TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Alzael Archive

View 3 posts and 1,513 comments by Alzael on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,513 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
25

Rape/domination is the most common sexual fantasy for women. Hence the popularity of things like 50 shades. It's why bodice ripper romance novels exist. If you've ever read rape erotica or rape-themed manga/hentai, most of it is written by women. In fact there are entire subs on here dedicated to womens (often very graphic and violent) rape fantasies. Including the fetish of rape-baiting, where women actually go out and try to instigate their rape. That last one is the really extreme end of the …
/r/MensRights27/05/24 06:23 AM
13

That was an actual obscure doll they made once. It's because that version of Ken had a dog named Sugar. Making him Sugar's "daddy". Apparently no one realized that could have other meanings at the time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/07/23 07:30 AM
1

Did anyone expect different? Traditionalists are the original beta-cucks.
/r/MensRights05/12/21 07:44 PM
3

Cassie Jaye is who you're thinking of. And she ends that movie by rejecting feminism. It's literally the last thing she says. That she learned what men go through is WHY she stopped being a feminist. It's the entire narrative of the documentary. So no, it's not the example you think it is.
/r/MensRights04/12/21 07:01 AM
3

More valuable than prettiness and strength You can get very in life just by being pretty. Probably farther than you could by being kind or being good friend. ​ So why is being pretty less valuable in your eyes than the other two?
/r/MensRights14/10/21 09:56 PM
27

I once had a guy try to condemn the porn industry to me by saying that he has a female friend in the industry who was addicted to it and couldn't escape it. He said she had a good degree science and could make something else of her life, but painted it as her being trapped and unable to leave. ​ When I asked him why she didn't just go and get a job with her science degree, he told me that she says that she likes all of the easy money that she makes and the big lifestyle it gives her that she cou…
/r/MensRights12/10/21 09:49 PM
1

There are a lot of moderate people in this same group No such group exists. but they don't make as much noise as you do Then what does their existence matter, if they don't do anything? In any case I will not continue to argue with those who call me a liar You weren't arguing. You were just saying things.
/r/MensRights09/05/21 07:42 PM
2

No such group comes up. Please provide specific links. find feminist friends if you are interested in other more "moderate" positions towards feminism. Such things do not exist. I have looked. Just as I looked at the nonsense that you provided. That's why I'm asking you to tell me where. And like every other person who makes these claims, you can't.
/r/MensRights09/05/21 06:43 PM
1

Anthropology would help you understand that there are many ways of building societies and distributing tasks between the sexes. Living advice And anthropology would tell you that the gender roles in themselves have never changed in any functioning society. But since you are so knowledgeable about the subject, you should have no problem proving me wrong now. All you would need to do is find one example. One single example. I won't hold my breath. I repeat, if you don't believe me, don't intervene…
/r/MensRights09/05/21 05:34 PM
1

Do you ever read a book of anthropology? Why? Have you? Do you have any actual arguments to refute what I said? do you deny that I have had a profitable conversation with feminists? Yes. Do you have any evidence to the reverse? Or any actual argument? I have expressed my opinion Yes, but it's a an opinion that is not based on reality. Which was the point. and experience, Which seems to be very little. if you do not believe it I don't. And you don't really seem to either, or you would be actually…
/r/MensRights09/05/21 12:10 PM
1

For how you talk about society and gender roles, I just have to recommend a course in general anthropology. In other words "I don't know enough to make my own arguments, so try and find people who know more than me." Since you think the topic is little or not at all interesting I didn't say that. I said that what you specifically were saying had no value, and then went to the trouble of trying to help you by explaining your problem. please do not intervene because it does not seem constructive a…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 09:52 PM
1

I don't understand how this single point, even if right, can take away the importance of what I say. Well first off you make the mistake of thinking that what you're saying is important. It's not, it's meaningless rhetoric. I want the role of man in society to be re-discussed (not just strenuous jobs) You can discuss them all you want, but you can't change them to any great degree. Unless you're going to completely destroy society of course. That's one reason why what you said has no importance.…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 09:04 PM
1

Yes, society must stop enforcing traditional rules of men. The primary failing of this type of meaningless rhetoric is that modern society functions entirely because men are men. If you remove the traditional rules and roles of men then who are you going to do all of the difficult, physically exhausting, time consuming, and dangerous jobs that are necessary for society to work? Because we all know it won't be women.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 08:09 PM
1

None of those are have anything to do with rights.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 08:02 PM
2

So original, calling me a liar You didn't say anything original, why should I? At least what I said was true. Well, if you think that having my opinion makes me a liar, then so be it. No. The fact that you have objectively said things that were not true makes you a liar. Don't blame me for your own failings while you slink away like a petulant child.
/r/MensRights06/05/21 11:14 PM
2

And no, it didn't "demonize" men. It entirely did. Read the Declaration of Sentiments. Since you know much more about feminism than its detractors, I'm sure I don't have to explain it further. > It just sought to make women human beings again. ​ No it did not. You are lying. This is not what they said then, this is what YOU are trying to say NOW after you have been called on it. Furthermore, you don't even know what that means, because I already asked you questions about that claim and you've co…
/r/MensRights06/05/21 09:16 PM
2

Well first off, that doesn't make the term anymore equal. That's just a justification for why you think using such a sexist term is ok. ​ But this is something you really can't get away from. The mere fact that you call yourself a feminist proves that you are sexist and do not want equality. Otherwise you would call yourself an egalitarian or a humanist. Which are terms that actually accurately describe what you are claiming you believe in and want to accomplish. ​ But you don't do that, do you?…
/r/MensRights06/05/21 06:08 PM
2

No you don't. You are straight out lying. As evidenced by the things that you yourself have already said. Not to mention almost all feminist literature. activism, philosophy, and every public feminist. Also if that's what you meant, that is what you would say. Not that you want "equality". Furthermore, saying such a thing is just weasel words. How do you treat someone as not a human? How are women not being treated as humans? And if that's what you want, why call it feminism? a word that inheren…
/r/MensRights06/05/21 02:58 PM
4

You could say that, but it wouldn't be true.
/r/MensRights06/05/21 02:50 PM
4

It is precisely because they do know more about feminism that they are not feminists.
/r/MensRights06/05/21 07:45 AM
1

There are no real equal rights believers. Anyone who says they seek equality is lying, or too stupid to be having these kinds of conversations. Short of complete totalitarian control you cannot create equality between two things that are fundamentally different.
/r/MensRights06/05/21 07:38 AM
1

He really could have saved a lot of words and just typed 'nu-uh'.
/r/MensRights21/03/21 06:45 PM
2

The one that truly stands for equal rights If you stand for equal rights you aren't a feminist. I can support the core values. You mean you hate and want to oppress men, then? The ones like, women should be able to vote You mean rich white women.
/r/MensRights21/01/21 06:43 AM
1

It's "whataboutism".
/r/MensRights20/01/21 09:25 AM
1

It's a form of "whataboutism" a variant of the to quoque fallacy. It's an attempt to discredit the opponent's argument by painting them as a hypocrite without actually addressing or refuting the point. even if rape were as pervasive as she believes, saying so does nothing to refute the fact that she's mass blaming all men. she's just trying to discredit the point by implying you don't care enough rape. There's also a small strawman at the end where she claims its all about ego.
/r/MensRights20/01/21 09:24 AM
1

I'm done arguing with you. As I said, you were never arguing. I already know I lost Then you should probably rethink your position. Shouldn't you?
/r/MensRights14/01/21 07:33 PM
1

And I support that definition, just without the women's rights thing. So then you don't support feminism. I said this before. You are taking something entirely different and choosing to call it feminism. It's dishonest. a few good feminists not just fighting for female supremacy Then they are not feminists. Again, you are completely changing what feminism is and then trying to label and defend that completely new and different thing as feminism. It's dishonest. Especially since you don't do this…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 06:50 PM
1

"the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." No it isn't. That's one dictionary definition, and a modern one at that. The first two waves never pretended they wanted equality. A definition is not what something truly is. It is merely a series of words used to allow us to distinguish one thing from another. What something 'truly' is, is the sum of its parts. As for your definition, nothing about it makes any argument against what I said. As I said, nothing about tha…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 06:24 PM
1

true feminism Yes. A hate group. That is true feminism. Note that you have no actual argument against any of my points. Just a repeat of assertions. That should probably tell you something about the validity of your position.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 06:08 PM
1

You're being redundant.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 06:05 PM
1

I support the people who call themselves feminists So you support a hate group. but don't necessarily follow the modern version of it. So again, you support a hate group. You can't get around that fact. Feminism is and has always been an ideology about misandry and female supremacy. No added that to it or changed it. That is what it is and has always been. The only people who support feminism of any kind are bigots, the ignorant who don't know anything about it, or the ones too stupid to underst…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 06:03 PM
1

This is just a less direct way of saying "If only feminism never existed".
/r/MensRights14/01/21 05:53 PM
2

But I support the definition, with a name change As has been covered already, that has always existed. It's called egalitarianism or humanism. For someone who claims not to support feminism you're certainly making yourself look foolish and uneducated in other parts of the thread as you attempt to go to bat for them.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 05:50 PM
1

You mean the ones who fire-bombed buildings? The ones who were against voting rights for blacks? The ones who put out the Tender Years Doctrine which is what made child custody laws so biased against males? The ones who wrote the Declaration of Sentiments. The ones who abused the tax laws to send their husbands their jail for not paying their taxes? Oh yeah, they were peaches fighting the good fight.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 05:47 PM
1

Still not going to get all mad butthurt when someone saying they're a feminist. Then you're an idiot. If somebody tells you that they support a hate group, you probably should at least get slightly upset. Also, try proving they don't exist You don't prove the negative. You prove the positive. It's up to the ones making the claim that they do exist to prove their existence. The very fact that every apologist like you fails to do so when called upon IS the evidence of their non-existence.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 05:43 PM
1

There are no feminists who are not female supremacists. Feminism is a supremacist ideology. The ones who call themselves feminists and say they are not female supremacists are lying, know nothing about the ideology they claim to follow, or are simply too stupid to understand what they are supporting. And yes, you can ignore those ones, because they have no power or effect. The only constructive thing you CAN do is ignore them.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 05:38 PM
3

Not really. There's little satisfaction in proving yourself an incompetents better.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 10:31 AM
3

Yes, child. That was an adult response. You see, I made a point, then you responded to that point using her as a reference. Thus, in order to respond and address what you said, it was a likely necessity that I would need to address what you said about her as well. That's how adult conversations go.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 10:16 AM
2

Im sorry but... Tldr? Sorry, you want to talk with the adults, you can read like a big boy. Also, don't talk about her that way, ty so much I shall speak as I wish about the subjects under discussion. IF you did not want her to be talked about, you probably should never have brought her up to be talked about. Again, if you want to talk to the adults.....
/r/MensRights14/01/21 09:51 AM
2

Feminism is a hate movement that seeks the supremacy of women (actually not only feminist women). That is what it is, what it promotes, and what it advocates for. When you take the label of feminism, that is what you are supporting. Because that is what it does and what those who control it do. The 'silent minority' have no power or authority over the actions of the movement, and so their existence (if they exist, which I would posit they actually don't) is completely irrelevant to any discussio…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 09:35 AM
3

No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't choose a gendered label. Nor would you choose to associate yourself with a group or ideology that does the things that feminism does or believes the things that it believes. If you actually believed as you said you would call yourself an egalitarian. Yes it is usually brought up for woman issues but lets not forget the history behind it It is exactly because of the history behind it that people associate it with man-hating, violence, and female supremacy. .fe…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 08:16 AM
5

Well, if they weren't a silent minority, you'd hear about them. So they are in every way the same as being non-existent?
/r/MensRights14/01/21 08:03 AM
5

The ones fighting for true equality. First define "True Equality" in any meaningful way. Then point to where these feminists (a name which is itself unequal, by the way) are. The ones that support domestic abuse shelters for both genders. Where? The ones that don't just say "Women are oppressed more than men, so we should focus on them" Where? And more importantly then how are they feminists, since that is the basis of feminist theory? but say "both groups are being oppressed, so let's do someth…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 08:02 AM
4

If feminism is such a bad thing why dont we fix it by making it into a more equality sort of thing Because it wouldn't be feminism. If you want equality, that's egalitarianism, or humanism. We already have ideologies that seek equality. And note that neither of those are gendered in their names. Feminism is defined by it's hatred of men and priveleging of women. It's only in recent times that feminists have tried to claim that their ideology seeks equality. Female privilege and hatred of men are…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 02:04 AM
3

Neither does calling out affirmative action. It just makes you look sexist, racist, and digresses the situation. So? If you're too afraid of being called bad names you've already lost anyways. Shaming and branding is exactly their tactic. If you won't speak truth because you're afraid of it then their tactics worked and you might as well roll over and show them your pussy.
/r/MensRights29/12/20 03:14 PM
7

Feminism the idea was about achieving true equality, that was the whole premise of it. Which, of course, is why it was named after a single gender.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 09:14 AM
2

So now, you have women with 0 NEGATIVES Or all the negatives if you measure things like a feminist.
/r/MensRights28/11/20 09:55 AM
1

You’re looking at the fact that these things are true, but not thinking critically enough to wonder why. No. You're assuming why without anything to support the assumption. WHY are women more likely to get custody? Prove that its patriarchy. That's all you have to do. Once you define the term,of course.Which we know from experience you never will.
/r/MensRights28/11/20 03:21 AM
1

according to the dictionary is, The issue was what YOU were defining patriarchy as. Which was different from this. with a few different words A few different words in a definition can change the entire understanding of it. That's why dictionaries carefully construct their definitions. Here’s an article Again, this was about how YOU are choosing to define the term and how you provide evidence. All you're doing now is essentially admitting that you can't defend your own ideas, so here is what some…
/r/MensRights27/11/20 07:45 AM
2

it’s literal it the same thing but rephrased This is a contradictory statement. If it is rephrased then it cannot be literally the same thing. So by your own words are you proven full of shit. And yes, I’m aware that a LOT went into gaining the right to vote, but only men had the opportunity to even try. This does not address any of my points. but only men had the opportunity to even try. This is just you ignoring the point that was made and the context of the argument. Men being strong and wome…
/r/MensRights27/11/20 07:11 AM
1

It’s basic human biology, women are always the victims, no way to fix that. No. The REASON for why this happens has to with basic human biology. And yes, there likely is no way to fix that. It can however be mitigated by recognizing that it is happening and making what adjustments you can.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 07:01 AM
1

It's a question easily answered just by understanding basics of human biology and evolution. However what is under discussion is supporting your claims of patriarchy and ideological existences. This is where we part ways I guess. To which you punked out of with a pathetic whimper.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 06:08 AM
1

And I did, we had a patriarchy because only men were in government and only men were able to select those men. That's an entirely different definition than the one you first gave. Which make my point that you cannot properly even define your terms in such a way that your point can be proven or argued against. What’s your point? It's to highlight the uselessness of your terminology. There is a distinction between 'men' as in all men, and 'men' as in a small group of human beings who happen to be …
/r/MensRights27/11/20 06:05 AM
1

The ideology that exists only in your own delusions is neither my problem, nor my concern. At least until you allow your mental infirmity to effect the real world.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 05:56 AM
1

A patriarchy itself is a system of government that men control Actually it isn't. That's just how feminists like to try and redefine it to fascillitate their dishonest arguments. we don’t have that anymore as there are both men and women in government and men and women have a sag on who gets there. You haven't demonstrated that we have ever had that. Let alone whether we have it now. only men could vote. Some men. That patriarchal system Have not demonstrated it is patriarchial by your limited d…
/r/MensRights27/11/20 05:44 AM
2

A historical trend that is an ideology. That is a nonsense statement. You're basically trying to say that it's everything in a backhanded manner. I can argue against an ideology But can you define it in any meaningful way or provide evidence for its existence? You can argue against any ideology you want, but if you can't show it exists outside of your delusions...
/r/MensRights27/11/20 05:16 AM
3

Because equality is not an objective concept, in and of itself. Equality depends on how you're measuring things. Feminism holds as a tautology that women are and have always been oppressed by men and society. So to people who don't share the same level of tautological delusion, their equality appears to be supremacy. Whereas to them, it's righteous and noble fighting for freedom. Equal rights is a useless concept unless you can convince everyone to perceive the world the same way.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 05:08 AM
17

Because they never stop to consider the implications of what such a thing would mean, if true.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 07:50 AM
1

Why do you think puberty effects women's interest in science and math? Because it effects our interest in everything else. The bias that girls are bad at math starts much earlier than puberty, even by 7 years old So? Puberty is only one effect, not a singular cause. And it is not a bias that girls are bad at math. It is a fact that girls are less interested in it. this is all from a psych today article And none of that has a damn thing to do with the claim that you're supposed to be proving. Tha…
/r/MensRights14/11/20 08:52 PM
1

Multiple studies show that middle school girls ARE interested in STEM careers, and that interest declines by late in highschool/college. Yes, about once they are done with puberty and the hormones have finished kicking in. Coincidence? And that has nothing to do with whether it is hard for women to get into STEM. That's a matter for why women don't try to go into it. So it does nothing to help your position. It’s not that women’s brains aren’t ‘designed’ for STEM Actually men and women do show d…
/r/MensRights14/11/20 04:26 PM
1

I think that encouragement comes from the fact that statistically women earn less than men, and there are still (although less so) many male dominated industries that are difficult for women to break into. Name one. Seriously. Name one and provide evidence of this. People such as yourself often try to claim this but you are never able to actually support it. For example it is often claimed that STEM fields are hard for women to get into. This has repeatedly been shown to be nonsense and that wom…
/r/MensRights14/11/20 03:54 AM
1

In my opinion language can change, so can society. Yes, but the reason you are giving for why it should remains nonsensical, arbitrary, and impractical. Which is the point. Yes one COULD change the meaning of every single descriptive word in the english language to mean nothing. But you cannot give a single remotely intelligible reason why anyone SHOULD do such a thing. I notice that, like most of your kind, you essentially seem to ignore everything I say. Then quote a single line without respon…
/r/MensRights12/11/20 10:02 AM
5

Would it be fair to say that is where our opinions diverge? Yes. However what you miss is that you are applying your opinion in a matter that is strictly arbitrary. In order to apply your logic consistently then most of language is bad. You are singling out gender purely because it suits your ideological goals to do so. It's purely dishonest chicanery. Now, you have said my opinion is not right because men who don't act manly have no right to call themselves men (I'm paraphrasing here). No. Your…
/r/MensRights11/11/20 02:57 PM
3

Trying to fix sexism You're not trying to fix sexism. You're trying to redefine sexism first. Then fix the problem that you created with your redefinition. Ignoring that the problem only exists because you first created it. confirming to sexist ideals First off, you mean conforming. Second, this is not a response to the argument that I made. IMO if a man wants to do something that is not masculine, they should be able to without penalty. Yes, but your opinion is idiotic and logically inconsisten…
/r/MensRights11/11/20 07:22 AM
3

Some parts of masculinity are good (sometimes called wholesome masculinity), and some are bad As with anything else in existence. Men who do not tick all the right boxes are seen as "less manly" Because they are. Words have meanings. Otherwise the term "man" is useless. and disadvantaged by society. Everyone is disadvantaged somehow. But all you have to do is take up being more masculine, if it bothers you. If you don't want to do that, then it's on you. Men feel that they have to be a certain w…
/r/MensRights10/11/20 07:41 PM
2

Because they don't have to wade through the blood and trenches. They're the ones that people wade through the blood and trenches for.
/r/MensRights08/11/20 04:05 AM
2

but it is just that I support both the movements No you don't. Because the two have completely different and incompatible goals. Not to mention world views. It's like saying you support both Nazism and the Jewish faith. If you think you support both then you understand nothing about either.
/r/MensRights08/11/20 03:58 AM
4

we shouldn't judge all of them because some of them are bad You certainly should. Because the ones who aren't 'bad', do nothing to stop the 'bad' ones. Nor do they make any attempt to fix their ideology that is intellectually flawed and misandrist at its most basic core and premises. Which means that, viewed in the best possible light, they either don't care about how bad it is, or are too ignorant/stupid to understand that it is. Either way they all still peddle the same ideology and the same p…
/r/MensRights08/11/20 03:55 AM
2

those are some good indicators No. Why would they be? Humiity and kindness in a person have no logical connection to marriage satisfaction, and commitment only means that she is capable of long term pairing. Not that she will. Peoples wants and desires change over time. Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, right? You have no past behaviour to draw upon in regards to whether she can be with the same man for life. Unless you believe in reincarnation. And, in fact, her past behavio…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 12:37 PM
3

That can happen, sure. What I'm pointing out is the right person wouldn't do it. Which is a meaningless statement to make since you would have no way of knowing whether she was the 'right person' until you had been married to her your entire life. So you aren't actually making any real counterpoint to what he said nor making any positive point about marriage.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 06:14 AM
3

Yes. And this has nothing to do with it, nor is it analogous to that.
/r/MensRights27/10/20 03:47 PM
2

Holy shit this is so ignorant it's not even funny lol Yes. I realize that about you. You're looking at successful people No I'm not. I'm looking at stats. The person in question based his claims on the assumption of min/maxing like people do in RPG's. In those terms blacks would have higher physical stats than whites. So if one wanted to create the best athlete your best choice would be to start out as a black male because you would be most likely to get the best starting stats. Don't blame me b…
/r/MensRights27/10/20 01:35 PM
6

Nevermind any of that. Unless you're a complete uggo you can just create an only fans and rake in all the money you'll need to live on. If you're at all smart then a few years will get you enough to set you up for life. You can live the good life just by being of roughly average attractiveness and existing.
/r/MensRights27/10/20 06:14 AM
14

what race/gender would give you the best min/max outcome? Depends on your class. If you want to be an athlete Male/Black. STEM? Go asian or Jewish. If you just want the safest option to a life of easy money and wealth? Female/Any race, but preferably white. You're either a very shitty min/maxer, or don't know what the term means if you would choose white male. but being white means avoiding that small negative modifier. However you get other negative modifiers, such as affirmative action. If you…
/r/MensRights27/10/20 01:37 AM
1

You only know why a few of them chose. The ones who actually decided to say directly in the comments. It doesn't tell you about the whole that actually polled. I’m trying to see if feminist go towards women cause that’s what they fight for mostly and if men’s rights go for men people we fight for men’s rights more. Yes, and this still won't tell you that. It will just confirm a bias.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 03:26 PM
1

as there’s no evidence whatsoever Not true. There is evidence, just nothing that could be considered conclusive. You have stats about the crime in general as well as men and women in general, so one can form beliefs based on the probability of who is the most likely to be telling the truth. You're only asking for belief after all. Not which one you would prosecute.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 03:19 PM
1

Without knowing why they chose the answer the data is useless for just about anything. A man or woman choosing their own gender does not mean they made the choice because it was their gender. Especially since you don't know the genders of the people being polled. Not every feminist is a woman, and not every MRA is a man. This tells you nothing unless you are just choosing to read into things.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 03:15 PM
5

First off, there are less than what, one percent of them? Second off, your average person doesn't give a shit about them because they're obnoxious children who spend their time endlessly screaming about how they need to be treated more special than everyone else. What societal influence they have comes from the support of the woke crowd who are using them as their current group of victimized dancing monkeys to parade around and feel sorry for. Let the feminists who aren't TERFS have them.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 02:57 AM
2

it should be guilty until proven innocent"? Guilty until innocent isn't a justice system, it's an excuse to punish and oppress whoever you want. Innocent until guilty is not something we adopt out of morality, at least not only that, it's something we adopted out of being a society based on valuing reason. You can't prove innocence, because one cannot (typically) prove a negative. This is why the burden of proof always rests with the positive claim and the default position in any situation is di…
/r/MensRights18/10/20 10:27 AM
7

Guilty until innocent isn't a justice system, it's an excuse to punish and oppress whoever you want. Innocent until guilty is not something we adopt out of morality, at least not only that, it's something we adopted out of being a society based on valuing reason. You can't prove innocence, because one cannot (typically) prove a negative. This is why the burden of proof always rests with the positive claim and the default position in any situation is disbelief. This is why the courts don't label …
/r/MensRights11/10/20 07:22 PM
8

Those structures were imposed by men. So you're saying that throughout all of human history women have been totally at the mercy of male power and unable to influence anything for themselves? Or that men are so horrible oppressive that all they have ever done is create structures that they oppose on women? So women are useless, stupid cereatures; or men are evil? Those structures were imposed by men. And even if this were true. so what? That's not an argument for anything. You don't see the logi…
/r/MensRights20/09/20 04:50 AM
10

Women can take out a credit card in their own names without a male signatory Women couldn't before because women were not legally obligated to repay their debts. Those debts fell upon the husband to pay. Which is why women needed man to sign for them. So there was someone to punish in case she didn't pay. This is the direct result of a priviledge that women had, and a responsibility placed on men. Women just only complained about it once it inconvenienced them slightly. Women can't be fired for …
/r/MensRights20/09/20 04:41 AM
1

Feminism centers around gender equality, but they mostly rally for women’s rights because they got the shortest end of the stick. In other words, sexism is only bad if you can't come up with a good justification for it. So since you set the rules, let's see you start justifying those issues.
/r/MensRights19/09/20 10:43 PM
1

