TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AeneaLamia Archive

View 10 posts and 1,250 comments by AeneaLamia on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,250 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Isn't what religion decrees beyond the point, anyway? A religion doesn't have to be specific, and if I wanted to I could show you examples in the Bible and Tora which condone killing. A religion is a belief system. If you allow a belief system to trump the law it becomes the law. The morality of any religion can be judged, and should be so.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 07:03 PM
1

To clarify, are you abandoning your position that it sets a precedent or not? You say that 'religion knows not to kill'. Who's religion? Where? Are there not examples of death in most religious texts?
/r/MensRights31/03/16 06:32 PM
2

We already restrict people's religion and what they are allowed to do. We don't allow people to kill for religion's sake, nor torture (supposedly). Saying that it sets a precedent is invalid- because it already exists.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 04:18 PM
1

The problem with 'average' life expectancy is that it doesn't apply on an individual level. A woman could die at 60, and a man could die at 80. It is much fairer to mandate all individuals to work to a certain number of years, and anything after that they just get to relax. That way all parties put in the same amount of work.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:40 PM
3

Men have less of an in-group bias than women, that's why. As a society women grouped together, men were fighting among each other for mates, that is where we come from. Men have to be taught logic, and to not be given bias in education, that they may become reasonable people. MRA's have already taken the step needed to fight for justice. It is the mass of uneducated that hold men back.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 05:52 AM
1

Most things are taken on faith, including most of history, which we largely take as fact. Our lives have not been long enough to remember most we learn.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:53 PM
1

I doubt I will have the will to be too involved, I am not one to have the motivation to a lot of the time. Not because I don't think the cause is worthy, but because it's too sad sometimes. Feel free to peruse my comment history.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:48 PM
2

This stuff really does belong there... I mean yes, it highlights the disparity, but this kind of thing happens every day, to both men and women. I don't think suspended sentences are a bad thing. Only that these things not being found out when people lie. R/mensrants would be another suitable place.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:33 PM
1

I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. If it can be argued that women can be paid more for being more in demand, and of varying beauty levels, then why shouldn't men be paid more for being stronger in the military? You argue that different skill sets in specialised positions which involve more than brute strength would make it equal, but what of positions that do simply require greater physical ability? Or perhaps you think it's a privilege to be sent to the front line instead of sitting in …
/r/MensRights02/12/15 10:35 PM
0

Does this mean you would argue for male military personal to be paid more, because they have greater physical capacity?
/r/MensRights02/12/15 09:28 PM
1

As if the rest doesn't put off all men? Laughable, in lieu of crying.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 04:54 AM
14

I recall this from my own education, one which caused me to drop out. It doesn't always apply to girls though. I was put in detention for refusing an apology to a boy who beat me up, by a female teacher. I was denied attention, and put in a 'special' class because of my refusal to live up to feminist creations. I was lectured by a woman who didn't believe porn could be accepted by men, and that all porn was insulting to women in general. I was raped by my brother. I had to perform oral sex on hi…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 08:37 PM
4

Definitely. The main problem is that getting checked and such is seen as embarrassing. It's good there is a resource here for men who are afraid.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 08:02 PM
8

Honestly, I'd rather all of it for both genders was just done for free. The majority of people are heterosexual, and the frequently they decide to get checked, the better. It's much easier to eradicate STI/D's that way.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:44 PM
6

Suspended sentences aren't a bad thing. It's the reason given that irks me. Men aren't given suspended sentences for having to look after kids, and after all why should any criminal be given it, when surely a criminal isn't fit to look after kids? Sexist bias in courts is an injustice.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:41 PM
9

For God's sake, why is discrimination against men ok? If they said 'keep out all women' there would be an uproar. Being male doesn't make you a terrorist, or even someone who condones harm on others. I can understand the fear. The fear of terrorists bombing citizens. It's not like ISIS or other terrorists will ignore the policy, they'll just send radicalized women instead. Which will be let in all the easier.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:22 PM
0

Who's going to breed then? Feminist white knights who teach their children the same ideals? Who is going to be left? The fight for freedom for all is not going to be won against such massive numbers.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:16 PM
4

Personally, I hate this. If men simply bow down to the system out of fear, what chance do we have?
/r/MensRights22/11/15 10:18 PM
29

Because men in general represent the individual. What a joke of an argument.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 10:11 PM
7

It could feasibly. Just because it's obviously more unlikely, as is proven by statistics, doesn't mean it can't.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 10:04 PM
3

I can agree highlighting behaviours in society is useful for identifying behaviours that need to change. I think we're on the same page.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:43 PM
3

The problem I have with it is I believe fighting the cause of the injustice to be worthy, not some half measure like 'levelling the playing field.' I am an individualist. I plainly refuse to blame all of a kind for the cause of individuals, because all it does is pile like on like and wrong on wrong. When people choose to stand behind a cause it is different, because they made that choice of their own free will. Blaming people for being a certain sex? It's no better than what I see most feminist…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:10 PM
3

Watching you say something, or do something, doesn't make it valid. I am open to debate, but you don't seem to have addressed my point.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:33 PM
3

I'm not sure equality can be defined in terms of bashing others down. That simply leads to discrimination in other forms.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:27 PM
3

Two wrongs don't make a right, and they certainly don't make a just world.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:17 PM
7

Such opinions are the same that lead to statements like 'all men rape.'
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:14 PM
2

What a disgrace. Not you, the cops. Can't they be held to a higher standard? Shouldn't they be? What person ignores all sense and further hurts a victim... Fgs, it boggles the mind.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 12:36 AM
3

None at all.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 04:35 AM
6

'It cannot be considered assault when the victim is used to it'- I'm sure that would go over well.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 11:36 PM
1

All men aren't rapists. All women aren't victims. 'Only a Feminist deals in absolutes'.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 10:35 PM
2

You tried. It was all you could do. You couldn't force their hand no matter what you said. Good on you for trying. You should be proud.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:34 AM
3

I'm sorry this is happening to you. Try to get a recording of as much of this as possible without putting yourself into danger. Then, go to the police. Get a restraining order. Insist on it fervently no matter what, and bring a lawyer if you can. Good luck.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:25 AM
1

Ok then. I was a bit drunk when I posted my previous messages, and don't quite remember it. I agree with you.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:23 PM
3

IMO, it is too weak to make a fuss about. There's no telling if it is discrimination. Keep doing your job, and record anything if you are paranoid, justly or not.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 02:46 AM
0

It really depends on your standards of 'wasted'. In this context, I describe it as unconscious. If not, then this doesn't apply.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 02:35 AM
11

It would be good if these posters were gender neutral. I would suggest emailing or giving us the address of the producers, if you want people to explain why they shouldn't do this.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:53 AM
4

When someone calls the police, they expect them to do something. This is the mindset of the caller. They pressure the system to do something. The police, trying to be publicly helpful, do it. But police are still human. They don't even have fucking bodycams in the US. They are susceptible to their own minds and prejudices. They have flaws. Bad people can easily corrupt a good system.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:53 PM
1

That's the problem... I know I lack the resources and time to give to this. I don't expect or deserve recognition for any compilation or video. However, it is an appeal to those with the means and will to make it.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 06:48 PM
2

Instances where feminists have opposed equal rights for men. Sorry, I thought that was clear. There are plenty of instances where feminists have organised against them.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 02:12 AM
0

Because no one is able to develop a meaningful relationship, and people shouldn't be treated well?
/r/MensRights27/04/15 01:36 AM
12

This is the main point where MRA and atheism intersect. The mutilation of young boys is tied into religious beliefs when it comes to law in first world countries. Restriction is considered religious persecution.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:48 AM
3

You are going to turn into the reason for the AI revolution.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:15 PM
1

It would be covered under law anyway. Humans may not kill humans. It doesn't matter who they were killing, or why, except in extreme circumstances. Women have the capability to be excellent drivers. Men have the capability to be wonderful fathers. We are human. The same law applies to us all, if we do not abide, we all face the same consequence.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 02:14 AM
1

It's that the argument is stupid. It doesn't matter who did what to who. They are both individual people, not indicative of all people who share a characteristic of them. We are all different.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 01:46 AM
1

No, that is lawlessness. I am talking about a world with law, like ours, not a savage wasteland.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 01:27 AM
1

The intention is disproved by the same principle. If everyone is different, lives somewhere different, acts different, IS different, why wouldn't you treat victimisation the same! ALL people are different! Regardless of colour regardless of gender regardless of capability! No person deserves to be judged for the actions of others.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 01:18 AM
1

For something they can't control? The male sex doesn't have a mental incapacity as a group. Neither, to my knowledge, does any other racial group or homosapiens sapiens. People are individuals. We are all the same in that we are all different.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 01:04 AM
3

I find that you believe a person isn't a statistic. Which is a good thing. For you, mainly, but I also view the world this way.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 12:59 AM
2

Things like this shouldn't even be necessary. It doesn't matter what other people would do. You can't say that 'men' as a group all do something when every man is his own. It's a fallacy. PEOPLE are prosecuted for crimes. Based on who they are, they decide to conform to society or rebel in harmful ways. You cannot infer judgement upon a person solely for the actions of strangers.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 12:38 AM
2

I agree, but it doesn't make you better for also questioning the statistic, unless you were sarcastic about it. We are probably both going for the same goals here.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 12:30 AM
13

Who cares what the percentage would be. It still devalues people when we compare them to statistics when they are their own damn people!
/r/MensRights06/11/14 12:20 AM
11

That really is a startling thing though. Suddenly looking at it through that belief justifies hating all men. Which is exactly what radfems do.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 05:01 PM
1

"Any man willing to rape a woman should be castrated" I'll hold my breath till people start saying female rapists should have their vaginas permanently sown shut shall I?
/r/MensRights08/10/14 11:25 AM
2

It is sad that most people in the UK don't even know paternity fraud is a crime, that should probably be addressed in order to assure prosecution for it. Also, yes, I'm pretty sure the CPS don't know it's a crime and certainly don't act like it.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 09:08 PM
13

Thank God. Thank you.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 03:47 PM
1

Progressivism 70 Socialism 43.75 Tenderness 46.875 Your test scores indicate that you are an open-minded progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a journalist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general. Your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a pro…
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:36 PM
6

What?
/r/MensRights01/10/14 08:22 PM
2

I disagree. It can make it further from the goal. Creating a group of people that gets something, while another group doesn't, does not give the group benefiting much of an incentive to work on it for the denied group.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 09:38 PM
1

This is along my thoughts. I don't necessarily care how they appeal to people for the money, so long as all of it isn't just spent on women, and there is a fairer system in place.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 08:26 PM
7

Yay, a Star Trek reference.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:00 PM
0

There's an interesting idea in another thread off one of my comments I think could actually work. Fill it with joke names, ones that don't actually exist. Put in your url at the bottom and maybe something like 'Why is it wrong to slander people like this?' With the url as the answer. I think this could be fun, not hurt anyone, and still get some kind of point across, especially if they like the joke names, become popular, and start talking about the posters and subsequently the urls. I added a b…
/r/MensRights23/09/14 11:16 PM
1

As long as they aren't actual people, I don't have an objection to this. It could help prevent slander, and doesn't have a negative effect. Would have to make up funny names though, like Regina Phalange or Princess Consuela Bannanahammock, to avoid accidentally mentioned people. Though that sounds like a fun task.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 11:00 PM
1

Meh, sometimes people get carried away when someone seemingly goes against 'the sub', even though what Im trying to suggest imo is in its best interests. Downvotes dont really bother me, but thank you all the same. There have been a few good ideas like the url one you just mentioned, colour coding for satire etc that people have brought up. I have no doubt these would help mitigate possible damage. My concern is that we could still cause damage inadvertently regardless (to innocent people no les…
/r/MensRights23/09/14 08:31 PM
0

You can't control which people see which posters so easily. Some may get taken down, some may not be in areas they go to. It is heavily dependant on too much coincidence to have any guaranteed effect, yet it is almost certain that someone will be victimised by it.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:41 PM
1

But this still puts them onto separate posters. If there are different names on different posters, you don't know who sees what.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 05:08 PM
2

Exactly how big are these posters 0_o
/r/MensRights23/09/14 04:53 PM
9

I'm not sure how much that would help, perhaps not enough for me to agree it is a wise thing to do. I can already see the headlines. "MRA's fight against the slandering of innocent people... By slandering innocent people." And it would be totally accurate.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 04:48 PM
4

How do you make it so people they know, and a sufficient number of them, are there? Do we know which people they know? Unless you were to put names on the lists such as say, Barack Obama, which would obviously appear ludicrous, and then only these names (because does everyone read every single name?), there wouldn't be a way to do that.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 04:39 PM
1

I don't disagree that that can be one of the effects. But I can't agree that these actions could not cause harm to people.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 03:37 PM
3

How exactly would it stop people who only see one or two of these posters from believing it? They don't understand the goals you have. Those two posters they see, perhaps being the ones put up by you, could slander people and cause hate on them.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 03:19 PM
5

Sure, it could do that, but basically it's just doing what we are campaigning against. What is to stop people taking the new posters seriously? Can you say there is no chance this will not add to the further victimisation of others?
/r/MensRights23/09/14 03:17 PM
-10

I don't think victimising more people, and further spreading the ones that are already listed, is really the right thing to do here.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 01:11 PM
7

Why are you copy pasting this all over the thread?
/r/MensRights22/09/14 11:28 PM
1

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Kids are having relationships younger and younger all the time.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 07:19 PM
1

Ah, alright. To your credit, it certainly did not appear that English was not your first language.
/r/MensRights21/09/14 11:21 PM
3

I guess not going for the tacos for some reason would make you a rapist. Is Taco Bell behind this campaign? I am having an extremely hard time believing this is a real initiative.
/r/MensRights21/09/14 09:14 PM
1

Choice* I'm guessing at a possible wrong autocorrect, since it happened twice.
/r/MensRights21/09/14 04:05 AM
11

And where infant circumcision bans aren't being talked about in the main stream media.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 05:16 PM
5

Only one thing I really have to say to this... If you really love her and have pride for yourself just be honest with her and don't hide your opinions. If you can't trust her with that what you two have may not be love.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 04:50 PM
3

It mentions in the article that one of the questions asked if they have had sex after drinking EP... Is it just me, or does this sound like an attempt to inflate rape statistics to you?
/r/MensRights18/09/14 03:22 PM
41

I get your outrage, but this article is a great step in the right direction. The article does a brilliant job of explaining an anti-mutilation position, and I would like it to spark further debate on the issue.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 01:55 PM
0

Sigh... Ok. I'm sorry, but I'm going to put you on ignore now.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 01:01 AM
0

DV stats =/= Women in shelters.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:58 AM
0

I have already given you your list of unexplained points in another one of your threads off my comments. I understand you are just replying to me, but please pick a thread and choose it, since I keep having to repeat myself and being downvoted by you for the trouble.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:57 AM
0

I already said we haven't done research inside the shelters, and that the demographics have changed. I have already explained why these demographics would change. You cannot simply say that this is enough research to accurately predict with no current studies what the shelters of today are like. I have said that the demographics of different countries could have changed across the world, including the USA. Yes, we have the studies of a trend in a different setting, but not for this situation cur…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:52 AM
0

That is not a counter argument, that is a character attack.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:36 AM
0

This is untrue. I have explained situations that can change the demographic such as the number of women in prison or say, better communities and development, perhaps even worse development. It is not accurate to say that the figure then would be the same as the figure now. We just don't know. PS. Have ya finished downvoting all my posts yet?
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:35 AM
0

Today? And in the shelters? 30 years have passed, everyone stayed there during all that time? The demographic could be anything without current studies.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:25 AM
0

One study is not adequate to surmise for all situations, as I have explained. It's already been explained to you, I am not the one who is having to have things explained twice to, friend.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:22 AM
0

I won't disagree with that. What percentage of the women like that are in shelters?
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:15 AM
0

Studies which talk about the discovery, that most women currently now in the USA in shelters are abusers? Please, I do want to see to see that. Could you post it? I didn't know the research had been conducted.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:13 AM
0

Ummm, in Britain, not the USA, she did. And I am not doubting her at all on her word, but it was one person's study which was done years ago now and in a different part of the world. Any suggestion it could be used to make random guesses at what the make-up of the shelters are now is kind of questionable. I really would be interested in seeing more studies on it, though.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:09 AM
1

Yes, but perhaps you should check the other thread you made off my comments, I explained this there.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:01 AM
1

Yes, they are. But how many of them are in these shelters, exactly? We can't know. Some may be locked up, even though it is unlikely. Some may have recently fled the state with his kids under the pretence of 'he is an abuser'. We really just don't know the make up of that percentage that are in the shelters.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:54 PM
2

Only she wasn't referencing the USA. She was talking about Britain. You want to compare the demographics of both areas as if they are the same now?
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:49 PM
1

No, it was not valid. You can't just state opinions as if they were facts and have everyone take your word for it. He did admit it was anecdotal. But he still defended his position. Which I then responded to. Edit: Wait, how exactly are you using the word 'valid' in this context?
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:32 PM
1

That's the problem. You have used her quote about her experiences, which I am not saying are invalid, and expanded it to everywhere. You can't 'just' do that.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:38 PM
1

Assuming that is a fair comparison- it still doesn't mean that because you can't provide statistics on it you can make it up.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:19 PM
2

I recall the video in which she said something to that effect, but I am not sure you can take an anecdote and turn it into a generalisation with no statistics. Also not sure which DV shelters you are referring to.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:01 PM
7

(most of the women in feminist DV shelters are the attackers) Do you have a source? And by that do you mean they are the sole aggressor, or that they are mostly reciprocal in nature?
/r/MensRights17/09/14 06:50 PM
4

It isn't just alleged. It is a fact that it happened no matter what they call it. All one needs is math to know this.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 06:37 PM
4

The Navy Seals doesn't discriminate on gender, it discriminates on strength. The only profession I would really support gender preference hiring is sport, as a necessity.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 08:02 PM
1

Do you really think you know what they did on their job and what kind of person they were? You are no worse than feminists when they generalise men if that's the case.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 07:59 PM
1

I wasn't really saying it was inaccurate, only that it could be interpreted as the previous.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 06:06 PM
1

I object to the way feMRA is described... It makes it sound like they are like "Male allies" such as Feminism, when it describes 'for female activists to become more effective'. Emphasis mine. Perhaps 'A place where female MRAs gather', or something along those lines would fit better.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 11:25 AM
3

If you are just going to make one word replies I'm not going to waste my time.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 11:16 AM
3

Is it still an ideology when what we complain about are demonstrable, and adhere to reason and logic? Please.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 11:15 AM
3

And? Does it make a difference if you assign Indigo to a particular movement which has nothing to do with us?
/r/MensRights15/09/14 10:22 AM
6

"The colour Indigo isn't against Men's Rights, maybe we have some sort of tangible relationship"
/r/MensRights15/09/14 10:09 AM
1

It's the anime avis that convince me... I actually know people who act like this.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 09:45 AM
8

Those people sound like they are trolling.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 06:13 AM
9

They're kids. Nakedness doesn't have to be peverse, and the human body, male or female, doesn't need to be shameful.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 05:51 PM
0

And you are ready to judge all situations with this biased interpretation? It is a joke that you think this way. You obviously have no idea what goes on, yet feel inclined to paint all situations with the same brush and biased blame.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 03:25 AM
2

You are using the expectation of pain as a deterrent to not do things, and then placing this responsibility on the person being harmed rather than the person committing the harm. This is like, to make situations you have described far more applicable to this situation, putting your hand out to someone to shake their hand and having it chopped off with an axe, and since it happened to others, that makes the situation expected and should continue to be so, the people being friendly should have exp…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 11:10 PM
2

You are drawing extreme conclusions and I think being deliberately duplicitous. First you say people shouldn't put their hand in a jar of vipers, and now you compare that to pointing a gun. How at all do the two compare? They don't.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:52 PM
3

You are saying that you are to blame for other people's actions. This is not the case. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:11 PM
3

While the women who are abused are unquestionably victims - pure and simple - of the violence visited on them Are the victims? Or are they people who are getting the expected results of the actions they take? I don't consider the person who gets bit after sticking their hand into a basket of vipers to be a victim. Vipers cannot be blamed for the people they hurt, humans can.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 09:51 PM
8

Please, tell me more of the magic that is feminism. I have no mind of my own, and have obviously never done my own research on feminism. Please, sweetie, tell me more about the horrible demon that is patriarchy and men's tool to control all women across the world. I am so interested.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:27 PM
3

Tbh, you aren't actually appearing too unreasonable. But downvotes are cumulative after only the first up or downvote, its the same on every sub. However, I still generally disagree with some of your views :p but I won't downvote you for it.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:04 PM
15

Lol. Feminism 101: if you disagree with feminism, you are a misogynist.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:55 PM
3

As someone who has been an MRA for years, I don't know either. Maybe because I don't frequent TRP.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 03:57 PM
2

You are blaming him for getting into the elevator whether you realise it or not. It is what you said. Him getting into the elevator does not justify any violence against him. If you agree with this, fine, but it doesn't excuse what you said.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 06:16 PM
0

chose to escalate it Still not an excuse to hit someone, unless that is already happening. I dont know what happened in the elevator, but you are still making excuses for violence.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:58 PM
2

It really doesn't seem to me to be any different.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:52 PM
2

Sometimes the only way to make it clear to people not to do things, is if there are consequences to their actions. Something definitely needs to be done.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:44 PM
3

