Alternative_Summer Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
21	'If you were a man, you'd be going to jail,' judge tells woman burglar	Discrimination	Alternative_Summer	/r/MensRights	24/08/18 06:54 PM

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda "I said women didn't have the right to vote when the draft was created" Conscription didn't first exist in the United States in 1917. And It simply isn't true that all women did not have the right to vote in 1917. In over 10 states women did have the right to vote in 1917. Women were the majority of voters during the election of Jimmy Carter, and it was during the Carter administration that the Selective Service System started to require men AND ONLY MEN to enroll in it. "If you find someone mak…	/r/MensRights	29/07/26 04:58 AM
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda "That's even further before women got the right to vote. Are you trying to switch sides, or are you making my point for me accidentally?" I was refuting your claim that conscription first existed in the United States in 1917. It existed prior to that as timing of the The Enrollment Act implies, and the timing of the Revolutionary War implies also, since conscription existed then also. "Is this really how weak your argument is? "Women weren't banned from voting in every state, so it doesn't count…	/r/MensRights	29/07/26 01:24 AM
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda "Do you actually think cherry-picking narrow exceptions (like women in New Jersey being able to vote from 1790 - 1807) reverses the dynamic of who held power throughout history, or are you grasping for straws to try to preserve your preconceived beliefs?" It wasn't a one-way dynamic in the first place. So, it can't get reversed. Such examples though DO disprove that it was a one-way dynamic in the first place. I don't have a preconceived belief about who held power, because I know it existed for…	/r/MensRights	29/07/26 12:53 AM
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda "The draft was created in 1917" The Enrollment Act of 1863 was a conscription law. The federal government engaged in conscription for the navy during the Revolutionary War. Also, (some of) the states had conscription laws during the Revolutionary War also. "Women got the right to vote in 1920" The 19th Amendment doesn't mention women actually. It just says that if one sex can vote on some basis, then the other sex has to have the right to vote on that basis also. Again, before the 19th Amendment…	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 08:48 PM
2	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda "If you don't want to be drafted into military service under the Vagabonds Act of 1597, don't go back to the 16th century and commit any major crimes." Again, that act came into existence under Elizabeth I. She was a woman. You seriously need to acknowledge that, if you want to understand how the real world worked. "Women were able to vote in one state from 1790 to 1807? Wow, that really flips the dynamic of who had power throughout history!" I have now idea what flipping the dynamic means. Howe…	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 08:37 PM
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda "All men literally were allowed to vote for the politicians who enact the draft" This just isn't true. In the United States there existed a property requirement to vote for a long time. Also, those convicted of crimes have historically lost the right to vote, and felons still lose the right to vote today, even though their crimes have no relevance whatsoever to how elections work. Additionally, the minimum voting age use to be 21. But, there existed plenty of 18 to 20 year old men who couldn't v…	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 05:28 PM
2	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda The Impressment started with the Vagabonds Act of 1597. From wikipedia: "In Elizabethan times a statute regulated impressment as a form of recruitment, and with the introduction of the Vagabonds Act 1597 (39 Eliz. 1. c. 4), men of disrepute (vagrants)) found themselves drafted into service." "We're talking about the modern draft systems this sub likes to trot out to argue men are oppressed today (not 400 years ago)" No, we were talking about all draft systems throughout history. As you said "...…	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 05:23 PM
2	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda Elizabeth the first was not a man. And it was under her administration that a form of conscription known as The Impressment first existed in England.	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 09:38 AM
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda There was no council of all men that decided such a matter. It was not enacted by men, but by particular rulers. Also, any claim that all such rulers were men would is just false. The Impressment in England got enacted under the administration of Elizabeth I. As the queen she was the primary party responsible.	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 09:37 AM
1	We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda Throughout most of history neither the vast majority of men, nor the vast majority of men had the right to vote. Most governments throughout written history have been despotic, monarchies, or oligarchies of some sort. Even in the age of Rome, there existed a substantial period of time before The Republic and after the rise of the Roman Empire. Someone talking about women not having the right to vote throughout the history of the world ignores that men didn't have the right to vote (or commits th…	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 09:33 AM
15	Anyone noticed there are no longer any boy centered movies/tv shows? I mean Harriet Tubman is the leader of the United States in civ VII. Surely that means she was just as important to the whole United States politically speaking than each of the Presidents or any of the elected officials, right? It couldn't be some kind of pandering to people or some way to stir up controversy could it? (of course Harriet Tubman was an influential historical person, but to say that the she was as important to the United States in how it developed as Andrew Jackson, for example, …	/r/MensRights	28/07/26 06:54 AM
2	Democrats introduce paid menstrual leave bill with 12 days off per year "The bill is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists." Yes, women bleed, therefore they should get more stuff gets supported by N.O.W. Consequently, that a large number of feminists support this idea gets suggested as evident.	/r/MensRights	02/06/26 06:25 PM
5	Men: EMBRACE Your Feminine Energy It seems gynocentric to tell men to embrace "feminine" energy.	/r/MensRights	09/03/26 02:47 PM
1	Help this feminist understand. You're welcome.	/r/MensRights	09/10/22 09:49 PM
3	Help this feminist understand. Her name is Christina Hoff-Sommers.	/r/MensRights	06/10/22 01:46 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Also, again, leadership is not all about being at the top of a hierarchy. A person just has to be above someone else in a hierarchy to qualify as a leader. Also, having some Catholic relatives and studied some St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine two very important leaders in the history of Catholicism, I think we both misunderstand the faith of the Catholic Church. Is their faith such that the Pope is at the top of the hierarchy? Well, if so, then the Pope would have to be above God in the hierarch…	/r/MensRights	11/08/22 01:39 AM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? A phenomenon has by definition has to be perceptible by the senses. Where is the evidence by means of the senses that patriarchy exists? I'm not aware of any whatsoever, and the whole concept thus is and should be extremely dubious as a phenomenon. I don't see any source for your claim about what Pope Francis said. Doing a DuckDuckGo search for "Pope Francis women leadership roles" I found this article: http://www.laityfamilylife.va/content/laityfamilylife/en/news/2020/il-papa-chiede-una-maggior…	/r/MensRights	10/08/22 11:22 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? dude patrilineal is part of patriarchy. Not if a woman makes the decision to have the lineage be patrilineal. I do think some woman has made that decision at some point in time for some family. So, no, patrilineal is not necessarily part of patriarchy. It doesn't show a bias, because again, men and women have different concerns with respect to reproduction. Men specifically have the concern of knowing that the child is their child and not some other man's child. Also, it doesn't show a bias, bec…	/r/MensRights	19/07/22 03:44 AM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? For example last names being passed by the man is patriarchy. women not allowed to be leaders in Christianity is patriarchy. Last names being passed by the man is patrilineage, not patriarchy. And even then that is only under the condition that the accepted father by the society is the biological father. That's not always the case. The term 'patriarchy' literally means 'rule by the father'. That the family name passes along male lines, does not necessarily imply that the father is the head of th…	/r/MensRights	16/07/22 01:48 AM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? The term "patriarchy" often doesn't describe anything real. It is not a "patriarchy" when there exists a female rule. A democracy is not a "patriarchy" when the majority of voters are female. There is also not "patriarchy" when social movements like feminism are allowed to exist in a society and have effective control over relevant institutions of how to handle the sexes. People calling themselves "sociologists" may well often inject a priori political views onto situations. They are not describ…	/r/MensRights	15/07/22 03:33 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Women voting more than men in a democratic system means that the system is not patriarchal. Women being over top of men is NOT patriarchy. It is impossible and un-desireable to build a society where physical differences do not matter. It shows a lack of appreciation of human diversity to try and erase differences such as physical differences. Sex not mattering implies that people would need to be the same, because when considering everything about society, differences only would not matter were …	/r/MensRights	13/07/22 08:10 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? No I am telling you your first sentence is false. I dot think you actually studied sociology if you claim this. One counterexample disproves a universal statement. Thus, one case of a female ruler means that all things historical were not patriarchal. If it needs no explanation, then the term 'patriarchy' is empty and meaningless and should get abandoned and anyone who wasn't a crackpot would have abandoned using it long ago. I don't claim that patriarchy is all about physical ability. It is not…	/r/MensRights	13/07/22 07:52 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? None of those terms are outdated. Just because Joe Smith is a parent, that does not mean that Joe Smith is not also a father. It comes as more specific to refer to Joe Smith as a father, instead of a parent, because he is a man, an adult male parent. Refusal to refer to female parents as mothers and male parents as fathers is dehumanizing, because people do have biological sex as one of their human features.	/r/MensRights	13/07/22 07:33 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Patriarchy is labeling a phenomenon. Which exists. Again, in the United States, women make up the majority of the voters in an abundance of elections historically and even now. There are plenty of cases where patriarchy does not exist, and is a misleading notion when trying to understand things. Oftentimes, people are often not given opportunities. In sports this is often very clear, as no man or woman is given the opportunity to run a race or swim a race or bike a race in a certain time. Men …	/r/MensRights	12/07/22 04:48 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Again, one case of a female ruler means that all things historical were not patriarchal. People don't have the same opportunities to do the same things, because of how they are biologically and sometimes for other reasons. Some people can ran faster than others. Some people, including plenty of men, don't have the opportunity to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Perhaps some women might have that opportunity in the future, but perhaps not, since no woman has ever run a sub 4 minute mile. No f…	/r/MensRights	12/07/22 04:18 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? A nun is a woman by definition. A monk is a man by definition. Both are gender/sex based.	/r/MensRights	12/07/22 04:01 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Do you think that nuns are below the laity in the Catholic church? I believe that nuns are above the laity in the Catholic church, and thus there are women above plenty of men in that structure. One thing I'm finding though is that monks and nuns inhabit the same rung of the hierarchy in the Catholic church. The laity includes plenty of men and women, and I would guess more women than men. If nuns are above the laity, then there exist women above men in the structure of the Catholic church. If l…	/r/MensRights	12/07/22 01:46 AM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? When considering history in a general sense, one case of a female ruler means that all things historical were not patriarchal. And men and women are not equal based on gender physically speaking. There exist real differences between the sexes. It would be very bad if the sexes were equal, because then there would be no trade between members of the opposite sex on the basis of differences happening because of their sex. If the sexes were equal, in fact, biological sex wouldn't even exist. But, th…	/r/MensRights	12/07/22 01:20 AM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? No, it's not odd, since there exist I don't know how many people telling women that the system is biased against them. It's also not odd, since women don't run at the same rate for president as men do. It's also not odd, since women bear children, breastfeed, and often spend more time doing domestic affairs than political affairs. It would only be odd if men and women were the same. It's also not odd since the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and men have more experience i…	/r/MensRights	12/07/22 01:06 AM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? I have no need to analyze history of how patriarchy was a political thing in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, or 2010s when considering elections for federal office. Why? Because women made up the majority of voters for senators and house of representatives, and also those most influential over the electoral college. Thus, patriarchy was not a thing politically with regard to federal elections. Here's one relevant graphic: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/participati…	/r/MensRights	11/07/22 11:36 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? It isn’t enough to claim patriarchy doesn’t exist if one woman got to the top. Like if US gets 1 woman president it isn’t that all of a sudden patriarchy in politics is gone. You said I can see it as who is on top. Thus, logically speaking it is enough to have 1 woman president for patriarchy to not exist. The whole claim of a transhistorical political patriarchy existing is refuted by a single female political ruler, and there exist plenty of examples of female political rulers. Thus, there nev…	/r/MensRights	11/07/22 11:25 PM
1	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? The observation we can make today is that things like in US marriage, politics, religion was patriarchal. The 1960s are part of history, so are the 1970s, so are the 1980s, so are the 1990s, so are the 2000s. Again, in every federal election since the 1960s (my memory is that women made up the majority of voters first in 1964), there have been more female voters than male voters. And there have existed enough state and local elections that women have made up the majority of voters since then als…	/r/MensRights	11/07/22 11:22 PM
2	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Alright, define patriarchy as men on top of women. Regnant queens still imply that men weren't on top of women, since some woman was on top of men. The claim that it existed gets contradicted by regnant queens. How are men on top of women politically, when there's a woman ruler at the head of state? And how did regnant queens happen on several occasions and rule during periods thought as hugely influential by historians? And if patriarchy was a phenomenon, then I'm going to ask for the informati…	/r/MensRights	11/07/22 04:39 AM
4	Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement? Eddboat's answer has the city on top. A patriarchy would have men as a group on top, or being a member of the male sex being an absolutely qualifying factor and being a member of the female sex being an absolutely disqualifying factor. So, according to his analysis, there was no patriarchy. Men as a group don't rule over the state, and that I would hope even more clear when thinking about monarchies throughout history and in the present day. And sex wasn't a factor like that. coveture existed, t…	/r/MensRights	10/07/22 08:32 PM
26	To the feminists here that are constantly trying to shit on men having equal rights… why? But, honestly, feminism Means equal rights for both genders. If so, since there exist many laws in many jurisdictions condemning female genital mutilation no matter how severe it may be why aren't the majority of feminists pushing for laws condemning male genital mutilation? Why did so many feminists push for the Violence Against Women Act in the United States when it first got passed? Why has the National Organization of Women (in the United States) opposed the presumption of joint custody fo…	/r/MensRights	23/06/22 03:32 AM
10	Banning transexual males from competing equally against women is simply admitting women are NOT as strong as men. So why is it still taboo to say this fact for men? People have had careers ruined for saying men stronger than women. Separate sports leagues also leads to over-recognition of female performers and under-recognition of male performers. For example, with the Olympics, three men and three women take home medals. But, with exception to equestrian, the lower tier male athletes outperform the top women. In swimming, track and field, and some other events this becomes especially clear since the mid to bottom tier men outperform the top women. But, those bottom tier men don't get medals or as much prestige as the wome…	/r/MensRights	21/06/22 03:24 AM
1	You're getting a partner, not a credit card co-signer. Money is a requirement for love now? This is hilarious. There exist more men with below average pay than average pay. It's 60% or higher probably of men that have below average pay. The highest earners skew the average.	/r/MensRights	18/06/22 01:18 AM
6	You're getting a partner, not a credit card co-signer. Money is a requirement for love now? This is hilarious. There exist masses of men who have below average paying jobs. What, you think it's like 10% of men who have below average paying jobs? No, it's more like 60% or higher. Maybe even 70% or 75%. The men with the highest earning jobs skew the average towards the top. I mean, consider you have a set of numbers like {100, 50, 10, 3, 2, 1}. Here the average is (166 / 6) = 27.6... 4/6 or about 66% of the numbers are below average. She did impose a standard that a massive portion of men don't fit financi…	/r/MensRights	18/06/22 01:17 AM
4	You're getting a partner, not a credit card co-signer. Money is a requirement for love now? This is hilarious. This. And it's impossible that this standard could be ok for everyone, since by definition it implies men who make less than average as unworthy. The downvoted comment is correct that such would make it impossible for underprivileged men to find love (or at least I think that's in the ballpark).	/r/MensRights	18/06/22 12:54 AM
0	You're getting a partner, not a credit card co-signer. Money is a requirement for love now? This is hilarious. Anytime there exists an average economically, there exists people below that average economically. There were always exist men who are economically below average. There will always exist men with below average paying jobs. Even particular men look for more work or higher paying work and make more than they did before, there will still exist other men with below average paying jobs. What are they supposed to do? Give up on love, because women require that they have an average paying job and they …	/r/MensRights	18/06/22 12:50 AM
5	You're getting a partner, not a credit card co-signer. Money is a requirement for love now? This is hilarious. "Decent, average paying job" is much different than "making enough money for yourself". It's a statistical position, and relative to one's economic status in society compared to others. It's not about whether one has debt or not. Underprivileged people, economically, by definition make less than average pay. So, the comment about depriving underprivileged people is likely correct. Oh... and that comment "decent, average paying job", might not come from someone wanting just "average" pay for the …	/r/MensRights	18/06/22 12:43 AM
53	You're getting a partner, not a credit card co-signer. Money is a requirement for love now? This is hilarious. "Why would anyone want to be with anyone who can't support themselves?" Well if men felt that way, men wouldn't want to be with 99%-100% of pregnant women. Or however many it is.	/r/MensRights	18/06/22 12:36 AM
1	Observe the chilling levels of hatred the average Feminist has for men who need help. Suicidal women and men often have been institutionalized without their consent. And I think that they still are in significant measure.	/r/MensRights	23/05/22 10:25 PM
1	Female Uber drivers allowed to reject male passengers I think you meant tens of miles an hour, sir.	/r/MensRights	16/05/22 08:30 PM
1	There's a massive epidemic amongst men and it's not talked about at all. I have a friend who talked a few times to me about how dangerous plastics. I thought to myself "but give up plastics?" and thought something along the lines that the frequency he seemed to talk about it useless, since changing behavior substantially to get rid of the use of plastics doesn't sound attractive. Later he told me he didn't know what to do himself, which I felt relieved that he seemed to understand that. I mean it's good to know if something is bad for you. But, if you know it's bad, …	/r/MensRights	16/05/22 08:25 PM
6	Glenn Reynolds: Draft women? Why not? The Supreme Court declined to hear the case (which the ACLU and NOW both supported). The lower court's decision said that it should be up to the legislature to decide. It came up, and nothing changed.	/r/MensRights	16/05/22 08:15 PM
1	TIL about this statement by early feminist Sylvia Pankhurst on the sinking of the Titanic Many men in the United States don't have voting rights due to felony voting laws. Supposedly the U. S. prison population is very large proportionally speaking. According to this site the U. S. has the largest incarceration rate in the world. In addition to women being the adult majority of the population of voting age, the prison population being almost entirely male combined with felons not having the right to vote in most states (I think it was in 48 states last I checked), makes your request …	/r/MensRights	16/05/22 08:11 PM
14	TIL about this statement by early feminist Sylvia Pankhurst on the sinking of the Titanic The Impressment was a form of conscription first legalized during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The United States has had a majority of the voters being women in every Presidential election since 1964 or 1968. The U. S. Selective Service has remained in place since then, including during the Vietnam war when conscription was used and some men were imprisoned for failing to register. There still exist men who still lose out on some government benefits for failing to register.	/r/MensRights	15/05/22 01:52 PM
15	TIL about this statement by early feminist Sylvia Pankhurst on the sinking of the Titanic Pretty sure that Elizabeth the First ruled and so did Cleopatra. Stop engaging in historical revisionism by whitewashing women rulers.	/r/MensRights	15/05/22 01:49 PM
15	Are men really pressured to repress emotions in order to appear strong? Girlfriends having issues with men expressing emotion. So much for patriarchal standards...	/r/MensRights	14/05/22 08:43 PM
10	The World’s Fastest Patriarchy Disproof From the article: "In the UK, where Parliamentary Sovereignty and a lack of a codified constitution allow any law to be made, even ones which contravene basic human rights, women could literally institute any law they wanted as long as they all agreed upon it."	/r/MensRights	02/05/22 08:10 PM
0	Ukraine's Draft Dodgers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach OP: Blatant gender discrimination. Not a word from feminists. No, I didn't say that they were all feminist.	/r/MensRights	16/04/22 07:32 AM
0	Ukraine's Draft Dodgers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach OP: Blatant gender discrimination. Not a word from feminists. No, that's not my logic.	/r/MensRights	16/04/22 07:32 AM
1	Ukraine's Draft Dodgers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach OP: Blatant gender discrimination. Not a word from feminists. No, you can't generalize from one example logically. It's a fallacy of overgeneralization.	/r/MensRights	15/04/22 08:15 AM
1	Ukraine's Draft Dodgers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach OP: Blatant gender discrimination. Not a word from feminists. I want all governments that have unilaterally drafted men to apologize.	/r/MensRights	15/04/22 08:14 AM
1	Ukraine's Draft Dodgers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach OP: Blatant gender discrimination. Not a word from feminists. Oh please. You can't generalize from one example like that logically.	/r/MensRights	12/04/22 07:52 PM
3	Ukraine's Draft Dodgers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach OP: Blatant gender discrimination. Not a word from feminists. The draft for Ukrainian men is not some little thing. It's the exact opposite. Talking about the mistreatment of Ukrainians is also different than the mistreatment of Ukrainian men by their government's policies and people on social media accosting Ukrainian men choosing to not fight in that war.	/r/MensRights	12/04/22 07:50 PM
2	This person doesn’t acknowledge that it could be both parties at fault but each is judged differently for not wanting the child depending on if it’s a man that doesn’t want it, or a woman that doesn’t want it. Valenti wrote that her abortion made her life better. That's almost an exact wording from the article. She implies that women's lives can be better by abortions, which implies praising them for choosing to have their unborn child killed. Abortion is unethical in the vast, vast majority of cases. It's often about financial reasons or feelings of inconvenience. It's a failure to accept responsibility. Women absolutely should feel ashamed of having abortions in the majority of cases, and accept tha…	/r/MensRights	20/01/22 05:32 PM
8	This person doesn’t acknowledge that it could be both parties at fault but each is judged differently for not wanting the child depending on if it’s a man that doesn’t want it, or a woman that doesn’t want it. Also, and more high profile, there was this article a few years back.	/r/MensRights	20/01/22 05:12 AM
4	This person doesn’t acknowledge that it could be both parties at fault but each is judged differently for not wanting the child depending on if it’s a man that doesn’t want it, or a woman that doesn’t want it. I live in a world where articles like this appear in a high profile publication.	/r/MensRights	20/01/22 05:11 AM
3	My history teacher just brainwashed the entire class to believe in wage gap. > It was only on a state by state basis with a ton of obstacles and opponents. But then there existed women who could vote, which contradicts a valid interpretation of your original claim. National level? The 19th amendment doesn't say that women can vote. It only says that voting rights can't get denied on the basis of sex. It doesn't specify any particular sex. It allows for denial of women voting and for denial of men voting. > And I'm aware. I bet you can't guess which races are affected the…	/r/MensRights	19/01/22 06:32 PM
3	My history teacher just brainwashed the entire class to believe in wage gap. And just do some simple research. You apparently didn't, since if you had, you would have concluded that there existed women who did vote in the 1880s.	/r/MensRights	19/01/22 06:17 PM
8	My history teacher just brainwashed the entire class to believe in wage gap. No, I don't realize that women "couldn't even vote in the 1880s", because of it's lack of specificity. Also, there were women who could vote in the 1880s, which reading the wikipedia on women's suffrage would make clear if you read about everything preceding the 1880s and followed it's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States Also, I note that to this day, not every citizen can vote. Felony voting laws exist in most states even for crimes not related to electio…	/r/MensRights	19/01/22 06:12 PM
1	Why do women complain about u paid labour at home? With approval yes, but they never have to. You are at the mercy of the other party. No, such a person would not be at their mercy, since they can quit the relationship on any condition they choose. The relationship being voluntary implies that you are free and making a choice to stay in it.	/r/MensRights	18/01/22 12:15 PM
1	Why do women complain about u paid labour at home? You don't know me or how I would act in terms of supporting people. Emotions change over time and with how one thinks. If one takes responsibility for oneself, emotions become different than if one acts entitled to things from other people. I don't know why you think I'd act that way if running a men's shelter by leaving them outside. My responsibility would be to not have those men outside in the first place. That said, it would also be their responsibility to sort things out so that they could…	/r/MensRights	18/01/22 12:13 PM
2	Why do women complain about u paid labour at home? With what money? Money isn't needed to leave such a situation. Money does not cause anyone to leave such a relationship. People make decisions and act on them, not money. > Let's say you do it for 5 years after having a kid, the only money you have is what your allowed to have, and or given. No, you could go out and work like other people after leaving. Money is not needed to leave or quit. One can choose to leave and accept that one has no money at that point in time and take on the responsibil…	/r/MensRights	17/01/22 11:25 PM
1	Why do women complain about u paid labour at home? > Now you're changing the deal. He said he would be happy with only food and a house. That leaves no way out. No, it doesn't leave no way out. There was no prohibition against working later from what he said. That would be a bill. He said someone else would pay all his bills. Same holds for going out for lunch.	/r/MensRights	17/01/22 11:17 PM
8	Why do women complain about u paid labour at home? Bruh, he wasn't being dumb, you were. Slavery consists of a condition where one can't quit being the property of the enslaver and can't quit the service demanded by the enslaver. You were trying to change the definition of slavery to mean doing A in exchange for B where one can quit doing A and never have been the property of anyone. It's simply not slavery, and never was, to have someone else buy all your stuff, pay your bills, doesn't charge you rent, and have to cook and clean in exchange AND…	/r/MensRights	17/01/22 08:46 AM
47	Why am I being treated like a monster? "He fixes the cable?" - Jeffrey Lebowski	/r/MensRights	20/12/21 11:21 AM
87	16-year-old sister repeatedly rapes 13 year old brother and becomes pregnant. Admits to forcing brother with beatings and threats to tell people he was raping her. 13 year old boy is arrested, while "16 year old girl victim is hospitalized" (literally exact words from the article) Nick wasn't forced to pay child support at 14 years of age. He was forced to backpay child support at 20 years of age for when he was 14. Still fucking bullshit, of course.	/r/MensRights	05/12/21 08:37 PM
5	The Female dating strategy sub has plagued my mind The "lower tier" men are being shut out of dating and sex because they refuse to date "lower tier" women. Hypergamy has been and is a thing. It has plenty of evidence. Men in general date down the social-economic hierarchy. I see no reason to think that incel men are different... well would be different if they were dating.	/r/MensRights	13/10/21 07:38 PM
5	The Female dating strategy sub has plagued my mind You can't get off by masturbating?	/r/MensRights	13/10/21 07:31 PM
2	I am so done. Women need informed about these issues. They will be mothers and have responsibilities with children.	/r/MensRights	11/10/21 04:05 PM
19	Why do feminists get annoyed when male victims are brought up? The leap they make from a society merely being led by men Families aren't lead by men. This becomes even more apparent in societies like the United States where single motherhood has had, or at least had in periods of the 20th century, increasing rates. Families also can get said to be one form of society. They have a large influence in society also in the development of people, and their influence in say schools. Oh, also in the United States every presidential election since sometime in the mi…	/r/MensRights	11/10/21 04:03 PM
2	Why do feminists get annoyed when male victims are brought up? They call themselves "feminists" to center on women and girls. It's not weird that they turn out to ignore men, given that their original intent was to be about one sex only.	/r/MensRights	11/10/21 03:48 PM
9	[Twitter] Stop gendering issues that aren’t a gender-specific issue! 51.3% of men, and 48.7% of women. BuT wOmEn!! That phrase "women and minorities"... why oh why is someone talking about the sex majority and racial or cultural minorities?	/r/MensRights	28/06/21 03:46 PM
-10	[Twitter] Stop gendering issues that aren’t a gender-specific issue! 51.3% of men, and 48.7% of women. BuT wOmEn!! Hard to tell if you can infer that. 1/4 of the homeless people might be adult women. If that's the case, then some percentage of homeless people is children, so in that case it's not 3/4 of homeless people are men (from that study). I think whatever ratio you see will also differ some depending on the area you look at.	/r/MensRights	28/06/21 03:43 PM
2	On my way to submit this project on MEN’S RIGHTS. Please wish me luck, I think I would really need it. Thomas Sowell 1981: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0	/r/MensRights	04/12/19 07:49 PM
2	Woman mocks men who are speaking out against infant circumcision United States.	/r/MensRights	19/10/19 05:02 PM
3	Woman mocks men who are speaking out against infant circumcision You can argue that all you like. Sexual assault in the law doesn't require any sexual gratification component though and hasn't for a very long time. Sexual assault has gotten understood as a general intent crime.	/r/MensRights	19/10/19 03:07 PM
68	Woman mocks men who are speaking out against infant circumcision Also, the device used to separate the foreskin from the glans literally penetrates the penis. And then the penis usually gets made to penetrate a foreign object such as a gomco clamp. The term 'sexual assault' isn't emotional, she's being overly emotional in wishing that people would shut up, when they speak the truth.	/r/MensRights	19/10/19 12:38 AM
