TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

753861429-951843627 Archive

View 1 post and 324 comments by 753861429-951843627 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)
1

Be that as it may, we have as societies decided to prohibit acting on these impulses, and I believe that the reasons for that are sound. In many the distinction between paedophilia and attraction to pubescent minors is important - especially when one is a paraphilia and the other usually is considered not to be - but not in a context of manifest sexual abuse of a minor. You can't know when a person fancies a child, and we can't therefore (and hopefully wouldn't) legislate against thoughts or att…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 01:09 PM
1

I only skimmed the article, but the word "men" is used at least once. The whole article reads strangely somehow, and I wonder how much of this is due to style consideration trumping concerns about clarity. That isn't to say that I've not noticed the general problem you think this article instantiates. In my native language, the situation is much worse, I am aware of the problem. It's just that this particular article mentions "men" at least once (the context are the men still trapped; I can only…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 07:03 PM
1

I fully agree with the first paragraph, and the first sentence of the second paragraph. I also think that dictionaries, while ideally descriptive, are normative, because that's how people use them.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 10:43 PM
0

But saying there is a war, you're implying that this is a zero sum game. That women enrolling takes away from men enrolling. That men becoming engineers takes away from women being engineers well actually college enrollment is a zero-sum-game because only a limited number of people can enroll in any given term. Engineering is limited by entailment.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:49 PM
2

Their auto fill pisses me off the most. Let me finish typing before you display every horrible thing I've googled. Seriously, it's getting harder to hide shit from the wife. Lol Don't log into google, delete your cookies regularly, and turn of browser-internal auto completion. You can't escape big data entirely but you can mitigate some of its disadvantages.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 04:53 AM
32

Women can in most or all "western" nations unilaterally give children up for adoption. This is a form of legal maternal surrender. Legal paternal surrender is the equivalent right for men. Women who fail to use contraception do not lose this right. This is because consent to sex does not imply consent to parenthood, because parenthood is, even without abortion, not a necessary consequence of sex. An argument like "you should have used a condom" is in the face of this legal and ethical reality hy…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 08:05 PM
2

I agree on the larger point. People who fail to kill themselves (or even people who deliberately pick methods that are usually non-fatal) can also go on to try again, and one has to look out for this problem in studies. This is true for suicidal men and women alike: Counting the number of attempts and counting the number of people who attempted will yield different results. As for my reply: What I tried to do was inform people that cutting their wrists isn't without danger, but I fear I might ha…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 05:10 PM
4

Or if they cut themselves, it takes time to bleed out, and they can get help. This is potentially dangerous semi-misinformation. Severing the arteries in the arms can lead to death by exsanguation within a few minutes. It takes longer if one slits one's wrists because down there the arteries carry less blood, and vasoconstriction and muscle contraction will automatically attempt to stem the bleeding. I say this because years ago I was an emt-like person and my team picked up a first-responder em…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 04:44 PM
14

(1.) Virginity exists. That's not that good a summary. I realise the article uses this phrasing, but virginity exists in so far as there is a definition of virginity that isn't contradictory, the concept is just, the article argues, not particularly useful (with which I agree) and particular to a certain group. I also agree with the second point, but I think that's not useful, either. I dislike the talk of "heteronormative" and "cis" because most people are indeed heterosexual and "cis". Homosex…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 04:37 PM
2

Not according to the UN, it's worse than Saudi Arabia. I don't agree that sexism in Britain is worse than in Saudia Arabia, but there is something afoot in Britain that is (in my experience) unique in Europe. As an example, watch "8 out of 10 cats" when Rachel Riley is a guest, or "countdown" when the "8 out of 10 cats"-people are. Almost every comment towards her is highly sexual, and it's not only Carr, who is a bit of a twat, but also otherwise not "edgy" people like Richardson. The same happ…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 01:53 PM
1

There are even socialists here! Should I get the smelling salts for you?
/r/MensRights19/04/14 03:02 PM
0

"When either sex wins unilaterally, both sexes lose" Disagree. Let's think of white people and the slave trade - I'm pretty sure whites were unilaterally winning in that disgusting arrangement. What you are describing isn't an analogous situation. "Oil and water don't mix? I disagree, let's think of water and coke. That mixes." or "You can't set steel afire with a cigarette lighter? I disagree, let's think of a bunsen burner and straw." would be similarly faulty analogies.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 03:14 AM
5

National Socialism is the most politically effective of left wing ideologies and also the most dangerous. I know that you linked an article later; Mises isn't an unbiased voice in economic or political issues, but leaving that aside: Leftism can't be reduced to economic questions (and even then there is an argument to be made that the socialism of Nazism was rather contrary to the socialism of the left). Nazism was certainly virulently anti-communist, even more so than it was anti-free-market-ca…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 01:15 AM
12

Nothing new here. They've been this way since forever. I can't speak for North America, but for the old world this is false. Universities are to an extent necessarily progressive. You can't do science as a reactionary, and truly reactionary ideas usually didn't survive the generation that held them, but there was a lot of conservatism, monarchism, and other non-left and non pre-left ideas (the left-right-dichotomy is a product of the French revolution, not inherent in politics). This isn't very …
/r/MensRights15/04/14 10:40 PM
2

Plea bargaining is a feature of common law systems and hardly exists in civil law systems, especially if they have an inquisitorial methodology. The introduction of very limited plea bargaining in Germany and France was very controversial and in Germany at least there have recently been voices advising to remove it again because plea bargaining infringes on the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, and so on, and doesn't benefit the emergence of the legal truth of a case - this is wha…
/r/PussyPass13/04/14 09:06 PM
4

But yeah, I don't get the idea that the song is "rapey" at all. It's the "I know you want it"-line. Imagine people had instead taken the "the man is not your maker!"-line out of context and declared it a feminist song
/r/MensRights12/04/14 04:05 AM
1

I'd have classified Sludge as a subgenre of Doom. In any case, if somebody had told me Code Orange Kids were playing Sludge I'd have believed that, but they were posted in a Punk context.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 01:13 AM
3

I'd never, ever, ever suggest tilting a vending machine. I had the horrible displeasure of watching a man get crushed underneath one by tilting it, at Union Station in Toronto. I never considered this. The vending machine I used to have to tilt in the past to get my coke was very easy to tilt. I just assumed that would mean that it couldn't be too heavy, but a quick google search told me a vending machine of the kind I know can weight up to 600kg. I'll second your motion to not tip vending machi…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 08:48 PM
3

By the way, wanna see a woman absolutely kill it? Check this shit out [Code Orange Kids] Is there such a thing as sludge punk? This sounds like I would imagine sludge punk to sound.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 04:56 PM
26

Also, the handy editing out of any men who calmly Hitting a vending machine is not necessarily an act of wroth. If something is stuck in the mechanism you can bump it free (but tilting the whole machine and letting it go so that it uprights itself works better). It's a perfectly reasonable, calm response.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 12:04 PM
2

Maybe they are just bad live (which would frankly be a problem, they are punk) or had a bad day? If I heard correctly they went on tour with Propaghandi. That's not a non-name band to front for.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:18 PM
-8

Bikini Kill are entertaining.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:15 PM
12

I'm really not sure that "Sleep with me or I will break up with you! You owe me." constitutes a threat or coercion akin to the threat of murder. That seems to me to be a faulty equivocation.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:27 AM
10

And what the psych book talks about is "rape", not about "sexual intercourse without consent" which is a totally different thing. You are slightly missing the point. If you define rape as penetration, you have just defined your statistic. You don't have to do a survey to know<sup>1</sup> that you will find mostly women victimised by being penetrated against their will, and not men, because penetrative vaginal intercourse is the norm<sup>2</sup> while penetrative anal sex is not. I'll give you a …
/r/MensRights03/04/14 02:52 PM
8

If this is an honest question (your account is new), then the problem lies in this: Most people, the MRM included, would define rape along the lines of "forced sexual intercourse" or more broadly "sexual intercourse without consent". The study you linked defines it instead as "penetration of the vagina or anus with a penis or an object without consent" (paraphrased). Using that rape definition produces the numbers you provide, but it also hides away all the "intercourse without consent" women vi…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 02:06 PM
2

As a Roman Catholic there's an entire list of things that you need to have done/met to have an actual marriage. One of them is that it has to be a marriage between two members of the catholic church. No, Catholics can marry baptised Christians of other denominations (provided they are man and woman, respectively) with the blessing of the diocese in a Catholic wedding to have a chruch-recognised wedding, and any marriage of Christians to other Christians is considered sacramental. It's possible t…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 12:32 PM
2

I don't think feminism and MRA have to be diametrically opposed. That's actually not a clear-cut thing and depends a lot on what the MRM's ideological and intellectual base fill ultimately be. Despite more and more people peddling extremely shallow soundbite-definitions of feminism there's a foundational ideology that is hard to pin down exactly, but at least outright rejects any epistemology that aims to produce objective knowledge from an objective universe (in the sense of "independent of peo…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 11:18 PM
1

He has the opposite problem actually ;)
/r/MensRights27/03/14 11:35 PM
1

I was met with the regular argument that my arguments were not based on reality but based on rational thinking that does not reflect reality(I shit you not, that excuse made no sense to me) That "excuse" is perfectly correct. Rationalism posits that knowledge or truth are produced by reason rather than experience. This is contrasted by empiricism, where knowledge is gained a posteriori, from experience. There are positions between those two extremes of course. In any case, a strong rationalist h…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 11:25 PM
1

I see from many of the comments that i was apparently right to not waste 45 minutes of my life on a video that is, in all likelihood, some libertarian idiot blithering about how much the left sucks. Watch it regardless. I'm on the left to far-left, and while I do not agree with everything she says (or the majority for some videos), she has a tendency to not be boring and there are often thoughts and ideas in the videos that are still worthwhile and for lack of a better term thought-provoking.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:50 AM
1

It doesn't matter that she is a feminist, she is also a liberal and liberals vote liberal no matter the cost - as we have already witnessed last election. I'm not in the US, so I can't vote "liberal" anyway, but has it occurred to you that the problem in US politics are the ridiculously radicalised republicans? There is no alternative for people who are not ideologically bound to the democrats but also not crazy enough to vote for a party that seems to stand with one foot in various epochs long …
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:30 AM
2

Socialism : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods The idea of socialism, that individual rights and property shouldn't exist, Socialism has no problem whatever with individual rights or private property. It's about the owne…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:18 AM
3

But doesn't that just degenerate into a tone argument? 'You may be correct in what you're saying, but I don't like the way you're saying it so you're evil!' The "tone argument"-argument is often a fallacy fallacy. I think that it has originated in social justice circles to argue that a marginalised group can not be held to standards of civility their oppressors demand from them when making an argument (i.e. "you have to say this in a way we approve" is not a valid response to somebody talking ab…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 09:34 PM
5

That's a great response only in a particularly ironic manner, because Humanism means something already, and it's not defined by "equality for all humans". "Do you want equality? Then you are a humanist" is wrong in the same way the original question/answer game is.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 03:27 PM
2

Could you elaborate what you need or which claim you want supported?
/r/MensRights22/03/14 04:20 PM
5

Feminism has helped spurn women from only being a house-wife, to being peers with men in the office and workplace...you honestly can't make a judgment that this is a good thing? I didn't provide an exhaustive list of things feminism got right. To make an overall judgement, I'd have to be able to integrate (and identify!) all that feminism gets right, gets wrong, and doesn't get at all, weigh that in some way, and make a judgement. I am not able. I am willing to say that I prefer to live now rath…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 03:05 PM
1

Is the rise of feminism of the past 50 or so years a good thing, in your opinion? I can't answer that. I think feminism is caught in a paradigm 100 hundred years out of date that was largely wrong or distorted even then, but I think feminism has had some positive consequences, even in the sciences (and I'm very, very hostile to feminist theory's approach to science and femenist epistemology). I don't know that those things I identify as positive consequences of feminism actually are (and not jus…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:50 PM
1

[scampering back out of the forum now] Why? Not that you can't, but nobody'll bite you or anything.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:44 AM
1

It's WOW and bad renaissance fair language, not college language. In literature it would be deeply pruple prose.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:43 AM
2

I think there should be more subtly here, even if I value that this could just as well be a pro-feminist satire as an anti-feminist satire. As a concrete example of the subtly-issue I have: The Cancun part would have worked much better if you hadn't spelt it out like that and instead had just written about having a boyfriend for the week he took her to Cancun.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:38 AM
1

Those are Anglicans. No serious Catholic can accept Episcopalians as being in communion with Catholics. Even the eastern Orthodoxies are only almost in communion with the Catholic church. Catholics don't accept salvation through grace alone, sola scriptura, only two holy sacraments, and probably more. They also insist on the primacy of Simon Peter and papal supremacy, papal infallibility ex cathedra, and transubstantiation.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:23 AM
1

I'll not answer the rest because I've stretched my break unreasonably already. How many churches Tons. Including a bunch of Catholic churches too. The Catechism of the Catholic church 23xx (x being some digit, I can't find it on google now) forbids homosexual marriage on the grounds of it not constituting complementarity with fecundity as willed by God. It's a holy sacrament also. A Catholic church granting the sacrament of marriage to a homosexual couple is not something I'm willing to accept o…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:52 PM
1

Sure, if you get a priest to marry 2 people that is a covenant. They can also form their own consenting contract too. How many churches (not that different from governments if sufficiently powerful) currently have gay marriage? The Unitarians maybe? I don't know. The largest churches we have, the orthodox and roman catholics, the large protestant denominations, and both Sunni and Shia Muslims, don't to my knowledge. But you gave an example of the part that I understood. Let's assume there is no …
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:27 PM
2

It's only March & this is how far it's gone. Most definitely a cause. Why are they doing this? Is there an evil socialist rulebook that says "you have to cause deprivation via price control"? That's what I mean when I say "not causative". In this case, price control seems to be a tool with which they attempt to fight inflation. The immediate cause is inflation, the cause of that is scarcity (probably). Nobody looks at a stable economy and goes "let's introduce price control for shits and giggles…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:20 PM
2

you lose all marriage How do you figure? Government contractually, sure ...but, covenantally, not at all. Well what do you write into that covenant and who enforces it? Maybe I can simple not imagine what you mean. You could provide an example.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:15 PM
1

Deprivation isn't unique but 'deprivation by design' is unique to socialism due to price controls which in turn create scarcity and black markets I think "price controls" are the symptom, not the cause. If you look at soviet communism, for example, you find that the soviet union (aside from being an authoritarian regime) rapidly "modernised" an almost agrarian society. That this wouldn't work is something Marx could have told them. I'm not familiar enough with Venezuela to make concrete positive…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:07 PM
2

The alternative The alternative is not to have the state mixed up in marriage to begin with. Without the state being mixed up in marriage you don't magically get gay marriage, you lose all marriage. I still don't see how this solves the problem. It's like saying "if there were no people, nobody would be hungry anymore". Yes, but how does that help?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:02 PM
2

Did you see the imgur link I posted about Venezuela? They all look so happy /s/ Deprivation isn't unique to socialism, and the situation in Venezuela isn't really generalisable. But sure, a good argument can be made that socialism has to be international. Socialist systems aren't inherently demanding or causing growth. In a world with socialist and capitalist economies, the latter will always "win" as long as there are resources to be exploited.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:58 PM
2

Are you agreeing with the man she was debating that you'd be happier if the inequality gap was smaller but, everybody was poorer? I don't. Do you realise that you are arguing against happiness here? We have data to support the theory that economic inequality is a strong predictor of unhappiness for both rich people (who have to live behind fences and in armoured vehicles) and poor people.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:46 PM
3

If not for the Government blacks... Who once blocked inter-racial marriages & still blocks gay marriage to this day by issuing licenses? - The Government The alternative is not having marriage at all. Marriage means something because it is a change of status within an institutional framework. I don't understand this point. Who do we (the collective) turn to fix the problems caused by the government - The Government A private company with the goal of profit is hardly going to. Fact: [...] Statist…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:41 PM
6

What I do disagree with is when there are comments defending 21 year-old guys who sleep with 13 year-old girls Where did that happen? or saying that rape culture isn't a thing, "Rape culture" isn't a fact like "evolution", and feminism isn't science. Saying that "rape culture" isn't a thing, or that "patriarchy' as understood in feminist theory isn't a thing, is not in any way evil.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:24 PM
1

This is an issue which only takes away rights - the right to free speech. Western & Central Europe has no free speech and hasn't for quite awhile. In the US threatening the president - pure speech - is a felony, and speech inciting immediate lawless action is IIRC banned also. Free speech in the US isn't absolute either, and while the boundaries are different, I'm not sure they are that much wider.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 10:37 AM
0

Do me a favour and use "the actual definition" and show how "equality of everything is good" if a simplification of communism. I really don't see it. The misrepresentation and scapegoating of everything people think they can reasonably identify as "left" here is grating.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 02:06 AM
2

As an example, communism is the theory that equality of everything is good (oversimplification but works for this example). That's not an oversimplification, that's wrong. Please use other examples in the future.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:04 AM
1

I have no problem with it. The majority of the sub had no real problem with it. I know, I was talking about the world outside of this little corner of the web. People like you just want the ability to get boys kicked out of school anonymously, You didn't read what I wrote properly, or I didn't write it properly. I think it's the former.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:31 PM
2

This one happened, yes, thanks to a mixture of 4chan trolls and people jumping the gun. That immediately casts a negative light on that bit of "activism" (I'll not use scare quotes in the future), which I'm not sure it deserves. I didn't participate, in part because it seemed obvious to me that no matter the intention this wouldn't go over that well, but the very hostile reaction to said activism surprised me still. Anonymous report forms for crimes are a dangerous thing and need to be handled v…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:20 AM
2

There's a huge case of begging the question going on in this video. Paraphrased: Men are stronger because they were protectors because they were stronger.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 03:08 AM
1

The Charter School in London. Her daughter goes there, and so do I. sorry about the confusing wording. Oh I see, celebrity parents or relatives of pupils used to come to my school also to give speeches. Jo Brand's feminism always strikes me as fairly anachronisitic, as if she had never left her 80s-riotgrrl-days<sup>1</sup> behind. If you like her comedy maybe it'll be funny still, but do report if you find the time. 1: in so far as she could be described as a riotgrrl, I just can't think of ano…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:49 PM
2

I feel you man. I too live in England and today we have invited Jo Brand to do a pro feminist speech. Who has invited Jo brand? The nation, or your school? Brand is an a-list stand-up, isn't she? Why would she come to a school to "give a speech"?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:40 PM
-1

The lower the education of people, all else being equal, the more likely they are to vote Republican. If we assume that 38% of the felons would all vote Democrat, that still wouldn't necessarily mean that this would help the democrats, it would only do so if of the rest less than about 62% voted Republican.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 10:39 PM
2

It's an idiom, like "bury the hatchet", or "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Very few hatchets are buried, or babies thrown out with the bathwater, when people use these phrases. For a more literal interpretation, you could probably make an argument from analogy of redemptive suffering.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 10:36 PM
1

Eric Holder needs more uneducated people to vote him into office. The higher the educational level of people in the US, the more likely they are to vote for the Democrats. If Holder needs more uneducated people to vote him into office, that's surely because America has a curious situation where all the stupid people allowed to vote currently are rednecks.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 10:32 PM
-1

Let's be clear though. We aren't talking the US here. Despite higher (60%) female college graduation, 80% of the unemployed are women. A majority of women (56%) are housewives. This is still a pretty traditional country. Does this count housewives as unemployed? Otherwise you'd have, given an umeployment rate of about 8%, almost 20% of "working women" unemployed, and that doesn't sound right (under these assumptions, 2% of men would be unemployed, which also doesn't sound right).
/r/MensRights04/03/14 05:56 PM
3

This invalid argument is how it's done. It really isn't. If you want to make a hyperbolic argument, you could say that men as a class having institutional power that women lack, consent to sex by a woman is meaningful only in specific circumstances, but certainly not when she is cognitively impaired. Depending on whether or not you argue essentially for a non-fallacious use of the division property of male class power over individual men, you can argue that women as a class or every individual w…
/r/MensRights02/03/14 02:27 AM
1

Sorry for the delay, I kinda missed your reply at first. I'll use terms like "right" and "left" and "misogyny" and "misandry" here that aren't really good models of people for reasons of convenience. Good point. My response would have been more tame on a normal day but I spent far to much time fighting the 'White Rights Brigade' masquerading under some nonexistent principal of not allocating resources to help particular groups while we're in a movement trying to do exactly that for men and boys.…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:48 PM
1

The only way Obama can even dream about addressing this catastrophe is by adding race to the equation, our politically correct masters dare not question that. You're another one? I really had you guys pegged wrong. You think we never had racism in this country or the past 400 years white supremacy was just some left wing conspiracy they dreamed up so they could oppress men and boys. What that statement you quoted is saying is that the only way for the government to address male issues is by disg…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 02:20 PM
2

Bs. The people on this sub only ever say this when the left is getting criticized. You people never once say 'Stop bashing conservatives, it's counter productive!' Even though it clearly is. The only "conservative bashing" I've ever seen here regarded Ann Coulter, a very fruitful and just target. By contrast, I can't go one day in /r/mensrights without somebody telling the world they are libertarian or conservative, or indicting the left or Marxism in some way. I do not claim to know that conser…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 02:04 PM
-1

Then by your own logic, they'd be wrong to call themselves such. Yes I made a mistake in editing. I meant to say that those who reject the label feminism don't do so because they reject one or more of the constituent parts of feminism as described by the technical usage of the term. We don't have a fundamental disagreement, but the problem with calling self-identified casual feminists out on their lack of "actual" feminism is that it doesn't help, but instead might lead these people to entrench …
/r/MensRights01/03/14 01:43 AM
-1

Is that so? I spend most of my time in a university environment, where it's just a part of proper behaviour to be a feminist, I might be biased. But then I doubt that these people who wouldn't answer that they are not feminists think of feminism as a tool of critical analysis, or have thought about patriarchy, or know what feminist epistemology is.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:58 AM
-1

You are right in principle, but it isn't that easy. Words are generally defined by their use. That's how meaning can change; it's why "walk" means "to move on the feet by alternating steps" (or something to that effect), not "to roll", which it still means in the German cognate "walken". Most casual catholics nowadays don't know about or believe in transubstantiation."Literally" has also meant "figuratively" for 500 years (I think; for a long time, anyway). In colloquial use, "feminism" indeed m…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:50 AM
1

I can't believe the moderator brought up "henpecked" as an issue when Karen used the word in reference to a poem titled "The Henpecked Husband." GWW defended the term as signifying something serious, and the only alternative interpretation I can think of is that the term is in some vaguely misogynistic way offensive to women that is more important than the much more tangible harm it describes, which would be a very weird point to make. What was that comment actually about?
/r/MensRights28/02/14 02:35 PM
3

They're bringing him up as a boy who is truly free from harmful stereotypes. At least at home. It really doesn't sound like it. The whole motivation seems to be anti-male, and all examples are of the boy pursuing traditionally female interests. The whole text is full of "he can be a girl if he wants", and "I'd love him whether he was trans or homosexual", but not one acceptance of more traditionally masculine behaviour. That's to an extent to be expected, it's more or less the default and doesn'…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:26 PM
1

I think you are talking about the mind projection fallacy, which isn't quite a traditional logical fallacy. Alternatively you might have read about the map-territory-relation.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:57 AM
1

Sandra Y.L. Korn ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator You'd think someone who studies the history of science would know what "Deutsch Physik" was and why it proves that politics should never meet up with academia. But that would only be if you were smart. I'm not sure that Deutsche Physik is a good analogy, because the movement, whilst being nationalistic, used the sprouting NS sentiment to further their scientific…
/r/MensRights20/02/14 06:26 PM
1

It has been proposed by an NGO. This didn't come from within the legislative structure of the EU.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 03:04 AM
1

One of the sources of the meta study linked listed under the "other testing"-category is this: UK Southern English families 30% (23.6 to 36.4) [...] Philipp, 1973 This source is regarded in this metastudy I found whilst trying to find the primary source as "Nonpaternity Rates (%) When Paternity Confidence Is Unknown". Bellis M., et al 2005 creates a dichotomy between "disputed paternity testing" and "other testing", but doesn't tell us why the "other testing" was done. The whole categorisation i…
/r/MensRights19/02/14 07:58 PM
1

I think that might be one of the papers I saw when I briefly investigated this whole thing. Thanks for providing a source!
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:32 PM
0

What a shocker. A feminist defending her fellow pedophiles and pretending NOT to be a feminist. Who? Harman and Hewitt have both self-identified as feminists. Feminists are so objective and rational except when it comes to the FACTS. I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 04:21 PM
7

Studies have shown non-paternity (where the assumed biological father is not) is 30%. This is the exact reason NOW and other feminists are so rabidly against automatic paternal testing of any birth. It would end marriages left and right by making it obvious that women cheat. A lot. I don't know which study you've seen, but the ones I have seen show rates between 10% and 20% for alleged fathers who are already suspicious about paternity. This isn't a randomly selected sample, it's a biased sample…
/r/MensRights19/02/14 04:17 PM
2

In each district other than Alaska you will have a majority female electorate. So what is your point, socialist? Gerrymandering in FPTP-systems means that you can have minority-elected governments. That's his point. Gerrymandering happens along party lines. More women vote democrat. Women being the majority of the electorate does therefore not necessarily mean anything (it does also not imply the opposite, if that's your problem).
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:55 AM
-2

Well they certainly tend to support female paedophiles. Ever heard of the Vagina Monologues? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_Monologues#Criticism Yes. What does this have to do with this particular case of a civil rights group supporting PIE? The vagina monologues were and are criticised in feminist circles also. And you know what, this objection lacks context completely. The paedophilia in the vagina monologues is lesbian paedophilia portrayed as positive in front of a backdrop of harmful …
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:48 AM
2

Just checked on the claim that these women are feminists, and it's backed by wikipedia: Indeed, but the problem here is that their feminism was probably only incidental to their support of a paedophilia group. In Germany, for example, feminists ended the support of the alternative/ecological/left's for the so-called Paedophiliebewegung. I'm by no means knowledgeable on pro-paedophilia movements, but the little that I know places them into the context of the sexual revolution and the gay rights m…
/r/MensRights19/02/14 03:44 AM
2

Jaywalking in Germany is an Ordnungswidrigkeit. That's a kind of non-criminal offense. I think it's called "Contravention of law" or something like that in English. Crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing when there's a traffic light indicating that crossing is impermissible at this time (red light usually, but potentially a red standing stick figure), can cost between 15 and 30 EUR for the first and subsequent few offenses, but there are further punishments for very stubborn repeat offenders. …
/r/MensRights18/02/14 07:25 PM
8

This sub has a problem when there is a women's health program, but there either is not or it is not know that there is a comparable men's health program. As to your second point: A non-trivial subset of feminism argues that sex is a sociocultural construct.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 07:46 PM
1

Just for the hell of it here's almost an exact copy of the video, but with a woman. Is it really that bad it should censored? I think they're both fine. That's not even close to an almost exact copy, it's different in tone and execution, and in both the man is the idiot (albeit only with some interpretative contortions in the Müller ad).
/r/MensRights12/02/14 07:19 PM
2

Others have given you potentially useful pointers; also note that it's "rape or sexual assault" that allegedlx happens to one in four women, not solely rape. What I would like to suggest is that you worked a bit hard for your result. Just calculate (1-P(raped))80, or (per your numbers) .999680 to get .9685 That's essentially what you were doing anyway, but quicker.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 03:07 PM
1

Could you explain how legalised (or not, as the case may be) is in any way related to men's rights, other than the most trivial ("it's giving [or robbing] men [of] the right to be prostitutes!")?
/r/MensRights31/01/14 12:24 AM
2

And it was stupid. However, since pregnancy is not a necessary result of (unsafe) sex, consenting to sex does not imply a consent to fatherhood. This is not a concept that is in principle hard to grasp, as hardly anybody is against adoption or baby havens, only some people argue against plan b, and probably less than half argue against abortion, so I don't understand why that particular argument is brought up time and time again, especially where men are concerned.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 02:59 PM
0

You are right, it is a petty concern. I believed "petty" to mean something other than what it actually means.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:45 PM
10

It's the fault of a society in which any remotely feminine is seen as bad or inadequate so if men do things that may come naturally to them but are societally seen as feminine (hugging, wearing brighter colours, anything generally "flamboyant") they are shamed. That's almost half true, but mostly wrong. "Any(thing) remotely feminine" isn't bad in itself, but rather in a male context. I know that this is true because women doing feminine things are not shamed for them, nor is their doing of said …
/r/MensRights18/01/14 02:56 PM
0

Speaking of petty, here's Emma Thompson and others on the evils of high heels... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/12/hate-high-heels_n_4584516.html?utm_hp_ref=style&ir=Style As it happens, i think high heels are stupid, but it's not like dying several years before the opposite sex. I can not scroll the page for some reason, so that I only saw Emma Thompson's statement. How is it petty or talking about evil? It says that high heels are uncomfortable, and to in that case just take them off.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:52 AM
10

Blatantly moving the goalposts? Usually it's more subtle on reddit. But I'll bite. In that thread there are a handful (perhaps five) people who explicitly are against gay marriage, and most of them for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. One thinks that marriage is an incentive to bring into the world or care for children, which he muddles with his experience of growing up fatherless. One is a libertarian who thinks marriage isn't a governmental issue. Two are against marriage ou…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 06:40 PM
16

I'm not an MRA, and I'd like to only comment on two things: The author presents as an example of mysogyny (or at the least something "women were offended by", which is paraphrased, but accurately so) an ad campaign by Microsoft where a form lettre so that gamers could justify their hobby to, among others, their wifes or girlfriends, existed. The author notes that this lettre could just as well have been addressed to a husband or boyfriend by a female gamer, but still insists upon the alleged mis…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 10:09 AM
2

You said "dress provocatively [...] to sexually appeal to men" originally. Then you moved the goal posts and said "for the sexual attention of men", and I accepted and made an even broader statement. If we are not talking about the same thing this is on you, not me. I have not once tightened my claim or moved the goalposts. And yes, if I were to dress in a manner understood to be sexual I would do it at least partially for that reason. While my "fashion sense" isn't independent (as I argued, thi…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 04:33 AM
1

How exactly would dressing to convey sexuality or sexual availability differ from "dressing. for the sexual attention of men"? These seem to me to be if not identical at the least homomorphic.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 04:25 AM
1

Dressing provocatively is dressing in such a way that sexuality is show-cased, or a willing- and openness to be approached is expressed. This is context-sensitive, the completely harmless corset-as-top-layer clothing in gothic and metal subcultures may be bedroom attire in other contexts. There is no contradiction here. People do dress up, or wear make-up, for men, yes, at least in part. Try to conceive of a person living in complete solitude. Not just a loner, somebody shipwrecked on an island.…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 04:11 AM
3

It's not your job to protect her from the consequences of her choices in the evil, evil world. Making excuses for her immoral, selfish act is infantilising, especially considering that you argue that you are perfectly capable of bearing the fall-out of a rape accusation - rape being universally condemned, not merely by a subset of people, as is the case with "slutty" behaviour, and a crime - whilst also granting implicitly that she either could not have bared or should not have to bare it. "Wome…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:46 AM
1

I'm not an institution, and my skepticism is universal, i.e. I would apply the same skepticism to her claim. The problem with "preponderance of evidence"-reasoning is precisely a lack of equally applied skepticisms (among other things), not an overabundance of it.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:38 AM
1

I'm not an institution, and my skepticism is universal, i.e. I would apply the same skepticism to her claim. The problem with "preponderance of evidence"-reasoning is precisely a lack of equally applied skepticisms (among other things), not an overabundance of it.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:37 AM
5

Yes, the terrible Ermaechtigungsgesetz of Obama goes well beyond the power of Hitler's German democracy. You are a crank.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 09:29 PM
3

Or really, fuck you. You don't know me. You have no reason to doubt me. But you choose to because...? That's creative. Any claim made without evidence is subject to default doubt. This can be mitigated by factors such as familiarity, a history of integrity, and so on. You, being a stranger, have none of these mitigating characteristics.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 09:23 PM
5

Even accepting the in my opinion completely imaginary bleak picture you paint about the consequences of admitting infidelity, a rape accusation can land one in prison, depending on the jurisdiction possibly for life. No amount of people tittering about "Jenny the slut" is in any way a comparable burden. You have bought into a self-flagellating "women are wonderful"-narrative, possibly to support the image you have of yourself as a moral (for some definition of the term) person, but this does not…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 09:13 PM
2

Patriarchy does not mean 'to the benefit of men' it just means "controlled by men of a disproportionately large share of power". So it is not in the least contradictory for a patriarchy to be hurtful to other groups of men that do not hold power. But it DOES mean that women historically have no power in that system. Feminist theory explicitly considers a patriarchy to benefit men as a class. You do this implicitly, too, yet you say yourself that it can hurt "other groups of men". These claims ar…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 01:43 PM
1

If men have made the rules that affect other men, and these other men were disadvantaged or oppressed thereby, wherefore1 is patriarchy a system of male rule to the benefit of men, as feminist theory holds? Why do you think the MRM as presented here is anti-woman, especially considering that one of the most respected MRAs both here and in the wider "community" is a woman, and that there are many more examples of female MRAs? Are they all self-hating gender traitors? How come you didn't notice th…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 02:00 AM
2

"Sexism" and "racism" have two different (relevant) meanings, respectively: One is the colloquial, individual acts of prejudice based on group membership and ascribed characteristics, and the other is the meaning used in academia and related fields, that of institutional -ism. Sexism and racism in the latter sense are, simplified, prejudices that are backed by the society and state and applied through it, which lends this -ism, but also an individual engaging in such an -ism in the institutional…
/r/MensRights22/11/13 11:44 AM
1

In the U.S., schoolchildren nearly always use pencils, and fountain pens (besides the non-refillable steel nib type) are quite a bit more expensive than ball point, felt tip, and rollerball. I actually don't know what schoolchildren here write with now. I learned writing with a Lamy children's fountain pen. That was actually mandatory (children of poor parents got their pens from the school). And yes, my fountain pen cost 39EUR. That cost is ameliorated by the cheap-ish cartridges. I used to wri…
/r/MensRights09/11/13 08:22 PM
1

Using a fountain pen almost certainly makes you part of the xkcd 915 group for writing implements It's my first fountain pen since primary. I just looked at the cost of buying new roller ball pens all the time and decided this would be cheaper in the long run. I also write more legibly with a nib for some reason.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 06:07 PM
2

who the hell buys a pen based on it's barrel girth? I write with a fountain pen. The one I have is a compromise, its barrel is too narrow for my hand and I cramp when I write for an hour or so. The next wider pen unfortunately would have been thrice as expensive. In any case, I'd do if I weren't poor.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 10:24 AM
1

This is about women being house wives.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 07:06 AM
1

Look, the best paramedic (inner city emergency ambulance service, "paramedic" is probably the wrong term, but go with it) I ever knew was a woman. She trained very hard because she wanted to get into the military and be a combat medic, which then was the only way a woman could do salaried work as a medic (I don't know that has changed; women were excluded because of infection during pregnancy risk). She was horribly abrasive to the patients, but as far as knowledge and fitness were concerned, sh…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 09:58 PM
18

First, the boy doesn't need a second chance, because he hasn't done anything wrong. He is on his first chance. Further,"rapist" is a stigma that hangs around. Rape is second only to murder on the scale of interpersonal crime (and even that is untrue for some people), and rape is a non-justifiable crime (by and large) against an innocent. Yes, you get just-world-apologetics, but barely anybody thinks that someone deserves to be raped. All this means that, whenever a falsely accused rapist is goog…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 07:30 PM
8

A barbarism in this context is the inflicting of an act of extreme cruelty and brutality upon another without sufficient justification of said act. Circumcision is not by itself barbaric, but can be medically necessary (albeit less so than people would like to believe) in case of f.e. phimosis. It is a brutal act, still, the mutilation of a body, but it is not cruel. Religiously or culturally "justified" circumcision has no sufficient justification. No greater evil is averted, no malicousness st…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:50 PM
7

Circumcision is not a religious tradition in Christianity. Also, if a barbarism is religious in nature, that is not a god damn excuse.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 04:08 PM
1

Or are we pretending we never liked adult women as teens? =/ As a generality, not in the way in which teens concretely envision fucking an adult and all the consequences and context of that, no. Having sex with somebody, having a crush on somebody, being fond of somebody, and so on, are different forms of liking.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 10:56 AM
1

The reverse of evolution, in which physical changes are driven by unconscious psychological desires. I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. The explanation for bias towards women is valid and fits within the framework of evolution. I don't know if it is sound.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:59 PM
0

Why would banding together with your own sex, leaving the other sex to die, confer an evolutionary advantage? The idea behind such arguments is usually that men are naturally more expendable, as women are the limiting factor on reproduction. This leads to a general bias towards women, which in turn manifests as in-group gender bias if you bother to look at the phenomenon from a gender perspective.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 02:27 PM
1

Language and behaviour policing isn't productive, and goes against the long-standing culture of the community. So do org-charts and chains of responsibility, but the argument in all 3 cases is that doing things differently would be better for the community. The difference between those two and trying to change the community culture by decree is that org-charts or defined chains of responsibility are an addition, not a replacement. It isn't the case that the community has some sort of organisatio…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 10:13 PM
1

That's fine and dandy, until your clients start adding requirements or just changing the spec in general. Design patterns don't provide a benefit in either case necessarily, but they really bloat software. I'm not against design patterns as such, I have a problem with what I consider to be overuse that is especially prevalent in (but not limited to) the Java world.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:45 PM
4

didn't find anything in the video upsetting. There are two things that I find "upsetting", by which I mean "wrong headed". First, the "if we just brought female students to their appropriate percentage", because if it is appropriate that 60% of students are women generally, then surely it must also be appropriate that they are not in CS. That sentence tells us that it isn't inappropriate for a gender imbalance to exists, making the whole argument paradoxical. Second, women don't need to have the…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:32 PM
1

: hello ." Hello world" ;
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:23 PM
1

Java is a widely used language, the language itself is a solid choice (and I say that as someone who doesn't like Java), and many CS curricula rely on Java to teach language independent concepts (because CS isn't about programming in any specific language, and to an extent not even about programming at all), so no, Java is perfectly fine. You can branch out later, especially if you are interested in being a programmer or systems designer, for now concentrate on what is required for your studies.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:22 PM
1

elegant, extensible, well designed and structured. Not one of those words is analogous with "design pattern". We had structured programming in the eighties, before the design pattern craze. What is elegant is to program to fit the needs. For example, if a program has one singleton object somewhere (say a legacy VSAM interface object), it makes no sense to introduce singleton factories or even singleton templates (the above example is a C++ application). The most elegant solution is to have that …
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:20 PM
2

two equality operators that give different results (== and ===) etc etc. JS is crazy. That's the same in PHP4.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:11 PM
2

Sharp is an active, long-standing kernel maintainer. She's second or third in line of the USB subsystem, and responsible for xHCI. She is very capable.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 02:52 AM
1

The problem, more generally and not necessarily with her specifically (she's clearly an active maintainer and not an "interloper"), is that more and more people are trying to dictate changes in "subcultures" with grown traditions and norms. Regarding that specific problem, the whole thing is ridiculous. Nobody was advocating physical violence or intimidation, which is what apparently kicked this off. Read the first post. The LKML has a specific culture, it has norms and traditions. It is an exam…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 02:50 AM
13

That's true though. The key there is "Institutionalized". Actually it is still not true. The "question" is "Institutional sexism refers to the power that men have to sex discrimination at the organizational and institutional level" That, however, isn't institutional sexism, but at best how it manifests in a culture. Institutional sexism, by contrast, is sexism against some group as a societal institution, nothing more. It's like the difference between gravity as a general term, and gravity on ea…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:40 PM
1

An as of yet unmentioned point: If that is a good thing, and if ancient rome was a patriarchy (and it was, to a ridiculous extend; the pater familias ain't really a thing any more), does that imply anything?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 01:08 AM
3

Harsher consequences? You mean an ass grab for women vs. a machete to the neck for men? That's a questionable comparison for two reasons: The context is different, where men are hacked to death women's most pressing problems aren't minor sexual assault (which isn't an argument that whatever women endure there is equal to being hacked to death). The statement you quoted is clearly placed within a western context via the preceding discussion. the context is further different in that one is about s…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 10:00 PM
2

I actually found his daughter's thinking much more engaging than his, and back then I liked PZ. I also remember the condescension towards her in the pharyngula comment section because of some believe she uttered that in some way I can't recall found its way onto pharyngula.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 12:58 AM
5

That's actually now a complicated question, ever since the "new atheism" "movement" (both of which are under scarequotes deliberately) arose. Long-time skeptics seem to be somewhat unhappy with the influx of new people, such as Jamy Ian Swiss, whose rant about this you can watch here. The reason for this "schism" seems to be that the Swiss-side seems to think that the new people conflate skepticism with unrelated or only peripherally connected issues, such as atheism, feminism, or social progres…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 04:09 AM
1

If you don't know, don't make up interpretations either--you absolutely are to blame for that. And you do it again in this post, trying to attribute the difference between your misunderstanding and the reported reality to an entirely made-up-by-you "casual/PC vs hardcore/console gamer" categories. Yes, you are right, I completely misread the article. I apologise. There is no difference between "video gamers" and "all gamers" in the study or the reporting here. I understand now that there isn't m…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 05:20 PM
1

Don't be dishonest. It makes the subreddit look bad. Women are 45 percent of the entire game playing population and 46 percent of the time are the most frequent game purchasers. Sure, adult women are about a third. But it's clear that their "nearly half" claim is described by that following sentence: 45-46% is safe territory for "nearly half." The sentence immediately preceding that doesn't make a distinction between "adult women" and "all women", but rather "video gamers" and "all gamers". I'm …
/r/MensRights02/08/13 09:11 PM
1

It's interesting they call 31% "nearly half." I call that "less than a third." Or how they you call 19% "nearly a quarter", when I'd call it "less than a fifth." That was my point. I deliberately rounded 19% up to 25% to illustrate the error.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:54 PM
7

Wut. That's just not true. Do you believe that the only way to change policies in the government is to become a member of government yourself and pass your own laws? This is a really bad argument, (democratic(-ish))government is vastly different from industry. This is the same concept. People are asking for something to be changed. They can listen, they can not listen. I don't need to code my own game. The problem with this line of argument is that game developers have no obligation to feminism,…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 09:42 AM
16

Let me link an article that goes more in depth for me: Link *Adult women represent a significantly greater portion of the video game-playing population than boys age 17 or younger, and nearly half of all video game players are women, according to new research released today by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The report, 2013 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry, found that women comprise 31 percent This here interpretation is wrong, see the subsequent discussi…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 08:07 AM
16

Both movements have their reasonable, centrist (for lack of a better term), sane members and both have their unreasonable, radical, batshit crazy members. I agree with you on this, but a huge problem in your argument is that feminist theory, which is the foundation of the ideology, demands that scholarship ("science") must rest on an axiomatic understanding that women are subjugated and men privileged. You are actually comparing "feminism light" with centrist mrm here (which lacks an overarching…
/r/MensRights28/07/13 07:33 PM
1

Not entirely sure what you mean.. I was confused because I didn't grok the use of "marry" in the sense of being the "bonder" in a marriage ceremony of other people. I thought you meant the forcing of individual adherents of any religion to be married to persons they do not wish to marry. Entirely my fault, thanks for clearing it up.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:21 PM
1

I'm happy to see someone else bring up not forcing religious groups to marry those they don't want to marry. What exactly does that have to do with anything? Forced marriage is illegal for everyone no matter their religiousity.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 03:22 PM
0

No wanting and consenting are the same thing. Enjoying and consenting are different but consent is literally you wanting to have sex with someone, whether you think youll enjoy it or not. There's a conflation of terms here. If you use "want" in the manner you describe, you axiomatically define "wanting" in terms of consent, or the other way around, but whether that is proper is what is questioned in the first place. Most people have things in their life they do or consent to for reasons other th…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:33 AM
1

Just because the idea came from feminism, doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. With a few minor tweaks, I think the theory is sound. You just have to strip away the feminist obsession with declaring people oppressed. I didn't say that intersectionality was a wrong idea per se, but the comic very likely wasn't made by somebody who would consider the existence of a gender vector of oppression towards men. Additionally, intersectionality has inherited p…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:05 PM
7

Not necessarily either. Intersectionality isn't in any way a reaction to the MRM or concerned with it, but feminism doesn't recognise men as disenfranchised as a group, and feminist theory generally holds them to be (sometimes willfull) oppressors (as a class/group). Crudely, intersectionality is the study of how the oppression(s) of the black disabled lesbian as a black person, a disabled person, a lesbian person, and a woman respectively overlaps, not how men and women are both oppressed.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:27 AM
8

Intersectionality concerns the intersections between disenfranchised groups and is part of feminist theory. The MRAs in this "comic" are the people that oppress the triangles and the stripy shapes.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:48 AM
1

The girl turned 17 just three weeks before the June 15 encounter, and if she was 16 she would not have legally been able to consent to sexual relations and Skidmore could have faced a statutory rape charge. The article doesn't work for me (timeout). Where did this happen? Where I live prostitution with seventeen is illegal, and due to the protection children are afforded by law (and other considerations) it would mostly and severly be illegal for the john. I also think sex work should be restric…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:37 AM
10

[....] They chose to fight, because they felt it was their religious obligation. I'm going to bed now, and I haven't yet watched the video, so that this critique is not based on the video or the experiences you reported on: This sentence makes no sense. Choice is meaningless if it applies to the fulfillment of obligation. I'm obligated to pay my rent monthly. That I do so is choice only in the slightest sense.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:30 AM
1

Um... no one encourages single parenthood. Rather, people support single parents. That isn't as easy as you make it sound. Take for example HIV, where the availability of medication has, according to some HIV clinics, lessened the caution of sexually active people with regards to HIV. Stephen Fry briefly discusses this in his "HIV and me"-documentary. Of course almost nobody intents to encourage single parenthood, but encouragement can be an unintended side-effect.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:28 PM
1

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I restructured the posting so often that I didn't notice that I had changed the meaning. Corrected.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:43 PM
3

Psychology is the art (it sure ain't no science) of getting people to pay you while you pretend you care about their lives. Colloquially "Psychology" is understood as an applied science, and unfortunately this trumps all other branches in visibility from the point of view of the public. If you think that psychology as an academic subject is the same thing as a shrink you are simply wrong. edit: See /u/lightfiend's correction!
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:13 AM
137

Born male, figured male transgendered was clear on that. Ah well that's the opposite way of what is usual. You refer to her as "him", when the idiomatic use of pronouns in LGTB-circles is to use the preferred pronoun of the person in question. Regarding the toilet situation: It's unfortunate that some prejudice about the alleged danger men are to women (always) carries over to transwomen. I have no idea why that is. I can understand being uncomfortable with transpeople, they are a kind of person…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:50 PM
65

I've noticed around him that a lot of women don't like transgendered men, especially if they use the female bathrooms. Could you clarify your nomenclature? Is your friend born male (sex) and identifies as female (gender), a transwoman; or born female, identifies as male, a transman? Your text reads as if a person identifying as male were trying to use female bathrooms, and that sounds a bit confused to me.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:40 PM
1

The English also don't have this insane culture that normalises the murder, torture, and rape Wait, what? You're saying this about the greatest mass murders in history? The nation that conquered half the globe and slaughtered their native populations? The folks who made the nazis look like amateurs? [...] [But] I just can't stomach hearing the English held up as civilized and disinclined to murder, torture, and rape, as compared to... well, anyone, really. Actually I would stand by my statement …
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:41 AM
2

True, but amended before Jamaican independence and by now repealed. The English also don't have this insane culture that normalises the murder, torture, and rape of battyboys. The English contribution to music isn't Dancehall, protested a few years ago for the violence and bigotry contained within it, by those who managed to not be blinded by the popular perception of Jamaicans as a kind off chill Bob Marley (another disgusting bigot).
/r/MensRights24/06/13 05:36 AM
2

Ah well the American voting system is very strange. A system that necessarily tends towards two party systems seems simply wrong-headed to me. Currently there are 6 parties in the national council, three in the federal council, and four on state and city level (that's the same for me). The problem with three parties in the American system seems to me to be that voting for a third party is almost always against a voter's interest, as it can actually functionally be equivalent to a vote for the pa…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:56 PM
3

I often wonder what a BSc even means under such circumstances. My country has just finished phasing out our traditional academic system for an international Bacc/Master/PhD-system. Going through regular education and conscription service, men aren't even likely to start their bachelor's at 18 here (usually 19).
/r/MensRights20/06/13 03:51 PM
1

I chose "other" for that reason. I'm a tactical voter, too, even if I'm ideologically left to far left, so even iff you were to provide me with "my" parties, I wouldn't necessarily know what to pick. And being a registered voter for a party has been a weird thought for decades1 here.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 03:45 PM
2

If you think that misanthropy is the opposite of humanism you are misinformed. Modern humanism (often just called "Humanism") is about metaphysical naturalism, secularism, reason, distributive justice, things like that. Historically, humanism is complicated.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 03:39 PM
3

So I’m going to pretend that you are a woman married to a man who had an affair with a woman where he works. [...] Nothing to see here folks. OP is a derp. Move along. I think that is exactly OPs point, that the assumption is cheating husband, rarely "cheating wife" or something.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 01:15 PM
3

When these evil feminists are talking about their evil little problems that are not problems I think genital mutilation is a problem; you, on the other hand, don't appear to. For you it is either only a problem when an arbitrary threshold of badness is breached, or in conjunction with a specific gender. Both positions are weaker condemnations of genital mutilation than my own, so that your statement seems rather ridiculous. they are talking about what I was referring to, not what you are trying …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:41 PM
5

Does not take a scientist to tell you it is WAY worse. Just the amount of Flesh removed is worse. Female circumcision ranges from clitoral hood pricking to infibulation. Not all of those remove more (or any) flesh than male circumcision as it is practiced in the US. The fact that these women will never have an orgasm and probably will experience pain every time they have intercourse is true. It is neither a fact, nor true. Circumcised women in areas where female circumcision is the norm often re…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:17 PM
1

"X" has to have a separate meaning from "Institutionalized X" for either of them to have meaning, and folding the meaning of X + Y into X just muddies everything. Isn't that just a problem with technical terms and register? "Flu" also has different meanings depending on register; a doctor might mean the disease caused by Influenza, a lay person might mean "a cold".
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:03 PM
9

You misunderstood. What a sociologist usually means when they say "racism" is institutionalised racism. There is, in my opinion, a lot of truth to the claim that institutionalised racism is unequal. Institutionalisation means, simplified, that the power of the culture and/or the state support the institution; it's the difference between not getting a job at one firm because the boss thinks crackers are stupid, and generally having a hard time bein employed anywhere because not only does every bo…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 06:03 PM
6

They do it because they crave female acceptance. I don't think this is generally true. Obviously a large motivator of any held position, as well as behaviour, is in-group acceptance. But the in-group of those men aren't solely women.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 08:32 PM
6

The only interesting thing about the vending-machine-analogy is what it implies. A vending machine that can not respond to the input of tokens (because it is empty, f.e.) refuses them, unless it is fraudulent.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 04:04 PM
0

I don't think it is that simple. Consent isn't worth much if it isn't informed consent. Let's say I were to go around with my new device that promises to repair people's glaucoma. It even works, and formerly half-blind people have a massive increase in quality of life. What I didn't tell them, though, was that my device also causes cancer. Does their consent count? Sex is slightly different in that the equivalent of cancer in the analogy is a trait based upon which discrimination is considered b…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 12:02 AM
32

"Dedicated" isn't the word I'd use. There are plugins for Firefox (such as firebug) that allow one to change a website in a few clicks.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 09:18 PM
1

When the vast majority of people in positions of power are men, it is obvious that there is a power imbalance. I feel like you're trying to deny that that men have any benefits from patriarchy. Let's accept a purely descriptive definition of patriarchy; it isn't then obvious why this power imbalance exists. That a system is patriarchal doesn't entail that it is discriminatory. Further, the feminist definition of patriarchy isn't descriptive in that it claims that patriarchy either as a secondary…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:49 PM
0

I don't know about that. Look at all the fairy tale villains. The evil queen in Snow White, the evil fairy in Sleeping Beauty, the witch in Hansel and Gretel. A common theme in germanic folk tales is the wicked stepmother. I have read, and it seems a reasonable claim, that this stereotype was based on the problem of women dying in childbirth and the second wife of the father trying to secure his exclusive support for her children. Iff that is true (and the claim in the article), then perhaps an …
/r/MensRights02/05/13 06:10 AM
2

That's a reference I don't understand. We don't have root beer here as far as I know. But generally speaking, no. You don't have an inherent right to root beer like you have to self-determination and bodily integrity, and you aren't born with root beer, i.e. not having root beer isn't in itself a result of a violation. Circumcision is a complicated enough topic because men are so heavily invested in a narrative that doesn't cast them as a victim. In addition, the perpetrators of circumcision are…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:34 PM
0

I kind of look at it like, oh you mean I still get chocolate ice cream, I just don't get (insert topping here) I guess that sucks, but it's still ice cream This is a really bad analogy. Uncircumcised children aren't granted something extra, rather they aren't robbed of something that is theirs inherently, be it self-determination or simply the foreskin itself.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:23 PM
1

I can not remember. I read that when I was 16. But that is a moot point. Engels makes some of the same arguments as to why women are oppressed as feminism. There is even the weird belief that the natural societal structure was a matrilineal, gynocentric paradise with group child care, paternal investment, but no concern about paternity, and so on, that was later rehashed and put into a feminist framework. Engels doesn't think patriarchy is responsible for this decline into women oppressing socie…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 11:01 PM
1

It's past my bedtime, so I'll just point you to this book by Engels for now. Edit: fixed link
/r/MensRights19/04/13 01:59 AM
1

That's a simplification I think. Feminism has some Marxist roots. Engels wrote on oppression of women in a society stratified into classes and saw the rise of the nuclear family as the reason for said oppression. He also somehow thought that men killing their wives were just excercising their rights in such a society (this is meant descriptively, not normatively, i.e. Engels was against this). Lenin considered the position of women in capitalist society to be that of domestic slaves, used by cap…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 01:44 AM
2

It has been some time since I read that, I may reread it later if you need specific quotes, but I remember especially the introductory chapters concerned with "feminist dogma" and history to contain various easily refutable mistakes that are repeated and referenced in subsequent chapters. There are a few examples: Hysteria, for example, is a disregarded diagnosis. Further, the understanding of physiology, endocrinology, and generally medicine was so without empirical basis in pre-EBM days that t…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:56 AM
2

Also somewhat outdated. There are a number of assertions that fly in the face of modern science, by which I don't mean radical feminism, but rather everything from neurology to psychology.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:13 AM
3

Many MRAs are also conservative/mildly right wing.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 01:35 PM
8

I don't follow the logic in your third sentence. Feminists often make reference to women who have 'internalised' misogyny or patriarchy, thereby putting at least some of the blame for patriarchy on those women who perpetuate it. My logic here is a work in progress ;). How are women perpetuating it if they don't have power under patriarchy? Isn't the fact that those in power (men) don't work to remove patriarchy a sign that they are okay with it, and further solely responsible?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:47 PM
5

Thirdly. As I understand it, the term patriarchy doesn't lay the blame at the feet of men. Rather it refers to the idea that men are generally at an advantage over women, due to unfortunate facts about our society. This has recently interested me. I agree with your statement in so far as that feminists often claim that patriarchy lays no blame at the feet of men. However, if patriarchy is a system that puts men in positions of authority and/or power, to the benefit of men, then it almost follows…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:31 PM
6

Yes, they are. Feminism is the idea that women are equal to men. full-stop. Everything else is theorizing and speculative, nobody agrees on all of it. I really had trouble responding to this. I began writing several exposés, all going far beyond the purpose of reddit discussions. I've decided to instead briefly explain a parallel I see. "Feminism is the idea that women are equal to men" is an intentionally vague and meaningless statement. It reminds me strongly of a period of time in the ninetie…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 04:45 PM
12

I am saying that while we (you) are calling her a feminist, she is actually a misandrist. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:58 AM
1

you are looking at two different aspects of a problem. All poker players are treated equally bad in that they might lose their ability to play. This seems to me to be a very arbitrary distinction. Of all online card game players, the ones playing less desirable ones, aka the soon to be forbidden poker, are mostly male. How does this differ from: Out of all the internships the less desirable ones aka the unpaid internship are mostly held by females so both genders are not treated equally. You can…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:41 PM
1

God damn, they're stupid. Do they not realize how much their infrastructure will improve if they upgrade? Hardware doubles in capability every 18 months, so that's 2<sup>15</sup> improvement, which is a nearly 32,000x improvement, if that equation's correct... Ha. How does this improve a workstation monitoring a bottling machine, for example? And how will the update work anyway if the current workstation runs proprietary cp/m software using a proprietary protocol to talk to a proprietary board c…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 04:04 PM
1

from the other page: http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/tu50y/help_is_my_boyfriend_a_pedophile/ Actually, with the genders reversed the advice is "it's just fantasy" The genders aren't reversed, the person in the above takes the position of the victim, not the perpetrator, and there is no hint that there was more than one story, nor pictures of scantily clad children.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:11 PM
6

Play hard to get to force a man to show you how awesome he is. Because if you are too forward you are treading into men's territory, and that goes against God's plan. Your reading of that text is really, really strange. There is no "God's plan". The text is written as a descriptive exploration of a topic, it isn't prescriptive, and it describes a dynamic, not unilateral oppression. Rousseau sees the sexes complementing each other, starting with an understanding that the sexes are inherently diff…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 11:11 AM
1

Nazism is a left wing ideology, as they didn't have a free market but state controlled means of production and a planned economy (I suggest you read about Albert Speer as he was the mastermind behind it all). They were a bit more lax about it than the Soviets, as they allowed businesses to remain in private ownership and be managed by private individuals, but important things were nationalised and the private firms were broadly told what to make. The Soviets had their factories run by collective…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:44 PM
0

I don't know whether or not all of them can be granted where I live. As for your second question: I have a somewhat romanticised view of marriage, and I see benefits that are hard to weigh against risks because they are hard to quantify in the first place. As for legal benefits, tax benefits and parental rights, especially the latter, are very important.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:09 PM
0

Affirmation is not granted by marriage. Your warm fuzzies do not count as legal guarantees. Moving the goalposts, but that isn't a problem. Next-of-kin rights with regards to for example medical information, rights to enter contracts in the name of the spouse under some conditions, entitlement to spousal support, entitlement to state and insurance benefits should something happen to the spouse, inheritance rights, ..
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:56 PM
1

You don't have to determine which is worse. We don't do that for murder or kidnapping or any other crime. Actually we do. The range of punishments availabe to a judge for crimes differ based on various factors, one of which is the severity of the crime itself. This is often used to argue that there should be a marked difference between murder and rape punishments, with the latter being lesser, to not inadvertently incentivise people to murder their rape victim (as the victim is also a witness).
/r/MensRights19/02/13 09:28 AM
0

No. Parental rights, taxes, and affirmation.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:32 AM
0

Tax benefits, full parental rights and obligations, a nice feeling in one's stomache of having affirmed the intended longevity of the relationship, with the associated stability and support.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:41 AM
11

No, this is a misconception. Since the advent of reliable birth control, one can consent to sex, but not parenthood.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:32 PM
6

This is a genuine question of a non-native speaker: where is the difference?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:43 PM
1

I really can't do that with a clean conscience. I am not sure I could do so without undue bias, and my knowledge is mostly limited to German. Let's just say that there the history of the generic masculine, its use, and interpretation in German is varied, and this is presumably true for English also, which has had the generic "they" before it had a generic "he" (at least formally) if I recall correctly, and that a good argument can be made, especially using data from psycholinguistic and sociolin…
/r/MensRights09/02/13 07:07 AM
0

Is the phrase itself sexist? Maybe, but the entire English language (and all Romance languages) are sexist because they all use the implied "he." The generic masculine is concerned with grammatical classification, not sex of human referents. English has lost grammatical gender to a large degree, and that made something entirely innocuous problematic - in part because ignoramuses didn't go the descriptive route and discovered what a generic masculine is, but chose prescriptivism in a weird invers…
/r/MensRights09/02/13 06:13 AM
0

What do you mean when you say "he didn't realise"? Omnipotent states are not Marxist.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:25 PM
2

White man, non-white woman, presumably.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:10 PM
4

Can I ask why (or if) so many questions are geared towards homophobia? If I were to select some value for something like "I'm uncomfortable with strangers touching me", and later the same for "I'm uncomfortable with other men ?touching me", how would that be read? The first and the second question possibly set up distinct groups (strangers/non-strangers), and (all sexes/men) but that isn't clear, and someone may well just be uncomfortable with human touch as such, and thus answer both questions …
/r/MensRights05/02/13 06:15 PM
1

So just to update this: The populace decided that they want to retain conscription (60:40). According to polls, the main reason for this is that they don't want to lose Zivildienst (the "civil service" thing), and that "older" people voted to this effect, while "younger" people voted against conscription. I'm not sure how those two age groups are delineated.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 08:55 PM
18

The Greens, the most (and possibly only serious)y) feminist party in Austria, recommend voting to abolish conscription.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 09:16 PM
3

This isn't as simple as it's presented here. a Volksbefragung isn't a vote, mainly because it isn't binding in any way. Rather, it is a tool to survey the opinion of the governed on some issue. By law, a Volksbefragung is universal. one of the main problems with abolishing conscription is that many social services rely on conscripts choosing "civil service" (I am appropriating a term here) to avoid military service. Austria has no federal ambulance service, for example. Even Vienna, a city-state…
/r/MensRights18/01/13 09:15 PM
1

"Abo" is short for Abonnement, which is derived from French and is the German Word for "subscription".
/r/MensRights17/01/13 09:44 AM
1

No? The central ethic to feminism is that men and women are equal, so an anti-feminist seems pretty clearly anti-woman. That's not really the central ethic of feminism. There is academic feminism , the field of study that has brought forth gems such as "feminist epistemology"; there is feminist activism, and there is everyday label-feminism, i.e. people who are feminist in the same way some others are humanist, the "humanism is being good to people, so I am a humanist"-kind. Only for the latter,…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:41 PM
1

Bullshit! Men didn't give up their advantages. [...] Those they lost they did not give up. Women took what always should have been rightfully theirs. How? Historically, those in power can (partially) lose that power in two ways, they "give it up", or through revolution. There are few examples of the former (I can not ad hoc think of any), and many of the latter. There are also cases that sit between those two extremes, such as the creation of the Magna Carta, or the formation of India as an inde…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 10:06 PM
2

Nature has a natural order, men gave up their advantages to create a more equal society. Nature does not have a natural order. At best it has emergent properties, one of which are systems of gender roles.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 09:56 PM
3

Eowyn, whilst arguably a hero, also has a glaring flaw (with regards to strong female characters). When her fatalism and despair in the house of healing robs her of her will to live, it is ultimately through the love of a man (Faramir) that she overcomes her death wish in the face of having neither gained the love of Aragorn King, nor the respect (primarily for herself) as a shield-maiden and independend woman and finds salvation and acceptance of the cage she feels her role to be. Lord of the R…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:07 AM
4

Galadriel is the queen, not the princess. She alludes to this when Frodo tempts her with The One Ring. edit: eludes -> alludes, thanks to the poster below
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:53 AM
3

His entire character arc was basically proving he was good enough for her. He wasn't even allowed to finally marry her till he got the throne. Ah but that is in the books. Even Numenoreans have to prove their merit when they seek to marry the Evenstar. It's also an in-universe parallel to Behren and Luthien, as is often the case in "real" mythologies and folk stories.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:52 AM
10

Not all women are related to every man. For people who both think sluts are good, but not if they were their daughter/mother/wife/aunt/etc., the problem lies presumably in them being their, not somebodies relative. So I don't understand your point.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 05:27 PM
6

It's not a meaningful question as it stands because the terms are ill-defined. Consider the question of whether there is a sound if a tree falls in a wood with nobody near to hear it. The answer is both yes and no (in German, there is even a colloquial term for that, jein; I don't know a similar term in English); yes, if a sound is a pressure wave in a medium, no, if a sound is the qualia of hearing. What does each word mean then in "seeking the same quantity of sex"? Does your need to answer wi…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 10:44 AM
6

That sounds as though she has interpreted Feminism as a movement which threatens to take her voice, as a woman, away from her, or somehow to marginalize her opinions or views. That's a faulty interpretation. The movement of Feminism, even as much as it may be overstepping its perhaps disingenuously stated aims, is certainly not a movement with the intent or effect of disenfranchising women. Feminism does have a disenfranchising effect (as you use the phrase). Consider for example women who are t…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 05:15 AM
2

You silly goose; I just argued why such a statement is naivé. Perhaps I have to spell it out: Public opinion has no bearing on the righteousness of any action. Consider as evidence Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, the Scholl siblings, or your own Warren Farrel; because if he had done nothing wrong, there would have been no protest.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:30 PM
1

No, this presumes that societal perception of morality of actions and morality of actions are congruent. Consider Fahrenheit 451; are Montag's actions righteous or not? If Fahrenheit 451 were set in the present, would Montag's need to evade "justice" be indicative of his actions being unrighteous? Now, you used the phrase "shamed for them", and this situation were slightly different, iff "being shamed" were independent of outside effects, but it isn't. Being shamed for something is a function of…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:47 AM
1

It's irrelevant. Addition, division, frugality and impulse control are needed for budgeting, not abstract mathematics. Just like he who is good at repairing engines is not necessarily a good race car driver, she who is good at differential calculus isn't necessarily good with money.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:01 AM
3

I'd certainly agree it is due to the stress men are subjected to. Many homeless people are veterans and the military is approximately 90% male While that is true for the US, homelessness disproportionately affects men in all countries I have seen data for. In mine, even if "hidden" homelessness is taken into account, i.e. people who are homeless in so far as that they do not have independent shelter, but are sheltered (mostly women and children) by third parties such as friends or family, men ar…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:39 AM
1

I'm answering as someone who reads a variety of gender-related subs, and has opinions that align with feminism or the MRM, but mostly argues MRM points of view. I still don't identify as an MRA and can't speak for others or the movement, even a bit. Do you feel that men are discriminated against more than women? In my country I know this to be the case as far as the institutions of law and constitution are concerned. We still have conscription, for example. In so far as it concerns societal inst…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 08:41 AM
14

"Almost" as in "the very best thrower's who are female can not throw as far as a similarly trained male with a weight that is about half of what a man throws"? From wikipedia on shot put, "7.260 kilograms (16.01 lb), and the women's shot weighs 4 kilograms (8.8 lb)." and top performance ever by a woman: 22.63 m (74 ft 2¾ in) by a man: 23.12 m (75 ft 10 in)
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:23 AM
1

The fact is that rape is not often about sex at all. Rape is more typically about dominance over another person and a desire to humiliate and control them. That is not actually a fact, but rather an ideological position. I think that you know this, because in the next sentence, you write: There have been many convicted serial rapists and serial sexual murderers who were incapable of getting an erection. They typically utilize an instrument to sexually assault their victim. With this, you limit t…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:52 PM
1

I'm using a colloquial meaning of the term, close to the following: in·fan·til·ize: To treat or condescend to as if still a young child (from freedictionary.com) Your idealisation of women is infantilisation in itself. Women have "nicer dispositions", they are "naturally gentle", and it is a hypothetical utopia in which women are also strong, protective, .. (yet still not ungentle or anything that actually is implicitly necessary to be an effective protector, but that is another problem). Your w…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:36 PM
1

That, if unethical, would actually be an interesting experiment. Take a few thousand people, remove the sex drive of half however possible, accounting for side effects, and compare rape prevalence in both populations after ten years.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 04:07 AM
3

Well that's a level of infantalisation and philosophical misapprehension I wasn't aware existed.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 04:01 AM
2

Here's he problem with your argument: for a long (read very long) time it was frowned upon for women to wear "men's" clothing. That is true and extends to "mannish behaviour" by women; but I don't see how this is a problem with the original argument. It just expands it in my opinion. Could you clarify this?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:12 PM
5

[...] can't even be "equal" enough to see that certainly at least minority men might need some help in society. That's potentially the whole reason why he tries to characterise this subreddit or the MRM as predominantly rich and white; it enables him to deny its legitimacy without engaging with any of the actual concerns raised. The anti-feminist counterpart is the "ugly, fat feminazi that just can't get a man", which sefves a similar function.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:59 AM
8

Not exactly an answer to my question. I asked because it appears to me as if the strategy you employ weren't very successful. Your messages are widely downvoted, so that the positive response ratio is probably small. It is possible that you just have the zeal of a missionary, but you go about it in a way reminiscent of email spam, not ideologues, which suggested to me that it is more likely that there is some financial incentive than any other.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:33 AM
7

Do you (or the other manhoodacademy posters, if there is more than one with numerous accounts) have any monetary incentive for posting this or related links over and over again, even though it's downvoted every time by the majority of the subreddits you spam in?
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:23 AM
5

my beef with lefties in this case is that they make themselves to be holier than thou when they are just as bad as everyone else. That comes with being an entrenched "institution". A socially far-right party in my country that based its program in part on breaking the stale, decades old big coalition, with all the problems that arise when something is in power for too long and gets comfortable in that position, won enough votes to form a coalition government, and the whole program was promptly f…
/r/MensRights18/11/12 10:28 PM
3

With the whole "moustaches are manly" thing, well, I was just going with what the OP had established, ie that they are manly. I know, I merely had to voice my confusion. I was aware that you used OP's comment as a conversation starter and didn't agree or disagree with the notion as such. Argue the roots of the policing if you want, but I think regardless of the reasons for the policing, people should be free to do what they want with their body without social shame and pressure. I agree. I think…
/r/MensRights18/11/12 08:15 PM
2

I find the assertion in the posting you replied to, that moustaches are "manly", weird; in my experience that it isn't the case. Moustaches are (a sign of) a caricature of manliness closely related to reactionism, chauvinism, machismo, and simpletons. In general though, your request is a bit idealistic. Both genders are appearance-policed, but women to a much greater extent. Both genders are free to ignore said policing, but incur a cost for that. I'm not sure all these issues that are framed as…
/r/MensRights18/11/12 07:39 PM
3

That's a bit like all those people who believe that they are reincarnations of some past human. It's remarkable how few of those people were slaves or peasants, and how few of those who weren't nobility died in WWI or of the spanish flu between 1914 and 1920.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 07:34 PM
1

Men wearing make-up as an expression of freedom seems to me like women going to work as an expression of freedom What is the problem with women going to work? I don't understand this argument. If anything I would think the opposite: That this trend is meant to challenge and thereby undermine what is left of masculinity. The reason why there is so little left of masculinity is at least in part because male and female gender roles are set up as a strict dichotomy. They partition the entirety of hu…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 09:01 PM
2

That's only partially relevant. The goal is to widen the male gender role, not shift it. A large problem many young men seem to have is that the female gender role has expanded so much that the male gender role as distinct from it has become very small. Shifting it (feminisation) won't help, widening it until the dichotomy is gone and men can express their personality within the male gender role will.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 07:22 PM
7

If OP's story is roughly congruent to reality, it doesn't seem as if restraining orders required any actual evidence of misconduct in his jurisdiction. Is this generally the case? If so, how can that constitute evidence against crimes of passion (or temporary insanity)?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 08:45 PM
12

That's a really blunt way to teach about gender differences. It actually just perpetuates stereotypes. It's especially problematic to force a specific understanding of gender differences on children. The child who filled in that sheet did sort some toys by gender, clearly having some understanding of a non-trivial gender difference. That particular child just felt that most toys weren't gender specific, not that the whole concept was false.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 01:43 AM
1

And why the heck doesn't any boy want to be a prince?! I can't answer that question generally, but I can for me. I learned early or was born with the idea that men do stuff. Princes in fairy tails are in elevated positions, but they are extras in the stories that remain static and have almost no agency. I didn't like that. In Cinderella, I identified with her. Not with the aspiration to one day marry a prince, but with her strife and agency, although I didn't articulate it like that as a child. …
/r/MensRights04/11/12 01:40 AM
2

The male chest is only not sexualised by straight men. I don't think that male chests are sexualised to the same degree as female breasts are even excluding straight men. Homosexual men are a small minority, and women are generally less visually focused with regards to sexuality. The point is that breasts are unnecessarily sexualised, and thus taboo. But that is a different point. Whether or not the sexualisation of breasts is unnecessary, it clearly exists. That is the equivocation the comic ma…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 05:40 PM
2

If you want to talk about double standards, consider that it's perfectly acceptable for you to take your shirt off in public, but not women. That's also a ridiculous comparison. Breasts are sexualised1 and can not be simply equivocate with the non-sexualised male chest. And in some ways, showing a lot of cleavage is worse than toplessness as such, because cleavage is a willful emphasising of the sexual aspect of breasts. Women wear clothes that are especially made so that they show more breast. …
/r/MensRights03/11/12 04:56 PM
5

Both are problematic in their own ways. But Ivy is designed that way to be desirable while Marcus is designed that way to fulfill a male empowerment fantasy. In my opinion that's a consequence only of the Smurfette principle. Let's accept that generally men want to look like Marcus, and have a girlfriend like Ivy; but that also works the other way around. Generally, women want to look like Ivy and have Marcus. It's strange how this is acknowledged in feminist media critique, and rightly so, poin…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 01:32 AM
1

That isn't what's usually used as a definition for murder. In any case, your argument hinges on the definition of "person" used. What is your definition? Would it include children who don't have a theory of mind yet, for example?
/r/MensRights22/10/12 05:35 PM
3

If the only thing needed to ruin someone's life is connecting their name to their actions, then their actions were the problem -- not the connection. I don't think you've thought that through. It's a justification for mob rule. Examples of your argument going awry include people who were connected to practising homosexuality, witchcraft, witnessing against the Mafia, the "wrong" religion, book writing, and transsexuality, all of which are dead (that counts as "life ruined" I think) as a direct r…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:10 AM
1

The real problem here isn't even your brother's opinion of the MRM, or disregarding misandry. The real problem is that your brother thinks you are "a terrible human being", "male-rights shithead", "not a man" (paraphrased) and somebody who should "go fuck [themselves]". Is your relationship with your brother very distant? If any of my relatives turned out to have weird views I can't support (and this has happened), that wouldn't suddenly change everything I know about them. Unless you have a his…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:42 PM
1

Again, I don't actually disagree with you. I mistyped, also, I meant "within the context of that value system", not "[...] my value system, [...]". In discussions with feminists (or generally people who aren't MRAs) I've often tried to illustrate my perspective with the classic metaphor of the gilded cage. There are advantages to a gilded cage, like security and safety, and disadvantages, like a lack of freedom, and similarly there are advantages and disadvantages both to living outside of a gil…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:49 PM
1

Child porn has a few attributes jailbait hasn't, such as that the former necessitates victimisation of a child (in the rape-sense, not the "photo taken" sense), and is illegal. There are other things, but the main problem is that claiming that /r/jailbait in any way was dedicated to child porn is an attempt to bias a discussion and rewrite history, it isn't an honest mistake some idiot makes who doesn't think too good. It's like the "Obama is an African muslim"-shit some teapartiers spouted. It'…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:41 PM
1

Are you merely explaining what the bear-person means or actually arguing this definition?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:18 PM
1

No, that is not what we mean when we say porn, and for good reason. Let me illustrate by example, because your argument is not all that good: within the context erected by jailbait, everything would be porn under your argument, provided somebody sexualises it. If a fetishist projects eroticism onto shoes, pictures of shoes are now porn. The Mona Lisa is porn. The picture I have of my partner in a heavy coat? Porn. under an interpretation more charitable to your argument, where "group sexualisati…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:58 PM
0

I'm sorry, I somehow missed your reply, and since it's been some time since, I'll just address the general issue: Considering that none of the 'desert religions' provide men the ability to consent to sex separate from consent to parenthood... in fact, for example, the puritans came down even harder on sexually 'deviant' men... what's your point? They don't like extramarital sex whether it's men or women doing it. Within the context of "western" value systems, the "desert religions" are more rest…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:38 PM
1

Again, it's the "dedicated to childporn", not the "dedicated to jailbait" I'm calling misinformation. Linking a definition of the latter doesn't address the former.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:15 PM
1

And /r/jailbait was "dedicated to [...] childporn", was it?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 11:46 AM
-16

This culminated in Gawker writing an expose of Michael Brutsch, the man who was behind a subreddit dedicated to sexualising children and child porn. It's amazing how fast misinformation spreads
/r/MensRights14/10/12 12:30 PM
1

Rape isn't about sex, it isn't about societal pressures to have sex and it certainly isn't about being/becoming a man. At a clinical level it stems from a desire to assert dominance. That isn't a fact, as far as I understand. Especially recently a number of studies questioned that. I'm on my phone now and can't provide sources, but we can show, for example, that both rapists and non-rapists prefer consensual sex, casting doubt on the idea that a rapist gets off on power. Aditionally, most rapes …
/r/MensRights13/10/12 10:04 AM
2

I really don't get the outrage about this whole taking a picture of people thing. Seriously people, photographs don't actually take a part of your soul... :P What is the tangible harm? Say someone took a photo of me and stuck it up on one of these places. What would happen? Probably nothing, although one can't be sure of that, and there are far-fetched, but not entirely unfounded, privacy concerns with regards to data aggregation and the context-free nature of photos. Anyway, the problem with pe…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:36 AM
1

I don't think that, if I'm not totally off, the comparison made in the OP's posting is correct. However, female sexual purity is part of a "marriage transaction". The muzzle-statement is a mirror of mostly fictitious (as far as I know) stories of chastity belts that come off after marriage.This is not true with virgin shaming. While it is probably roughly as prevalent, even if it is easier to hide that one is a virgin than it is to hide that one is very promiscuous, a men's sexual status isn't i…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:21 PM
3

You know, that is probably the point. There is a possibly faulty equivocation of "muzzles for men" with societal expectations about sexual purity of women implicit in this.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:55 PM
2

My suspicion (and I can feel my brain fading tonight) is that feminists like Marcotte have embraced atheism merely because of the feminist stance on abortion. I don't know if it is that simple. There is a huge antireligious undercurrent in feminist theory because of the patriarchal nature of the desert religions that inform western culture, of which feminism is a product. However, in wider "feminist culture" there are also beliefs and practices considered more female-friendly or outright feminin…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:34 AM
2

I'm not. I am saying the car analogy sucked because a man can not do anything with Plan B himself, while a woman can. In the car analogy, this is not the case. It's a bad analogy.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 12:50 AM
3

That is true1, but they also don't have potentially malicious applications. I will watch the video when I get home from work, because at this point commenting further doesn't make much sense. The car-analogy just struck me as not very analogous. 1: But only a bit
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:14 PM
-11

The people who say that should not be allowed to drive a car because they might use it to hurt someone Cars have direct utility regardless of gender, "emergency contraception" (I assume this is some variety of the anti-baby pill. I can't watch videos at the moment) doesn't have direct utility to men.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:41 PM
1

I am not sure what to say to this. I've had brief discussions with women's studies professors and similar on minor points, but I've as of yet never tried to debate anything that would have required a formal definition of any of the big terms. With regards to online discussions, I'm sure you are right, because the problem of loose definitions is endemic and not limited to feminism. Try to debate marxism, libertarianism, or even casual things like some subgenre of music, and you will soon run into…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:16 PM
1

As I feared, I can't really say. I personally base this on context, meaning that I look at what is being discussed and reject any of my interpretations of the term that would make the argument made immediately fallacious. I'm sorry I can't be any more helpful.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:02 PM
1

Well actually that also restricts "power" to mean "institutional power": [...] sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have. (emphasis mine)
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:59 PM
2

For what? Also, I will likely answer whatever you say with "unsure". I meant to just comment on the not very well defined nature of a "racism is prejudice and power"-argument, not argue for either side in the debate. For a more or less definitive answer you'd probably need a sociologist, as "privilege" and the racism-definition are extensions of that.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:08 PM
3

Yes, but that is a casual definition that isn't particularly in line with any academic definitions I've heard or been told about. I think it is very important to always argue against the most charitable interpretation of any claim, in part because showing a charitably interpreted claim to be false also almost always refutes a less charitable interpretation. People who say that "privilege is power" and "racism is prejudice and power" don't say what they mean, often without realising it, as exempl…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 05:56 PM
5

Usually it's put as "sexism is prejudice and privilege", not power. At least in debates I have had, perhaps specifically to solve this problem.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 05:49 PM
5

Why does the term "First Lady" exists in the first place? It's a remnant of aristocracy for a spouse to attain a title as a result of their spouse's status. Perhaps it would be best if the spouse of the president of the US would just be that, the spouse of the president. Obama's wife should not have gained any public authority because her husband became president, and the same is true for any future spouse of a president, no matter their gender. Also: The first homosexual male president could ca…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:31 PM
0

If a witness had read reports and citations, however, said witness would know that his witnessing is mostly useless even if it is concerned with individual events, let alone wild extrapolations.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 06:56 PM
3

Sure, it's a possible interpretation of the data as far as I know it. It can also be simply a matter correlating ages. I would assume that most rapists fall within the age bracket of most victims, at least roughly, excluding people who are socio- or psychopaths (Fritzl would be a counterexample to my claim in so far as that it can clearly not be all rapists, but I'm generalising here). If rape is facilitated through power, that would still not make it totally not about power (double negative, ca…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 12:53 AM
5

The problem with that is that female rape victims (don't know about men) are most likely to be in their "fertile" years1, for lack of a better term. Children are also more likely to be raped than pensioners. Any given rapist could most easily establish dominance over children or the elderly, not the most physically fit subset of women. This, to my knowledge, is true of both stranger and acquaintance rape. However, I don't know how to decouple sexual satification from power, those two can facilit…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 11:53 PM
0

I used an incorrect term. I meant the increase in fat depots in the female breast in an evolutionary context when I used "swelling". The hypothesis I presented was that female breasts are a result of sexual selection, and I supported this with a huge "God of the gaps"-fallacy; somebody countered this with the idea that I relayed above. Your comment is still relevant, but it can't refute the idea as it stands; I'm sorry for misstating the hypothesis.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 08:59 PM
2

But that isn't even the argument as I understand it. The argument is about patriarchy accounting for all possible combinations of opposing or converging solutions in converging or opposing spheres. That is to say, from patriarchy theory everything follows.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 07:36 PM
1

I've been told when making a slightly different, but related argument (breast swelling due to sexual selection), that human breasts are possibly caused by the shorter jaw of human babies to prevent suffocation. I don't know how good that argument is. Most mammals have significantly shorter jaws as juveniles or infants as compared to adults. But anyway, this would be a possible reason.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 07:26 PM
7

When we talk about protecting the rights of minorities, we usually don't just mean "a group with a small number of members". There has to be either some violation of their rights they can not overcome for lack of representation (f.e. in a run-of-the-mill democracy), or for a lack of power. For example, "rich people" are a minority, yet protecting their rights isn't high on the agenda of most people who are concerned with protecting minority rights; rich people might not have disproportionate rep…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 12:28 AM
9

Of course, but the level of assertiveness required is a bit different in my experience. However, this I can not support with studies. Not that they don't exist, I just don't have them. Compare this with another baseless assertion I will now make: As a woman, in some context, you have greater leeway regarding showing pain. As a man, grimacing when somebody just rammed their foot into your stomach might get you stupid comments, whereas women are allowed to show pain substantially earlier. So while…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 12:21 AM
5

This isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be, and I have qualitative studies to support this. I'm generally critical of qualitative research, because how the hell do we verify it, but we can also show quasi-quantitatively that women at the very least think that they have a role expectation to be "nice" and non-assertive, and men the opposite. Either gender, when stepping out of line, is also policed to some degree. The problem with the "nice guy", in every model, no matter whether it paints …
/r/MensRights02/09/12 12:09 AM
30

You know, that is a social norm that I'd be in support of: Don't show up at somebodies work uninvited, especially if you don't know them well, and as a corollary: Don't go behind people's backs to find out personal details about them, especially if they are not in your immediate social circle, you are no longer in high school.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 12:03 AM
0

Broccoli is a perfect analogy to throw the pro-life argument in the trash Yes, but that is a strawman anyway. Pro-life is named in contrast to pro-choice, the former being concerned with the life of a foetus (or embryo), the latter with the choice of a woman. Both are not absolute. A similar argument can be made against "pro-choice" by asserting that "pro-choice" isn't about pro choice at all, otherwise they'd argue for infanticide or possibly filicide in general. While probably factually true, …
/r/MensRights29/08/12 07:39 PM
1

Questions!: Broccoli are a bad analogy for foetuses, because Broccoli don't have the potential to develop consciousness. Further, foetuses will develop consciousness unless a systemic or environmental disaster prevents it. People who are asleep, as well as people who are comatose, are in a (possibly temporary) state of non-consciousness. Can we kill them? People with traumatic injuries that cause mental retardation, people born with mental handicaps, or people who are very old or generally suffe…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:46 PM
1

We kinda stumbled into this discussion in a backwards way. Can you briefly give me, perhaps per PM, your vocational background or something similar that might allow me to think of a simple way to state what I mean in terms we both interpret in a similar way? Whether you do or not, I will attempt such a definition tomorrow, because I am in a similar position to you, edit this post, and then inform you of the edit via PM, so that you are informed and don't have to check regularly.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:32 PM
3

I don't know that this is a good idea. Should any individual render his actions entirely contingent on the actions of a third party?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:12 PM
8

The debate about "life" or "not life" masks the actual debate, namely one about personhood. As for your question, yes, but pro-choice means "in favour of choosing the abortion of a pregnancy before personhood is reached" (usually; very few pro-choicers are pro infanticide), not "in favour of abortion, i.e. abort every pregnancy". That's different and would be called "pro-abortion".
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:10 PM
1

I need to say that in reality, the moral framework I work with is a clusterfuck of ad-hoc or post-hoc rationalisations of my actions and what caused them. This is more of a thought experiment to me, and I'm not a philosopher. I read books on philosophy, and my work and academic studies indirectly touch upon philosophy by virtue of various logics and calculuses. You seem to be well-versed in philosophy, as far as I can tell, and this whole discussion might be a huge waste of your time. Most of yo…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:59 PM
1

I would disagree with that argument not only in regards to abortion but in general. To me, there is no morally significant difference between actively killing and "merely" depriving a person of necessary support. Sorry for the late reply, I somehow missed your post. Also, I will use the terms "moral subject" and "moral object" somewhat strangely in the following, the former meaning a subject capable of moral choice, and the latter meaning something of moral relevance. A person can be a moral obj…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 07:57 PM
1

Well via this: There is an sexual empathy gap that may be part of human nature, or maybe it's cultural. Girlwriteswhat has a link in one of her videos to a study that shows own-group preference in women and out-group preference in men, that is, both men and women "care more" for women. However, what your question implies is true. Two wrongs, however, don't make a right, as thesaying goes, so I'm not sure how it is relevant that both ideologies can result in the same problem.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 04:42 PM
14

As a woman, you can take preventative measures much as a man can, and IF those fail, you have a choice. As a man, you can use a condom, or sperm cremes of what have you, and just as a woman would, IF those fail, live with your choices. Let me rephrase that: Woman can take preventative measures, and if those fail, they have a choice Man can take preventative measures, and if those fail, they have no choice Women have the right to have sex, and also to walk away from the responsibility of their ow…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 04:36 PM
22

Firstly: Consent, or the lack thereof. Sex and child-bearing are divorced now. You can, regardless of gender, consent to sex, but not consent to having a child. While "having a child" is in most cases contingent on having sex, this is not the true the other way around, so that it is possible to consent to each independently. Consider a simple analogy: Having sex is in most cases contingent on getting naked to some degree, but getting naked is not contingent on having sex, so that a person can ge…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 04:32 PM
1

because he thinks that women dress / put on make up for other people's benefit, when most of the time that is far from the case. This is wrong. It's a straw man, and it has to stop. If women dress up or put on make up for their own benefit, this benefit is facilitate precisely through other people. How someone looks is important to that person only through the eyes of others, it has no value in itself. The same is true for men, but men's gain in social status is less (but still to a degree) depe…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:31 PM
2

I don't have the time now to read it, but I'll read it as soon as possible. Thanks for the article. From what you quoted, there is a bit of an ought-is-problem here, and I wonder how he establishes that depriving one of a future is morally wrong (but that is a general problem and I wouldn't level that criticism against the article), and further there is some assumption here that the future of any person has positive value. Further, there seems to me to be a difference between actively killing an…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 05:48 PM
2

Abortion is actually a very interesting problem of moral philosophy. Wherever you stand, reading A Defense of Abortion and the criticism levelled against it is a great start to attempt a reasoned approach to either position. Wikipedia has a summary of the book here
/r/MensRights25/08/12 04:54 PM
2

How does this shape up with regards to societies with a similar attitudes towards the issues of the MRM, but institutionalised trust? If you look at the posts regarding Breivik's conviction, you can see many Norwegians argue for social safety nets and the like, and expressing a much more encompassing and generalised trust in and care for their fellow humans, while this comment seems to primarily focus on small-group dynamics. As far as I've read, the MRM considers countries like Norway or Sweden…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 02:09 AM
1

brought about by mainstream (not radical — mainstream) feminism spreading rape hysteria throughout the populace. As far as I can tell, this phenomenon is a product of the late 60s onwards, which also coincides with mass media proliferation, for example, and we know from studies about suicide that medial reporting of suicide cases are causally connected to subsequent rising numbers of suicides. I'm not disputing that feminism had an influence - I remember the rhetoric I had already noticed as a k…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 10:43 PM
2

Because it totally makes more sense that Sweden wants to extradite him to their country, so that the USA can then extradite him from there. Which they would do because Sweden is a much better ally to the USA than the UK. It looks facetious on first glance, however, justice4assange.com (which is certainly biased, but might serve to provide some basis for discussion) lists why that first glance might be deceptive. Also, are you seriously suggesting that you would condone a trial by media, where th…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:29 PM
4

Where does M come from? Also, W isn't atomic I'd use as predicates S ... woman has sex with men D ... woman is dirty and their negation for "has no sex" and "is clean", respectively, so that, using your symbols and a truth table S D | (S ⊃ D) • (¬S ⊃ ¬D) ⊃ (D ⊃ S) t t | t t t t t t f | f f t t t f t | t f f t f f f | t t t t t 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. And then via x ⊨ y ⊃ x ⊢ y this would be trivially valid. I'm not sure about the following and I don't have the time to actually derive this, but I think (S…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 12:01 AM
1

There is a lot of miscommunication here I think. Perhaps this confusion stems from the shifting of the goal posts by /u/magic8ballman, who countered a claim that patriarchy assigns primary care to women, with a reference to custody, which is a separate topic. As an attempt at synthesis, consider the assumption of female primacy of care is an institutionalised notion and not the result of feminist activism. It's pre-existing, as your examples show. I was not aware I was arguing against this, and …
/r/MensRights19/08/12 03:35 PM
1

I'm not sure what it is exactly that we are talking about, so I'll summarise what I understand has been established or what I quickly looked up: Prior to the 1839 Custody of children act, men were primary recipients of custody, and it is not clear to me whether this was because law unanimously granted men custody, and only widows retained custody of their children, or because law primarily granted men custody, barring any reasons to deny it; the aforementioned act, heavily inspired by and campai…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 01:10 PM
5

The whole topic is very complicated, but I suggest that there are two problems women gamers face that are qualitatively different from the general trash talking: being a woman in itself incurs insults. This in part stems from just being a minority group in many gaming communities, so that being a woman is special in a way that being a man isn't, but it's similar to going into a space in which "woman" is the default and being a man, such as some feminist spaces. There is a lot of whining about th…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 10:19 AM
1

Okay, but that still contradicts the "patriarchy causes this discrimination"-hypothesis /u/Magic8BallMan quoted, unless the patriarchy started post 1873, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights18/08/12 08:50 AM
6

GWW being harrassed by atheists Is this about the FTB-thing? If so, then the motivation isn't that they are atheist, but the specific brand of feminism they hold, I'd wager. Thunderfoot, who is as atheist as you can possibly be, was kicked of that site for a not-very well made, but primarily not-toeing-the-feminist-party-line post, for example.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 12:19 AM
6

Plus if you're bigger than 5 inches it doesn't matter, it's girth. There is a thing called "too deep". Most of the female sensation is within 4" of the entry too. That just shifts the focus of the people who have that problem. Very few people have a tuna can penis who will, upon reading this, be immediately relieved from their pain. That's like saying "Girls, as soon as you are bigger than a walnut it's the shape", i.e. not necessarily helpful.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 11:18 PM
2

He said 15% per pay period. Regardless of how many pay periods are in a month, and I admit I assumed just one, 15% of 1000 twice would still be 15% of 2000. How do you arrive at 30%?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:10 AM
7

That would fall under the umbrella of "rape culture", as does the cavalier attitude towards prison rape in the states.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:25 AM
0

I agree that the 15% sound reasonable, but the retroactive payments can still be a huge burden. That OP has had no choice in the matter is troublesome though. It shouldn't be the case that one person can make unilateral decisions that have such a huge effect on another person's life, and I'm not only talking about finances here either. Something like, but not necessarily exactly, the varying models of reproductive rights as proposed on this subreddit from time to time might be a step in the righ…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:24 AM
1

The 1994 Kanin study looked at self-reported doubt by police officers IIRC.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:47 PM
1

The 2-8% are estimates based on statistical data. It's true that at least the 8% rate stems from accusations considered unfounded by police, but it's a number that seems to define upper and lower bounds for false accusations anyway. David Lisak found 6% false rape accusations in colleges over a ten year period in "Lisak, et al; False Allegations of Sexual Assualt: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases, Violence Against Women December 2010, issue 16, pp. 1318-1334" The Kanin study I was talk…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:58 PM
6

Strange how every culture through all history no matter how secluded has had the same, "construct????" Well that is doubtful actually. Every agricultural society certainly had the same construct, as far as I know, but there are outliers. I personally think that neither the "blank slate" nor the "constant slate" are correct, rather that it is a bit of both.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:26 AM
2

I read her "we" as inclusive and abstract, as in "we, the society", not "we, that means you and me for the purpose of this discussion".
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:24 AM
39

There is a lot of antagonism here for feminism. The MRM is a young movement in its present incarnation. People are angry and hostile. Still, you don't get that much more hostility than outspoken MRAs in feminism-related subreddits occassionally get. I suspect you are referencing the girlwriteswhat rant here. The problem she addresses is that feminism is extremely broad. When you say that you are a feminist, you take in the good and the bad of the movement. Especially here, feminism is a very loa…
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:22 AM
6

Given that she's a feminist, not a MRA, and stated: Do we call every reported case that gets thrown out by police a "false occurrence"? Should we? I'd argue she didn't insinuate that. At worst, she has the wrong idea about what the MRM claims with regards to false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 12:45 AM
8

There was a very harshly criticised study in the 70s or 80s that showed what AnthonyZarat is claiming. Said study had numerous flaws, from bad study design, to cherry-picking, and wildly generalising the conclusion. Unfortunately, I can't remember the title or author now, hopefully someone else can. Depening on your country of residence, official statistics will likely show between 2-8% of all accusations of rape to be false. edit: After eberkimer provided the name I had forgot, the following ha…
/r/MensRights29/07/12 12:35 AM
4

Phyllis Schlafly is as conservative as you could get. She doesn't believe that "spousal rape" and "stranger rape" should be treated equally by law, with the former clearly being of much less severity. She says as much in the linked column: "... [feminists pushed] for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape ..."
/r/MensRights28/07/12 05:15 PM
1

Again, it isn't "proof". It just looks incredibly bad, especially considering that one has to circumvent the CSS trick that "disables" downvoting; that the post was 3 minutes old at that point; and that s/he further downvoted the responses. At the very least s/he should have taken the screenshot before doing all that.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:42 PM
2

The OP of the thread linked in the comment you answered to said: [–]dagrightsadvocate[S] 3 points 1 hour ago He even posted a pic of him downvoting the people calling them out for us. This thread wasn't randomly chosen. It was chosen because /u/severn is, regardless of what you think of the thread he downvoted, somewhat clumsy in his use of the screenshot of him downvoting a thread that he mocks for allegedly falsly attributing downvotes to /r/mr. It isn't "proof" in a scientific sense. It's jus…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:31 PM
5

Because /u/severn downvoted the fucking thread. Look at the screenshot (mirrored here)
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:24 PM
3

/u/severn downvoted the very thread that complained about downvoting and then used it as "evidence" that the /r/mensrights isn't responsible.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:22 PM
-3

Given that you apparently downvoted that thread by /u/RichardDorkins, three minutes after it was posted, it seems rather natural to assume just that. mirror edit: Mirror, also: -1 after 12 minutes..
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:12 PM
1

[...] still likely that far less people would have been injured/killed in the ordeal. That's entirely conjecture. Not that my statement wasn't either. But that would be my point. People think "more guns = more safety" because that's their ideology. Just like the "less guns = more safety"-crowd, that view is naive and wishful thinking. Many gun owners know that you NEVER pull the trigger if you don't know what you're going to hit. Given the circumstances, how likely is it that someone who is resp…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:44 PM
3

Also, given the dark, cramped environment of a cinema, those concealed carriers would have likely accidently shot bystanders as well. Further, if firearms, or a subset of firearms, were illegal, it would be harder to procure them, even illegally, because less firearms were in circulation in the first place.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:24 PM
7

But doesn't the article say (to provide an analogy) "this disease will kill all men"? Unfortunately the language of the article isn't exactly easy to understand for me, as I'm not a native speaker (of English), but to me it reads as if he were framing it as follows: There is a dam upstream. It is severely overburdened. If nothing is done, it will burst and the resulting flood will sweep away the village. The Dam Rebuilding Movement knows this, but has no power within the village. All they can do…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 10:05 PM
2

If they want to make it equal, why don't they subject the women of the country to the same "advantageous" delay in life with female conscription? Female service to the country is bearing children, or at least that allegedly was the original motivation. There is also the (perhaps patriarchal1) notion that women shouldn't be soldiers, for various reasons. Conscription isn't really a feminist invention. Conscription, the army, and civil service, are currently being brought up with some regularity i…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 04:19 PM
1

Not on the whole, but there are numerous different stances on the issue of conscription depending on which party (and sometimes faction within a party) you are talking about. Conscription and university attendence are seen as separate issues.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 04:12 PM
4

All of those explanations leave out one rather glaringly obvious possibility : Maybe more men than women are naturally capable of scoring higher . The same exam doesn't produce the same gender imbalance in other countries, which would suggest that this is not the case with regards to the entrance exam. The argument would also be contingent on the assumption that the smarter percentiles attempt the exam in the first place. While your suggestion isn't impossible, it at least can't be shown given w…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 11:31 PM
2

The conscription is a topic that comes up again and again in politics. The main problem isn't actually conscription in itself, that could be replaced with a professional army, as indeed parts of the Austrian military are, anyway, but that, if conscription falls, there would suddenly be a severe lack of conscientious objectors to fill the ranks of people who help care for the elderly, keep the ambulance services running, do clerical work, guard pedestrian crossings in front of school children, an…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 11:27 PM
11

These are the authorities (roughly, at least; universities are nominally independent, but part of state education and it's all a big bureaucratic clusterfuck at the moment, thanks to a conservative government long gone)
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:35 PM
42

I'm from that country. The situation is a bit more complex than especially the headline is suggesting. Austria has a relatively unique problem with entrance exams; in all other countries that use the same or very similar tests, roughly the same number of women and men pass and are admitted to the university. In Austria, there is a marked imbalance. The reasons for that are many. Among the suggested are some systemic problem in primary and secondary education that makes women fare better there, b…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:33 PM
5

Training follows being admitted. Someone can enter a university a slightly worse student and emerge a better doctor. The main reason for this "skewing" is that Austria has a comparatively bad gender imbalance. In other European countries that use similar or the same tests, women are not as disadvantaged. Part of that lies apparently in the greater age of the average male prospective student, whose mandatory conscription or civil service will have afforded him slightly higher age (such was argued…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:23 PM
1

I think it's more about whether being an MRA is incidental to the (claimed) threats against police or somehow causally correlated.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 07:41 PM
1

Thanks. I'll leave the link for now. I assume I can just click "delete" as with normal comments in case the link doesn't meet the criteria of the members?
/r/MensRights08/07/12 03:07 AM
0

Oh. I failed to use the search correctly then. How can I delete my post and find the other thread? I'm slightly new to posting links.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:47 AM
3

I dislike the generalisations that occur often occur. "Female greed", "women lie", et cetera, might be strictly speaking correct, but then so would be "male greed" and "men lie". It's just not productive. The videos are otherwise not bad and in part informative, although a lot is unsourced, but I find that really detracts from the message. (Yes, I'm aware that this is partly a tone argument).
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:43 AM
1

I'm not sure whether this should go here or possible in the meta subreddit, but perhaps knowing about this in case it comes up in future discussions would be interesting.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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