Being with someone isn't an excuse for them to hit you 0_o
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:15 PM
5

So am I, considering I was banned for standing up for men.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 03:15 PM
1

Fair enough, if you want to continue tomorrow I should still reply.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 12:02 AM
1

But that isn't what you were saying. Don't change the goalposts 0_o You didn't say anything about a priority list. You made an argument. And in regards to your second point, that's just a strawman, I never said men HAD to talk about their thoughts or feelings.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:52 PM
1

I said feelings, that can be about anything, doesn't relate to needing a reality check. This case is about getting backlash for talking about your feelings and thoughts honestly and not being silent for fear of the masses. And you have pretty much said men should be mocked for expressing this. Honestly, here is my 'feeelings': fuck off with that.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 10:46 PM
1

So, what you are saying is that the feminists are right, and men should be mocked for their 'feeelings' (quote). Some great MRA you are.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 10:33 PM
1

I think that with this view, men talking about their feelings on issues will never be acceptable.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 10:03 PM
5

But the fucking consequence is exactly the same. Trapped into financial slavery for years!
/r/MensRights05/09/14 10:18 AM
1

It may well be on topic, but whether it was intentional or not it could mischaracterise what I said. Because of this it was necessary to point it out.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:39 PM
1

? Since you were responding to me, the whole situation I am discussing is based on my first post here, which has in it a quote I responded to. You aren't discussing that quote. I never referred to your opinion.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 05:28 PM
1

That isnt what was quoted.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 05:15 PM
0

Of course it is dishonest. Fight fire with water, not more fire.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:37 PM
0

This won't be much help, but it just seems 'wrong' in a way I can't put into words. I would disagree that it was relevant regardless, and maybe it's just the tone of the post or opinion bias, but the way this is advertised and explained just feels wrong to me.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 08:57 PM
3

If you have slept with a girl and it looks like going AWOL get in there first with a claim that you were abused. ie she was on top and would not stop! No. How can you go so far as to advocate what we ourselves detest? Hypocritical in the extreme.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 08:43 PM
-1

Perhaps there has been discussion about the gamer community here, but I hardly see the need for any affiliation between a gaming forum and Mens Rights, especially not like this. Quite honestly, it seems stupid.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 08:31 PM
4

Your. Also, I don't really get what you mean by your title. Perhaps you could better explain it in a comment.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 08:14 PM
3

Why does the media matter? Do the police not have an obligation to press charges for crimes they know have been committed?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 02:58 PM
11

If this has been admitted in her own book, is there no way for criminal charges to be brought against her? She seems to have already admitted guilt, why have the police not acted? Does anyone know?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 02:05 PM
1

Your decisions are your decisions, I personally don't have anything to do with them.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 06:01 AM
1

Is there really a difference between can't and won't in this context? You don't seem to have actually presented an argument.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:53 AM
2

The main problem I see with things like this is that they always come from an anti-individualist position. They take the efforts of the singular to mean naught, and instead focus on inherently discriminatory practices against individuals by privileging or disenfranchising entire groups. It no longer matters what an individual's efforts have been, they are not as good through not being in a particular group.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:46 AM
2

Fair enough, if you can't even answer such simplistic questions about your own opinions this probably isnt the place for you anyway.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:24 AM
2

So, exactly what mental condition are you inventing which excuses her actions? And why, if she is so severely disabled, is she not in a mental institution, where she can no longer harm society?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:05 AM
0

She deserves help? Yes, smiling in those pictures and being a general scumbag is totally a symptom of her supposed depression. As someone who actually knows what depression is, fuck this woman, and no not literally, she doesn't deserve to be loved.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:00 AM
8

Considering he was being downvoted, thought I'd at least mention it.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 02:29 PM
17

I think you may have forgotten or chosen not to use your sarcasm tag.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 02:14 PM
1

Story? What story?
/r/MensRights31/08/14 08:00 AM
1

Pretty confused by other commenter's responses... I am sure by their explanation they were describing patriarchy as misogynistic, not deriding patriarchy. Your reaction is confusing and begs the question why you would think in this manner.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 02:19 PM
4

The real danger is that chivalry is a code of conduct which discriminates by nature. It is best to ignore.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 02:14 PM
1

Fucking conformists! Life is decay.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:26 AM
2

Then it definitely has nothing to do with this subreddit.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 12:56 AM
1

It isnt consent to a child, yet its consent to the possibility of a child? Read that again and think about it. The second statement explicitly implies that it is consent to it if it happens.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:25 AM
1

What you are saying is men should be celibate. Consent to sex is not consent to a child. If it was, surely there would be no need for an abortion, and the man could force her to carry to term, as she has already consented to the child and consequences through the act of fertilization. So, which way would you like it?
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:00 AM
0

Yes, because based on my posting history, I am a major proponent of cannibalism and so is the rest of the MRM. This post is not for your benefit, troll, but it is for the benefit of onlookers.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 06:52 AM
0

If this were forced onto everyone there wouldnt be a problem, but it would also be ludicrous to force that on people. The problem is that your way of suggesting things is that it cant really apply to women in any meaningful way. A woman has the choice to abort and do whatever she wants with the potential child regardless, the man does not. So only a man would have to be forced into this, in order to protect whatever so called reproductive rights he has.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 11:34 PM
4

But killing them creates more food.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 10:20 AM
3

Maybe that men don't have money because it is all taken by child support, alimony, lawyers fees, and rope.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:14 AM
2

But feminism is working on those issues. Working to keep them alive.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 01:22 AM
2

I have seen it more than once over the years and I didnt get that bit till later. I just thought it was normal.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 04:14 PM
3

The sad thing is, I remember it being as standard. I didnt question it at all when it came out, and Im only 24 now.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 04:26 AM
0

Source please. Edit: Downvoted for no response and no retraction. Thankfully, this is not true. I don't know why a born citizen of England should have to correct this.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 07:19 PM
6

Debunked studies cannot be considered 'evidence'.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 06:10 PM
3

Actually, no, I wasn't alleging that, and it was nowhere in what I said. Perhaps you need to reconsider how to have a mature discussion before you are legally allowed to do so...
/r/MensRights07/08/14 04:30 PM
0

Amongst gay men, maybe XD EDIT: Upon rereading my comment, I would like to point out this is not a slur against men who choose to participate in this activity; it is a pun that relies on the inadequacy of the reverse situation being clarified fully.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 03:43 PM
7

You twisted the meaning. Physically, as in biologically developed enough to understand consent. There are lots of different ways of how you can be mature... I believe that the word mentally would have been more appropriate in the explanation above, but I hope this portrays a clearer meaning.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 03:40 PM
7

There is a difference between joking about something in general, and joking about and laughing at it actually happening to a specific person.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 07:01 PM
2

I understand your point about attraction, but that doesn't explain why you would be insulting homosexuals.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 02:17 AM
27

He was twelve.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 09:13 PM
2

When I say not pleasurable, I don't mean constantly as in during sex, I mean the friction of it down there against clothing and such shouldn't really make you more horny because you get used to it being that way. I would describe my own glans being exposed in my boxers, as an uncircumcised male, as painful/uncomfortable rather than anything else. Perhaps poorly worded initially, but does this make more sense?
/r/MensRights17/07/14 04:19 PM
2

That friction decreases sensitivity in the glans. It would not be pleasurable having it rub about down there.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 03:47 PM
1

Please explain to me how someone calling you out on spamming the thread is feminist apologia. Please.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:58 AM
3

Thank you!
/r/MensRights21/04/14 01:12 PM
1

When the article is a question, the usual answer is no.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 07:16 AM
3

The devil created language so people could understand just how much they hated each other.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 10:58 AM
11

Perhaps this could be looked at as an 'all publicity is good publicity' scenario. The poll was obviously tampered with, but if it makes people interested enough to look here, they won't find the hate they are looking for.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 12:09 PM
14

Have the courts been known to order one without the mother being willing?
/r/MensRights13/04/14 09:31 PM
15

Without the mothers consent, or, possibly, a court order.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 08:33 PM
-2

This sub is getting so dammed touchy about everything... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MkzdOEIPys Fuck you
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:09 AM
1

Haha, you should see my PMs. It is remarkable how much hate comes from stating an honest opinion, asking questions, and not rising to insults.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 06:05 PM
1

I haven't downvoted any post in this or that thread.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:46 PM
1

My good friend, a downvote doesnt matter. Remember, we are arguing for the observer, not the person we argue against :3
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:06 PM
2

Please do not insult people. Please do not be mean, or stupid. persuade others with an argument, not an insult.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:28 PM
2

No one ever makes a fuss when I vanish :/
/r/MensRights08/03/14 06:12 PM
8

Its funny how an example of hers was about having 'rocks' thrown at her and stopping that happening, when there are books and t-shirts currently bearing the message 'boys are stupid, throw rocks at them'.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:55 AM
1

Pretty sure I saw a post in /r/funny today which showed an auto complete terms such as 'how do i get my girlfriend to...' Shut up. Doesnt that go against this?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 08:58 PM
-7

I dont see how non-white males are at all not included in the issues we discuss. Edit: Thats right, downvote me. Dont like, attempt to have a discussion or anything.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:39 PM
8

No.... No... There are a lot more men in China and the women there have become entitled as a result of men not being able to find someone. You might get lucky and find a girl who makes more than most men- and the men there wont want them because of that. There is a lot of onus on the men working and earning more than their partner there. This may be due to the lack of women and competition too, but thats just speculation.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 09:57 PM
24

What people do in the privacy of their own heads is their business and their business alone. Complaining about sexual objectification is nothing but thought policing.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 02:13 AM
1

Dead link.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 06:58 PM
0

The image says, 'victims and survivors'. False (or the whole regret and not remembering they consented thing) accusers are neither, so your complaint is invalid OP. Knowing feminists, they may deny that there are false claims at all, but that cannot be affirmed by the image.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:30 PM
2

Just because we can fight on the same side doesnt mean we represent them or fight for them. We dont fight with them because they are trans issues, we fight with them because they are mens issues. When two different causes happen to support the same thing it does not and never has meant that those two groups have to support each other, especially when the reason for each group fighting is completely different.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:38 PM
3

I guess you skipped the part i wrote about an overlap of interests. Do we have to support trans issues? No, it is not what we are for. Should we support mens issues when they are also part of a trans issue? Sure. That doesnt mean we support trans issues, it means there is an overlap. It is not the purpose of the MRM to fight for transexuals, and I really wish idiots would stop trying to subvert the MENS rights movement to other causes. If you want to discuss trans issues and be supportive of tha…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:20 PM
0

A few distinct populations? Pretty much everyone here dislikes feminism, you just created some random backgrounds and put the best one as your own. MRAs do not fit into your categories. There are many factors that lead any person to become one.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:11 AM
5

It isnt the MRMs job to look after trans issues. It looks after male issues. Some trans issues may overlap with male issues, but let us not pretend the MRM was formed to help everyone. What issues that fit within that are decided on based on them being male issues, so it isnt from a trans perspective or 'how to improve things for trans people'. It comes from a perspective of 'how to improve things for men and boys and get us equal rights under the law'. The MRM doesnt need to support or include …
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:00 AM
2

And yet I am deliberately misquoting you by asking you to prove an assertion? Can you prove your intended assertion or are we just moving the goal posts here? You also seem to be arguing you said most circumfetishists are pro-circ. That wasnt your claim. You said many pro-circ advocates were circumfetishists. Do you have a source for this claim? Do you have a % statistic of how many pro-circ people are circumfetishists?
/r/MensRights13/02/14 11:58 PM
0

many of those heavily promoting the circumcision of boys are circumfetishists http://imgur.com/iE518Mb Lmao. Prove it or jog on.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 11:04 PM
1

I take it you have statistics which prove the majority of pro-circ advocates are circumfetishists, or just a link to what it is?
/r/MensRights13/02/14 09:41 PM
3

Nevertheless, this is a character attack, not an argument. We can prove pro-circ (infant) arguments wrong with ours, theres no need for it.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 05:38 PM
6

Its only as dishonest as saying they are potentially true.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 10:59 PM
1

Lol, no, Baka-Sama. Why in the world do you think we would brigade other subs with posts for you?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 04:31 AM
2

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Honestly your description would be many peoples first impressions of something like that. Someone who didnt know what it was would naturally be cautious about it.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 01:55 AM
14

This is really good, how silly was it that the university expected the speaker (CAFE) to pay to protect themselves from the universities own violent members?
/r/MensRights04/02/14 10:50 PM
1

Or, you know, paternity could be established by the woman being honest beforehand and no adoption allowed till it is. Then maybe we could stop stealing mens children from them.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:27 AM
2

Yeah I do I take it you support the mob lynchings of black male accused rapists in old towns then. You need to be more specific, and stop exaggerating to an absurd opinion you claim you do not hold.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 12:48 AM
1

In order to develop into something it has to not be it. You dont develop into something you already are. Which, as I said, describes a potential human. I agree it would be a potential person as well, but i am still not dissuaded from it being a potential human.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:19 PM
2

A foetus is a potential human, it is not a human.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:46 PM
3

It matters if you are trying to say it is better.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:15 PM
2

If popular opinion was always correct, the MRM wouldnt/shouldnt exist.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 06:25 PM
2

Do you intend to objectively prove it is better? Sorry if you didnt mean to imply that.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 06:14 PM
0

Because mob justice is a better form of justice than the actual law and system, right? Because we arent here fighting to change these things, we are here to lynch people? Is there a point you would be happy for us to not lynch people, or do you arbitrarily decide that line based on their sentence? Seriously get a grip.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 01:52 PM
1

You support mob lynchings? I certainly hope you are using some form of dry, unfunny sarcasm. I am sure you are aware incitement to violence is banned on this sub.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:09 AM
1

Obama is not the 'leader of the free world'. What a stupid and offensive thing to say.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 09:23 AM
0

What school?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:16 AM
1

Attempting to persuede others is not censorship. Its their choice to do it or not. Asking them not to is not akin to forcing them.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 10:20 PM
1

Dont kill people for crimes. Seriously. Assuming it happened, what kind of example does it set?
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:06 PM
3

That still doesnt really answer why a man should have to pay half of medical costs until birth and not just until abortion though, does it?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 11:29 PM
4

If your argument is that sex is consent to pregnancy, why is abortion legal? You certainly seem to think it should be, yet you seem to think the woman already consented to the risks on her body, so why should she have any right to it?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 11:09 PM
5

Your argument is filled with the presumption the man wanted or consented to the pregnancy. In the situation you are talking about him being forced, only the woman does. If only she consents to it he is liable only for the cost of termination, but I would allow medical complications that occur before a planned abortion as these are not chosen risks.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 10:50 PM
3

On what basis should he have to pay all that for her continued choice?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 10:42 PM
1

I dont think its even very sexist. Women choose to follow Islam of their own free will. Something someone has a choice in doing or not doing can hardly be sexist. No one forces them to obey these tenets. In situations where they are forced to be muslim that is of course a completely different matter. If you want to say the 'rules' of Islam are inherently sexist against women youd have to say they are inherently sexist against men for a variety of other reasons as well. But when people choose to …
/r/MensRights08/01/14 01:32 PM
14

No. The person being circumcised should.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 07:35 PM
1

When the woman consents to it, how? I asked how and you didn't at all address it.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 11:42 AM
0

8/10.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 12:08 AM
1

?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 10:29 PM
0

How is a picture of any topless woman demeaning when they consent to it?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 07:00 PM
-5

They didnt say anything about MTFs hating men. That is a strawman.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 09:03 PM
2

Where does it say or do that?
/r/MensRights20/12/13 02:30 AM
1

Using > before a sentence will quote it.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 09:08 PM
4

This is stupid. Even assuming the guy/gal who made the comment is an MRA, that doesnt make the comment supported by us. And the guy/gal hasnt said it was either, or that it comes from an MRA perspective. All it takes to be an MRA is to fight for certain rights such as equal child custody and sentencing etc and call yourself one. There will always be good and bad people who fight for that. To say MRA arguments are useless because of this person is just a character attack.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 05:40 AM
2

I don't know you, but if you feel powerless and hopeless I can say as much as it's not related to gender. Source? Considering the proven hardships which men endure more often and biased courts in favour of women how can you possibly assume it is not at all relevant? If men don't feel worse because of their gender, then why is it that men consistently commit suicide more often than women? What, a fluke, every single time, every study?
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:49 PM
20

So you dont think that suicide rates indicate how powerless and hopeless men feel?
/r/MensRights02/12/13 01:59 PM
3

Im not sure what mens rights issue this is supposed to portray?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 08:30 PM
8

How would the ERA insist or force women to work more hours? Why would more women be persuaded to work more hours?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 02:37 PM
11

Whereas some of what you have said makes sense, I am curious how the ERA can change a pay gap which mainly exists because of women's personal choices. Do you have any further info on that?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 01:34 PM
1

I think that last one was sarcasm.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 03:12 AM
3

Isnt the interview with his own daughter?
/r/MensRights22/11/13 02:55 AM
2

I already know how bad the feminist subreddit is. That doesnt prove anything. Proving the conversation happened doesnt prove you were banned for that either. Seems odd to me that you presented things in this way, and im not inclined to believe you.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:07 AM
4

What would that prove?
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:50 AM
6

And why would you screenshot the thread (presumably for posting here) before you were banned?
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:42 AM
6

Then you were banned BEFORE you made the comments IN THE SUB by your own admission. Wtf are you trying to pull?
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:37 AM
5

Why is your ban notice before your last reply?
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:05 AM
7

Can you provide a similar situation in which they didnt? Until you or someone else can, while this is unfair and not at all justice, this is not a mens rights issue because it cant be shown to be discriminatory in wording or practice. And ive been following this case since the video was uploaded.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 12:56 AM
1

Well that thread was obviously brigaded... But you forgot to np your link.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 12:37 AM
1

The Labour party in the UK is run by feminists and virtually every policy harms men. Source?
/r/MensRights19/11/13 11:46 AM
1

assuming you are not a troll, thats her house. If you dont want to live over those rules, you can move out. Otherwise, giving it to your mother would be fair.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 03:20 AM
5

I dont care if it censors people, as long as it censors people equally. People can choose to use or not use facebook. It is not a right to have it not censor people. Why do you have a right to censor their freedom to censor? Or their freedom of expression? I refused to use facebook before. I am more likely to now.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:51 PM
1

People who are slaves of their free will are not slaves.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:25 PM
2

He never made a generalisation about women though, did he?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 06:51 PM
1

God, thats bad. I feel for you mate.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 08:12 AM
0

That depends. You have taken what I said out of context and misrepresented it. Someone who views all things as equals, and a fetus as alive, cannot consciously eat animals as what is the difference? There isnt one. I hold that most people would agree that animals have a conscience yet people eat them, yet obviously pro lifers are against abortion. All things being equal, those people have to be vegetarians. Else they are hypocrites.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 01:03 AM
1

You included a massive amount of informative informative and sources here, well done.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 11:02 PM
-12

Being against killing of non sentient things only can apply if you are a vegetarian. Are you?
/r/MensRights09/11/13 10:36 PM
4

Caring about something and fighting for it are different things. Do MRAs consider women and mens rights both as important when we discuss issues and decide what is and isnt an injustice? Yes. Do we fight for causes that primarily advance women? No.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 12:53 PM
3

Would you care to try that again with it making any kind of sense?
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:57 AM
5

No one claims to fight for womens rights here *as a part of the MRM. You have created a strawman. What we do do is consider womens rights as equal to mens when we argue for what needs to change, something feminists cannot honestly do.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:42 AM
3

The difference is car insurance applies to an unfair generalisation of a sex when in fact it is individuals who have the accidents. With medical insurance, specific coverage for women which men have to pay for is a service they can never use. Medical coverage being equal pay in this regard is extortion of men. Insurance rates being higher for men with car insurance is sexism.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:19 PM
3

A link to avfm would have been good mate.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:09 PM
-1

Youre an idiot or a troll. Piss off.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 07:17 PM
2

Infection following circumcision can cause death from the things I've seen. But anyway, rather than communicating via multiple chat threads, please respond to my sources thing.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:02 PM
2

Please do see my recent reply. It's good you haven't made up your mind, this is a very controversial issue, and it should be considered carefully.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:01 PM
2

http://www.intactamerica.org/resources/decision http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life I can get more, but honestly I'm tired after work. I think the argument is irrelevant compared to the right to bodily integrity. You should be able to decide for yourself what you do with your body. And how it is. It shouldn't be decided for you.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:59 PM
9

What you believe im doing is immaterial. You can look these things up on google easily, and i can see a testimonial from the circumcised on the decrease in sexual sensitity in this thread. I am on my phone right now, but if you really want when i get home i will provide sources if no one else has.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 06:11 PM
6

I disagree. I think it gives a more powerful message calling it mutilation over circumcision.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 06:07 PM
9

I'm a libertarian that lives by the NAP. Clearly, killing your child causes them harm. While they are your children, harm should not come to them by your hands. I'm begging the question of the harm brought to children by circumcision. How important is foreskin in human sexuality? It is irrelevant how it is important to sexuality. You can still have a sexual identity with or without a foreskin. Already you have disagreed with yourself. You are for circumcision, yet against harm to the child? You …
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:49 PM
8

I know that, but using the word circumcision seems to make the practice less abhorrent. Id rather call it what it is.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:44 PM
11

The foreskin contains lots of nerve endings which are for sexual sensitivity and pleasure. The number of nerves in the foreskin greatly overshadow those in the clitoral hood. The foreskin is also used to protect the glans and keep it moist. Without this protection the glans can dry up and lose sensitivity from constant rubbing on clothing.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:41 PM
8

I'm not advocating mutilating babies. What I am advocating is that children belong to their parents. I'm advocating that government not have the authority to tell people and their doctors what they can and can't do in regards to medical procedures. I'm advocating we focus our attention on more important issues than foreskin. But you are arguing that children be allowed to be mutilated. You just said you don't want the government to be able to tell people what to do with their children. Presumabl…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:39 PM
12

People can rename themselves. They cant regrow a fully functioning foreskin.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:07 PM
9

As far as I know, from what little I've seen in other countries, females can't be circumcised but are instead castrated. In other words, their clitoris is cut off. That is not the case with circumcision. Circumcision for girls would be like trimming up the labia minora. Is that against the law in the United States? Yes, it is. And youre getting downvoted because you seem to be advocating mutilating babies. What a shocker.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:05 PM
6

Mutilated* FTFY
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:01 PM
3

Prisoners should not be given, or be allowed to have, children to care for.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 08:46 PM
5

Why do you have relationships with that many feminists? 0_o
/r/MensRights31/10/13 04:23 PM
1

Citations and sources would help prove your point.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:54 PM
4

The inference that most rapists and perpetrators of crime will always be men is inaccurate, and i do not know why the author of the original comment has even chosen to add this to the debate.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:13 PM
2

Also 'Scum'.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 01:26 PM
7

'If you have to convince them, it's not consent.' Umm, if they are convinced and consented, then yes, that IS consent.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:03 PM
3

I don't have the studies off hand but what I have seen from them is that women develop this behaviour and men learn it from them during their teenage years when they start to spend more time with women.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:58 AM
1

Due?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 05:31 PM
1

/r/mensrants or nothing.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 11:50 PM
0

Now prove that 'Patriarchy' exists OP.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 06:47 PM
20

This doesn't need a /s.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 11:24 AM
4

I directly argued with /u/sillymod and accused him of deleting my thread off of /r/mensrights and I didn't get banned. Frankly, I don't believe you.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 01:30 PM
1

Honestly, I don't know. This is a good question, I'll look into it. EDIT: I've asked on the video as well as am going to look myself. I will PM you when I get a response. Further EDIT: Just to make it clear, it doesn't change how the statement that female circumcision is worse than male is incorrect. Another: The searches I have done do not give meaningful results due to the nature of the studies, they don't seem to mention types, as not much funding seems to have been given to this. I will wait…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 10:32 PM
1

Didn't even realise it did, cheers.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 09:08 PM
-2

Whether you have been affected by these issues or will be in the future is questionable on an individual basis. Either way, someone so young honestly should not currently, in my opinion, have something to do with a serious movement for change.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 05:21 AM
12

"Women are smarter than men"? Why are we (Well, Warren Farrel) still pandering to women's egos?
/r/MensRights10/08/13 04:13 AM
1

That it's there at all is good, yet it needs revision.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 11:46 AM
1

We all make mistakes m8.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 11:02 AM
7

You could have included the word 'culture' at the end of your quote. Don't get me wrong, rape culture is BS, and that this could be part of it is laughable, but your title is misleading.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 10:31 AM
10

It's very brave of someone to post something like this trying to defend men genuinely ignorant of the age of their 'victim', and use other rational and logical explanations, knowing full well they will likely be branded a pedophile for doing so.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 08:29 AM
1

Since when has it been a clarification that a feminist must be a woman? Make sure to thank all the feminists claiming women can't rape men and denying it's prevalence for the movements wonderful insights. The posts above talked about the claim that 'feminism's insights' was to thank for the open and free opinion. I pointed out that a lot of the movement's goals are discriminatory and that the feminists supporting these principles should surely be thanked for their movement's incredible insight i…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:59 AM
1

To google and autocorrect services which use google I assume so, I wouldn't know about everywhere.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:31 AM
2

You know, regardless of who he was referring to, tarring someone with an unrelated brush which will make other MRA-supporting 'liberals' frown isn't a great thing to do. If anyone was a liberal it would have nothing to do with this matter anyway.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:51 AM
1

I did read back, but I can only see myself referring to feminists in general, I didn't specify a sex within the movement <.<
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:44 AM
0

It may well be, but since it isn't formatted, I haven't bothered reading it :3
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:42 AM
1

Please could you format your post?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:39 AM
1

Actions speak louder than words, and from what I know feminism only wears a black hat today. Regardless, my original post stands even if you take that view because it still applies explicitly to feminism.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:32 AM
324

I disagree with the qualification that only women can hate men simply for being men.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:10 AM
3

But we weren't talking about individual people, it was being assigned to feminism explicitly.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 10:45 PM
5

Make sure to thank all the feminists claiming women can't rape men and denying it's prevalence for the movements wonderful insights.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 09:06 PM
7

Already posted - http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jxvbv/thunderfoot_refutes_bbcs_men_are_raised_to_hate/
/r/MensRights08/08/13 12:35 PM
2

This is true. And whereas the OP's comment to you is also accurate, there is something else which may make it more clear. If you are straight, then as a rule you only fancy the female sex. This is a 'law' if you will. If you are a female, you will be not be arrested if you and your male partner have a physical altercation, even if you started it. The male will be removed from the home under the duluth model. This is a law. This law will not apply to all people, because not all people will be in …
/r/MensRights08/08/13 09:29 AM
3

People don't treat members of a certain sex different when they are sexually aroused by them which would never happen with the same sex when people are straight?
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:57 AM
3

Sexism is preferential or detrimental treatment shown only toward one sex which would not be given to the other. In that context, the answer would be yes. But there are worse kinds of sexism to have, such as believing it is ok to hit men even while believing there is no case in which a woman should ever be hit, even if they are hitting you. I do not believe it to be possible to be fully non-sexist. Everyone would have to be bisexual for a start for us to treat people the same.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:52 AM
2

Feminism is not for equality. It fights for the continuation of men having problems and men's suffering in an attempt to retain their victim identity. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:45 AM
2

It is not the MRM's job to denounce misogyny either. The MRM's job is to help solve male issues.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:06 AM
2

My take on it is that it is a DISGUSTING display of misogyny, and it proves that misogyny If the MRM ever wanted to legitimize itself, it would have to VIGILANTLY OPPOSE misogyny. Why? Because misogyny delegitimizes the LEGITIMATE issues that men face today, You say the situation in the article is misogyny. You say it is the MRA's job to stop misogyny to be legitimate. Therefore, misogyny is the MRA's responsibility, and therefore so is the linked article. Read what you write once in a while. Yo…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 12:52 AM
3

Is there a particular reason you only decided to respond to one part of their post? You claim that the MRA is somehow responsible for the linked article, and that 'misogyny' (in any place, at any time) delegitimizes any MRA issue. You have no proof or logical argument to support this.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 12:28 AM
1

FORMAT.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 04:57 AM
1

Your post is without formatting. It does not site sources, yet it it concise in examples. Please try to be more specific.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 04:55 AM
2

That's a really touching story. Know not only do you love your dad, I and others do too.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 12:17 AM
5

Of course you can. It only applies to brigading, meaning, linking to other subs.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 12:06 AM
7

It doesn't. It's because of Reddit's admins opinions on what is acceptable. The 'np' tag is supposed to deter people.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 12:01 AM
2

There are traditionalists which consider themselves and are part of the MRA as they believe (know to be true) in the key tenets. It's just that most of them on reddit tend to exist on /r/theredpill
/r/MensRights05/08/13 11:33 PM
1

Ah, I see. It totally isn't clear in the OP XD
/r/MensRights05/08/13 10:42 PM
1

Is this supposed to be some kind of parody? What does this have to do with the subreddit?
/r/MensRights05/08/13 09:51 PM
9

I'm sorry but I refuse to read your post without formatting.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 03:47 PM
5

So... Would rapists be legally married to their victims, then?
/r/MensRights02/08/13 03:00 AM
76

Why should women be paid for choosing to have children at all? It's entirely their choice, why should anyone else subsidise it?
/r/MensRights01/08/13 09:48 PM
-49

THEIR. God, sorry.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 07:04 AM
2

Inane.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:46 PM
9

Do you truly believe that men are oppressed anywhere? What is the evidence for this oppression? Who, in your mind, causes men to be oppressed? No, not everywhere. Oppressed is a hard term. Evidence of Oppression? Check the sidebar and FAQ's. Does it matter what the cause of the oppression is? For those of you who dislike feminists, why? What do you think is wrong with feminism? Do you think feminism is necessary or not?If not, why? Do you have any questions about feminism or something you dont u…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:35 PM
2

Just because you invite or have been invited somewhere doesn't mean that person or yourself has offered to pay. It only means they want to go there with you.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:26 PM
34

It's so stupid. I know of so many cases when a man has called the police when a woman has hit him (like my own) and yet he was arrested. It's nice to see the police didn't fuck this one up. I know they have a hard job, but really I think they have to make more moralistic decisions. That said, is there another article? This one lacks depth.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:46 PM
2

"Guess what people... When you're in public, people can SEE YOU!"
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:27 PM
2

Can this even be considered an article? No one left a comment to explain your downvotes, but I will. Your 'article' has no sources, no link, no reference, and is ridiculously short. It can't be said it is worth anything.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 12:10 PM
8

I think from your post, everyone would prefer option 1.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 01:38 AM
4

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you got banned for trolling. I don't see how you can lump this sub in with feminism and blame us for a ban there when you haven't been banned here.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:59 PM
0

I have an 'agenda' as far as the original topic goes, but so does anyone who would post a topic here. Everyone has goals from it. I just find it decidedly convenient (read: inconvenient for me)that the topic happened to vanish from Men's Rights moments after you showed up.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:21 PM
0

But I'm expected to believe that it was not taken off by the mods?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 03:23 PM
-1

It's not... And I'm searching by new...
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:03 PM
-1

Then why is it not listed?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 11:12 AM
-1

Saying 'we fight for these problems' has not and never will be the same as saying 'your problems are not important'. It can equally be argued that taking these problems on board makes our problems which we fight for less important.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:38 AM
-1

Sillymod, I appreciate you can not be on all the time, but I feel I should be given some kind of justification for this censorship.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:28 AM
-2

I appreciate the article and actually do see the logic in the most of it, but see no sources. What separates the article from opinion? Even if we accept it as true though, I don't see how it makes people more discriminated against for being men more than for being gay (which seems to be the focus) in this instance. If they were not men, some issues would still exist.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:27 AM
-1

I accept your viewpoint, I just don't find it grounded in both sexes being discriminated more for being their sex than the key factor in both of them being gay. The MRM doesn't necessarily have the resources to fight all causes. If it did, it may as well be egalitarianism, and lose its focus.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:14 AM
-1

As someone who has liked anime and been bisexual all their life, it certainly doesn't seem to me to be the case. I guess we'll agree to disagree, then? Or perhaps I should fuck off for giving my opinion. That's pretty inclusive.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:06 AM
0

So in your opinion, women not being able to marry women is more of a women's right's issue than a gay rights issue? Please.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:46 AM
0

There isn't? Sure seems to me like it's more socially accepted for women to like anime than men. Like I said, you're a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:45 AM
0

So are you going to fight for my rights to like anime, or just tell me to fuck off? Sounds like you are a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:40 AM
0

Why have you removed this discussion based on rational thought and no rule-breaking from the subreddit?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:36 AM
2

It's true that gay folks normally have their own advocacy groups who do a much better job advocating for gay people than we do. That's probably not true for Eastern Europe. I agree. I think spending our time advocating issues which are more socially accepted and better funded is a detraction to the issues which all men face.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:35 AM
-1

Just because I am a man who likes anime doesn't mean Men's Rights incorporates fighting for people who like anime.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:33 AM
-1

As I said, gay marriage is off topic, but nearly every other issue gay men face is not. Besides the fact that saying we support gay rights, when we don't think of gay marriage as our issue is contradictory, I will address your other points. I will freely admit that gay women receive less criticism. But that doesn't change the vast focus of the discrimination against gay men being because they are gay. It's specifically focused on that more than anything. Incorporating fighting for gay rights wit…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:32 AM
0

Are they treated worse because they are men, or because they are gay? I see it as the latter. I trust since you are making the assertion you have proof to the contrary?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:27 AM
0

May I ask why, when the discrimination at hand is not generally because they are men, but because they are gay? Sillymod, please appreciate that I am not asking for a rule change here, or I'd be posting in /r/mensrightsmeta, I am simply asking the subreddit to consider the implications of becoming increasingly gay focused instead of focusing on Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:24 AM
-1

They wouldn't be facing it if they weren't gay. Gay right's issue. The focus of the discrimination is not that they are men, but they are gay. As the issue of black men being searched more often than white men is racial discrimination, this is the same. The issue of black men being searched more often than black women would be sex discrimination, and a men's right's issue.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:16 AM
0

Yet women face the same discrimination, making it not sex-biased. It is sexual orientation biased, and gay discrimination.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:00 AM
-1

an entire group An entire group of people which are discriminated against because they are gay, NOT solely for being men. Why don't we focus on issues of race? Should we be constantly defending the rights of our black and ethnic minorities, to the point it overshadows our actual goals? The point is not that other's issues do not matter, the point is that this is simply not the platform for it, and it never has been, or should become so.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:57 PM
-1

And is the reason and focus of that discrimination because they are men, or because they are gay? If they were straight, would they face the same discrimination? If the answer to this question is yes, it is a Men's Right's issue. If the answer is no, it isn't. This is a fairly simple concept to grasp. and alienating people is the last thing we need right now, kid. I guess we should form an opinion on every other social travesty, then? And enforce that? To the point which 'men's rights' has no ot…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:52 PM
0

This subreddit is about issues men face. It is not about issues a singular man faces. Because a man or a few men face a particular issue, it does not automatically make it a men's rights issue. What does is the reason why. Gay issues are caused by discrimination against people because of sexual preference. Men's issues are caused by discrimination against people because they are men. Recognize the difference, and understand why we shouldn't be co-opted into other movements or support other movem…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:44 PM
-11

The gay sexuality has nothing to do with this subreddits focus. This should only be here if these things happened to him because he was a man.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:06 PM
0

It's mainly just anecdotal. I have no concrete proof.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 02:24 PM
7

Because of course people don't have a choice when they drink things or take drugs... There's no way people could decide not to drink alcohol or take drugs. No way at all.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:39 PM
0

Heh, I didn't think that required clarification XD
/r/MensRights24/07/13 03:12 PM
1

What I support personally which makes me involved in this movement is irellavent to me supporting gay rights.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 12:40 PM
0

No, it doesn't. The MRM neither supports or doesn't support issues which have nothing to do with it. Individual members may support or not support gay rights.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 11:55 AM
-4

http://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1iwnga/rbestof_no_longer_accepts_links_from_rmensrights/ I think this is relevant as a counter argument even though you posted it. SRD is very much pro-MRA.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:58 PM
2

No, I don't. Sorry, I'm not willing to do that kind of work.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:50 PM
7

http://mensrightsedmonton.com/ See the Don't Be That Girl Campaign.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 09:22 PM
1

my son wants to move in with me because my ex has become increasingly ill-tempered to the point of violence. he attacked my son with a broom and threw him out of the house http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/1it90m/my_ex_beat_up_my_17_year_old_son_and_threw_him/#cb7t468 not beating him with a damn broom and making him want to leave that much more. http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/1it90m/my_ex_beat_up_my_17_year_old_son_and_threw_him/#cb829tv Now it seems that my ex is just as abusive towa…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:19 PM
1

I don't think you've read all the comments. Would you like me to go back and quote?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:55 PM
12

Honestly, I have no idea. But it is worth seeing what they say.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:26 PM
0

I didn't say there was a trial. Like I am saying, I am going off the only evidence available, and all one can do is say what should be done in a specific situation.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:25 PM
0

You missed something. Dad: Beats child. Do you think, as she described it, that is acceptale? Also, please do show me where the mother states she is currently homeless and jobless, as I missed it.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:21 PM
1

Please see my reply to your deleted comment.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:52 PM
1

Being homeless and jobless at one point or another destroys whatever credibility someone has forever? Since when? You may want to hear the dad's side of the story, but how likely is that to happen? The only thing we could do here is make an opinion on face value, or we are being prejudiced. Therefore, from the circumstances described, I wouldn't want their kids with him either.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:50 PM
158

It is possibly the case as you suspect, but it is wise to make sure. They could have new conditions for subreddits that are allowed to be submitted, which exclude not just MR but other places which do not adhere to the new specifications. That is why I think they should really be asked why this has happened. EDIT: If nothing else, at least it would give us the reason. If they are doing this solely to our subreddit, the reason why matters, especially if we want this to be reversed.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:47 PM
337

OP, please ask this first question to the mods. It is possible this ban is not discriminatory.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:10 PM
4

www.reddit.com/r/mensrightsmeta
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:54 PM
2

If her story is true, the ex who she gave the child to is now abusing that child. Why wouldn't people support her in wanting to change that if we take what was said at face value?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 01:42 PM
12

If women trained their bodies they would be fine in these fields. Saying they would be discriminated against is silly. Businesses hire people who make them money, that is the nature of business.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 01:47 AM
1

Yet to actually refer to those specific people is inaccurate.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 11:19 PM
11

He is 4 times as likely to kill himself as you. Statistics don't carry over on a personal level as accurately as that.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 09:17 PM
1

Are you serious in the entirety of your comment?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:02 PM
1

What I have been meaning is that yes, this is indicative of specific areas, but when it comes to wider areas the study can be basically useless.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 05:54 PM
1

When it comes to social matters of a wide angle, the sample size matters a lot. If you go to a 'ghetto' and survey gun crime among people who are in gangs, what do you think the result will be? No matter what it is, small sample sizes can give misleading results.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 04:19 PM
1

I respect you for being gay and taking this view. I am bisexual myself, and support gay rights despite my female fiance (because I don't know which fiance is supposed to be which) of 5 years, and know that gay issues do not play a part in the MRM.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 04:13 PM
3

Not that the article itself isn't true or accurate, but do you have a better source than The Sun?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 04:02 PM
-1

It's really not. When people start complaining about how small the sample group is it is usually an indication that: 1) They don't understand how research works. Or 2) Have nothing else to criticise. You can get good results with a subject pool as small as 30ish. Well no, not really. Regardless of this particular study, using limited sample groups can pollute statistics with bias.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 03:27 PM
1

That was not clear in the previous conversation. I withdraw the part of my comment that pertained to it.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 04:48 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights20/07/13 04:14 PM
3

I'm afraid though that in this subreddit, being reasonable and seeing men and women as humans defined by more than stereotypes and labels such as their gender is frowned upon. I don't see this as relevant to what they said. I can't comment because I'm banned on 2x, but you made no reasonable argument against, for or with what they said when you could have.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 02:58 PM
0

May I ask how you were able to quote this: ""Yes. It seemed that she also thinks a primary factor in assessing what would be best for (the child) is the consideration of his relationship with his sister. Yet it also appears that (your ex) shared some of her concerns about the possibility of your over involvement with your children, such that that interferes with your putting a more balanced focus on moving forward with your own life. I would suspect that this is in reference to your employment s…
/r/MensRights20/07/13 02:47 PM
2

Downvote, move along.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:47 PM
2

Why should it be raised beyond what people choose to pay for the child, if the child's necessities are already taken care for? It's forced payment of privileges.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 09:14 PM
3

Children do not have a 'right' to have nice things, but both parents should have the obligation to maintain a stable lifestyle for them if there are no situations beyond their control. A child shouldn't have to deal with eating ramen or have a drop in their educational quality because one parent wanted to be a cheating whore and the other is mad about it. Since when does having a stable (not privileged) lifestyle factor in to decisions? It isn't being factored, and people are paying above. Peopl…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 09:05 PM
4

They do not factor in ideologies that pertain to the upbringing of a child, pre-existing lifestyle. ...
/r/MensRights18/07/13 09:00 PM
4

"If a child has a radically better lifestyle with one parent, will the child's emotional well-being and relationship to the poor parent suffer?" I think that's irrelevant. The child is not entitled to a privileged lifestyle.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:10 PM
3

I feel that they absolutely should be expected to maintain that lifestyle for the sake of the child. So, regardless of whether they split or not, you would have the same opinion? Parents should be forced to spend a certain % of their income on their child? How about if the child misbehaves? Should they still be forced then? Your argument is full of holes.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:08 PM
7

Giving the child more things does not necessarily make a child better taken care of. And spoiling a child could make it worse off.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:57 PM
8

Why does the child have a right to a maintained 'lifestyle' when that lifestyle could be well above what a child normally has? Shouldn't special privelidges for a child be at the discretion of a parent and not a right of the child?
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:34 PM
7

Why does the child have a right to a maintained 'lifestyle' when that lifestyle could be well above what a child normally has? Shouldn't special privelidges for a child be at the discretion of a parent and not a right of the child?
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:34 PM
33

oneiorosgrip (I think) Yes, she's female.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 10:02 PM
1

I didn't say you shouldn't give up her, I said you shouldn't stop advocating your position.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 08:58 PM
-1

In my opinion, you still shouldn't have 'give up'. Believe in your believes enough to make them vocal and not leave a conversation. Do your beliefs not mean enough to you or not have validity to stand up in an argument?
/r/MensRights14/07/13 07:52 PM
3

We are a feminist-hate sub, mostly. The position of MRA's is largely incompatible with feminist ideology. For good reason. If the front page was full of posts about examples such as the ones you have pointed out, I would agree wholeheartedly. But it just isn't.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 07:15 PM
9

I agree. But let's play devil's advocate here. Having multiple subs is a detraction. Diversification makes things less active, and less activity is bad because people become disinterested and leave. Not being solidified is a bad move.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:57 PM
1

You could have made your statement far more agreeable if you hadn't advocated beating and murder.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 02:32 PM
1

0_o
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:01 PM
18

Can't you sue her for defamation of character? That would help pay your legal bills.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:33 PM
7

Because it would never be allowed for any private business to legislate against males in terms of hiring or 'equal' pay in regard to law...
/r/MensRights06/07/13 11:40 PM
2

Even if you take that view, the male players do more work and have more views. Do you appreciate that (I'm not saying you don't)?
/r/MensRights06/07/13 11:38 PM
1

All I'm doing is telling you what I was told by the actual authority when I worked there about 5 years ago, and that office was not Capita. They also make a point that if you are unlicensed you are not allowed to have the ariel connected to the tv regardless of whether or not the tv is showing a channel.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:35 PM
-5

It doesn't only apply to live broadcasts. I used to work for TV licensing. Netflix and such might be ok because it is a paid subscription to a service, akin to owning a dvd. However, youtube videos of bbc, itv, etc including clips would disallowed.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 06:44 PM
-1

You can't just cancel your TV license. You won't be able to watch any TV channels, nor online materials you don't own which have ever broadcasted in the UK.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 05:59 PM
2

I don't think this was what you meant, but we are not a charity.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:42 PM
1

It is the rational members jobs to police the movement if they want it to do well, or their job to distance those people from the movement.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:23 PM
0

girls are just as strong as guys the girls were just as strong as the guys FTFY Your anecdotal evidence is not fact for all cases, and is generally untrue, as long as you are referring to physical strength.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 06:31 PM
4

Which, as I just said, they can do in lots of games. Also, did you happen to get mod approval before you decided to try and advertise a kickstarter on the sub?
/r/MensRights01/07/13 09:04 PM
3

Virtually all games which involve a 'kill people' element have you killing lots of men. I don't see the point in another one.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 09:02 PM
1

Honestly, I'd just go back anyway. Then I'd return the shoes, never go back and tell them why. Because of their shit service and judgement ability effecting your experience.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 10:06 PM
2

Good evening, I would like to talk to you today about your recent article on x. I have concerns about how it is x and x, and how this may negatively portray males in general. These issues are x, x, and x. Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my opinion. Yours sincerely, X
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:47 AM
-13

Compose yourself.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:32 AM
2

Is this sarcasm?
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:23 AM
2

Discriminatory laws and policies have been set in place within western governments by feminists influence that allow legal bigotry against men, while not one law or policy that discriminates against women, in any way, is on the books. One example I can think of is discriminatory quotas in favour of women.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:19 AM
3

It's not against the rules, but we tend to take a more serious tone. It would have been better posted as a self post with your other comment here.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:47 AM
0

This isn't advice animals.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:33 AM
3

Exactly what problem do you see with this?
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:32 AM
11

I have been turned down for jobs mainly because of quotas. This stuff is real. I have been told as much by the interviewers.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 12:13 AM
2

Nice job. Especially the links edit.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 09:10 PM
5

Your assumption is based on the premise that most people are reasonable. This could easily be flawed.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 05:21 PM
-1

"Opens hotline to help prevent Female Genital Mutilation" How exactly do you think this would be set up for something perfectly legal?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:18 PM
6

They can't have a hotline for MGM because MGM is legal. That's my understanding of it, anyway.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:30 PM
10

non-consenting children. Children can't consent by definition of them being children.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:26 PM
-8

-Male pocket privilege. I've never seen womens clothes with good pockets. Women are not restricted in clothing, they can buy whatever they want. -Pressure to shave legs/armpits, although any woman who complains about men not being clean-shaven forfeits the right to complain about this, and then some. Personal choice and opinion, not an issue. -Railroading in school away from 'boys' subjects and towards 'girls' subjects. The education system is a girl's subject right now. -The way the legal syste…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 02:29 PM
3

Why the [M]? Is this Gonewild?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:32 PM
2

Expire emcee? Am I the only one wondering if this is a typo of experience, or a weird term I have never heard of?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 09:55 PM
2

Divorces don't go well for anyone if they don't have enough money to afford a divorce lawyer. Isn't this a massive problem in that when women hire a divorce lawyer the costs are (re)covered by the husband, therefore making it impossible for him to afford one?
/r/MensRights23/06/13 08:14 PM
11

instead of sacrificing my time and resources for people who don't appreciate it. I wouldn't have said that was true.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:20 AM
11

So whatever doesn't kill you must necessarily do you no harm whatsoever?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:33 AM
3

An interesting statistic from India, guess who is the majority of pickpockets. Indians?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:22 AM
3

Why is a 'feminist subreddit' with 1900+ members below a subreddit with 800+?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 10:42 PM
2

And what advice would you want him to receive?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:15 PM
4

Domestic Violence. A woman hit me, I hit her back in self defense and then I called the police. We were both arrested despite both saying the same to the police, and both given cautions.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:08 PM
1

Oh it works, it's just an illogical and stupid opinion to hold. That's my view anyway, it isn't factual.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:30 PM
-1

Yes, you can. But you can't deny that the method of re-education is different.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:26 PM
2

Downvoted because MRA's, generally, do not agree with any PUA theory.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 02:44 PM
1

Has what I have said actually been your interpretation of it.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 12:14 AM
1

The problem is the word you use. 'Seem'. Has it ever actually been that way? I have posted on MR for a couple years now. I haven't actually said anything bad that could be viewed without bias, no? It's rather redundant now, but still.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 11:23 PM
1

I didn't even notice the hashtag, yet I was downvoted to hell. My simple point which I reiterated several times, was that the comment, which was focused on (throughout the thread), was not bad. I am not defending this person, this is simply a statement of fact. One might delete their comments when faced with such downvoting, I am not someone who will.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:56 PM
1

Quite honestly, I'm not sure what I've said that is so overtly wrong. Perhaps you could educate me, since you seem so determined that I am a terrible person?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:54 PM
1

Read my comment history, then repeat that. You have a very skewed view.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:53 PM
0

Facebook. You may as well have linked to 4chan.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:14 AM
0

May I provide some insightful comment? This post, has made my other posts, as replies, supporting of MR as they have been, be downvoted. WTF? Where is the spirit and reason ability? Some of the newer members here, read people before you downvote. More importantly, think.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:07 AM
-1

Ehhhh, thought I'd proved myself to you ages ago. Anyway, keep up the good work.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 11:59 PM
0

I have not much useful to say. If you really love your son, pay child support. If you don't, or you think it is unfair (which it is) move to another country where it doesn't apply. Good luck.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 11:51 PM
-10

Please misrepresent my comment more.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 11:43 PM
-25

I accept that. I have only said that the actual thing said by them is not negative. I do not disgree that the hashtag is bigoted. EDIT: I have an A-level in English, but the double negatives which are necessary in this sentence annoy me XD
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:09 PM
-31

Perhaps so. I agree. Simply, that is not what I am referring to. The message, without the teller, is good.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:08 PM
21

If Obama wants more men to work, he should end favourable treatment to women when it comes to employment opportunities.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:32 PM
1

This. Stupid post, not a Men's Right's issue as described.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:30 PM
-13

Single mothers, by definition, are without a man in the house. It's rather a redundant clarification in my opinion. I don't agree that all single mothers should be congratulated, but then I don't think it's aimed that way. I see it as a congratulation of looking after kids, and no matter the sex it applies to, that should be a good thing. I want the same congratulation to be applied to men too, not for the congratulation to be barred.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:15 PM
-50

I was referring to the comment. If you want to rant about the undertones of page names, go ahead.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:10 PM
-17

I agree with that. But let's take it as fact a comment like this will be posted like this any day, no matter who it comes from; and judging based on just a specific day is rather... null, In my opinion, anyway. If we were to condemn posting positive things about fathers on mother's day, would it still be bad?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:08 PM
-53

Did I once refer to the hashtag?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:04 PM
2

I think it's a nice poem, yet it is true it could do without the religious undertone.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:02 PM
-61

I understand your point, but you are grasping at straws here. This is not derogative to fathers, it merely congratulates mothers. Something, granted, should be applied to men in equal amounts, but by itself it is nothing bad.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 08:57 PM
-31

In some circumstances, there's nothing wrong with doing it without a man around. In some circumstances, there's nothing wrong with doing it without a woman around. This is acceptable. The only thing that should be established here is the men who do the the same without a women around. The statement is not bad.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 08:37 PM
1

Posted as a self-post and not a link, I was about to downvote you before I saw your tag >.>
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:05 PM
1

?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:15 AM
5

Trust me, I have done. The problem is that not enough people care about these issues to do so. Definitely encouraging people on these issues is important, or they will never gain traction. Broaching the subject with some people however, is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 02:44 AM
3

Here.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:09 AM
8

and the least powerful roles are held predominantly by women All those homeless and dead from suicide women surely are the least powerful.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:35 AM
24

The court ruled that the state's interest in ensuring that a minor receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring crimes against minors. So, let me get this straight. The court is more interested in having parents of children receive money, than protecting children from abuse. Does that really subscribe to 'best interests of a child'? Furthermore, why should a child abuser even be allowed to care for a child?
/r/MensRights08/06/13 11:19 PM
5

The problem is they want equality just for women, and everyone else be damned.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:21 PM
2

Please, stop. This is all I ever see from you now. You are are a valuable person when it comes to talking about issues. Please do that instased of monitoring AMR. Please.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 12:34 AM
2

You probably won't have any actual statistics. No one cares about such things. A slightly better bet is to try and find statistics on how many fathers didn't bother pursuing custody because of bias in the system.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:57 PM
1

The fuck is this shit? The comments later on, wtf? This isn't a trial, it's a farce.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 05:34 PM
-2

Clearly you have no idea of what depression is. Perhaps you could educate me if this is not the case.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:39 PM
1

Sometimes I think using the /s tag is silly. The comment does speak for itself. Only comments that would actually be made by feminists/idiots need one.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 10:52 PM
8

This context should be in the OP.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 07:09 PM
4

Why?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 06:37 PM
2

You are misrepresenting the argument. That is not what was being asserted, what was being asserted is that when men have no say they should not be forced to be responsible for a woman's choice.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:41 PM
1

And it isn't fair to say "since abortion is legal women should shoulder 100% of the burden". Sure it is. Their choice, their responsibility.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:36 PM
3

Ah I see. Thank you for explaining to me, it's easy to glance over the term.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 01:31 PM
6

Interesting article. It was a good read. Sadly, I fail to understand the title here and its relevance to the article. Please could you enlighten me?
/r/MensRights19/05/13 01:16 PM
-3

I see this post as both relationship issues and men's rights issues. I disagree. The aim of the subreddit specifically, is to fight for Men's Rights. Yes, it is to help men, but really, what else is to be said here but 'you cannot force your partner to carry to term'? You seem to be ignoring the goal of the subreddit and are instead simply following the post guidelines.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 11:23 PM
-1

is it too unreasonable to ask for a husband's consent for abortion if married? Unless this is specifically addressed in a marriage contract, yes.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 11:19 PM
-5

When did I say it was in violation of posting rules? I said it wasn't a men's right's issue. It is a relationship issue. No men's right's issues are shared in the OP.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 11:10 PM
-7

Anyone that spends any meaningful amount of time on [1] /r/mensrights would be well aware of that. Is this supposed to be a character attack? This isn't a men's issue. The right to abortion is a women's issue. Financial abortion may be a men's right's issue, or stealing of sperm for example. Forcing women to carry to term is not a men's issue in the slightest. It is something to be worked out between the two of them and is not representative of Men's Right's being infringed on. What do you think…
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:55 PM
-9

I don't see how this is a Men's Right's issue and not a personal problem between you and your wife.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 07:44 PM
2

Most western countries? As far as I know, the US is the only country that seems to have problems with people wanting to deny abortion.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 07:29 PM
1

If any comment needed a /s, this is it.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:44 PM
13

I called the police because my girlfriend hit me and I hit her back in self defense. They arrested both of us. We were both given cautions. No differentiation for self defense.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 02:49 AM
2

How I deal with things like this, even if I don't have kids, is by always asking why. I find issues are overcome by understanding them, if you know why specifically they have cut off contact you can address it. If you don't, it's very hard to guess at. You don't know what their mother may have said to them to turn them against you, and if you assume random things and say that it can come off the wrong way. Just be honest and explain you don't know why and want to know why. I would hope they woul…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:37 PM
15

They do it because it works though EP, and we both know that. We have to change society so it views men and women's suffering equally, to really change the way advertisements are.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:22 PM
8

Instinctively downvoted by an SRD subscriber. Not retracted.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:20 PM
1

I don't see a reason to target specific individuals rather than the attitude.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:06 PM
3

You ask for opinions and then complain when they bother you?
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:50 PM
1

I don't see this post as anything but a selfish attempt to garner upvotes. Who even cares if you are right? Live, learn, do whatever the hell you think is right and keep an open mind. Opinion doesn't make you correct.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:45 PM
2

This is Men's Rights. If you want to support women's issues, go somewhere else. That isn't what this place is for.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 09:12 PM
8

If you really wanted donations and not to antagonise the right way to go about it was not with the first part of your post's title. I also note in your title here you seem to say something they didn't say. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the issue just to start drama?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:06 AM
1

Read the 'Why' page.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 12:23 PM
16

I really, really don't understand how this wouldn't be considered perjury. I mean, wtf?
/r/MensRights28/04/13 12:02 PM
1

Hmmm. Add me on Skype under the same name I'm posting as, I'll see what I can suggest. At the moment your thoughts seem pretty disorganized and you'll need to sort that out yourself. You are at -2 from your comment history, meaning we might not mesh well, but perhaps we can hash out those issues.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 11:59 AM
2

You just did speak about it. I have the feeling you were drunk when you wrote this, and that's a fairly reasonable response to being in pain. But while drunk you cannot really get across what you want to say in-depth. Sober up and tell the whole tale. You are a person and everyone has a story and a life. Your issues are important, and should be listened to. The causes of your issues are important and should be listened to. Don't give up hope and don't stop talking about them.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 11:56 AM
2

She then proceeds to smash me with her beer. I just looked at her and smiled and began taking off my dress shirt. What? Is this a normal reaction to being smashed with a beer bottle? Sorry, I'm not blaming you for your situation or reaction at all, but.... Wow, how is it that you can have that done and then smile about it?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 01:01 PM
2

Who should, then? That's the real question. Especially if we are equally applying it between the genders. Where is the council for men and boys health?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:56 PM
1

So, to summarize, and please correct me if I am wrong, you believe the action of sex can never be solely for pleasure?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:53 PM
1

Not all responsibilities arrive through consent and intention. Want to prove it should be your responsibility? Sure, you took it on yourself, but should? I'm not seeing it. You had no say, you didn't go out of your way in a society that makes birth control measures so universally available for women in the first world and men totally 'at fault' when a condom breaks. To the rest. The pro-life argument is sound in logic as long as it should apply to both men and women, and putting aside moral beli…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:39 PM
4

I think that the publication of these things is important so we can give our views and reasoning on the articles or topics at hand, and make them known. Too many men, and women, do not know what this movement is about, or that it even exists.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:26 PM
3

It's fairly scary that you can't even contemplate a reason for not being in favor of it. It's fairly scary you can assume I haven't contemplated and thought out reasons such things can be dismissed myself. See, anyone can talk like that. If a man has sex with a woman, he risks becoming a father, whether he wants to or not. Sex is not consent to a child. Hell, when I became a father it wasn't intentional. I was using protection. It failed. That was not the baby's fault It's not your fault, either…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:19 PM
1

Why would the dimorphic aspects of humankind have an effect on DV being gendered? Yes, women are more likely to be injured than men because women are physically weaker than men. That does not make DV 'gendered'. gen·dered /ˈjendərd/ Adjective Of, specific to, or biased toward the male or female sex: "gendered occupations". Rates of DV are not remotely biased against women when they are committed in roughly equal amounts toward both sexes.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:09 PM
1

DV isn't gendered at all. Most domestic violence is reciprocal. There is no reason or sense at all to limit it to the term 'gendered'.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 09:32 PM
2

I would say most MRA's agree with it. It refers to the situation where a man never wanted to be a father. Not sure how you can justify not being for it.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 09:02 PM
5

I have no problem supporting other issues when I deem them reasonable. However, nothing you said is an actual good reason for fighting for them within the MRM, as opposed to the groups fighting themselves.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 09:21 PM
-2

This. The MRM is not a group which displays flags of other causes. We aren't feminism.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 06:47 PM
1

I think I read the exchange you were referring to. Don't worry about it, it happens, not everyone in the movement is going to be constantly perfect... The value of trying to get people to change in this way is commendable by itself, but it won't actually change the frequency of this occurring. Maybe I should start posting again.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 03:58 PM
7

Erin Pizzey: What I wish a feminist was, and a true campaigner for equal rights.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 09:09 PM
1

Let me get this straight, your view is that children are so great they should be forced on people? Anyone who doesn't want that is 'ignorant' according to you?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 08:40 PM
2

If you don't have examples I'm not likely to listen.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 08:03 PM
2

And when exactly has it been used as a valid defense?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 07:41 PM
1

feminist clothing ?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:43 PM
5

However if you're worried you may be charged with statutory rape charges you can use the fact that she lied about her age to you, therefore you were unaware she was a minor at the time. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression this was irrelevant in a court of law.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:15 PM
3

Well they (or you) have deleted their (or your) comment, so this is rather futile, and no one has any idea what anyone was trying to say exactly.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:35 PM
2

What's silly is that understanding the reasons is the key to stop it from happening, for both men and women who do it.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:11 PM
0

Explain.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:48 PM
1

I personally agree with that analogy, I just didn't want to make it since the MRM and religion should remain separate.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 08:29 PM
1

You are using false equivalence. Rape on a man would involve making him forcibly penetrating, perhaps that could also be extended to the hands enveloping his penis, but not grabbing his testes no more than grabbing a clit would be construed as rape (both external yet not equivalent). By your interpretation kicking a man in the balls is rape.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:43 PM
-10

My opinion is that MRA's understand feminism more than feminists do, simply because we make ourselves aware of so much more feminist material and actions than they seem to turn a blind eye to. It's silly, really. I'd like to believe we all fight for the same thing, but the stupidity of people who don't read up on subjects baffles me XD
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:11 PM
3

Granted totally, and I get the point, but that rights are not always right is wrong. Rights end after certain actions/periods, so they wouldn't be wrong to have been applied, only wrong to continue, if that makes it clearer.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:07 PM
6

Your title needs work, as an MRA I support both maternal and paternal rights, and neither are 'wrong'. The system for these things is broken and skewed, and rights end after a certain point of abuse, which is what you are trying to convey. Thanks for sharing your story.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:19 PM
9

Leaders send people in to war. She didn't draft anyone, these were people who chose to be in the armed services. She did her own duty.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:11 PM
3

Really? Wtf, I'll have to get that just to see the hypocrisy for myself.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:00 PM
2

No, really?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:59 PM
3

No, she didn't. That was sexual assault.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:10 PM
-4

Why should I support opinions that may be untrue regardless of if I have been mistreated by the ones they are held against? It's true they may hold a correlation, but that doesn't make it true 'just because'.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 09:57 PM
-1

I was banned months after posting here for offering my opinion on something in /r/feminism. Is that not worthy in your opinion?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 09:46 PM
0

I'm not saying they don't. I just haven't seen it before. Can you blame me for wanting verification? I've been on this sub longer and posted more than you, so it says something that I haven't seen it. Have you?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 09:39 PM
1

I don't necessarily disagree as long as your arrangement is fair. Please explain the situations individually. I can not agree with them, but I can't fault opinions based on logic.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 08:22 PM
-2

I know this is something that might be done by /r/feminism, but are you sure you didn't follow a link from here into there? I haven't seen them do anything like this before and I've been here a long while.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:03 PM
1

You are wrong. The woman actively choose to have a child, in situations where a man doesn't want one he does not. We should only be responsible for the choices we make, and having sex is not consent to having a child.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:51 PM
1

No, he did not. I assume that you think a woman should not be allowed to get an abortion when she gets pregnant, because she consented to the 'chance'?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:49 PM
1

No, not using a condom is not consent to a child.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:48 PM
1

I'm not American, but I think you would find a lot of info over at /r/intactivists.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:32 PM
1

Here's a wordle that hasn't been fucked over by MUWs trying to strategically place words. http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/6546958/Mens_Rights_Words
/r/MensRights02/04/13 01:55 PM
2

Hey, doesn't seem right to comment on a 10 month old post, but just wondered how your company could have not done anything about such a bad boss? How is it that there was no one you could have gone to for help, or that was willing to help? It boggles my mind how such a thing could have occurred with no one doing anything about it.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 01:44 PM
0

...and you sound like a huge asshole. If you aren't ready to be a dad, then you shouldn't have sex without a condom, dumbass. Same argument used by anti-abortionists. Are you pro-life?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 01:13 PM
2