That's called an argument mate. No. Actually that is not a proper argument. You loose sight of the other persons over-all argument and muddle the debate in this manner. No. You focus on the actual points as they come up instead of letting them get muddled in the mess of words. Although in science there are specific rules governing their use. You have to show that one's hypothesis is "generalizable" before you draw generalized conclusions based on your observations. One aspect of that generalisab…
/r/MensRights13/09/20 11:25 PM
2

Could be a valid argument. That wouldn't be an argument. That would be me pointing out an extreme logical flaw in your premise in a pithy manner. An argument would be structured more like: "Generalizations are one of the most basic compenents of scientific theory. Given the nature of our society I think it goes without saying that science is very effective so it's hardly accurate to claim that generalizations are bad. Unless you are also saying that the scientific method is bad." are ALL general…
/r/MensRights13/09/20 10:05 PM
0

Generalisations are bad. Unless it's one of yours, apparently.
/r/MensRights13/09/20 08:50 PM
4

It's rare for a man to find himself in a space where women are the majority, But women are the majority of the population. and feels less valued because they are a man. I'd very much like to know how you're quantifying this.
/r/MensRights10/09/20 11:28 AM
1

You're right. Most feminists just support and spread an ideology that hates and demonizes men.
/r/MensRights04/09/20 07:06 AM
1

If like she said it’s "rhetorical," Rhetoric is, by definition, the art of persuasion and motivation of audiences. If something is rhetorical, then it is meant to be persuasive. then they need to get better rhetoric They need to learn what the words of the english mean, first.
/r/MensRights26/08/20 01:57 AM
2

There is no end to the intersections. You can go from humans as a species, to black women, to black women with lighter skin colours, to black women with lighter skin colours who are immigrants, to black women with lighter skin colours who are immigrants that like to have sex with ducks, to black women with lighter skin colours that are immigrants who like to have sex with ducks that were born in a testtube, etc. etc. etc. Eventually once you tally up all of the possible groups and intersections,…
/r/MensRights22/08/20 01:43 AM
3

I’m talking about real feminists wanting equality. As I said elsewhere, equality is a malleable thing. Fake feminist: Brings down men, saying they want more then men have None of them say that. That's what they effectively do, but not what they say. So you're employing a strawman first and foremost. However... Your "fake" feminists are seeking equality. But they are seeking equality from the standpoint of an ideology that claims men are held superior to women in all ways and have all the advanta…
/r/MensRights20/08/20 06:43 PM
3

But, I’m saying not all feminists are like this. But they all support it. Where do you think all of their ideas come from? All of their theories, their studies, their ideas, their activism all comes from those man-hating feminists. So anytime you put forth a feminist idea you are supporting the man-hating feminists. In fact anytime you support feminism you are doing so because the man-haters are the ones that created and control the movement. Now I know this, because I've actually bothered to lo…
/r/MensRights20/08/20 06:03 PM
1

Those two aren't actually mutually exclusive. Equality is not an objective concept. It depends on how you're measuring things. For instance, if you believe in a world where one group holds all of the advantages over another group then equality would mean giving yourself all of those same perks and benefits and good things. Especially if you never bothered to measure the disadvantages of the other group. Of course if you were wrong, then what you are doing would actually be giving yourself superi…
/r/MensRights20/08/20 05:54 PM
5

The name of feminist has always been synonymous with hating men. The ones who say they don't are lying, ignorant of feminism, or useful idiots. There’s a difference between actual feminism and fake feminism. Not in anyway that matters. Both the 'actual' feminists and the 'fake' feminists, for instance, put forth the notion of the patriarchy. This is a concept that is fundamentally anti-male and promotes hate against men. The only actual difference between the two groups you label is what they wa…
/r/MensRights20/08/20 05:48 PM
1

Men lose in custody battles because of the stereotype of a woman being the housewife and mothers? Yes. Because that was the argument feminists used when they got the laws changed. It was feminists who are responsible for making the law so that women have preferential custody. It was called the Tender Years Doctrine and was first put forth by Caroline Norton. It was the feminist argument that men were,by nature, not capable of providing a child with the loving care that a mother could, and that h…
/r/MensRights19/08/20 10:23 PM
-1

Although I think it has to do with them being not up to date on a lot of the current issues pertaining to men's dating and romance trends. That's just a more pussy way of saying exactly what I said.
/r/MensRights18/07/20 07:09 PM
5

Because tradcons are the original beta cucks.
/r/MensRights18/07/20 05:11 PM
5

I'm talking about the fact that women are not taken seriously Because women act stupid. When women go around talking about sexist air-conditioning, or making up oogie-boogie stories about being victimized by things that are factually untrue, while taking no responsibilities for anything (including their own actions and consequences thereof), what is someone supposed to take seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to not act like a child. But that is what most women want. They want…
/r/MensRights02/05/20 07:40 AM
4

equality for all shouldn't be up for debate. Yeah, he starts off being very stupid right in the first sentence of the header. Putting aside for a moment the obvious fact that EVERYTHING should always be up for debate (otherwise it's just dogma), equality for all is a completely meaningless term used as a crutch by the simple minded. Equality is not an objective concept on it's own. Equality is dependant upon what and how you are going to measure things. So in order to have "equality for all" you…
/r/MensRights01/05/20 08:25 PM
2

Because what they call "toxic masculinity" is not masculinity. It's a failure to be masculine. For instance: also many men feeling unable to express their emotions. This is not masculine behaviour. There is nothing wrong with men being vulnerable and expressing their emotions. It happens all the time, even in 'manly' stories and media. Men cry when bad things happen to them or their loved ones. They show love and affection for their children, wives, parents. It's all over media. Type 'men and ba…
/r/MensRights21/04/20 07:34 PM
1

...that's like saying the entire world should be extremely different. It's not at all like saying that. You not seeing your own bullshit in your post is similar. Good bye. Then it should be very easy for you to make a rational argument against what I just said. Since your response is instead to run away, I'm guessing you don't. /Because God knows everyone here wants to be put in the same basket as some insane incel...shrug I never put you in any basket. So what's your excuse there?
/r/MensRights02/03/20 11:13 PM
1

It's a lot of different people saying a lot of things But there shouldn't be, If feminism is making real world claims, which is what they do, then all of those different versions mostly shouldn't exist. All you would need to do is look at the evidence and see what it supports. The fact that you have to hide behind the many interpretations idea is just a round about way of admitting that it's all made up.
/r/MensRights02/03/20 10:33 PM
2

So r/kotakuinaction is fully captured by the intersectional politically correct feminazis? Not fully. The people still there are still all right in the head. It's just the mods that have gone goose-stepper.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 03:47 AM
2

r/kotakuinaction was the original sub. After a few years though the mods began to power trip and became increasingly more censorious and ban happy if things were posted that didn't fit their agenda. Which has been slowly drifting towards being more social justicey. The real stuff hit the fan when the mods began making rules changes to how content is curated. They at first put it to a vote of the subreddit members, then when they didn't get the result they liked they ignored what the overwhelming…
/r/MensRights31/01/20 02:48 AM
3

You should also check out r/kotakuinaction2 ,the gamergate subreddit. You'll find a lot of stuff there that you'll probably like.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 01:17 AM
1

At least they get information from legitimate sources, and cite them properly. Just not consistently. And them getting information from a credible source does not mean that they present it in a credible manner. It also does not change the fact that their sources often conflict with one another as do their claims. And just because you disagree with RAINN doesn't automatically mean their sources are "bad" or whatever you're trying to say. I never said the source was bad. I said the person citing i…
/r/MensRights12/10/18 02:01 AM
1

Those aren't from the bureau of justice. Those are RAINNs quoting of the statistics. I wouldn't trust any statistic used by RAINN as they contradict themselves very often and are often nonsensical with other stats they post.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 11:06 PM
47

They don't actually see you as a man because they can't exploit your sexual interest.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 11:53 PM
1

So, this is the problem I keep running into: That's because he speaks so much and only really gives his actual opinions when directly challenged, otherwise he waffles around. His definition of religion for example, is one that he never actually defined until a QnA session where he was finally nailed down and had to actually say what he means. To understand his beliefs you literally have to sift through hours of his material to find the parts where he actually speaks plainly and is direct about h…
/r/MensRights26/08/18 03:58 PM
1

Can you elaborate - using examples of Peterson's statements - on how his philosophy is based primarily on his religious beliefs? Petersons philosophy is his religious beliefs. Peterson has a very dishonest habit of redefining words and terms to suit his needs. This is why his debates with atheists like Sam Harris tend to get bogged down. Because Peterson doesn't recognize things like objective truth as being valid ways of viewing the world. In regards to religion specifically, Peterson (accordin…
/r/MensRights26/08/18 08:08 AM
0

Do I think people should be held to the same legal standards regardless of irrelevant metrics ( such as gender )? Absolutely. A crime is a crime. Do I believe gender should be irrelevant in family court? Guilty again. Do I think there are some areas of law which require different handling based on gender? Yes, but very few ( see; abortion ), dictated by relevant physiological differences. You understand that this is completely non-sensical and contradictory right? Do I think people should be hel…
/r/MensRights12/08/18 12:01 AM
1

As does Star Wars.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 03:53 AM
-2

As I said. You have no defense for him.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 06:54 PM
-2

This is meritless. Either his logic on a particular subject is rationale and logical or it is not. If it is not, then attack the flaw. That is the flaw. All of his underlying premises are based on nonsense. Thus the rest of what he says is nonsense too. Even if it may technically be correct, it is still irrational nonsense. An irrational person who thinks evolution is true because the underpants gnomes told him so may be correct, but he is still nuts. I don't agree that they are arrogant the vas…
/r/MensRights26/05/18 06:28 PM
-2

Having said that...Religion is inherently irrational, that the nature of faith. I think trying to use his religious beliefs as a platform to wholly discredit him to be intellectually dishonest. The problem is that it in infects everything he thinks about or talks about. Peterson believes that everything relates to religion. He literally defines religion as anything that you act out. That's why he claims that atheists believe in god but just pretend that they don't. In his worldview god and relig…
/r/MensRights26/05/18 02:26 PM
3

Taking the more commonly-repeated stories and looking at them as archetypal studies of important societal frameworks is intriguing, at least to me. it shouldn't be. It's nonsense. Jung has been panned since the beginning for his non-sensical bs about archetypes. His ideas and definitions are so vague and ill-defined that they're not even remotely falsifiable. Which was by design because Jung did not believe in the scientific method and hated having his ideas critiqued. All he ever made were bare…
/r/MensRights26/05/18 02:10 PM
3

Why are "feminists" grouped into one large group and not considered to be individuals? It's a collective label. It is a term that describes a group of people who share a similiar ideology. They are grouped together because they are, in fact a group. There's no memo that goes out and there's no specific person calling the shots. Then the group designation is meaningless. if all feminists are only individuals with no "memo" or central ideology then the label is completely useless and serves no pur…
/r/MensRights27/04/18 09:23 PM
3

I post on various subs, only one of them MRA, and the only thing I've said is the simple fact that women are not facing sexism in STEM. If that's your only marker for being an MRA, then your showing in this thread is starting to make a great deal of sense. I may have overestimated your age and education level somewhat.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 10:41 PM
5

I'm in my thirties dumbass. Of course you are. You just have the education of a fourteen year old. It's you and your MRA-level ego that's preventing you from seeing this. I am not now, nor have I ever been, an MRA. Simply someone who does not like people who peddle lies as facts.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 10:30 PM
4

And you work for a union, and have enough education to be doing studies into sexism as you just claimed to me. That's certainly a lot of education you must have had there to manage that. You'd have to be about 27-28 to even begin teaching nursing alone. Which makes me wonder further about why you appear to lack such basic competence in your arguments. Again, go home kid.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 10:24 PM
5

Wrong! Nothing in there proves the study wrong on any level. The author even starts out by stating that she will not address the methodology of the study. Her only argument is based on an anectdote, at best. And one which she herself is not even sure is applicable. Is hers a personal choice? I am not sure, but I believe that the Williams and Ceci project does little to alter this sort of personal choices. Looked at in the most favourable light all you linked to says that the study might have mis…
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:05 PM
6

Women are currently heavily favoured in the tech industry. Your friends (assuming they exist outside of your mind) are either lying or just too weak-minded for the task. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112
/r/MensRights15/04/18 08:26 PM
1

that's true only if they are physically strong and career-oriented and eschew most of the traditional trappings of femininity. In short, they will gain respect if they act like boys. This is pretty much like watching a race and wondering why the fat guy with the chocolate cake in his mouth is trailing behind everyone else.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 01:59 AM
1

Actually it did end up there, and no ones taking it seriously.
/r/MGTOW07/04/18 09:03 PM
7

Feminism is a huge spectrum of different ideas. However all of them stem from the same premises. Premises which are centered around a hateful worldview in regards to men. This is true regardless of which specific brand of feminism you are talking about. For instance, a sex-negative and a sex-positive feminist both believe that womens sexuality has been oppressed, used, and abused by men throughout history. The only difference between them is what they plan to do about it. The sex-negative wants …
/r/MensRights11/03/18 09:09 AM
15

Unlikely. The campus didn't allow any journalists to view the lecture. My guess is because they either knew or suspected what was going to happen. The few clips someone took on their phone here are the only footage we're likely to get. I can't imagine that the school is going to make any video they themselves made public.
/r/MensRights06/03/18 10:17 AM
7

You’re not bossy for demanding the same amount of attention a white man would get. However what if you are misinformed on how much attention a white man is getting? That's the inherent flaw in most of these. Most of them aren't necessarily bad ideas per se, however they are only good things if you operate on the principle that you and your worldview is inherently correct. If your worldview is incorrect or flawed then these ideas will be disastrous for you. Which would be the reason that you are …
/r/MensRights29/11/17 07:54 PM
1

However, no matter if the true number is 1 in 2 or 1 in 10, that doesn’t negate the fact that it happens on a large scale, It does if it does not actually happen in a large scale. There's no reliable evidence that it does. but so far these sources have only disputed the 1 in 5 statistic, and haven’t sought an alternative/more accurate statistic. Because that wasn't relevant to the fact that the CDC's numbers have been known to be false for at least two decades. You can look up the numbers from t…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:25 AM
1

1 in 5 women in the US have been raped This has been proven to be false and a trumped up stat over and over again. http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqELvTMxZiQ http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/an-inquiry-into-the-cdcs-1-in-5-rape-figure/ and an estimated 54% of rapes, across genders, are never reported (according to the CDC). That's common for any type of crime. Except for murd…
/r/MensRights17/11/17 09:46 PM
3

There are measures for the number of crimes that go unreported None of which are reliable in any form. they survey people and ask if they've been a victim of a crime that they've not reported. That's actually not how they do it. At least as for as the Bureau of Justice Statistics is concerned. The BJS asks the people it surveys various questions and they themselves determine whether it was an actual crime and also what kind of crime it was. And their classifications of crimes tend to be rather b…
/r/MensRights23/10/17 04:09 PM
7

That being said... saying rape occurs significantly more than convictions is still very likely true. Actually no one can honestly say that because both the number of rapes that go unreported and the number of rapes that are false are unknown. It's entirely possible that there's a higher percentage of false rapes that end in convictions than there are unreported ones. In which case rape would actually occur less often than convictions.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 06:03 AM
1

While I think it is important to call out individuals, I can't support the use of generalizations. And yet.... We hate it when people do it to us You right here are stating a blanket generalization about a group. Instead of pointing to individuals. See how poorly that thinking of yours works? When dealing with large groups generalizations are a necessity, because there is no practical way to go about handling something massive on an individual basis. Every day I see posts that are bashing "all f…
/r/MensRights23/09/17 08:04 PM
1

No you've asserted it. You never actually explained it. More importantly, you are wrong. I have proven you to be wrong. Now the question is do you have anything to counter my evidence that you are wrong. Or are you going to keep lying and hiding behind nonsense and fallacy like the coward we both know you are? I'm done with you. Doesn't mean I'm done with you. You keep lying, I'll keep pointing out that you're a liar. When you want to start presenting arguments like a grown-up we can continue wi…
/r/MensRights03/09/17 02:46 PM
1

Correct, thinking they are different means you have a rudimentary understanding of biology, it's thinking they're unequal that makes you a misandrist (I'm assuming you're not a misogynist). If they are different then they are unequal. You still have not even tried to get around that issue. Repeating the same ignorant lie does not make it any less of one. If two things are different then they cannot be wholly equal. Because it is the differences that create inequalities. That is what the word mea…
/r/MensRights03/09/17 08:22 AM
2

So men don't have the right to an abortion? No. Because they are incapable of getting pregnant. You cannot have a right to something that is literally impossible for you to ever get. Yes, I've already explained multiple times that people can be different but still equal. No they can't. Not in the way that you are using the term. You can be equal in certain specific ways. But you cannot be equal as a universal. Or rather people can't. Because we are all inherently different. Why do you have such …
/r/MensRights02/09/17 06:44 AM
1

Men probably do have the right to an abortion, they're just very unlikely to need one for the reason you helpfully point out. Then men don't really have it. If the man intentionally gets a woman pregnant, can he then exercise his paternal abandonment option? That doesn't seem fair, if so. If not, how do you prevent it? Not actually relevant to the point. The two genders are equal Men have a penis, women have a vagina. Men provide the junk DNA used to create genetic randomness in an embryo, women…
/r/MensRights02/09/17 05:27 AM
1

We should all have the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of gender. How do you give both genders the right to an abortion? Last I checked men didn't actually give birth. Now you can give men something like legal paternal abondonment. Give them the legal option to not lay claim to the child and it's welfare, but that is not equal to abortion. They are different rights. The two genders are not equal so you cannot give them equal rights and responsibilities. The best you can do is give t…
/r/MensRights02/09/17 12:53 AM
6

Sex differs from gender, No it doesn't. Gender roles are those things that society says "here is what is expected of you because We Said So". Ok, however you admit above that gender is biological in nature. So the gender roles would also be biologically determined in at least a large part. What you're really saying is that society is noticing the biological difference and reinforcing it. What is the Neolithic Revolution?! Well I'm glad you asked! This is how you know you're dealing with a show-b…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 09:52 PM
6

Interesting fact: Salma Hayek is the daughter of an opera singer and an oil executive and has been on tv since she was 23. Just as an example of how hard she's worked in her life.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 08:57 PM
2

I think it's really important for there to be vocal opposition to things like street harassment, Feminisms "vocal opposition" however is to make it illegal to talk to women at all or make the laws so vague that any woman can point to any man and have him dragged away. That's how they oppose it. They use it as a tool of demonization and oppression. So how does this qualify as a good part? sexist "microaggressions" (hate that buzz word, they should just call it "being a dick") from random men bein…
/r/MensRights06/08/17 10:23 PM
2

where women are discriminated against, A statistical variance is not discrimination. Yet, only 21% of Congresspeople are women. 25% of the Canadian Parliament are female, 29% of the Australian House of Representatives are female, and less than a third of the British parliament. All these bodies purport to be representative of the general population. These are all the former, not the latter.
/r/MensRights21/07/17 05:56 PM
2

I concede to your nerdiness. Especially for referencing My Life With Master.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 07:29 AM
4

It's not really interesting. Just stupid and ill-informed. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this guy is a terrible writer and a sloppy (not to mention overly pretentious) thinker, he has little understanding of the subject matter he's trying to pretend he does. His basic thesis is predicated on the assumption that feminism and the MRM are just polar opposites of one another. Which is patently untrue as one is an ideology and the other is a movement. For instance feminism as an ideology c…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 11:26 PM
82

$300,000 is probably about the same money that Cavill got as well. Typically how it works for a franchise is that they take a relatively unknown actor or someone who is on the way up and give them a very low starting pay. Then bump up the pay if the franchise takes off. Chris Evans, for example, was paid about the same to be Captain America (http://deadline.com/2010/03/evans-in-captain-america-deal-mode-29192/) and moved up to about 7 million by Age of Ultron. Robert Downey Junior was $500,000 f…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 06:18 PM
3

Lol. Man, not sure why you're being hostile. That wasn't hostility. Equate it with that if you want, but that was just you getting criticized for the inaccuracies in your position, and then you bowing out when called upon to say anything substantive. I had a long day and don't feel like arguing anymore. And despite that this is the third time you have said something similiar, you are still responding to someone. So you felt well enough to make a bunch of claims, but not well enough to make any t…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 02:55 AM
6

Sorry I decided to be critical on MRA sub lol. You didn't decide to be critical. You just decided to say things. What I did was be critical. What you did was the equivalent of going "nu-uh" and thumbing your nose. You bring up good points that are worth addressing But you won't because..... unfortunately it's the same old and I'd rather chill You have no actual argument, got it. Cheers. More passive-aggressive sniping. Still not good at it.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 01:40 AM
6

Most people I know are feminists Statistically unlikely, unless you go out or your way to only associate with other feminists. this simply isn't true Then how do you explain all of those feminists who actually do put forth that line of reasoning. Like they did in the documentary? Though again, you seem to exist as a statistical anomaly. Sort of but really it's more complex than that. Actually it isn't. It only becomes complex once they get called on it have to fill in the hole of their reasoning…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 12:10 AM
20

Essentially, yes.
/r/MensRights28/05/17 11:04 AM
32

No. I've seen the stats on it. It's because they only measured cooking, cleaning, and laundry. “because these are both the most disliked domestic labour activities and the most traditionally feminine” and therefore “most resistant to change.”
/r/MensRights28/05/17 04:45 AM
1

Except you forget the fact that prior to the invention of the telephone, communicating over long distances instantaneously was thought to be immpossible. No it wasn't. People had the idea of doing that through magic, telepathy, etc for eons. No one ever said god was impossible. What is being pointed out is that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind which has ever been put forward to make such a thing likely. So for all intents and purposes no god exists. This has no relevance at all. Befor…
/r/MensRights27/05/17 01:45 AM
2

God creating the Universe and all it's rules setting in motion the events that would lead to evolution is complimentry. Except for the complete lack of evidence for such a thing, meaning that it should be discarded. The unfalsifiability of it. Or, for that matter the sheer pointlessness of it. Essentially a god such as one described by deistic evolution is just nonsense. It does nothing, can do nothing, will do nothing. You could say that a little old man created the universe out of bird feces a…
/r/MensRights27/05/17 12:52 AM
1

Personally I don't understand why we can't assume both evolution and God created it all are true. For the same reason we can't assume that what both feminists and MRA's believe are all true.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 12:09 AM
1

You're not convincing. What parts, did you actually read anything? You take this extreme postition. No I didn't. And even if I did so what? That doesn't make it untrue. Call peoples arguments "the same" because "big words" No I didn't. I summed it up like that AFTER making a full and reasoned argument. Then you slander me personally. "It was certainly a damn sight more effort than you put into anything." Actually for it to be slander it would have to be a false statement. It was a lot more effor…
/r/MensRights31/03/17 12:10 AM
1

In any case my point remains Laci does not speak for feminism, You never even tried to make that point. And if you really think you did then that's just a very sad thing about your intellectual capabilities. she is In fact a polarizing figure and shouldn't be the benchmark a men's rights movement uses to address feminism and the claims they have and also the claims the feel are contentious within their disciplines. Why not? How does she differ from any other feminist? Does she not believe that s…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 11:25 PM
5

Like I did mention before, I don't agree with every conclusion but the discussion that takes place is informed. How? How is that informed? As I said using big words does not mean the position is informed. Don't just quote things from other people you think are smarter than you. Make your own arguments. Did you even note the large number of unsupported base assumptions and false premises being put forth there? Like right above the part that you actually chose to quote. Funny that you picked the p…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 11:19 PM
16

You can go to Plato.stanford.edu and see summarized versions of the arguments from well written pieces. Well-written does not actually mean that what they are saying is intelligent. The academics say the exact same things that Laci says, they just use bigger words and more roundabout in doing so. Where do you think Laci gets this stuff from? She's not making it up, she's just popularizing what the academics are saying. The idea that we should all view the world through womens lived experiences,o…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 08:22 PM
1

One cult is much like any other.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 07:52 PM
1

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Not as an MRA, but simply as a rational person I would simply respond "How do they determine this?" There is not actual data being presented or any criteria being shown. How do you know why they did or not evaluate the resume a certain way? Especially since you asked completely different people each time. Some of the reviewers simply could have been having bad/good days and so were ha…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 08:20 PM
2

The NCVS was specifically reworded and redesigned to give more positives. It uses much broader questions and instead uses it's own definition of rape that is not the legal one, which encompasses more things. One thing they do is that ask if women have ever had sex when they are “drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.” The wording of this makes it seem that "unable to consent" is only one possible option. So a woman who was drunk but consenting might still tick yes because she…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 10:28 PM
1

There's not really a lot to take apart. It's exceptionally simplistic. It's really just one question asked over and over again but applied to slightly different scenarios each time.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:31 AM
2

Just type it into google. The survey and the guide to scoring it are readily available. It'll probably be the first or second thing that comes up. Or if you mean you want to see someone talking about and taking apart the survey itself, I don't think anyones ever bothered except other social academics. It's mostly just self-referenced by academics and passed around as authoritative.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:13 AM
6

Short version: About as valid as the work done by Ray Comfort. Longer version: This "study" is using the Sexual Experiences Survey to gather it's results. This is a survey largely authored by Mary Koss, which is really all you need to justify trash canning it. Basically they took Koss' survey and had a bunch of men take it then used the survey to determine whether they had committed a rape. And, quelle surpris, they found a bunch of men had committed rape. Or rather had done things that they had…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:59 AM
1

You're asking that question again? Seriously? When you went to school....was it on a short bus or a long one? YOU DON'T. That's what open discussion and debate means. It means that you let people have the actual discussions as they have and say what they really mean and feel. There are discussion forums everywhere that don't restrict peoples speech. There's here, there's KIA, there's WWGHA, and all over the internet. People are perfectly capable of having mature discussions without a nanny enfor…
/r/MensRights14/01/17 09:53 PM
1

You didn't change it in the least...again. You didn't even try to....again. You just added on more bullshit and qualifications that don't deal with the actual issue.....again. But at this point I no longer have any expectations of your capabilities so it doesn't bother me as much. You realize that you're actually making it worse with that kind of idiocy right? I mean if the issue is one of moderation of speech you could just, I don't know, not moderate speech. Instead of coming up with a labyrin…
/r/MensRights14/01/17 09:35 PM
1

Same as last rule. You didn't address anything. You just added on extra layers of bullshit. Again, you don't listen and you won't listen, which is why you're a waste of time. do this in a respectful way without insults or attacks to ALL the followers of a movement and if you want to criticize certain well-known individuals, do this in a well constructed and respectful way. To try and point out the painfully obvious to everyone except apparently you. This here and open debate are mutually exclusi…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 04:25 PM
1

Ok, there are both feminists and MRA's in our sub trying to think about each others' rights. I'm sure that you think so. If you don't like that, don't visit our sub. Interesting that you went there. A bit of a false dichotomy you're starting to set up there. That pointing out that your idea is bad and won't work is equivalent to not wanting to not liking the idea of feminists and MRA's getting together and talking. People which are either anti-MRA or anti-feminist can't give valuable contributio…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 12:58 PM
1

Ok, explain to me again in clear words what is wrong to the sub according to you. No. Because it's clear that you aren't worth that level of effort anymore. I've already spelled out the problem three times. You did nothing and ignored most of it. Why expect others to put in effort when you can't even be assed to do half as much? Pretend I 'm that five-years-old. I have no interest in talking to five year olds. so if you bring up valid points, I 'll act on it. You have an entire thread full of va…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 12:45 PM
1

Actually what he said was when you bring up an issue that only men face you'll see the feminist reaction for yourself. It was a criticism and a point on why it won't work, as opposed to something that was actually expected of you to do to prove the sub was about gender issues. You completely ignored the point. You may as well just stop. You clearly have no interest in any sort of real dialogue on the subject that won't tell you something you want to hear. And you waste peoples time and effort wh…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 12:25 PM
1

So do I really not listen to you guys? Well let's see. Nothing about this addresses anything that I've said. Also I don't see how this addresses even a single piece of criticism that you received in this thread......so.......yeah. I think that's a pretty safe assumption.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 12:11 PM
1

Like I said I listen to both MRA's and feminists. No. You don't listen. You read the words, but you don't actually listen. That's why you're so easily getting taken to task in this thread. Look at what everyone else is telling you, then look at your own responses to them. You're not coming out of this looking very knowledgeable, rational, or with a very thought-out or tenable position. I mean seriously, did you read your own thread in the askfeminists? Everything they said and it's implications …
/r/MensRights13/01/17 12:00 PM
2

You didn't even bother an attempt to address the problem. You just added another layer of nonsense. This is why every single time someone like you tries to do this it ends up the exact same way. You always do the exact same thing that everyone before you did. Then when everyone points out to you why it won't work and why it didn't work the last fifty times, you completely ignore them and go ahead anyways. Certain that THIS time doing the exact same thing everyone else did will work perfectly.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 11:07 PM
1

You don't. Free speech/open debate and respectful conversation are mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 09:47 PM
4

and make the post more subtle, So only if you censor yourself. and if you stay respectful How does one respectfully tell someone they belong to a hate group? But you see the problem? You already require self-censorship. you can criticize each others' groups. With a certain limited definition of "criticism". You didn't actually address my point, you'll note. That the one who will hold the power in your sub is the group most easily offended and willing to censor.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 09:35 PM
6

No you're mistaken. You gave them control the instant you made offense any kind of factor. If offense is a factor in who or what gets posted then control goes to those who are the most easily offended. Which won't be the MRA's. If you say however "all feminists are men haters" that might be problematic. A fairly true statement, though lacking subtlety somewhat. But now if someone has a good argument for such a thing they can't make it. Because it would be an "insult". In fact one feminist joined…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 08:59 PM
3

if you don't insult women with it And that is what will be your undoing. You already handed them control.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 08:29 PM
2

“You start thinking, ‘Oh, wow, we’re so afraid of each other,’” she says. “Color. Wealth. These things that don’t matter still play too much of a role in how we see one another, and it’s sad because the thing that least defines us as people is the color of our skin... WTF?????????
/r/MensRights18/12/16 10:10 PM
2

No, it isn't. Saying it repeatedly will not make it so. And I do know about your character sufficiently. You argue like a child and you demonstrate no knowledge of complexity in your methods of thinking. You claim fallacies you have no knowledge of, etc. I can easily say that from everything you have displayed you are not very intelligent and very simplistic in your thinking patterns. You could always challenge that by beginning to demonstrate otherwise.....but I don't think you will.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 04:16 PM
2

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem An ad hominem is when a person attempts to undermine your argument by attacking your character. Not when they attack your character. I did not undermine your argument. I pointed out why it was wrong. Then pointed out the fact that you're clearly not very bright or very well educated on the topics you're talking about. Which you are continuing to highlight with this insistence that I committed this fallacy. A fallacy is a flaw in logic. Simply calling s…
/r/MensRights23/11/16 04:13 PM
2

Wasn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I didn't address your argument and just used the fact that you're not very bright to dismiss what you said. However I argued against you and showed you why you're wrong. Pointing out that you're simple-minded was just a statement of facts. Don't claim fallacies you don't actually understand.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 04:07 PM
2

But... equality has a pretty clear definition. A very broad definition. And what it amounts to will be different depending on what factors one takes into account. If one person has two apples and another has four. Making them equal will mean each has three apples. If you add another person with seven apples into the mix, then equality will look different than it did when there were only the initial two. Then when you start adding people with pears and oranges you get a new and entirely different…
/r/MensRights23/11/16 04:04 PM
2

Of course you can quantify inequalities. No. You can quantify inequalities if the things that you are measuring are quantifiable things. You are not measuring quantifiable things. it's a pretty simple definition. Only because you're a very simple-minded person. That's the problem with feminists.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 04:00 PM
1

Women have their inequalities still to this day while men have their share of inequalities that are important to address as well. But your definition only includes fighting for one of those groups. Also women are going to lose a lot of rights with this new US government we have including the state by state cases defunding of planned parenthood and creating regulations that make being treated harder and harder for women. That's just being a fear-mongering retard. and men have more power over the …
/r/MensRights23/11/16 02:53 PM
2

And that's where you lie. Because you don't include that in your definition when you tell people that you're fighting for equality. Most people don't believe what you just said. They don't measure equality with the ideological premise that women have always been disadvantaged.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 02:48 PM
1

No. What I'm pointing out is that the things that you're measuring are all subjective. They're not measurable, quantifiable things. You can't actually measure social equality, it's going to depend on what people want and consider equal. For instance feminists believe that women are and have always been oppressed. Most people don't believe that. So what a feminist considers quality is different from what a normal, mentally functioning person considers equality. Because they aren't measuring the w…
/r/MensRights23/11/16 02:44 PM
3

What the others do is real feminism too. That's why the definition of feminism that you're quoting is reliant on entirely vague concepts. the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men This means absolutely nothing in any practical sense. Equality by this definition essentially is something that is entirely dependent upon the personal metrics of the individual measuring things. The ones that you consider "not real feminists" want equality too. Th…
/r/MensRights23/11/16 03:45 AM
2

Anti-feminist Vernaculis, doing a response video to a Laci Green bullshit piece about male privilege.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 02:30 AM
3

If you read her comments it's clear she's not a modern feminist. So? She still thinks feminism means "equal rights for women." Again, so? This women has been mislead by feminists and is figuring out it's all bullshit. So what? You should be helping and encouraging her, not insulting her. I should be doing nothing more than what I want to do. More to the point, the fact that she's not a crazy feminist is irrelevant. She voiced her opinion on a subject, and I challenged her to demonstrate it's tru…
/r/MensRights05/08/16 09:44 PM
3

but I still believe women generally have to live with more injustice and bigotry than men do. Of course you believe it, you're a feminist. That's the entire core of your faith. Of course you believe it. But can you demonstrate it?
/r/MensRights05/08/16 07:38 PM
2