45	My response to a democrat looking for support in the upcoming election I don't recommend making sarcastic comments like "I"m a ..." when you don't classify yourself that way. It can confuse people. It shows an underlying hostility. It doesn't make people inclined to believe that you want to collaborate with them. Additionally, it's not very direct. I find it better to say something like "I have found that Democrats will tell me that I'm a bigoted racist, rapist, who doesn't deserve the freedom of speech for being a man."	/r/MensRights	26/10/18 03:43 PM
2	Isn't going around saying someone raped you without evidence Slander? Such speech has to be false for it qualify as libel in the United States. "Defamation is the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement (written or oral) to another person." https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-are-the-defenses-against-defamation-398755 Thought falsity will always imply lack of evidence, lack of evidence does not necessarily imply falsity. For example, there existed a serious lack of evidence for the heliocentric theory of the motion of the planets for ce…	/r/MensRights	30/09/18 06:04 AM
9	Answer: The military draft, and forced labor with threat of incarceraction to satisfy government's child support orders Should could theoretically ask him that to see if he talks about the Selective Service System. But, I don't think that likely as to what she expected to happen.	/r/MensRights	07/09/18 01:04 AM
2	Rules for thee but not for me You didn't. I just suspect that you were close to going there. In all fairness, I don't know you. You might be young and never heard such. Or you might not have had any conversations with any men about circumcision.	/r/MensRights	03/09/18 10:34 PM
18	Rules for thee but not for me I'm circumcised and wish I wasn't. Don't make the "no true man" fallacy, please.	/r/MensRights	03/09/18 10:16 PM
1	Rape is okay when you're a woman! (Asia Argento situation) Not if he's too intoxicated to consent. We don't know how much alcohol.	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 09:30 PM
2	Rape is okay when you're a woman! (Asia Argento situation) Morally it's not rape You need to take into account that she bought him alcohol. I don't think you've done that yet.	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 08:57 PM
2	Rape is okay when you're a woman! (Asia Argento situation) He was 17. The reports say that she bought him alcohol. Even if no sexual contact occurred, that isn't legal. No one worth their salt would claim that if the situation were reversed that it shouldn't count as rape under the law. The law is clear. Sex with a minor under the legal age limit, barring a "Romeo and Juliet" exception, is illegal sexual contact.	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 08:56 PM
1	Rape is okay when you're a woman! (Asia Argento situation) It's not hard for an adult woman to purchase alcohol for a minor under the legal limit. Nor is it hard for a woman's hand to touch a man's genitals.	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 08:53 PM
7	Telling a feminist the truth. > That's not what it says at all. It says that the rights that they are defending are "women's rights" are simply an extension of human rights. If the second part "human rights are women's rights" means that, as you say, women's rights are an extension of human rights, then the first part "women's rights are human rights" means that human rights are an extension of women's rights. I don't agree with that, and that also doesn't make any sense at all (e. g. the rights of male soldiers clearly pred…	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 08:47 PM
7	Telling a feminist the truth. Feminism considers human rights synonymous with women's rights. In other words, if someone has a human right, then that person has a woman's rights. This makes no sense at all, since men have human rights. But the belief of women's rights being synonymous with human rights is mainstream feminism: > We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights [emphasis added]. https://archive.is/hXlI6	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 01:53 PM
10	Telling a feminist the truth. Claiming that human rights are synonymous with women's rights is NOT gender equality. But, it is feminism. And the common type of feminism: https://archive.is/hXlI6	/r/MensRights	22/08/18 01:49 PM
6	Review of the Male Psychology Conference 2018 " Paula Hall (psychotherapist) discussed sex addiction. The definition includes porn, leading to the common phenomenon, on this definition, of sex addicted virgins. There are many 30 year old virgins, she told us. (I couldn’t help observing how odd it is, but somehow fitting in these benighted times, that being a virgin no longer disqualifies you from being a sexual deviant). 30% of survey respondents admitting sex addiction are women – though users of psychology services for sex addiction are a…	/r/MensRights	09/07/18 09:39 AM