to Menslib where honoring men and masculinity doesn't mean doing so at the expense of women and feminists like a bitter asshole who thinks gender equality is a suffering Olympics between men and women. Yea, an overtly feminist sub. Sounds like a plan. Bigotry begets bigotry, I guess, dumbass. Try not to insult another dead man in his grave on your way there, though it might be too hard for ya. Still believing (or claiming) this thread is about honoring the men. Hahahahahaha…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 06:56 PM
1

Men's Rights my ass, all you do is bitch about women and feminism all fucking day. It doesn't matter anyway, most of you will end your days alone and bitter. Hey, maybe you should go back to talking about man-spreading with your fellow misandric and bigoted feminist ideologues now? Or is shitting on men on a men's rights board that tries to honor the beauty of men and stand up for them when they're hurting or dead too juicy for you? As an aside, just a pro tip -- when a super majority of the peo…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 06:39 PM
1

Considering it's not a circle jerk to consider that men sacrifice for other NON RELATED WOMEN AND CHILDREN (maybe one of the most self-sacrificing things one can do), and not just their own children, I find your ridiculous feminist equivalence nonsense but unsurprising. Bring me multiple scenarios in which a women jumps in front of a bullet to save a man that she's not related to. Then we'll concede. Because I can find you repeated situations where the reverse is true, your immoral dismissal of …
/r/MensRights18/11/15 06:24 PM
1

I mean, people are literally telling you to shut the fuck up in a scenario in which men are sacrificing their lives specifically for women. You've really gotta wonder why. This is the absolute PERFECT time to point out how amazing many men are, and how much they deserve to be cared about because not only are they human too, but some are so self-sacrificial as to border on the divine.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 03:30 AM
1

Again, in fact, [feminists often DO go after "toxic masculinity" during a time of crisis.] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/terrorists-men-violent-biology-boston-marathon_n_3117206.html) [The Boston Marathon comes to mind.] (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/why_are_terrorists_so_often_men/) And it didn't seem to make them cowed into a state of fear from it "backfiring". They just did whatever the eff they wanted. They're mum right now because they're actually scared (someone is still on …
/r/MensRights17/11/15 03:27 AM
1

No, because it will be negated by the fact that most the terrorists were men. Riiiight. Because they never bring that up. [Like Ever.] (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/why_are_terrorists_so_often_men/) Definitely not. Certainly not during a crisis. Oh wait. But yea, let's just wait until everything is clear, feminists come out of hiding, and we can talk about manspreading. Until then, all of the sacrifices that are made by a super majority of men (2 of which are dead) will be spun as the result …
/r/MensRights17/11/15 03:22 AM
2

Dude, don't back off. A father killed himself tackling a suicide bomber in beirut to save others, another man jumped in front of a bullet to save a woman in a parisian cafe (dying in the process), and another man saved a hanging pregnant woman who was in need at risk to himself. If there was a time to actually point out that demonizing men is an awful and horrible thing to do because these amazing and self-less men DO exist and people DO need men being, you know, traditionally male when it matte…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 03:02 AM
1

No, but we sure as heck know the feminists who do aren't exactly taking arms against western masculinity right now. Which, you know, is coincidental, I guess. /s
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:56 AM
2

Uh, what? It's so intriguing to me that at a moment when we depended on MEN to protect us, it's something to be "ashamed of" to point out. Not to worry. Once those women feel safe and secure, and France has a few months to process it, we'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming of how western men are misogynistic twits that need re-educating. But not yet though. People, and I'd surmise plenty of women, are scared. So let's not get rid of masculinity just yet, yo. By the way, as I noted…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:50 AM
2

Also, in what capacity did men protect women in this scenario? Is there some high-profile story of random men protecting women? Uh, yea. There was, quite literally, [a screaming helpless pregnant woman -- who was telling anyone within earshot that she was, indeed, pregnant and in need -- dangling from the 2nd floor story of the bataclan] (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/17/paris-attacks-man-helped-pregnant-woman-hanging-from-window-of-bataclan) that was helped by a man who tiptoed his …
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:47 AM
1