Show's that you're willing No, SHE is willing to. It isn't his responsibility to do that, it never was, nor should it be because he DIDN'T CHOOSE IT. People only have responsibility over choices THEY MAKE.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 01:10 PM
3

I doubt that was the source, since: There are approximately 750,000 suicide attempts each year. More females attempt suicide than males. (3 female attempts for each male attempt.) 750.000 attempts 1/4 of 750k= 187500 male attempts 3/4 of 750k= 562500 female attempts Even if we assume all of the males succeed in their attempt then 187500 still isn't more than 562500.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 12:52 AM
8

Source?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 10:24 PM
3

Well, actually, yes, but that's a bad way to ask what I think you are asserting, 'Most people here do not identify as that'.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:46 AM
2

With that attitude we will only stagnate rather than gaining momentum. How? Proof? You still didn't answer the question or explain anything. Bye.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 03:33 PM
2

Your 'idea' lacks an explanation of 'how'. It can't just have a 'why' when the logic behind the answer isn't proven. Here's a summary: Pros: As yet unproven. Cons: Potentially alienate half the movement by aligning with ideas they do not approve of. Cons: Potentially have our issues overshadowed or subjugated by a larger entity.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 02:48 PM
1

That has no relevance to the question at all. Do you want to answer it?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 02:26 PM
5

So my question is do we(MHRA) have to fight misandry by forming an ally with theism/theist until we make ourselves heard more? This is a pretty stupid suggestion. Our arguments don't require 'allies' to be true. The logic in our arguments doesn't need to be associated with anything other than the issues we have. What exactly do you think we would gain by taking focus off of our issues and alienating anyone who is atheist, like myself?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 01:00 PM
9

Pretty much no one around here argues it isn't a woman's decision to give birth to a child or not.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 10:33 PM
1

www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/an-open-letter-to-feminists/ ^ Without respond to set you to the bottom of the page.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 05:25 AM
0

Yup. And you better be there for your kid. My father wandered off. He's still an ass. Yes, you're right, men should be responsible for choices they don't get to make. How silly of me to think men should not have to be responsible for things they have no say over.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 02:51 AM
19

People who have spotted or experienced prejudice or injustice for being male, and want something to be done about it.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 02:03 AM
23

I would deny that Men's Rights is an ideology. It should be apparent enough by viewing the popular topics around here that there are things which have a needlessly negative impact on men and in some cases infringe on rights. It isn't necessary to have any kind of conversion to want these things to change.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:58 AM
17

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/comments/tnwn8/faq_suggestion_antimale_legislation_roundup/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uwekw/facts_and_statistics_detailing_male_oppression/ If you disagree with most of the things written here I don't think you're actually reading much, or perhaps you simply are not paying enough attention or viewing things without bias.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:44 AM
10

I love the bullet aimed at this sub in your title's last sentence. Thank you, will not be going there.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:19 PM
10

There is no rule against anyone asking whatever question they want in any thread on the subreddit. If people want to ask questions they can already do so. No need for any kind of day.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 11:50 PM
1

Sigi, you posted that 3 times x_x
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:42 PM
7

I will never understand why standardized tests are not commonplace. Who gives a shit who passes? Those who pass are good, those who don't are not. Why should sex even be an issue?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:01 PM
7

Rape victims are not at fault. It is the definition of rape that is the issue that you contend with. Perhaps a better articulation of the issue would help. EDIT: I claim that some men "don't know any better"... especially if it's a homeless lunatic or deranged person. Wait, what?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:45 PM
1

I understand your good intentions, but I think the reason you are being downvoted is because this has been posted several times recently.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:01 PM
3

That account he is posting with is 2 hours old.....
/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:00 PM
8

I don't see why it matters. They have to pay for it anyway. Perhaps it matters if it's discounted?
/r/MensRights26/03/13 06:32 PM
21

Thanks for sharing your story. If I can suggest, just because I know what it's like for children to witness violence in the home, consider getting your kids into therapy for the things they saw. Such actions make an impression on what they view as acceptable behaviour, and whereas by no means do I mean to imply that your kids will have picked up tendencies from their mother, it is possible.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 10:16 AM
0

You call that what I asked you to post?
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:58 PM
1

I assume you have a ready-made post with sources, data and evidence, along with reasoned conclusions somewhere. Post it.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:09 PM
1

Check my edit to my post in case you missed it.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 01:31 AM
3

If someone who speaks Spanish can read the banners/documents it may also be an indication of if this is real or not. If no one has replied by then I'll do some digging after I finish the vid. But it is very surprising I (and indeed the MRM in general) have not heard of it. You'd think people would hear about something so discriminatory. EDIT: This is the better thing to see first I think, seriously no one had this before I found everything else for an hour? http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/g…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:04 AM
1

If I went to SRS I would just see a ton of BS and rubbish. If I went to MR I would see issues which are problems for men that deserve attention. Since you have not stopped with your strawman, I am now leaving this conversation. Bye.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:43 PM
1

You are attacking SRS instead of what I said. That is the definition of a strawman. A big glaring flaw is that the motive is completely different, and the way it is done. Please cease the comparison, I won't entertain a debate where you do that.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:36 PM
1

Why are you creating a strawman rather than respond to my argument any further?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:32 PM
1

I'm not sure how that's relevant <.< Also links to SRS are banned <.<
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:02 PM
3

You'd have to be made of money.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:39 PM
6

It's a good debunking article, but really we should still be saying there is no way to know the real figure of estimated false claims/rapists, because well, there isn't. Neither of these graphics is terribly accurate, even if the new one in this article is better than the original.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:15 PM
11

"I like it," Lawless said. "She has a case." What a stupid name for an attorney. Although it sums up the situation if they actually successfully sued SendGrid.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:45 PM
2

I'm assuming most of our members come from Reddit, and I highly doubt all of them hold the same views or opinions they did before coming here.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:38 PM
2

I disagree that the resources here make no difference. This is the one of only a few places that have made people able to question some taken-as-normal things they have always had problems with, and articulate them into meaningful thought and discussion.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:34 PM
2

Just because some discussions/arguments are less constructive than others does not mean they are useless. The internet is also the platform with the furthest reach.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:01 PM
2

I prefer to look at arguments as constructive, some, if not most of the time. They should be that to people with open minds.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:57 AM
5

In essence then, are you saying this entire subreddit is a waste of time? >.< Because your comment can pretty much be extrapolated to that. That's what we do here, to a great degree. We discuss and debate topics about Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:50 AM
7

... By denying their construction of what the MRM is? You don't see that?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:16 AM
9

I'd rather not have the MRM misconstrued places, and especially not as a branch of feminism. I'd rather the MRM was hated than it become absorbed into a monolith of female privilege.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 10:47 AM
7

If you don't want to make sure people know what the MRM is and what it stands for don't. No need to make a flippant comment which is absolutely irrelevant like you did.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 10:36 AM
10

To be fair, the post links to someone misrepresenting the MRM as part of feminism, which is a joke.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:39 AM
2

Honestly not sure. Not that Wikipedia is accurate all the time, but it didn't seem to add up to their definition. Considering it's just a matter of semantics, I suppose there isn't much else to say.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:13 PM
6

But admitting that means going against it being whistle blowing, surely? Perhaps in her head she thought it was. In my head I might think my cat is a magical creature from the planet Yorgal, but it doesn't make it true.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:01 PM
16

I'm honestly not sure how a joke made to a friend, and not directed at anyone else who just might happen to be in earshot, can possibly be defined as misconduct.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:47 PM
1

I know it's true, that's what I said? x_x;;;; My only point was to delay judgement until an actual judgement had been made, which I am pretty sure what Pierce meant. His article emphasized the double standard of complaining about it one way and thinking it acceptable in the other. I don't think blaming people either way when you don't know what's what is right, no matter which side of the fence it is.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:10 PM
7

I was showing you your comment, and yes, it was bigoted against men. Did you place blacks where men was like I suggested? I always had the impression that blacks were the problem and women needed protection from them. And while there is a great deal of truth to that statement, You would rightly be outed as a racist if you said that. I have no qualms about calling you a sexist for what you said.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:47 PM
4

Lol, I was actually thought this was genuine for a moment XD It's true, I don't get it. How can we vilify people before the guilty verdict? Wouldn't there still be chances for people to do that after if they wanted to?
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:29 PM
13

The point is for you to look at how bigoted your statement was. Replace 'men' with 'blacks' if you are still so confused.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:12 PM
8

I always had the impression that men were the problem and women needed protection from them. And while there is a great deal of truth to that statement, Please leave if this is your attitude.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 11:49 AM
7

Sigh why is this here again. I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of the work mentioned--as I'm sure everyone would like to know the survey methods used. Many people on Facebook have noted how adolescents may not take a survey like this seriously. If I do get a copy, I'll let you know more info! www.fearus.org If the bloody source doesn't know how the data was collected or even what study it's from, I'm honestly not going to bother debunking such things as the burden of proof isn't ours…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:19 AM
0

You don't think people can be faithful to each other outside of marriage?
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:24 AM
4

I agree with you. But I also believe that we should encourage those around us not to do something they will regret (rape). I feel that it is our job to educate those around us so in a way we do have to accept responsibility. What do you think the law is? I'm not saying that most rapes are committed by men, therefore all men are rapists. I'm saying that when I see things like "Men, keep your own in check," I don't necessarily disagree with them. I'm not going to accept responsibility for somethin…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:21 AM
4

Why does it matter if it is? Does it mean that a significant portion of men are rapists? No. Does it mean that random people who don't have anything to do with it should 'stop rape' and accept responsibility? No. Does it make it fair for women (or anyone) to assume a man is a rapist without knowing anything about them? No Seems irrelevant to me.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:03 AM
1

Why is this on pastebin?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 11:22 PM
2

And as misandric as it could be, what relevance does it have to men's issues?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:29 AM
3

No idea what the French says. Are we supposed to?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:09 AM
7

No it's even worse! Babies often rape their mothers by forcing themselves out of her!
/r/MensRights19/03/13 09:11 PM
0

Not sure why you were downvoted for this, it's true. We don't fly flags for other causes. That doesn't mean we approve or disapprove of any other things, just that they don't belong here.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 09:30 AM
7

There are a couple of different ways to see this. You can either view it as people view women as children who are incapable of such acts (infantalizing them). Or, you can view it as society thinking that men are bad people and women aren't; and that simply, a woman can do no wrong in their eyes. It's only men who do 'bad' things. I subscribe to the latter view of why women are not treated the same way. It's perfectly possible there are elements of both, of course.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:08 AM
4

One of my close male friends once told me he was hoping he could get one of my other friends very drunk so he'd have a shot with her later that night. Not cool. Not okay. I gave him the longest lecture of his life over that one, and watched them both like a hawk the following weekend(she has negative five interest in my male friend, and yes, it would have been rape). Sorry, no. It's one thing if you are saying that she would be unconscious, yes, that is rape. If she consents when she is very dru…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:45 AM
1

This isn't /r/srssucks, and it isn't 'againstagainstmensrights' either.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:59 PM
2

I'm glad at least the misunderstanding is cleared up.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:07 AM
3

Well, for starters there is no proof beyond your simple word that that happened. The account you posted with in /r/whiterights was made today. The account you are using now was made 2 days ago. Those things add up to a not quite unsubstantial belief you are a drama troll.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:38 AM
3

I doubt mods ban people for what they do on other subs.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:27 AM
14

God, nothing has been deleted. Take your agenda elsewhere.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:09 AM
-1

Quite honestly, whereas sometimes feminists can be vocal here, the proportion of feminists to MRA's here doesn't seem to have changed that much while I have been here. The number of odd, dissenting, voices seems to have, but I attribute these more to stupid people or new people forming their ideas than feminists.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:06 AM
3

Well, I don't have rape fantasies. But I do think as long as something 'bad' remains solely in your head (not played out in reality), or is enacted between consenting parties, there should be nothing wrong with it. In the BDSM community quite a lot of situations I think you'd be talking about aren't viewed harshly and are widely accepted.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 05:37 AM
5

You are making less than no sense. Every time I read your post I get more and more confused.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:25 AM
4

... I'll just assume that means your assertion is dropped, then. No worries, mate, I'd like to hear something honest about the avfm site register-her.com. How about women who have only spoken their minds? I don't understand what your question is.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 03:47 AM
9

What the hell are you talking about? TB said that people in the MRM hold many different views sometimes, and you respond by saying /r/mensrights is owned by AVFM? Care to, you know, prove that?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 03:33 AM
14

Unless the other person FORCED YOU TO DRINK, or put a drug in your drink, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF. From their unedited comment.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 03:07 AM
1

You don't even want to link us to whatever you are talking about? Also, are there no thoughts you have about this incident that caused you to post it?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:59 AM
3

I'd be more interested in how the study was carried out in regarding to whether the women felt they were raped or the standard was used that if they had any alcohol then they were raped, regardless of their feelings or not. The way the law currently is with all drunken sex being regarded as rape is a joke and will consistently conflate rape statistics. Not only that, it has a decent potential for women or men to assume they have been raped when they haven't been.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:54 AM
6

Bullshit. Men are conditioned not to show emotion, we aren't less human than woman, we have the full range and depth of emotion all normal humans have.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:47 AM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8
/r/MensRights17/03/13 04:41 AM
11

Why is that relevant? Lots of things influence people all the time, we practically are the sum of our influences and experiences. People are responsible for their own choices in life, there's no 'partially' about it.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 03:57 PM
143

Is the white knight to blame for his actions? No. Is this a joke?
/r/MensRights16/03/13 03:16 PM
2

Don't reference sources you can't explain yourself. I want to hear it in your own words, I don't want to refute a wikipedia source rather than yourself; that would make you seem like an idiot, and I don't think you are.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:32 PM
1

I don't stop having faith in people. I couldn't keep faith in people in general otherwise. Perhaps that is a flaw. Thank you anyway.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:30 PM
1

Mate, by we, I meant Sigi and myself. I'm sorry for the confusion.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:57 PM
1

Explain how it wouldn't assume that.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:53 PM
1

Thank you. I respect them on other matters a decent amount, due to all this, I think we have to respectfully disagree.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:52 PM
1

Which, can you admit, can basically be applied to anything, in a myriad of different situations? The theory assumes 'rape culture' in virtually all circumstances, no?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:09 PM
1

So rape culture theory maintains that rapists believe rape is ok, because they are sociopaths? What the hell is the point in it then, besides it having a goddamn stupid name?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:58 PM
1

Sigi, for the sake of discussion, I am going along with your ideas. Please explain what you mean by that.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:34 PM
1

Do you think that women are more likely to be raped where that belief is more common? By sociopaths who are rapists? Sure. We both know rapists are sociopaths, we agreed on it before. Sociopaths are inherently anti-social activity, why should they define a culture? A rape culture? That's simply a joke.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:30 PM
2

That's a dishonest question at best, and false equivalency at worst. I am not, and pretty much all people (go ahead, disagree with me) do not think they ask for it. But again, you consistently confuse 'asking for it' with taking precautions against anything.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:23 PM
3

But that's totally illogical. Any number of things could 'supposedly' support rape in your view then. Supporting rape and "making it more likely to happen" are simply not the same thing, which is why I have said the term is inherently disingenuous. BS theory and speculation, tbh. Furthermore, saying that the belief is that 'women ask to be raped' when it is not actually saying that is just plain wrong. No one is meaning that. And no, not literally no one, but pretty much. As it's been demonstrat…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:16 PM
8

Sigi, I'm begging you to explain rape culture theory to me in the terms you subscribe to so I can debate it. For example, prison is said to be a rape culture, yet most people don't directly condone prison rape or prison rape others. The general population, as I'm sure you know, is fairly supportive of prison rape (I will not even claim figures over 10%, and I'd be very interested in a study, if there is one). They view it as 'punishment' and prison rape is virtually unpunished. I personally know…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:58 PM
6

I agree that this is a stupid situation where he should have been given jail time, but quite honestly, this isn't an example that should be used on Mensrights. Regardless of this situation, it doesn't excuse innocent people being convicted. And regardless of if innocent men were convicted, it also doesn't excuse this situation.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:54 PM
3

The reason they are more likely to occur is the frequency of people willing to commit that action in the area, which I would imagine not actually being that much higher. Would that actually make it a "crime culture" even if most of the people there would not commit or condone the action?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:33 PM
1

Upvoted for the sake of what we discussed yesterday, Sigi. If you want to make that argument here with the definition you use/subscribe to that should change the way we see what 'rape culture' is, despite my belief it is disingenuous to call it that, I'll listen and respond as much as I can.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:22 PM
6

Very interesting. What is really, really stupid, is I know exactly how feminists are going to use this. Like the report says, the number of reported incidents has gone up, so they will cheer it on. Then, they will use the low conviction rate (a rate now caused by the joke 'preponderance of evidence') to complain for even harsher measures to be taken against 'rapists' until they obtain a higher conviction rate no matter who is innocent or not. Something really needs to be done to redress this pol…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:17 PM
2

Yeah but if you make it up your salary shouldn't suffer significantly for it. Sometimes I wonder if this is why so many women have to even seek child support, because sometimes they can't find a job that can pay as well as the children's father can, and sometimes these mothers need some help. If they have to work part time because they have a child they look after all the time then of course they do. That's just common sense, and I think it's perfectly fair if they want to be a mother and not gi…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:57 AM
2

Not necessarily all, there are always exceptions. What I mean is, if you group together all men on the planet and all women on the planet then the men would be earning more. This tends to be how studies which try to show discrimination go about it. Of course, they usually ignore the large portion of the male homeless population at the same time, and such studies are obviously flawed. But yea, that's what I was saying. Out of curiosity, when men start making the "choice" to become single fathers,…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:26 AM
6

Depends what studies you are looking at, but I fully accept that all men earn more than all women. It's just that the reasons why are labeled as discrimination rather than personal choices, education, etc.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 01:54 AM
5

It might help if the description portrayed actually was pedophilia. 13 years old is Erbophilia, pedophilia is pre-pubescent. And yea, the image of a mother looking after her kid in it... Pretty inappropriate for the subject matter, doesn't fit. No sense demonizing loving parents of either sex.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 01:42 AM
2

If you want to debate your definition of rape culture/theory another day perhaps I will. Right now, I think we're both a bit sick of each other and could do without it, so I'll stick with my logically presumed position of assuming things are what their name is, for now.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 12:09 AM
2

Im getting really sick of this, is there not one mra that knows what this theory says? I'm getting pretty sick of you too. I did just tell you, the name was so misleading as to what people should rightly assume it is, I really don't care what other skewed definition it has. If something is called 'Kill all humans for the betterment of Earth theory' and goes on to be only in favour of saving polar bears and not killing humans I still won't support it. The name is too misleading.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 11:49 PM
2

You are making the same argument - that the victim is the only person that can change it. No I'm not. Just because I think that the victim is the main person who can effect, not change, this distinction is important, the things that would happen, doesn't and never has meant I am advocating for women to be chaperoned everywhere or have curfews. I think it's extremely silly if you thought I was advocating that while not saying anything about it. Do you agree with the Muslim clerics that the victim…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 11:33 PM
2

The muslim clerics in india though that the woman that was gang raped was the only one that could change the out come by minimising her risk by having a chaperon, wearing traditional clothes, being in early. So? Do you agree of do you think that the culture could be changed to be more like ours? What? Can you rephrase that so it's understandable, please? All the mras that are fixated on telling women that they just need to understand that they are like rich men in a crime culture that ask for it…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 10:53 PM
3

Im attacking mras that are strawmanning rape culture and ironically proving it correct. No. Rape culture does not exist in the first world outside of prisons and you are strawmanning MRA's. No two ways about that, at all. When people saw that people framed rape entirely on victims behaviour they said "why?" and thats why they changed the script to "teach men not to rape instead" and "men can stop rape". Rape was framed mostly on victims because victims are pretty much the only ones who can do so…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 10:07 PM
3

Obviously because constantly the 'rapist' is used as being synonymous with male. Rapists are not men. Rapists are sociopaths. Being a man has nothing to do with being a rapist. When people say that 'men need to stop rape', it's like 'why?' Men are not responsible for rapist's actions no more than a victim is. Both sexes can be rapists. I'd be more ok with it if we said 'as a decent society, all people need to work together to prevent crime when they see'. THAT is perfectly acceptable. When peopl…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:47 PM
3

No, there is no equivalency to being responsible for it. The only one responsible for a rape is the rapist. But once again, that doesn't mean that someone can't have the common sense to not put themselves into stupid situations, and it would be the same for a lot of crimes (IE robbery in a bad neighborhood). The correlation between preventative actions and blame simply does not exist.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:40 PM
1

No one would deny that vasectomy can be a good option for some people, but whether it is or isn't it wouldn't change how unfair reproductive laws are. And having surgery shouldn't be advocated for over redressing laws which could completely wrap up the issue.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:06 PM
3

No one is talking about laymen here... You were holding false equivalency to the previous argument and saying that there was a correlation between saying someone can help protect themselves and holding them responsible. There is no correlation there.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:54 PM
1

So what are you saying, then? That people who are in these new situations where they might be able to do things to prevent rape, or any number of things, shouldn't be advised to take steps to avoid such bad decisions as the one described above because it could 'hurt' people who have been through such a situation already?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:11 PM
3

