TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Adrelinen Archive

View 10 posts and 426 comments by Adrelinen 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

Coaching is allowed in most other women's events, but is not allowed in any men's event.
/r/MensRights17/09/18 10:40 AM
3

The numbers make it obvious men's behavior is far worse than womens', but these numbers neither support nor oppose the claimed interpretation that umpires are harder on men. You contradict yourself. How is it obvious that men behave worse if it's inconclusive whether umpires are more or less strict, and not even addressing the qualification that men play longer? By virtue of Occam's Razor, if we assume Umpire's are not treating either gender differently and account for men playing longer (either…
/r/MensRights17/09/18 10:38 AM
2

Yes, lets ignore the other times she's been even worse, like when she threatened to shove a tennis ball down a lines woman's throat for (correctly) calling her out. in 2009. a decade ago.
/r/MensRights12/09/18 10:33 PM
1

All of your arguments the past several posts have just amounted to "You're wrong" and you don't actually have any decent points to make, the rest is just the usual bullshit. Lol, my sides. I literally acknowledged that your initial premise is 100% a valid opinion. But I totally just said "you're wrong". Remember when I told you to stop adding opinions I didn't post? Yeah, try that for once. No you didn't, like I said, this is a classic two-faced tactic of "Oh I respect the vote!" and then immedi…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 11:38 PM
1

What are you on about? Honestly? Again, you bring up the fact that she will probably get a lesser sentence (to which I agreed that this was likely). I pointed out that this has nothing to do with the current situation and why it stops us from discussing the DV element of this (I've asked you to clarify this, and you haven't). And now you're accusing me of projecting, even though the entire basis of your argument is something which factually has not yet happened (again, she hasn't even been to co…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 11:19 PM
1

You're not acknowledging anything, otherwise you wouldn't even be suggesting another vote. This is just the usual two-faced behaviour that I'm used to from MPs and pro-remain lobbyists on television to try and make it look like you care about democracy. I literally dedicated 50% of my first post to acknowledging it. Stop being so blithely insincere. This is honeslty the equivilant of putting your fingers in your ears and going 'NO, I want cake and ice cream!!!' I don't have to agree with you 100…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 11:15 PM
1

That's cute, it is already clear she will get a significantly lower sentence than a man with an equivalent conviction, assuming she's convicted at all. Yeah probably, but that doesn't negate the discussion about DV, nor is there any point in discussing that until it happens. You're mad about something that hasn't happened yet, instead of using a literal golden opportunity to fix one of the main issue we discuss here.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 11:07 PM
2

I don't think you've actually read this case. She's being charged. Initially with manslaughter, because that's what the case showed at the time. It's looking likely that this will be upgraded to murder charges with the new information coming forward (not just this, but also there are reports of her using her police status to gain access to the apartment, conflicting with her story). She has not in anyway received a "PP" as you so vulgarly put it.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:54 PM
1

Seeing reports is vastly different from confirmation. As this whole thread posits, there are reports of a prior relationship. This does not confirm this as being about DV however. Your second statement cannot honestly be made yet, you're jumping to conclusions.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:51 PM
1

I was pretty clear about being annoyed with you the further you went with this. It's clear you've got no intention of doing nothing but come up with excuses as to why you should be able to get rid of my vote so I don't think I've got much else to write. Go back and read my initial post. Go on do it. See the part where 50% of my comment supports your stance. Go read the second comment. See the part where it acknowledges the validity of your stance Again, your partisan bias literally cannot even h…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:48 PM
2

And? The basics of the case are irrelevant to this sub. However if this is a case of Domestic Violence it's of much greater relevance. I don't see why you felt the need to make this comment.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:36 PM
1

Love the sheer derision. We've dropped that pretense then? Thank you. At least be honest when you're going to be condescending. Now, address the point like a big boy. I'm sure you can come up with something with actual premise to it, rather than the ephemeral 'it's just a delay, so votes, so other stuff, so....uh I don't know what comes next, but they do!' (btw this is what actual condescension looks like, you don't seem to recognise it when you do it, so I thought I give you an example to compa…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:28 PM
0

I really can't help but laugh at this point. Your posts have been so riddled with assumptions and condescension and projection with a rabid ignorance of pretty much every clarification I've tried to make. I'm not the person you seem to think I am. Don't make assumptions about me, or add opinions that I don't post. Don't project your insecurities onto me and have the sheer GALL to call me condescending whilst acting like a professor in kindergarten. Take a step back, scuff the chips off your shou…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:21 PM
0

There you go, exact same shit, no outrage mobs, no people running around screaming hysterically, you're completely full of shit. That's literally not the exact same shit at all. Look dude, take a step back. You seem more invested in being a partisan than the actual politics at hand. Again, I'm not calling for a revote, but it doesn't take a genius to see that there are real a valid concerns over the legitimacy of the vote, and a revote only changes the result IF IT WAS AFFECTED IN THE FIRST PLAC…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:10 PM
1

The interference was absolutely minimal at best, even the people obsessing over it had to admit to that in the end which is why they've been so quiet about Russia lately. I...what? They literally JUST commited to developing a counter intelligence operation to fight the Russian spy network in Britain. Like two days ago. By the way, you want to talk about foreign entities interfering with the UK? Let's talk about the Labour Party allowing a banned television network from Iran to film their members…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:58 PM
3

The point is that this is an incredibly high profile case that can really highlight how a woman can easily have the power to abuse a larger stronger man. And in that sense it actually highlights exactly that point. Women have been getting away with DV for decades, highlighting that THIS is what a female abuser looks like strips away the narrative and helps fight against female abusers.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:54 PM
0

Here we go again, it didn't go my way because Russia, remain was doing dodgy shit too, the UK government itself spent money on pro-Remain leaflets which they shouldn't have, but the media and remainers don't give a shit about that. Okay, but Russia literally did interfere. I also made clear in my post that any effect Russia had has not be metricised and may not have been effectual. My point was that this still brings the original result into question. Stop trying to come up with excuses to inval…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:51 PM
1

Over a quarter of the population did not vote. Yes this is higher than typical votes, but this is also a much much more important vote, and with the gap between the two sides being as small as it was (3.5%) it's very much a valid question. In addition there's also the proof's of Russian spy networks attempting to affect the vote, although any impacts have not been metricised so that may have been ineffectual. Then there's the fact that the Leave campaign broke spending laws for it's campaign, wh…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:43 PM
0

I mean there is a valid argument to ask for a revote when you look at the % of eligible voters vs the turnout. There was a massive deficit. Granted it's also fair to say in this scenario 'You snooze you loose', it's not like anything really prevented them the first time.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:27 PM
6

Nothing is fully confirmed yet, beyond the two knowing each other in some capacity. It's refreshing that the comments there acknowledge this angle as being domestic violence if it proves true.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:24 PM
1

The average pilot will fly about 10 times a week. That's far more than the average person will in a year (1.7 per year in the UK)
/r/MensRights07/09/18 08:31 PM
4

Using the direct webname should override that in all instances. If he had searched for just DVAA.com, this would be a possiblility (as hashmatching would be involved, leaving interpretation to the algorithm). However by putting the full direct web address in the search there should be no need for hashmatching, so this is either bad coding (highly unlikely from google) or they have the site completely delisted (which requires human intervention, web crawlers relist sites in fractions of seconds)
/r/MensRights07/09/18 07:56 PM
1

She freely admitted to the relationship
/r/MensRights05/09/18 01:55 AM
2

which could be a life sentence with actual murderers and rapists Most murderers and Rapists are gen pop. sex offender registry The crime they've been convicted of literally involves a sex offence (using sex to cause imprisonment). I think it's fair to put them on a registry that informs their potential future partners, How is it complete hysteria? Because false imprisonments are incredibly low for the majority of crimes, especially those with simple burdens of proof. In this case, the False Accu…
/r/MensRights28/08/18 10:10 AM
1

That can happen right now anyway? Your logic is really just complete hysteria
/r/MensRights27/08/18 08:15 PM
1

This would require a counter case to prove mens rea. Just failing to prove an accusation does not make the accusation false. In order for the suggested to occur, you'd have to be able to prove intent.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 12:29 PM
1

That's a completely different thing?
/r/MensRights27/08/18 10:32 AM
13

I hear this very often, but I am against it. This makes people think these are the same crimes. Look at it this way. By Falsely accusing you are attempting to get someone unlawfully imprisoned for the duration of the crime you are accusing them of. What better way to punish that than by literally giving them their own medicine? You wanted someone locked up for X years, well congrats it's you.
/r/MensRights26/08/18 01:16 PM
0

Winning 3k is failure now?
/r/MensRights17/08/18 01:19 PM
1

Um? And?
/r/MensRights16/08/18 11:21 PM
0

Surely that defeats the entire purpose of having a defense in the first place You don't seem to understand. Your avenue of defense is merely the line of reasoning you present to argue that you are not culpable for the crime. There is a number of avenues for example: 'I didn't do anything': As is obvious, this defense follows the logic that you are not guilty because you simply did not do it. Claiming 'I didn't do it' however does not say anything about how successful you will be. You still have …
/r/MensRights09/08/18 05:33 PM
2

So anyone who turns up to court and just states "they didnt know" should be automatically off the hook? Okay, you don't seem to actually know what this conversation is about then. To clarify: We are talking about the use of a defense. Not how effective said defense should be. The above suggestion is that you would literally not be allowed ever claim ignorance in court. Regardless of any evidence you might have to prove such (going back to my above example, lets assume we have text messages provi…
/r/MensRights09/08/18 04:32 PM
1

This is the most dishonest argument I've ever seen someone make in a long time. No one is saying that the victim (male OR female) has not been violated. The issue arises when the perpetrator has no reasonable expectation that what they are doing is a violation. If, for example, a person agrees to sex but during the act decides they don't want to continue for some reason. If they do not say this to the other person, how can you say that that person committed rape, even though we can all agree tha…
/r/MensRights09/08/18 03:18 PM
2

Lol, the reason stealing a car is a crime has nothing to do with violating the car, it's violation of the right of the person who owns the car. The victim in both cases is a human, not an inanimate object.
/r/MensRights09/08/18 02:19 PM
2

Not really. 1 accident a decade sounds small, but when you consider that most people experience 1 maybe 2 accidents in their lifetime of driving (typically 50-60 years), that's saying that on average men are involved in 4 times as many accidents.
/r/MensRights29/07/18 10:33 AM
2

Except your analogy assumes the two houses themselves are identical. A house filled with asbestos in a good area is still charged less than a good house in a bad area. The fact is insurance agencies DON'T actually use statistic favorably (and why would they, that's throwing away profits). Anything about you that's determined risk negative is a 0, it neither adds not subtracts your starting total. But every single thing that is considered risk positive adds. Being Male and completely risk adverse…
/r/MensRights29/07/18 10:30 AM
5

Real life is 4chan?
/r/MensRights28/07/18 02:37 PM
1

You know that most consumer end distributors (ie 'stores') have a profit margin between 50% and 70% of the shelf price of the product? Knocking off 20% still leaves them with a profitable product, and if that increases sales by 25%, then they're actually making more money selling it cheaper. Similarly, if you bump up the price by 25% and sales only drop by 20%, you're making a bigger profit.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 08:18 AM
1

I mean, it's also a case that these sort of summits are make or break for your career. You boycott it and you stall out your job. No-one wants to be earning their entry level wage for their entire life. In tech you need to be consistently achieving to prove that you're adaptable, because the field changes so fast. If you stall out for even a year all the opportunities dry up.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 08:17 AM
3

It's not fair enough when you advocate sleeping with married men and breaking up their marriage then abandoning them (Laci Green has said in her videos that she supports and has even done this at least two times)
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/16 12:31 PM
3

Holy hell this shit is basically the abusers cheat sheet.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 08:26 AM
1

I don't think you understand. They actually can't do that for the vast majority of the time. Additionally, how often do YOU socialise with random people in a grocery store? Whereas changing rooms tend to foster a lot more conversation.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 04:45 PM
1

1: It's temporary. They aren't making the pool segregated full stop, merely for a few hours a week. 2: They are still assimilating with western women, who will still have strong notions of personal freedom.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 04:19 PM
1

But the entire point is that this IS very slow assimilation. It's not 'muslim'/'jewish' women only, it's flat women only. Forcing them into a private space only further prevents assimilation.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 02:46 PM
1

But by virtue any gathering as such takes over a communal space. How so would a women's only swimming club exist without segregating a swimming pool?
/r/MensRights30/06/16 02:29 PM
1

What would the alternate suggestion be? Their culture won't allow it to occur in any way other than gender segregated environments
/r/MensRights30/06/16 02:16 PM
-1

I didn't at all? I never made reference to the specific beliefs I was referring to. I have literally no clue where you're pulling that from. I didn't specify non-observance either, but it can be apostasy dependant on the religion at hand. Again your point here makes 0 sense Illegal means it never happen right? The same way the FGM being illegal in Europe means it never happens to muslim girls in Europe? Additionally is estrangement from one's family not a punishment to you? I find that hard to b…
/r/MensRights30/06/16 12:31 PM
-2

As a person we are influenced by our environments. People born into catholic families tend to either become catholics or atheists. Jewish born people become either Jews...or atheists. For muslims you are born a muslim and it's actually a death penalty to leave the religion, so they literally have no choice in their religion. Incredibly few people will be born into a household of one religion and go on to become members of another one. People will only really grow up to reject religion as a whole…
/r/MensRights30/06/16 11:56 AM
4

This is English based. England has never had an issue with women in politics, same as Ireland. What is with feminists and making up problems for women to 'beat'? This has to be one of the most infantilising articles I've ever read and it makes these women sound completely incapable (even though the ones I recognise are pretty good at what they do)
/r/MensRights30/06/16 10:55 AM
-5

A persons religion is very rarely self imposed.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 10:15 AM
0

I actually am glad for this. Their religion is intensely stifling and restrictive. I would much prefer some slight restriction to allow them more freedom. There are times when you should fight against accommodation of religion. I do not think this is one. Because this is in a small way slowly empowering these women. It is giving them time away from their insular culture. These are not the same women who are running roughshod over men. These are the oppressed women who need support.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 10:14 AM
1

I love the whole 'That's a high claim, surely you have some form of proof, or even corroboration?' Downvoted, nothing in response
/r/MensRights30/06/16 10:04 AM
1

I am so glad I'm finished with formal education. It's absolutely insane the levels that college campuses are going to, and yet no-one on the mainstream seems to notice this stuff going on. Like, the campus kangaroo courts can go unnoticed because they're technically not an official thing, whereas this is literally campuses saying that all men are evil unless they're stereotypically 'gay' or completely subservient to all women.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 10:02 AM
1

Just a note about the title, The family was originally from Alabama, they only lived in Texas. Note a huge issue, but seen as it's the first word in the title.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 09:56 AM
1

It basically means that they won't bow to anyone under any circumstances, which is kind of a necessity to be any good at politics. Edit: It can also mean someone who takes inordinate risks (i.e. they aren't afraid to stick their neck out, because it's made of brass). I forgot about that interpretation because we don't use it that way where I'm from
/r/MensRights30/06/16 09:50 AM
3

If this is British it's more likely that the Male Version will also be fill in the blank, but also only one answer is correct. Europe doesn't really like multiple choice.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 09:50 PM
2

Your second argument is the wild accusation I've ever heard anyone make without even attempting to provide evidence. You haven't even provided actual reasoning behind it, just weird projected supposition
/r/MensRights20/06/16 03:39 PM
8

The catholic priest thing is not comparable here in any way. They were adults raping children and held both physical and institutional power over them. Additionally they were massively sexually repressed by the nature of the priesthood which led to such masses of perversion. Unless you want to make those claims about this kids high school and suggest that he was only one of a cabal of rapists, then you can kindle;y retract that comparison.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:49 AM
0

There's a whole month left before Bernie's actually out of the race? Unless he's stepped down. I'm not american so I'm not really following
/r/MensRights09/06/16 08:55 AM
7

The more people who accuse a high profile person, the less likely I am to believe it's true. Especially in something like the Bill Cosby case (which could turn out to be true yet) where there's a slow uptake and suddenly there's a ton of accusers without anything even approaching a rumour prior. Like Jimmy Saville had decades of rumours surrounding before anyone even came out, and there was a mountain of evidence before any of the actual victims came forward.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 09:33 PM
3

Only now because he's not a criminal. Previously it was probably printed in a few places
/r/MensRights28/03/16 09:40 PM
6

Women everywhere hate her!
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:06 PM
1

TBH I don't know. Personally I would think it's stupid to remove a mental condition that leads to depression and self mutilation (not referring to GRS here) and ever suicide from the list of mental illnesses. Because there's no benefit to being Trans (in contrast to say Autism which can have benefits in addition to the negatives) not classing it as an illness would just be pandering, and realistically could be used to deny necessary benefits.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 02:19 PM
42

I mean, trans people ARE mentally ill. It's a condition called Dysmorphia and is normally treated with gender reassignment surgery.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 11:05 AM
16

Gotta love how the so called "everyman" look requires like 6 hours in the Gym a week and a strict as hell diet. (Not disparaging the article, that's legitimately the name of that archetypal look)
/r/MensRights09/02/16 03:03 PM
2

Anita and Jack took this line of reasoning about 5x further than he has above. Does media influence us? Yes Will seeing a sexy women on tv make you rape women in real life? No
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:41 PM
10

good old Tim Minchin
/r/MensRights04/01/16 06:00 PM
11

What's wrong with speaking against censorship? We've had to deal with enough of it over the years, I don't want to see the sub become nothing more than a reverse SRS
/r/MensRights27/12/15 12:48 PM
12

I'd prefer to actually watch it first. There's no need to go burning books because we disagree with them.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 12:37 PM
1

Yep, she killed him in front of the boy, while the father was holding the daughter
/r/MensRights31/10/15 06:21 PM
1

They've already done that
/r/MensRights31/10/15 04:20 PM
2

Lol, you mean the dead father? (The point still stands, but I found that a funny oversight)
/r/MensRights31/10/15 02:58 PM
2

Rotten tomatoes much? And realistically, they're going to disagree, because anyone who believes in Karma knows that it's not some moralistic justice system. It's literally just "Everything that occurs to you is a reaction to you", it does not mean "You Do Bad = Bad is Done to You" The idea is that nothing is random, and that your success, failure happiness and sadness is controlled by you. Whether you need to toughen up or soften up, become nicer or meaner is all possible under Karma's teaching.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 01:06 PM
2

Yes, but they didn't just misrepresent some types of Buddhism, they basically misrepresented all but one small subsection of Buddhism
/r/MensRights29/10/15 12:55 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence There's a LOT of violent Buddhists, who's entire justification is that they are working for Karma. You're literally taking one type of Buddhism and pretending that that's ALL Buddhism. Most Buddhists advocate for neutralisation as opposed to zero retaliation. They aren't infantile idiots who think everyone will just get along by being nice. Peace takes effort, and most Buddhists will put in that effort.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 12:54 PM
5

That's a massive misinterpretation and oversimplification of Buddhism.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 11:35 PM
1

Further down she stated that he has no interaction with, nor never had any interaction with the two children she's seeking CS for, just that he's biologically the father.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 11:06 AM
8

It's possible, how drunk are the men in this scenario?
/r/MensRights27/08/15 10:57 AM
6

The first option has no good outcome so far, but the second is quite easy. The father gets the option to a financial abortion where they will surrender all rights to the child, but will also have no resposibilities toward them
/r/MensRights25/08/15 10:18 PM
54

Liam Neeson says it in Fallout 3 if you shoot him in the head with a BB gun.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 08:39 AM
7

So the only area in which you can show men do better, is one which relies entirely on the persons own work ethic and skills? Sounds pretty sexist to me
/r/MensRights05/08/15 11:42 AM
7

It's general. The name was just in reference to TumblrInAction, which was the sub that came before it. Anything to do with hypocrisy, unethical coverups or the like in journalism is welcomed.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 09:18 AM
1

All three of those things are stereotypically masculine
/r/MensRights31/07/15 01:33 PM
1

CMV only wants people's views changed to the predetermined "correct" worldview
/r/MensRights31/07/15 01:31 PM
3

Or maybe we could stop routinely circumcising babies, so that there won't be an issue to sort out?
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:11 PM
7

You don't, what about the people who do
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:25 PM
6

Typical fashion? We're fighting so to prevent the mutilation of hundreds of millions of children, as opposed to hundred of thousands. We're also NOT the ones advocating for a gender biased campaign, we merely want recognition for both genders IN THE ONE CAMPAIGN
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:25 PM
2

Which has less nerve endings than the foreskin, also circumsicion causes keratinization of the glans, further reducing pleasure. Additionally scar tissue causes erectile dysfunction as well as additional nerve damage in a large number of circumcised males. A clitorectomy is less worse than male circumcision on the grounds you've put forward.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:23 PM
4

....Yes they do. Most FGM is carried out by women. Don't act like you know about a topic when you clearly haven't even read a single document about it.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:15 PM
15

1: The foreskin has more nerve endings than the clitoris. So circ'd guys do lose more sensation than women who've received clitordechtomys 2: FGM is an incredibly expansive term that covers ritual pricking to complete mutilation of the genitals. You can't even compare FGM to FGM. However, that does not make the point that neither are acceptable moot.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:14 PM
24

Cutting off a finger is different than cutting off a hand, therefore you should stop acting like cutting off someone's finger is a bad thing
/r/MensRights30/07/15 11:20 AM
5

"I don't have a problem, therefore no-one should have a problem"
/r/MensRights28/07/15 11:24 AM
7

No response so pretends to be too smart, GJ GR8 B8
/r/MensRights09/06/15 12:44 PM
6

I don't think you understand what invasive means. And they don't "crank" on the bones. What are the complications of teeth braces? Sores and inadequate cleaning Sores because the inside of the mouth is sensitive skin, and inadequate cleaning because the mouth is dirty, there's no risk of you teeth being "cranked" or any such like,
/r/MensRights09/06/15 12:24 PM
6

What's the difference between a baby girl and a baby boy then? What exactly is meant to be the cognifiable change that elicits the appeal being fallacious, and not the central point of the arguement?
/r/MensRights09/06/15 12:22 PM
8

Actually it isn't It's showing a massive empathy gap, because it's comparing two identical situations with only an insignificant detail changed, yet the reaction is different.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:23 AM
5

The appendix is used to regulate bacteria levels in you colon and wisdom teeth only hold no benefit because dentistry has improved so rapidly in the last 200 years, giving our bodies no time to adapt yet. Additionally we don't remove either wisdom teeth OR appendixes unless they cause actual issues. Furthermore there is no doctor on the planet who will say that the foreskin has no benefit or uses, even those who advocate for circumcision.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:21 AM
5

That's not a procedure, and pigeon toeing can cause sever ankle and knee damage in later life. Additionally it's non invasive and has a 0% complication margin, compared to a 7% complication margin with circumcision and the additional side effects of invasive surgery.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:13 AM
4

The best way to refute the data is to look at who's providing those studies. Almost all, if not all procircumcision studies are produced by USA based or funded organisations, while anticircumcision studies have no single country or group of origin. The important thing to note here is that American hospitals are privatised, and therefore american doctors are not impartial when preparing studies to prove the viable of operations, as they make more money the more operations they perform. No other c…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:11 AM
4

Only 50% of the time ;)
/r/MensRights23/05/15 02:25 PM
7

Duh, you can masturbate to literally everything EVERYTHING
/r/MensRights23/05/15 02:25 PM
2

I think it's meant to be a kiss emoticon
/r/MensRights23/05/15 02:23 PM
1

What if you're just as, if not more, out of it than she is?
/r/MensRights13/04/15 04:35 PM
2

It's not quite eugenics. It's mainly performed to reduce the number of children who will be dependant on the state, as people who are offered sterilization are generally never going to be truly productive members of society (ie life sentences, repeat offenders) It has very little to do with the genetics involved, more to do with the money.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:08 AM
19

Yes, the main reason his mother is fighting so hard is because he has specifically expressed that he does not want to be circumcised
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:04 AM
4

Considering these people are never going to raise their children, maybe it's better to remove the possibility of children being raised in such horrendous enviroments?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:02 AM
7

random involuntary erections are literally just your body keeping everything in working order. Or a reaction to secondary stimuli subconsciously related to sex or arousal.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 10:59 PM
2

Because name actors appear in commercials as brand support. The main reason they're there is to show that they support the brand
/r/MensRights09/04/15 09:37 PM
1

That's racist
/r/MensRights20/03/15 07:58 PM
21

"We don't want to exclude boys....actually yes we do, that's the entire point" Like, sure have a day for girls, but also have a day for boys and show them the potential careers they could have?
/r/MensRights16/03/15 04:35 PM
1

She moved home and got arrested on an unrelated drug charge
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:17 AM
0

So? It's not like they could have manipulated it in a gender inclusive way.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 01:49 PM
1

http://listverse.com/2007/11/08/top-10-tips-for-beating-a-lie-detector/
/r/MensRights24/02/15 12:54 PM
6

Which is why he was so willing to take the role, even at reduced pay, he's betting that it'll pay off in better roles down the line.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 10:37 AM
4

Renner probably makes more money because he does more of his own stunts (and thus they have to pay for his certification), whereas that money goes to the other actors stunt doubles (which doesn't have to be paid if they don't have stunts, but Renner still has to be paid for it)
/r/MensRights23/02/15 10:36 AM
-1

A bigger box office draw for films for teenagers/young adults. American hustle was designed for an older audience, such as those who would have watched Unlimited. You just disproved your own point
/r/MensRights23/02/15 10:34 AM
7

No they wouldn't be. Another issue is that polygraphs can only measure physiological response. However physiological response can be trained pretty easily. Instead of having your heartbeat increase when worried, you can train your heartbeat to slow, or not change.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:56 AM
2

That's easily the stupidest arguement I've ever heard. Just because someone's intentions are good, doesn't mean their actions are. Additionally, just because someone SAYS their intentions are good, doesn't mean they are. ADDITIONALLY, just because someone says everyone involved in a movements intention's are good, doesn't mean any of their actions are good.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 10:53 AM
0

Where exactly did I say anything about social justice being bad? I clearly said SJW, as in social justice warrior, the accepted vernacular for referencing extremist social justice points of view.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 07:05 PM
2

"Watch as professional writers create characters to spout nonsense under the title of MRA and then get knocked down by a feminist character, MRA's are dead" God damn, I love P&R but sometimes they go full SJW
/r/MensRights12/02/15 12:27 PM
217

The most disturbing part about this is that, if you think about it for a bit, Murphy actually WANTS him to be a rapist. She's not happy that he's NOT A CRIMINAL.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 01:42 PM
38

Not much. Feminism doesn't really touch LGBT rights, they'll talk about it, but nothing happens.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 03:26 PM
135

Being sent hatemail on tumblr for being a misogynist...because I'm gay
/r/MensRights01/02/15 02:37 PM
6

Did you read the end where he blames the patriarchy for everything and calls MRAs ignorant? It's weird because he phrases the start of that section like he's pushing for egalitarianism, but then he goes full tilt for feminism.
/r/MensRights31/01/15 10:49 AM
0

1: I didn't ask for lab science, I ask for you to actually prove your damn point. You haven't once provided context to your link and I sure as hell amn't going to do that for you. Anyone could be linking to 1in6 for any number of reasons, not just for that one statistic. 2: This has never been about whether the 1in6 statistic is true, it's about whether or not this sub overall beleives it, for which my position has clearly been absolutely neutral because you have yet to provide any proof around …
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:51 PM
0

No it doesn't because you haven't provided any context. The website is more than just a page that says "1 in 6", it's has a huge amount of resources which are not suddenly wrong by association. You have to remember that it's one of the only male sexual assault oriented websites and thus probably the easiest access most people here have to any form of valid statistics. Additionally, just because someone links to a website does not mean that they agree with it Hence why your "citation" is useless.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:47 PM
-1

I've been part of this sub for nearly a year, well before GG, so you can lay that worry to rest.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:23 PM
-1

http://www.csom.org/train/supervision/short/01_02_03.html ^ See that, that's what we call a citation. It's a credible source that backs up the things I've said. It makes it so that other people can accept what I've said on more than face value.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:21 PM
0

So far your method of proof has been "Read through these 16000 comments until you find ones that support my view, there will be some, regardless of their proportion they prove that I'm right" That's not how proof works. Get examples, try and provide an overall climate (i.e. comparitive level of upvotes), give context etc. All you did was search for topics that linked to the website, with literally no form of filtration or context. I'm not going to waste 30 minutes reading through that to find th…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:17 PM
0

"peak fertility" "with horny young males 24/7" "middle-aged and ugly" All of these are factors which only apply to normal human interaction. Rapists aren't normal people, they are people with very serious mental problems. They also aren't going to give a shit if the people they attack are at "peak fertility/virility". Rape is also not a homogenous crime. There are multiple motives. Some rapists do it for sexual pleasure, for others it's pretty much solely a power based assault. Your comment blit…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:13 PM
3

It does a lot more than "undermine" them
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:10 PM
0

These are very spread out, and you're only taking results which link to a specific website without also proving that people are "trumpeting" on about them. Go do your research properly before making claims.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:08 PM
0

How about you actually provide proof for your claims when you make them?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:06 PM
2

You're making it sound like rapists are reasonable people and not opportunistic predators.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:03 PM
-1

[citation needed]
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:03 PM
0

I've never heard of a 1/6 statistic being mentioned in relation the men before. COuld you back up that claim please?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:02 PM
9

You'd be massively wrong. Ever heard of the bear community? Nothing like that exists for heterosexual men, yet there's a whole culture for homosexuals.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 11:59 AM
7

The point is that there are no true benefits to circumcision outside of treating phimosis (for which it is not the only option in the majority of cases). The decrease in transference of diseases is 1 person out of a 1000, by comparison condoms decrease the chance by 5 people out of 100. Considering the relatively high chance of serious complication (just under 1 in 100) associated with circumcision, the best medical advice would be to not perform the surgery. Which is the opinion held by every s…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 11:41 AM
2

Oh look, seems like we're in for some serious femsplaining about male problems.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:02 PM
2

Because according to the author, the changes in the schools system over the last 40-50 years have almost solely affected male students adversely, which has a large degree of credence (although I found the article to be a little too conspiracy based).
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:14 AM
3

His post was basically "I don't believe any proof cause it could be made up" Therefore I went for the only thing that even pro-circumcisers agree on, that condoms are easily the most effective for of STD protection.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 10:42 AM
-6

1: You didn't make that clear at all 2: That's still incredibly fucked up
/r/MensRights16/01/15 01:38 AM
5

Fine how about this proof: "Condoms are 98% more effective, and 95% more cost effective than circumcision" McAllister RG, Travis JW, Bollinger D, Rutiser C, Sundar V: The Cost to Circumcise Africa. Int. J, Men’s Health. 2008;7(2):307–16
/r/MensRights16/01/15 01:37 AM
-5

Dude, you literally just said that you tried to tear off your own foreskin, that's some serious body image issues, especially since you were barely pubescent at the time. Considering you ALSO said that was affecting your decisions in relation to children, I don't think asking you to see a psychiatrist is all that outlandish. It's not like I'm actually able to give you any form of a diagnosis, but your post sounds like some pretty heavy shit that you should be working through with a professional …
/r/MensRights16/01/15 01:28 AM
9

The reduction rates are a misrepresentation of statistical data. That -30%? from .6% to .43% From 6 in 1000, to 4 in 1000 You know what has a much better reduction rate? Condoms. Which also have a 0% chance of causing side effects Circumcision is also in no way a valid form of protection against ANY STD which you seem to be trying to suggest.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 01:25 AM
-6

If you're serious, you should see a psychiatrist, you might have a form of BIID
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:17 AM
39

No one minds if you chose to get circumcised, the men who're mad are the ones who were snipped within an hour of their birth. There's a massive difference
/r/MensRights15/01/15 11:30 PM
16

Women produce more smegma than men, and it's super easy to avoid You heard of showers? Yeah, having those regularly is also a way of avoiding smegma
/r/MensRights15/01/15 11:29 PM
12

I don't get your opinion though? You want to be thanked because you aren't actively pushing for routine circumcision? People are passionate about it, because there's a relatively large chance (like 1 in a 1000) that it will cause severe issues, and here we have more proof that it's not actually worth anything. So yeah, they get annoyed when they show you proof and your response is "meh" Like, what exactly is your reasoning for being "on the fence"? What's there to be on the fence about?
/r/MensRights15/01/15 11:28 PM
4

A parent/child relationship doesn't necessarily refer to two separate entities. Merely that one is immature and still forming, while the other has already matured and is attempting to guide the other. I think the idea is that the "child" in this case is trapped by the "parent" who in turn is trapped by their own nature. Which is a reflection of how Sia is attempting to grow in new directions, but her old ways keep drawing her back. Hence the song "Elastic Heart"
/r/MensRights11/01/15 08:15 PM
16

All of those elements when taken in an artistic and non-literal sense solely indicate that these are two warring entities attempting to understand each other. What may be sexual in reality, is not necessarily sexual in art. After all, how else are two people meant to silently portray such a volatile relationship? Can you think of anyway of doing so, that wouldn't contain anything that could possible look sexual? I personally don't think so, and considering that the child shows equal power in thi…
/r/MensRights11/01/15 08:06 PM
12

I heard about the huge controversy over this and watched it yesterday. There's some parts that give off weird vibes, but the overall tone of the video clearly suggests a parent/child relationship, focusing on the fluidity of the child jarring with the rigidity of parents, eventually resulting in the child's movement into the future, leaving their parent behind.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 06:32 PM
2

To be fair to the name, it's not meant to be read as "against mens rights", but as "against 'mensrights'" Even though I'm relatively sure that the prevailing opinion allows both to be accurate
/r/MensRights09/01/15 10:54 AM
2

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2015/01/06/intel-ceo-outlines-future-of-computing
/r/MensRights07/01/15 11:51 AM
1

CES2015 has been taken over yet. It's at like 5-10% GG tweets
/r/MensRights07/01/15 11:45 AM
1

It's not his child, it's also not a child during the timeframe we're currently talking about. Hence why "it" is the best vernacular in this situation.
/r/MensRights03/01/15 12:05 AM
5

So it's not even his sperm but he still has to pay for it?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 11:48 PM
1

You are completely and utterly misinformed In order to have the income adjusted you have to go to court, paying for both the court date and the lawyers, which costs roughly 10-15k. If you need to adjust child support payments, then you don't have 10-15k on hand do you?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 10:09 PM
4

Exactly Neither should any man whose sole contribution to a child is his sperm
/r/MensRights02/01/15 10:05 PM
5

Except Child Support is determined at the point of divorce and cannot be adjusted, therefore the payer must continue working at either the same job or an equally paying job for the entirety of the duration of the child support. This means that any job which becomes unsuitable with age (such as construction, mining, police work, fishing) becomes forced upon the payer and endangers their life Additionally, men overall are much more at risk of death at their workplace, meaning that anything which f…
/r/MensRights02/01/15 10:04 PM
1

You missed the part where child support is determined by combining both the father and mother's salary and determining the weekly income then halving that results in the amount of child support to be paid for the next 18 years. This ignores changes in the CS payers income/living state. You lose your job and you might as well head to the prison straight away. Hell, some people don't have jobs after their divorce and are still expected to pay child support. Where are they meant to pull half of the…
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:55 PM
1

Okay, you clearly cannot read. Goodnight
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:41 PM
2

But men should risk their lives working to provide for children they don't want?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:28 PM
4

-Parenting is an obligation, not a right -Donors are not obliged to parent their children
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:20 PM
3

Also, you are wildly misingformed of how Child Support is run http://www.northjersey.com/news/inside-the-world-of-deadbeat-dads-in-and-out-of-jail-unable-or-unwilling-to-pay-1.1057777
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:11 PM
6

Are the rights to life and the rights to a fair trial equal? No Are they both necessary Yes. That is what I'm saying
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:08 PM
6

A person should only have a obligation to a child that they are partaking in the rearing of. Otherwise you might as well force men who donate sperm to pay child support, after all, they know what it's being used for, they made the choice right?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:04 PM
4

They are absolutely the same thing. Obviously a women's right to choose is more pressing, but being forced to pay child support for a child you never wanted to have can cripple a man, destroying his life. What if he can't afford the child support? Should his life be destroyed with him being sent to jail for not being able to support a woman who wanted a baby that she's not even capable of raising on her own?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 09:02 PM
4

Did you even read what I wrote? Like at all?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 08:21 PM
5

Your response doesn't address my comment in anyway
/r/MensRights02/01/15 08:11 PM
4

So women are allowed choose to abort, but men have to face the consequences? Even if the woman lies to him about birth control? Even if she actively steals his semen Even if she rapes him? Each gender should have the same level of rights when it comes to abortion. While men shouldn't be able to force a woman to abort, they should be able to financially remove themselves from a child who they don't wish to have
/r/MensRights02/01/15 08:03 PM
0

Would have been nice to get a little background
/r/MensRights01/01/15 06:15 PM
16

I think you misunderstood The issue is that men are placed under continual pressure to meet expected gender roles, which are returning decreasing benefits, while shirking these roles results in great benefits for these men. for example, in Japan men are expected to master their field and support their family. Except instead of raising a family, they can instead replace those needs with technological surrogates, which will be cheaper and less demanding. Similarly in the west, for men to interact …
/r/MensRights30/12/14 03:45 PM
32

The issue is that Japan strictly enforces basic gender roles (ie men are the breadwinner and women merely stay at home maintaining the household). Because more and more people in Japan work in technology, fewer and fewer people are interacting face to face and thus romanticism is nigh dead. Additionally with Japan's obsessive development of robotic sexual replacements, these needs are also being met. Therefore men are increasingly being allowed choose to either: a: Work really hard to provide fo…
/r/MensRights30/12/14 03:40 PM
22

Oh, I never said the stereotype was one based on how men want to act, just that all men should conform to a certain archetype, regardless of whether it's healthy or not. In America this is starting to boil over because the enforced stereotype is one designed by feminists with the sole aim of benefiting women. Therefore men are more and more withdrawing from society, because it's the more attractive option. I'm not trying to reference MGTOW, but more on a subconcious level
/r/MensRights30/12/14 03:35 PM
2

This would read so much better if it had any sources at all
/r/MensRights30/12/14 03:05 PM
52

So basically, in first world countries with rigid and/or increasing sociological pressure on men to be stereotypical men, men are more likely to become reclusive and less sociable.
/r/MensRights30/12/14 03:03 PM
6

Nah, I shoot up heroin on fridays, lets me smell the colours of the future
/r/MensRights28/12/14 07:04 PM
-4

You can get a job at Hooters though, as a cook, barman or something else. It's only waitresses that are hired by gender.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:40 PM
2

I had a girlfriend who's mom was a taxi driver. That's the only female taxi driver I've ever known of.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:33 PM
22

Clearly their market niche doesn't exist in a financially viable form
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:32 PM
0

I have to disagree, the homophobia I've experienced has only ever been on par or better than that that I have experienced in other spaces.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 11:57 PM
31

Then why when girls were kidnapped, was it all about how they were girls and not about how they were children? Or do you not remember #bringbackourgirls?
/r/MensRights16/12/14 08:34 PM
1

I wouldn't just say that Erin Pizzey was forced out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey She received almost constant death threats, all her mail had to be examined by the bomb squad and had one of her dogs killed, and another two kidnapped/stolen.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 10:47 AM
0

Yeah, but he's privileged so is okay
/r/MensRights04/12/14 11:14 AM
0

Nazism = Blame a specific part of the population for all your problems This = Blame all you problems on a lack of a specific part of the population
/r/MensRights27/11/14 06:02 PM
0

So you're just going to blame Affirmative Action on Europe, when America has a much greater history of this kind of activism? If anything, it's Amero-centric feminism that's causing this sort of thought process to affect Europe.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 02:10 PM
-1

What are you even talking about anymore. This literally only affects companies based in germany. If you're worried about those policies invading america then talk about americans, because it's not like germany is trying to force this on anyone else
/r/MensRights27/11/14 01:59 PM
-1

That is probably the most depressing thing I have ever read
/r/MensRights27/11/14 11:04 AM
2

We aren't all 'MURICANs Keep your racism to your self
/r/MensRights27/11/14 11:01 AM
0

This is like the exact opposite of nazism
/r/MensRights27/11/14 11:00 AM
0

That's not a guy, it's just that the nipple blur makes it difficult to see the curve of her breasts.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 02:27 PM
1

I don't really like subs like that. While the initial intent isn't meant to be directly violent against women as a whole, it's very easy to allow yourself to start correlating these bad apples with women as a whole, especially as you continue to expose yourself to that kind of content. I don't mind a story of someone getting their privilege denied every so often, but I wouldn't go reading through a compilation of them day after day. It just seems so pessimistic
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:17 PM
-1

Well, the korean war is technically still ongoing
/r/MensRights16/11/14 08:40 PM
8

The ad literally says "We already tell men not to cry, now we should teach them not to make other people cry"
/r/MensRights30/10/14 11:28 PM
12

It more matters that even when it's very awkward to, the gender of males victims is never mentioned, when any time there's a female victim it's normally the foremost talking point.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 04:13 PM
10

I..I was being sarcastic. Feminism is 100% for destroying any and all male spaces.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 02:01 PM
15

Yeah, it's sooo weird that like. Even on reddit there's no real "male" enviroment. Thank god feminism isn't actively trying to dismantle "male spaces" or we'd be in real trouble.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 12:25 PM
1

But, it's pronounced "our"? No-one I've ever heard has pronounced it col-or. The closest is col-er
/r/MensRights08/10/14 08:21 AM
5

It's not a quirk. The quirk is you YANKEE BASTARDS REMOVING THE "U"s AND CHANGING THE "S"s TO "Z"s RAAAAAAAAGE
/r/MensRights07/10/14 08:57 AM
3

I'm sorry, but if you think SRS isn't going to take that out of context I feel bad for you.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 07:30 AM
24

Dude, they already claim that they've "always been fighting for those things"
/r/MensRights06/10/14 07:14 AM
2

And what exactly does this have to do with Mens Rights? One woman being unsuitable for her job is not a major sexist issue, especially when she lost her job because of her incompetence. Had there been a coverup or something there might be a case, but really her gender has nothing to do with this.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 11:34 AM
15

It's quite simple: She doesn't care about you as a person. She only cares about hearing opinions that agree with hers. If you disagree, you're wrong, because she isn't. It realistically doesn't have anything to do with privilege or feminism or human rights at all. All that matters is that your position contradicts her own.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 02:54 PM
3

Just to clarify because it's not to clear from your post, You believe that rapists are a specific type of person that are otherwise similar to "normal" people. It's just that from your post it seems like you're saying that everyone could be a rapist.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 11:02 AM
2

You're mis-conflating subscribers as "followers" If people haven't subscribed to him for Social Issues, then there's no guarantee that AY of them would be interested in listening to mens rights. In comparison to AA or Laci, where ALL of their subscribers are there to hear them speak on these kinds of issues. For all you know, every single one of his followers could be rad fems (hyperbole) and him creating these types of videos would not help the MRM at all, but would instead turn his subscriber …
/r/MensRights28/09/14 10:56 AM
4

I suppose that makes sense. I don't think he should have been tried as an adult without first having gone through rigorous psychological analysiation. If they did that (in a non-partisan sense) then I'd be fine with him being tried as an adult. However, I don't agree with the American prison system one bit, but it doesn't matter who's being sent there.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 08:05 AM
19

"The crime of Third Degree Murder occurs when you unintentionally kill a person while committing, or attempting to commit, a non-violent felony." How can it be both premeditated and third degree?
/r/MensRights24/09/14 06:50 AM
3

What will happen to him if he divorces though? Will he still have a house? Will he have any money? What about his job? Realistically speaking, if his wife is as abusive as we're being told, she's likely already trapped him in this situation. Right now his Ex is his best hope, as she can provide counter witness.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:49 PM
1

The thing about fetishes is a lot of people have fetishes for things they are scared of, or actively dislike. The titillation comes from the rush of adrenaline from the controversial nature of the sex. In some cases the fetish also causes gratification by giving the participants control over their fears during their most vulnerable state. So generally someone will have a rape fetish, if they're scared of actually being raped, because it gives them a sense of control in a situation in which they …
/r/MensRights13/09/14 09:06 AM
1

I found some statistics very weird. How are 6 in 1000 women "made to penetrate" ?
/r/MensRights12/09/14 11:09 PM
0

You can disprove your "assumption" by clicking on any of our names and seeing wildly different post histories in wildly different threads. If you're so obsessed that we're all out to get you, why do you assume we're the one's who need psychological help? Also, suggesting Psychiatry for an ego problem really indicates that you have no fucking clue what psychiatry is actually used for. Maybe you should go see a psychiatrist about that /s Seriously, I've backed up everything I've said, you've yet t…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 03:43 PM
1

Ignore OP, They posted this to "educate" us on consent, in case we might otherwise decide to go out and do the same thing. I posted it so that other boys and men may educate themselves of the risks involved from stealing any kisses without consent.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:54 PM
0

Finally, so you agree that you actually just posted something that has absolutely no place on this subreddit. If you'd be so kind as to look 6 inches to your right, you'll see that the sidebar says: The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon. You posted this topic with the express interest of not doing that, but got annoyed with all the people who looked at this topic under that lens. Good job sir/madam, you truly …
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:50 PM
0

You know, it might actually be a good idea to make a serious version of this. Having an official channel through which people can submit complaints would a: Weaken the feminist narrative that the MRHM is solely misogynistic b: Possibly allow for more directed criticism within the MRHM (probably won't work for this way as it'll get brigaded, but one can hope)
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:29 PM
1

You do realise that you've now argued BOTH sides of this debate in your frantic attempts to be some sort of "victim" of my "trolling" Jesus dude, are you Anita Sarkeesian or something? Either accept that disenfranchising the claim of battery was wrong, or accept that posting this here was pointless. You can't post this here and pretend that you weren't trying to imply that the charge of battery was unfair. Otherwise I expect you to post every single legal case involving a male in someway, regard…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:23 PM
1

Seriously? Stop being such a child. I pointed out that you heavily implied something. I then pointed out why the implication was there. It's not like I'm the only one who took this meaning away. u/S73v got the same implication. Maybe in future you shouldn't unnecessarily cherrypick random sentences from the article. Just post the title, otherwise people will assume your posting your position on the article (which you'll notice is common). And for fucks sake, don't commit obvious ad hominem attac…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:06 PM
1

Why post this here? Because you felt a man was being maligned. What was he being maligned for? Being charged with battery, even though he didn't injure anyone I find it hard to believe that you didn't realise you were implying this.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 12:49 PM
0

It's not in the title? You added it yourself. All I have to do is click the link you provided and WHAM, same title, except for that last part. Your addition indicates a heavy sense of unnecessarry victimhood. "She wasn't even INJURED, HOW is this BATTERY" Except it is still battery, the addition to the title is unecessarry, and lends a wildly innaccurate tone to your post. What your doing is twisting their words so that contextually their implication is changed. Stop pretending you're just an in…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:50 AM
2

Have you never seen the movie "Chasing Amy"? If not, you should. It's about a guy who falls for a Lesbian
/r/MensRights11/09/14 10:28 AM
10

I remember soemone posted a great takedown of that quote Women are afraid men will kill them, Men are afraid women will make them kill themselves
/r/MensRights11/09/14 10:19 AM
2

People should go read the definition of Battery. It's the "correct" charge to be brought here. Adding in the She was not injured Is unnecessary, the victim does not need to be injured in order for it to be battery. Seriously, you're actually demeaning the point you're trying to make with your ignorance.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 10:03 AM
59

What I've found from reading a few 2x posts is that roughly 50% of the people there think that it's a staunchly feminist subreddit. While the other 50% are just regular women using it as a womens interest sub.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 04:00 PM
7

It means that the person in question doesn't particularly associate themselves as either male or female.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 11:22 AM
2

Well, spitting in the streets was a huge cause of disease, so might actually be less bad
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:22 AM
7

Who is also still a misogynist, because everyone knows that loving men, is about hating women
/r/MensRights07/09/14 09:47 PM
8

I'm disturbed by the fact that mental abuse has been completely left out. Granted it's much harder to measure, but for there to be no mention of it is worrying. Mental health is pretty much as important as physical health, especially during childhood when someone's personality is still developing
/r/MensRights07/09/14 03:04 PM
89

"If you're sexually attracted to women, you're a misogynist"
/r/MensRights07/09/14 03:02 PM
3

However, can you even contemplate TKaM being written about a Black woman raping a White man?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:17 PM
2

Would have liked a bit more than a NSFW tag. Feeling a bit ill now.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:16 PM
1

If you don't think it's apt that's fine. I just find them to be situations comparable enough to bolster empathy, which this whole thread seems to be lacking.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 12:27 PM
1

Again, I'm not comparing them on level of severity, merely on their similar function.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 07:23 AM
1

And neither has OP suffered any permanent injury. Sounds like his punishment suited the crime then.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 07:21 AM
0

There's a difference between being able to reject a kiss that's offered, and attempting to reject a kiss that's already happening. Especially when the situation may cause you concern over escalation. It's easy to say no to an offered pamphlet when it's merely offered, it's harder to reject the pamphlet when it's shoved into your hand while the religous person tries to force their beliefs down your throat. In fact in the second scenario, it's easier to just aimlessly agree with them, and then rep…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 03:12 PM
0

Again you've completely missed the actual area of conflation. That being lasting damage (physical vs psychological) on the basis of avoidable mistreatment, resulting from a lack of obtainable consent.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 01:13 PM
0

I think we basically agree on the events, so I'll just address you last paragraph. You have to remember that she only had two options for reprimanding him. 1: Talk to him directly 2: Address school officials Number one would be very difficult for someone to do, especially if they felt the other person was actively trying to assault him. So she went with number two. In most places that I know of, most of what followed would have been basic procedure that would have had to have been followed, espe…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:45 PM
0

I think we basically agree on the events, so I'll just address you last paragraph. You have to remember that she only had two options for reprimanding him. 1: Talk to him directly 2: Address school officials Number one would be very difficult for someone to do, especially if they felt the other person was actively trying to assault him. So she went with number two. In most places that I know of, most of what followed would have been basic procedure that would have had to have been followed, espe…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:45 PM
0

We're getting into awkward definitions area, so I may not say this well the first time. Not everyone who has raped is a "rapist" in mentality. Laws like statutory rape mean someone can have a consensual one night stand only to discover later that their partner was underage, while they are too old to be covered under romeo and juliet clauses. These people in my eyes are not rapists. To me a rapist is someone who knowingly creates or acts upon a situation where they have sex with someone while the…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:15 PM
0

It's hard to say no to something when someone's already doing it to you, which is the problem here. He didn't give an opportunity to refuse, verbally or non-verbally until after he had done it.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:09 PM
0

Again, you've missed the point. A rapist doesn't magically occur when events line up a certain way. A rapist is a rapist before they rape. They aren't a criminal obviously. But if someone is willing to roofie someone else for sex, regardless of whether they ever "have" to, they are a rapist.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:06 AM
0

I don't think you quite understood my example. Let's say Person Z is interested in Person Y. Person Y doesn't give a shit, they're going to fuck Z tonight. If Z says no, they're going to roofie them and rape them. Luckily Z says yes, so the sex is consensual, but Y is still a rapist. In this situation, Y doesn't ask Z first, they just start having sex with them. Regardless of whether or no Z will consent, the act still means that Y is a rapist.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:04 AM
0

Kissing has a much greater propensity to lead to sex than a hug. Copping a feel would be similar in that sense, but it's not as entrapping.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:00 AM
0

I think you're adding in more social cues than even the OP stated. Read his post again. His actions are based off of one sentence "I'm to tired to walk up those damn stairs lets take the elevator." Not really the bastion of sexual tension is it? The structure of the sentence is pretty odd for someone to use seductively, considering the very first premise is that she's "too tired" to do something simple. Furthermore, his description of their relationship is: She had known of my interests in her f…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:40 AM
0

Her reciprocation doesn't matter. It happens after he kisses her. I can't begin to fathom her logic, if there was any involved. But the fact is, he didn't recieve any real affirmation of interest prior. Like, saying it's not rape, because the victim reciprocated is all well and good, but does it make the rapist any less of one?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:26 AM
0

He specifically states that the only cue he was given was her saying she wanted to use the lift instead of the stairs. Which also means that he did wait until they were in the enclosed space. Yeah, picking up signals can be rough, which is why you shouldn't start passionately kissing someone after one unconfirmed hint. Also girls don't love spontaneous gestures when they're from random people they aren't interested in. Like seriously, stop pretending like he's a victim because "Society tells us …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:22 AM
0

None of those are even close to the social paradigms associated, but it doesn't particularly matter anyway. I wasn't comparing them on standard of seriousness.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:15 AM
0

Dude, the comparison wasn't in the situation, it was in the personal reaction. She didn't want to be kissed, Circumcision is the only conflatable event with the same type of dynamic. Basically you don't want to circumcised, so you stop someone from circumcising you. But you shouldn't have to stop someone from doing something to you, that you don't want them to do. Because they shouldn't be doing it without your permission. Make sense now? We get into the elevator and the door shuts. As we start …
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:41 PM
-3

Seriously dude? She shouldn't have to turn him away after he's started kissing her. He shouldn't have kissed her, until he knew she wanted him to kiss her. (which is also the difference between this situation and hollywood movies, granted movies are still completely unrealistic) Look at it this way. Someone starts to circumcise you, you can easily push them away like, but wouldn't you rather they just fucking asked you first?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:25 PM
2

Don't align yourself with any movement if you disagree with any part of it. Pick and choose the specific events/actions you want to support. Otherwise you'll end up involved with somethings that you might actually be strictly against. You don't need to be an MRA in order to support equal rights for men, in the same way as you don't need to be a feminist to support equal rights for women.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:07 PM
0

It's a bit hard to say no when he's already forcing himself on you. Like, lets not pretend this is an example of "maybe means no", he never asked her and he did wait until he had her in an enclosed enviroment before acting. Compared with what Rebecca Watson flipped out over? I think this is pretty reasonable
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:01 PM
7

Battery is very rarely used as a charge in sexual crimes though. Very few people would even know that Battery would have been the correct charge to place here.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:58 PM
0

Wow, for the first time I'm pretty disgusted with /MensRights response. He forced himself on her. Sure she seemed to react favorably once the kissing started, keyword being seemed. Regardless, he never obtained any form of consent. Like, I'm against the whole "it was consensual so long as she likes you", but this is a whole other ball game. He definitely earned what he got (which was basically just a bad scare from what I'm reading)
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:56 PM
2

Quotas are never a good solution. What's needed is less stereotyping that men don't want to work with children/aren't good with children. I'm not sure about other places, but in Ireland gender roles are very much alive in schools.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 09:01 AM
1

For the last point: http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Untitled1.png http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/feminist-college-consent-guide-peddles-false-rape-apologia-rape-hysteria/ http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/double-standard-rapeib/
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:13 PM
1

Actually it kind of doesn't. Gravity in this case seems like an allegory for people (male and female and everything else you want to include) I mean, 99% of the time gravity (people) isn't going to kill you, because you're in contact with the ground (regular society). However, if you go to somewhere where there's a possibility of falling from a height without protection (for example skydiving without a parachute), and are subsequently injured/killed, it's not gravity's fault. Granted it IS imper…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 08:28 AM
1

That's an incredibly small minded view of justice. Justice is about doing what's right for people as a whole, not just those directly involved. That's why murder is allowed if it's done by soldiers on a battlefield, because it's seen as a benefit to their society, even if it directly negatively impacts all people involved (arguments for and against war specifically aside obviously). Rape is at it's basis where one person is forced to have sex against their will. Use of force implies violence, er…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 08:22 AM
1

There's a big difference in the dangers of the ignorance though. I mean, not knowing anything about the pros and cons of circumcision when it's not being considered? Not really an issue. I don't know anything about the appendix, but I'm not planning on getting it removed so why does it matter?
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:22 PM
1

Like, 10 of these have nothing to do with interaction with other people, let alone based on gender.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 10:58 AM
0

Do you really think that your class doesn't understand that it counts as sexual intercourse for men? Seriously, it's a small error
/r/MensRights12/08/14 11:07 PM
0

Eh, not really an issue that needs to be brought here. Just take it up with whoever is heading the class, it looks more like an oversight than anything else considering that it's not discussing harassment in the given section.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 10:51 PM
1

Basically, if you're within a certain number of years (usually 5) of your partner, you can have sex even if you/they are underage
/r/MensRights07/08/14 05:14 PM
5

We're like six hashtags in, have they not realised that they aren't achieving anything?
/r/MensRights06/08/14 09:13 PM
1

how could you know you like it if you've never experienced the alternative? I would find this line to be incredibly condescending. He's basically telling him that his opinion doesn't matter because he's an ignorant cut man. Considering that the original commenter mentioned his circumcision in passing, it seems really obnoxious to make that reply
/r/MensRights05/08/14 12:35 PM
1

You don't have to talk down to him while asking though. It's not as if he was displaying a counter opinion. He was actually agreeing with the initial premise (ie that what happened was utterly disgusting), so antagonising him for being circumcised is completely unnecessary.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 12:22 PM
9

It's not just a third world country problem though? I mean, granted it's nowhere near this violent, but the pressure is still there in America
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:04 AM
3

Wow that sucks. Did they have you try any other method first? or did they just prescribe circumcision?
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:03 AM
-2

Dude, if someone's happy being circumcised, don't antagonise them for it.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:44 AM
10

Anyway, it's your son, so it's your decision, Yes you are right. It's my son, so I can give him whatever piercings and tattoos I want him to have as well. Also, he won't need the tips of his pinky fingers so lets get rid of those too. People can survive fine with one kidney, and I don't want him developing weight issues. Does the appendix even DO anything?
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:31 AM
20

They get you put on the sex offender list for life. The prison sentence is pretty much unimportant in comparison
/r/MensRights01/08/14 09:03 AM
6

Or just refuse to have sex unless the girl agrees to be filmed. In college you're bound to get a few who will, and it means you're safe from pretty much everything.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 10:31 PM
2

While I think a lot of the changes are just pandering, this has nothing to do with mens rights. There's been a need for increased diversity in comic books for a while, even though marvel's always been pretty good.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 06:44 PM
24

Someone took a post Op made out of context and construed it as abuse. They then decided to report him to police, and to publicly shame him on reddit. They also banned him from the subreddit in which he was being shamed, lest he add context/defend himself. Now the woman who was supposedly abused has come out to say that she was not in fact abused, but has also been banned and has had her post deleted.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 08:37 AM
1

Yep
/r/MensRights24/07/14 01:36 PM
1

I've linked 6 different studies, why don't you just try clicking my post history? Here's one for you: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
/r/MensRights24/07/14 01:35 PM
2

Not fat is one level of it, and that's perfectly fair. However, it also includes having wide shoulders and narrow hips. Hence why it's called a "v" Wide shoulders and narrow hips have nothing to do with your level of fitness or muscularity as they are pretty much entirely defined by bones. If a man doesn't have both of these, then it doesn't matter how fit he is, he isn't physically attractive by general standards. As I've said previously, women have no such qualms, as practically all bone struc…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 11:44 PM
8

Moar womyn need to work in STEM fields, that's why I got my degree in gender studies!
/r/MensRights23/07/14 11:38 PM
2

The problem being address isn't that physical fitness is bad, it's that for men, only one body type is considered conventionally attractive. However, depending on your bone structure, this body type can be completely unachievable. Most people don't know this kind of stuff, so men just keep trying to fit themselves into the one shape being projected by the media, even though it's not possible for them to look like that. Compare this with female beauty standards where you have roughly 8-12 differe…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 11:01 PM
4

That's pretty damn sexist. Heck, it's not even just against men, it enforces the stereotype that women are abusively controlling in relationships. Like what PR agent looked at this campaign and said "Yes, this is quality advertising that won't backfire"
/r/MensRights23/07/14 10:51 PM
1

Um, dude? It's the WHO study that reports less than 1%, the 60% figure is a relative one
/r/MensRights23/07/14 10:10 PM
1

Actually it decreases it by .43 percent. The 60% is in relation to uncircumscised men. And the timeframe is in the 3 months subsequent to the procedure. Considering the minimum recovery time from a circumcision is 4 weeks, I'd say the data is skewed, wouldn't you? TL;DR: Actually read you citations before you base your opinion on them
/r/MensRights23/07/14 10:09 PM
1

1: They were told that circumcision would make them 60% less likely to become infected with HIV. The study this figure is taken from has been proven to be highly unscientific and most likely manipulated 2: If their family was plain out just fed while they were off work, this would make sense. However, due to the lottery system, they were actually being manipulated. 85% recieved 2.50 or less. This is not enough to feed their family for the 3 day recovery time, especially if they were part of the …
/r/MensRights23/07/14 10:07 PM
2

Actually they could get away with it by claiming it is a suggested donation and the cupcake is an incentive to gain more donations. Which they'd get away with because it's a fundraiser, and thus they have grounds for their claim.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 06:30 PM
1

It used to be the same in Ireland before the Euro
/r/MensRights23/07/14 06:28 PM
3

Stop vilifying masculinity and stop calling the unfair social structures "the patriarchy"
/r/MensRights22/07/14 09:30 PM
-1

I like the idea of the likeagirl campaign, and I didn't really have an issue with it. But I do dislike how these marketing campaigns that are about body positivity are all aimed at women.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 09:53 PM
5

Why did he bring it up then? If it has nothing to do with the case he's building, why would he bother bringing it up?
/r/MensRights15/07/14 11:43 AM
33

In this one he's specifically pointing out that Anita actually had to film the footage of someone messing with the strippers body herself, because no-one actually does it. Because the game penalises the player for doing so...which is the exact opposite of what Anita claimed. So it is the same kind of video that he's done on Anita before, but it's another thing she's done wrong that he hasn't previously covered.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 10:07 PM
-3

Because her mother is the one pressing charges
/r/MensRights10/07/14 11:54 PM
92

She not only sent pictures of her own, but she initiated the exchange.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 10:19 PM
1

I doubt most of those people would have called anyway.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 02:38 PM
1

There's also a petition on change.org for what that'll do. https://www.change.org/petitions/manassas-city-police-stop-trying-to-photograph-teen-in-sexually-explicit-manner-as-evidence-in-a-case
/r/MensRights10/07/14 12:13 PM
51

Wait, so religion is a valid reason for allowing male genital mutilation, but not for female genital mutilation?
/r/MensRights09/07/14 04:45 PM
3

He was struck. He's not actually on the jury anymore. Because the persecutor didn't want someone like him on the jury.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 11:26 PM
16

No, Don't you see? You should be sending them to schools with MORE reported rapes, because they'll be safer there" /s
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:35 PM
12

No, I'm saying that that's the stereotype that people buy into. Whereas that stereotype doesn't exist for disabled men, yet they're still being ignored.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 11:10 AM
9

It's just depressing that another non-gendered issue (DV vs Disabled people) gets made into one. Especially considering that a disabled male doesn't have the stereotypical image that an abled male would have. Like, no sane person is going to expect that a disabled male will be perfectly able to defend himself vs his abusive partner, or be simply strong enough to put up with it.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 10:51 AM
2

1: What do you mean by "low pay"? 2: What kind of website are you looking for?
/r/MensRights05/07/14 02:05 PM
8

You're again missing the point. The problem isn't that she's exaggerating, it's that her fundamental point is wrong. She has no proof to back her claims, and even the logic behind her claims is ignorant of the exact same paradigms affecting male characters. Realistically, I don't think you can expect a nuanced takedown of Anita anymore. Ever since her first video in the series was published people have been pointing out the massive, glaring faults in Anita's video's and her overall academic resp…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 03:07 PM
8

Here's a simple thing: You may not mind circumcision, but what about the men who don't want to be circumcised, but are? It's not a matter of what you do or don't like, it's a matter of people's personal opinions being forced onto others. How would you feel if someone gave you a tattoo of something you hate when you were a baby? It's the same principle. If someone cannot consent to something, and it's not going to positively impact their health, then it shouldn't be legal to be done to them.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 03:00 PM
4

Yes, but that's exactly what Anita is saying. She says multiple times in her videos that video games promote female disposability, and the entire point of examining the Tropes is to show how the current video game environment is harmful to women. Except that video games neither promote female disposability over male disposability (and thus examining this as a sexist ideology is incredibly hypocritically sexist itself) nor have they had any provable negative effect on violence in society.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 02:41 PM
17

I think you completely missed the point. Thunderf00t isn't refuting Anita's videos because the idea of a critical analysis of the harmful effects of tropes in videos games is laughable to him. He's doing it because Anita presents incorrect, unresearched, completely biased and generally sexist theories, as if they are fact. A true critical analysis of video game tropes would actually be fantastic for the industry. That's not what Anita's doing however. Instead she's presenting a one sided, factua…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 02:17 PM
3

I...I....what did I just read
/r/MensRights03/07/14 08:22 PM
4

Yes http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
/r/MensRights02/07/14 12:12 AM
2

Toilets are a lot more important to women that they are to men. Men use toilets for: -Going to the toilet Women use toilets for: -Going to the toilet -Fixing their makeup -Changing tampons/sanitary pads
/r/MensRights30/06/14 12:24 PM
19

OitNB is based off a woman's memoirs, in a female prison. Of course there isn't any real male presence.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 12:21 PM
1

It's actually an okay article. It doesn't really smear the MRM at all after the first paragraph, and even that is just a few out of context quotes.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:55 AM
1

That's very disturbing. It doesn't seem that he actually had any issues supporting his children, and the injury to his child was accidental. Nothing in that should have him sterilised.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 08:54 PM
1

I suppose so. I'm not really a sociologist, so I don't really know all that much about this stuff. It just seems to me that Tumblr is the direction the general feminist movement is headed
/r/MensRights23/06/14 08:01 AM
1

I wouldn't be so sure. Like, the SJ on tumblr is basically feminism put in an echo chamber (a better echo chamber that is) and left for a few years. So it's kind of a look at where the movement is headed if nothing major changes in the next few years.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:47 AM
2

I wouldn't really be outraged by this. I mean, it's stupid and offensive, but it's also pitiful. All I can imagine is the author weakly punching hipsters, screaming at them to be "more manly" I don't think we really have to worry about this woman's delusions
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:13 AM
1

This is the MRM. Our discussions do not take into account the sexuality of the men involved unless there is a strict imperative to do so. Being gay does not affect anyones ability to be a man and thus affected by mens issues. Any issues that result from a males sexuality can be dealt with by the LGBT movement, which is a far larger, stronger and more successful movement as it is.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:10 AM
1

It stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. It a large enough branch of feminism that reviles Transgender people as either traitors to womanhood, or patriarchal spies. It's also growing apparently, if Tumblr is any form of a guideline
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:07 AM
1

There are 2 distinct genders, but there are also people who are nonbinary/Genderfluid and there are people who don't have a gender. Also, Bisexual actually tends to refer to physical attraction to all genders, Pansexual is an attraction to anyone based on your relationship with them.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:04 AM
2

Have you ever heard of TERFs?
/r/MensRights22/06/14 10:05 PM
5

Talk about being way behind on your stats 6 in 1 women are raped 180 googlplexibillions women are raped EVERY SECOND most men (7 in 5) will have raped every woman on the planet by the time they are 6 years old
/r/MensRights21/06/14 10:26 PM
3

so...we should...stone..her?
/r/MensRights21/06/14 10:22 PM
2

In fairness, if it hadn't been for the actual tone of the article, I would have presumed it was real. Like, I'm sure that something like that is going to happen in the next few years.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 09:46 AM
3

Uh, the first one has "april fools" stamped in big letters at the bottom
/r/MensRights21/06/14 09:39 AM
5

Read it again. Neither father is being put on the birth cert. Not even their own biological child's
/r/MensRights19/06/14 10:47 PM
6

It also isn't very clear. Like, it's very easy to take it as saying that all men are rapists, but because it's illegal we control ourselves, and if we get too drunk we'll just rape any woman we see
/r/MensRights19/06/14 11:51 AM
4

Wut I mean, I'm all for people being stronger and more assetive in non-aggressive ways, but like, some of these are just asinine. And all of them are completely ungendered. Like apologising for interrupting someone? Good Manners The woman walking into the office? If she was interrupting the other person while they were busy, then yeah, apologise for that. And Who the hell apologises for taking back blankets?
/r/MensRights19/06/14 11:38 AM
1

whoosh
/r/MensRights18/06/14 11:03 AM
3

Good job missing the point entirely. I mean like, its almost as if you didn't actually read what I said. Currently, we aren't discussing the preventability of the violence. That is not currently in question, because it's been quite clear for a long time. It has nothing to do with gun control. It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the stigma of Mental Illness. YES both males and females experience mental illness. Probably at the same rates too. But males tend to be outwardly violent…
/r/MensRights18/06/14 10:29 AM
5

You know, maybe there are differences between the two genders? Like maybe they have different brain structures? And react to situations in different ways?
/r/MensRights18/06/14 07:01 AM
14

Yeah, I can't imagine it was intentional. It originated from fears of school shootings. But I also can't imagine how kicking kids out of school for making finger guns is going to stop depressed/mentally ill teenagers from bringing in actual guns.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 11:04 PM
23

Considering it affects males almost exclusively, and results in them being denied education, while simultaneously being ordinary behaviour for them. Yes, yes it is a MR issue. It's like kicking kids out of school for having long hair, sure it technically affects both genders, but it's really devastating for one, while barely affecting the other.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 10:53 PM
1

So? Just because you've met one group of good feminists, doesn't mean that that's what all "true" feminists are like.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 07:07 AM
2

Notice how my reply was to a completely different response, which has since been deleted? Yeah, maybe you should make sure you know what I was responding to before you jump down my throat
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:06 PM
7

Irish here, the general consensus when you ask women about circumcised penises is confusion to outright disgust. I'd say only about 20% of women here like circumcised dicks. Nice try though
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:26 PM
11

Yes they are. They are literally his local feminism representatives
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:24 PM
2

Why would you go through the effort of handwritting all that, when you could have typed out an actual argument. This is just childish and isn't going to help anyone
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:22 PM
2

That's not really the point of his argument though. He still did over twice as many pushups as any female candidate is required to do. Therefore he is over twice as accomplished as some field agents in the area that he failed in.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 02:52 PM
1

Fine, redraw the lines if you want to. Obviously all feminists are shitlords if you define feminists as people who say they're for womens rights, but are actual psychotic. Christina calls herself a feminist. That is her definition for herself. Who are YOU to tell her what SHE is?
/r/MensRights11/06/14 11:32 PM
1

I can't talk to you if you're going to ignore anything positive done by feminists. YES modern feminism sucks as a rule of thumb, but there a feminists like Christina Hoff Summers (who wrote a ton of MRA literature) and Erin Pizzey was a feminist (granted she was driven out of the movement by psychotic radfems, but she was still a feminist at the time)
/r/MensRights11/06/14 11:21 PM
1

But that's what you're asking for, unconditional, unrelenting equality unconditional, unrelenting equality is retarded, there has to be different standards for men and women, and each gender is the best judge of what those standards should be.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 10:01 AM
2

It's origin is in the 60-70s 60s feminism was second wave feminism which was the first wave of bigoted feminism. No it wasn't a human rights movement by then, but this is 100 years after feminism initially began. You cut out 2/3rds of feminist history to create your narrative of bigoted feminism.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:58 AM
1

1: Because my "dissonance" was that the movement wasn't for total equality, instead it was for gendered equality (which I've explained my reasoning for and thus have disproved the dissonance) Your dissonance was that a movement can't be for equality when it fights for one gender, while fighting for equality as part of a movement that fights for one gender. 2: Men and Women aren't 100% equal across the board. There are differences between us. That is WHY there are two genders. True equality occur…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:55 AM
1

Look it's quite simple. Men don't have periods or pregnancy, thus the fairness of anything to do with those things can only really be judged by Women. It's unfair to allow men to have the majority of say in those issue (some say is necessarry, because otherwise an echo chamber is reached, and also men do have some part in the pregnancy, they just don't have to deal with most of the downsides) In a perfect world of my creation? Everyone is immortal and there's no need for reproduction, thus gende…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:40 AM
1

Feminism originated first in 1872 in France and the Netherlands. Please don't outright lie to prove your point.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:16 AM
1

By your exact logic, the the MRM is not for equality either. I would consider THAT cognitive dissonance a tad more extreme. Also, Equality for Women can be equality. This is because fundamentally, men and women are different and have different needs, Thus for society to treat us equally, there is going to be slight differences in laws. This is why there should be a MRM and a WRM as opposed to an egalitarian movement. Because women know what parts of being a woman suck, just as men are better equ…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:12 AM
7

Because it was abused. Instead of saying things like "YesAllWomen have to deal with casual sexism" it was stuff like "YesAllWomen are raped" and "YesAllWomen are payed less" Basically it very quickly devolved into a pity party, except about things that don't happen to all women, or really doesn't happen at all
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:20 PM
1

Well, if you're going to make it so that anyone who's for equal rights isn't a feminist, whether or not they identify as one, then I agree that by your definition, all feminists are bad. However, that's not my definition of feminist. To me, anyone who calls themselves a feminist, while being an activist (obviously, no matter how well meaning someone is, if all they do is call themselves a human rights activist without contributing in anyway to whatever movement, they don't count) is a feminist. …
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:03 PM
1

Even Christina Hoff Summers?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:27 PM
1

You said this: An equality movement doesn't consistently and actively work to disenfranchise others. Period. I pointed out why that statement doesn't apply. You also seem to agree with it, so now I'm confused by your defense, which seems to be "Yeah, you're stupid for saying that thing that I said" While feminism isn't necessarry to have a WRM, there is a massive infrastructure and power system already in place. If feminism could turned into a proper WRM that fought for true equality? then so mu…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:22 PM
1

You seem to feel the need to insist that feminists aren't all bad. Are you saying that every feminist is bad?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:12 PM
1

Yes. You are entirely correct. BUT, what I'm saying is that instead of vilifying feminism, we should be trying to educate them as to why their current tenet is incorrect. Some people (especially on /r/feminism) might be to far gone into radfem indoctrination to listen, but quite a large number aren't The existence of egalitarianism and anti-feminism are proof of this. I mean, if there's to be a MRM, there should be a WRM, and why destroy the current movement, just because it's misused? Why not r…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:11 PM
0

MHRM and the LGBT movement are disenfranchising bigots Bigots are people too, so by your logic, disenfranchising them discounts the movements as human rights movements. The fact that you want to turn Feminism into such a pariah that no-one would ever touch it is worrying if you identify as an MRA, as you're basically saying "Being an advocate of mens rights is okay, so is being for everyone's rights, or lgbt rights, but no-one should fight for womens rights" Like, that's literally what radfems a…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:06 PM
1

Do you think all murderers are murderers or is that a disgusting example of generalizing too? I never said it was disguisting. I just don't think that it's a good idea to generalise a movement, when one of the biggest issues we've had with it, is them generalising us and men in general. I haven't made up anything? I know I was uneducated on the things you posted, but that was just ignorance, I didn't create any untrue scenarios (unless you count having an incomplete picture of the original scena…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:59 PM
1

An equality movement doesn't consistently and actively work to disenfranchise others. Period. By this logic, MRM isn't an equality movement. Neither is the LGBT movement. Actually no movement is an equality movement, because all of them seek to disenfranchise people who hold problematic views? Like, I'm not saying feminism is good. I'm saying that feminism was started with the idea of giving women equality, and that it's that ideal that still draws in young women and men. If you cut out the brai…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:53 PM
2

My movement? I'm not a feminist, I'm just against slandering a human rights movement. Give people shit for shitty things, regardless of why they're doing those shitty things. Don't give people shit for trying to make the world a better place, even if they're failing miserably Instead, educate them. I mean that's the whole point right? Educate people about how damaging certain thought processes are.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:42 PM
1

I will admit there's value in your first two points. I meant to say that radicals didn't exist in the capacity that they do today (ie Radfems have become acceptable, instead of being treated as militant outliers) Can you link me to sources on your second point? I've never heard of anything of that sort before. But your third is the kind of generalisation that led directly to #YesAllWomen. Don't do that unless you want the MRM to turn into Feminism.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:26 PM
-1

Radicals didn't exist before second wave feminism, not in any real amounts. First wave feminism was all about correcting inequalities. Remove patriarchy theory, and radfems don't have a leg to stand on.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:02 PM
-2

It leaves nothing left except that they mean to fight for equality. Which would require them re-educating themselves and creating a new set of ideologies, which would hopefully be more in line with reality
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:47 PM
0

Also, due to my exhaustion, I amn't able to communicate efficiently, therefore my point may be being completely lost. So while alertness has nothing to do with my personal views, it does affect my ability to communicate them
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:35 PM
0

Your mistake here is applying physical definitions to a metaphysical. Feminism can have the central goal of equality, while utterly failing to do so. In the same way that I can intend to win a horse race, while riding my horse backwards. Intentions and actions do not necessarily align.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:33 PM
0

Did you miss the part where I've been awake for 36 hours? I'm pretty sure I already told you that
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:12 PM
0

It's more along the lines of "We want apples, we love apples," And then they go to get a field.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:07 PM
0

Not really. All of feminism is about equality, even modern feminism. The problem is that modern feminists have no fucking clue what equality actually is.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:01 PM
0

Yes, treat me like an idiot, I'm sure to agree with your point of view if you do so /s But seriously, there's more and more feminists who are turning against those ideals. A lot of them also stop identifying as feminists admittedly, but that's because they see that while those ideologies are the center of the thought process, feminists will never be fighting for equality (because they will never believe themselves to be equal). However, remove those ideologies, and very few people would have iss…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 07:50 PM
-1

They aren't core tenets of feminism though. The core tenet of feminism is "equality for women" The current movement has become twisted by those two ideologies, but the movement still stands without them. It's not like they were part of first wave feminism.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 07:28 PM
1

(Please use the quoting function in future, it's near impossible to make sense of your post) 1: Recognizing logical fallacies is key to holding any form of debate. I don't think you know what they actually are, I suggest you read up about them again, and if you still think that they are merely tools for replacing logical thought, then you have 0 reading comprehension. Logical fallacies are illogical arguments, teaching someone about them won't teach them logic, but it will prevent them from maki…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 07:25 PM
1

No, but I haven't slept in 36 hours so lots of things will fly over my head
/r/MensRights10/06/14 07:02 PM
1

No Those are bullshit, but they also have very little to do with the movement beyond being current ideologies. Remove them as ideologies, and pretty much everything bad about feminism is corrected, and you're left with a fantastic movement filled with thousands, if not millions of followers.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 06:41 PM
35

People don't need to denounce feminism in order to be allies of the MRM. Sure it took an event close to home for her to understand the draconian nature of the system, but she's now advocating against it and clearly has a more open mind to male problems.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:39 AM
3

Men can get over it, it's only for the 6 months on either side of fathers day
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:58 AM
1

That includes all forms of crimes that are punishable by law. I specifically stated that the figure included all form of crime, not just violent ones. The entire point is that even if all of those 3% were violent? It's 3% to 97% You can't apply the violence globally.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:14 AM
0

I point that out it my initial post. The reason I used the most inflated statistics possible, is because they are the most inflated statistics possible. If my point stands while using the most inflated statistics possible, then it sure as hell stands with the actual figures.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 10:59 PM
-11

A red chill pill? A red hot chili pepper pill? Peter piper picked a peck of pickled chili chill pill peppers? Sorry, I tangenting. I was joking though, not freaking out.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 10:14 PM
-8

OH NO, I AM SLAIN BECAUSE THE DEFINITION FOR A WORD IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAT WHAT I USED IT FOR
/r/MensRights09/06/14 09:37 PM
2

The problem with you counterpoint is that it relies on the logical fallacy "proving inexistance" Even if the judicidal system WAS perfect, there's no way of us knowing. Therefore we cannot function under the premise that the judicidal system is entirely wrong This means that there is merely a margin of error, which can be guessed as being relatively low, because if it were too high (ie too many criminals free, too many innocents in jail) then we wouldn't have a functional society. ADDITIONALLY, …
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:37 PM
3

No-one is responsible for anyone else's actions. It is however our job to try and educate them and call out their bullshit. If we don't do that then we are condoning their activities in our name. THAT is what I mean, and it's something I have never seen a feminist do beyond posting on their own blog saying stuff along the lines of "Ugh, Some feminists don't seem to care about equality" That doesn't help anyone, that's not stopping the radicals, it's not even really an attempt to stop them. It's …
/r/MensRights09/06/14 04:38 PM
-6

I would consider anything over 1% rampant, and the figure is something like 2-8% But that's just a difference in opinion. I'll try to stick with figures in future.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 04:34 PM
2

I'm not arguing that point. My arguement, is that it's the responsibility of feminists to police radical feminists. That's been my point all along. Feminists continue to handwave and say "well I don't meet feminists like that", ignoring the fact that they're talking to the people who DO meet feminists like that. It's leaving people with the view that, while radicals are a minority, they're also the only ones who actually DO anything.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 04:33 PM
5

Also, pillow forting is where someone either consciously or unconsciously ignores/forgets viewpoints, events and opinions which would change their own point of view.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:13 PM
5

I'm Irish. The aspergers would probably explain it. A lot of people won't go around spouting their beliefs in public, so if you have a social disorder, it would probably impact your interactions in such a way that would cause these things to not come up.(Just going to say I know nothing about aspergers really, so this is all guess work) Basically, I know these people because I'm in the town's lgbt society. and there's at least 6 or 7 (out of about 100) women who constantly berate the men in the …
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:12 PM
2

Look up plebcomics on tumblr, they're a bit to aggressive for my taste, but they constantly link to and argue with militant feminists. Also, I think you might be pillow forting. You apparently don't know ANYONE of these opinions? Where do you live? Do you interact with anyone? I live in a small town and I know people who are on a huge spectrum of opinions on these topics. Like, I don't know how you can manage to NOT know these people, they're literally everywhere. I'm not saying their the majori…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 01:59 PM
8

The difference is that Elliot Rodger didn't identify as an MRA, these feminists do.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 01:52 PM
6

writing intrinsically isn't going to help anyone. Instead of writing passive aggressively on tumblr, write aggressively. I never said spend all of your time, but take the time you'd spend being abstractedly annoyed at "bad feminists", and actually talk to them. Educate them. And sorry, but the definition of something is defined by the perception of the masses. If most people view feminism as psychotic bra burning pseudo-nazis, then that's what feminism is. And that's kind of where the public of …
/r/MensRights09/06/14 01:46 PM
4

See, this is the problem. If you know this happens, then you need to seek it out and stop it. That's like the police saying "We know people get murdered, but unless we see people murdering them, there's nothing we can do" The actions and views of feminists, are YOUR responsibility as a feminist. You can't just handwave and say "Oh but it's the RADICALS" It's not, it's the feminists, because these are the people who are defining what feminism is.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 01:35 PM
13

I think you need to tell people who identify as feminists to stop saying that then. I get told regularly that I need to apologise for men being violent. I amn't violent, I don't objectify women, yet I'm told to apologise, and stop participating in both by feminists. This is an experience I know is replicated by the majority of men on tumblr who are involved in human rights.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 01:14 PM
2

I agree on that point, I suggest that OP removes the statement in parentheses in the title. Also, this subreddit should have a marker for "general" rights
/r/MensRights09/06/14 11:42 AM
5

That counter argument doesn't stand though. Women consist of 51% of the voting population on average. Thus they + the small percentage of "safe" men would easily be able to instate the laws that would protect from the "violent" men, which would in the interest of the "safe" men as the majority of violence is towards men anyway.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 11:40 AM
14

It's not directly a MR issue, but the huge number of homeless males? THAT is a MR issue, and this is an issue for them. If they don't have anywhere to sleep while we try and create proper shelters/fix the initial societal problems which caused their homelessness, they are going to die at higher and higher rates. And anyway, any non-gendered human rights issue, is the issue of ANY human rights movement, regardless of that movements specifications, because it will affect the weakest members of tha…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 11:00 AM
1

If you look at the sources, they aren't even from the same year. The oldest is 15 years out of date. I'd be very worried about cherry picking in that situation Additionally, it states "out of every 100 rapes" and then goes on to say only 40 of the 100 are reported, meaning that 60 don't tangibly exist. They haven't even been told about them, they're just guessing that they exist. Finally, and most disgustingly, it assumes guilt. They're saying that all 100 are rapes, not reported rapes, but rape…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 11:17 AM
21

Being a commodity is far better to being worth only the bullet it takes to kill you
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:09 PM
3

Whether or not this happened to him, this story is true. My aunt worked in a survivor support center, and she said that male victims get treated like this regularly, regardless of age.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 02:08 PM
6

Because all our bonds and debts were owned by China, if we can't pay our debts, then china gains basically executive control over the country (ie, they can't make the decisions for us, but they tell what options we have and which they want us to take)
/r/MensRights04/06/14 09:30 PM
4

Ireland currently is one of the stronger economies, because since the recession, average tax has increased by 10 euro per person per month. three years ago we didn't have ANY money or Economy. Had it not been for the euro, we would have completely collapsed, and all of our debts were to China.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 09:28 PM
8

You clearly have no idea how the euro actually functions. Are you even european yourself? Without the Euro, countries like Greece, Ireland and Spain would be owned by China. It's only due to the homogenisation of the currencies that's keeping the lesser countries afloat, and thus it keeps Europe as a whole stable. I doubt Germany, England or France want China moving in next door, so it's in their best interests to share the hit, and keep the general enviroment stable.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 09:01 PM
2

The line of logic girls keep using is basically "I should be allowed be naked in public, I'm not sexually aroused by it, therefore no-one else should be" Like, it applies both ways, it's just that women have a lot more sexual real estate than men. Now I don't whether or not there is an actual disparity in this, I come from Ireland and 99% of schools have uniforms, and it's too cold to wear anything that's in anyway revealing, so the issue never comes up. But if there is a disparity, it should me…
/r/MensRights03/06/14 10:08 AM
2

Additionally, the standards women are held to by men are almost ALL mutable, whereas the majority of standards that women hold men to are immutable.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 07:50 PM
2

Sure, just go into hospital with a variety of symptoms and refuse to tell them your genetic gender. Gender is hugely important in a wide variety of spheres, that's why we evolved to have genders as opposed to all being hermaphroditic/agendered. If you think that gender is nothing more than an intellectual concept, you need to go educate yourself.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 09:48 PM
21

It IS their job to educate you, that's basically the ENTIRE reason for their movement. Education is the first step in ANY equality movement.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 09:17 AM
1

I'll agree, he looks pretty built. But you also must admit the massive visual difference between his body and that of the "male power fantasy" Despit being a boxer, and thus requiring major upper body strength, he doesn't look as built as he actually is. Additionally, look at the shape of his torso in comparison to his arms, his elbows are at his hips, and this makes him look a lot less muscled than he is (ie his arms are long and thus not a proportionally thick, resulting in his arms looking le…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:17 PM
1

I would go for it, if you love it like you do. But be cautious, Try and make it so that someone can't bring a false accusation against you (I don't know how you'd go about this in the specific situation).
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:19 PM
0

It's not a perspective, you tried to actively spread misinformation, couched as science. It's easy to lose weight, it's just easier to not change your lifestyle around it.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:10 PM
2

I don't disagree, but Brad Pitt in Fight Club is a lithe Mesomorph. His muscles a more functional than built, which makes him appear Ectomorphic However, his shoulders are still broader than his hips, and if he bulked his pectorals, he'd be a typical Mesomorph. Ectomorphs have wider hips, and longer arms/legs. This is what makes them look wimpy, as building those muscles to proportion takes much much more effort and time. I'm not saying improvements are impossible, but the typically given male p…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:06 PM
0

You do realise that the article doesn't actually draw proper conclusions, and states as much. I'd be willing to admit that I may be wrong (although your article does nothing of the sort, it counters use of Somatotypes being used to draw further conclusions, and doesn't actually counter the ideology OF the existance of Somatotypes) Furthermore, Somatotypes are based almost entirely on bone structure http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/becker3.htm
/r/MensRights31/05/14 08:59 PM
1

Yes there is though? Like, adding more fat or muscle to your body doesn't change your bone structure or genetics. Being ectomorphic means that your body grows in specific directions, that don't align with the "male power fantasy" Whereas Mesomorphics grow in the specific way that is referred to as the "male power fantasy", and Endomorphs can attain a shape similar, whereas an Ectomorphs just look wimpy, even when they're heavily muscled
/r/MensRights31/05/14 08:24 PM
-1

If you're ectomorphic it's basically impossible to achieve the "male power fantasy". You need to be Endomorphic or Mesomorphic to have any reasonable hope
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:34 PM
0

Yeah, no. I come from a family with a history of thyroid problems, both overactive and underactive. Even in cases like my mother's (who has an utterly shit thyroid), it's literally just eat less than this much of these things and walk/jog/swim this much and bam, regular figure. She doesn't keep to it as strictly as she should and she's still only 2 stone overweight. There's really no excuse for being fat, although you should also be allowed be fat if you don't want to bother (I feel this is ofte…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:32 PM
5

Taking action independently would result in absolutely nothing getting achieved when the greatest adversary is lack of education/knowledge. The main reason no-one supports the MRM? They don't know about any of the issues men face. This forum and our discussions on it act as a bank of all these issues that a person can be directed to for the means of their education. Additionally, why can't "real men" both use forums AND take independent action? Why are those mutually exclusive?
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:26 AM
1

If it's not a gendered issue, then it doesn't come into the debate. Nothing happens solely to women that cannot be corrected is more where the line of reasoning goes. Not sure if it does apply, but it's certainly not cancelled by rape
/r/MensRights30/05/14 09:08 PM
34

In fairness, it looks more like your account was flagged by a large number of people. Twitter admins wouldn't even look into your account specifics, they'd just suspend and see if you wanted to get unsuspended
/r/MensRights30/05/14 08:17 PM
1

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
/r/MensRights30/05/14 07:47 PM
1

I believe you mean my apparent interpretation? after all, you are talking to nothing more than an electronic mommet through which I may parlais whatever opinions I deem appropriate, whether or not they reflect a parralellitude with the synapsal trails reflected in my conciousness. The fact that you DON'T think language loses or gains meaning by it's general use by the ignorant masses shows anyone with half an education in macro-sociology exactly where your suppositional and theoretically child l…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 06:37 PM
1

No sir, YOU assume that my proprietary statements indicate a direct correlation to the matters and idealisms which I wished to express, had or if there were any which I wished to express in the first place. This is also directly assumptive that any comments I made in reply were in reply to you, rather than your comments themselves. Good job denying your actions and words culpability beyond any that you yourself might give them And you wonder why feminists say we objectify them, when you objectif…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:29 PM
2

You made literally no sense, you might want to try again
/r/MensRights29/05/14 02:43 PM
3

I've been called an MRA on and off for the last 6 months because I run an egalitarian Tumblr. Probably should have clarified.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 07:29 AM
10

I've been egalitarian for a while, was a feminist before Tumblr. I'm not new new, but after the way feminists instantly turned that tragedy into a vitriolic hate farm, inserting whatever facts they needed to keep it aligned with their views? That was what really set me off.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 07:27 AM
3

I wouldn't be so sure, you forget, they don't have to ever have talked to you, or have even met you, to claim child support They just have to know your name and what you look like
/r/MensRights29/05/14 07:23 AM
1

coined was probably the wrong word to use, but they're the ones who selected that "title", even though "Alpha Male" has been used for decades to describe a man with great sexual prowess, but also has had an aura of childishness about it.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 07:22 AM
10

I know, it's just so crass. They couldn't have coined something MORE stereotypical could they?
/r/MensRights28/05/14 10:11 PM
91

100% Success Rate: 100% True Alpha Male
/r/MensRights28/05/14 09:27 PM
1

People tend to very insensitive in general about abuse, but realistically, if we survived the abuse, we can survive the insensitivity eh?
/r/MensRights28/05/14 09:26 PM
206

I love it when people tell me that I'm an MRA because I can't get women because 1: I'm gay 2: I didn't start identifying as an MRA until I saw feminism's response to Elliot Rodger 3: I've dated 100% of the women I've asked out (granted that number is 1 due to the whole homosexuality thing, but the point stands)
/r/MensRights28/05/14 08:06 PM
2

I wouldn't call it misandry. It's not derived from gender. It's derived from a difference of opinions, and perceived abuse of power (which I do agree with, Wheaton regularly abuses his power to forward his personal agenda without first defaulting to objective values) But yes, no-one deserves violence but those who first offer it.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 08:03 PM
2

The entire point of an imbalance is that effects both sides anyway.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 03:24 PM
7

Oh honey, add a "0"
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:51 PM
1

That's the problem though, everyone seems to just be eating up whatever it is the feminists say about MRA's and Elliot Rodger, regardless of any basis in reality. At this point they could start saying that the MRA movement is actually a cover for neo-nazism in america and people would just accept that because of the proliferation of feminist voices in the media, without any counter voices in similar positions.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:46 PM
27

Or thinking about her
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:36 PM
5

While it's true that the act of child abuse isn't gendered, the treatment of sociological outcomes are. Women are allowed to seek help for these events, men are meant to "toughen up" and "get over it" I can testify to this because both me and my sister were abused by my mother as children and if it ever comes up people will, even in the same conversation, pity and sympathise with my sister, while telling me to stop whining, despite my sister supporting me in that the abuse was pretty equal towar…
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:31 PM
1

There are more races than white, indian and black He identified as Eurasian (http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/27/liberal-website-blames-elliot-rodger-shooting-on-white-privilege/)
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:24 PM
3

Laci Green at least is open to discussion on certain male topics (such as circumcision)
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:21 PM
3

Do you not remember when they tried to make him Irish?
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:17 PM
35

Or asking a girl out for coffee
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:13 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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