Yea, but topless protests suddenly aren't being staged right now, and it was primarily men dragging people to safety and men helping pregnant women dangling helplessly from windows. They required men to protect them, period. So the feminists, as usual, go mum for a week or two. His point is well-taken to me, because it is precisely in THESE moments when people "suddenly" forget about speechifying about how "masculinity" is toxic.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:45 AM
1

Not to mention that in the videos I saw, it was generally men dragging people and helping pregnant women hanging from windows while the plurality of people running were women.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:42 AM
1

Step being the key word here. Everyone who has responded to me has failed to realize this. And I'm done trying to rationalize compromise, rationality, and moderation. Fair enough. Feminists often use the same rhetoric, and then never get around to helping all of those other groups that they were "stepping" towards, so forgive us for not merely taking this logic as accurate due to simply your word. Some of the people in this sub have truly become what they despise. That or you're defending a gyno…
/r/MensRights14/11/15 11:45 PM
4

But boys should then also STILL pay the most taxes, receive the least of social services, consume fewer goods, and then die on time so they don't take up too much space. Because, as the article said: There is little doubt that evolutionary differences exist. I mean, we can't let ALL of the traditional differences between girls and boys disappear, now can we?
/r/MensRights14/11/15 11:43 PM
1

So he only panders to people who make up 50 percent of the population, but the minority demographics, who are FAR more likely to be marginalized, need no such declaration? Sounds ridiculous to me.
/r/MensRights14/11/15 08:51 PM
1

Again, no. If he actually wanted proportional parity of other groups, he would have specified such proportional parity of those groups. He privileges women over every other group by specifically giving THEM a bottom quota floor.
/r/MensRights14/11/15 12:29 AM
1

Can you find one Liberal MP that has equal qualifications for any of the positions? I genuinely don't know of any. I don't know. But I do know Trudeau didn't make a blanket quota for black people like he did women. So there's that. Unless you wanted to assert that before Canada was even a country, then your statement ignores context. Not really. He made literally no a priori declared quota for any other group BUT women. That privileges women above other demographics, period.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 09:46 PM
1

They already tried to do it. I heard of no such proclamation about having x percentage of minorities and muslims, etc, and still see none after a reread. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Additionally, there wasn't a single black person that was qualified? It wouldn't be, really. But then again, you wouldn't need to say it, and make it a goal, because it already happened by default. Again, it's an a priori declaration, so nothing "happened by default" because it was made PRIOR to having anyone…
/r/MensRights12/11/15 02:36 AM
0

Because the country is roughly equal in terms of gender population. It kind of makes sense to have representation mirror that. But I see no such proclamation for the other demographic groups. Why not a minority quota outrightly stated? Not exactly. Again, why? If I said a priori there had to be 70 percent whites because it reflected the demography, but ONLY said that for whites and resisted saying that for any other group, you'd say that wasn't discriminatory in any way?
/r/MensRights12/11/15 01:09 AM
23

Actually, if you were given the ENTIRE list of cabinet choices that didn't make it, you might actually have selected a non "gender equal" cabinet. Oh, and you might have also selected a black person. Which, you know, apparently wasn't part of the "equality" drive of the liberals.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 11:50 PM
1

But having a different perspective is an advantage. It's not discrimination. Then why, pray tell, did Trudeau ONLY specify a lower bound of women (50 percent) but not, say, black people, or italians, or muslims, or jews, or any other demographic group PRIOR to knowing the qualifications of anyone (as he said it prior to the appointment process beginning)? Isn't specifying a literal quota for one (and only one) demographic, particularly BEFORE you start the search, LITERALLY discriminatory treatm…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 11:46 PM
5

That would be a bit outside the feminist remit. Feminists tend to focus on gender issues. Eh, I'd argue that racial intersectionality is a big deal for feminists to be on the "winning side" of, and not seeming bigoted towards minorities (which that sort of logic would lead towards) is a key aspect of that goal. I suppose the real issue is that certain forms of otherwise bigoted logic tend to be legitimate in the feminist space merely because the cohort being discussed is men.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 12:31 AM
3

Otherwise well "scary black man" is a popular racial stereotype. Not to mention, "scary man" is a popular gender stereotype.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 12:21 AM
4

Intriguing. One wonders if they use the same approach when minorities are overall murdered by primarily other minorities.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 11:58 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter