TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Alanna Archive

View 15 posts and 5,511 comments by Alanna on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
52

Alanna/r/MensRights22/09/11 09:46 PM
34

Alanna/r/MensRights16/04/11 04:50 AM
34

Alanna/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:39 PM
34

Alanna/r/MensRights24/05/12 04:49 PM
10

Alanna/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:31 PM
9

Alanna/r/MensRights14/02/12 12:12 AM
8

Alanna/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:42 PM
5

Alanna/r/MensRights26/05/10 09:56 PM
3

Alanna/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:58 PM
3

Alanna/r/MensRights07/09/11 10:39 PM
2

Alanna/r/MensRights30/09/11 06:22 PM
2

Alanna/r/MensRights19/08/11 04:47 PM
2

Alanna/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:51 PM
1

Alanna/r/MensRights23/02/10 12:25 AM
0

Alanna/r/MensRights11/01/11 08:35 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 5,511 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

I've never been super comfy with abortion personally, though at the time I would have said I was fully pro-choice. My mom's first advice to me was that I should get an abortion. I've always wanted kids, and even if the circumstances were less than ideal, I wanted this one. Unplanned doesn't always mean unwanted, I guess was my point, like you said. Some women (no idea how many) can and do make the best of it. In my case, we were scared about how we'd make it work, but abortion was never really o…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:01 AM
1

There's still a cognitive dissonance there. If you believe abortion is wrong, it means you believe there something wrong with terminating a fetus's existence. There's no reason, logically, why your particular fetus is more special or has more rights or more right to exist than any other woman's fetus. Therefore, if you are against abortion, you should be against all abortions. This idea that you can simply choose not to have abortions if you're against them makes no sense if you give any credit …
/r/MensRights01/02/13 10:07 PM
2

You make it sound like no woman would ever agree with OPs argument. Of all the arguments women make against changes to reproductive rights, the "Your a man and thus have no say!" is the absolute worst. In fact, it kind of underlines the need for men's rights at all. I'm a woman, btw, mother of three, including twins. I'm sure you'll figure out some other way to consider my opinion invalid though.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 10:04 PM
1

In theory, she pays support if CS comes for the kid.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 10:00 PM
0

In this scenario, it's not so much the actual abortion/miscarriage that causes the emotions, but the fact that they lost something that they were greatly looking forward too. This situation just doesn't really exist though in surprise/unplanned pregnancies. This is not true. Women who were trying to get pregnant might be MORE devastated, but I got pregnant, unplanned/surprise, with my now-husband a few months before we were supposed to get married, while we were both still students and poor as s…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:30 PM
6

Feminism is now about (well, it SHOULD BE about) forcing a change in culture that encourages girls into STEM as much as boys. Schools aren't to blame for this. It's just part of our culture. When I was younger, my dad didn't want to teach me how to fix a car or play baseball because those were things you teach to your son, not your daughter. I should also mention that I'm 24, so growing up was not that long ago for me. The problem MR has with feminism is that your point may be valid, as far as i…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 06:42 PM
0

Wtf? What's wrong with wearing comfortable clothes in public, as long as everything's covered?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 04:32 PM
1

I think who minors have relationships with should be up to parents. If by that you mean, parents should be allowed to say whether their kid has sex or not (not that parents should be allowed to force their kid into a sexual relationship (i.e., parent-dictated child brides)), I'm not sure if I agree. On the one hand, as a parent of three, I am wary of being told how to raise my kids one way or another. On the other hand, I feel bad for kids whose misguided or absentee parents just let them go cra…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:13 AM
1

I replied to your alleged "fact sheet" in my other comment. Certainly there is a huge difference, but you are presupposing that all prostitutes are "fucked and abused." The prevailing argument here is that legalizing prostitution would take much of the abuse out of the equation by giving women who choose, for whatever reason, to be prostitutes a safe, regulated, legal option to do so. It's not like making it illegal is getting rid of it.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:49 AM
1

I see a lot of random, out of context stats with citations to papers that are almost certainly behind pay walls (I admit I didn't dig far enough to check all of them), in between opinions and quotes from such feminist luminaries as Catherine "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" MacKinnon. I find it very hard to take seriously a "fact sheet" that posts, with a straight face, "Prostitution isn't like anything else. Rather, every…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:47 AM
1

All of those maternal and child health initiatives benefit men.... Those are maternal health initiatives to, presumably, prevent suicide (since it's on the suicide prevention page). Ditto children. But children and mothers aren't the majority of suicides... Yes. This is the way it would appear. There could be many reasons, caloric intake, metabolism differences, hormonal effects. So, there's no evidence for this, this is just what you're assuming? Is there a good reason why we should take such g…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 05:46 AM
1

It's not a study. It's from the FBI's 1996 Uniform Crime Reports, Section II: Crime Index Offenses Reported, page 24. Edit: This is one of the statistics quoted on Wikipedia with regard to false claims.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 05:34 AM
1

According to the WHO, suicide is significantly higher pretty universally for men. However, note the programs listed on this page to combat the problem: Maternal mental health & child health and development Child and adolescent mental health Gender and women's mental health Again, all the resources going to help women, even though men are hugely disproportionately affected. Circumcision is by far the most common in the United States (and Israel, but, population-wise, they don't count). However, n…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 05:04 AM
1

"Where do you stand?" That implies to me a "agree with us or be part of the problem"-- i.e., do what we say or be no better than a rapist. Also the "men can stop rape"-- why men? Why not anyone? Why are only men empowered to stop rape and not women?
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:42 PM
1

The point is that there is no conspiracy by The Patriarchy or society to force women into prostitution; if there's a value attached to a service, people will be willing to perform that service for payment.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:37 PM
1

Last I checked, streetwalkers aren't making thousands a night. High priced call girls don't "dress trashy and go work the streets."
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:35 PM
1

Do you have a source for those suspiciously exact statistics? And that's not even getting into the morality of turning a body into a purchasable commodity. We do this all the time, it's called the service industry. This is just another service.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:34 PM
2

It's very similar to why feminists had the age of consent raised. Raised from what? Where? Last I checked, the age of consent is regulated by each individual state (in the US) and some are still as low as 14 (generally within a certain age range). Are you really seriously advocating that men of all ages should have unrestricted "sexual access" to middle school girls? Seriously?
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:30 PM
1

Is there evidence one way or another on this? I hear this, and I also hear that most sex workers are in it by choice. Has anyone actually done a study or survey or anything?
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:29 PM
1

It is up to the states. That's why it's legal in (parts of) Nevada. Just that all 49 other states have laws against it.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:26 PM
3

That's cool. Promoting the general idea that friends look out for each other is fine. Promoting the idea that drunk friends should look out for each other at parties is a good idea too. Implying that you are the moral equivalent of a rapist if you are male and don't do this for any random drunk chick at a party-- not cool. First for making it a moral imperative, and second for gendering it.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:00 AM
2

I saw it too. :)
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:57 PM
2

It's great advice if you're 16. Which means, at least in the US, you've been drinking illegally anyway. If someone is drunk enough to think it's a good idea to leave with a stranger, especially a shady one, what makes you think you're going to deter them with your sage and presumably more sober wisdom?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:55 PM
1

Because almost any prevention tactic would involve victim-blaming and female repression.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:52 PM
6

...and if you don't get a reply, you should track her down and make sure she's okay? What if she just went home and is sleeping? Or, heaven forbid, she did have sex with the guy and is sleeping at his place? What if you "check in" and she's obviously really drunk, but really excited about hooking up with this guy-- do you insist she's too drunk to know what she's doing and track her down and drag her away? How is all of this not infantilizing to women? A friend-- of either gender-- would natural…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:51 PM
3

This is just symptomatic of the feminist mindset that women are always the victims. Woman withholds sex? OMG, don't you dare pressure her, that's coercion, and creepy, and you're a big fat quasi-rapist jerk. Man withholds sex? OMG, you abusive prick, you're just trying to control her by denying her a basic human need. Retarded.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:57 AM
1

What a stunning rebuttal. /s
/r/MensRights17/11/12 05:39 PM
1

But fist-fights are always illegal. You can't consent to being punched in the face, it's still assault. As is criminal negligence (slip-and-fall), as is speeding. There's no such thing as consensual speeding. Sex is only rape if it's nonconsensual, which is why consent is at the heart of these debates. What we're saying is that just because you don't remember consenting-- due to alcohol or other factors-- doesn't automatically invalidate that consent if it was freely given at the time, and the i…
/r/MensRights17/11/12 05:38 PM
3

So, scenario one, it happens exactly the way hillbilly_hubble described, and everyone's fine with what happened. Scenario two, it happened exactly the same, except that hillbilly_hubble and/or his wife decided to call rape. And you don't see any problem with the exact same events happening with the exact same level of consent and intent, and one being a crime and the other not based purely on the retroactive perception of one of the parties, after the fact?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:50 PM
1

Since no one replied yet, as a public service, I'll let you know why you are embarrassingly wrong. Back in the "old days" (how old are we talking? Pre 1960? 19th century?) yes, boys and girls were chaperoned and segregated much more. This just means that any sex that took place was not talked about. But do any kind of genealogical research and you'll see that there are lots of kids born just before or 5-6 months after wedding dates. In some cases the kids already planned to get married, and in s…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 10:18 PM
1

Can we add, physical signs of sexual stimulation (being "turned on") do NOT indicate consent. Listen to what your partner is saying or indicating with his or her actions, not what his or her penis, vagina, and/or nipples are doing involuntarily.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 08:58 PM
3

Meh. There are stories just as devistating for men who've been married to the same woman for years. All it takes is for her to think he's cheating or somehow otherwise justify it to herself...
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:29 AM
4

Which is not listing us as a hate group, just calling us "misogynistic." It's bullshit, too, but the SPLC posts an official list of hate groups, and /r/mensrights (or any of the other sites they mention) are not on it. The authors of that piece have since clarified themselves that /r/mensrights is not an SPLC-designated hate group.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 01:20 AM
1

I'm with everything she says except this bit here: If you bought that wanting to not pay for contraceptives out of the public purse and at the expense of other people’s religious conscience is a “War on women” you might want to inform yourself. Not giving you something for free is NOT restricting access. Otherwise, people are restricting your access to food, housing and entertainment. Is that a war on humans? IMO, this was a completely unnecessary partisan lashout in an otherwise left/right neut…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:19 AM
0

It could be incompetence, or a political agenda, or some combination of both.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:10 PM
2

EDIT: Oh god, stay away from the comments. It's where intelligence goes to die. You weren't kidding. I think I got through about 10 before my head exploded.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:07 PM
1

*seder. Satyrs are sex-crazed man-goat followers of Bacchus.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:51 PM
1

Are you referring to this sentence? "In 2009, women were 49% of the work force and held 50% of the management positions." Because I was specifically responding to "They often have to work harder than men and they still won't get into management or on leading positions." [emphasis mine]
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:39 PM
3

No, the most terrible part is that you don't even have to have had sex with someone. She can make up the encounter whole cloth; it's still up to you to prove that you didn't even have sex with her.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:48 AM
1

Even if th labia was removed, it would not effectively reduce the amount of UTI's in women, it's just a fact. Why don't we do a study and find out? statistically if you went from an infection rate of 10/1000 to 1/1000 and multiply that over the entire population, you have just made a valid argument FOR preventing UIT's by circumcision. It was a hypothetical to show that you're sacrificing 1000 boys bodily autonomy and possible future sexual health so that one boy doesn't have to take some antibi…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:44 PM
1

Bacteria gets trapped in the folds of the labia, too. That's what causes the characteristic "fish" odor. The urethra opens right in the very center of the labial folds. If trapped bacteria cause UTIs, I fail to see why labia wouldn't act similarly to a foreskin in trapping bacteria close to the urethral opening. Besides, in boys older than 4 weeks, UTIs are almost always caused by some underlying issue with the urethra or bladder. Circumcision won't affect that, either. If out of, say, 1000 boys…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 06:28 PM
1

Sure, but theirs is in medical journals while yours is posted onto dubious anti-circumcision activism websites. ...from medical journals. Why are you doing that at all, instead of searching for better evidence to support your position? Don't you understand that there is a qualitative difference between the sort of research that the AAP examined to reach their conclusions and the sort of anecdotal, often highly exaggerative and dubious claims you see randomly posted on the internet? Have you both…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 05:32 PM
0

No, you're the one issuing extreme absolutist generalizations. You said you'd "never" heard a woman exhibit this attitude. I gave you a counter-example. Now you have. We agree that the woman is an idiot. I don't think she's representative of all women, even a majority of women, but there are women out there who seem to think it their right to mess with their son's genitals. Frequently the same women who scream "my body my choice" at women's reproductive issues. Those women are hypocrites, and th…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:11 PM
1

You are aware this is the Internet? This is a much higher level exchange than happens on most sites.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:07 PM
1

Ah, the Catholic church. Best and worst of humanity, exemplified. Help the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick-- but come hell or high water, make sure there's more and more of them every year.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:06 PM
1

Why are we evaluating and critiquing the intentions of the doctors instead of the quality of the evidence they present? Because much of the time I present evidence or critiques of evidence, I get "Don't care, WHO (or now, AAP) says so." We have lots of counter evidence. But a lot of people won't accept it because a trade organization of pediatricians has a lot more credibility and clout than random people on the Internet. So you have to offer reasons why their credibility is suspect, along with …
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:04 PM
1

There are respectable health organizations saying circumcision is a benefit or at least does no harm, in fact they are in the majority. Only in the US. And, AFAIK, the AAP is the only pediatric organization, world wide, that is quasi recommending it. I just recently had twin boys, and I have a two-year-old girl, and, I love my OB, but she is the absolute last person I would have anything to do with any medical procedure whatsoever on my babies. Let me tell you, the OB is only concerned about the…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:22 AM
1

This is an example of the language used by feminist groups with regard to FGM. However, if you ask the other side, they would claim hygienic and health benefits, that it looks better, that it's a cultural and/or religious obligation, or a long-standing tradition. Mothers routinely claim they were not harmed by circumcision/alteration, and neither will their daughters; if they don't, no man will want them. Do these all sound familiar? Where are the controlled studies on FGM and HIV? On FGM and HP…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 11:21 PM
3

Here you go. To be fair, this is more a refutation of the evidence that circumcision does help HIV, rather than evidence that it doesn't (and it's important to note there is a difference), but, in the face of lack of evidence of benefits, we probably should hold off on the genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:39 PM
5

Which is why a growing number of people are worried about the advice being handed out in Africa.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:10 PM
5

Yes, where's the outrage over women making decisions about men's health?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:02 PM
3

the largest & most prominent organization of pediatricians In the US. just concluded a 10 year study on circumcision and announced their results. These are experts in their fields, practicing, if you have any faith left in humans at all, in an objective manner. Reddit's response was overwhelmingly to scream and complain about it, which is out of character for reddit because they usually support thorough science and respect announcements from experts in the field. And a lot of them are not in the…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:59 PM
2

People who believe it is-- literally-- their god-given obligation to mutilate their babies?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:49 PM
2

This is an excellent paper on the glaring issues with the African trials-- both with the studies themselves, and applying the data.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:38 PM
2

I want to take out billboards urging people who are buying this African studies crap to read this.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:26 PM
4

Yes, genital integrity is worth mocking. /s
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:24 PM
3

But what if it's shown to be beneficial to the child, like in this article. What if all this is true? As a father, shouldn't my number 1 priority be what's best for my children? If their best interests are my priority, and they're unable to make the call, is it wrong for me to make it? You have to look at the evidence yourself. I look at the people pushing circumcision, and I find their arguments distinctly less compelling than the people pushing for intactivism. For instance, this and it's prim…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:22 PM
2

there is an established pool of medical professionals who agree that circumcision has health benefits. And there are established pools of medical professionals who agree that it does not. Who are you going to believe?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:08 PM
2

isn't it the parent's choice to do what they (and the majority of the health world) ...in the United States. Nowhere else in the world do they push circumcision the way we do here, and few other places even do it as routinely. Most places, it's pretty culturally frowned on. Are European boys suffering from massive UTI outbreaks?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:07 PM
0

No, but there was one woman who blogged she told her husband, "Do you ever want our son to get a blow job?" and he capitulated on the circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:02 PM
-1

Removing the labia isn't going to lessen a woman's risk of UTI Why wouldn't it?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:01 PM
1

You can point out that we, barely, legally allow kids to go around unvaccinated (because you need vaccines for school and you're legally required to attend school), but, by contrast, the AAP specifically says, "health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns (p 585)," let alone require them by law.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:00 PM
1

Again, I did not accuse them of "bad faith," per se. I personally don't think it's directly a feminist conspiracy. Just because these doctors have the best of intentions doesn't mean they're not wrong, and, at best, being exceedingly uncritical of the science around circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:34 PM
4

True. But most doctors (or other professionals) won't perform permanent cosmetic procedures on children without a good reason. For example, go try to get a boob job for a newborn. Or a nose job, unless your kid is a burn victim or something. The point is, in no other case do otherwise ethical doctors don't non-therapeutic permanent surgical alterations to children.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:32 PM
2

Don't get me wrong, I'm squarely on board with the anti-circ crowd. I'm just very very conscious of how nuts we sound to non-anti-circ people, even those who are sympathetic to not circumcising. There are a sizable number of very respected medical experts and professionals who are against circumcision. Unlike vaccination. Where the main "medical expert" turned out to be a huge fraud. Even this AAP statement specifically says that, despite all these alleged benefits and supposed risks of not circ…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:27 PM
3

Yeah, you can. She sounds like a five-year-old who won't even try broccoli. She could at least try it before she knocks it.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:19 PM
2

I give them the benefit of the doubt, and suspect it's more that they're a bunch of circumcised men themselves who want to justify the practice. But either way, it's because the "benefits" of circumcision are far from as established as the AAP statement makes it sound. So why would a bunch of doctors, sworn to do no harm, so roundly endorse such a questionable practice? And that's where the theories start-- feminism, money, religion, culture...
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:06 PM
8

The problem is that we come off like crazies (like anti-vax people) when we are so dismissive of a major medical organization like this. It's hard to counter what seem like loads of proven medical benefits.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:00 PM
9

Relative vs. absolute rates of transmission. Read this.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:57 PM
14

It' be similar to declining an operation such as having your tonsils removed. Which they don't recommend any more due to the risks of unnecessary surgery. Hm...
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:55 PM
16

UTIs are easily treatable. It's like cutting off your legs to prevent skinning your knees.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:53 PM
1

I agree with you. The rationale for things like the sex offender registry is that sex offenders are (allegedly) so much more likely to recidivate. And (TV Tropes warning) it is a fate worse than death.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:41 PM
2

Then women shouldn't start physical fights.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:24 PM
15

Even the feminists who recognize that men do have valid issues do not want to address those issues while women have it "so much worse." I.e., men might get raped but women get raped in such larger numbers we need to fix that before we commit any significant resources towards male rape. Men might get falsely accused of rape but rape of women is still so uinderreported we need to work on that before we deal with the wrongly accused. Fathers may have issues getting access to their children but wome…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:13 PM
3

No one ever thinks of himself as the bad guy. They all have good intentions
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:25 AM
1

That response was specifically regarding the idea that feminism is a force for good in third world countries. Did you read all the way through? Specifically: Stemple's findings on the failure of aid agencies is no surprise to Dolan. "The organisations working on sexual and gender-based violence don't talk about it," he says. "It's systematically silenced. If you're very, very lucky they'll give it a tangential mention at the end of a report. You might get five seconds of: 'Oh and men can also be…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:39 AM
2

Feminism is a force for good here and is in no way equatable with 1st world gender feminism. Read this and tell me if you still think so.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 10:03 PM
6

But if she opens the door, exchanges greetings and introductions, and establishes a rapport by letting him take out her trash every day-- he's not really a stranger any more, is he? Don't get me wrong, even acquaintance rape isn't all that common, either (some overblown statistics to the contrary).
/r/MensRights29/07/12 04:27 AM
9

Wtf, Guardian??
/r/MensRights29/07/12 04:21 AM
18

Yeah, it's shitty situations like this that create a need for a men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 08:30 PM
16

Only if someone from SRS posts here goading him into it first. :P Also, that guy had a history of posting here and elsewhere. despite the fact that you have no actual history posting here. Says the 0 day old account. Nice try, troll.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 08:30 PM
5

Thank you. I'm not sure why my opinion on this, especially when I know for a fact that opinion is shared by many in /r/mr, is grounds for saying I'm not a "real" MRA. If I'm a secret feminist shill, it's been a really, really long troll...
/r/MensRights27/07/12 07:59 PM
3

Them not being clear that r/LadyMRAS is a female safe space or a feminist safe space.... That's because it's not supposed to be a "feminist" or "female" safe space, but an "everyone" safe space. I was very clear in my comment to Factory2 that, while I found it especially ironic that he was telling a woman to STFU for being a woman with an opinion on MR that differed from his in a forum for women MRAs, that I didn't find silencing men or women acceptable. What followed reminded me a little of rad…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 07:56 PM
0

I've seen most of the female regulars, myself included, make the same or similar arguments.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:42 PM
2

Most feminists support VAWA.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:40 PM
1

I'll have to take your word for it, I've never had one.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:06 PM
1

And besides all that, she wasn't claiming rape (according to OP) because she was drunk and couldn't consent; she concocted a forcible rape that never happened.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 04:24 PM
2

You may note that throughout this account OP notes how "Not the best decision" at various places. It's true that sometimes guys do everything "right" and still end up falsely charged with rape-- for example, the numerous cab drivers accused of rape or sexual assault by drunk girls who don't want to pay their fares. But drunken hookups are, frankly, asking for trouble, for all parties involved.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:44 PM
0

You could send the report, unaltered, to one of the mods. Up to you if you want to trust them, but all the mods here, as long as I've been here (about three years) have been stand up guys.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:39 PM
1

I still think you're reacting to a vocal extreme minority. Most of the people commenting are reacting to the circumcision, not who is doing it, unless that person makes an issue of why he's doing it or makes it about his identity group. The Germany thing is a perfect example. The Germans didn't make it about religion. The Jews are the ones calling it the "worst anti-Semitism since the Holocaust. Shame on Merkel, by the way, for caving to them. When every developed country on earth (just about) b…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 09:36 PM
3

Simon Pegg can objectify me any time he wants. As a side note, I repeatedly requested a slave-Leia costume back when I was 19 or 20 and could have not embarrassed myself. Too bad no one ever took me up on it...
/r/MensRights18/07/12 06:29 PM
6

Not just dressed up, but posed for a photo as well...
/r/MensRights18/07/12 06:19 PM
1

I'm not denying there are examples of anti-Semitism in this subreddit (like any subreddit), but, IMO (again, as a former Jew with a Jewish family who frequently clashes on this very topic, especially since I just had twin boys a few weeks ago and am very vocally not circumcising them), it's Jews who make it into anti-Semitism but insisting that intactivism is inherently anti-Semitic. TBH, I'm an atheist now, and I'm not overfond of any religion, Judaism included. I know religious circumcisions a…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:47 PM
10

There may be a sentencing disparity, but this case does not prove it. She took a plea deal; Sandusky went to trial.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 09:15 PM
3

We're both half right. The Santa Monica measure was withdrawn by the woman pushing it by June 7, due to pressure from Jewish groups. The San Francisco measure wasn't ruled on until July. The judge's decision was based on CA statute, yes, but there was also pressure from Jewish groups. Their stance was: The measure’s proponents argued that male circumcision has no health benefits and therefore cannot be considered a medical procedure under state law.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 09:10 PM
3

This really is a good piece. You need more upvotes. Edit: My favorite line, and tl;dr? "This is a steakhouse, and you’re a vegetarian. So get the fuck out."
/r/MensRights17/07/12 05:06 PM
8

That's a retarded Florida lawmaker. And I bet it didn't go through. May have, though, it is Florida. In any case, though, lawmaker != media.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:25 PM
14

Then it's kind of a shitty patriarchy, isn't it?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:18 PM
10

The heckling was not silencing Tosh. The overwhelming feminist response since-- including this article-- is. Being offended is fine. Stating as fact that Tosh was deliberately intimidating this woman back into her "place" with his rape joke is not. Do you see the difference?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:17 PM
5

As okay as can be expected w 2 newborns 3 weeks old (typing this lefthanded as I nurse one). Keep meaning to message you and vegibowl. I'll tyr to actually do that tonight.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:21 PM
3

I have to say I'm cut and don't have a problem with it - no issues here - everything's fine. But what if you did have a problem with it? If you did have issues? If everything weren't fine? How would you feel? What could you do about it? This subreddit is filled with guys who do have a problem with it, but there's not much they can do but rage at their parents after the fact.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:38 PM
3

I'm glad I was circumcised. The logical argument is that you had no way of knowing beforehand if you would have been glad or not (I'm assuming you were circumcised as an infant.) If you wanted to be circumcised that badly you could always have gotten it done as an adult, by your own decision. I just had twin boys a couple weeks ago. I don't feel that I-- or my husband-- have the right to make such a permanent, intimate decision for them. Any more than I would hack off my daughter's clitoral hood…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:35 PM
3

But is there a way to phrase this headline slightly less anti-semiticly? I thought about that too; I was raised Jewish and while I'm a militant atheist now, my family's still Jewish so outright antiSemitism still makes me ick. But the facts are facts; here in California, we had two measures proposed to locally ban circumcision (one in Santa Monica, one in San Francisco) and both were withdrawn before they got close to a vote because of pressure from Jewish groups. There's a lot of cultural inert…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:32 PM
10

I was ready to fight my husband fiercely over this, but, fortunately, in the end, I was very relieved I didn't have to. We just had twin boys a few weeks ago and they are intact and remaining so (unless they decide otherwise as adults).
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:28 PM
2

No, it's a heavily disputed scientific "fact."
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:26 PM
1

Prepuce. Foreskin is male.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 04:13 AM
1

http://mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm
/r/MensRights27/06/12 04:12 AM
4

If you define " rape " as something that can only be done with a penis, then, yeah, all rapists will, by definition, be men.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 10:13 PM
8

FTA: Human rights activist Keneth Mabonga told The Africa Report "Men were told to unzip on the streets to ascertain whether they had been circumcised. That is not only unfair but also inhuman."
/r/MensRights24/06/12 07:40 PM
1

The original comment I replied to was: why did this child decide to be Jewish and get circumscribed. If only he had made better decisions with his life he would be alive today. I questioned whether Judaism had anything directly to do with it, considering the mother was from Ghana. I had not previously heard about this "holistic circumcision" nonsense. "I am told (of course, no first hand accounts) that heaven is like a stadium. The better you are, the better your seat. All things equal, a Jew wi…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:11 PM
1

I had difficulty finding year-by-year numbers, but this 1997 paper from JAMA says: Since the age range of males participating in the NHSLS was 18 to 59 years, estimates of the prevalence of neonatal circumcision can be calculated for the years 1933 to 1974. As shown in the Figure, the steady increase in circumcision rates among respondents during much of this period reflects the increase identified by other investigators.2 The proportion of newborns that were circumcised reached 80% in the years…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:33 PM
1

Don't ask me, I have no idea why anyone would have anyone circumcise their baby. Every source-- including this one-- says there are so few Jews in Ghana they are basically not worth even counting.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:07 PM
1

So 1 out of 3 of his clients aren't Jewish, but you're asking me why a non-Jew would have a rabbi circumcise her baby? Don't ask me, I have no idea why anyone would have anyone circumcise their baby, but from from your own link, Rabbis/mohels circumcise enough non-Jews. Incidentally, just so you know, "goyim" is a very pejorative word. And it's plural. "Goy" is singular.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 07:36 AM
2

WHAT?? He raped those little boys. It's not even like this was otherwise consensual sex. One of the testified he was calling out for help from the back of Sandusky's house. WTF is wrong with you?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 11:04 PM
1

All of them. Pick a topic, and we can be more specific.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:52 PM
1

You should submit this to mensrightslinks, if you haven't already.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:50 PM
0

Feminism has a long and storied intellectual history ...of making shit up. Like rape being the tool that men use to keep women fearful. Or all heterosexual sex being rape.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:47 PM
1

Cut soldiers experienced far fewer problems downstairs than uncut men in the field. Citation?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:33 PM
1

The ONLY reason I can see for it and it's shaky at best because it should be a choice for them is if they were in a jewish family. There are no Jewish babies, only babies born to Jewish families. There are growing movements in the more liberal Jewish sects against circumcision (Jews Against Circumcision and Beyond the Bris). Also, we don't let Muslims use religion to justify female circumcision. I acknowledge you said it was a "shaky at best" reason, but IMO, it's not even that.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:31 PM
1

Why does it matter? Or are you just curious?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:27 PM
2

So circumcisions performed by ultra-Orthodox in New York City where the mohel sucks the blood from the wound with his mouth after the circumcision, that doesn't happen? The circumcision done a week ago or so on a kitchen table in someone's home where the baby was not restrained, fell off the table, and fracture his skull, that never happened? The post just today about the baby who literally bled to death from his circumcision? Meanwhile, there are no female circumcisions performed under sterile …
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:24 PM
2

Probably because they are done for different reasons and ones not done in a hospital, not some third world scary place. I care about female, i dont think male is important. The reasons are not as dissimilar as you think. The circumcision craze in America started because Victorian health "experts" such as John Harvey Kellogg advocated it for reducing masturbation. The whole point was that it curbed sexual sensitivity and sex drive. Just like FGM is supposed to "calm" women's "overactive" orgasms.…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:20 PM
1

Guys, he's asking us why it's a big deal. It's an opportunity-- why are we downvoting? There are no substantiated major health benefits. There are no hygienic benefits. It is a highly sensitive part of the penis with several functions, including sexual ones. Many complications are not evident until puberty or until the boy becomes sexually active. It's surgery of a man's most intimate organ, and should not be taken lightly. If there is no pressing medical need, it should not be done. Any other r…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:12 PM
1

Moms an R.n. it also has health benifits to it like infections and such. RNs don't know everything. My mother-in-law is an RN as well, a very good one, but she didn't know that you don't retract a newborn's foreskin. Plus it's a pain to wash if your bed ridden. Really? It's that hard to pull it back and sponge it off? I'm almost 9 months pregnant with twins and you should see the contortions I have to go through to try to get parts I haven't even seen in months properly rinsed out. I guarantee i…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:04 PM
2