I don't like having words put in my mouth much. It's not really a respectable tactic. My point is that the one who can do the most when it comes to being safe is the person who would be raped. My argument is not that they should have to, or that they are to blame for it, it is simply the reality that they are the ones who can do the most to protect themselves in most situations. As I think it's been established here and I am under the impression you can agree with, rapists are sociopaths who are…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:51 PM
3

Out of sheer curiosity, are you drunk today Sigi?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:45 PM
2

Ok, so your analogy suggests that you believe that rape victims identify rapists coming at them well in advance, and consciously decide to let them rape them anyway. Not really. The point is, you can't do anything to stop that person. All you can do is take action yourself for your own safety. You couldn't expect police to turn up that instant to get the guy to stop, and in a rape situation there wouldn't have even been a forewarning.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:32 PM
1

Not that I know of, which is why I thought it slightly odd they would casually include us in their satire.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:00 AM
1

“To disagree with such an arrangement might cast the men’s movement in a bad light”, opined the folks at Reddit. Lovely slight aimed at us from our eternal friends, AVFM. What I find silly is that they are the ones who want to change MRM to MHRM for the sake of public appearance.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:09 AM
3

Alright, but was was your comment's purpose?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:05 PM
25

I love Counter Strike.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:59 PM
5

Such as tickle them.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:24 PM
1

Can you buy an uncensored hard-core porn film or mag in a sex-shop in the UK these days? I'm fairly sure you can, actually....
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:27 PM
11

I don't know what makes you think we have anything to do with /r/feminism.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:42 AM
198

If someone is consenting out of guilt and fear, then that makes it an unconsensual encounter This is the flaw in her thinking. It isn't correct. Feelings of that nature do not matter so much as the actions taken which would force such a thing. There are many circumstances where someone could feel fearful irrationally. Without just cause to feel fearful (threats, violence) it should be assumed that they have as much a choice as anyone else. Someone's feelings on a matter do not dictate what someo…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 07:58 AM
8

Don't talk to police at all when you are charged with anything if you can help it. Police don't look for things to excuse you, they look for things to incriminate you, even if you haven't done anything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:30 AM
5

Change accomplished to broken and it's fairly accurate, though it can still mean the same.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:42 AM
5

why do both feminist and men's rights groups feel they have to put their nose in everybody's business, my wife loves my circumcision member, we had both my boys circumcised. Because you mutilated your children and took away their right to decide for themselves how they wanted to be when they are older. Perhaps if it was a cultural norm for one of your toes to be cut off at birth you'd be fine with that? You may not be able to walk quite right (loss of sensitivity/scarring comparison), or miss wh…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:55 PM
2

You may or may not have a point, but either way would this not have been better posted in the thread to which you are referring?
/r/MensRights10/03/13 07:05 AM
3

I actually don't think she has any legal obligation to keep you informed about this, until potentially after the child is born and visitation rights. Either way, I'm not a lawyer, and it might be a good idea to speak to one as if she is doing this now you might want to have plans over what to do for custody arrangements and child support. That said, it's also possible she doesn't have the child anymore due to abortion or miscarriage, and doesn't want to talk about it.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 06:49 PM
1

I can't find an actual paper that looks into it... I do have this which talks about the observations of Charny from his writings at the time, if it's something similar.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 06:41 PM
1

I'd love to share my opinion with people on /r/feminism, if I wasn't banned for sharing my opinion on /r/feminism.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 01:43 PM
1

I think what you're referring to should be disallowed, but still, I feel like there should be some other source for this circumstance which either proves or disproves the article. I won't accept it as completely true, but I can't really disprove it by other evidence either. Quite honestly, it seems plausible.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 10:59 PM
1

Think I've seen it. Kind of the wrong place to ask for it and I have no idea where it is though 0_o
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:37 PM
2

I honestly wouldn't know about that. Still, that's an ad-hominem attack in a sense, just because other articles may do that - which I fully accept as I am sure you know about them more than I - doesn't mean anything they say is not true, or has been 'doctored'. I review things on a case by case basis, not by a blanket term applied to things/people which means everything about them is bad. Also, just to let you know, I haven't downvoted you. I'm not sure why anyone would have downvoted you for sa…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:32 PM
1

Mate, I was born in and have lived in England all my life. I read The Guardian most of the time, and not The Daily Mail, but it doesn't mean I can throw everything they write on the fire immediately.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:26 PM
1

I can accept that, if you'd be willing to offer up other sources about the case/incident. Obviously the article can't be taken as proof that it happened that way, but if there's a contradicting source it would help with views.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:20 PM
2

I'd rather legal paternal surrender. It's all well and good to say that men should have forms of birth control- they should. But that doesn't eliminate situations of deception such as LPS would prevent.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:18 PM
2

I have no particular like for 'Jabcross', but seems like you're bitter about this subreddit when you make that comment. The irony, surely, exists. I won't even go into how your comment is wrong in general because to people who actually read this sub regularly it is self evident.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:14 PM
3

What's your point? Does it mean this didn't happen?
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:10 PM
1

Thank you for this.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:12 PM
2

?
/r/MensRights08/03/13 01:42 AM
4

(And men).
/r/MensRights06/03/13 11:49 PM
5

Nitpicking, but the door wasn't beat down. 'No signs of forced entry'.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:58 PM
2

No one needs to do this to prove we aren't misogynists because we aren't. People who claim we are misogynists don't even read what we write critically. No one needs to demonstrate the MRM is aware of other issues when we are perfectly capable of bringing up our own and defending our views with logic and reason. And God knows we don't want to promote the type that consistently thinks about women over men in a subreddit called 'Men's Rights'. We deal with Men's issues, and none of our solutions to…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 10:44 AM
-1

sigh It's a shame you were downvoted. Honestly, I see this thread as nothing other than subversion to a feminist cause. This thread isn't our issue.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:33 AM
-5

Do you realise the irony of what you just said?
/r/MensRights03/03/13 02:55 PM
-10

We can do without this drama. Creating this thread is just more off-topic drama which doesn't focus on the issues of the subreddit.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:00 PM
7

If someone does not understand when someone says 'By feminism, I do not mean women' then they are an idiot. This is not a fact I will debate.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:51 PM
5

Men's Rights isn't in government forcing discrimination against men, is it? Try reading this, it sums up my position: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/to-the-nice-feminists/ I will not support an organization when those at the top of it discriminate and hate one sex.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:49 PM
7

And you don't want to fight that group in order to stop their ideas and prevent them from doing it? Seriously, it's literally the only way. Fighting their ideas/views is fighting them. You seem to be arguing for some kind of dictatorship where votes or people's views don't matter.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:42 PM
6

The actual problem is that the message is perfectly clear and people usually just believe whatever the hell they want to as long as it supports their view.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:39 PM
4

That's the tone that's taken away though. People misinterpreting us isn't our problem. That's a problem with literacy and comprehension. This can be easily explained. If people don't understand that feminism doesn't mean women, they aren't really going to understand much else.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:19 PM
5

What are you saying? If feminists lobby for men to be discriminated against, we shouldn't fight back against the feminists and the idea? It's allowed to happen because feminists lobbied for it in that situation. Fighting the feminists and that idea (feminists are the ones who HOLD that idea) is the only way to change that.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:14 PM
9

"Oh well it's all the feminists fault! We need to stop the feminists!"? Then eventually breaks down into blaming women in general? That's a strawman, it hasn't happened. It's the same idea as feminism blaming men in general. No, it isn't. Feminism =/= women. It's not constructive to just blame men, and say that there's something about men that causes bad things. No it isn't. But again, no one is doing that to women. I'm not claiming to know the answer, because it's far greater than myself. I do …
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:10 PM
9

You didn't actually answer the question. If people who reduce men's rights and ignore men's problems are left blameless and without fault they will keep doing it.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 08:56 PM
1

You couldn't at least take the picture the right way up? I'm honestly not going to bother reading it sideways.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 06:44 PM
0

How mature.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 06:38 PM
0

You should note I never said you had to give a shit, just stated a fact.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 06:29 PM
1

That doesn't really address my point though, does it?
/r/MensRights02/03/13 06:28 PM
0

By having this view, you let them change the way you live your life and by extension, let them win.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:39 PM
1

Probably because people who spend money on a car and gas don't want to fund a bus system they will never use, nor should they have to.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:22 PM
5

No, the 2% figure for false rape accusations is because it doesn't factor in the amount of unknown situations where rape was not convicted. Not cases for false accusations being prosecuted.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:09 PM
2

Only watched this after you said this. Was the same one from months ago, though :s
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:06 PM
7

I'm not so sure about total surveillance of everyone. There is such a thing as privacy, we shouldn't be expected to record our every move. I understand your point, but wanted to say that.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:19 PM
2

Ah, so you are, sorry, I was replying from the comments page. I still stand by what I said, though. In my opinion, and you are well within your rights to toss my opinion aside if you logically or reasonably believe it is incorrect, I do toss aside your opinion for the reasons I have stated. Aren't opinions thrown about, beaten down or raised up in public debate? EDIT: Not quite happy with the second paragraph, but added a comma.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:25 PM
1

Links to logic are basically just text which explains the principle and its basis in reality. It won't even say a great deal more than what I already have. If you aren't joking I feel sorry for you. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:23 PM
2

That was added because I had read through the rest of the thread, and honestly, OP just doesn't seem to take the points on board. Sometimes a little hostility goes a long way. It's not like I insulted him, or anything.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:19 PM
1

Logic doesn't have a link source. Sure, you can refuse to back up your claims. And everyone else can dismiss them without bothering to refute them. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. You do not start off accepting something as true and then disprove it.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:12 PM
2

It's your responsibility to be able to back up your claims, not his.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:09 PM
1

No... It reads as he corrected you...
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:06 PM
5

Ideologies are not summed up so simply, and that definition is easily refuted by the recent works of feminism. Whatever it once was, it is not now. Your argument boils down to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Get over it.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:00 PM
3

As a man who has gone through depression, don't take the piss out of people with that shit. I don't want to be compared to idiots like that.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 12:54 PM
3

Ideally, no sex should take responsibility/credit for an individual's achievements.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 11:23 AM
3

You have your context mixed up. Child support and abortion can be compared, in fact I've done so before, but not in this instance. This was a discussion on whether women can/should get abortions. Due to the context, it is understandable why people thought you were advocating men to be able to force women through pregnancy. If that actually was your position you didn't do a good job of making a point, so I'm assuming you just got your wires crossed.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:24 AM
4

I'm pretty tired of seeing you post comments like this without citation or source, with no regard for context.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:23 AM
3

In my view, the not having children aspect of being an MGTOW is a form of self-punishment for many men who would like to bring children into the world. If they don't want kids, this should be the only time it's advocated for. But a lot of the time, people do.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:45 AM
3

I myself have never claimed that men are forced into dangerous or 'bad' jobs, but they are more readily available. There is however a massive difference between the necessity of work for the first world. Men have to have a job and earn wages. Women can choose not to work. Women can get pregnant and stay at home living off welfare for many years. Men need to have a job and an income to support themselves. Turning down or not applying for jobs on unemployment gets unemployment stopped. In this reg…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:45 AM
1

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/to-the-nice-feminists/
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:12 PM
5

Besides them being a subreddit which actively censors and bans people for posting constructive criticism? I think that's reason enough to be extremely critical of them. Take your concern trolling elsewhere.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:00 PM
6

There is no reason at all that we should show support (or even encourage passivity) toward a subreddit which promotes censorship and misinformation.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 03:50 PM
2

It's posted at least once a week.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:35 AM
3

Warren Farrel discussed a concept which is pretty much what you are describing toward the end of your comment, he called it 'date fraud'.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 09:37 PM
1

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm not understanding why that is the conclusion to 50/50 parenting being bad for the child. Are you saying that basically, 50/50 parenting should not exist and always the parent judged to be the best parent should have custody? That's pretty much what we have now, with an in-built bias towards awarding custody to mothers. What would we do in the case that the parents are both good people and are equal parents to the child?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:13 AM
10

Examples of "corrective measures" are lowering the physical requirements for a job (such as firefighting) to allow more women to join No, this puts lives at risk. or reproductive rights for men (such as the ability to forfeit financial responsibility during pregnancy) Forfeiting financial rights has nothing to do with biology. It is society that dictates payment.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 08:23 PM
9

Blood samples. Insist they be posted to your address. And a lock of hair to put under our pillows. One each. For science.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:38 AM
4

Care for some back story or what?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:59 PM
1

You have taught me that all the social pressures on us men should not be listened to. ? Perhaps it's just the wording, but it makes it sound like you are saying people shouldn't listen to the concerns, it doesn't sound to me what I thought you meant which would be 'men don't need to abide by social pressures'.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 05:03 AM
8

Are you implying oneiorosgrip is a troll? Because I haven't seen her do anything like that.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 09:19 PM
1

No, that isn't paranoid. It is a fact. It is not saying all women will do that, it is not stereotyping, however, it is a fact that it could happen, which should not be allowed. EDIT: I missed the bit you wrote in the brackets. In the context of avoiding all women then yes it would be. I don't think they meant that, though.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:47 PM
1

It's not paranoia to accept and be outraged it can happen to innocent people. It's not paranoia to want it to change.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:14 PM
1

That wasn't the point. The point is not that people shouldn't have to be around women or should be afraid of women, that wasn't said. The point is that due to the law and how it is handled that could potentially happen to anyone. As long as you are male.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:26 PM
3

I don't think it would have recently come into law. I will search for the law if you like. EDIT: I was wrong, it was relatively recent for Georgia. Here is a case in point: The new law makes it a felony for educators to have any sexual contact with students of any age who are in their care, in elementary and secondary schools. Even if the student is 17, consent does not matter, according to the law. http://www.11alive.com/news/article/212393/3/LITHIA-SPRINGS-Teacher-arrested-under-new-Ga-law-ban…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:27 PM
6

With teachers placed in a position of trust over young people, there are laws against that kind of interaction. I apologise for not being able to source this, but I know it is commonly the case.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:11 PM
2

Because mothers would allow a DNA test if they are not sure who the father is. Get real.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:44 PM
1

There's nothing wrong with having goals, there is also nothing wrong with fighting against the other issues you have listed at the same time. I don't expect anyone to give up power willingly. I expect to wrest it from their cold, dead hands.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 09:33 AM
5

I didn't say you should give up any kind of anger. I told you that your way of dealing with anger is counterproductive and frankly, stupid, especially when dealing with people within the movement you 'claim' to be a part of.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 03:34 AM
1

You're ignoring the purpose of the post. Look at it again. He was posting because he thought him paying for her choice was wrong.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 03:00 AM
9

You know, anger my be a gift, but you running around everywhere on here where people are actually interested in Men's Rights insulting people and being a general asshole like I have seen you do on numerous occasions is not at all productive. Anger =/= insults. Insults are not constructive. To that end, fuck you.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:58 AM
2

You're ignoring the fact that her choice should be her responsibility and not his. I don't really want to defend OP because his post is a total mess and he seems to think this is /r/relationships, but I thought I should point this out.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:54 AM
4

You're so right, let's just abandon what we know as truth because of the fear things will never change /s
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:43 AM
2

An opt in method for about the period of time she can have an abortion (a month before she can have one) is preferable. Then, if he hasn't opted in, she can have the child and support it herself or have an abortion.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 10:47 PM
0

Can we start deleting these threads please? I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of seeing one every day.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:21 AM
20

There is nothing wrong with circumcision when an adult wants it done on themselves. It is abhorrent when babies/children are circumcised (read: mutilated) at the behest of their parents, religion, or anything else besides legitimate immediate medical concerns. Circumcision is a largely unnecessary practice which subjects infants to pain, trauma, and a lifetime loss of sensitivity. In some cases, death.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:26 PM
2

Just to chip in, I can't be much help in this situation, but if you can, get a paternity test. If you used protection, yes it can happen, but it's possible she was doing other things. It's best to be sure.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 04:02 PM
1

An officer of diversity.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 03:41 PM
4

Tell them the truth, as you see it. One thing I always hold close to me, is always to debate with people and show them your point of view. Listen, learn, and teach. This is what happens during a debate. Perhaps they are immovable boulders, or maybe they are feathers in the wind. There is no way to be honest with ourselves when we don't express ourselves, and no way to be honest with others when we don't give them our expression.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:30 PM
1

I don't think there's enough evidence there to establish it exists in use in China. It says it was being tested in Bulgaria, but that's about it. If you have further sources I think ideally you should post them up in full in a new topic and show how it is being suppressed with more than just this video.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 06:49 PM
2

Citation/sources? I didn't think the male pill was out at all. I don't think that supply and demand could fail in such a massive way.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 01:18 PM
1

If you want to.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:33 AM
1

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/to-the-nice-feminists/ Read that. It then goes on to state: "There can be no common ground." So I ask why not? I honestly want to be proven wrong in my views of this sub currently. As I view it now, it wants male dominance to remain. This is your problem. Somehow not supporting feminism, a bizarre and harmful ideology, makes us hate women. You are sadly deluded that feminism = women.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:02 AM
3

Traditionally, Valentines day has been a day where men often go out and do romantic things for their significant other, while women get a day of pampering. I'm from the UK... Me and my partner either both get each other something, or neither of us do. I've not heard of it being solely a time for men to buy women gifts.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 05:44 PM
1

What hasn't been said and which might be beneficial is to see a doctor if you are feeling depressed about everything. You aren't weak for needing help now and then, and you aren't weak for some shitty things going down around you.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 04:35 PM
7

Yea, it's very disturbing how nowhere is it mentioned, even though it should be obvious, that the vast majority of veterans and also the ones committing suicide are male. The media, whether consciously or not, consistently will not portray men as victims.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 05:08 PM
4

Since he doesn't seem to be doing that it really questions the validity of his claims.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 01:26 PM
1

If they aren't, there is no logic to reason with them. There is no hope in that circumstance. We can only hope there is.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 11:43 PM
2

I hope you are right. If truth isn't what is needed, I honestly think our race shouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 11:15 PM
1

Any man can choose to give up his parental rights as long as another person, such as the child's mother or an adoptive guardian, is willing to take responsibility for the child. Says it all. Doesn't even need further reading. It requires the mother's consent.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:49 PM
2

he has no say in whether or not the child is aborted Of course he doesn't. It's her body, she can decide that. I assume that you are talking about his genetic material being used. I don't think it matters enough. What makes a father is not just biological but also in what he does for the child as a parent, and the time he spends with her. A man can not be a father, while sharing DNA, in my opinion. EDIT: Reducing confusion with a comma.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:22 PM
2

Yea, I don't think whatever you are talking about qualifies as: Most of the time a father can give up his parental rights and therefore doesn't have to pay child support.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:43 PM
2

Most of the time a father can give up his parental rights and therefore doesn't have to pay child support. If the really do not want a child they can sign away their rights. ... How?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:54 PM
3

Consent becomes a moot point when a male assumes complete responsibility and control of his own seed. Consent becomes a moot point when a female assumes complete control of her own fetus. Care to try again?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:54 PM
2

You do realise, either way, your argument has absolutely no bearing on the subject matter. It is completely ignoring the issue of what consent to a child is.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:26 PM
2

At the very least, though, you will make people come up with better arguments that are not hypocritical. I would absolutely love that. When people make fair arguments and listen, learn, and debate, it makes the world a better place. You might be perfectly right about it only working against certain arguments, but then I guess that's the same for any line of thinking.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:25 PM
7

You, obviously, if the father never wanted any involvement.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:21 PM
6

It's unfair to use the example of pregnancy. Pregnancy is hard. Not to mention actually giving birth. A man can walk away at any time during the pregnancy. A woman has to sacrifice her body, her health and her beauty. My body was no longer my own, I have stretch marks everywhere and pregnancy causes your immune system to be suppressed. Then being high risk as I was the chance of my death and of my babies were higher than normal. I went into labor twice and had to have a c section or risk bleedin…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:20 PM
2

Whereas I agree that women can get rid of any responsibility to existing kids, not everyone believes that children should be pawned off on people in such a way. I'm not going to use that as a defense in this circumstance because I don't believe anyone should do it. In the OP I am not condoning forcing anyone to be a parent, I am dispelling their argument by saying that is what it means, when applied to both sexes.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:14 PM
2

I'm hoping you are kidding, but no form of contraception is 100% effective. And for men, the choice is extremely limited.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:04 PM
1

I guess I'm not your buddy, friend!
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:54 PM
2

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only thing people are referring to in the "best interest of the child" is the father's money. They couldn't give two shits about his role as a father, other than through his wallet. You're right, they are. So much so when i wrote the OP I didn't even think of applying it through a non-financial lens for that particular use of the argument. But then the OP is mostly about child support, so hopefully you can forgive me for that.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:39 PM
2

The OP is about forcing your opponents to see the double standard in their argument and dismissing (or having them rethink) it that way. A logical person can only conclude it should apply to both sexes, or neither.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:36 PM
4

To be perfectly honest, the "you had sex, you consented to child birth" argument is completely bullshit anyways. I should hope so, that's exactly what I was trying to show in the OP. Whilst I am not saying that men shouldn't have a choice after sex, this is the reason that women are given choices after sex because of the fact that they still have "tasks" to do following the "consent". So do men. Child support, financial slavery, for instance.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:32 PM
3

I'm not quite understanding. Are we just quibbling over the word consent? In the event that a pregnancy happens when all precautions were being taken, surely that would be as clear non-consent as it would get. It's not really an argument for or against there being consent to a child in general, or the use of the word. I guess I'm not seeing any relevance to this discussion.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:29 PM
4