There was actually a post in here, maybe a month ago or so, saying that if circumcision is okay because you can't remember it, then date rape when the girl is unconscious and won't remember it must be okay too. Got a lot of people up in arms ("OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST COMPARED CUTTING OFF A FLAP OF SKIN TO RAAAAAAAPE!!!")
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:02 PM
2

I am a male who was not circumcised at birth and I can honestly say I have been bullied in locker rooms (not to a serious extent, so much as a 'dude, what the fuck?' extent) about the fact that I'm a 'turtle neck' and not a 'helmet'. "Dude, what the fuck?" is not "bullying."
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:59 PM
3

She makes an interesting point with the whole "gender neutral" thing. In my opinion, parents who raise their kids with no sense of gender norms do them a disservice. I understand what they're trying to do, but saying "It's society that's wrong!" is cold comfort when you're still getting beat up three years later for that time you wore pink nail polish (as a boy) to school. If you could explain the full ramifications of the whole thing-- yes, you should be able to wear a frilly dress, Timmy, but …
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:28 PM
2

Agreed. You're not the first person to suggest this strategy. It's a valid strategy. Just not one I can agree with.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:22 PM
1

Boy babies bleeding to death because of genital mutilation allowed for boys but not girls?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:17 PM
1

Jewish from Ghana? I doubt it.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:13 PM
1

No, you're being an ass too.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:49 PM
1

If there was a rape then there are consequences. If a rape is proven, there are legal consequences, yes. If as his story is laid out is a false accusation for the false accuser there should be a punishment for trying to ruins some ones life when the accusation has been proven false. And how has the accusation been, in any way, "proven" false? We have just as much evidence that it happened as it didn't.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 03:07 AM
1

Just because a strategy would work doesn't make a good strategy.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:40 PM
0

First of all the overwhelming majority of rape allegations have turned out to be false based on various studies. Citation? I have seen one study with a relatively small sample, in the Air Force, that got somewhere around 60%, and that's the highest I've seen, and the only one over 50%. And now with DNA testing it can disprove accusations if they turn out false. DNA evidence Will be present. Not necessarily. The only DNA evidence that conclusively proves sex took place is semen in the vagina (or …
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:39 PM
1

Absolute agreement there.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:44 PM
1

So we're just role reversing the Duluth model now?
/r/MensRights22/06/12 05:26 PM
1

Will Smith (as the Fresh Prince, the rapper, not the show), was at least concurrent with Hammer, if not predating him.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 01:56 PM
15

Our chief weapon is oppression!
/r/MensRights22/06/12 01:43 PM
2

i am not attractive, far from it And in light of that pic, smacks of compliment-fishing.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:45 AM
2

I like to think, at least, that the source of the confusion for a lot of these guys is that they don't do that, it wouldn't occur to them to do that, and (as far as they know), they don't hang out with people who do it, so, while they may be aware it may happen here and there, they don't realize just how much it happens. This isn't a "WAH WE WOMEN CAN'T LEAVE OUR HOMES OR GO ONLINE WITHOUT BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WITH WOOOOORDS!!!" just a confirmation that a. most of us can tell the difference …
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:30 AM
0

the only Problem people have with it is it's the the specific persons they want to ogle them. InfinitelyThirsting is right; I'm getting fucking sick of seeing this. I'm not wild about anyone ogling me, though I'm not as outraged as whoever made that graphic. It doesn't have anything to do with who's doing the ogling.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:25 AM
1

Children do not have the same rights as adults because they 1. do not have the capacity to exercise those rights safely (for themselves or others) and 2. they do not have the same responsibilities as adults and have not earned those rights. Two is less valid than it used to be. Yes, adults need to maintain authority over children without fear of lawsuits. Otherwise a kid could sue his parents every time they ground him. There are some human rights that are universally granted. Temporary bodily i…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 05:06 AM
1

It's not illegal to smoke cigarettes underage. It is against most school rules to possess or smoke them though. And there may actually be local laws in some places prohibiting smoking on school grounds. However, unlike smoking, "underage drinking" is against the law. It is illegal for minors to purchase or otherwise obtain, possess, OR consume alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, the school did not have authority to punish him for off-campus smoking, unless they had a rule about not leaving the sch…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:59 AM
2

Okay, but they're not even all that rare. You just need to find yourself a better (geekier) class of women.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:54 AM
1

you changed you original response, but not the last sentence. Kind of makes my post look odd now. I don't think I did. I may have added in the "equality," I remember I had trouble finding a good word. "Equality" still isn't really the word I want.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:52 AM
4

Most of those adults have some kind of established relationship. It is a very rare woman that you can proposition out the blue on the street or even in an establishment such as a bar or restaurant and have her say, "Okay, sure."
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:50 AM
1

That's really what you take from that? That I'm saying this will prevent them from raping babies? You are sorely mistaken, dude. That's why I asked you for clarification. The Masaba people are highly superstitious and very unlikely to trust our practices over their own. Then I ask again, why do they cite the protection against AIDS/HIV?
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:49 AM
2

Holding someone down and injecting them against their will isn't assault? Of course there's a difference-- just as there's a difference between "allowing people to molest their children" and consenting to a school official, in presence of witnesses, to search their child.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:47 AM
3

That's when you know you're doing it right.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:46 AM
3

It doesn't work. It encourages pedophile paranoia. It covers such a broad range of offenses as to be meaningless. It is nearly impossible to get off of it once you are put on it. It only warns you about sex offenders who were caught. It encourages witch hunts, of the type we see here on reddit, IRL. That's just off the top of my head.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:45 AM
1

"You people" was clearly aimed at those who were saying all women only go for guys with high-priced cars (or houses, or expensive clothes, or whatever).
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:58 AM
0

Well, there's not really anything I can say to a completely unjustified character attack like that, is there?
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:54 AM
1

I also think it's worth noting that she was so misandrist in this piece she managed to alienate almost all the commenters here, even though I suspect I'm the only actual anti-abortionist who's commented so far.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:50 AM
3

Am I crazy to read this as him being so terrified of expressing an opinion contrary to the feminist ideology that he prefers to shut up? This has been my experience as well-- and I'm not even a feminist! I ask the men I'm with what their opinion is and they immediately say some variation of, "Whatever you want to do."
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:47 AM
2

You don't have to understand it to acknowledge that these men genuinely grieve.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:38 AM
2

You're basically saying a man is only allowed to grieve over an abortion if he supports it as well (if you're even allowing that's okay), and you're calling the protesters brutish assholes? Pro-choice or not, you can't have a shred of empathy?
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:37 AM
-1

Because there's nothing wrong with a man being angry or feeling betrayed because the woman he thought he loved just murdered his baby.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:34 AM
1

My favorite part is how she bitches about how pro-choice men don't give their opinions. And pro-choice women have encouraged their silence, because we've learned the hard way that whenever we get men involved in these discussions, we're vastly raising the risk that some of them are going to try to assert control over our choices. So, a man's only allowed to have an opinion on abortion if it's the "right"one (i.e., pro-choice). Anything else is a patriarchal bid to "control" women. I couldn't sto…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:32 AM
1

I was saying the generalization was ridiculous.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:14 AM
3

When I was in college (late 90s-early 2000s), girls started to wear sweatpants with words across their asses. Words like "Hot Stuff" or "Cutie," etc. Before our daughter was even born (she's not quite two now), my husband and I agreed, unanimously and with no discussion necessary, that that would be one article of clothing absolutely banned in our house. No daughter of ours is going around in sweatpants-- or, worse, little short-shorts-- with "JUICY" emblazoned across the ass.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 10:32 PM
1

Girls with yoga pants are a perfect example. What? When did yoga pants become "revealing?" I wear them (as a last resort, I hate not having pockets) because they're sometimes the only thing I have that's clean and doesn't have holes and fits my 37+ week pregnant ass (well, belly, but whatever).
/r/MensRights21/06/12 10:30 PM
1

Come on, Factory, you can do better than calling me a feminist.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 10:29 PM
1

My current husband was driving an ancient, beat-up, hand-me-down Volvo station wagon when I first met him. My first husband was driving a Ford Tempo when I first met him. You people are being ridiculous.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 09:30 PM
1

MR seems to be having an extra dose of wtf floating around the last day or so.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 09:27 PM
2

Just asking a strange women if she would be interested in sex is an automatic "sexual harassment" charge. Yeah, because unless you're at a swinger convention or something, it's wildly inappropriate. You're technically correct about the definition of "harassment," but propositioning a strange woman is not a "basic question."
/r/MensRights21/06/12 09:08 PM
1

I'm 34 and I've been gaming since I was about 8.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 09:04 PM
1

I thought prenatal DNA testing had been around for a while? There's two different kinds, the first is available starting around week 10.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 09:02 PM
0

Well, rereading it, according to her, she actually ran her finger around the outside of the waistband. Agreed that it went way to far in any case. Not every act of humiliation is sexual assault, and there is no proof the AP was being deliberately humiliating. Searching the kid at all would have to provoke some embarrassment.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:54 PM
1

Because there are very few relationships taking place between high school age girls and 30+ men based on mutual respect, regard, and equality. She'll be happy as a clam-- right up until he dumps her and her baby.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:52 PM
0

It's worthless from top to bottom with regards to subjectivity at every level of the process. And it absolutely disproportionately affects men. Wouldn't a background check reveal arrests and convictions?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:50 PM
0

Well, slightly better. A three year old might pick up a $20 bill, but probably would not be devious enough to conceal it on his person like that (in his shoe, or underwear). Makes a strip-search less easy to justify.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:48 PM
0

Straw man, straw man, straw man, misogyny. Good to see you're staying in character.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:47 PM
0

Let me try to explain again. I agree, as I just said, that men should never be convicted based solely on someone's words. However, you seemed to be arguing that there will always be evidence that a rape took place, if one did indeed take place, and that absence of said evidence is in fact evidence that the woman is falsely accusing. I am disputing that; there can be a lack of evidence of sex, especially if the girl delayed in getting an exam and/or rape kit done. There can definitely be no evide…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:40 PM
1

replace man and woman with "black person" and "white person." does that change your position? Um... no? I think we need to stop harassing black people, not harass white people more.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:29 PM
1

Having been in highschool, I knew plenty of girls that were pregnant by and/or dating 30+ year old men. And you don't find that fucking creepy?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:28 PM
0

I don't think the solution to injustice is more injustice, no.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:19 PM
2

Yes because you don't understand what the concept of Proof vs words vs innocent until PROVEN guilty means. You keep saying this, over and over and over. Please show me where I said anything that indicates that I think the accuser's word should be used as proof to convict accused rapists. Ever. Once you understand that you and I agree on this point, and always have, perhaps we can move on to where we may disagree.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:18 PM
1

I recognize your strategy as a valid one, but I can't personally agree with it.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:16 PM
2

You forget that Africans are inherently distrusting of Western NGO's, medical groups, etc. Then why are they citing their propaganda as justification? Really, though, none of that matters when you take into account that the circumcision ceremony is older than God knows what. But now they have Western backing for it. Which, again, appears to mean something since they explicitly mentioned it. Do you have any idea how many HIV/AIDS myths exist in Africa? From raping babies to eating the deformed, t…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:15 PM
1

I think the school should have called the mother and at least gotten consent. I think the strip-search was extreme, and the apology entirely lacking. I do not think the "reasonable suspicion" was that unreasonable, though, and I don't necessarily blame the AP for not taking the boy's word for it.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:09 PM
0

She strip-searched a ten-year-old boy.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:06 PM
1

It was the same administrator, this Warren person.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:06 PM
1

Yes, it is bullshit-- so let's do away with the ridiculous thing altogether.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:05 PM
2

Speak for yourself; I'm against the entire sex offender registry as a concept, for anyone.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:01 PM
-1

Wait, what? Parents can't give consent for doctors to examine their children, or perform medical procedures (such as vaccinations) on them? News to me.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:00 PM
2

took a child into a room alone to strip search. Just want to clarify facts: "In her office, and with a male janitor present, she had Justin take off clothes until he was down to a T-shirt and boxers."
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:58 PM
1

But the answer is to calm down about male teachers, not fly into the same paranoia induced flurry for female teachers.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:34 PM
1

Just to clarify the underwear thing (which I agree went too far), she ran a finger around the waistband (presumably to make sure he didn't tuck the money in there). The quote from the mother makes it sound like she felt up his junk, which, according to the prior article, did not happen. The new "invasive" searches by airport security are worse than this. (Again, not that this make it okay.) But it also doesn't make it sexual abuse or assault, either. Any more than taking naked pictures of your k…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:33 PM
1

You're trying to twist "treat both men and women better" to "treat women different than men." Quit it.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:28 PM
2

If that's proper and just, then she should be too. But we all agree that that's not proper and just. So while it's fine to point out the double standard, let's fight to free the male teachers, not incarcerate the female teachers with them.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:25 PM
2

Some people are missing the "put no one on it" part.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:23 PM
1

But don't you see that that's not the same thing as advocating that Group A should get the same retarded treatment as Group B, instead of applying the same lenient treatment to group B that Group A gets?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:22 PM
5

Would be fair would be to get rid of the sex offender registry for everyone.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:12 PM
0

If you have something worth saying, I'll be happy to reply. As it stands, you just repeated your same comment for the third time.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:07 PM
1

If you read the whole case, it says that children do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at school and that school officials are allowed, under reasonable suspicion, to search students. Possible debate over whether two teachers' and several students' accounts are "reasonable suspicion."
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:42 PM
1

There's true respect that you give people who have earned it. The kind of respect most people have for their parents, or other people they look up to. And then there's a different kind of respect, an obligatory societal kind of respect that you give people regardless of whether they earned it or not, because they have the power to completely fuck your life up. You want to tell the police to fuck off to their faces? Go ahead, but sooner or later, you're going to get a beat down and locked up. Thi…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:40 PM
1

I'm glad you turned out okay then. And I agree parents in general and fathers in particular should be more engaged with their kids. Just remember, though, most parents think they have good communication with their kids. Most parents are wrong.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:37 PM
1

I agree with everything you just said there. And yeah, when you're a teenager, being obnoxious is par for the course. It doesn't mean you were right to be that obnoxious, though, and I thought your father set a terrible example (since he's not a teenager) and was wrong to condone your obnoxiousness. A school or a random stop by a police officer is different because if you are doing nothing wrong you shouldn't have to be searched. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but weren't you, by your own admi…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:35 PM
1

"Johnnie, you've lied to people in the past. You've lied to me in the past. I thought you were lying to me this time, even though you weren't. Do you understand why I had to punish you couldn't believe you this time?" I still disagree that the search was a "punishment." That said, all this hinges on hearsay Eyewitness accounts are not hearsay. They're obviously only as reliable as the witness, but they're not hearsay. And Person C is just speculating, which isn't hearsay, it's speculation. Hears…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:27 PM
1

I'm sorry I flipped out, but you guys are treating a school like a court of law, and you just can't manage a large number of kids that way. Kids do not have the same rights as adults. As I said, I don't agree with the strip search. I do think the kid's mom should have been called (and, incidentally, no mention of the father?). And I do think the double standard is a valid men's rights issue. I just don't agree with all the "OMG!! THEY VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS!!" comments.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:23 PM
1

"Reasonable suspicion" can be pretty broad. You are aware these days cops can claim to smell marijuana smoke and use that as "reasonable suspicion?"
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:07 PM
1

The taunting and so forth going on were not required to protect his bodily integrity. No one even touched him except for the one cop, who, severely provoked, pushed him once. but you don't get mad at the victim for standing up for themselves. As I mentioned in my other comment to you, this guy as a kid was not a "victim." They had reasonable suspicion, and he was fucking guilty (of smoking cigarettes).
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:06 PM
1

The problem is, respect is earned, not guaranteed. You disrespect authority at your own peril. As I replied to RaptorPrincess, standing up for your rights is one thing. Name calling, taunting, and generally being an obnoxious shit is another. He got away with it there because he was a kid and his father rode in and took his side. If he tried that today with a cop who pulled him over for a traffic stop he'd end up in jail. to enforce a violation of his civil rights. How was this a violation of hi…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:01 PM
1

Some kids lie more than others. It's possible the principle was biased against the kid for whatever reason, but it's equally possible that the kid really is completely untrustworthy.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:49 PM
1

There is rarely "absolute proof" in a case, and kids accuse each other of all kinds of things all the time. You're just being silly now.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:48 PM
1

I admit I was not aware of that case. It is very possible you are right. (I only hesitate because case law can be complex and often contradictory, and I'm not prepared to research this more thoroughly myself right now.)
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:48 PM
3

I am aware of the disgusting practices going on in Africa that purportedly "cure" AIDS. But I think it's a mistake to say, "Well, it's better than raping babies." I mean, yes, obviously it is, but that doesn't make it good. And the fact is, the WHO is aiding this particular practice by endorsing it and telling people it prevents HIV/AIDS. Would this be happening without the WHO recommendation and circumcision push in Africa? Impossible to say, of course, but the fact that the leader is citing HI…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:41 PM
1

Sometimes I feel that some of the less serious or sarcastic remarks here turns away non MRAs or anti-MRAs TBH, that's not an argument that will be well-received here, either, but it's more valid than "If I were the OP I'd be offended by that comment." I personally agree the rhetoric could stand to be toned down some-- but I also understand where it's coming from (as I wrote about in my first comment to you), and since I cannot (nor would I want to) ban or have removed comments like that, I opt i…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:34 PM
0

Check some articles about this. There's definately medical evidence to be found, including DNA, signs of intercourse etc. No, that's not how it works. You have to present your own evidence. I'm not interested in proving your argument for you. Your second sentence, you just repeat yourself from before, almost verbatim. Plus you ignore the part where both parties admit sex was had, but the accuser says it wasn't consensual and the accused says it was. Evidence of sex proves absolutely nothing ther…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:27 PM
1

Probably because of threads like this. Where, in response to a case where there is no solid evidence either way and the accuser refuses to recant, people are still calling for prosecution.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:17 PM
1

Charges for false accusation should only be brought if there is solid evidence that the woman lied (as in this case) or the woman herself recants her story (which will almost certainly happen less often if there is a punishment that is actually enforced for false accusations). Therefore, no woman who was actually raped should be afraid to come forward, because, while there may be a lack of evidence that it happened, there shouldn't be any evidence that she's making it up.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:15 PM
2

He makes it sound like he made this big public announcement... I must have missed it too.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:11 PM
-2

Thats true, its just shocking that this is allowed in the first place. If they had found the money would it have justified the strip search? I dont think so. Well, that's debatable. I agree that if we were talking about adults, absolutely not. But kids are not the same as adults, they lack the same responsibilities, rights, and judgment. But I understand there will be varying viewpoints on this-- for example, many parents see nothing wrong with going through their kid's things and find an expect…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:27 AM
1

So because I found the way he was complaining and the place he was complaining in inappropriate, I'm limiting his emotion? I'm sorry, but if I was asking people for advice because I was in trouble, and someone made a sarcastic remark that doesn't help me at all, I'd be annoyed with that person. But OP wasn't. You're being incredibly narrow-minded to insist that everyone react exactly the way you would. And stop being so passive aggressive by calling me unempathetic or privileged. I didn't call y…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:21 AM
-3

It was the "fuck offs" and the "perverted pigs" and "Started going off on them about wanting to feel me up and all this other stuff (being super obnoxious) to the point one of the officers told me to shut the fuck up and pushed me. At that point I told the officer he had assaulted me and I wanted them to call my father immediatly." And the oh-so-wonderful example set by the father, "He came down barged into the priciples office, layed into his ass about calling me a liar and said if I said I was…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:08 AM
0

First, fine, attack the double standard. As I said, valid point. The "princess" thing was clearly an attack on the little girl. To be honest and fair, we have no idea how this school would have handled the situation had the little boy accused the little girl with the history of lying of taking the money. All the double-standard ranting I've seen in this thread is a male principle strip searching a female student, but what about a female teacher or the female assistant principle? It's also hard t…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:03 AM
-2

Yeah, but you clearly followed your dad's example of having absolutely no respect for the school or police.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:00 AM
1

A condom doesn't prevent DNA evidence, signs of sexual intercourse etc. What "signs" of sexual intercourse? Unless examined within minutes after the alleged assault. And, in any case, many times the accused will stipulate to sex occurring-- but assert that it was consensual. And a condom doesn't prevent evidence such as hair or whatever, but anything short of semen in the vagina doesn't prove sex, either. Yes and this doesn't happen yet in practice, because of VAWA etc. But two wrongs do not mak…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:59 AM
1

Wikipedia article Legal dictionary My impression is that it's been gradually whittled away over the years by "helicopter parents" who can't stand having their authority usurped by some uppity schoolteacher.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:56 AM
-2

I agree that it's fishy that the money showed up... while he was somewhere else, being searched for it. The timeline is not as clear cut as this. But just to be clear, I'm not saying it's fishy as in, positively indicating his guilt. However, now that you put it that way, they specifically say the teacher swears it wasn't there before the kid was searched. Obviously the money wasn't on him. So how could he have dropped it later? So I'm not sure why the principle is still trying to imply the kid …
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:54 AM
0

True to an extent, but if you were at the mall and a security guard decided to strip-search your toddler because a woman accused your child of shoplifting and the knowledge that your child has lied in the past was used to justify it... what would your stance be? Totally different circumstances. And while the school had the right to search him, I think they should have called his mother first and at least gotten her consent. But a mall rent-a-cop has no in loco parentis over my child. Most stores…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:13 AM
-4

How about this--since the kid wasn't caught doing shit, how about we presume innocence? This isn't a court of law, it's a school. One of the reasons the kid wasn't caught doing shit was because he was searched and did not have the money on him. There's certainly no proof he did anything wrong, and I'm not saying he did. I'm saying we don't know, and there was ample reason to suspect him.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:09 AM
2

Absolutely, those are all possibilities too. What I'm objecting to is the assumption that he didn't do anything wrong, and, more importantly, that there was no reason to suspect him. theres no indication in the article that the kid did anything wrong at all. There's no proof the kid did anything wrong. There was plenty of reason to suspect him, assuming the assistant principle is telling the truth.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:05 AM
-1

"Justin said that he did not have the money and to ‘search me,’" Holmes said, adding that the boy, over the course of the school year, had lied many times.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:03 AM
-1

Yes, and several teachers who had searched the area swore it was not there before. Maybe they're shitty searchers, or maybe it wasn't there before. But it doesn't call for the shit being heaped on the little girl in this thread.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:42 PM
-2

It has to do with Mens Rights because if the person being stripped searched was a little girl, there would be public outrage. This reflects the lack of value placed on boys and men Valid point. And they can accuse him of whatever they want, they can ask him to turn out his pockets too. But they CANNOT strip search ANY child. Well, yes, they can, the question is whether they should. The princess part I think was poor choice by OP. But reflects on the fact that this little girl's word was enough t…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:31 PM
4

Wait, what? For what? For saying a little boy took her money? Jesus Christ. This isn't a fucking false rape claim. It's either a big misunderstanding or petty thievery blown WAY out of proportion. I don't agree with the school's response, but, seriously, this is not a fucking human rights violation.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:26 PM
2

In loco parentis. Go look it up.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:25 PM
-5

And we wonder why kids have no respect for authority these days...
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:24 PM
2

She was. In loco parentis-- the school is empowered to take parental responsibility for the students. Including being able to search them.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:21 PM
-8

Whoa, whoa... according to the teachers there, the money was not on the floor previously, and that it was extremely fishy that it suddenly turned up there. The kid wasn't "punished," he was searched because witnesses said he picked up the money. The boy had, according to the assistant principle, lied "many times" previously; it's not sexism if the girl in this case happened to be more credible. And it's obviously entirely possible it went down exactly the way the assistant principle seems to sus…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:19 PM
1

I think the search was extreme. But, as the mother of a not-even two-year-old who repeatedly and glibly lies and when called out seems to find it very funny, I'm not sure I blame her for not believing a known liar when multiple witnesses, both teachers and students, said they saw him pick up the money.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:13 PM
1

Holding people publicly accountable for what they say in a public court of law or to the police is not a witch hunt. It is right and proper. Accusing someone of lying when there is no proof that they did so is, in principle, as bad as accusing someone of rape when there is no proof. They need to be held publicly accountable when the authorities fail to do their job in prosecuting them. There are good reasons why vigilantism is against the law. You're theoretically advocating for "legal" retribut…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:42 PM
2

It usually can be proven with sufficient research and medical checks. How? Lack of physical evidence could just prove that she doesn't tear easily, and that he used a condom. In anyway the accused must Always be considered innocent until proven guilty. It should not no different here. There's too many cases of false abuse accusations based on mere words already. If you mean the person accused of rape, absolutely. But the accuser is protected under that same principle.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:37 PM
0

Due to the belief that anyone born of a Jewish mother is in fact Jewish, despite their faith. Hence, how you create an Atheist Jew. The only people I see ever making serious, passionate arguments for this are white supremacists looking to add to their Final Solution lists and Israelis who want to inflate the number of Jews by any means possible. By these definitions, I'm an atheist Jew, a phrase that is by its very nature self-contradictory. It's a religion that, like many religions, has a cultu…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:35 PM
1

I doubt anyone is taking this guy (or this publication) seriously. Notice he can't even maintain proper capitalization...
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:30 PM
3

I didn't think it would be a common thing, but that was the only other place I could think of that would be so fanatical about circumcision.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:28 PM
13

Also, for those who might say "Oh, this doesn't have anything to do with the WHO, it's a cultural/tribal thing"-- from the first link: The leader of the exercise, Badru Wasike said the circumcision exercise was both a cultural and health exercise. "We are helping those who feared getting circumcised through cultural processes. We are aware that circumcised men do not easily get infected with HIV/Aids. Since they love our relatives we want them to be safe," he explained. [emphasis added]
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:04 PM
15

My first reaction was "Africa or Israel?"
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:01 PM
0

That may be your usage, but it isn't the definition or how I have seen or heard it mainly used. Please show me any examples of it being used any other way, outside of some kind of sociological or anthropological usage. I was raised Jewish and I have literally never seen it used in any other way. I'm not buying that, especially not in the context of this discussion. If you're calling me a liar, then this discussion is over.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:17 PM
1

Trolling a two week old comment? That's a new low.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:14 PM
1

Your talking about a standard for repercussions against someone who, in this case at least, hasn't been "proven" to have done anything other than make an accusation. We have OPs word that said accusation is false. Why should there be consequences based on someone's word for false accusations but not rape itself?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:59 PM
1

I'm a man. But by all means if it helps you to think of me as a woman, go ahead. Even though men and women face their own separate pressures and fears, and similar ones too. But obviously experiencing these emotions is limited to only one gender. /sarcarm You're the one calling him immature for how he's expressing his anger, not me. You're the one limiting his emotions and how he expresses them for no apparent reason. If you were a woman, I'd attribute it to female privilege, but since you're no…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:57 PM
-1

I am aware of what "Semitic" means. However, in common parlance, we don't use "anti-Semitic" to refer to ethnic or geographical origin. We do not use it for anti-Arab activities or beliefs. We use it exclusively for anti-Jewish ones, regardless of the origin of the Jews in question. Therefore, "anti-Semitic" no longer refers to a racial or ethnic designation, but a religious one. I've never heard it used, ever, to apply to Muslims, who are also largely Semitic. Please find and highlight my use o…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:47 PM
-1

No one said it was racist, they said it appeared anti-Semitic. As in, anti-Jewish. Like unnecessarily emphasizing someone's religion, when that religion happens to be Jewish. If it isn't sexist to point out that the false accuser is a woman and the accused is a man, then how is including these facts different? Interesting you should point that out, I just pointed out in another comment how hypocritical it is to defend highlighting religion for no reason when MR bitches (validly) about male perpe…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:19 PM
-1

Yes, I would. I am aware of people who call themselves that, and certainly people are free to call themselves whatever they want, but Judaism is a religion, and as far as I'm concerned, the only people who claim different are white supremacists making hit lists or Israelis who want to claim as many people as they can as "Jews." You can convert to Judaism. You can't convert to being Hispanic or Japanese or Italian.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:16 PM
0

She hasn't fled anything since she isn't charged with anything. I agree with your assessment, but the headline on the last article did use the word "flee," so the OP didn't completely make that up. On everything else, yeah, I agree. It's especially hypocritical coming from a movement that likes to point out (validly) that mainstream media of all types are very fond of highlighting the gender of a perpetrator when that perpetrator is male.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:12 PM
-1

The number of anti-Semitic claims made in the media has absolutely no relevance to how many accusations of anti-Semitism are made against the intactivist movement, or how much credence those claims are given by the general public.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:10 PM
-1

People are free to call themselves whatever the fuck they want, but as far as I personally am concerned, there is no such thing as an "atheist Jew."
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:08 PM
-1

It's not that weird in New York (or here in Los Angeles, where I live). From what I could tell, one of the reasons this was big news in NY is because there are long-standing issues between the neighboring Orthodox Jewish and African American communities in Brooklyn. It could also explain why she cried rape-- if she was having crazy sex with two black guys on the down low and her community or worse, her family found out about it, it's a way to deflect blame (in no way excusing it). However, it be…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:07 PM
1

And thank you for that.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:46 PM
1

Two wrongs don't make a right, and Internet witch hunts never go well. Doxxing is always a mistake.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:45 PM
1

And isn't that the same argument being used to lower the standard of evidence against accused rapists-- exclusively men in practice-- across the country and world?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:44 PM
1

This girl has not been proven a false accuser. I don't mind taking the OP at his word as far as giving him advice on how to deal with this, or giving him support or sympathy, but that doesn't extend to automatically ruining someone else's life on his word alone, just as it was wrong of her to do it to him. Two wrongs do not make a right. There are cases where evidence proves the accuser is lying, or the accuser herself recants. There, consequences are entirely appropriate. Not in he-said/she-sai…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:43 PM
1

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not doxxing. Internet witch hunts never go well. I'm like some of register-her.com, in theory, but I think it goes way too far. Public records, btw, are NOT "there for" "publicizing bad behavior." They are there for public transparency to prevent secret trials and star chambers. Just because nothing technically illegal is on register-her.com (and that's open to debate), doesn't mean it's ethical or a good idea.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:40 PM
-2

Well, only the last article is about her fleeing to Israel, but every single one mentions her being an "Ultra Orthodox Jew."
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:27 PM
-2

Well, only the last article is about her fleeing to Israel, but every single one mentions her being an "Ultra Orthodox Jew."
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:27 PM
1

There is a difference between the cases where we know the accuser lied and the prosecutor still refuses to pursue charges, and cases where she refuses to recant and it cannot be proven that she lied and so the prosecutor's hands are tied.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:26 PM
1

I would like to see how mature you would stay under similar circumstances. But you are probably a woman, like me, and would never be under similar circumstances. So it's easy to make pot shots at "maturity" level.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:25 PM
-3

"Black" is not an "ethnicity," it's a race. "Jewish" is not an "ethnicity," it's a religion.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:15 PM
-1

I would say it gives the people who accuse of of being anti-Semitic for being anti-circ more of a leg to stand on.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:14 PM
1

Again, though, he's not entitled to be a little angry about the whole situation?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:13 AM
1

You appeared to be referring to the go comment ( was top comment at the time). As for the post-- OP (assuming he is telling the truth) had a horrible experience which isn't over by a long shot. He's not entitled to some venting that someone can attempt to completely ruin his life do easily and with impunity? He's quite correct that if there were more of a legal and social stigma on false accusations, women would not make them so much. As it stands, though, there are, quite literally, no conseque…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:11 AM
2

Assuming this guy is telling the truth, and we have no reason that I know of to doubt him, he will have that arrest on his record the rest of his life. Every time he goes to apply for a job; every time he goes to apply for any kind of government assistance; every time he applies to an institute of higher learning; anywhere that performs a background check-- it will show up that he was arrested for rape. If he should be unfortunate enough to be falsely accused again, this arrest could be used as …
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:26 AM
2

Why would that turn women off from MRAs? He's clearly commenting, not on women themselves, but on a justice system that systematically favors women. Even if 99% of women never take advantage of such a system, it's a major problem that the 1% who do are allowed and even encouraged in many situations to do so.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:18 AM
1

Granted but lack of evidence doesn't always mean automatic guilt.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:13 AM
1

Sometimes the circlejerk of a subreddit gets worked up and forgets the other side of a story... /r/mensrights sometimes forgets Whoa, that's an awful big generalization about an awful big subreddit.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:12 AM
1

Vaginal tearing is not proof of rape. Similarly, pubic hears and saliva merely prove sex took place, not whether that sex was consensual. There will be some cases where proving sex took place would be enough, but in many the accused admits sex took place but that it was consensual.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:10 AM
3

So, other than maybe the fleeing to Israel, why is it relevant that she's Jewish?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:00 AM
0

Do you have a daughter? Because, objectively, I agree with you, but emotionally, death by head injury wasn't nearly painful enough.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:56 AM
2

It certainly got attention, it was posted at least four times that I saw (I deleted mine when I saw it was already posted).
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:49 AM
4

Everybody can clean themselves now a days and there is no need to even keep such a tradition alive. FTFY
/r/MensRights19/06/12 08:55 PM
1

If I understood the article, they were doing it on a kitchen table and the baby rolled off.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 08:54 PM
2

You have any proof for that statement? One small study showed 60% (in the Air Force I believe); that's the only figure over 50% I've seen.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 08:46 PM
2

"Women" don't treat men this way. Individual crazy bitches treat men this way. This is no different from saying "if men rape women, then misandry is totally justified."
/r/MensRights19/06/12 04:46 PM
1

There are numerous issues with the health care law the Obama administration passed. The main point, which you continue to miss, is that this statement does not belong in men's rights. I'm not really interested in arguing over the ACA in general. I have already said that there are parts of the ACA which are discriminatory towards men. Beyond that, it's bringing partisan politics into an area that really doesn't need it.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 04:38 PM
1

"Uppity?"
/r/MensRights19/06/12 07:11 AM
1

I'm a girl (am I allowed to post here? I like this subreddit a lot) If you support men's rights, it's not only allowed, but encouraged. (I'm a woman, too.) You may also want to check out /r/LadyMRAs. :) First of all, pregnancy/birth is a fraction of raising a child, is simple compared to life once the child arrives, often leads to a stressful time for the dad as well (dealing with everything pre-baby, mother's needs, mother's mood swings etc). Totally true! Also, studies have shown men go throug…
/r/MensRights19/06/12 07:07 AM
0

I suspect this is a play on indignant women who claim that "Every day should be Mothers Day!"
/r/MensRights19/06/12 06:52 AM
1

If it makes you feel better, one of my friends posted on Facebook an image "happy father's day to all the single moms doing double duty," and the two responses were both negative-- one pointing out that we don't do the same for single fathers on mothers day, and the other pointing out that this contributes to the marginalization of fathers. Happy Fathers Day! (belated)
/r/MensRights19/06/12 06:51 AM
1

You are confusing refusing to facilitate with taking away. I'm not confusing anything. I didn't say they took anything away. They are, however, attempting to make religious-based exceptions from a government mandate, for other people. They do not have the right to make religious decisions for other people, and they do not have the right to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. We particularly do not have the right to tell religious institutions to fund behaviors that are against t…
/r/MensRights19/06/12 06:40 AM
1

A lot of guys aren't aware of the risks. A lot of guys don't think it will happen to them. And sometimes you just do crazy things for love. And, of course, a lot of guys don't get married. Part of the reason the divorce rate has actually been declining since the 80s is the fact that the marriage rate has also been decreasing. It's getting to be a thing, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW).
/r/MensRights19/06/12 06:29 AM
1

Again, I agree up to a point (and have argued similarly in the past). But the risks of divorce are so great, and the divorce rate high enough (it's not actually 50% but that's beside the point, it's high enough), and you have literally no way of knowing when you start out how it's going to turn out. No one gets married expecting to get divorced. And so it is a big risk just to get married in the first place, and a lot of guys are seriously questioning the risk versus reward.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:06 PM
1

So you're not attacking "slut-shaming" as a concept, but just the use of the word "slut?" That seems... like missing the point.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:47 PM
1

I'm a woman, on my second marriage, it's going well so far. You're missing the point. Most of these guys are not hating on women. They are hating on a sexist system that allows women, but not men, to get married with no financial, civil, or legal risks. If a woman marries a man, then changes her mind at some point down the road, she can (not necessarily will, but she legally can, and many do) take him for 50% of the marital assets (regardless of what she actually contributed to them) and half of…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:39 PM
1

Then why make such a commitment in the first place?
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:41 PM
1

I shouldn't have even argued your "contract" angle. You don't actually sign any sexual fidelity contracts when you get married. You do, however, make a social, ethical, and moral commitment to another person on the most intimate level possible. As I said, if that commitment involves allowing other sexual or romantic relationships, that's fine. It's not about legality-- divorce doesn't recognize fault anymore in any state, AFAIK-- it's about lying to someone who is supposed to be your life partne…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:59 PM
1

Taking aspirin as heart medication doesn't make it not an analgesic. No, but the fact that aspirin is taken as a heart medication does not give headache sufferers the right to demand that others pay for their headache medication. Not a genuine comparison. If we're talking blanket health coverage, then, yes, they have the right not to be excluded. Especially since much of the point of subsidized health care insurance is to lower costs by not waiting until we get to the catastrophic stuff to cover…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:49 PM
2

Again, though, this is a contract entered into willingly. If you don't respect it, that's perfectly fine, but don't lie to someone else that you do, and then sneak around behind their back. People who excuse cheating like this give poly a bad name.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:29 PM
1

The fetus does not become a fetus until 11 weeks of age. Until that point, the embryo, blastocyst, or zygote is quite literally simply a clump of cells. There aren't really purposes for those cells yet, nor is there any resemblance to anything beginning to be human yet. It's not as human as it'll look at 12 weeks, but it's incorrect to say that there is not "any resemblance to anything beginning to be human yet." It's definitely a tiny proto-human. There isn't a clear demarcation line between 11…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 11:53 AM
1

Would be interested to see this. When last I checked, a couple years ago, we didn't have any good numbers on miscarriage rates-- they varied from less than 20% all the way up to 90%. The biggest issue is that we can't detect pregnancy for sure until well past conception (at least two weeks, for most women). So if a blastocyst washes out in that period, AFAIK, we have no way of knowing if it was fertilized or just a regular period.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 11:40 AM
1

If it's for medical reasons, it's not birth control. Taking aspirin as heart medication doesn't make it not an analgesic. These entities did not want to cover contraceptive medication (and, presumably, devices). They did not make exceptions. Additionally, you call it "elective," but I'm not sure I even agree that's always true. What if, for example, you're married and have a condition of some kind that would make it dangerous, even life-threatening to become pregnant? Is that couple just suppose…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 11:18 AM
3

That's perfectly ok, but then don't make a commitment to monogamy by entering into a traditional marriage.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:23 AM
1

Birth control is elective. That's not always true. Some women do take it for medical reasons. You're going to make it okay for non-health-involved strangers to ask extremely personal questions about why a medication is being taken? That violates just about every tenet of privacy that we have.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 04:50 AM
1

Certainly, but it's not just cleaning. If you're a stay at home mom, you spend several of those hours preparing and serving food (it's a job in itself with a baby/toddler, probably gets easier as they get older), cleaning up after meals, watching/playing with the kid(s), bathing, . There's also shopping and doing laundry and other stuff that doesn't have to be done every day but there's always something. Do you get more free time than you would working a full time job? I honestly don't know, sin…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 12:45 AM
1

Well, two things about MartialWay's comment-- first, he's not taking into account evil doctors "raping" women with ultrasound wands (I find the reaction to this to be WAY overblown), so, if you take this heinous violation of women's bodies into account, women are being "forced" to do something. And second, I do not like the "OMG the womenz want everyone to pay for their birth controlz! what babies!" thing. That's not a men's rights position, that's a conservative position. Certain groups were tr…
/r/MensRights17/06/12 11:59 PM
0

But this campaign is targeted at men and that is okay. But there are no campaigns targeted at women. They're all targeted at men-- and there's a lot of them. It doesn't say "Only men can stop rape" it just says "Men can stop rape". This particular campaign doesn't. Many do. For fucking decades we've been teaching young women what they can do to prevent themselves getting raped, and it is not working. Violent crime is down across the board, including rape. The only ones who claim it's not working…
/r/MensRights17/06/12 11:49 PM
0

It's the implication that her tongue is the thing she should be using to make someone feel good, not hurt them. I'm a woman, and I can honestly say this did not occur to me at all. I can't speak for the creator's mind, of course, but it's perfectly possible that your double entendre was completely unintentional.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 07:24 AM
0

These "dudetips" were posted around the UCLA campus in just the past few months.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 07:11 AM
-2

It has to do with reporting and definitions. While I am willing to accept that more rape is perpetrated by men, I don't think the difference is as pronounced as is usually assumed. You are correct. When counting "made to penetrate" as women raping men, men and women in 2010 were raped in roughly equal numbers in 2010. 40% of the rapists were women. Source: The CDC's 2010 NISVS See pages 18 and 19 for rates of male and female rape (please note that some male rape is under "other sexual violence" …
/r/MensRights17/06/12 07:04 AM
1

More African-Americans commit crimes than white people. These are the statics. You get more bang for your buck and more noticeable results by targeting campaigns. If you happen fall into the demographic that happens to contain the highest number of people they're trying to target but the campaign doesn't actually apply to you then there's really no need to get upset about it. Just because you happen to fall into the target demographic doesn't mean anyone is accusing you of being a criminal, for …
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:58 AM
1

You mean the 40% of rapists being women? Sure, it's from the CDC's 2010 NISVS See pages 18 and 19 for rates of male and female rape (please note that some male rape is under "other sexual violence" under "made to penetrate," which any decent person would consider rape), and page 24 for perpetrator information.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:37 AM
2

Still net positive upvotes. Much as I agree with you, the abortion debate is irrelevant to the misandry in the OP pic. Typhonblue puts it best below.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 04:44 AM
1

Going by her comments, I don't think she meant it come across like that-- more, "This is what I see every day, but then I see you guys saying the opposite-- what is your evidence for your position?"
/r/MensRights17/06/12 04:09 AM
2

Might be lots of guys like me out there, who were laughed at when a 140lb woman was abusing a 220lb combat veteran who can bench 500lbs. Nobody believes us, we cant defend ourselves because if we do we go to jail, even without hitting her. I had a friend in this position. Big guy, kind of biker-ish looking, his wife would throw things at him and really try to hurt him, and then call the cops on him and get him arrested, when all he'd do is try to restrain her. I thought it was just shitty cops; …
/r/MensRights17/06/12 04:07 AM
1

It would have to be a hell of a benefit to allow physicians to perform it.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 08:38 PM
1

I did make my point more concise and you rejected it. But if you're conceding the argument, by all means, I accept your concession with grace and applomb. Good on you for seeing the error in your ways.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 08:28 PM
2

You're doing great, but I just want to add that calling a zygote a "bunch of cells" is always factually incorrect. A zygote by definition is a single cell, the merged gametes. Once it starts multiplying, I believe the correct term is "blastocyst;" this is what actually implants in the uterus.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 06:24 PM
2

I contend that the incidence of infection through homosexual contact can be attributed to reduced use of condoms due to the lack of pregnancy risk. It's also due to increased likelihood of tearing, especially for the receiving partner, during anal sex.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:52 PM
2

Apparently the OB or the pediatrician being "in charge" of circumcision varies by state? I find it disturbing that anyone lets their OB near their baby with a scalpel after birth. My main takeaway from my daughter's delivery 2 years ago is that (professionally) the OBs don't give a shit for the baby once it's out of you-- they're primarily concerned about you and your recovery. The baby's the pediatrician's responsibility now.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:48 PM
3

Do you have kids?
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:39 PM
2

As a side note-- $392 to circumcise your son, and they're bitching about the $50-100 to paternity test every baby?
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:38 PM
15

Perhaps sending mencanstoprape.org a copy of this and suggesting they incorporate it into their seminars. If anyone does this, please please please post their response. If it's anything other than dripping with condescension and dismissal, I'll eat my hat.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 04:16 AM
1

I was doing Random Redditing (Only click Random, WOOT!) and came across an SRS subreddit. Basically, all everyone repeatedly said was that any woman, no matter their circumstances, had absolutely 0 advantage in life compared to any man, no matter their circumstances. SRS does not represent the average person. Unfortunately, neither does MR.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 04:13 AM
6

They're using the "sociological" definition of minority. Like the "sociological" definition of "privilege" or "sexism," it is based on who allegedly has the institutional power in a society. Women are a "minority" because, regardless of their actual population, they are "oppressed." As far as I know, they are the only group to which this "sociological" definition applies in such a way (i.e., I know of no other group considered a "minority" without being an actual, you know, minority.)
/r/MensRights16/06/12 04:11 AM
1

cutting off a toe for no reason at all would break, i believe, all accredited doctor's code of ethics, while circumcision would only break some doctor's ethical codes and thus be able to be done. Only because we make bizarre allowances for circumcision. That's kind of the point. American culture in particular has a weird blind spot about cutting off pieces of baby boys' penises. It's insane to me that most people I talk to can't see it, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. You'd get a similar reacti…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 08:40 PM
1

No doctor would ever perform that surgery (the nose one). They'd lose their license.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 07:53 PM
1

Jewish babies have the same legal rights as all others. Beg to differ-- there are no "Jewish babies," only babies born to Jewish parents. Baptism is one thing, but at least sprinkling water isn't permanent.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:45 AM
1

Guy is admittedly getting downvoted for being pro-circ, but he's getting extra downvotes just for being an asshole, too. Almost all the pro-circ people who come through here are partially or completely factually incorrect in their arguments.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:38 AM
1

This is admittedly anecdotal, but I've been pretty vocal throughout this thread (opposed) and I'm a woman. There were two local proposed bans in California in the last year. The one in Santa Monica was introduced and campaigned for by a Jena Troutman, lactation consultant. The other, in San Francisco, was authored by Matthew Hess, a circumcised man.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:36 AM
0

You're spouting incorrect bullshit in a public forum. It makes you look like an ass. Just thought you should know.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:26 AM
1

no, i personally draw the line when the likelihood of infection and fatal mishap goes above a certain point So cutting off the little toe under sterile conditions would be perfectly okay? I suspect you'd have trouble finding someone willing to perform that procedure on a newborn baby for cosmetic reasons, though the chances of infection and fatal mishap would be very small. Incidentally, the likelihood of infection and fatal mishap for FGM is almost entirely due to performing it under unsafe or …
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:25 AM
1

If by "penile infection" you mean a UTI or a yeast infection, they're really not a big deal. It's like saying you should cut off your nose to avoid colds. And it doesn't affect you for life. Most of them go away by themselves eventually anyway. Comparing it to being crippled by polio is ridiculous
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:16 AM
2

It's simple, put up with the catcalling, or demand the law stop it. Now, wait a second, there is a middle ground where you can call something rude, and endorse socially discouraging it, but not want to see it made illegal. I think catcalling is inappropriate, rude harassment, but I don't support arresting the guys. I just think they should get called out.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:39 PM
2

Only if you go into law or public policy or academia and convince others. Good luck with that-- and you may want to read up on the experiences of Erin Pizzey (received death threats from other feminists for trying to open shelters for abused men) and Christina Hoff Sommers (rejected as a not a "real" feminist).
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:07 PM
1

Being anti-circumcision is not synonymous with being anti-Semitic. Jews Against Circumcision Brit Shalom ceremonies to replace Brit Milot Brit Shalom celebrants by state
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:02 PM
2

So-- you're okay with female circumcision then?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 05:57 PM
1

The chances of being crippled by the polio vaccine are much much less than the chances of being crippled by (or dying from) polio itself, pre-vaccine.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 05:56 PM
1

Eyelids protect our eyes from particles and help keep them moisturized. Foreskin protects nothing. You should educate yourself, because that's exactly what foreskins do for the glans (head of the penis)-- protect it from particles and keep it moisturized.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 05:54 PM
2

There are much better options for combating it, but circumcision is cheap and easy to implement. Condoms are both more effective and more cost-efficient.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 05:43 PM
3

That's a Blog post, not a scientifically published article. I am aware of that. It is written by a researcher from Oxford University, so it's not just some random ignoramus. I link to his post because I think he lists and explains the various flaws very well, but if you prefer an honest-to-god scientifically published article, there's plenty of those, too, including Earp's main primary source, the Boyle and Hill paper "Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:48 PM
8

And not even there.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 07:03 AM
5

As a woman intruding on a men-safe zone MR doesn't generally recognize "safe zones" the way feminism does.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 07:01 AM
5

First rule of science: anecdotal evidence is never valid.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:59 AM
2

well if it needs to be done for a medical reason then it is better to do it when that person is younger so that they don't have whatever problems their foreskin was causing. While most foreskins retract on their own while a boy is a toddler, some don't retract until puberty, and a very small percentage don't retract until late teens. It's not necessarily a condition requiring medical intervention.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:53 AM
8

Uncircumcised friends tell me that they have a hard time with women, circumcised friends tell me that they would want their children to be circumcised like them I don't know how old your friends are, but the circumcision rate in the US is down to around 35%. There is a good chance that from here on out, circumcised boys will be the weird-looking ones to women. (Note that the European preference is the exact opposite.) So as a parent what is the answer? To circumcize and hurt the child early, or …
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:41 AM
7

I am constantly told that it will harm the child later in life to NOT be circumcized Are they more specific than that? There is an allegedly greater risk of complications for circumcision on older boys/adult men than infant boys. that they will have difficulty sexually Every study I've seen shows the opposite. Circumcised men, on average, tend to have more erectile dysfunction and more penile issues in general. half greater risks to their health I would presume they're talking about the so-calle…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:34 AM
1

When milk from a breast was free? Yeah.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:10 AM
1

It's not the diapering and the snacks and stuff that are getting to me, it's the constant fussing and changing her mind every five seconds and throwing tantrums when she doesn't get immediately whatever she just decided she wants. Add to this that I am not physically capable of cleaning up after any of us, and he is not temporally capable of doing the cleaning, and-- good grief, excuse me, she just pulled most of the dirty clothes out of the hamper so she could climb in. sigh Good luck on the bo…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:37 AM
1

In the post I responded to you, you made it seem as though that that is how women should be treated now (specifically when you gripped about "The guy with the hairy nipple that can't produce milk"). That wasn't my comment, but the person you're quoting said, verbatim, "Women were expected to raise kids? Well, who else was going to do it--the guy with the hairy nipples with no milk in them?" [emphasis mine] Note the use of past tense, which is consistent throughout her comment. And the comment to…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:32 AM
1

Well, in their defense, as I quoted, 93% of respondents to a newspaper poll did not agree with how the police handled the situation. Also, the police force in question allegedly had a history of racism, so the fact that the young man was black may have major factor (i.e., a white teen in the same case would not have been arrested).
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:26 AM
1

I recall that case. I also recall an officer being quoted in that article who said if he had spotted the guy picking up the girl, he would have had to arrest him. I don't recall that. I went back and looked through a few articles on the case, and found both of these (One and Two). Both quote the coroner as saying "This is perhaps a sad reflection on our society, but you may well understand the circumstances." at the inquest, but no mention of an officer saying he would have arrested the guy. Eve…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:20 AM
0

N/A - I'm a woman. I was just pointing out the cases are not analogous.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:38 PM
1

Oh. I have never really frequented 4chan so I'll take your word for that.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:38 PM
2

To keep my house and the things in it (laundry, etc) clean and organized, plus shopping and having dinner on the table every day, plus taking care of a two year old and soon to be twin newborn boys? Yeah, that's a full time job. And I'm well aware I'd let some stuff slide... If you have a particularly neat/conscientious SO, you probably do better, but mine has a habit of leaving cereal bowls and cups with a half inch of liquid in the bottom around. Now, I work full time (or did up until this pas…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:37 PM
1

This is the one MR issue where I consistently break with the consensus in this sub. I'm on the only one, either, there's a few of us who consistently protest when this comes up and get downvoted to oblivion as well. Your attitude is commendable. I hope you will continue to support other mr issues.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:34 PM
1

The kid is not about to be throws to the lions, you know, but the OP may well have arrested for his trouble. Possibly, though we have no way of knowing how likely that is. People here saying "high risk," "very likely," "serious risk," etc. are talking out their ass. And while this kid wasn't thrown to any lions, there was that little girl in the UK who died, when at least one motorist saw her and passed by her but didn't stop because of attitudes exactly like yours. Don't pretend this attitude c…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:33 PM
1

The problem MR has with this statement is that it implies [emphasis added] I am aware you did not say "only" oppressed. Since you say you did not mean that, then I will grant that you did not mean "only" oppressed when you wrote it. However, your full statement, "At one point, feminism actually did have a valid purpose because women were really oppressed" indicates that a movement primarily made up of women for the benefit of women was necessary. Not a movement to improve people's lives in gener…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:29 PM
2

93 percent of respondents did not agree with how the police handled the situation. Also, Florida.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:26 PM
4

"Police say adults should not offer rides to juveniles they do not know. If they feel a young person is in distress or danger, they should call police." The key word there, to me, is "offer." The man there followed the girls and offered them an unsolicited ride. In OP's case, the kid solicited a ride from him-- the kid initiated the contact.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:36 PM
2

That was my reaction. :)
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:33 PM
1

Why is that a sad childhood? I'm 34 and we got our first family PC around when I was 12 or 13. By 15 I was visiting local BBSes (this was before the Internet, or at least, non-subscription Internet). I can say, without a doubt, that my life would very very very very different without these early online experiences. For one, I would never have met my husband (I didn't mean him online, but the series of events that led to me being where I did meet him came from those early online experiences.)
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:31 PM
2

I would be interested in a collaboration of the type you describe, but I'm afraid I can't make any commitments for the forseeable future. I tentatively offered to help revamp the /mr FAQ and completely fell down on that. :( But I'm sorry your very reasonable offer is getting flamed. :(
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:01 PM
2

How is he "shaming" anyone by stating facts? I've read the info, I'm not doing it to my child That's fantastic. But you're not the only one reading this sub, and there's legions more who haven't read the info and are ignorant of the facts and do plan to do it to their child. Kanuk isn't speaking to all circumcised men, just the ones who, as he says, are in denial because they don't want to admit even the suggestion there might be anything wrong with their penises. You obviously don't fall into t…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:53 PM
6

Logic actually seems pretty consistent-- "Fuck my ex." :(
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:39 PM
3

Emma features George Knightley, who is in his late thirties who has never married and in no rush to do so with no great criticism of that choice (whereas Emma at 20 and similarly uninterested in marriage is seen to be odd for a woman). I only read Emma once, but I don't recall Emma being considered particularly odd for not wanting to marry. Her reason is that she has to take care of her father. Your other Austin examples just show that men waited to either build or inherit their fortunes (where …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:29 PM
3

women were really oppressed. The problem MR has with this statement is that it implies that first, only women were "oppressed" (I put this in quotes because I'm not sure how you're defining "oppression," but I'm going to assume by your comparison to black slaves you mean a lack of autonomy/agency over their own lives), which, as has been pointed out repeatedly now, is just not true-- lower class men in particular had no more choice in their life course than the women. They were obligated to supp…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:48 PM
2

It certainly doesn't take 7 hours a day, but you're failing to take into account the larger mess that multiple people can make. Cleaning up after yourself is much easier than cleaning up after a husband or wife and kid(s).
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:40 PM
7

This. The joke was funny-- it's the double standard that's shitty. In this spirit, btw, I have ordered the "Sudo" xkcd t-shirt from ThinkGeek and plan (as a woman) to wear it proudly.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:34 PM
2

The ones who'd rather stay home don't get to do that anymore. Their choice to do that has been taken from them by the social, political and economic changes brought about by women's liberation. Totally hit the nail on the head. None of us in my family eat properly because no one has time to make real food. Right now it's exacerbated because I'm hugely pregnant, but I can't imagine the situation improving with three kids instead of just the one. I'm also confused by all the women and/or feminists…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:32 PM
2

Circumstances differed, of course, depending on time and place and liberality of family, but these women throughout history managed not only to stay unmarried but to accomplish enough that we remember them today. And those were just the famous ones. "Confirmed old bachelors" in older stories are also generally considered, at best, on the eccentric side. It was generally assumed if a man was not married, there was a reason he wasn't married.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:24 PM
4

For "one of the oldest and most respected fathers' rights sites on the Internet," it's a shame dadsrights.org has an extremely shitty website. :(
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:19 PM
3

My understanding is that these definitions are for strictly statistical purposes. They do not affect the legal definitions for criminal statutes-- those are set by the states. Edit: Still not great, since these statistics are used for lots of different purposes, such as funding and further studies and public policy. Still, just pointing out that it doesn't (directly) affect who is prosecuted for what crimes (AFAIK).
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:29 AM
2

Hand out fliers in front of his practice?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:26 AM
2

Just as I try to tell people how so-called "women's issues" are almost all simply human rights issues, so most men's rights issues directly or indirectly affect women as well. I'm a woman, but I have a father, a husband, brothers, and about to have two sons, and I have been and could again in the future be affected by these issues. Hell, I just made a comment about an hour ago on circumcision, a reference to a self-post I made in LadyMRAs a week or so ago.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:22 AM
-1

men could choose not to have a family while this was not an option for women. Then how did all these women throughout history do it? (And those are just the famous ones.) Obviously it wasn't common, or easy, but nor was it common or easy for men, either.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:04 AM
4

You don't need to breast feed to raise children for them to grow up healthy >> There is such a thing as a cow. You are apparently unaware that babies under eight months or so can't process anything but breastmilk? Cow's milk does not provide proper nutrients, and can make them very sick (Source]. Cow's milk also costs money. Babies drink a LOT of milk. Women shouldn't have to raise children. It should be a choice should it come down to the father being there as well. A woman shouldn't have to gi…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:02 AM
2

I guess one method of grass roots activism on your part could be to dissuade other men that you interact with from perpetuating and embodying the "sex animal" stereotype and explain the negative implications that it has. Wait-- we point out that boys are victims of older female predators as well and your response is to turn around and blame male sexuality and stereotypes-- true or not-- surrounding it? Isn't that the height of sex-negativity and victim-blaming? The answer isn't to blame the men …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 09:21 AM
0

Of all the things I see in here, selective editing in headlines probably cheeses me most, because it gets called out the least. We have enough credibility problems without adding to them, then upvoting them and patting ourselves on the back for recognizing them. Edit: Recognizing straw men issues created by selective editing, I mean, not the credibility issues themselves.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 09:10 AM
1

I can't speak to the accuracy of their claim, which seemed, in the FAQ I linked, to be related to the claim that older men are more likely to pressure younger women into sex that they may not be ready and/or entirely willing to engage in (aside from the legal status of such relations). I'm not sure how good the reasoning is that older men are "better educated" in prevention methods than teenagers-- we all either get sex ed as teenagers (or earlier) at home or at school or not. If you haven't lea…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:16 AM
1

That makes more sense. :)
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:03 AM
1

The note said, "I want to separate," not, "Pack your backs and GTFO." She didn't need to leave that minute, nor, even, that night. I lived with my ex for several weeks after he served me with divorce papers, which we decided what to do about the lease and I figured out new housing. It's not a great situation, but it's not undoable either.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:02 AM
5

Me too.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:00 AM
2

Why would it have been neglect to leave the kid with her father?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:40 PM
0

Speaking from experience of a) a mother who is a practicing psychologist Wait-- you're a woman?!
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:40 PM
16

Agreed the poster is problematic on many levels, but you quoting it out of context does not help. The line at the bottom is "An older man who sleeps with an underage girl isn't a prince, he's a rapist." So you left out a whole bunch of really important words from your headline. As to how they get away with posting this stuff, did you visit the site at the bottom? This is a program aimed at teenage girls who are at risk to become pregnant, many of whom may do so on purpose for a variety of dubiou…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:34 PM
10

A woman who dresses like a slut, gets drunk, and goes home with a random guy does NOT deserve to be raped. No one here says she deserves to get raped. We do think adult women should take adult responsibility for themselves and that includes simple precautions, akin to not leaving your wallet on the seat of an unlocked car.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:22 PM
22

But the point is that in those families, Bobby was expected to go to college, find a girl, settle down with her and support a family. Bobby had no more options or choices in his expected life course than Suzy did.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:07 PM
3

Good god I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 07:19 PM
3

Not all men have kids, but we post a lot about custody issues. Not all men have drunk sex, but we strenuously question the labeling of drunk sex as "rape." Not all men are abused. Not all men are raped. Not all men are circumcised. Frankly, I can't think of a single mr issue that directly impacts every single man.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 07:08 PM
1

Also, here's an article about why circumcision may make you AIDS proof. This woman does not make this claim, at all. She attempts to give a medical explanation for why circumcision would reduce HIV. Note her use of "astounding" for the 60% reduction-- she's only reinforcing my point on laypeople's reception of the relative rate of reduction. Plus, her whole bit about Langerhans cells? She's totally wrong. After all, if they get it wrong, surely this is bad for the massive AIDS pandemic that will…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:37 AM
1

I see. Medically, I believe you are correct; I generally hear the argument as there being fewer complications when done as an infant. My understanding is that Muslims frequently circumcise as toddlers, but that's a religious preference (I assume). Again, I reiterate that no major medical organization on earth advocates routine infant circumcision, with, I suppose now, the unfortunate caveat of the WHO recommending just that in Africa.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:12 AM
1

More than 8000 people from more than 150 countries work for the Organization in 147 country offices, six regional offices and at the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. In addition to medical doctors, public health specialists, scientists and epidemiologists, WHO staff include people trained to manage administrative, financial, and information systems, as well as experts in the fields of health statistics, economics and emergency relief. Source I found this document very interesting. It talks a…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 10:09 AM
1

We're not claiming there's "no" evidence. We're questioning the credibility of that evidence, and the soundness of a policy involving genital mutilation based on questionably credible evidence. That's rubbish. Sorry, but I haven't seen a single balanced comment in this thread (let alone this subreddit), and every single one of my comments citing the WHO policy have been downvoted to literal oblivion. There's no 'balanced questioning of evidence', its 'my way or the high way'. I didn't say anythi…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:54 AM
1

Again, read, listen and learn: You'd come off less condescending without this. [links to AVFM] AVFM is not a valid source for anything. Follow the links on the article sources and read them as well and then come back and tell me there is no proof. If you want to prove something, it's up to you to provide the evidence. Compelling evidence means primary sources. But-- because I was curious to see if there really was any evidence of a "hateful anti-male ideology," I skimmed through anyway. The firs…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:15 AM
2

I believe his point is that the "health benefits" argument is often misused, or outright lies. There are numerous critiques of the African HIV studies, and other "health benefits" of circumcision are under serious debate as well. Others may have slight benefits, but they are negligible and/or affect extremely rare diseases and conditions.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:11 PM
2

Incidentally, I can't believe that you are unaware you are committing a major logical fallacy, and in fact, your argument throughout this entire thread rests on it-- appeal to authority. This sentence here: "The fact that one researcher at Oxford is able to make excellent points is a fact acknowledged by you just as much as the WHO." is a perfect, textbook example. You ignore his points, you ignore his arguments-- the WHO says so, so this other guy must be wrong.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:08 PM
1

fueled and enabled by a hateful anti male ideology. Evidence? And don't say "because they advocate circumcision"-- that's completely circular logic.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:02 PM
2

I know they're moving in that direction, but the current statement does not actually mention infant circumcision, and explicitly excludes routine, universal circumcision ("in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.")
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:00 PM
1

You referring to this? No, I haven't.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:58 PM
2

I had just assumed that the WHO advocated infant circumcision, since that is what is usually advocated through the rest of the world. You are extremely misinformed. Only 30% of the world's males are circumcised, and that's according to the WHO itself. The US and Canada are the only countries of the Western world who routinely advocate circumcision, and Canada was falling off on that as well. It's extremely uncommon in Europe and almost unheard of in Latin America/South America and the far East (…
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:57 PM
2

For example, if you have surveyed psychologists, rape victims and the like, and come up with the best policy for balancing the rights of victims and alleged offenders, then I'm happy to trust that that's the best decision. Wait, really? You just listed a bunch of victim advocates-- and you think they're going to come up with a "balanced" policy? No legal experts? No exonerated accused? That's why I think a lot of the discussion here, on Reddit in general and probably throughout the entire world …
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:46 PM
1

Because she was being dismissive of the post and was pretty rude in her replies, I would guess.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:37 PM
1

but the problem is that the WHO is such an authoritative source. But so is The Lancet. I have not found our sources to be particularly less authoritative than theirs. Btw, their recommendation was far more general and vague than just "adult men in high-HIV areas" from what I remember. ... interesting. Other international health organizations in Africa were making broader recommendations including infants, but I didn't think the WHO was one of them. I could be wrong.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:33 PM
2

It meant both. There is an arguable point to be made that for centuries in English, the default was the word for male-- and the default pronouns the male pronouns. Language is a good measure for how we view the world, and so the argument is that we viewed male as a kind of "default" mode for humanity and women as "other." Considering that much codification of language was done by religious authorities, this makes a certain amount of sense. However, I think it's much more relevant how we use word…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 08:13 PM
1

Why doesn't this have more upvotes?
/r/MensRights10/06/12 08:08 PM
2

Lowering the risk of transmission by 50% is interesting but not nearly enough. It doesn't actually lower it by 50% (not the way you're thinking it does, anyway).
/r/MensRights10/06/12 08:07 PM
1

Circumcision actually does lower HIV transmission to men. ... We actually know the mechanism which lowers transmission rates. It's not jew magic; it's science. The type of cell on the surface of the penis is physically different. It does lower it, but only by just over 1%. The 60% you see commonly quoted is a "relative" transmission rate. (Source)
/r/MensRights10/06/12 08:06 PM
2

Did you lose your penis in some freak circumcision accident? I've never met someone so against it before. I bet you're not even circumcised though. Some girl probably just said to you "ew, you're not circumcised?". Now you're butthurt. Hey! Ad hominem! I'm a woman. Not circumcised. Just as against it. You were saying?
/r/MensRights10/06/12 07:52 PM
5

Why does literally every person here trust random sources they found on Google more than an organisation that has extremely intelligent scientists and doctors regulating the health of people around the world? Why does almost every single thread I see you participate in have at least one falsehood from you? I am a person here, and a researcher at Oxford is not a "random source from Google." He makes a number of excellent points, from the difference between "relative" and "absolute" rates of trans…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 07:48 PM
2

the WHO wouldn't need to advocate circumcising them as infants. Please show where the WHO advocates circumcising them as infants. Last I checked, the WHO was only recommending voluntary circumcision for adult males in high-HIV areas.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 07:38 PM
1

I had to bite my tongue when my pediatrician told me that, all other things being equal-- no religious preference, unable to decide-- to go with whatever the father is because he'll be more comfortable and know how to take care of it better.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 07:32 PM
1

The WHO is wrong. I don't care how that sounds. I ran this post by a friend of mine in the UK who works in research and infectious diseases, and asked her if his reasoning holds up-- it certainly made sense to me. She says it does. I am not speculating on the motivations of scientists at the WHO, but this does not appear to be sound science they are working off of. Edit: Also note that even the WHO does not advocate universal or infant circumcision (yet). Their current recommendation calls for a…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 07:20 PM
1

That's not true... Origin: before 900; Middle English womman, wimman, Old English wīfman, equivalent to wīf female + man human being; see wife, man1 and [Old English wīfmann, wimman; from wife + man (human being)] (Source) Still retarded, but, yes, they do share the same root word.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 07:08 PM
1

In hindsight, we can clearly see this is because they defined "oppressor" not as someone who oppresses, but by immutable biological characteristics that have nothing to do with oppression (feminist opinions on penises notwithstanding). Feminism was always wrong-- we can just see it more clearly now, with things like a refusal to recognize rape and abuse gender symmetry. Any attempt to say that even when feminism first started, men were the "oppressors" or "the enemy" is history revision-- lots a…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:59 PM
3

What happens to an advocacy group when they have achieved their goal of acceptance? They meddle and ruin shit. The question becomes self-answering when you rephrase it as, "Why would people whose job it is to make money off solving a problem (especially a nebulous and non-falsifiable problem) ever really want to solve it?"
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:54 PM
2

Much of a point, or argument.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:48 PM
3

Nor had I, honestly, until I came across the bottom comment, where some poor person who had noticed and pointed it out was being heavily downvoted. Weirdly, my defenses of her (or him, but I suspect her for some reason) were being upvoted last I checked.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:48 PM
1

Every single person who comes through here defending circumcision mentions health benefits, and usually, most prominently, the prevention of AIDS/HIV. Statistically, it's even true for most STDs-- it's just that condoms (and vaccines, where available) are far more effective. When pressed, sure, they'll admit it's not 100%, but the fact that they even think it's a factor is boggling. Would you play 50/50 Russian Roulette? No? So wear a condom-- and if you're going to wear a condom, it doesn't mat…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:47 PM
2

Thanks, I guess? It's not like the exact same statement (that sexism is only against women) can't be found on the Finally Feminism 101 FAQ and numerous other "official" feminist sources and textbooks and so forth.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:44 PM
3

Female genital mutilation (or female circumcision) has never been shown to have any health benefits. Has anyone ever conducted any clinical trials to find out if it reduces HIV/AIDS transmission? I've never heard of any. In fact, I've never heard of any study of the health effects of FGM performed under sterile conditions.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:49 AM
2

I wouldn't speculate on the motives of the WHO, but this is misleading at best. The 50% figure you link to on Wikipedia comes from this study, which, as the first link I posted there explains, shows a 50% relative reduction. The link explains the difference: What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:43 AM
3

No, there actually isn't.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:35 AM
4

Then again, 3rd world countries are full of nonsense and pseudo-science. Yeah, but this particularly nonsense/pseudo-science is being peddled by WHO and other international health organizations.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:31 AM
3

Lots of people in America tote the "health benefits," including AIDS/HIV prevention.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:30 AM
1

Feminism is supposed to believe in equality, right? So a double standard in how men and women are treated by law enforcement when stopped for traffic infractions would be anti-feminist, right? And thus hypocritical for a feminist to hold. The fact that all too many feminists are often hypocrites is a point often made in this sub, but not relevant to whether or not she IS being a hypocrite. Let me turn it around-- is there some form of feminism that says it would be okay for a woman to get out of…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:23 AM
34

I went and peeked myself. Even assuming OP's not a troll, this is a bad example because if people get the idea we have to lift screenshots (five year old screen shots) from obscure radical pro-teen pregnancy sites to prove our point, they're not going to think we have much of one
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:48 AM
1

Here, this comment sums up the response I was afraid of. People come here and see this and think, wow, if they have to post screen shots from nobody radical communities from five years ago, this can't be a popular, widely held view.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:46 AM
6

No, sadly, we don't, which is why seeing this stuff on here is really frustrating.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:44 AM
1

People are extremely suggestible. The vast majority of people, primed with an example, will focus on that example. The wording is also "under certain circumstances," not "under any circumstances." Also, the bigger point is the double standard, and both questions used the same wording. Half of students strongly agreed that it was okay for a girl to hit her boyfriend under certain circumstances, such as a boy who makes his girlfriend jealous on purpose. 7% of students strongly agreed that it was o…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:36 AM
1

I'm pretty sure OP is a troll. See my other comment.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:30 AM
2

That explains a lot, but doesn't dispell my suspicion that OP is a troll himself. Edit: If you search the title on yahoo answers (google search "i accused my boyfriend of rape but it wasn't" site:answers.yahoo.com) it's posted about six times in different areas two months ago. Didn't see any further back than that.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:21 AM
15

See where it's highlighted "posted 11 hours ago?" Imgur img itself was only posted 7 hours ago. So, whoever uploaded it (probably OP, possibly not) is trying to pass this off as a post in the last 24 hours. In reality, this question was posted 2 months ago, and the top answer, also two months old (so not a result of this post), is this: "You think you shouldn't have done it? You just possibly sent a guy to jail because you were pissed..... The only way to get his charges dropped is if you admit …
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:00 AM
8

Just as a note, OP's account is six months old, but he just started posting to /mr today. His other post is a yahoo answers screenpic hosted on imgur, where it is highlighted "posted 11 hours ago." Imgur img itself was only posted 7 hours ago. So, whoever uploaded it (probably OP, possibly not) is trying to pass this off as a post in the last 24 hours. In reality, it was posted 2 months ago, and the top answer, also two months old (so not from this post), is this: "You think you shouldn't have d…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:54 PM
2

It was a straw man. She made an argument, he refuted a completely different argument. That's a textbook straw man.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:36 PM
3

She didn't say it wasn't sexist. She said it wasn't relevant.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:35 PM
2

But there's no evidence that these people, whoever they are, are important or relevant feminists. Hell, there's no evidence they actually are feminists. All I see is circular reasoning here-- they must be feminists because they define sexism in a sexist way and use the word "womyn"-- and thus they're a great example of feminism. There are far far better, more relevant, more current examples out there.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:34 PM
3

It is irrelevant. It would be like pulling a 5 year old quote out of /r/mr and using it to make some point about what MRAs think. Plus who gives a shit what some random yahoo who started a phpBB forum thinks about anything?
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:32 PM
3

So confused as to why they seem to think you were saying anything about historical discrimination....
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:29 PM
4

It's worse than that, if I found the same site in its modern incarnation, they are a real load of wackos... Believing it's not possible to be sexist against men is probably one of their more "mainstream" doctrines.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:29 PM
2

What does that have to do with anything?
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:27 PM
17

It is only "useful" (if you can call it that) in the context of the larger paradigm of men as an oppressor class and women as an oppressed class. Thus, all acts of any man against any woman are extensions of his class privilege over her as an oppressor, and any acts of a woman against a man are steps she is taking to break free of her male oppressors.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:21 PM
5

I conditionally agree. What is this site? How big are they? They're using the default phpBB installation and skin, right down to still having the phpBB logo instead of their own. Shitty little communities are a dime a dozen. We all know there are bigots out there. These gals are no worse than many feminists on reddit.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:18 PM
5

If I was the mod/admin, I would have privately messaged him or emailed him telling him the situation, and removed his thread/locked his account. No need to make that drama public.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 11:13 PM
1

"my women's rights major friend is being all feministy, lolz" Where did he say anything close to this? My impression of his point was that she was being a giant hypocrite. Her being a feminist/woman's rights major creates an inherent double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to expect your friends to be sympathetic rather than judgemental when you're having a bad day. Whether his point is right, or not, for at least third time, does not affect the appropriateness in his timing or method of exp…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 10:59 PM
1

carchamp1 is incorrect-- there are tangible benefits to marriage. Some are listed here. You're correct that a marriage that does not end-- assuming you are both happy-- is a great thing. The issue is, as he points out, it's a big craps shoot on whether your marriage will end and/or be an unhappy one. And chances are unfortunately high that if it does end, you, as the man, will get the short end of the stick.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:38 PM
2

Similar to what I said in this comment-- neither you nor I will ever I will never be in the position of many men of this subreddit. We will never have to endure coming home to police who will believe every word our spouses say with no evidence and bar us from our homes and children. We will never have to pay child support, and most likely will never have to pay alimony. If our children were kidnapped by our ex-spouses, an APB and Amber Alert would be immediately issued to bring them back, and ou…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:26 PM
1

I suppose feminist doesn't actually mean what I think/feel it means anymore, unfortunately. "Feminist" means different things to different people. Some people here will argue with you about the word itself, but the majority don't really care what you call yourself if you truly believe in equality for men and women. Most feminists say they do, but when they discuss their position on various issues, they do not actually support true equality, and make various excuses as to why true equality is not…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:11 PM
1

It's pretty well known that only spammers and repeat trollers are banned (with repeat warnings) in mensrights. I imagine you're confusing us with SRS or /r/feminisms.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 04:38 PM
2

Your privilege is showing.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 12:40 AM
2

I'm a woman. Try to keep in mind that the point is not that every woman would, or will, but that any woman can. That's the issue. And you never know ahead of time if your woman is one of the ones that will.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 12:39 AM
2

This probably happens far too often, but do want to stress that there are still women out there who will not rob you blind. The problem, of course, is that we are restrained only by our consciences-- any woman can.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 12:37 AM
3

Alimony in a case like your aunt's should work more like unemployment than the way PopeJohnson describes his situation. You get paid a basic living to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly for a year or two at most, and you have to demonstrate you are looking for a job/working on job skills/advancing your ability to support yourself. I support government job training programs for women like these, or financial aid for community college or something. But no one should have to support …
/r/MensRights09/06/12 12:32 AM
1

Obligatory niiiiiice.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 11:21 PM
2

My understanding though is that she can still file for child support at least until the kid is 18, and have him ordered to pay all back support retroactive to the kid's birth.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 11:19 PM
1

Agreed but as she states numerous times that wasnt the point of her conversation with him. She states numerous times that the fact that she's a woman isn't the point of the conversation (for her). It's still pretty clear that she expected the cop to let her off because she was visibly upset. Like I said, OP is kind of douchey for his first response being, "Well, that would never fly for a man anyway," but he's still right. She just wanted some empathy from a friend, he turned it into a gender is…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:11 PM
1

100 hour weeks? Holy hell. That seems almost impossible. It really sucks, that's for sure. Feminism's message is that your only limitation is yourself, not society, Where do you get that? I mean, that may be the feel-good crap they push at girl scouts and stuff, but feminism is all about identifying how society disadvantages women and attempting to artificially correct for it. The wage gap is a great example of this-- I just posted a piece from APM's Marketplace where they discuss how there are …
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:01 PM
4

From the OP's text log: Her: "I'm talking about him seeing I was obviously distressed way before he saw me go through the light." ... me: "You know I hate cops, you know I hate tickets but don't tell me that a woman crying should get her out of it." her: "I don't care. That's not that point." ... Me: "I'm not making you feel worse or trying to. But don't think for a second you would say "that bastard" if I got pulled over because I was upset. Her: "Yes I would." I gather she ran a red light beca…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:32 PM
2

Did you not read the link? Half of students strongly agreed that it was okay for a girl to hit her boyfriend under certain circumstances, such as a boy who makes his girlfriend jealous on purpose. Emphasis mine. They qualified it as non life-or-death or self-defense circumstances.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:13 PM
5

Liverotto is probably the most overt misogynist among the men's rights regulars. He consistently pretty much just posts comments shitting all over women, and just as consistently gets downvoted. I guess every village needs an idiot.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:11 PM
2

No, they're not. Not really. Just ask them if they're for VAWA. Just because they think they're egalitarian doesn't make them egalitarian.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:08 PM
1

No, most women stop skating by on looks and cuteness somewhere around 30.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:06 PM
1

Bringing up men's rights issues should never be deemed "inappropriate". Bringing up a woman's rights issues would never be labelled as inappropriate, especially not when it is pertinent to the problem at hand. Women shouldn't just get to shut down any argument at any given moment just because they deem it "inappropriate". I think this is another case of where we should expect them to be better, not sink to their level. A relative recently had a son, and the OB fucked up by circumcising him too e…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:43 PM
2

Still a gender issue, just a slightly different one. It's a clear case of female privilege to expect visible emotional distress to excuse you from prosecution on a traffic violation.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:31 PM
2

Sure thing. See pages 18 and 19 for rates of male and female rape (please note that some male rape is under "other sexual violence" under "made to penetrate," which any decent person would consider rape), and page 24 for perpetrator information.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:30 PM
3

Oh now come on, you're just being blatantly misrepresentative. The idea is that you do whatever you want, its that you can now make the choice to do what you want without being limited by society's restrictive norms. It seems like you're arguing in favour of the view that all women should be housewives. Not at all, but choices have consequences. There's this idea of "having it all," that women can be career women and supermoms and fabulous wives all at the same time. It is difficult if not impos…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:26 PM
3

It was an example. My point is that feminism is for removing barriers for women-- but not specifically for men. Most feminists seem to assume, in good faith or not, that removing these barriers for women will have the "side effect" of freeing men as well. Many women (not necessarily feminists) dictate to their men that they are going to stay home with the kids. Many women (many if not most at least some type of feminist) dictate to their men that they are not letting their career get sidelined a…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:06 PM
2

Oh, and I've talked myself out of about 5 speeding tickets before, so it isn't necessarily women's privilege... although being courteous with the officer and breaking out a military ID doesn't hurt. "Talking yourself out of tickets" and expecting the cop to let you off because you are visibly distressed are two different things. The second is definitely a female privilege thing. I'm just annoyed it's never worked for me.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:14 PM
5

So, the text conversation? Nothing to do with feminism, etc. Someone just wanted a friend. You gave her a lecture. Therefore, she rejected your advice. I think the point was that she is a feminist, and that expecting a cop to let her off due to emotional distress is a clear case of female privilege at work (few to no men would expect a cop to let them off due to visible emotional distress).
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:13 PM
2

In addition to what Strange_Dragons said, it's a problem because while women shouldn't be demeaned, no matter what, men do not get the same luxury. You can see this most clearly with traditional household roles-- woman who wants to stay home? "You go girl, empowered earth mother!" woman who wants a career? "You go girl, empowered career woman!" Man who wants to stay home? "How dare you force your partner to work! Man up and quit leeching." man who wants to be a breadwinner? "Stop oppressing your…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:02 PM
5

I'm not sure if I've seen it, or if it was just a claim SRS insinuated we did. There was one in one of the threads about the hockey player(s) accused of rape at BU. It was deleted by the mods (from what I could tell), but I gather it said something along those lines by the replies. Which all denounced it, and were heavily upvoted. They may or may not have been from SRS but they were almost certainly an anti-MRA troll.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:30 PM
5

guys suggesting that women who provide false rape claims be raped as punishment I've seen this once or twice from trolls-- never regulars-- and it's always downvoted, reported, and removed fairly quickly. Also called out, and the repudiations are upvoted. this openly hostile attack against the credibility of all feminists everywhere Others already covered this, but feminist credibility is extremely questionable. will4274 covers this pretty adequately.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:28 PM
1

How do you prove the man deliberately punctured the condom and it didn't just break or get accidentally ripped?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:19 PM
1

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the anonymity for rape victims usually come from the media, who universally and voluntarily withhold the names? Not the courts? The court refusing to let them testify under pseudonyms doesn't affect what the press reports.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:09 PM
2

I hate the Daily Mail too, but this doesn't invalidate their entire post. The incidents the Mail covered were covered by other outlets, as well. Also, the NISVS survey by the CDC says at least 10% of women are guilty of this or attempting it.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:03 PM
1

Wow, that must have been removed within the last few weeks. No, as I said, it was removed months ago. It was retained for posterity/legacy for a time after Kloo left, then removed altogether. Their 'conspiracy' is that feminists and white knights have infiltrated the Government and are now systematically passing laws to oppress men and reduce their rights. Pretty ludicrous if you view the system as a whole. VAWA is ludicrous? But there isn't 'discrimination against men in general'; there are a f…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 04:22 PM
14

Then perhaps women should consider that before hitting, slapping, kicking, punching, and/or spitting on men. Women who physically assault men frequently do so knowing that they can safely hide behind their gender and/or size difference and can abuse with impunity. Just because it doesn't land a guy in the hospital doesn't mean it doesn't fucking hurt, or that it isn't emotionally demeaning to constantly be slapped around by someone who's supposed to care about you. And, as others have pointed ou…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 12:30 AM
3

You have more than one?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:43 PM
1

It all good, bro. Don't be buggin'. (My slang is a good 15 years out of date.)
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:36 PM
2

I do agree with you. Loony636 was factually incorrect in saying feminists agreed with you. That's why I responded to her/him instead of you. I was only quoting you for context-- without your comment, there's no way to tell what loony636 is referencing.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:24 PM
2

And she brought her upvote/downvote brigade with her.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:21 PM
2

I think antisrs is already doing this.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:20 PM
2

Oo, we got dissed by a one-day-old troll account. You sure burned us...
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:18 PM
3

you're the one who brought up GWW, the lady who thinks an internet connection and the URL to Wikipedia is all anyone really needs to get a top notch education. And you seem to think setting foot inside a college instantly makes you an intellectual. You do realize people like you perpetuate anti-intellectualism by making education into a kind of class snobbery instead of just knowledge? because to you, everything you disagree with comes down to flippant slogans. it's endemic of how you paint your…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:17 PM
2

they'd get torn apart from a first year university student with a single gender studies class under their belts. Funny you should say that-- because people sounding like first year university students fresh from Feminism 101 are generally the type we get around here. And they generally end up looking pretty stupid.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:15 PM
1

I agree we should stop talking about them. I do think we should counter their bullshit wherever it's found. If not for that, their assertion that we're a hate group, for instance, would stand unchallenged.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:57 PM
3

You didn't just say it exists, you called it "legitimate," and subsequently defended it just two comments up from this. I have to say I'm really seeing a pattern of you saying one thing and then trying to dissemble when someone calls you on it, instead of just admitting you were wrong.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:55 PM
3

Because rape is really harmful to its victims, and its really hard to establish when you can't rely on heresay evidence, for example. Murder is really harmful to its victims as well. Should we suspect protections for accused persons for murder as well? Hearsay is inadmissible for a reason. I got the impression further up that you study/have studied criminal law. You should know that.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:53 PM
1

Buccal swab samples contain the same DNA as blood samples and will therefore produce the same paternity test results. Buccal swabbing is our primary sample collection method because it is a simple and painless procedure. In addition, buccal swabs are particularly preferable over blood samples for persons who have had recent blood transfusions or bone marrow transplants—their blood samples may contain DNA from the donors. Source Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing is the most accurate and widely …
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:41 PM
2

I like to give the benefit of the doubt. It almost always makes the troll look worse.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:11 PM
2

But whatever, all feminists are evil. I forget. You made the claim that even feminists believe that false rape claims should be prosecuted. This is not true. You can dismiss it with a straw man, but the fact is that Melissa McEwan and others are basically denying women lie about rape at all-- and then saying that when they do, they shouldn't be punished, because that "empowers rapists." But there are quite a few comments under this submission alone that suggest that she should be prosecuted for …
/r/MensRights07/06/12 08:19 PM
3

Neither is "take a hike" but the same sentiment is implied. "Take a long walk off a short pier" would also be appropriate, or the less eloquent "take a flying fuck" or "piss up a rope and watch it shrink." The implication with "suck a dick," as far as I'm concerned, is that my contempt for them is so high that the only thing they could possibly do for me is suck my (nonexistent, in my case) dick. I used to say "suck my nonexistent dick," years ago, which is both more accurate and clearer, but it…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 08:11 PM
4

Then please, please remove it. Its embarrassing to Reddit in general, as well as any credibility the Men's Rights movement could ever have. It's not there. Here is the entirety of the sidebar, copy-pasted (without formatting): Advocacy isn't just about what is popular - stay informed, keep up with r/MensRights by sorting by NEW. The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon. As a result, we have been earning scorn fro…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 08:02 PM
2

I'd prefer you didn't encourage your opponents to perform any sexual act without their consent, frankly. I don't see where any coercion is implied. Also, rotting vagina. Ew. That's the point.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:21 PM
1

It says it in the sidebar. And numerous members on here have enunciated that same mantra many times I've been here. No, it doesn't, and hasn't for some time. For a few months, it said something along the lines of "Kloo2Yoo, co-founder of /mr, believed in a ...." blah blah blah just for posterity, but it has never been a premise of the subreddit. I had just heard it, and read the initial police reports. I do apologise. Police reports?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:19 PM
2

The highest comment in this thread has 19 upvotes. So, yeah. Surely the troll logic would also work in favour of my comments, that have been pretty consistently downvoted across the board. Your comments appear in two subthreads to this post. This one, falsely saying that there are "quite a few" comments calling for her prosecution (there's one) and at the top in a digression into the Treyvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, which, as you yourself point out, has absolutely nothing to do with this ca…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:16 PM
6

Just a minor correction, I think most people her stand by the belief that if there is evidence of someone making a false claim purposefully and maliciously, then they should be prosecuted. Of course. But everyone stands by that, even the much hated feminists. No, they don't. "They [men who have been unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I d…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:09 PM
3

The problem with that is cases like this. The case was dropped because of lack of evidence; that doesn't mean he didn't rape her, only that we presume his innocence because we can't prove his guilt. Similarly, however, there is not sufficient evidence that she lied, either; the same doctrine protects her as well. It doesn't mean she isn't lying, only that we presume her innocence because we can't prove her guilt.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:58 PM
4

Overall, I think the attitude of our country has gone from "innocent until proven guilty" to "probably guilty because it makes better tv to fight and prove someone's innocence than their guilt," which is bullshit. We can thank people like Nancy Grace for this.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:56 PM
2

The subreddit premised on opposing a worldwide Feminist conspiracy to subjugate men. I'm fairly sure it passed the 'kook' stage a fair while back. Yeah, no. One moderator believed that, it was never the "premise" of the subreddit. That moderator hasn't been on reddit for a year or more. Also, hate group. Did you just hear that, or are you one of the people actively spreading the lies? Either way, no, we're not.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:40 PM
1

No, actually, it's not. They generally only check for it if the mother fails the DNA test-- which is why they advise that you test the child against both mother and father. They think chimerism is really super rare-- but since they hardly ever go looking for it (kind of like paternity fraud itself), we really don't know.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:38 PM
3

However, specifically I was referring to: I argee punishment is definitely in order ,they should punish the shit out of the accuser. (though I didn't see this had been commented on, and at this time it has 11 upvotes) Yes, that was one comment (the same one I linked to). 10 or 11 upvotes. That's "quite a few" of us, in a subreddit of almost 40K subscribers? Also keep in mind trolls frequently come through and upvote comments like this just so people like you can point to them and say, "Look how …
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:24 PM
3

Anyone here saying that she should be prosecuted (which is quite a few of you) is exactly the thing that will deter legitimate rape victims from reporting. One person said that, and was called out in less than two hours. In this post, on the same topic, the second highest comment (after correction on a misused word in the headline) was correcting the assumption of a "false accusation." There are a handful of comments (less than 5 that I saw) making disparriaging remarks about the accuser. Most o…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:34 PM
1

I'm not sure what you're comparing it to, but the "cotton swab test" (using cheek cells) is the same test in the same lab they'd do for the court, and is actually more accurate than a blood test. It's still "third party" in that it's an independent lab doing the test. The only difference between the $80 DIY at home swab and the $400 court-admissible one is the chain of custody, starting with sample collection done by a neutral third part (such as a doctor or lawyer), but the two tests are equall…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:57 PM
1

I suspect if there really are laws against it, if you used the information in anyway, you could then be prosecuted for having the test done. Seems to me it would be worse to secretly know the kid's not yours but be unable to admit you know without admitting you illegally obtained that knowledge.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:54 PM
1

Don't men who want rights to their kids already have enough trouble getting on birth certificates?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:51 PM
1

They should do a check for chimerism, as well. Just to be safe.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:50 PM
1

Baby deliveries, as I said, are over $9,000 in the US. Probably higher if you have a c-section, or that may be an average including both c-sections and vaginal births. Over the course of the pregnancy, it depends on your OB and the risk level of the pregnancy, which depends on a variety of factors, but most women have at least two or three ultrasounds over the course of the pregnancy, and they are about $200 a pop. So it's definitely pocket change on pregnancy/childbirth. However, I was referrin…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:48 PM
1

Yes, this is true, but unless we have evidence they're behind the Manhood Academy spammers, we shouldn't go throwing around baseless accusations.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:41 PM
0

In my experience, most couples, especially married, go to genetic counselling together, if only because they'll need information on both sides.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:40 PM
1

Regardless of what he mean, that's not what he said, and it only takes one to disprove a blanket statement. As a woman, I speak for women with marginally more authority than he does.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:39 PM
1

"Tend to" to the point they can't control themselves and just throw themselves at the nearest macho douchebag? No, of course not. This is as offensive as saying that men have increased sex drives and are more prone to being rapists.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:37 PM
1

Still don't see anything in either of those Google searches that says women are more prone to cheat at times in their cycle, or that menstrual/ovulation cycles "make" women cheat. And still don't get the relevance of knowing when the women of your community are menstruating, assuming they do it together.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:35 PM
1

No, you'd have to go to court to formally adopt them, and the bio dads, if known and can be found, would have to agree.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:26 PM
1

Marrying someone with kids does not, at least anywhere I've heard of, make you legally their parent. In a case where the bio-mom or dad is still in the picture, taking the attitude that you are "replacing" a parent by marrying the other can be extremely harmful to the family. I've seen cases where the step-parent does legally adopt the step-kids, if both bio-parents agree, but this doesn't happen automatically. You may be getting confused in that some step-parents, especially ones that married t…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:26 PM
17

We don't know what happened between Mr. Nicastro and the unnamed accuser, but we do know two things: (1) it would be grossly unjust to suggest the accuser lied, and (2) it would be equally unjust to suggest that Max Nicastro should go through life branded as a quasi-rapist. As always, your fair and even-handed coverage of these travesties is a credit to the movement. Misogyny? SPLC can go suck a dick.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:07 PM
1

True but in many places non-rape sexual assault is a lesser crime. Which is fine when talking about grabbing asses or pinching boobs, not so cool when forcing things up pee-holes.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 11:11 PM
3

PHMT is a ridiculous argument anyway, since patriarchy is oftend defined as a system which advantages males over females in every circumstance. If that were the case, then surely the female work place deaths would be higher than the male? It makes no sense. My understanding is that the "third wave" definition of patriarchy is more "gender roles that were put in place by men for men's benefit." Not to say they had no disadvantages for men, but that men were the ones in control. But no, I don't ge…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 11:10 PM
3

I wasn't calling you a liar or anything. Just saying experiences with this could differ. There's a lot of male feminists out there.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 11:04 PM
2

It's a common difference, one of those "women are from Venus" things.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 11:03 PM
1

And a menstruation tent only tells you when she's (most likely) NOT fertile, not when she IS. I spent seven months counting and temperature taking and trying to judge gooeyness before my doctor recommended ovulation strips. Unless a woman is on hormonal medication such as birth control, her cycle is often not regular enough to pinpoint this stuff-- besides, how many Dogon men would know about that anyway? Do tribal Africans get comprehensive sex ed?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 11:01 PM
3

I don't know, you'd have to ask a Canadian. :)
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:57 PM
2

Compared to what? Sounds pretty standard for a lab test.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:28 PM
4

Am I reading that right? That if they find genetic evidence that the father is not the father, they won't or are advised not to tell him?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:28 PM
2

Well, they'd just do it at the hospital, it wouldn't be a big hassle. Like HIV testing, which is mandatory for all babies born in my state (California) if the mother hasn't been recently tested.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:23 PM
2

They started out as a political movement with aspirations to the big time. Atheists aren't an organized group at all, the only unifying theme is a lack of belief in god.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:18 PM
2

Do you have anything to back that up?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:16 PM
2

Yeah, I've noticed. I remember hearing his story before-- I think it was him-- and I feel for him, but that doesn't give him the right to call my husband a fool or me a "cunning fox."
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:16 PM
5

Make it routine and default (opt out instead of opt in); no need to make it mandatory.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:13 PM
4

In cases where neither parent is worried about paternity, what purpose would this serve? Well, of course the mother isn't worried about paternity. She (usually) knows who the father is. The father has no such assurance. Unlike the mother, he's not carrying the kid for 9 months and then popping it out. Up until a few years ago, he had to just take it on faith and trust. But now men don't have to let something so fundamentally important up to faith and trust. And really, we have no way of knowing …
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:12 PM
1

Personally I'm in favor of a Socialized healthcare system, but in the US you really have to focus on the cost of everything. I'm in favor of it too, but that doesn't mean we can stop worrying about how much it costs; it still has to get paid, whether it's you or the state paying for it. As I said above, paternity tests are $80-100. The expensive ones ($400-600) are admissible in court because they maintain a strict chain of custody, but you don't need that just to do a screening; it's the same t…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:08 PM
2

No, it's $80 a pop. Trust me, spit in the bucket. Just saw a statistic the other day (don't know the source) that said average baby delivery in the US is just over $9K.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:07 PM
2

Feminism != women's rights.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:02 PM
5

I know, but you're more likely to find agreement in select male company. Maybe because I'm a woman, or just my random anecdotal experience, but this has not been the case for me. I have found my mother and sister to be more receptive to (most) men's rights issues than my male boss, for example.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:02 PM
2

Atheists aren't a major political lobby.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:00 PM
5

they either don't believe me - because such facts contradict their bogus world view that we live in a patriarchy that favours male interests ahead of female concerns in all cases - or state that they don't care. I'm surprised you haven't encountered the feminist favorite-- Patriarchy Hurts Men Too! (or PHMT for short). These feminists will argue that the high percentage of male workplace deaths is due to patriarchal discrimination against women in high-risk fields and men in low-risk fields; hig…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:59 PM
2

Well, the argument I generally see for child support (usually in the context of legal paternal surrender, but it's still valid here) is that a child has a right to the support of two parents. This child appears to be getting the support of three (in theory at least). Your observation of the double standard is entirely fair though.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:51 PM
70

Province.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:47 PM
3

Yeeeeeah, okay, you get the "off the deep end" tag now.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:36 PM
2

Oh, I see what you're saying, if women could be victims of maternity fraud? Yeah, that would even things out.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:35 PM
1

However, the theory is that women like to control men through sex. Thus in order to keep men sex hungry they make it a scare commodity. Women who freely distribute sex are therefore devaluing the product of the sisterhood, who duly shame her as a slut to keep the price of their pussy sky high If you'd found the thread that the OP is discussing, you'd see that the vast majority of women there are talking about how they'd be more likely to put out if they didn't feel that men would judge them as l…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:10 PM
5

Oh, well, according to feminists, TONS of abusive men either sabotage their partner's birth control, outright forbid/prevent them from using it, and/or refuse to allow them abortions. I have no citations for this, other than: Approximately 8.6% (or an estimated 10.3 million) of women in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, or refused to use a condom with 4.8% having had an intimate partner who tried to get them pregn…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:44 PM
1

Oh, I'm sorry for misinterpreting then. I believe vegibowl created it just so there would be a female perspective. I'm glad someone with the time and energy did so, and I hope it takes off.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:40 PM
1

There's nothing wrong with good daycare. Good daycare is expensive, though. I'm okay with my daycare, but my husband and I are increasingly less satisfied as our daughter gets older, and we can't afford to switch to a better one. There's also a big difference between sending your kid to daycare for a few hours a day for socialization and so forth, things they can't get as well at home, and sticking them there for 10 hours a day five days a week like my daughter. You have absolutely no idea what …
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:26 PM
1

I've honestly not met one under, say, 50 years old or so. My husband is not even 30 and he has told me repeatedly that if we could afford for me to stay home, he would vastly prefer me to do so, and we are working towards that end. He was not "shamed" into it (me and his parents often tell him he works too much)-- daycare is just really expensive, and with (soon to be) three kids, it's getting very close to not being cost effective for me to work. Add in the benefit of a relatively clean house a…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:15 PM
1

Marriage was kept far more alive by the coercive power of society and social pressure. Inevitably, the producers are overwhelmed by the takers. Or they reach equilibrium. You can see it here, the farmer-thief model. Richard Dawkins examines the same phenomenon in numerous species in "The Selfish Gene." Populations reach a point of stability between producers and takers, or they go extinct. Again, though, our little commune worked just fine for about five years, and did not dissolve due to equity…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:07 PM
3

I didn't really get how fertility cycle transparency prevents cuckolding myself.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:01 PM
2

If anyone thinks women are going to go along with any kind of paternity test... I'm fine with it.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:59 PM
15

No man would ever do that mad doctor stuff. Oh really? Of course, he was convicted in federal court of 52 counts of fraud and perjury, sentenced to 5 years in prison and 3 years probation, and ordered to pay $116,805 in fines and restitution.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:44 PM
6

He says calls last year by the Men’s Rights Agency to make paternity tests mandatory was “like using a jackhammer to kill a mosquito”, because vested interests have wildly exaggerated the issue. He says father’s rights groups, the DNA industry and some academics inflate the figures, but really the rate of women giving birth to another man’s baby is probably around 1 or 2 per cent. Well, without routine testing, we'll never know, now will we?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:36 PM
1

Did Relevant_Rule_34 retire?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:31 PM
3

ಠ_ಠ I was not aware that /r/LadyMRAs was created to get the women out of /r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:28 PM
1

To my knowledge, SRS is not affiliated with Manhood Academy.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:25 PM
1

They don't delete their posts, the mods delete them as spam. Typically it's something douchey about real men standing up for themselves. Replies get retorts like "U MAD DUMB CUNT?" Really, absolutely nothing interesting or worthwhile.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:25 PM
3

if the feminist label itself show "clear bias If? Is the connotation of the word itself not enough to indicate a bias? Would calling it "femaleism" make it more obvious? Again, last I checked, Christina Hoff Sommers and Warren Farrell and Wendy McElroy all self-identified as feminists, but do not seem to have a marked bias against men. People like Warren Farrel are with us in spite of their feminism, not because of it; though, pretty sure Farrel himself has argued against feminism and feminist t…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 11:18 PM
2

Alimony is only awarded after the marriage is dissolved, and there is nothing in communism's definition that requires it to be coerced.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 11:13 PM
2

I'm not seeing it.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 10:25 PM
10

The issues on this subreddit regarding false rape accusations, child custody, and the horrific practice of circumcision all come to mind as things I feel more aware of and am with MRAs on Are you serious? No, you are not more "aware of" on these issues than the average MRA. That's not what she said. She said that she is 1. more aware of these issues (by virtue of this sub) AND 2. she is with MRAs on these issues (presumably by virtue of being more educated). At least, that's how I read it. The f…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:58 PM
8

Communism fails because you try to apply that principle to too many people, and that requires coercion. I lived in a household with three adults and we maintained a fairly communistic setup for years. Communism works fine with small groups with voluntary participation.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:43 PM
4

Which turned out to not be real.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:38 PM
3

On the chance a gay guy is raped, I doubt he would complain compared to a woman. This isn't a good thing, IMO.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:23 PM
6

I wish to god I knew what to tell you. Maybe get in touch with a fathers' rights group? I think some of them have lawyers who do pro bono work for men in similar situations to yours.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:14 PM
1

Obviously I haven't had a Kindle for 10 years. :P However, I think it speaks to my commitment to Amazon that I shelled out $100+ on a brand-specific device. By committing myself to Kindle, I'm betting that Amazon will have better selection and deals than competitor such as Nook, and that Amazon will continue to provide Kindle service long enough for me to get my money's worth. My husband I also have Amazon Prime. I do sometimes pay a little more for products I know I could get cheaper on sale at…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:12 PM
3

Am I the only one thinking that the US military is less suited to have women in it than gay men?
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:47 PM
1

Again, I probably wouldn't have bothered replying if a large part of slut-shaming wasn't about gendered sexual stereotypes. I will say, I agree that the significant number of women who play "hard to get" greatly muddy the waters for the rest of us. Guys get confused by honest women, women feel like they can't be honest, women and men don't know where to draw lines, women get caught "crying wolf," etc.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:43 PM
13

I can't speak for Silvercumulus, but I try to break the feminist circlejerks I encounter in my female friends and acquaintances. Make people think about the stupid shit they say or post where they're just repeating themselves. It's easier for men to speak up, a lot of times, if they have a female "ally."
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:35 PM
29

First off, your story is heartbreaking. I hope things get better for you. As an aside, though, this is female privilege. I'm sitting here, writing sincere words of sympathy to this anonymous man, but I know, I will never be in his position. I will never have to endure coming home to police who will believe every word my spouse says with no evidence and bar me from my home and children. I will never have to pay child support. If my children were kidnapped by my ex-spouse, an APB and Amber Alert w…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:32 PM
2

Did you miss the OP then? "Can we talk about "slut-shaming" for a minute?" All the comments made are in the context of that original post, or at least, mine were. I'm incredibly confused as to what you thought we were discussing if not slut shaming.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:21 PM
1

Regardless of what the woman's intentions were, the store should not have acted on them without reason. And, as far as the information in the article goes, there was no such reason, other than an alleged policy against men alone in the kids section.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:08 PM
1

Didn't they modify that policy after the guy sued them? As an aside, if I'd been his pregnant wife, I'd have raised holy hell.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:04 PM
2

No, it hasn't.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:57 PM
2

The retraction
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:57 PM
2

Some women. Not all women do this. Yeah, I know, I just NAWALTed you. But you can't bitch about stupid sexual stereotypes about men and then in the same breath make sexual stereotypes about women that are just as stupid.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:53 PM
1

Is it for my Kindle?
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:51 PM
3

"women want a guy who'll watch movies and cuddle with them, with no expectation of sex". It just found that incredibly weird (I've heard the idea before, here and there). I mean, why would you want someone who is basically a boyfriend without the sex? This is different, IMO. The key word there is "expectation." Remember that women are pretty much inundated with the "horny guy" stereotype. And lots of guys feel the need to live up to it, as well. This is more about being able to cuddle without fe…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:51 PM
1

I didn't mean it was a put down, I was just saying that guys aren't the only ones who are encouraged to see if the grass really is greener.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:45 PM
3

They're less attracted to them. I don't think that translates to "value them less as human beings." That goes back to the OP's original post-- it's "shaming" someone to not be attracted to their character or personality as much as someone else? It's violating women somehow to not be as attracted to a promiscuous woman, but it's not violating the man at all telling him what he's "allowed" to consider attractive?
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:44 PM
4

That's not what he's saying. He's saying when low-income women act in a "slutty" manner, then it becomes everyone's problem because we're expected to pay for them to be a responsible sluts. That's not to say all sluts are low-income, or that all poor women are sluts. However, low-income women are probably disproportionately more likely to be more ignorant of birth control, have less access (in addition to less ability to afford it), and more likely to have risk factors that cause them to seek va…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:20 PM
6

Women are in love with not having sex. Where are you getting this? Most women, in my experience, like sex just fine.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:52 PM
5

And my mama used to tell me (a woman), literally, "You should shop around." (Yes, I'm paraphrasing the old song.) I mean, she turned out to be right-- engaged at 19 was a bad idea in retrospect-- but this is by no means advice that only men get.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:50 PM
7

Because women may say that, but the vast amount of actual "slut shaming" comes from other women. Women just don't like to admit it.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:48 PM
9

And the vagina swells when engorged with blood as well. :P
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:40 PM
9

The reverse is also true; male "players" are revered and promiscuous women are, well... "sluts". This is the stereotype, sure, but is it really true? Some men have a brief window in their late teens or early twenties where "scoring" is cool. After that, it quickly gets looked at more and more askance. A man who hasn't started to settle down by age 25 is considered immature and clinically anti-social. Whereas women who continue to party up to 30 and beyond are "liberated" and edgy for challenging…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:39 PM
7

It can loosen after childbirth though. Or so I hear.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:37 PM
4

Oh, I hear you. Managers at my retail store almost never took breaks because it was up to us to make sure that people were helped, tapes got back on the shelf, and the line didn't get too long, and they wouldn't let us schedule enough people to do it and still let everyone take their full half hour. Then they'd bitch about getting in trouble for break violations.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:15 PM
3

The CONSAD report is from 2009, but Obama was barely in office then. Are you sure his administration commissioned it?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:13 PM
5

No, because I bet Romney supports "equal pay" as well.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:50 PM
9

We didn't take lunch or breaks, because, if you didn't make your lines or pieces, you were fired. Pretty sure that's illegal.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:47 PM
1

I am a die-hard Amazon fan and have been for more than 10 years. It would take a lot to win me away from them.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:30 PM
1

Yes, but do Muslims routinely circumcise at age 6 instead of as babies?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:29 PM
3

This was not a criminal prosecution. This was an alleged policy implementation on private property.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:24 PM
7

Is Arizona the new Florida?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:22 PM
4

At least that policy doesn't (ostensibly) gender discriminate.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:21 PM
25

Did you read the article? He was asked to leave because he was using the kids area as a phone booth. Did you read the article? it says: "Men alone cannot be by themselves in the children's area," Amin said he was told, adding that Voris said other bookstores had encountered problems with child molesters. So unless you are directly contradicting his story-- which B&N themselves have not-- that's not the reason he was given. People talk on cell phones in stores all the time-- and I've never seen a…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:18 PM
18

I think being escorted out as a sex offender will probably kill that day-brightening effect. :(
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:15 PM
6

I dislike the atmosphere of Barnes & Nobles but it's the only book store in my area. Amazon.com is everywhere.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:14 PM
3

Now you're the one making no sense.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 04:50 PM
1

Why? MRAs aren't the first to co-opt it, and as someone who feels and has felt "closeted" on several "lifestyle choices," shall we say, in her life, I don't see how it's inappropriate here.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:52 AM
2

It's okay, the article still has merit. Does anyone know, actually, which is more prevalent? I know infant circumcision is more common in the US, but worldwide, is young childhood circumcision more common? I'm willing to bet circumcision at 4 or 6 fucks you up worse than circumcision as an infant (which is not to say infant circumcision doesn't fuck you up at all).
/r/MensRights04/06/12 02:23 AM
3

Well, my point was twofold. First, that there are a number of legitimate men's rights issues that do not come from "patriarchal gender roles," and that the child custody issue was one of them. And second, that institutional feminists, at least (the ones lobbying for legislation and writing policy), do not seem to have changed this position from the 1800s-- and despite in some cases paying lip service to wanting to tear down gender roles for both men and women, seem perfectly content to keep them…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 11:45 PM
10

Any part of that that calls statutory rape "consensual" or "not sexual abuse" flies in the face of every statutory rape law in the country. Why bother having an age of consent if it means nothing? I doubt any of those arguments would ever be brought into play for a female victim of statutory rape.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 11:39 PM
7

Which means you do not take on the risk of having a child.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 11:17 PM
4

You do not take on the risk of having a child when you have sex if you are a woman.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 10:43 PM
1

We aren't the ones creating a zero-sum battle for rights. In other words, we aren't the ones saying that giving men their rights-- for example, funding support for domestic violence and rape victims regardless of gender, or given fathers default shared custody-- takes away "rights" of women or disadvantages them.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 10:04 PM
2

in more fundamental, conservative societies, female sexuality is even punishable by mutilation or death. FTFY. Religious fundamentalists don't go giving high fives out to guys who score.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 10:00 PM
3

Like I said, this favoritism stems from a long-standing tradition of viewing women as domestic caretakers. To combat it, social attitudes must be adjusted so that men are viewed as equally tenable candidates for single parenthood. Then why does NOW, a feminist organization (arguably THE feminist organization) support it? This is their position on shared custody: NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder - Regardless of whether you think PAD is a real thing or not, this page would…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 09:02 PM
5

Wasn't there just a post about how the vast majority of women refuse to identify as feminists, and almost 20% think "feminist" is an insult? So, not all women will automatically agree with the feminist.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 08:01 PM
9

We don't have a religious exemption for female circumcision.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 07:54 PM
6

I'm about to post an anti-circ rant myself, so don't mistake me. I'm against circumcision. But: The distressed boys - who were six years old on average - were forcibly held down during the procedure that was carried under a local anaesthetic which is only considered suitable for newborns and infants. These were not infant circumcisions (as the headline claims). Moreover, I'm sure pro-infant-circ people will use this as an argument FOR infant circumcision because the anesthesia would (allegedly) …
/r/MensRights03/06/12 06:47 PM
5

And yes, I said women, not feminists - the vast majority of western women subscribe to the tenets of feminism on an emotional level. Only because they've been brainwashed to think reality has a feminist slant. Most, when presented with clear situations that call for men's rights, do agree with the men's rights position. I.e., they're for greater protection for rape for women because they've been told 90% of rape victims are women and 95% of rapists are men, and so forth. This has been my experie…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 06:41 PM
3

Not if you're a woman.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:21 PM
1

the idea that it's the woman that SHOULD be caring for the child and necessarily the woman that WILL be the better parent is rooted in some sexism that isn't all that pleasant for the woman, either. Not true, this is actually a feminist idea. Google "Tender Years Doctrine." Up until the early 1800s, in the rare event of divorce, men kept the children because they were the ones with the income to provide for them. An early feminist campaigned to keep young children from being separated from their…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:19 PM
1

Men's rights isn't a single political platform where you have to agree with all issues. In fact, I haven't met any two MRAs who agree on all the issues discussed here, or even what should be the issues. If you come here for the false rape allegation stuff, that's cool-- but there's no need to denigrate people who come here for other reasons as "whiny little bitches." Just because you don't get it doesn't mean there isn't any merit to it. You might try asking for clarification on why this is an i…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:00 PM
3

Is that like a Karma Chameleon?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:52 PM
3

If you can look past the "Don't me wrong, fellow feminists, really, we women have it so much worse" it's not bad at all.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:50 PM
4

I sense a concern troll, at least on the topic of abortion. I'm kind of unusual in that I am mostly socially liberal, somewhat fiscally liberal, and an atheist, and also anti-abortion. So I find it hard to miss just how mealy-mouthed his disapproval-- I can't even call it "opposition"-- to abortion is. But the reason I question his anti-abortion credentials, so to speak, is this bit: First, most people see it as a surrogate for controlling sexual morality. Conservatives are afraid to admit anyth…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:00 PM
3

Which comes more from distrust of the system than distrust of women. And, as I tried to explain to popoi1147, is just words. Most of these guys will probably meet someone anyway. In my experience, the majority of "never get married" types do eventually get married. As opposed to the exclusion of non-white races and their issues and concerns in action.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 09:23 PM
3

You can use whatever word you want, but whatever you want to call it, failing in action is worse than failing in words.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 09:15 PM
1

While I'm against that as well, never telling the guy that you were ever pregnant is different than him knowing and telling you he wants the kid and you lying and saying it died or just disappearing.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 09:14 PM
1

But if you played all day long, you'd probably run out. Then you have to wait until the next day, or buy some. It's not as bad as Mafia Wars, but it still catches the chronically bored.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:11 PM
1

How do you get the chips?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:08 PM
3

The other important point is that they are so unaware of their own privilege. Question 1: "How do women of color stand to benefit by joining the current TWFC?" Answers to Question 1 were clustered around the belief that TWFC helped "all women" and that a woman of color's interests were also served by the work of the organization because "they're women too." No one on the board suggested that the category of "women" was not universal, and that communities of women (or women from different communi…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:08 PM
6

Well, considering that the white feminists in the OP were active activists and declined to activize for the issues that the feminists of color, I'd say that's doing more actual harm (presuming those issues to be of merit, of course) than random guys talking on the internet, regardless of what they say. Of course, if they do more than just talk, it clearly becomes not "casual" anymore.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:53 PM
0

My understanding, again, is that Utah is singled out because it puts the most roadblocks in the way of birth fathers (narrow window to appeal, strict procedure enforcement, no appeals), and is home to many many Mormon-based adoption agencies who take advantage of these roadblocks, as well as adding their own in. Adoption laws vary by state. There were a total of 128,073 in 2007 and 2008 according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. When …
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:45 PM
6

They certainly seem to worry enough about casual misogyny (not to mention nonexistent misogyny).
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:29 PM
6

All based on the assumption that the organization must attract these other people. I do agree with you, but keep firmly in mind, these primarily white feminist organizations specifically called in these diversity experts because they were puzzled and disappointed by their lack of racial diversity, and wanted to attract more women of color.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:28 PM
3

It's one of those games that shuts the player out of a lot of features or makes a lot of features hard to access if you don't spend real money and/or a ton of time on it. Isn't that all Facebook games?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:17 PM
1

The sex chromosome pairing is one pairing out of 23. I'm not a geneticist, but it seems stretching a little to claim that sons are "more" genetically related to fathers than to daughters are to either parent based on the one pairing. My understanding is that the genetic split on the zygote is exactly 50/50.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:07 PM
1

Please tell me I wasn't the only one thinking this when he started talking about shemale porn? Dante Hicks: Hey, whatcha rent? [reads the cover to Randal's videotape] Dante Hicks: "Best of Both Worlds"? Randal Graves: Hermaphroditic porn. Starlets with both organs. You should see the box. Beautiful chicks with dicks that put mine to shame. Dante Hicks: And you rented this? Randal Graves: Hey, I like to expand my horizons.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:02 PM
3

But isn't that the (internet) age old question? How do you spot a troll?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:35 PM
1

This isn't just a problem in the UK. The US's CDC's 2010 NISVS explicitly excluded "made to penetrate" (vast majority perpetrated by women) from "rape," and instead put it under "other sexual violence."
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:29 PM
1

calling paternity a "social/patriarchal construct" Is it me, or is this just as bad as the homunculus theory of semen that held that men planted tiny people in women that grew into babies, and that the woman was a mere incubator, but didn't actually contribute any of herself to the baby?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:27 PM
1

This happens routinely in the U.S.A. Don't get me wrong, there is no other single men's rights issue that upsets me more than this one, but does it really happen that much? My understanding was that it was primarily a thing in Utah, and there were perhaps 10-12 fathers that I'd heard about. Way too many, but not an epidemic (or "routine") either.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:00 PM
0

I'd rather someone use such a service than import a quasi-slave bride. Yeah, there's websites for that too. shudder
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:53 PM
4

Something I've always found sociologically interesting is that my mom, a housewife, manages the family's money. Essentially, she's in charge of the family (for most things outside financial planning too), and my dad brings home paychecks. It's a bizarre feminist take on being a homemaker. It's a very traditional take on it. If you read Jane Austin, for example, women were doing the same thing in Georgian (1700s) England.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:51 PM
3

Women taking control of personal finances is nothing new. Historically, women often managed the household, which meant they budgeted the husband's income for food, clothes, rent (where applicable), servants, debts, etc., and then let the husband know how much he could spend on incidentals.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:50 PM
2

"Wes has had a different vision of what's best for children in the state of Utah," said attorney David Hardy, also a former president of the UAC. The whole point is that most, if not all of these children would NOT have been "in the state of Utah" had their birth mothers not lied to the father and ran off there to give birth.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:33 PM
5

Oh, yeah, no agenda there. /s
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:41 AM
4

I agree that I don't think most women have babies as paychecks, but 40% of kids these days are being born to unmarried moms, 60% for moms under 30. They can't all be "non-white, lower class girls suffering from lack of birth control/basic sex ed." The Guardian is actually fairly liberal, and usually fairly feminist. Perhaps you meant The Daily Mail?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:40 AM
2

How is this getting even one upvote?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:47 AM
1

It depends on where you put the emphasis. If you read it like (not sure how clear this will be in text) "Real men get raped," like "Real men don't eat quiche," it comes off like "you're only a real man once you've been raped," which would be fucked up and I can't believe would be their message. If you read instead more like "Real. Men. Get. Raped." with equal emphasis on each word, maybe slightly more on "get," it comes off more like "rape doesn't have anything to do with your manhood." I see yo…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:30 AM
1

Does this campaign address female on male rape, or just male on male?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:20 AM
-1

I think it is true that men commit most rapes. According to the 2010 NISVS, men commit about 60% of rapes. So, you're right, but not by a huge margin or anything. But, to speak to your main point, "only men can stop rape" slogans don't mean that feminists, as a whole, think that men, as a whole, set out to intentionally make the lives of women, and only women, worse, and only worse. It means that the creators of those slogans think that men, people who identify as males in male bodies, commit al…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:51 AM
1

A 14 year old girl is not a woman. On the other hand, how old was the "young man?" Was he 14 or 15 himself? Did he give the girl alcohol for the purpose of incapacitating her? Also, as I have said in another comment, sex with anyone who is incoherent, immobile, or unconscious is rape. So, yes, I agree, that would be rape. But pressuring a woman, or anyone to drink, and then having sex with them, makes you a predator. It might not be "rape" but it's fucking something. It makes you a jerk, IMO. Bu…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:48 AM
0

They sound like attempts to perpetuate the idea that rape is something that only happens to women and is only perpetrated by men.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:41 AM
1

I've never heard a kid be told not to murder. Hah! 10 commandments! Aww yea. Just went all Moses up in this piece. Well, you did make me laugh. :) But, joking aside, I grew up Jewish, and the Ten Commandments (in Hebrew) were prominently displayed in my synagogue above the Ark. I don't think the "murder" part is generally emphasized to the kids under five. In fact, the only time I remember the murder commandment being discussed at all was a discussion? sermon? religious school class? fuck if I r…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:31 PM
1