So then, let me ask you, why a woman should be able to abort a child at all when she has consented to a child and the father wants to keep it? You just stated that she consented to the child via vaginal intercourse and therefore the pregnancy, so she should have to have it. Just like, as you are arguing for, the man should have to support the child should the situation be reversed.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:15 PM
5

Admittedly this can become complicated by whether or not the guy can be found and informed and the like. That's the main reason I prefer an option for the guy to opt in, in the eventuality a woman keeps the child. If she simply doesn't tell him he could still be caught by the same unjust system we have today. You'll never get our government to accept the same logic as it does with rape: ie that lack of a no doesn't = consent. That to have actual consent to parenthood you need an affirmative from…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:14 PM
3

For the second quoted statement I was considering the scenario in which the woman has birthed the child without him wanting to be involved, and the argument they use is about his responsibility to the child. If the mother is keeping it then they can use this argument because child support begins when the child is born, not when it is a clump of cells. We may not be able to convince everyone with the logic and sound reasoning of our arguments, but if we don't have and can't convey them effectivel…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 01:57 PM
9

Man.. You're pretty bitter. Righto then, if this is your response I won't bother.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 11:36 AM
6

But in practice, a man exercising that right would force a woman to have an abortion or pass the buck onto the woman or the state to care for the child. So what a man has to do to nullify the pregnancy interferes with at least one other person's autonomy while what a woman has to do to withdraw consent to child does not. How does a man not being involved as a father effect her autonomy in any way? Surely he is the one having another's will forced upon him and his autonomy being messed about when…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 11:16 AM
11

The argument lacks parity in that the female's body is held by the pregnancy and her vagina has a person work its way out over the course of a day or two. This stuff may require her to put her life on hold and will almost certainly cost her money. You wouldn't think that paying child support for 18 years would have a detrimental effect on the man's health and general well-being? I definitely argue that it is as much damage to him as those 9 months. But either way, the main point is to establish …
/r/MensRights01/02/13 10:13 AM
-1

Teaching why to say yes explicitly implies that without those 'why's' being there then the result is no. Teaching people to say no directly encourages people 'not being ready' as well, which is a cause for being uneasy about something perfectly normal.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:42 AM
7

Ok, then are you a proponent of sex equaling consent, then?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:38 AM
9

The thing about a 'how to say no' class seems to suggest to me that it paints sex as 'wrong' and something to be hated. I'd prefer something along the lines of 'how and why to say yes to sex'. We should be teaching people when the situation is right to engage in sexual activities, not encouraging them to see sex as wrong and deny it. It's something I see as being increasingly pervasive in our society.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 07:56 AM
2

You can change that through your preference options, though. Not that I've personally witnessed it, but I've heard that they may have done similar things in SRODT and the user of the day reddits.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:14 PM
0

No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:03 PM
5

I meant the prostitution of him. In effect, she would be soliciting prostitution from him, which I believe is also a crime in addition to being a prostitute.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:28 PM
2

For the reference to prostitution, I was thinking along the lines of even though there was no money changing hands, it was still trading sex as a service for favours.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:16 PM
15

Isn't it rape, sexual coercion or sexual harassment at the very least when you blackmail someone to have sex with you? Isn't it also in effect prostitution?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:52 PM
8

I still think this is why we should have localised subreddits for MR in addition to this one ;(
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:47 PM
158

It's fine just try and upvote it before it's linked on SRS.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 05:36 AM
6

I agree. Typonblue was not playing devils advocate, however. If Devil's Advocate was the true position, it should be stated. As is, I am debating the manner of which the statement is delivered.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:52 AM
10

I think that she had to elude to most questions to make her appear in any way credible, and left because answering further questions or ignoring further questions would make her look bad.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 11:25 PM
9

You're right, it is. But that's not exactly how you presented it. You made speculation on his reasons why he did it, too, which may be perfectly correct, but your 'impression' seems to take into account unknown 'facts'.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:50 PM
29

Are you trying to make it sound like his fault? I doubt you really are. But that's my impression.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:03 PM
11

Which does beg the question: Was this a mistake in the title, or on the broadcast? Also, which is it?
/r/MensRights29/01/13 05:49 PM
-3

Obviously you don't know the English language if you think you can guarantee anything based on speculation. You and 15/16 other people.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 05:37 AM
-14

I can guarantee No. You cannot. At all.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 09:30 PM
11

The circumcision one doesn't even stipulate male or female. It's likely if it did say male, the proportion of people saying yes would be even higher. Reliably though, with no information on how the survey was conducted and what sample areas were used, the survey is essentially useless.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 03:21 PM
13

If you have an intact penis you have to start cleaning it from a young age otherwise you risk phimosis. Where the hell did you get that from? The foreskin isn't even supposed to be retracted until it naturally separates itself I believe shortly before puberty, so what are you talking about?
/r/MensRights27/01/13 05:31 PM
0

Would you accept being in an 1700’s-style marriage, where your husband owned everything, and had the legal right to beat you, simply because he was a “nice guy and wouldn’t do that”? Are we sure that the situation in the 1700's was ever that bad for women? And which women and where, compared to practically every western world country today for men?
/r/MensRights27/01/13 04:33 PM
3

I never disagreed with any of that.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:08 PM
5

This is important. No sense letting people oblivious to her age potentially face charges.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:31 PM
12

If a certain person reacts that way to PMS etc then no they shouldn't be allowed. But disbarring an entire sex because of it is discrimination.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:29 PM
1

I'm not sure what to say. We could try to not get caught up in the ideology of the movement, but then how effective would it be? We could try to become a dominant ideology in the future that is fair to all- but I don't see it happening. The name if nothing else would have to change. 'Men's Rights' is not exactly conclusive to fighting for other kinds of rights and shouldn't be. Which is why I think feminism fighting for gay rights is ludicrous. Besides, the people of this movement are already se…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:36 PM
3

If we're speaking long term, I don't think it can ever be avoided. I want to be involved with this movement for change knowing one day 50 years from now it could hold views drastically unfair. I don't expect movements like feminism to die out however. I hope that when ideologies get to that point, there will be counter movements. Primarily, feminism is our counter movement. When the primary issues we have are addressed, and then the secondary ones, I expect more balanced issues with both sides s…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:57 PM
-2

I realise that. However, I do not think we can categorise this using that term.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:34 PM
3

Wait a minute, how can that be violence by proxy when she wasn't asking him to commit violence, but to ask him to leave?
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:02 PM
-1

They need more sheep over there for the poor guys.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:39 AM
2

Show your thanks and apology by supporting the movement and educating people on the inequalities you perceive around you.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 07:10 AM
5

No, the mother is responsible for giving it life and carrying it to term. When you had sex you did not consent to giving a life. Address this point or I'm done.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:49 PM
0

Why? He hasn't chosen to have that child and SHOULD NOT be responsible for it. How are you not grasping this? Did you even read where I made the point that consent to sex does not mean consent to a child?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:42 PM
5

What the hell are you talking about? How is not being able to be pregnant any indicator of whether we should be able to choose to be fathers?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:31 PM
1

Yes, he is responsible for the outcome of his decisions. What you fail to recognise is that IT WASN'T HIS DECISION.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:26 PM
4

Why should anyone to be forced into something he hasn't chosen? That's called slavery, dude. We've already established that consent to sex is not consent to a child earlier, so you must concede this simple fact that currently being forced to pay for a child you did not choose to have is slavery.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:24 PM
3

No responsibility for the kid lies on the man because he has had no choice whatsoever in the matter. Anything bad that befalls the child is the complete responsibility of the mother who actually chose to bring it into the world. If you really care about people less fortunate than yourself there should be a mass tax from wealthy countries toward the lower ones and all the wealth of the rich should completely go to the poor where children are dieing due to lack of food. But what do those wealthy p…
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:11 PM
16

The point (ie: why people would do it) of sex is currently enjoyment and not a child. Historically sex was for children and for enjoyment, this is not now the case in the western world unless a child is discussed beforehand. Women get more of a say in the child when she chooses to have it. She should have ABSOLUTELY ZERO ability to force a father to be one to the child, or to financially extort him for HER choice to go through with a pregnancy.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:59 PM
19

Having sex does not constitute consent to a child. In the western world, women can have an abortion, have the child adopted, and completely opt out of being a parent. Men need that right. If having sex did constitute having a child, then abortion should be illegal. After all, the woman has already consented to that child and shouldn't be able to take back 'her choice' to have a child. Just like men currently can't take back 'their choice' to have a child by that sexual act.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:48 PM
25

It's robbery when those children were had against your will and without your consent. At best, that's robbery, at worst, it's slavery.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:42 PM
1

He doesn't have any responsibility for choices he did not make.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:30 PM
1

That isn't even relevant. The difference is in what she can do to him via the legal system. It is NOT OK for her to be able to force those things on him and turn him into a slave for ANY reason other than prior consent to a child.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:33 PM
1

I didn't downvote you, but I did answer what it was pretty much at the same (can't remember if before or after now) time you posted that.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:04 AM
1

Only the issues pertaining to them being men and not the ones pertaining to homosexuality are Men's Rights issues. Gay Rights is not Men's Rights. Men's Rights is not Gay Rights. Why are you having such a problem with this simple point?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 05:20 PM
0

Men's rights is not gay rights. It simply isn't, nor should it be.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 03:03 AM
0

And when did I say it was? Did you even read what I said?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 02:47 AM
-1

No. We do not fight issues that are not a concern for men. And gay rights have their own places. We only fight overlapping issues and we ARE NOT other causes.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 02:38 AM
1

I don't understand your point. Just because that is your opinion, not that I agree or disagree with it, does not mean the MRM should be that place. We have our own issues to fight.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:13 AM
13

I wish you the best of luck with getting equal custody. I think you would benefit from being part of this movement for change, when it comes to the father's issues you identify with. We don't tend to associate being gay with any kind of loss of rights to your child, if that was part of your question.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:52 AM
77

Both sexes are welcome in the MRM. It does not depend on sex.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:40 AM
0

Those downvoting... Please explain why. EDIT: This was posted when my earlier comment was at -1.... Does this comment deserve downvoting because I bothered to ask why the earlier comment was disagreed with?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:33 AM
23

This is my take on your question. The men's rights movement is for those who identify with the issues men currently have in the western world- circumcision, father's rights, alimony, etc etc. We don't fight for gay rights unless they coincide with our own. I think most of us are supportive of homosexuals and them having the same opportunities and life as any other person should. But we won't fight for them because that isn't our goal and it isn't our movement. Whether you want to be here is up t…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:13 AM
1

You would. It's based on the way society views problems. We can try to overcome it, but it won't happen soon. We're going to think they are male until stated otherwise, and subconsciously no one wants to name women as attackers.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 11:50 PM
3

It isn't up to us to prove it isn't, it's up to people to prove it is. Burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 10:24 PM
22

Internet relay chat. One of the most (pretty much the most popular and best) popular forms of early internet real time chat.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 12:36 AM
27

Go to a different IRC channel.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 11:21 PM
3

This should help clear up any confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:23 PM
7

Stupid... Men can't bathe their children, men can't take their children to the park, men can't pick up their kids from school... Are men even allowed to be fathers?
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:19 PM
24

tl;dr Men in my school are losing job offers to women who are less qualified then they are. Of course they are. That's what affirmative action is.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:53 AM
5

This is part of the reason I believe that the main reason for us now should be spreading awareness. To friends, family, people who know us and trust us. To people we can show reasonable explanations and reasoning and not be demonized. There is all the reason in the world to push legislation (or the removal of policies and legislation) and have public figures such as Warren Farrel speaking on the MRM's behalf. But without awareness spread to make people listen in the first place, it wouldn't succ…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:52 PM
2

Because it is a bit harsh. The reason for the longer sentence is so that after the 10 year minimum is served, she will be up for parole and at that time be assessed to see if she is likely to re-offend. In that case, life is not actually the sentence she would be receiving. It would need to be ensured a proper psychiatric evaluation is carried out when she is up for parole to determine this, and that is the thing that should be scrutinized- making sure that is done. If she comes through that and…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 07:20 PM
1

You have been banned from /r/againstmensrights I think you have to be banned from /r/feminism and there at least to be considered a real MRA.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:20 PM
1

Not really, no.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 10:10 PM
1

How was the timescale to availability worked out for this? Somehow I can't see this being a reality by 2020.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 09:37 PM
20

It's a rubbish graph. Good graphs have labeled axes.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 08:36 PM
3

First point, don't worry about it, that's their bigoted opinion. How dare they look down on your wife for being a full time parent? It's one of the hardest and most rewarding things there is! She should be envied and looked up to for that. Second, you were earning a wage for your family. This is very respectable. You're right, you weren't out having fun. You were out working getting money for your family and the good it would do them. You are not a babysitter. You are a good, responsible father …
/r/MensRights16/01/13 12:02 AM
1

Thanks, helps my reply :3
/r/MensRights15/01/13 11:58 PM
0

More in comments? Really? Where? If you update this, reply please.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 10:12 PM
2

Don't worry, it was funny, guess people are just a little sensitive .
/r/MensRights15/01/13 08:02 PM
4

No, we don't know what he was in jail for. In fact, we don't know a lot of things about this. If someone that was literally just IN JAIL wanted to see my kids, do you honestly think this is no cause for my concern at all, if we don't know the reason?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 03:23 PM
12

If someone who had just got out of jail wanted to see my child I'd be pretty damn concerned too.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:39 AM
18

lets focus on making things better for everyone Men and Women, of every race and sexual orientation because everyone has problems and through working together we can enhance understanding of each others problems. No, let's focus on Men's Rights, because that is what the MRM is for. Supporting other causes is not the MRM's duty. There are other places for that which I support if they are fighting for equality, but it isn't here.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 05:29 AM
1

I honestly haven't read past you being called a fetishist, I do think it's a bit of a stretch to accuse you of that.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 09:04 PM
24

Jesus. How can they not see that proposing a law that only punishes one sex is sexism? How can they even try to justify it while trying to pretend they have any kind of morals?
/r/MensRights12/01/13 08:59 PM
1

I personally have not been circumcised, which I am thankful for. Over here in Britain infant circumcision is not as popular as it is in the states. I can get why it would be difficult for you. It's to be expected. Someone took away your choice and that wasn't right. I would venture however the only people with something wrong with them is the people who took your choice away, and not you, at all.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 08:45 PM
1

I am honestly glad that you think it should be the person's choice, just also recognise that should have been your choice. Saying that it was easier to have it done then and you are thankful for it (rather than later in life when you could choose) makes a case that people were right to mutilate you. I don't think that's really what you are trying to say, but that is how it comes across. That said, I am glad you can be happy with your body as it is, because you shouldn't be ashamed of it. The cop…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 08:29 PM
2

As much as you seem to try not to, I can't help but feel you are glorifying your mutilation instead of coming to terms with how you are. You being thankful it was done and saying that you wouldn't go back and actually have a choice supports mutilation and should not be encouraged.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 07:59 PM
3

The person you replied to.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 05:48 PM
2

Don't bother man, he's just an SRS'er looking to cause trouble.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 05:12 PM
2

It's still possible for her Dom to impose whatever restrictions on her for whatever reasons.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 04:09 AM
5

There already is a charge. The parents and doctor pay with their humanity, and the child pays with his freedom and tears.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:32 PM
1

GWW, it was only supposed to be sarcasm, I wasn't making it a blanket statement to cover the opinions of all or even most feminists <.<
/r/MensRights10/01/13 06:21 PM
6

You didn't know? When men die, it's only the women who have been wronged/damaged.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 02:07 PM
3

Well that's good, keep it up m8. Hopefully other people will want to follow that example. Don't be too disheartened about it though, getting people to do stuff like that takes time.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:51 PM
3

If you want people to write to certain elected officials etc or local media about localized issues you know about you can post and request that here, no? Maybe people will want to write and maybe they won't, especially depending on if they are in that area (I don't know why elected officials would care about people in other countries writing to them when they are getting praise under their own jurisdiction, for example). If this is what you are saying then you are just complaining about the lack…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:41 PM
2

What calls to action are you suggesting, exactly? Keep in mind that it is difficult to have enough people willing to participate in any kind of poster campaign or protest or whatever you are thinking of, because the people need to be in a specific area. Right now we have just shy of 58k subscribers (no idea how many are active and not duplicate accounts), how many of those are in the same country? The same state? The same city? It is not an easy thing to do.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:29 PM
97

Really have to applaud the police here. It's hard to believe that the right people are being charged, and not the husband who defended himself.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 02:53 AM
1

Ad hominem. Regardless, I've seen the matrix.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 04:02 PM
1

That's not what I'm taking an issue with. I am taking an issue with applying it to all people in that potential scenario and then saying after it 'it's us vs them'.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 03:56 PM
0

Anyone we don't know is potentially anything. What you said would be meaningless in that context.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 03:16 PM
1

Dude, this is a direct quote of what I responded to: If you are not one of us, you are one of them. It's even bolded. The emphasis isn't mine. You are telling me that it doesn't perpetuate an 'us vs them' mentality, when it explicitly states it, in bolded letters??
/r/MensRights09/01/13 03:12 PM
3

I'm hoping someone else comes along to help you with your question, I wish I knew more about these kind of things and their inner workings, but alas, I don't. Failing that, perhaps you could try here as well: http://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/
/r/MensRights09/01/13 03:10 PM
3

I am not the best person to be answering this question, but I can likely say what the best advice in this thread will be. That is 'Get a lawyer'. It is likely that you will be facing a potentially long custody battle and divorce process, and the sooner you can prepare a case, and discuss these issues with them, the better. Good luck.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:07 PM
0

I don't see how this absolutist attitude of us and them and treating everyone else as an enemy helps anything.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:00 PM
14

There are downvotes because spreading this data is just as bad as the original. If neither is subject to real statistics and evidence, it is useless as anything other than satire and doesn't help us.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 11:09 AM
2

I'm from the UK, they don't.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 12:21 PM
1

Your point being? You didn't answer the question.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 07:53 PM
1

I certainly have my own prefferences for selection. I never said that my prefferences should be the accepted ones, though. I said they were up for debate. Why should preventing entire groups of people from reproducing be up for debate at all, on other people's opinions? The only selection you should have is who you mate with.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 07:49 PM
1

Preventing new people from being created isn't genocide, you dunce. It's the entire fucking purpose of any form of selective breeding. As I said before, you moron, everybody agrees that selectiveness is necessary. It is the parameters for selection that are up for debate. The difference is that people like me are waiting for people like you to admit it and catch the fuck up so that we can evolve humanity a little. Remember the caveats in my original post about ethnicity or gender prefference bei…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 07:03 PM
1

So you're for forcibly preventing people or entire groups of people from reproducing? On some random characteristic you define? All right then, I'll note down how you support genocide then.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 06:50 PM
0

No worries. And found it, such an obvious title, I don't know how I missed it. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/
/r/MensRights04/01/13 05:05 PM
0

I didn't mean to imply you were not a legitimate poster with "legitimate" concerns. I consider concern trolling as posts like this that propose 'problems' we face and how to deal with them. It usually derails from more MRA-centric topics, and instead focuses on the internal politics of Men's Rights. Perhaps a better way I could put it is that posts like this belong in the subreddit which discusses the men's rights meta- There is one, and I apologise I can't link it right now, it's name has escap…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:50 PM
1

large number of people on this planet who need to be prevented from reproducing. You need to be very careful to whom you are directing that at, or exactly what you mean by it.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:42 PM
0

How are we supposed to instantly tell who is part of what group and who wants what? See mbjhug's comment This post is a form of concern trolling.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:28 PM
1

Obviously this woman did something very wrong and the father should be given support here. A bigger issue than this being a Men's Rights one is why these people weren't given help and allowed to go £70k into debt doing their best to look after this child. I don't often feel any sympathy at all for the type of people who do these things, and the woman should be rightly punished, but this situation could have been avoided if that family had been given the help they needed.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:02 PM
1

Seems reasonable enough. Honestly, something that doesn't exist being referred to as 'it' would be more accurate than male or female.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:54 PM
1

The current plan and storyline for him is that he is going to marry her to get legal rights to the child. Obviously he doesn't want to marry her and will get a divorce not long after, he just really loves his kid. He also had a kid I think from a previous relationship which died, that or the mother had a miscarriage, and he's never quite recovered from losing that baby.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:50 PM
1

What about video games? <.<
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:42 PM
5

I know nothing about the origin but I'm pretty sure too. There are bits that give it away. Not many people wouldn't be able to see through certain things, such as all of the options no matter what the man does with his toothpaste meaning he is bad. Also, these lines: 'When it was blue, he tended to be cold and distant especially after I spent $500 of our savings on clothes' 'I found that when it was green, he tended to be jealous and envious of me, just after I got a promotion' In those it makes…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:31 PM
1

Good article. While I can't quite reconcile all the opinions in that tremendous amount of text with my personal beliefs, it does give some thoughts and intelligent reasoning of societal constructs which could be given further consideration.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 12:29 PM
2

Isn't this a case cotwa would want to get involved in? It seems like the type of thing they would jump on. EDIT: Ah, he's now thankfully been released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hetherington_case
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:41 AM
1

The same could be said of you drawing attention to it, though. Does the age of the injustice disqualify it from being an injustice?
/r/MensRights02/01/13 02:28 PM
1

How does the age of the article change anything?
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:59 PM
2

I do notice the same thing, but I'm hesitant to put too much faith in it for getting disappointed. There have been many times in the past we have been let down year after year. We can only hope.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:42 PM
2

If my anti-virus gives me a warning the second I visit a site, and it doesn't usually, I am going to tell people.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 12:55 AM
1

It wasn't left out. It's been deleted now so I am going off the majority of the comments, what was said was basically along the lines of: 'she wanted him to wear one, he pestered her to not have to and she relented.' So yea, no way that is rape unless you want to consider pestering someone a crime in sexual situations.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:04 PM
2

1- First line says: It's not the greatest article, the tone and language could be a bit more moderate, but it hits the nail on the head in a few areas with respect to how police react to certain crimes differently in the US as compared to overseas, as well as pointing out that victim blaming is still a problem for men. And only has 5 points. 2- Posting an article about a woman doing something bad is women-bashing? What world do you live in, exactly? 3- He was asking if other people experienced t…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 10:21 AM
1

Nice strawman, obviously this isn't SRS -_- You are concern trolling, look it up. EDIT: I replied to your 'blatant misogyny' examples (lol) to the post in which you made the examples linked.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 10:15 AM
1

blatant misogyny, perpetual woman-bashing and petty complaints that make it to the frontpage. What, where? Please, we could do without you and the OP concern trolling over non-issues.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 09:27 AM
2

Site gave me a virus warning- Do not visit!
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:49 PM
1

Thank god for ignore functions.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:31 PM
1

What are you, the feelings police? He got the information he wanted. Now piss off.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 12:52 PM
1

He got the help he wanted.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 12:33 PM
1

You should note the word 'if' I used.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:39 AM
1

I have no idea what the statutory rape laws in your state are, but if they are so fucked up they can put you in jail for consensual sex between people less than 1 year apart you need to delete this post. Now.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:02 AM
1

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:00 AM
13

Whereas it's clear this is supposed to be satire, I still think it's rather sad that the hypothetical situation is legally allowed.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 08:08 PM
8

Ummm... But it is? Women can rape men and still have them pay child support.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 08:07 PM
-6

How are you still surprised about the censorship on /r/feminism and TwoX? It's common knowledge.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 07:57 AM
1

No. When society places financial responsibility on a man for that choice, society is treating women as if we are children who are not able to take responsibility for our own decisions. Me: And/or as a privileged class that deserves better than men. You: Attempting to say other stuff about how women are discriminated against by being privileged, ignoring that I said both are the case: A lot of people think that being handed everything without having to work for it makes one a privileged person..…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 09:31 AM
1

You're the one arguing for a one or the other deal here, not me. I said it twice, shall I say it again? And/Or I already made that qualification, yet you continued to spout how no, it was only your way, and that there couldn't be room for women possibly to be privileged by being given a free ride. You know when black people were slaves? White people were pretty discriminated against for not having to work in the fields. That is essentially what your argument boils down to. You have no bigger pic…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:55 AM
1

I'm taking an adversarial position to your position. Whether you are or are not a feminist, you are spouting feminist dogma with your view.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:12 AM
1

Spread your feminist propaganda about how women are being discriminated against by being given stuff elsewhere, please.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:42 AM
1

Like I said: And/or as a privileged class that deserves better than men. Personally, I'd rather be on the receiving end of such preferential treatment. Bull that it should be first considered bad to receive it if you are the receiver rather than preferential treatment of a privileged class. Bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:59 AM
1

When society places financial responsibility on a man for that choice, society is treating women as if we are children who are not able to take responsibility for our own decisions. And/or as a privileged class that deserves better than men.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:31 PM
7

Part of the point at this stage of the movement is to spread the truth about issues which are generally misunderstood or misconstrued in public. It is not in our best interest to stop doing this and prevent others from coming and seeing that we have valid points.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 06:07 PM
1

It's not sex when she doesn't want it. Actually, it is and here's why: You'll want to clarify that. Obviously you didn't mean it, but you talked as an all case scenario. 'Sometimes it is' is better.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:01 AM
1

Sometimes I am wondering if people read a single thing I type or just spout random BS again and again. If this was an honest mistake I apologise for the outburst but I'm getting VERY tired of repeating myself. You would tell her if the condom broke Therefore, as I have constantly repeated, nothing bad comes from it. The ONLY thing that comes from this is the man being slightly more protected than before.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:25 AM
1

That's not what I meant, but I can see how you took it that way due to the wording. I meant that you shouldn't be under obligation. Obviously the government would have something to say if it was. The main point is that the lie does nothing to harm anyone and has no negative consequences, while still protecting you.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 10:15 PM
1

No. If she gets pregnant under the clear guise of not wanting to have a child and the rare situation the condom breaks and she decides to keep it you would be under no obligation whatsoever. I never said she couldn't keep it if so- why are people putting words in my mouth? The lie makes no difference. You are having sex anyway. Without it the same situation would still occur. The lie has no pain for anyone. The lie cannot be irresponsible when it does not change the situation and has no negative…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:26 PM
1

It's cool. You want to be a lying scumbag to women because you're paranoid and can't be bothered to figure out whether you can trust one before you potentially deposit sperm in their body. Got it. Would you like a glass of warm milk to help calm you down and not insult people? I'm not sure what you meant here. Did you intend to say "all mothers choose whether to have children"? If that's what you meant to say, then yes, that's true. Do you think you deserve some sort of reparations because the b…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:11 AM
1

Meaning you believe that because there's no jurisprudence for lying, it has no impact on what type of character the ruling judge/jury perceives you to have. Good luck traversing our judicial system with that mentality. What exactly is the judge going to do? All they can do is force you to pay child support. Which they would do anyway. And is based off your income. Like I said, it has no relevance. I'm suggesting that your idea is pointless. If the woman is really as vindictive and insane as one …
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:58 AM
-1

Strawman. Never mentioned anything of the sort. Not sure what your point is. Do you think I'm defining some kind of foolproof way to be safe with all women on the planet? You didn't say anything on topic or worth replying to here. It's getting difficult to take you (and the MRM, if this truly is an issue they're spending any resources on) seriously. You have reproductive rights. You just don't have as much as women as a by-product of the biological difference in gestation. I'm guessing you don't…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:31 AM
2

If she thinks you cannot give her a child there would be no point in her attempting to seduce you for that reason. What you did there does not matter in the eyes of a judge because it is not illegal, so what you said has no relevance. You honestly don't see how her thinking you have had a vasectomy would prevent her from coming after you first? See 1. Again, no relevance. FFS Is "women can fuck you over if you get them pregnant" really a talking point of the MRM? Yes. It is a massive problem tha…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:13 AM
5

What? Australia is formerly of the British Empire. It is now a sovereign state and has been for a hundred years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
/r/MensRights19/12/12 04:30 AM
9

That was the point.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:50 AM
0

I never said she shouldn't be told if the condom does break. Telling her you have had a vasectomy does several things. Dissuades her if her plan is to screw you over with child support and use you as a meal ticket. Ensures she doesn't come looking for you when there are other potential fathers in the picture she wants to screw over. I don't want anyone to be screwed over like that, and the system needs to change, but till it does, would you rather it be you? As long as you tell her in the eventu…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:33 AM
3

And lies are bad. Yes, I know, I can agree with that. At the moment women do have all the power to ruin men's lives. If something little like that can help to protect that man and it isn't violent I am all for it. If the laws changed it wouldn't be necessary. But we aren't at that point.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:09 AM
0

I don't really see the problem with it. I mean, he's using a condom anyway so obviously the intent isn't a child.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:00 AM
9

People don't do things like that because of the repercussions- You go to jail for a long time for setting people on fire or killing them. Do people go to jail for false rape accusations? Not often. And I don't believe a woman has ever gone to jail for deceiving him into getting her pregnant.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:56 AM
18

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14peb0/app_allows_women_to_anonymously_rate_male/ http://totalfratmove.com/1105097?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 11:51 PM
2

That's been explained in the way it could effect men's health now, yes. But the only reason anything about how this effects men was explained was because I asked.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 07:16 PM
11

You could try clicking the 'Why?' link.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 07:13 PM
6

Wrong subreddit?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 12:27 AM
2

At that age I would not think so. Consult a lawyer either way.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 07:15 PM
1

The thing to remember is that we have a right to be angry over the issues where our sex is persecuted. We're human, and we aren't immune to anger. I'm not saying being calm isn't the better way, after all, our heads will be clearer, and I do my best to not be angry in the way I talk to people about these issues and make my point succinctly. But to blame us for being angry over legitimate concerns and prejudice, it's unrealistic. I'm still angry on the inside.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 01:52 AM
2

I heard about this on the TV being laughed at by an audience. It's sickening that this situation being something to laugh at is widespread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIES4-quRo Definitely writing a complaint letter to the BBC.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 07:50 PM
1

Ah... I remember this. Yeah, it's old, but guys are damaged by this stuff. Guys are more predisposed to sex, but this is simple abuse and the response from friends and family is 'man up, you should like it' or 'wow, you sick fuck! You abused her!' even when he is the younger and vulnerable party. It will take a lot for the world to understand that this type of abuse is not ok solely because of his gender.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:58 PM
1

When I read your post I thought this must be about them openly saying boys stink or something constantly in the show. If that were the case, I'd agree. As it is, you are advocating total gender neutrality in shows. Even when only the name is concerned. It's definitely excessive for you to take this view, others have already given examples of shows which have male-orientated themes in the titles. I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging females to get into these fields simply with a …
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:35 PM
4

Link: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html I do think the order in which you are shown the options builds some association and in turn builds some bias, but I don't know if this is accounted for in the end results.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 08:47 PM
3

equal coverage in regards to proportion of male rape
/r/MensRights14/12/12 10:53 PM
2

This is illegible.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:23 PM
1

I know it links here occasionally. What I potentially disagree on is that it brigades us and votes in a way normal members of this subreddit wouldn't. I haven't seen good posts being downvoted by them.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:31 PM
1

Ok, but that isn't /r/mensrights <.<
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:20 PM
1

Maybe, but honestly I don't see worthwhile comments being downvoted in threads they've linked, perhaps I've missed them? Do you have an example where good posts have been downvoted by SRD?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:13 PM
3

I'm subbed to SRD and tbh I think most of them sympathise with our position.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:03 PM
20

I agree there should be more coverage or equal coverage in regards to proportion of male rape. However, I don't think it is good to ignore issues like this because there is more rape in the prison system against males. It seems to turn it into an Oppression Olympics issue- an argument that isn't wise to be supported by us as it is utilized by our opponents. Instead, let's work to end all issues of prison rape and not focus solely on which gender it is being reported against.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:56 PM
4

EpicJ, do you know of any source where I can read Christina's books online? I have heard about her for a while and would like to read more about her and her material.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:10 PM
38

That was my favourite part of my initiation.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:35 PM
-1

I would be extremely disheartened if a bigoted subreddit that doesn't encourage open discussion such as /r/feminism linked to us.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 02:21 PM
2

r/feminism likes to have open discussions. It feels that locking yourself up in an opinion circlejerk will only give you a warped view of the world, and the biggest part of feminism is convincing others. Not true. From feminism's rules: Discussions in this subreddit will assume the validity of feminism's existence, its egalitarian aspect, and the necessity of feminism's continued existence.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 02:19 PM
1

The reasoning mostly comes down to that r/feminism doesn't support banning people who object to conventional modern feminist beliefs, therefore r/feminism must be run by MRAs. Not true. Their own policy expressly bans not accepting feminism and they will ban for it. /r/feminism encourages no type of intelligent debate in regards to criticism.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 02:17 PM
1

Why haven't you said what the thing was?
/r/MensRights11/12/12 11:29 PM
2

If you're not going to back up your response then your assertion is worthless.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:17 PM
9

This... OP very conveniently left out any details... But Circumcision may be needed for medical reasons. The OP is liable to turn round and say that HIV and other things are the medical reasons in question. Don't blindly answer questions like this when you haven't even read the question.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:58 PM
3

Infant breast removal is not mutilation. It is a preventative health procedure, and the comparison to "female circumcision" is ludicrous. FTFY.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 10:15 PM
5

To be fair... What I've seen from some of your recent material has been extremely lacking.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 01:01 PM
32

Dear feminists, and by feminists, I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights. Why do any of you dolts in your pea brains Stupid and cowardly And just in case any of you slow-witted dolts Fuck you. Get lost. I will publish the name of anyone – male or female, MRA or Feminist who advocates violence or initiates violence, including by proxy, and I'll do it with satisfied smile on my face, and not even a slight twinge of guilt. Due to the content of the rest of your post, I see this a…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 12:46 PM
15

I like this article. It's extremely fair, honest, and would make it very hard for anyone to disagree with. Articles like this continue to give me hope for men everywhere in these kind of situations. One day, their plight will be acknowledged, and the world can change, for the better.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:19 PM
2

All we can do is downvote it. Love them misrepresenting us though, when those guys are the ones who ban critical thought.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:54 PM
1

Are you saying this is why they ban any dissenting opinion? That doesn't really make sense. Either way, it would be like selling your soul for a safe house.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 12:18 PM
1

I'm not sure how that is relevant.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:38 AM
4

No, I don't. All you have to do is look at their policy. Posting Rules Please observe our posting rules and help us preserve the intent of this space as a place for feminists to work together. Discussions in this subreddit will assume the validity of feminism's existence, its egalitarian aspect, and the necessity of feminism's continued existence. What else is automatically given validity by its followers with no other opinion allowed? Oh yea.... Religion.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:28 AM
5

There's a difference between being downvoted and banned. Places who ban any ideas which don't fit with their world view... The words 'authoritarian' and 'censorship' come to mind. So does 'willful ignorance'.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:16 AM
3

/r/feminism is a joke. A movement you can't question without being banned from it isn't a movement, it's more comparable to a religious sect where they shout any dissenting opinions down.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:08 AM
2

You're welcome. In particular, The Myth of Male Power is my favorite. My personal opinion is that you read that. It has many insights and perspectives people do not always consider, and is an inspiration to either sex.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 11:28 PM
1

Spending money/time... whatever, you know what I mean. The government shouldn't be doing that, they should be giving kids an education, not telling them what to do with their lives. Parents can do that, and the child can make up their own mind on things when they are older. People make choices based on what they feel is available to them and how they will be perceived by their peers, family and community. They probably do. So? I don't pretend to take responsibility for people's feelings preventi…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 07:43 PM
3

There's no need to make people aware of it. Spending money on 'encouraging people' when they have the choice already, is silly. If people want to do something they look into it. I don't support making people do any job- which is why I don't advocate the workplace death thing because they made the choice to do it. People have free will. And as for context, "anyone" has only one meaning that I'm aware of. It's not anyone's responsibility to encourage people to do anything You're right. it's no one…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 07:33 PM
7

You're right. it's no one's responsibility to help their children learn what options there are for them in the world. /s Taking me out of context right off the bat eh? Smart move. seriously, it is everyone's responsibility to help our youth meet their potential; plenty of people men and women alike fail to take advantage of opportunities or follow paths because they are simply uninformed or feel that certain paths are not available to them. No, it isn't. It isn't my responsibility, it isn't the …
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:30 PM
8

It's not anyone's responsibility to encourage people to do anything. If they want to go for it, they can, if not, that's their damn choice.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:23 PM
3

All these tags and sorting people into groups... It's sad no matter which side is doing it. STOP. Remember, attacks of character won't dismiss people's argument. We can do that regardless of what group they come from.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 08:25 AM
20

If you had gone without the first line, I think you would have got a better response. Here, we see legislation, policies, and judgements made by feminists which are anti-male. You will never convince even half of us that feminism is still interested in equality, its actions say otherwise.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 07:13 PM
1

Suggested Reading List: The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell The War Against Boys - Christina Hoff Sommers Who Stole Feminism - Christina Hoff Sommers The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - Steven Pinker Is that what you were looking for?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 04:20 PM
3

I'm not going to constantly tilt my head sideways to bother reading that.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 12:06 PM
36

He was granted parole 26 years later, provided, among other conditions, he “report all female relationships” to his parole supervisor. In August, the National Parole Board had Kelly arrested at his Prince George, B.C., home when a secret girlfriend approached authorities after becoming spooked by revelations about his criminal past. Further investigation revealed she was one of two unreported lovers. He violated his parole conditions. Due to his history and the killing of a loved one, it was dee…
/r/MensRights01/12/12 10:41 AM
3

Thanks for adding this perspective. It certainly adds to my world view.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 10:00 AM
15

Shocking article. It's not good that they did something wrong to begin with, but imprisonment over things as small following that such as wearing different colour socks? It's absolutely ridiculous. Another thing I noticed about the article, even though the most likely case is that an overwhelming majority of the victims of this abuse are male, boys are mentioned nowhere. They are always simply referred to as 'children'.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 01:14 PM
1

Hey, if you hear of one, let me know so I can check out how it works ^
/r/MensRights29/11/12 11:04 PM
1

If I accept that then perhaps what is in the article isn't the best way- but instead a % of what was paid in to go out which could take into account amount of time and what was paid in? Sort of an equalizer after the fact? Would this work?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:00 PM
2

Ok, thanks for making the workings more clear to me. But I don't see how it still wouldn't be discriminatory for a man and a woman to live to the same age and yet the man would have paid more. There simply aren't life insurance companies that do this- mainly (personal belief) because they know they can get away with it.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:38 PM
2

I do agree about the choice between insurance companies. However I would argue that having it based heavily upon gender against a man when he could be paying until he dies at 100 would be discriminatory toward him when a woman who did the same would have paid less for the same outcome.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:33 PM
5

My understanding of most insurance companies is that you have a medical record anyway. From this they can decide how likely you are to die next month and see if you are worth insuring. Please correct me if I am wrong. An individual risk assessment is the best way for an insurance company to save money.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:31 PM
11

I'm happy about this. If anything, life insurance premiums should be set on a full physical and mental exam, and not based on gender discrimination because men die younger. I can accept individual discrimination because it is fair and accurate, however stereotypes have no place in these fields.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:00 PM
1

That makes it clearer for me. Thanks. I think a better way to go about it would be to have better access to free practice time for everyone, but I can see how this issue would impede the will to compete.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 08:56 PM
1

I thought the argument was the experience earned from the game time, and since games can be reconstructed during practice... Wouldn't that be more or less the same?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:57 PM
1

You know, maybe starting to XD But I enjoy taking part... Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes no one's right or wrong. As long as someone learns something I'm happy with it :3
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:55 PM
0

Wouldn't it be feasible for the boys to pair off into teams during practice? I'm sure it wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would be very similar. The sexism issue seems slightly overblown, here.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:46 PM
2

I hope you are kidding. It doesn't say in the article she is asking for sole custody. The man is. I assume you hold that view of him too?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:22 PM
1

A lot of us wouldn't let that happen, I think. Either way, I don't think we can judge events equally when on our 'side' (probably the wrong way to put it) it hasn't happened.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:08 PM
6

I'm probably minimodding here, but please remove your link to SRS. Rules: No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:00 PM
1

I'm confused, perhaps it is due to my ignorance of hockey in general. What is to stop any player from having extra practice time?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:33 PM
1

I never said it should, but I think it's rather besides the point in this case.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 11:08 AM
1

The latest news they have is from June this year... That's pretty sad...
/r/MensRights29/11/12 08:25 AM
2

Wouldn't being for equal rights mean you are both for men's and women's rights, and not for neither of them?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:52 AM
2

If there any views like that, I always see them downvoted, and well looked down on. I'm proud to call myself an MRA and fight for men's issues. Unlike, say, feminism, which is an ideology, Men's Rights is just Men's Rights- people fighting for men's rights.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:42 AM
1

I would compare the attitude in the OP to drug dealing. Both prostitution and drug dealing are seen as bad. Buying drugs or women respectively, both illegal. In one case drug dealers are sought out more than the buyers, and in the other case the buyers of prostitutes are sought out more than the prostitutes themselves. It's a double standard. To the argument that prostitutes would be more vulnerable: so? They are choosing to commit an offense. Just like drug dealers or those who buy drugs. One c…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:41 AM
2

Ah, I see.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:21 AM
3

People are people. Your sexist view has no place here.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:14 AM
8

He has already been released now. http://wtvr.com/2012/11/21/jonathan-montgomery-celebrates-his-release-from-prison/
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:38 AM
3

Thanks. It would seem there would be a problem with the Texas law system if it stipulates they must be married while simultaneously not allowing gay couples to marry. However, it doesn't change my opinion of this situation. The woman wasn't informed she was a surrogate. It says that the father only said this after the children were born. There was no application for surrogacy made through the courts and there should have been if the father wanted to stop her being involved. Now she is involved a…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:17 AM
4

Apparently, the woman wasn't informed she was a surrogate either. If you have a separate article on this situation you are drawing your opinions from, I'd like to see it.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:54 AM
5

No. Neither of those situations are right. You can't equal out things like this by piling more wrongs onto an already unfair system.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:22 AM
3

That's irrelevant. Cindy Close and her friend, Marvin McMurrey, agreed to have a child together using his sperm and donated eggs. They chose to have that child together. He can't just turn around and say 'oh, no, you can't be involved now, you're just a surrogate', especially after the fact.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:17 AM
2

I'm going off the article. Please see bolded. Close became pregnant with twins through in vitro fertilization. But after the twins were born in July, Close says McMurrey revealed he was gay, told her she was just a surrogate and demanded custody of the children.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:14 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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