Because men are going to jail for otherwise consensual encounters. Men's lives are being ruined because women change their mind in the morning. From a practical standpoint, there's the issue of men having their lives ruined-- sometimes going to jail or ending up dead-- by rape accusations over drunken sexual encounters. From a principle standpoint, men are being put in the ridiculous position of not only being responsible for their own actions while drunk, but the actions of the women around the…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:25 PM
2

We need to teach everyone how to minimize risk factors for being raped, and everyone not to rape and what behaviors cross that line. 1.7 million women AND men reported being raped on the 2010 NISVS by the CDC. And 80% of those men were raped by women. That's a lot of women rapists, a lot of whom almost certainly don't consider themselves rapists.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:17 PM
1

I went back and no one used the phrase "got you drunk"-- both you and fuck_your_username consistently used "got drunk," implying no influence by either party on the other. But what does that phrase me, "'got' you drunk?" Bought/offered me drinks? Pressured me to drink them? Attempted to shame attempts to decline alcohol? I've had all these happen to me, and I said, "No." It wasn't hard. It wasn't scary. I was an adult, and I didn't want to drink, and I didn't drink. Teens are a different story, …
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:16 PM
2

No, it's not. Feminist women fought for custody of their young children. Today, feminist women... still fight for custody of their young children, denigrating fathers in the process: NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder - Regardless of whether you think PAD is a real thing or not, this page would leave you thinking that women never say horrible untrue things about their exes to their kids (with or without the intention of alienating them) and that only abusive dads/partners …
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:41 PM
2

Yeah, except feminists are fighting to keep the tender years clause. NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder - Regardless of whether you think PAD is a real thing or not, this page would leave you thinking that women never say horrible untrue things about their exes to their kids (with or without the intention of alienating them) and that only abusive dads/partners would bring up these nasty lies in custody hearings. Note the effort to discredit fathers' rights groups (like Gle…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:36 PM
0

But the stereotypes portrayed in the graphic are either not ones MR particularly cares about (Easy-Bake Ovens), or are ones that feminism are actively trying to preserve (mothers as better caregivers).
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:16 PM
2

No, but pretty close-- it seems to imply that if men were free to be more girly, everything would be fine. It's a simplistic and insulting approach to men's rights that ignores pretty much all the major issues that have a concrete impact on men's lives.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:11 PM
6

Yeah, most of us don't care about this crap. Seriously, Easy-Bake Ovens are nowhere in our sidebar. At least half the comments are pointing out that this graphic is borderline offensive in ignoring pretty much all the major issues that have impact and instead insisting that if men were just more free to be girly, all would be well. I'm not accusing any particular subreddit, but the upvote/downvote patterns in this thread are not indicative of the usual consensus of /mr.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:10 PM
5

This, with a little bit of cleaning up, belongs in the FAQ.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:57 PM
4

Saying that implies that feminists think men, and only men, set out to cause women, and specifically women, harm. So-- what's up with the "Only men can stop rape" slogans? There was a recent post about "dudenotes" or some such being passed around UCLA campus basically telling men not to forget to not rape anyone. Also a post just in the last couple days of a urinal cake printed with "You hold in your hands the power to stop rape."
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:55 PM
5

The part I love is that when men do it, it's "mansplaining."
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:52 PM
5

Are you even reading the same subreddit as me?
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:06 PM
3

Here you go. Only $44.97. I do remember making some tasty things with my sister's when we were kids.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:57 PM
1

I was never a big drinker, but I used to drink Kaluah and milk, sometimes with Bailey's, sometimes not. Rum and coke was good too. These days, though, I don't hang out with a drinking crowd, I don't feel the need to experiment with intoxication, and I don't need the social lubricant. If I went out with friends more, I'd make more of an effort, but I don't. It's really not a big deal-- I don't feel like I'm missing out at all.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:56 PM
1

I find this having your cake and eating it too position of many feminists to be ridiculous. We don't let children drink because they do not have the judgment, experience, or perspective to make sound decisions about alcohol. Adults can legally drink because they are expected to use their superior judgment and experience. Either women are capable of acting-- and taking responsibility-- like adults, or we're not. But we can't demand the adult privilege of drinking and then demand to be treated lik…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:52 PM
1

Someone who used to use almost exactly the same line. Whenever this debate comes up-- drunk sex vs. rape-- someone always has to make it personal to those arguing that drunk consent is valid. "Why do you feel it's so important to be able to bang drunk girls?" "Why, do you need to get girls drunk to get laid?" etc. etc. I'm a woman, and I've never banged a drunk chick, and I've had drunk sex exactly once, and that's because we all went out and bought the alcohol with the express purpose of gettin…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:45 PM
1

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was agreeing with you that people should drink according to their comfort levels and limits. I don't like alcohol, I don't like the way it tastes, and the idea of doing stuff I wouldn't normally do, or, worse, losing whole sections of time, is terrifying. Instead of doing it and complaining about known effects of alcohol, I just don't drink.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:28 PM
1

Oh, no, to be sure, men do get charged and probably convicted for women they've never seen before in their lives. COTWA has documented several cab drivers, for instance, accused of rape by strange women who just wanted to get out of their cab fares.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:26 PM
1

FYI: Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene. -American Academy of Pediatrics
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:19 PM
1

For example, circumcision can protect against [2] prostate cancer. From your link: But the difference in circumcision status between the groups in the latest studies wasn't huge — only about four percentage points. ... "I would not go out and advocate for widespread circumcision to prevent prostate cancer," Jonathan Wright, a urologist at the University of Washington med school author of the study, told Reuters Health. "We see an association, but it doesn't prove causality." Emphasis mine. Not o…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:08 PM
1

Some studies are finding that it (circumcision) decreases the odds that a heterosexual man will contract HIV by 57 percent or more World Health Organization: "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." That's a relative reduction, not an absolute. The absolute reduction is only 1.31%. Not emotion based. Science. Circumcision does lower the risk of some diseases, such as penile cancer. However, again,…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:01 PM
1

O.o RogueEagle, is that you?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:33 PM
1

If women can't be responsible for themselves after drinking, then they shouldn't be allowed to drink, period. As a woman, I find that pretty insulting (I don't drink, and I've had no problem turning down drinks in the past), but, that's where the logic goes.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:27 PM
2

I agree with the spirit of Billistic's comment, but I agree the way he's expressing it is, as you say, "a tad rapey and a little misogynistic" in places. But the point remains-- there are many many women who drink with the express intention of lowering their inhibitions. "Rape" only enters the picture (a lot of times) when they lower their inhibitions further than they wanted to, or lower them for the "wrong" guy (determined in the cold, sober light of day), or they're telling a girlfriend about…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:24 PM
1

If I consent to knocking myself out in the middle of the sidewalk of a busy city with my wallet knowingly in my hand, is it the person next to me's fault my wallet would be stolen? It is if they stole it.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:19 PM
1

I gotta say I'm with hardwarequestions on this. Not that I've ever been in a position to have sex with someone I wasn't sure about by the time we got to the naked phase, but asking me right before sticking it in would totally kill the moment. It would make me wonder if he was having doubts. If she spreads her legs, how is that not implied consent?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:13 PM
1

That makes no sense. Grabbing someone's ass is considered sexual assault. Are you saying that if the ass-grabee doesn't verbalize nonconsent before the act (impossible under most circumstances, there often isn't any warning), it's perfectly fine?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:01 PM
1

if somebody touches you in a way you don't like, you ask them to stop. if they don't stop, it's sexual assault. But didn't you just say that lack of consent does not mean consent? According to that logic, it sounds like onus is on her to get explicit consent, not on you to verbalize your non-consent.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:00 PM
1

And yet, women generally assume consent from men.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:58 PM
2

false accusations exist so you can go to jail for raping a girl that you never even touched, and she'll get 1.5 million bucks. If you're referring to Bryan Banks, he did touch her. They were making out in the stairwell. He just never had sex with her.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:56 PM
1

Exactly. I drink not at all.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:54 PM
1

Many of us agree that it's not a good idea. But-- should it be a crime? And if so, if two people are involved, who is the criminal?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:53 PM
1

Consent isn't even considered valid over the course of that sexual encounter, let alone future ones.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:48 PM
2

Tbh, we really do need a LOT more education on this. I just kind of assumed raping a guy would be physically impossible myself. I'm not dumb, and I'm not that ignorant, just in my experience, men have difficulty getting it up when under pressure. It would have been nice to cover this in sex ed (I do remember covering the mechanics of an erection).
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:47 PM
2

The problem is it's hard to know who IS a legitimate victim anymore.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:45 PM
2

The hilarious part (well, would be hilarious if it men weren't going to prison over it) is that feminists turn around and blame men for imposing "purity standards" on women that "make" them feel guilty. Men are only being punished for their own misogynistic sex-negativity.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:45 PM
1

The "rule" on both drunk is then "whoever initiated it"-- but that doesn't count if one is "more drunk" than the other. Often weaseled out of if the man was more drunk and/or the woman initiated by a bunch of bullshit about sexual dynamics and gender differences in sexual roles.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:43 PM
7

Sure thing: NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder - Regardless of whether you think PAD is a real thing or not, this page would leave you thinking that women never say horrible untrue things about their exes to their kids (with or without the intention of alienating them) and that only abusive dads/partners would bring up these nasty lies in custody hearings. Note the effort to discredit fathers' rights groups (like Glenn Sacks's Fathers & Families) as "populated" with "batte…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:05 PM
1

I'm not saying that the charge might not have been different for a man, but there's really no way to know that. Also, sentencing is different outside the United States-- does anywhere else even have life in prison for anything short of murder, if that? I know we're one of the only developed countries that still has the death penalty.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:05 PM
3

Are we really? Yeah, somehow I knew something like this would be your response. :P "Don't murder, Don't Steal, Don't Lie etc." are all things most kids are taught by the time they reach age 5 I've never heard a kid be told not to murder. "Don't steal" and "don't lie," yes, because those are things kids are commonly caught doing. But we teach kids not to hit, and not to bite, and not to fight, and to play nice, and to respect others. I'm not sure I appreciate a real difference between "X is bad" …
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:02 PM
1

I typically take the act of defending as a statement that such defense was necessary, or at least wanted. I certainly don't presume to speak for all women, but I can speak for myself, and I take this subreddit very seriously, in part due to posts like this.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 07:30 PM
4

According to this article, the judge said maximum sentence would have been five years.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:38 PM
5

Non-Daily Mail source The maximum sentence should could have received, according to the judge, was 5 years in prison. Doesn't say for what charge.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:37 PM
11

And continues to this day to defend it. You've seen my NOW links.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:28 PM
3

"Only you can prevent skincancer" Something you do to yourself by spending time in the sun unprotected, or tanning, or whathaveyou. Not something you do to someone else. This sticker is making you aware that rape exists. No, it goes way beyond that. "You hold the power to stop rape in your hands"-- put somewhere where the man seeing it will be holding his dick. It is entirely unambiguous. It's not saying you rape people. It's not even close. It's saying. "Think about what rape is." It's saying, …
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:19 PM
5

I don't know... I would never do something like that, not at any level of intoxication. Yet I know a lot of female friends who almost all have encountered a situation where sexual activity in one way or another was forced upon them. Those few seconds could've been the difference between something that can be easily forgiven or a life long trauma. If he's too drunk to recognize true screams of protest, or genuine efforts to resist or push him off, what makes you think he's going to remember a mes…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:14 PM
3

It's saying "The way to stop rape is to NOT RAPE THINGS WITH YOUR PENIS!" We get that. We're pointing out that the vast majority of men do not rape things with their penis, and that even if every male rapist did stop raping things with his penis, that would still leave the roughly 40% of total rapists out there raping tings with their vaginas. It's like when a person says "The way to avoid rape is to not rape" It's generally phrased "Only men can stop rape," which is where the issue comes in. It…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:07 PM
1

Only if you force her into a taxi with your penis.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:52 PM
5

And... we're also taught not to rape anybody. Also at a (relatively) young age.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:39 PM
6

Do we do this with problems such as murder? Terrorism? Yeah, we do. We focus on avoidance and prevention. I am aware of zero "Don't terrorize" campaigns by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:37 PM
10

First: It's offensive. It paints an entire demographic with a very broad brush. It's implying that all men are bad, and that society should be suspicious of all men because we may rape. Worse, it implies only men are bad (when it comes to rape). There are many studies now that show women are guilty in near-equal numbers of forcing men to penetrate them, and are just as verbally coercive as men (if not moreso). Second: It's not logical. It doesn't make any logical sense. The assertion that "only …
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:33 PM
2

Dammit, you beat me to it. :)
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:20 PM
1

I understand you intended to defend women. I, as a woman who agrees with the OP, find it kind of insulting that you think women (as a class, certainly individual men and women of /mr have varying opinions on the validity/propriety of OPs comparison) would have all have the same opinion, or that we need "defending" from potentially offensive opinions.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:48 AM
1

He seriously slept right through it. Was he drugged? Also, if a shot of painkiller or anesthetic cream is what you saw, why did you say that they knock the baby out?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:45 AM
1

so, I'm hearing that if I have sex wth a HIV+ person, who decides not to tell me, I should just take the 40% chance I'll get it instead of the 25%. Where are you getting those numbers? There is a 1.31% absolute difference in HIV transmission rates (from female to male) between circumcised and uncircumcised men. I'm telling you to take the <1% with a condom. Which they tell you to wear whether you're circumcised or not. Also, getting rid an flap of skin that instead of protecting my penis from th…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:44 AM
1

Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene. -The American Academy of Pediatrics
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:33 AM
1

Sure, but that's like saying all female genital mutilation is worse than any male circumcision. Male circumcisions can be botched, and ritual nicking of the clitoris, just enough to draw blood, is banned along with the more seriously forms-- it leaves no permanent damage, unlike male circumcision. Some rape may leave permanent physical damage. Some rape doesn't.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:32 AM
1

i thought about seriously hurting a nurse in the hospital, when my son was born she was insisting i put him through "getting cut", and told me i was a bad parent for refusing, and kept re-enforcing this for the 2 days i spent there. Seriously? I would have reported her and probably even written a letter complaining to the hospital and cc'ed the state licensing board. That's the most retarded thing I've heard today.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:30 AM
1

And, ladies and gentleman, we have a textbook case of ad hominem! In this case, shoreward spends 90% of his comment making irrelevant observations/inferences on dessicatedfetus's username, and literally 5 words refuting his/her comment.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:27 AM
1

Did we have some kind of moron invasion on this thread? How are you being downvoted? I thought OP's comparison-- the fact that he was not comparing the acts, but the arguments-- was perfectly clear.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:23 AM
1

It is inappropriate because it suggests that rape is alright You do understand that the prevailing opinion of the subreddit is that circumcision is a major human rights violation?
/r/MensRights28/05/12 10:25 PM
2

Since you felt the need to respond as a self-described "religious, Jewish" subscriber, let me respond as a former Jew who always thought circumcision was a barbaric practice worse than the animal blood-offerings that we did away with thousands of years ago. Let me ask you: why are you so personally offended by people pointing out what a grotesque human rights violation circumcision is? Do you think Muslims who get equally offended by the banning and increasing lack of acceptance for female genit…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 10:24 PM
1

it keeps it much cleaner No, it doesn't. Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene. [Source: the American Academy of Pediatrics]
/r/MensRights28/05/12 10:14 PM
1

That method, according to Kaiser Permanente, is not a common method. The same page says, regarding anesthesia: A shot of pain medicine or an anesthetic cream is used on the base of your baby’s penis for pain relief. A sucrose pacifier may also be given to your baby for pain relief. Your baby may have some mild pain during and after surgery. The pain after surgery usually does not last more than a day. Note that general anesthesia is not listed. General anesthesia is not safe for infants, especia…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 10:11 PM
1

I'm sorry you think that most women can't understand that the basic principle that if a wrong is done, that wrong is not lessened or negated because the victim cannot remember it.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:58 PM
1

People are downvoting you because you're casually siding "for" a permanent surgical procedure on a baby who cannot consent, with no good reason given so far. Actually, no reason at all beyond "I wouldn't want my kid's dick to look different than mine."
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:54 PM
0

Since you're not putting forth any studies, you have yet to substantively rebut the wealth of documented issues found here.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:51 PM
0

I went to AAFP statement on their webpage. They state, as you quote, that the they believe the effect on sensation/sexual satisfaction to be unknown, not that there aren't any. Their single citation to any source claiming that sensation/satisfaction are not lessened is Masters & Johnson's landmark study on sexual functioning in 1966. The Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service (CIRCS.org) noted this about the population sample of Masters & Johnson: Thirty-five of the 312 male m…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:50 PM
0

Have you ever been on the receiving end? No? Then how would you know?
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:15 PM
1

Athiest You were the one who offered a hypothetical religion as a "reason" to circumcise. Clitoris removal, not same thing Not the point, and, as I linked before, the majority of mutilated women, including women infibrulated (vagina sewed almost completely shut) can enjoy orgasms, do not experience difficulty lubricating, or painful intercourse. Im cut and i love it That's great for you, but you have absolutely no assurance that your son will feel the same way. He's not like a pet who will alway…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:14 PM
-1

Maybe im muslim, or a jew? That's great for you. There are no Muslim or Jewish babies, only babies born to Jewish or Muslim parents.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:09 PM
-1

Its not happening to you, you dont have to do it, see it or take part. And, again, this is like saying that murders, rapes, assaults, or thefts that aren't happening to you aren't any of your business-- so why should they be illegal? You don't have to rape, murder, or steal, see it, or take part. Gay marriage only affects the two people in the relationship. It literally affects no one else. People arguing against gay marriage are almost always arguing over semantics-- they don't want the definit…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:07 PM
1

Saying circumcision reduces the chance of disease is like saying that using the rhythm method reduces the chance of getting pregnant-- technically true, but only idiots rely on it. If you're going to wear a condom anyway, it doesn't really matter, does it? And the less time to clean thing-- that's like saying that we should cut ears off because they take too long to clean. If it's that important that you save that extra minute or two in the shower, you can always get it done yourself as an adult…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:56 PM
2

Or wear a condom. Which they advise circumcised guys to do anyway.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:53 PM
1

Why not have the parents decide if they want to genitally mutilate their daughters, instead of having a ban?
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:50 PM
6

No, I think his point is just that if rape where the woman is unconscious (for whatever reason) is just as bad as kicking and screaming forcible rape, then the argument that the person doesn't remember it so it couldn't have been that traumatic goes out the window. However, now that you mention it, it should probably take the emphasis off the roofie date rape thing and more on just the "sex with unconscious people" is rape.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:15 PM
1

And the point of comparing it to date rape, specifically, the "wake up in the morning missing your panties" type of rape, is that people who argue that this isn't "real" rape or is greatly less traumatic because the victim doesn't remember it actually happening are rightly vilified. Neither argument makes much sense.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:13 PM
1

It helps prevent spread of STDs (including AIDS and HIV) Where this is even true, condoms and vaccines are far far more effective and cost-efficient. Balanitis A condition that affects 3% of uncircumcised men. Studies on statistical significance between circumcised and uncircumcised were contradictory and inconclusive. [Source] and urinary track infections. See this page for a pretty thorough debunking of that. Note one of the studies that found that circumcision increases UTIs was by Israeli do…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:04 PM
2

I heard it (or a variation on it) just a couple days ago.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:14 PM
1

The fact that it's even being publicly and politically debated shows we're gaining traction.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:11 PM
1

I wouldn't say that they're wrong about the reasoning behind it (not the patriarchy part, but the sex-negativity that causes lying to be more compelling), but it doesn't make them "victims" (certainly not more than the poor guy), and it in no way excuses their behavior. Good luck changing previous generations' attitudes towards sex had by their kids. I will say, though, that some of the theories I've seen about fathers feeling like they "own" their female children because of jokes about shotguns…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:34 PM
1

But my point was simply that there may be a short window in a young man's life, in some social circles, where being a "player" is "cool" or gets him social bonus points. That window, if it even happens (and for the vast majority of men, it does not), closes very quickly, and the older a guy gets, the more immature and dickish such behavior will seem. This is not a new thing, we used to call them "cads." That was my main objection-- that men aren't shamed in their own way for similar behavior. I …
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:30 PM
1

The boy got married on February 12 and the former live-in partner went to Mandawali police station on March 1 insisting on registration of her complaint accusing him of repeatedly raping her on the promise of marriage. If I'm reading this right, she's not saying he rape-raped her, but that he "raped" her (and this may be rape by Indian law, if so, that's stupid) because she only had sex with him with the understanding they would be married. More "rape by deception" crap.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:09 PM
1

Have you checked out the list of people who have been "knighted" in the last fifty years by Her Majesty? It doesn't really have much to do with nobility or honor anymore,
/r/MensRights27/05/12 12:56 AM
1

Only sort of. "Equal pay for equal work" is still a mantra of the anti-wage gappers.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 12:53 AM
5

It's not about your personal preference on sluts; it's the societal double standard toward male and female sexuality. I don't think it's particularly true, nor do I think it's ever been particularly true; it's something people say to sound witty or clever, IMO. Depending on the context, it could be offensive.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 12:38 AM
5

What you're forgetting is that feminists will also say that, on the "rare" occasions when women lie about rape (to no detriment of the men they accuse, or anything), they are still "victims" of rape culture because (according to them), they do it because of slut-shaming and sex negativity which are caused by a (patriarchal) over-valuing of female virginity and a male sense of ownership over female children or partners. Never underestimate a feminist's ability to make it woman the victim of the p…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 11:48 PM
3

Yeah, I think I did. Sorry about that. Incidentally, regarding your other comment where you said FGM was the removal of any part of a girl's genitals? It doesn't just cover any removal but any cutting, whatsoever, even if it does no permanent damage.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:14 AM
2

I'm sure there's a lot of variation-- and I admit my up-close-and-personal experience with an uncircumcised penis was limited to one-- but I have seen many pictures the last few years arguing against circumcision online, and most seem to conform largely to this comparison. It's my understanding that, in an adult man, the foreskin should cover the glans when the penis is flaccid.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:11 AM
3

But, as you said, you don't remember it.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:11 AM
0

I disagree with your last statement. As a parent, it is your job to make important decisions for your child. To a point. It is not your job to make permanent cosmetic or religious decisions for him though. You might think it is, but that child will be an adult someday, who has the right to an intact body and will worship as he pleases (or not). I was raised Jewish, and I am especially against the religious arguments. There are no Jewish newborns, only babies born to Jewish parents. They want to …
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:06 AM
2

Why? The principle is the same. Dictionary.com defines "mutilation" as: mu·ti·late [myoot-l-eyt] verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing. 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. Notice there's nothing about the perception of the mutilated individual figuring in.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 08:36 PM
1

There's no reason for a grandparent to kill their daughter and granddaughter. Period.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 08:29 PM
1

Many rape statutes define penetration as "vaginal, anal, or oral penetration."
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:51 PM
4

Even if you don't see anything wrong with it, why would you do it without a good reason to? Would you cut off your daughter's inner labia so her vag looks "cleaner?"
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:48 PM
4

We don't, actually, surgically remove the umbilical cord from the baby. We clip it an inch or so out, and let it fall off on its own.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:46 PM
3

Go watch a video of a baby being circumcised. Listen to the screams. If you can't tell a scream of pain when you hear one...
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:45 PM
5

You do understand that developing phimosis at your age is incredibly rare? Circumcising every baby to prevent the one in a million chance that he will develop pathological phimosis as an adult is ludicrous-- it's like like saying we should cut off toes because they may develop gangrene.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:44 PM
2

Wait, why is "mutilation" an "emotionally charged word" for boys but not for girls?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:40 PM
2

You completely failed to respond to huracan's argument.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:38 PM
2

By the time puberty is finished, most women won't be able to tell the difference because it will have retracted. We can't tell the difference on an erect penis. It's pretty obvious on a flaccid one. It is true, though, that you don't generally get a good look at a flaccid penis (post puberty) until you move in with a guy.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:36 PM
2

At least the comments are encouraging.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:34 PM
1

How can you tell? Research. The problem is that feminists never stop at "Was having a family your choice? Yes? Okay." If a woman says it was her choice, then the question is, as you say, was she influenced to any degree by an outside influence? Well, the answer to that is obviously yes. We're all products of our upbringing, to some degree, of our friends and family and schooling and jobs and experiences. But how do you determine every single influence that goes into something like career prefere…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:09 PM
1

First of all, it's empirically false. Certainly some things are marketed to straight men, but if you watch daytime television, for example, almost nothing is marketed to men at all-- it's all to elderly people, stay-at-home moms, and kids. Prime time it's a pretty even mix, but I have to say the few commercials I do see (I don't have cable, but I see commercials on YouTube and Hulu sometimes) are generally horribly insulting to men-- like many sitcoms, they feature hapless, stupid dads and husba…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:46 PM
1

I just want them to be actual choices made on an individual level, and not influenced by any systemic sexism. How can you tell? Is there something wrong with saying: "Hmm, women are underrepresented in these higher-paying fields/positions. Let's see if we can find out why that is, and find out ways of making them more interested, so that we can reduce the current wage gap."? Because we did find out why that was-- women like babies-- and the goalposts got moved to, "Well, why do women like babies…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:30 PM
1

Just to be sure I wasn't missing some nuance of feminist theory, I consulted Wikipedia and Finally Feminism 101 both. I'm sure entire books have been written on "gaze" in general and "male gaze" in particular, so I won't pretend to a full understanding, but how does that negate the underlying idea that the "male gaze" is something done by men to women?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:56 PM
1

The guy from the Innocence Project working with him said something about Banks saying something to her during their make-out session that pissed her off, and she made the rape accusation to her girlfriends to blow off steam, and the whole thing snowballed from there.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:32 PM
3

That right there is perjury. The case never went to trial, so she never had to perjure herself. She did make false statements to the police; my understanding is that that is a lesser crime. He could also sue the living shit out of her.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:29 PM
2

It's actually getting a lot of attention. It was all over the talk radio yesterday here in Southern California, and ESPN and Fox and other national outlets all covered it as well. I'm willing to bet it's getting as much attention as the original rape claim did at the time.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:28 PM
0

So-- are you buying into the physician/surgeon opinion for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that babies just don't feel pain? Because doctors-- who used to perform open heart surgery on infants with no anesthesia-- got over that in 1984.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:21 PM
1

People in America yell at one another all the time without it ever being considered rude. What? When? Please name one case where it is not rude for a stranger to yell at another, with the exception of someone obviously trying to help someone else out (i.e., yelling after someone walking away from a cab or exiting a store, "Hey! You forgot your wallet!", or someone about to walk in front a car, "Hey! Watch out for that car!"-- both situations in which failing to get the strangers attention quickl…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:19 PM
1

why should the issue of lower female CEOs and lower female this that and the other stimulate interventionist policy Because those are obviously desirable positions to hold. No, not obviously. Those positions require HUGE amounts of personal sacrifice for professional advancement. Personal sacrifice many women don't seem willing to make. That's fine, until some of those women claim it's discrimination to not facilitate their advancement to these positions without the sacrifice that other women an…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:11 PM
1

Mostly, we just want feminists to stop whining about how women make less. Or are you arguing that because these are volunteer jobs (incidentally, not necessarily volunteer, in theory at least, when it comes to the military, one of the highest risk jobs out there), men should not be compensated for their risk to life and limb?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:51 PM
0

It is not just "skin." It is "composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue." [Source] Your penis may work well enough without it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a function during sex. Regardless, your note that to keep or remove it is personal preference is absolutely true. What we are so against is that it is the penis/foreskin owner's personal preference that should matter-- NOT the parents'.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:49 PM
0

But seriously - crying about dangerous jobs into which men enter willingly and excitedly? About how most prisoners are men!?!? The point is the double standard. When there is a statistical gender skewing favoring men, feminists call it discrimination against women-- such as in education, politics, and high-level executive jobs. It's not enough to show that, for instance, men prefer STEM jobs more than women, we have to examine the social causes beyond that-- are we sending messages to little gir…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:42 PM
1

You are probably referring to this Colorado state representative, during the recent controversy over whether Medicaid should fund circumcisions: One lawmaker, Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, elicited laughter in the hearing room when she asked Dr. Johnson if circumcision might help reduce teen pregnancy rates and teen sexual activity by reducing nerve sensation in boys’ penises. [Source]
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:28 PM
1

This only "needs" to be stated because people mistake opposition to feminism as opposition to women's rights and/or misogyny. Edit: Just read your reply to the original comment -- how on earth can you post, in the same comment thread, that "Gender rights aren't about 1 gender vs. another gender. It's about 1 gender vs. society's treatment of them." needs to be said more often in here, and then turn around and blame "a lot of the ideas of the ideal female form" on the "male gaze"? Isn't that exac…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:20 PM
0

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. If your point is that the principle is wrong, then the degree should not matter.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:13 PM
1

I'm certainly not an expert on fitness, but my impression was that you can diet all you want but it won't give you any definition. As I said, I was 113 pounds (and I got down under a hundred a couple years before that), and I'm 5'2" (short, but not THAT short), and I have never had anywhere close to a six pack. A relatively flat stomach was the best I got.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:11 PM
1

No one is attacking women as the enemy. On this particular issue, I am arguing here that feminism (as a movement) is a major enemy, as demonstrated by the links to NOW. NOW does not represent me as a woman, but it is the largest feminist organization in North America and has a lot of political clout.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:44 AM
1

Yup. Terrible lawyer, IMO, but, I don't know Long Beach juries, either.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:42 AM
1

don't you think it's also disingenuous to mention circumcision in the OP, since it has nothing to do with cultural perceptions of gender roles while the far more barbaric practice of female circumcision does? How do either of them have anything to do with gender roles? Both are designed to control sexuality by minimizing sexual pleasure. Seriously, compare this: A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operatio…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:30 AM
1

Your study on penile cancer appears far from conclusive. The American Cancer Society says: In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account. This site, admittedly anti-circumcision, rebutts the pe…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 12:07 AM
1

He didn't conduct a study, he just wrote a critique of others' interpretation of various HIV-circumcision studies. Why not? Is what he says incorrect in some way? Or are you just blindly assuming WHO is always right? (I'm not sure who the other organization is.)
/r/MensRights24/05/12 11:50 PM
4

Why? Because a woman says so? Because one presents some equated sense of chivalry and the other is slightly less tactful? This is nothing more than shallow semantics. Both comments mean the same thing, why wouldn't you be as equally offended by both? It's not "shallow semantics." The two comments show a completely different level of respect for the woman. Repeated derogatory and abusive comments are harassment. The odd comment and brass compliments are not. Exclusively treating the two as though…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 11:47 PM
1

Okay, that's a bit more than typical teenage angst. Sorry for trying to downplay your experience. :(
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:05 PM
1

Sounds like you either have preconceived notions about the other side's problems, or you're projecting concerning your own problems.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:04 PM
4

No, but I was 113 pounds at the beginning of my pregnancy with my first, about two and a half years ago, and, at 33, I still couldn't get away with shirts or tanks I could ten years before. My problem wasn't extra poundage, just a complete lack of tone.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:03 PM
3

I'm not going to keep drawing you out. Either speak your mind or don't, but the gender of the person who wrote it doesn't keep it from being biased for or against any gender.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 09:58 PM
-1

I agree it's rude to yell anything at strangers. I think it's more rude as well as socially inappropriate to yell sexual things at strangers. I also agree with your characterization of catcalling as "obnoxious." However, women feeling "vulnerable" or "physically threatened" by words, even rude, socially inappropriate, obnoxious words, is mostly in their heads. Women need to get over being so fearful of men.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 09:57 PM
6

Something more needs to be done with rape claims, especially ones where the "victim" gives contradicting statements like she said she was raped in the elevator and then told others it happened in a stairwell. There was also no DNA evidence. As in, they did rape kits (plural, is my understanding) and found no semen at all. To be fair, however, the case didn't go to trial; the kid's lawyer scared him shitless with the possibility of 40 years or more in prison if the jury sided with her, so he took…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 09:53 PM
10

Worse than that, this guy had a free ride to USC, was expected to play for the NFL one day. He takes the plea deal cause his lawyer tells him it'll be 18 months, and bam, he's in jail for six years.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 09:51 PM
2

This has been all over SoCal public radio all day. Just heard it on the Patt Morrison show, too.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 09:50 PM
2

That's the one.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 09:48 PM
3

People trying to get your attention It's unclear what you mean by this. "Hi, pretty lady!" is one thing. "Hey, there, sexy-ass" is quite another. making a few harmless comments/jokes isn't harassment You might be able to make a case for a single comment being "whatever," but "a few" lewd comments or jokes is definitely harassment. nor has it ever truly hurt anyone That's not the point. The only people who are hurt by any kind of attention are people who are taught they should feel hurt by that a…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 08:17 PM
4

I am aware of that, but it's not like that's common knowledge even now, let alone 5, 10, 15 or more years ago.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:59 PM
3

That's kind of the point.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:57 PM
2

It actually should properly be "cutting any part OF your newborn daughter" because you don't even have to remove anything or do permanent damage; even a ritual nick is banned.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:56 PM
6

But its a religious ceremony, its not endorsed by the government It's endorsed in that it's permitted, while ritual nicking of the clitoris that does not permanent damage is a federal crime.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:55 PM
2

Where is the logical fallacy or personal attack in foresthill's comment?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:51 PM
2

My husband wanted to circumcise our hypothetical sons (well, hypothetical at the time of that conversation) because he didn't want them to get made fun of in the locker room.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:44 PM
3

The issue is that "biology" is a legitimate argument when talking about reproductive rights (women should have abortions but men shouldn't have LPS because, biology) or workplace death gender disparity (as you point out), but it's misogynistic to suggest biology is behind the wage gap (because women have babies and breastfeed them) or STEM field gender disparities (because there is NO DIFFERENCE between male and female brains; mental/emotional differences between genders are PURELY social constr…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:43 PM
9

Because it's SO HARD to be a middle class white woman? (I am a middle class white woman, and no, it's not that hard.)
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:40 PM
5

The link you posted shows every single study found, at best, a net neutral for circumcision. Considering the basic issue of bodily autonomy at issue, there is zero excuse for circumcising your son for non-medical reasons.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:39 PM
3

Why does it matter?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:36 PM
9

Because only one side is saying that one half of that graphic is not legitimate concerns. See this guy further up and his lame attempts at shaming all of us as "silly white males" (which is funny, since I'm a woman).
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:36 PM
2

18 years, 18 years She got one of your kids got you for 18 years And on the other end, you have women bitching they can't get any child support because their baby-daddy is a drug dealer and his income is all under the table, and they're too scared to turn him in. So, moral of the story, guys, is if you want to avoid CS, be a drug dealer from the start.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:34 PM
5

Just like cutting any part off of your newborn daughter. FTFY to make the parallel clearer.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:28 PM
3

To be fair, a decent belly is very very very very hard to come by. My understanding is you have to do brutal amounts of crunches (after 25 or so). Double that after you have a kid, ugh.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:27 PM
2

Except when the woman says she's on it and she's not.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:57 PM
7

(cut in chances of getting HIV being one) That's a 60% relative reduction. The actual decrease was only 1.31%. Also, condoms have an 80% reduction rate, and are 95 times more cost effective. [Source]
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:54 PM
7

You should be a little more conditional on your challenge: Please cite one major ("reputable" would also work) health organization which recommends using routine and/or universal infant circumcision to treat a health issue. Because WHO does recommend circumcision of adults in countries with large HIV/AIDS populations. AFAIK, they are not recommending routine infant circumcision (yet). Incidentally, a good, thorough debunking of the "circumcision cuts HIV transmission in half" thing (among others…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:49 PM
7

And that's being hotly contested as well.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:46 PM
16

If this is referring to circumcision at child birth then I'll say the same as I said in another post. It's not a Government enforced procedure and I don't think it's the role of the government to stomp out a procedure that has a very strong religious background. But you're okay with government banning all forms of FGM? Including ceremonial nicks that cause no permanent damage?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:44 PM
10

Then why are you posting here? You are literally adding nothing.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:37 PM
3

My point was just that these pills have a purpose for certain females completely outside of the morals related to sex. That's not how you phrased it, particularly in this comment (you posted a similar one further up). You made it sound, as I said, as if every woman is on birth control and requires it monthly to function as a human being. Could you please, also, stop consistently calling us "females?" You sound like a Ferengi. Aspirin can help with heart issues, but it's not classified suddenly a…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:36 PM
1

Yes, you're correct I lost the context of those specific numbers, but the fact remains that the total number of complete + attempted, including drug/alcohol related, is near equal-- 1,270,000 female (the total under Rape for women) and 1,267,000 male (made to penetrate total). The "Rape" total for women already adds in the drug/alcohol facilitated. I assume there is some overlap between the drug/alcohol related rapes and both completed and not completed ones.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:29 PM
6

Tbh, there isn't really a way I can think of a strange man calling out a strange woman on the street, especially in a sexual manner, that isn't harassing or demeaning, not to mention incredibly rude. I think catcalls are overblown-- it's never happened to me-- but that doesn't mean it isn't harassment when it does.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:21 PM
6

Meh, up until a few years ago it was rarely even questioned. 80-90% of boys in the 70s and 80s (my generation) were routinely circumcised, frequently without even asking the parents, the OB would just do it there in the hospital. I was saying 15 years ago I would never snip my sons, and people thought I was weird and making a big deal out of nothing. It's good now that I'm actually having sons it's become enough of a thing that it's not as big a deal. :)
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:17 PM
4

I've really never met a stay at home mom in my generation. I'm facebook friends with tons of them that I went to school with. But even if they're not stay-at-home moms, they probably took maternity leave, and have to take sick days to take care of their kids when they're sick (in addition to their own illnesses).
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:10 PM
4

Get a dictionary.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:08 PM
9

And that's when we stop taking you seriously, so, I guess that's that.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:08 PM
1

I think you mean "dissent" (instead of "decent"). Although, you may be correct either way.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:06 PM
6

They are feminists, but call themselves "allies". You can't work toward equality if you don't act like an equal. This. When I post or comment here, I am almost always treated as an equal voice. Male feminists seem so afraid of their own penises they're afraid to voice any thought of their own.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:04 PM
4

We all do, it's called WikiCommons :)
/r/MensRights24/05/12 05:38 PM
-1

Bullshit. I've never been on the Pill in my life, and I've never missed school or work in twenty years of getting my period. Some women have issues with painful or irregular periods that, for some of those women, birth control pills may help. BC pills have their own side effects, which for some women are worse than their periods. You make it sound like almost every woman is on birth control, and that we're all on birth control because we'd be raging hormonal bitches when not curled into a fetal …
/r/MensRights24/05/12 05:37 PM
1

Larger testicles, at some point in our history, may have equated to higher testosterone levels and thus higher levels of "ballsy" behavior. I have no idea, that's pure speculation.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:54 PM
1

Once you get used to shaving every 4-6 days you'll notice the itchy goes away almost completely As long as you keep up the shaving. If you miss it for some reason, the itchiness will increase ten-fold. There's also a huge risk you will merely exchange your sweat-itch for razor-burn itch, which not only itches but hurts when you scratch. Admittedly, I'm not a guy, but I'm assuming labia-itch is similar in this context to scrotum-itch.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:52 PM
1

I was told I would "grow out of it." (I was 12 at the time, and no, I didn't grow out of it.) My therapy was aging and realizing that while life is shitty, I have a degree of control over it. Isn't that kind of growing out of it? No offense, but I suspect the difference in treatment between you and your mother was age more than gender. I went a therapist when I was about 17 for crippling panic attacks that kept me out of school for several weeks. She didn't really do shit for me, either, and I e…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:48 PM
2

Seems like every article with a woman doing it, it's made to look innocent and like it was "just some mistake a woman made". Oops! I tripped and just fell onto that seven-year-old's penis...
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:41 PM
1

On the subject of shared custody, NOW's position, as shown through their website: NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder - Regardless of whether you think PAD is a real thing or not, this page would leave you thinking that women never say horrible untrue things about their exes to their kids (with or without the intention of alienating them) and that only abusive dads/partners would bring up these nasty lies in custody hearings. Note the effort to discredit fathers' rights gro…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:32 PM
1

Also, if you go to many mainstream feminist websites, you'll find no mention of "patriarchy." Which? Keep in mind they don't have to use the word "patriarchy" to refer in some way to the concept.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:27 PM
1

This analysis covers pretty much all your arguments. Note that condoms have an 80% reduction rate (unclear whether they are using "absolute" or "relative" rates, but either way, that's either slightly higher or WAY higher than the 60% relative circumcision reduction rate.)
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:18 PM
1

Using "feminist" and "woman" synonymously isn't going to win you any points, either. I'm a woman, I post here, and am mostly respected (as respected as I am anywhere else on reddit, and substantially more than some places).
/r/MensRights23/05/12 09:47 PM
2

This does not necessarily imply that the feminist organizations claim that the issues affect only women. Yeah, they only admit the effects on men when convenient. Find me one feminist organization that doesn't say abortion only affects women.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:48 PM
2

Feminism is not the equivalent of men's rights. Women's rights is the equivalent. Feminism is an ideology, a set of social theories. There is no established counterpart for men.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:43 PM
2

Another one of these? Even moderate feminism is being depicted as extreme through sensationalist titles and statements being taken out of context. No, moderate feminism is being correctly depicted as misandrist. Some headlines are misquoted/sensationalized, and those are generally called out. Furthermore, instances of discrimination against men are consistently being taken at face value, while instances of discrimination against women are brought to scrutiny. It is almost as if some of you deny …
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:40 PM
5

Technically, I believe any discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. They do not specify that one is a protected group. In theory, he could sue.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:19 PM
7

Manhood Academy spam. Report, downvoted, ignore.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:18 PM
1

It could, but a relationship involving authority has a much lower threshold for abuse than one among equals.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:49 PM
2

Correct me if I'm wrong but divorce court is only a civil preceding with only the bare minimum of legal ramifications, not a legal one. IANAL, but I do work in law. A civil proceeding IS a legal proceeding, just a different type from a criminal one. It has it's own codes and is legally binding. Most family law consists of various lawsuits (one party sues the other for divorce; one party sues the other for custody; one party sues the other for alimony, etc.). Like any civil matter, a divorce, for…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:48 PM
0

Be fair, we frequently question rape stories when we only have one side of the story.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:18 PM
1

Sure, but it's been expanded to more than just physical environmental things; that was just the original example in the movie that spawned the term. I agree it's overused and misused for simple disagreement. But disagreeing with someone is different than saying, "You're just making shit up" when the other person is not.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:08 PM
1

When we hear that divorce rate is so ridiculously high, we tend to subconsciously confirm it for ourselves by noticing divorce more. Also, divorce often happens in "clusters" (for instance, it's a documented phenomenon that divorce runs in families; you are more likely to divorce if your parents did).
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:35 AM
1

Why are people bothering to get married when those vows and that state of being are usually out of the window in 2 years? But that's between them. It's not a legal contract or a legal matter. No.. there is nothing subjective about the damage done by cheating. You saying so doesn't make it so. I daresay you have some personal baggage here. There are men right now in jail for refusing to pay child support to ex-wives who sired illegitimate children on them. Shitty, but cheating doesn't always lead…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:32 AM
1

Look.. Just because some lawyers apply dubious logic to how they handle things in court does not mean that adultery shouldn't be punishable. Dubious logic? I'm not talking about lawyer tricks, I'm talking about fundamental differences between civil and criminal proceedings, as well as fundamental differences between plaintiff and defendant. Do you know anything about the legal system at all? It could simply be arranged so that any accusation of rape whatsoever is automatically not a civil matter…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 12:01 AM
1

You do realize that, at least as far as we know, that's pure speculation on the part of the author on her actions? She might have been fine with it if he asked for a prenup.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:55 PM
1

You can save posts without RES. You can't save comments anymore (or at least, I can't, unless RES fixed that bug).
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:47 PM
1

Which is why I suggest harsh penalties for fake rape claims and also that rape should be harder to prove in court. It should require more than the woman's accusations. You do understand the difference between prosecuting someone for rape and using rape as an affirmative defense against a civil complaint of marital infidelity? For one thing, one is a criminal proceeding and the other is civil, and civil proceedings have a lower standard of evidence.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:32 PM
1

There's no reason infidelity couldn't or shouldn't be used in a divorce court. Because sexual fidelity is not a legal component of marriage?
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:31 PM
1

No, you don't. Not a legal one, anyway. Some religions, like Judaism, have a ritual contract; the contents vary and are written by the couple, but they are not legal documents.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:26 PM
1

I've been married twice in two different states and there is no legal contract you sign, ever, that stipulates anything about sexual fidelity. And, as I just said to shamanicspacebum, any flowery language in your spoken vows has about all the legal force of promising to get ice cream on your way home from work.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:25 PM
3

Different context; the parent is in an authority role over the child. Two peers, presumably equal, do not have the same relationship dynamic.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:24 PM
2

Well we do punish people for theft which many consider immoral. We do not punish people for theft-- or murder-- merely because of some arbitrary system of morality. We punish people for theft or murder because those violate a person's basic rights as a human being-- among them being the right to life and property. Punishing people for infidelity amounts to considering people as property. And before you make an argument about contract rights, there is no legal document in the US in any state (I'v…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:23 PM
-1

We don't know much of the story, it's possible her behavior may have affected his opinion of her. Again, if he had further evidence, I assume he would have shared it, either in OP or comments. We can only go by what he says, and what he has said so far is that she is "easy," he knew she was "easy," and even if it were true she were "easy," that doesn't preclude her being raped. If she was great at first, but then acted flirty around other guys when they were going out together, he would justifia…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:11 PM
1

"Default and routine" is not so far from the same thing. This is very simple. One would be required and the other would not. What you are proposing is a presumption in favour of testing for infidelity or, for unmarried couples, for deceit. And I've explained at least three or four times how it is not an "infidelity screening." The purpose is to verify the identity of the child's parents, before that identity becomes a matter of legal fact. And, as mentioned, all it proves is that then child is t…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:06 PM
1

So unless one of the people in the relationship complains and seeks damages nothing would happen. Because, at the end of a relationship, there's never any hurt feelings or bad blood that would cause someone to "forget" that any extramarital activities were known and consented to by all parties at the time? Therefore I'm not imposing my definition of cheating on any one. I am just hoping for a situation were malicious forms of cheating can be punished. Yeah, you are. You are defining here what yo…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 10:47 PM
1

"Divorce rate" figure arrived at erroneously: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm Divorce peaked in early 80s (or late 70s) and has been declining: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2789615.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1989124,00.html Discussion on it at snopes.com: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=89;t=000081;p=0 I cannot find the original site I saw the statistic on t…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 10:18 PM
1

Yes, and I have an issue with it being the default. Then put that issue forward, don't keep making arguments against a hypothetical mandatory procedure no one else suggested. Women are not liable for harm suffered by an unborn child as a result of their negligence, because the law is unwilling to override her individual autonomy. Yeah, actually, she often is. Depending on the state. See feticide laws. The standard of fetal viability overrides that principle only when the person growing within he…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 08:10 PM
1

Maybe, maybe not. There are women who wouldn't take a dime.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:59 PM
2

I guess my point in this is that different people have different definitions of "cheating," so do you think it's fair to impose your definition of "cheating" on everyone else?
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:59 PM
-2

Where did I say he should get no say? If you read even just my recent comment history, you will see many comments at length defending a man's right to have input and rights concerning his offspring and potential offspring. That's a very different thing than "coercing" (his word) someone into an abortion. Plus, it's not his baby anyway.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:55 PM
1

Basically, yes.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:49 PM
1

Yup. It's when you make a personal attack on an individual instead of their arguments. The first one implies that they are silly risk-seekers. Doesn't address their actual arguments, or message, or anything, just the way the publicize it. The second one calls advice to men in a breakup "extremist" and "bitter" for legally protecting themselves, and attacks them for being crazy (paranoid), over-emotional, and overreacting. Doesn't address the issues that AVfM is addressing (primary aggressor arre…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:47 PM
0

Sure, but is it remotely possible she concocted the "rape" story to get away with it and he is coming to terms with the fact she actually cheated? Is it possible? Sure. But we're not talking a court of law here, where someone is going to jail if you take her word for it. I'm in no way advocating OP get his shotgun and go after the sonofabitch. Just that, if he doesn't have any reason to doubt her story (and, again, he may have that, but since he didn't mention any, I'm assuming not), he's not mu…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:42 PM
7

Most states have a "romeo & juliet" clause in their statutory rape that allows for relationships within a certain age difference, usually two to four years. Having sex with a seven year old is illegal everywhere, as far as I know.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 05:10 AM
2

What if you have an established poly relationship? You're married to one person, legally, but you have a relationship or relationships with other people (and your spouse may as well). Makes it much murkier as to when it's "cheating." And before you say that poly relationships are "immature," that's completely your opinion; it's not grounds for making them illegal.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:39 AM
1

I am, in fact, a woman, but that's not the point. The point is, as I said, your statistic is not relevant to the comment to which you were replying.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:14 AM
2

First, he seems to have thought she was "easy" before this incident. Second, he doesn't seem to have any proof whatsoever that she wasn't raped. I would think if he did, he would have mentioned it. If she was raped, she didn't "cheat," she was raped.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:13 AM
1

Further, the 50% statistic isn't even correct. It's arrived at by comparing the number of marriages in a year to the number of divorces in a year. That's not the "divorce rate." The actual divorce rate peaked out somewhere in the 40% range and has been declining since the early 80s. I'll dig out the citation if you want it.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:29 AM
1

But that doesn't indicate anything about the percentage of marriages that will end in divorce, just that, of the ones that do end in divorce, 90% will be initiated by the woman.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:27 AM
1

Already did, look two comments down. And yeah, it is true, though I was wrong about the cause.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:16 AM
3

How so? They're widely read, quoted, and linked. What do you consider mainstream feminism, Mr. There's-Nothing-Wrong-With-Not-Caring-For-Your-Little-Baby-Boy?
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:14 AM
2

What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously. Humans, especially as babies, need touch. Source, Source, Source "Failure to thrive" is a medical term-- depriving an infant of nurturing is literally on par with depriving him of sustenance or shelter. And, ironically, it can completely fuck the kid up-- in fact causing those little boys to grow up to be rapists or otherwise violent sociopaths. Nice little self-fulfilling prophecy they got going there. And there's nothing wrong with male genocide? Ser…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:12 AM
4

They said things like ‘hey baby' and ‘you girls wanna sleep with me tonight?' as well as the eloquent ‘OHHHH!', an urgent effort to draw attention to two women holding hands. At the next block, another dude said something. I don't even remember what it was. I don't think it makes a difference. I turned around, swung, and punched him. It looks like self-defense. I'm sorry, in what world do you live in where physical violence in response to words-- obnoxious words, yes, but not threatening or viol…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:05 AM
2

Regarding the first quote: Since the judicial system is patently untrustworthy when it comes to the offense of rape, any guilty vote is simply an enabling capitulation to systemic legal corruption. ... If the system is rigged, then the outcome must be assumed to be tainted. [emphasis his] ... Voting not guilty on any charge of rape is the only way to remain faithful to the concept of presumed innocence. I don't agree with his reasoning, myself, but your quote is definitely taken out of context. …
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:48 PM
5

It's not just radical feminists who are the problem. Nearly all feminists believe in the wage gap, nearly all feminists believe in reproductive inequality (against women), and nearly all feminists support VAWA.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:12 PM
4

Were not here to fight feminism were here to stand up for our rights. Sigil1's point is that if there is a false dichotomy, feminists created it by designating MR issues to be in opposition to feminism. We'd all love to be able to focus on the issues and not have to constantly fight feminists. Or, for that matter, explain to people like you why we have to fight feminists. But that's impossible as long as NOW keeps posting shit like this: NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder …
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:11 PM
0

Yeah, that's the point.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:53 PM
3

At the moment I'd say the NS has got off to a bad start with that article as it immediately frames the debate in quite an aggressive and negative way. This piece from Lewis is a VERY different tone than the opening salvo OP linked. "Bad start" is an understatement. If they're seeking to have an actual discussion, marginalizing, mocking, and gaslighting us is hardly an auspicious beginning.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:49 PM
1

For all the guys convinced that "gaslighting" is just another thing feminists made up just to demonize men: the absolutely justified objections to the articles posted here and here are basically using the same argument-- that feminists are using minimizing, dismissing, and shaming language to both excuse their own indifference to MR issues and to encourage others to follow their example. The goal is exactly the same-- to further marginalize the less powerful viewpoint.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:23 PM
2

I think expecting men to be "gentlemen" and not "take advantage" of intoxicated women by giving them an old-fashioned straight-arm a la Austin Powers is pretty overtly chivalrous.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:18 PM
2

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/254678/ Somewhat older: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01conley.html?pagewanted=all http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dalton-conley/why-my-mans-right-to-choo_b_11883.html http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/03/26/a_mans_right_to_choose/ http://news.change.org/stories/a-man-s-right-to-choose http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:16 PM
5

Child support is not a feminist invention Yeah, actually, it is. Modern child support is a result of the modern phenomenon of the social acceptibility of single motherhood, both through unmarried women having children and divorce. The growing social acceptance of single motherhood has been largely championed by feminism. Women getting custody of children after divorce began in 1839, also championed by a feminist. Men kept the kids before that because they were the ones that could provide for the…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:07 PM
7

Did you miss this one? Of course, this has been "a thing" since the Fathers4Justice superheroes first scaled a public building, reiterating in one fell swoop that irresponsible, life-endangering behaviour and silly costumes are not only newspaper-friendly, but are also not qualities many women look for in a potential birthing partner. Or this one? It's extremist, bitter, and encourages men to "not get fucked" by taping every conversation that they have with a woman, like a troop of paranoid angr…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:58 PM
6

The sites/groups/people they mention are all prominent in the MRM and none of them were misrepresented. Just to be clear, this is the most clear example of misrepresentation: Rather than joining us in our anti-sexism agenda, these men are attempting to fight back against vagina-wielding harpies by reasserting their masculinity in a way that is not only misogynistic but also deeply conservative. Fighting sexism means fighting it in all its forms in the hope that we will one day achieve an equal, …
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:55 PM
6

I think the article is fine. Of course you do.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:48 PM
7

As the inimitable Patsy Cline once yodelled (a maxim which now echoes through the karaoke bars of the north-west every Friday night): "Sometimes it's hard to be a woman." That was Tammy Wynette, you twit.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:43 PM
1

Amen, brother. :)
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:41 PM
3

I didn't see a mention of the menstrual cycle on that list? Right after the being pregnant and delivering a baby part, the next line is "Having periods." I wonder whether women would trade that for the sensitivity of being kicked in the groin (or even a slight jarring, for that matter), random public and visible erections, and a g-spot inside the anus? :) External genitalia is definitely a disadvantage. However, it's a toss up whether the omnipresent risk of damage is comparable to certain disco…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:19 PM
3

I'm really not understanding where the antagonism is coming from. Yes, we all agree feminists overuse gaslighting to shut down dialogue and debate. But, just like "misogyny," just because they misuse and overuse a word doesn't mean the original concept has no merit whatsoever.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:15 PM
1

I linked to my sources in this comment, two comments down, and also corrected my error on religion being correlated to less divorce.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:13 PM
1

It does.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:12 PM
2

And a lot of us don't consider that a "problem." There's upsides and downsides. The period thing does kind of suck.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 09:05 PM
1

I can assure you there are far more men out there that have taken a free pass outta being a daddy then there are women. Nope. Percentage-wise, at least. In raw numbers, sure, but there are far more custodial mothers.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 08:58 PM
1

Except even still, those would only be occurring in cases of marital breakdown, where one would expect infidelity to be more likely. No, they also happen in cases where the parents were never married. I do not see a pressing policy concern for making it a mandated procedure. For the third time, the only one who's talking about mandating it in this conversation is you. I am proposing making it default and routine, so it would be done unless one or both of the parents declines it. Also, your calcu…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 08:51 PM
2

They're not "completely legal," that's why they're being challenged left and right in court. When you sue someone, you have an obligation to make sure they receive the summons. If the summons is not properly served, it is invalid. You're right that I should have corrected your retarded wording-- no one has ever in history been jailed just for having a debt, even when debtors' prisons were common. People were jailed for not paying the debt-- which is exactly what's happening here. They may be tec…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:23 PM
1

No problem. You may be interested in this one too, lots of useful stats.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:19 PM
1

Fine, I'll remember that the next time a MRA accuses feminists of saying we're all crazy.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:18 PM
1

Selection bias. Currently, paternity tests are only taken when paternity is at issue. Not entirely true, because it also includes cases where paternity is stipulated to but the court requires a test anyway. However, without more broad-based paternity testing, we will never know the true number. We know it's above zero. There were about 4 million babies born in just the US in 2010. Let's assume a ridiculously low figure like 1%. That's still 40K men and kids who are denied the truth. Sounded more…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:16 PM
1

I'm somewhat amused by the idea that you have of all these poor defenseless men who have been "tricked, coerced, or raped" into have children. Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control, with 8.7% having had an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth contr…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:48 PM
1

That's fine; she can still get the baby adopted if she doesn't want it.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:32 PM
1

Actually, there is a lot of question as to how much Safe Havens really help would-be dumpster babies. Not that many people use the Safe Haven system, and those that do are more women who don't want to be bothered with proper adoption, not the scared, alone teenagers leaving their babies in public toilets or dumpsters.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:31 PM
1

Debtor's prisons were abolished in the 1800's. In the U.S. you cannot be jailed simply for having a debt. If you could, the government could jail anyone who didn't pay off their MasterCard balance monthly, or carried a student loan or mortgage. This is increasingly not true.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:25 PM
2

Gaslighting is a valid concept, to a certain extent. It's only a problem when it's used to shut down all conversation on something. A: Blah blah blah. B: But that doesn't make any sense... A: STOP GASLIGHTING ME!!! We might not call it that, but the concept is essentially what we (rightfully) accuse feminists of doing to us all the time. They try to say that MR issues are made up, all in our heads, not valid, or unimportant relative to their issues. In short, they are being completely dismissive…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:23 PM
2

So she's obviously smart, hard working, can support herself if needed, etc. To be fair, these traits do not preclude her being a golddigger, or a complete bitch if the marriage breaks up.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:58 PM
2

People who get married from 20 to 24. Or who get married again. Or white Jews. I was wrong about divorce being lower among the religious, though. That was my theory from the chart on the first link, because it's much lower for people who get married REALLY young, but then goes up for the 20-24 age range. My theory was that those who get married that young typically come from heavily religious backgrounds/communities in which there is tremendous cultural pressure against divorce. Also looks like …
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:57 PM
1

STD testing is a risk pertaining to the child. Infidelity is not. Believing someone is your parent when they are not is. I don't know how many times I have to say that this is not an "infidelity test." Why shouldn't we? Because 20% or more of paternity tests currently taken turn up negative? Because every single heartbreaking story of a guy who finds out his kid isn't his could have been avoided with a $100 test? Because this is a clear case of female privilege which can be easily neutralized? A…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:46 PM
1

What ranks me is that those supposedly on the workers' side have left them out in the cold while pandering to identity politics, and largely ignoring economic issues, apart from bickering over tax levels. Budget, industrial policy, workers' rights, monetary policy, geopolitics, unemployment, immigration, on all those subjects both parties are in sync and working against the American worker's interests. And the same bi-party system is omnipresent all around the West, with the same predictable res…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:38 PM
0

Makes you wonder what the divorce rate is for black high school dropouts which marry in their teens.... Probably also lower. Divorce tends to be lower among the religious, which correlates both to very young marriage (16-20) and to African-Americans.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:33 PM
5

The guy's got such a rep for being a complete dick, but he's marrying his college sweetheart he's been with for eight years? Am I the only one not cynical enough to smile and "awww" at this? Plus, if it does go south, Zuckerberg is one of the few men who can afford to split half and still be a billionaire.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:51 PM
1

Did you read the article? Normal prenups often don't hold up, and he's been with this girl since he started Facebook, so there's almost no way this one would.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:46 PM
9

Troll or not, IMO, this guy doesn't deserve our help or support. From the other post: She says she won't abort because she doesn't want to. Thinks it's wrong. I've tried to coerce her to no avail. I've been digging through her things I think she just got drunk and let some guy she wanted in the moment fuck her bareback. She's easy. I don't like thinking of her that way, but I know that myself. Note that as far as what he has posted, he has absolutely no evidence that she wasn't raped, other than…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:38 PM
1

Okay, let me try this again. Congratulations to you on your pregnancy. :) Thank you! Twins are no picnic. :) Women have many options that allow them to terminate a pregnancy, and when a woman wants to do so, she can. I think we can both agree this is a good thing. I will stipulate to this since I don't want to get sidetracked into a largely irrelevant abortion debate. You ask why a man should have to pay for a woman's right to remain pregnant. This is a very different question from why a woman s…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:40 AM
1

Ironic then that child rape is a predominantly female committed crime Do you have a citation for this? Every source I could find said mothers abused more, except sexual abuse.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:57 AM
1

I'm not down with most of the America-bashing I see around reddit, but I do have to admit we do have a bit of a persecution complex, and to be honest, it goes all the way back to our founding. Large parts of the Declaration of Independence are just whining about King George... Not to say the colonists didn't have some legitimate gripes in there as well, but the whole thing seems to totally escalated out of control until both sides were kind of like, whoa, wait, we're at war?
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:55 AM
2

I would ordinarily have nothing against grown men getting an elective procedure. The issue here is that first, there is some question as to the overall effectiveness of the circumcision strategy, which many others here have linked for you, and many of these men are being given the erroneous impression that this will protect them from AIDS much more than it actually does. If it's a choice between a circumcision campaign and a condom campaign, I'd rather focus on the more effective method (condoms…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 02:31 AM
1

You're stretching. This is an argument for mandatory STD checking, not mandatory paternity testing. Kill two birds with one stone. Plus, I notice you ignored the health reason pertaining to the child. Has it ever occurred to you that some people might prefer to live in ignorance of their children's paternity? How is forcing the truth onto them going to improve their lives in any way? Because it's not just about them. A woman should definitely get to make that decision for the assumed father, the…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:13 AM
1

Women have been denied the vote in this century. That's a historical fact as well. We are still a long way away from erasing the prejudicial legacy of millennia-old social norms. Feminism is not synonymous with women's rights. Feminism is a movement with a set of theories revolving around the historical oppression of women by men as a way of explaining societal dynamics. Their theories are not the only explanation, and there is no proof they are the right one. An HIV test is a health concern. An…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 08:26 PM
2

When people stop looking at men with suspicion they start questioning patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 07:45 PM
1

This tendency of the left to pander to societal problems instead of economic injustice, to divide the people by gender, race or sexual orientation instead of objective social classes, is what renders them so ineffective at solving economic injustice. I've been reading this exchange with great interest, and I agree with just about everything you said, but, the Left does not have a monopoly on pandering to social issues. The Right was the first to use "wedge issues" successfully to win campaigns o…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 07:38 PM
1

I typed out half a reply and then closed the tab. :( I'll try again in a bit.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 04:20 AM
2

If I based my view of feminists solely on internet behavior I'm not basing it solely on internet behavior. I'm basing it on the content of NOW's website, on Jezebel's articles, on the writings of Dworkin and Brownmiller, which are widely read, respected, and considered authoritative by a large number of feminists. What looks like hate (or sociopathic indifference, as you put it) is most often just ignorance, and that goes for just about every group. There are a lot of anti-gay bigots about. Sure…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 04:19 AM
1

But the ultimate enforcers of those social norms were always men. I disagree. Most women enforced them just as much as men, often more so. This went on right up until women figured out they could get the freedoms and still get the protections. The problem is that this requires that they continue socially and legally forcing men into their traditional roles, even as they continue to claim they are for abolishing all gender roles. Women could apply pressure, but it was men who meted out the punish…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 04:05 AM
1

With 9 months of notice, it's not that hard to take a month or two off. Yeah, if you're a high-powered, top-level executive, it is. There are projects in various stages of completion. There are time-tables and budgets to be met. The world doesn't stop because you're having a baby, and nor should it. As for formula, there are breast pumps now, so formula isn't a necessity either. No offense, but spoken like a man. I have a two year old, I returned to work after 4 months. I'm a legal secretary for…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:32 PM
2

Seriously, this is the top post right now. While I agree MGM does not belong on a list of "offences endangering life or health," I'm not sure FGM does either. The majority of mutilated women have, as far as they know, satisfactory sex lives, complete with orgasms. Where the mutilation causes health issues, it's generally not from the mutilation itself but from doing it under unsanitary conditions without proper post-op care. Don't get me wrong, I think both should be banned, but there's a common…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 08:26 PM
1

Historically, every woman was subject to the authority of a man. And historically, every man was tasked with the support and protection of that woman. Men were taught to assume it was their place to run their women's shit for them. How so? Women ran the household, they usually managed the money, always raised the children (up to a certain age, for boys), and typically men didn't want to be bothered by it. In most if not all of the decisions that affected women's day-to-day lives, they had a larg…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:57 AM
3

Did you bother reading any of my statements? Find me one major feminist who has conceded women and men are raped in near equal numbers, as indicated by the 2010 NISVS, pages 18 and 19? One major feminist who thinks that if adult women make a voluntary decision to drink, they can and should be able to make a voluntary decision (under the influence of that alcohol) to have sex? One major feminist who supports shared custody laws (NOW violently opposes them)? One major feminist who believes VAWA an…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:44 AM
1

How can a woman legitimately prove a man is the father of her child without dna evidence? In most cases she won't be able to. In what case would she be able to? there are situations where suspects (and i use that term in context of the "suspected father") are compelled to provide dna evidence if other means have established reasonable suspicion already. Okay, so she would still need the DNA evidence to prove anything. i can also envision a scenario wherein a woman is able to acquire dna evidence…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:22 AM
1

They are only a tiny fraction of all men. It is of no relevance to most men. It is relevant to the point that women are underrepresented at the top levels of business. It is only important if those men work for the interests of men. The argument isn't that there isn't any advocacy for women at the top levels; that's demonstrably untrue, as you point out. It's that there aren't any (or many) women themselves. So at that point, it becomes a bunch of men deciding what they think women want and/or s…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 06:02 AM
1

So basically, "if they can do it, so can we." What? No. MRAs don't deny there are female victims of rape or abuse. MRAs don't think all women are abusers. MRAs don't presume women guilty of lying about rape (though they do presume men innocent of raping, which is frequently mistaken for the same thing). The vast majority of MRAs would be happy just to see male victims acknowledged. For funding to cover victims regardless of gender. For female criminals to receive justice, not a "pussy pass." We …
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:58 AM
2

Having a fetus GROWING INSIDE YOU is no joke. Yeah, no kidding. I'm currently growing two, and the one is kicking the shit out of my lower abdomen as we speak. 1) ABORTION IS AVAILABLE And forty years ago, it wasn't. Hence, you know, the effort to make a male post-conception option available. 2) the morning after pill is available and 3) reasonably effective hormonal birth control is available. Agreed. So if women have all these options not to get (or stay) pregnant, why should men have to pay f…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:42 AM
1

That, right there, is a way in which society constrains women. Do male executives not also have children? Who's taking care of their kids if they're working 100+ hour weeks? Parental leave is just as available to men as it is to women, but the expectation is that women will be the ones who take it. That oppresses both men who want to take paternal leave, and women "around that age" who have no interest in doing so. That's not "society" constraining women, that's biology constraining them. Do men…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:35 AM
1

I mean, you would agree that there should be some protection for people who get death threats from their ex partners, right? Yes, but there needs to be some kind of proof of those death threats (I agree that's problematic if the threats are verbal), and that protection should not be offered on a gendered basis. One of the chief problems of the current policies of law enforcement with regard to DV, and family courts, is that they make judgments on who is the abuser and who is the abused based on …
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:21 AM
3

DValkyrie made some very good points but I'm not linked to what he says ! But my comment was in direct response to his. You replying the way you did gives my comment a different context than it originally had.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:18 AM
2

what I see in the majority of feminists isn't that they hate men, but that they feel entitled to tell men what we should be, without consulting us on the matter. Most of them also generalize to all men the worst traits of some. I.e., some fathers/male partners are abusive, therefore, if there is abuse going on, the man must be perpetrating it. Some men are rapists, so all men are capable of (or prone to, depending on how hardcore the feminist is) rape. In the same vein, they seem completely blin…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:17 AM
1

It could be. You may want to look into your state's recording laws though.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:08 AM
2

I think most feminists specifically rail against the Patriarchy. In practical terms, is there a difference? I agree it's not as simple as "feminists hate men," but, for example, if you look at NOW's webpages on fathers' rights groups' efforts, or custody issues, they're railing against men. Men are manipulative abusers. Men are people seeking to take children from their mothers. Not once are men described as caregivers or people who, on average, are capable of and deserve an equal share in raisi…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:06 AM
3

You're not going to make any friends by continually telling people who disagree with you how stupid they are. Oh, and that pointless little statement you made earlier about my reddit account being only a few months old? Not my first reddit account. Certainly my main account now, has been since I made it, but not my first. Honestly, common sense. I've been lurking this place for quite a while. I've seen the attitudes. I know you. I know the others. Yeah, and that's why I specifically called out t…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 04:58 AM
1

You may want to pause in this righteous, spitting rage you seem to have worked yourself into and reflect on the fact that I've been around /mr, consistently fighting feminism and supporting men's rights, for over two years, Mr. One-Month-Old-Account who comes in here trying to let us know how we're doing it wrong.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 12:24 AM
2

It is a parody for the purpose of being funny and offensive beyond what is in any way necessary Um... that's not a parody. A parody by definition is mocking the original.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 10:48 PM
4

Yes, and that kind of behaviour is started and encouraged by feminism Feminists send around these chain letters? Do you have any proof of that? That is why this behaviour, these jokes, are rampant and thought to be 'okay' - because, at one time, it was a rebellion. I'd be willing to bet that sarcastically bitching about the opposite sex goes back as long as humans have had language. It's not a "rebellion," it's a coping mechanism. These jokes exist because feminism and the concept of encourages …
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:38 PM
2

It's obviously not a straight parody. It obviously wasn't written to prove a point in the way a straight parody would. It doesn't even tackle the part where men were insulted. It's not even attempting to turn around the offense in a way that shows why the original list is wrong. Your incredibly narrow definition of "parody" is laughable. So does is South Park just a thinly-veiled excuse to bash Jews, gays, physically disabled people, and blacks? Is it just a "hate-show"? No, it's fucking hilario…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:30 PM
3

Edit: Someone else wrote a parody in these comments, about animals. It was a straight parody, getting right to the point about why the original was offensive. No excuse to write a hate-list. It was about animals. Go find it, perhaps. You do understand that making a negative parody instead of a positive one doesn't make it less parody, right? See South Park as a great example, they exist almost exclusively on negative parody. Your opinion that we should be more positive instead of negative is val…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:12 PM
0

Hey, I wasn't the one who tried to claim that the OP list was some grand response to historical oppression of women by men.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:08 PM
3

They were raised to believe they were entitled to something because prior generations went through these things. These sexist jokes towards men are encouraged as a response to sexism prior generations of women went through. That's the fucking point. Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, why are we entitled to anything because our great-grandmothers couldn't vote? Why is it valid to shit on men right now as a response to shit that was going on fifty or sixty years ago, and didn't e…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:05 PM
3

some of you are seen as misogynistic assholes because some of you are. But that's not what DValkyrie said. He didn't say "some." He was saying that MRAs, as a group, "have fucking stupid stereotypes and are seen as misogynistic assholes." He's reiterated it in several comments. Basically, his argument is, the whole subreddit, and the larger MRM, takes a hit because of comments like this. And I'm saying, even if we got rid of comments like this (which, as a woman, I don't see this one as misogyni…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 04:49 PM
7

Because MRAs don't (on the whole, there are individual exceptions) rail against women, they rail against feminists. Feminists rail against men.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 04:40 PM
1

Set up a hidden camera?
/r/MensRights18/05/12 04:37 PM
3

Why are you still with this woman?!
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:31 PM
2

How is invisible ink violent?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:30 PM
1

Do you honestly believe abortion is a consequence free option? Im sure for some people it maybe but for a vast majority of people its not as easy as that. Do you honestly believe that legal paternal surrender would be a consequence free option? I'm sure for some people it may be, but for the vast majority of people it would not be as easy as that. That man would always have the knowledge that biologically, if not legally, there's a piece of him running around. He may feel residual guilt (which m…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:28 PM
1

Because up until Roe v. Wade, the arguments worked mostly the same for men and women. I'll even go so far as to say women had the short end of the stick, because a woman pregnant out of wedlock was largely shunned by polite society-- many families would turn their backs, no man would marry her, her child was "illegitimate" or a "bastard," she would probably get fired from her job, if she had one, etc. A man could sire a bastard and then just pretend he didn't, and there was no way to prove he di…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:22 PM
10

If you're so scared of having a baby, then either 1) don't have sex or 2) get your tubes tied. You make the choice to have sex, therefore you must deal with whatever comes next. Would you say that to a woman? Why does a woman have the right to do this? Because a pregnancy takes place in her body. Okay, that's nine months. What about the eighteen to twenty-one years of child support the man is now liable for?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:18 PM
5

Whoa, way too deep. I'm a woman and receive a few of these a year from my mom and I think you are way off. It's not about "empowerment" in a feminist sense (my mom's no feminist) but in just a "feel better about myself as I age" sense, with an added dose of misandry at the end so at any age you can feel superior to a man. Honestly, while I blame feminists for the double standard, the worst of this kind of crap that I see in email or Facebook is not from feminists, but from middle-age to older wo…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:14 PM
3

They do know it's offensive. The difference is, they don't care. Of course they're able to tell what is offensive and what isn't. Why do you assume this?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:08 PM
2

then see that apparently the only way my fellow MRs can think to tackle that shit is to act just like feminazi's do. I really think you're missing the point. I mean, yes, some guys in here get truly offended, but most are simply trying to point out the unbelievable hypocrisy of feminists in particular, but many women in general who send out this shit and don't see anything wrong with it, but would be mad as hell and see someone fired if loadedfistfury sent out his version. It's the double standa…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:08 PM
7

"OH ITS JUST SATIRE HERP DERP! IS MEANT TO BE FUNNY AND PROVE POINT " Then they're not using "satire" or "parody" properly. It's meant to be funny, yes, but not because it's not true; it's meant to be funny because it IS true (or so they think.) The point is that both are equally offensive, but one is more socially acceptable. I personally think they should both be acceptable, though neither is particularly suited to a work environment in terms of professionalism.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:04 PM
1

In most cases she won't be able to. In what case would she be able to?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:54 PM
0

How is it fair that the man can't prove he isn't without dna evidence? ... and can't get a paternity test without permission. It's not fair. However, it's not always true that he can't get a test without permission. If a husband in the US wants to test his kids, he can do so without his wife ever even knowing, let alone consenting. Can't speak for if it would be admissible in court, but I think in most states, as long as the chain of custody was maintained, it would. The legal system is supposed…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:52 PM
9

No, actually, jailing people for not paying debts (to anyone) is becoming increasingly common in the US. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/debtors-prison-legal-in-more-than-one-third-of-us-states_n_1107524.html http://www.npr.org/2011/12/12/143274773/unpaid-bills-land-some-debtors-behind-bars Imprisonment for inability to pay child support and alimony are men's rights issues though because they disproportionately affect men.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:49 PM
7

it's idiocy and the reason MRA's have fucking stupid stereotypes and are seen as misogynistic assholes. You do realize we're dealing with people who think like this, right? We're seen as misogynistic assholes by people who refuse to consider that women rape men in numbers anywhere approaching men raping women. We're seen as misogynistic assholes because we think adult women who make adult decisions should take adult responsibility for those decisions (i.e., having consensual sex while drunk is n…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:23 PM
10

I was just thinking this! Feminist writes manifesto on mass murdering men-- brilliant satire. Man writes obvious satire on female sexuality/agency-- MISOGYNY!! When in fact he wasn't actually denigrating any women except the one who wrote the original piece above and the woman who forwarded it to OP.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:18 PM
2

Misandristic feminists combating sexism against women by grinding men into the mud. The problem is that misandric feminists do it through laws and public policies. OP's list isn't going to get anyone arrested or sent to jail (maybe fired).
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:14 PM
1

I don't think the idea is to "shit on women" as much as it is reductio ad absurdum-- that by showing how offensive it is when the shoe is on the other foot might make people think twice about both taking "misogynistic" jokes too seriously and about being so casually misandric.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:13 PM
7

If OP's not interested in legal action, this would be an awesome response! Oh, OP will get legal action out of sending that one. :(
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:11 PM
4

You need to call Sexual Harassment Panda.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:10 PM
0

That is not true. Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration. (pag…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:34 PM
1

Meaning that it includes attempts that were not completed.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:27 PM
1

It is possible for there to be both societal oppression of women AND men at the same time, and for both feminism and MRM to have legitimate complaints. MRM does not need to obstruct and rebut feminism at every turn in order to effect its goals. Again, you're taking this "obstructionism" out of context. We aren't the ones saying "We'll address men's issues after we take care of women's issues." In many of these areas, feminism exacerbates and perpetuates the inequality in favor of women. Working …
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:20 PM
2

I'm a woman, and I find it very easy to see how society constrains men. I did not say impossible, I said more difficult. Then let me clarify: I find it much easier to see how society constrains men these days than how it constrains women. Women might be entering and exiting college in higher numbers, but they still make up a minority of faculty in universities, and are underrepresented in many industries, especially in the upper echelons of organizations. Men are underrepresented in many industr…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:35 PM
2

With feminism, what all those disparate views have in common is an idea that women ought to have equal rights to men. What they have in common is also an idea that women do not currently have any rights that are equal to men. And therein lies the problem. As far as we can tell, most of feminism will never acknowledge any equality between men and women, because they have already labelled men the oppressors. Oppressors do not stop oppressing. They must be prevented from any advantage by law or soc…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:24 PM
0

Define "allowed" then. What am I going to do, give you a time-out like I give my toddler? How does my disapproval prevent you from doing whatever the fuck you want?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:18 PM
2

It's not so easy for a woman to just "choose" to not have a child because they don't have the ability to support it, the father is absent etc. It is actually probably the hardest decision a woman can make. That's a broad generalization that is equally untrue. TwoX is full of women who either had abortions or claim they would have one with no second thoughts whatsoever, and for whom there is no question in their mind they did the right thing. It wasn't a "child" to them, it was a horribly inconve…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:17 PM
3

I was discussing circumcision in the broader context of routine circumcision for cosmetic, cultural, religious, or non-existent hygienic reasons, justified by the alleged medical benefits. If you want to discuss the narrower scope of this article, circumcision in Africa, then the point is very simple-- that woman, and those like her, and their unborn children (male OR female) would likely have died, when we could have shoved a handful of condoms at each of those ten men and called it a day.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:11 PM
2

How she would go about proving it isn't my responsibility to be concerned with. You're assuming that it's she who would have the primary interest in proving it. Do no men have any interest in their potential children?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:09 PM
1

True, but he didn't link to the report, he linked to his little infographic.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:53 PM
1

Yes. Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen. (page 17)
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:52 PM
0

You're right that his claim of "twice as often" is nonsense, but you do realize that these stats do show that men are raped at least as much as women, largely by women? Women might not be "worse" than men, but they do appear to be equally bad.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:50 PM
0

It's not "repressed memories" the way you're thinking. The men in question remember the incident, but they change the emotional context over time to fit the cultural narrative. More info here.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:47 PM
1

most that I've met oppose the idea that men shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves In theory, sure, they're all for it. But in individual cases, they will point out how the man was so much bigger, or the response was disproportional. This is in stark contrast to how many feminists respond to women maiming or killing their partners-- they were acting in self-defense after years of abuse (see: Lorena Bobbitt). Cutting off a man's dick while he's sleeping is not "self-defense," it's retaliation.…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:40 PM
2

It's a men's rights issue because whenever men fail in some way, they are at fault (see, for example, these comments on "discrimination against men:" "One of the ways men are more discriminated against is that there are more of them in prison than women. I may be missing something here, but I thought it was to do with them doing more crime?"), but when women fail, they were disadvantaged by the system.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:32 PM
1

It's a men's rights issue because whenever men fail in some way, they are at fault (see, for example, these comments on "discrimination against men:" "One of the ways men are more discriminated against is that there are more of them in prison than women. I may be missing something here, but I thought it was to do with them doing more crime?"), but when women fail, they were disadvantaged by the system.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:32 PM
2

It's a men's rights issue because whenever men fail in some way, they are at fault (see, for example, these comments on "discrimination against men:" "One of the ways men are more discriminated against is that there are more of them in prison than women. I may be missing something here, but I thought it was to do with them doing more crime?"), but when women fail, they were disadvantaged by the system.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:31 PM
1

Wah, wah, wah. But when 93% of the prison population is male [Source], that's because men are just evil and commit more crime.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:28 PM
1

Misandry is hatred/distrust towards men. The gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:22 PM
6

Female circumcision is solely for "purity"; it has no health benefits and impedes the normal function of the body parts affected. By contrast, male circumcision does have health benefits. Male circumcision was popularized in America solely due to Victorian ideas about the pathology and unhealthful nature of sexual pleasure and masturbation. it has no health benefits Proponents of FGM claim it has many salutatory and healthful effects on female hygiene. It's interesting to note how many sound lik…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:49 PM
6

There is also some evidence that it increases the already higher male-to-female transmission rate. If circumcision were so effective, why isn't the HIV rate lower in the United States, where at least 75% of men are circumcised, and routine circumcision rates reached over 80% in the 1980s? And even assuming the studies are true, 51-60% is nothing compared to the near 100% that regular, proper condom use achieves. Way much cheaper to hand out condoms. Protects the man and woman (or man and man, or…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:40 PM
21

NOW actually has the balls to claim that there's anti-woman discrimination in the family court system. http://www.now.org/news/blogs/index.php/sayit/2010/03/09/women-and-children-s-safety-should-be-court-s-priority http://www.now.org/issues/family/law/CANOW_federal_press_release.pdf
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:27 PM
2

Women are much more susceptible (calm down, I'm not saying that men can't be) to heterosexual rape Numbers for women raped in the past year, and men "made to penetrate" (for some reason not counted as "rape") were actually almost exactly equal for the past 12 months, according to the CDC (see the same NISVS I linked above, pages 18 and 19). If you look at the perpetrator stats found a few pages down, it comes out somewhere around 60% male rapists and 40% female rapists. So women would actually o…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:13 PM
2

The only time when you really have no input in that regard is when you knock someone you don't know up "Input" is not the same as having any kind of actual control over the situation. A man can say "I don't think we're ready for this," but if she disagrees, he's still stuck for it. Plus, you're discounting cases of conception fraud, where a woman deliberately deceives a man about her birth control usage. It probably happens more often than you'd think: Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 m…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:10 PM
15

Women have the "right" to keep their legs together, amirite? Oh, wait, no, that's misogynistic slut-shaming...
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:06 PM
9

It is so easy for a woman to just keep getting pregnant having all the abortions she want This isn't actually true. Each abortion carries increased risk of scarring, rupture, hemorrhaging, infertility, etc. And there's always the risk of early pregnancy complications, like ectopic pregnancy. Very few women actually use abortion as birth control, or have kid after kid to just "leech off the government." The "welfare queen" is largely a myth. I am anti-welfare and I think if we took away a lot of …
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:05 PM
5

It's the responsibility of the woman to prove that he is without violating his right to bodily autonomy(being forced to give up DNA to defend against wild accusations). How would that work?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:59 PM
4

In addition to what Sigil1 and Celda pointed out about the rape claim in #1: 2) Murder: Men are murdered 9 times more often than women The DOJ says that men make up about 3/4ths of the homicide victims in the US. My math isn't great, but I'm pretty sure that's three times more often, not nine. 3) Genital mutilation: Male genital mutilation is common practice throughout the West, while female genital mutilation is illegal in every Western nation. No, actually, "[c]ircumcision is most prevalent in…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:57 PM
13

But the point behind all the "feminists suck" circlejerking is that feminism promotes this mentality. All of feminism is based on women being perpetual victims of men.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:28 PM
8

Just another example of feminism turning victimhood into an exalted status to be envied and sought after, instead of mitigated and avoided when possible.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:27 PM
12

men are more likely to be victims of violence, don't have the stats on murder 3/4ths homicide victims are male. [Source] the power imbalance in politics, business Don't have stats in front of me for this one At the highest levels, on paper, she's right (17% of Congress is female, no female presidents, info on female executives here, but it's disproportionately low), however, women outnumber men in management, and I've seen the claim (unverified) that while men outnumber women in elected position…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:25 PM
1

Historians contradict each other all the time, yet history textbooks are written and taught to classes all the time. "History," as a concept, does not rely on ideology or theories. Are you saying feminism is not an ideology? They may be leaders within the feminist movement, but the movement is far too large and diverse for them to be considered the leaders of the feminist movement. This sounds to me like saying the Pope, or leading cardinals, are leaders within the Catholic Church, but not of th…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:31 AM
1

I know my assumption that they are referring to the inclusion of men comes from things they have previously said on their website, such as referring to fathers' rights groups as "abusers' lobbies" and issuing action alerts against any effort to limit the issuance of protection orders against men with no proof, or shared custody initiatives, as efforts to "protect abusers" or, as here, shield them "from accountability" or "further abuse their victims."
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:55 AM
2

But we banned viperz. The problem is that he posts everywhere else, and we have no control over other subreddits. I meant I had never seen an instance of this in /mensrights that wasn't deleted by mods within hours, and usually heavily downvoted in the meantime, often called out by multiple users. Where it is not, it's usually in a troll thread that was removed shortly after posting, so no one saw it to call it out. In fact, it seems to be becoming a thing, to post a troll thread, let it get rem…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:43 AM
1

It wasn't "sensationalist", they quoted directly from the article.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:42 AM
1

According to the most recent child abuse reports from the government, mothers are twice as likely to be repeat abusers of their kids than fathers.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:37 PM
2

Yeah, but if you follow feminist logic, that just means fewer people (read: women) are reporting it.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:34 PM
3

While it is easy for women to see the ways in which our society constrains women, it is more difficult for one to see how groups other than oneself's might be affected. I'm a woman, and I find it very easy to see how society constrains men. Edit: I don't see how this answers my question, either. What areas, specifically, do men's rights and feminism have in common? Certainly some feminists will be violently opposed to working on improving men's rights when there is still so much further to go in…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:21 PM
5

I'm a woman. No fear of spermjacking here. As to why I don't "get off my ass and go raise awareness," I'm at work, and not really at liberty to do that. On the weekends, I take care of my two-year-old while my husband works. You might not read them, but someone might, in whole or in part. You should take a look, though, they're worth reading. Who knows, it may even provoke some of that awareness-raising. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:10 PM
0

I see you debate with all the eloquence and persuasiveness of your namesake.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:09 PM
2

To characterize the entirety of the movement on the basis of a few lobbyist groups, writers, or speakers is a gross oversimplification. Then I go back to, how are there textbooks on feminist theory? How are there references and classes on it? If feminism is so diverse as to encompass literal opposites and complete contradictions, how is "feminism" even a useful word at all anymore? You're assuming that because a few vocal mouthpieces exhibit misandry, then the whole movement is also inherently m…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:04 PM
0

I disagree with your assertion that "90%" of men want all the same thing, as well as your assertion that women of any culture are that homogeneous. I never said men weren't "allowed" to want a given trait, but I did say it was racist or the ethnicity and nationality equivalent thereof to say that "Eastern women" are inherently better as a group than "Western women," particularly if the reason you seem to be saying it is because they are less independent, more submissive, and/or a variation on "t…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 10:00 PM
4

If the article inspires more self-criticism in this vein, then perhaps it did the Men’s Rights Movement a service. Anyone else find this eerily similar to Catherine Comins's opinion on men unjustly accused of rape? They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are goo…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 09:47 PM
2

All they need is a single example of, "I think men should be allowed to rape women, it's only natural [34 upvotes, 10 downvotes]," I've never seen even a single instance of this. A statement like this is downvoted, heavily. I've never even seen a statement like this other than from a known troll such as viperz (and not even in /mr).
/r/MensRights16/05/12 09:40 PM
2

Then what's the part about "shielding abusers from accountability" referring to?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 09:37 PM
1

Abortion rights do not solely affect women.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:40 PM
1

Not all self-identified Republicans are anti-abortion or anti birth-control etc. Many Republicans are pro-choice in fact, millions of them. Excellent analogy.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:39 PM
4

instead of bringing awareness to prostate cancer or finding ways to fund awareness, they will just bitch about how society only cares about breast cancer. then they will attempt to control women's funds and women's efforts and direct it towards their own goals (as if it was impossible to care about both prostate cancer and breast cancer at the same time) Because in order to bring awareness and funding to prostate cancer, we need to combat the current conventional wisdom (propagated by feminists)…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:30 PM
1

"Feminist" is a label one acquires either by self-identifying as a feminist and/or by espousing feminist theories and teachings as beliefs. Either way, it it is a self-selecting label based on voluntary actions. "Jew" (as used by white supremacists) is a racial designation that you are born with that makes you an inherently inferior human being. It has nothing to do with your beliefs or actions. Do you see the difference?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:35 PM
1

I don't agree with some of what she says, and I do upvote a fair number of your comments when we agree. But the primary focus of many if not most of your comments seems to be "this women's rights bullshit has got to go" while the primary focus of hers seems to be "the current women's rights movement, feminism, has got to go." She's made the argument more than a few times that if things keep continuing the way they are-- with some women taking advantage of the system and men being forced to suppo…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:26 PM
6

Oh, I've been there. I even bookmarked this defense of "arrest the man" policies.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:20 PM
2

This was my first thought too-- I would think being gay would at the very least protect him from allegations of molesting women/girls. I guess society thinks a pervert is a pervert...
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:11 PM
3

Notice that the study specifically says that it's not all drinking, or even the amount you drink, but drinking it all at once. But you go ahead and fight for your right to paaaaaarty.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:06 PM
2

No, but it does make sense to let women know that sexual assault is correlated to binge drinking. It's not telling women "don't ever drink!" but to not follow drinking patterns that put you at risk.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:59 PM
2

No, upvote this! Good to tag the trolls for later reference...
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:56 PM
4

Exactly. Also of note is the distinct possibility that hateful or misogynistic comments are being made and/or upvoted by trolls just to discredit us.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:52 PM
0

Perhaps these links will help? Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:35 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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