The whole point of feminism is about achieving equal rights for women. There's your problem. You actually believed in that lie. Nearly every hate group, cult, or supremacy group claims such things. No group ever got members or support by admitting that they wanted to kill the Jews. You have to actually look at the group itself and what it actually preaches and talks about to see what it is. And feminism is and has always been a hate group. Take a look at almost any of their rhetoric and then com…
/r/MensRights05/08/16 07:33 PM
3

It's a useless and annoying character thing.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 12:28 PM
3

The hilarious thing is, having just watched the movie (pirated,not paid for, because fuck that) myself this morning and making my own review for it......this movie actually isn't all THAT bad. I mean it sucks. And if you judge it by the standards of a Ghostbusters movie then it's one of the dankest, smelliest, unflushed turds in cinematic history. But if you judge it as a movie on its own and independent from the Ghostbusters franchise it's not absolutely horrible.It's certainly watchable at the…
/r/MensRights27/07/16 03:13 AM
1

It's not sexist if the assumption is that women don't have equal rights, Yes, it is. It doesn't matter who has what rights. If you pursue rights for only one gender then it is sexist. That is what the word means. and without that assumption, there's nothing to pursue. Untrue.You could pursue the rights of people in general.Stand up for everyones rights when they are infringed upon or in question. If you can make the assumption that women have no equal rights then you could just as easily make th…
/r/MensRights09/06/16 02:03 AM
1

Feminism's own claim is that they pursue "equal rights for women." That's not sexist. Actually that is sexist by definition. Saying that you pursue equal rights for all people would be non-sexist.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 02:48 PM
2

Women,you have been chained down and kept in the kitchen since the dawn of time.Throw off your chains,break out of the kitchen, and tell your husband that you aren't his meal-slave. Basically that,except in shitty pop-song form.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 12:14 AM
4

Well, when i saw Feminist Thor knocking out the Absorbing Man for using "feminist" as an insult i doubted that it was for real. Oh that was real all right. I did a whole video series on that comic. And it got even stupider from there when his wife Titania punched him out and surrendered them both in the name of the Sisterhood and not wanting to fight a fellow woman struggling in a mans world.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 11:54 PM
2

Isn't it? It depends on exactly what you mean by identical. Both believe in the same general set of things that happened,but they interpret them completely differently and come to entirely different conclusions. Satanists typically interpret Satan as being a more heroic figure, who wanted to free us and himself from a horrible and oppressive authoritarian force. In other words God. Instead of conformity and obedience to authority, Satanism tends to hold up ideals of personal freedom and personal…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 11:23 PM
3

Of those examples you listed I think the only one showed to be undeniably good would be the Asari from Mass Effect. In Mass Effect the Asari's superiority is more chalked up to their advanced technology, rather than being all female. The all-female thing is incidental. Their technology is more advanced because they borrowed much of it from the race that came before them,and as a society they are shown to be heavily reliant on the other cultures to deal with problems. In fact the second game touc…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 08:57 PM
7

The cause isnt a lost cause, it's just not focussed on where it should be. The cause is non-existent.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 08:39 PM
1

Actually quite well.She mostly maintained the proper flow.Kept the tone consistent.Reversed the message in the right manner to fit with the original. About the only truly poor thing about it is that she didn't imitate the same whining and snooty speaking patterns that Watson has and did a poor job of looking as timid and meek.She tried but she ended up appearing more wooden and mind-numbed. The content however was well in line with the idea and the original videio.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:13 PM
2

fuck right off with your attitude please. It wasn't an attitude.Merely a point about the quality of your comment. but that when she starts with he parts that are meant to be taken seriously she stays in a mock-y parody tone, which makes the whole exercise pointless except to pander to those aleready on-side. Because it's both played seriously and for mocky-parody at the same time.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:07 PM
1

She didn't fuck up anything.She was parodying Emma Watsons speech at the UN.All you had to do to be "in" on it was to be familiar with the source material, just like any other parody ever made. It's not like she picked some obscure nothing video to parody. It was widely watched by eight million people and has been talked about endlessly for the last year by everyone in the feminist/anti-feminist/Manosphere circles. The joke itself was an obvious reference to the obvious disparity between her sta…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 02:55 PM
1

The content is a parody as well.That's why she goes on the aside about the brioche at the hotel.It's a use of parody to make a point by reversing the message.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 10:00 AM
2

all to the point where it sounds like a parody rather than the message offered in the letters of her words.. .......that's because it is a parody.You do understand that right?
/r/MensRights14/04/16 07:43 PM
2

A reasonable response will never work with the unreasonable. If you're looking for something that will convince them then you're largely wasting your time.Their belief is rooted in other things besides actual rational arguments.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 01:37 AM
2

we are able to treat each other as equal. Your first and most egregious flaw is here. There is no such thing as treating others equal.Not in any practical sense.Because everyone is different and has different thoughts and opinions. Equality is not a hard set and objective thing.It depends solely on the way that you're measuring the variables.And everyone is going to do that differently,and there will always by variance just by nature of random chance if nothing else.So to get the equality that y…
/r/MensRights13/02/16 12:41 AM
1

Well,since it was feminists who created the idea of gender in the first place I don't see what the problem is. She's basically admitting then that feminism exists to hurt women and is pro-oppression.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:49 PM
13

I couldn't help but notice that none of those actually attempt to disprove the feminist stereotypes.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 09:55 PM
3

If the goal for both groups is to have equality then wouldn't it be beneficial to create a movement together that encourages the mixing of the sexes, and having us engage in debates, situations that can overall improve the community for both males and females? The key word there is "if".Feminism has never at any point been about equality,or womens rights,or anything related to helping women as a group.Feminism has only ever fought for itself. That's why feminists have always been a minority of t…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 01:24 AM
1

because gender equality would help men too. Yes.But the problem that people have is how feminists define "equality".
/r/MensRights14/11/15 01:27 AM
21

Even without the acting money, her family are obviously loaded Specifically she is the daughter of two Parisian upper tier lawyers. But hey,it's not like they were billionaires or anything.She probably only ever had one summer home growing up.You don't know the hardship that entails.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:54 PM
15

To make it better she stated in an interview a couple of years ago that she would never date a British man again (though she has),only Americans. Her reason being that British men are too shy and hesitant.Whereas American men are bold and assertive and come right out and approach her to ask her out. Because,you know,it's ok for men to be sensitive and caring.As long as you don't want to date her.Then fuck you,pussy,
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:46 PM
2

Actually I would say that all feminists really do is personalize men.It's women they don't personalize.Women are just objects in their world. I'd argue that it's more likely that they don't see themselves as capable of hating men.After all,feminism is all about and only about equality.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 03:51 AM
9

They actually use a somewhat misleading title. They were using a scale for measuring hostility,not hate.The two are not interchangeable. One can hate someone without actually being hostile to them.That's likely why they got the result of feminists being less benevolent to men.Hostility is aggressive,but a lack of benevolence is passive.Both can easily be a product of someone hating you.But neither are necessarily created by hate or like either. For instance you can hate someone and still have em…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 12:17 AM
1

He's referring to the rationalization hamster.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 02:55 AM
3

All shes ever done was bring attention to the disgusting sexually explicit messages and comments shes received (and not just from 4chan). Which everybody gets.So she's not drawing attention to anything that anyone doesn't already get or know about. It's merely that most of us don't whine about it because we're grownups. At least acknowledge that she has the right to be upset about these things she has to deal with First show me where anyone said otherwise. What I see is people objecting to her w…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:55 PM
1

Probably because you're too focused on your first world problems You miss the issue.The issue is that those same people such as her will then turn around to others (such as men) and tell them that their problems are less important because womens have it worse. That is the source of the humour in the comment.The hypocrisy of the feminists complaining about such things while dismissing those on others.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 07:47 PM
1

I know. I was just clarifying because what you were saying could have been interpreted as a misinterpretation of what the "study" was saying.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 02:59 AM
1

Where are all these women when i go to my local comic shop? As I said,the figure is just based on how many clicked like to a set of things on facebook.The question was about being a fan of comics and superheroes.Not whether you actually read comics or read them.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 02:18 AM
5

With a fan base that’s now 47 percent female, the notion of comic book superheroes being a boys club is now a thing of the past. Yeah.Key word there being "fanbase".I just looked into where they got that number (since they didn't bother to actually link it,due to an understandable oversight).It's from a facebook spot where people essentially "liked" if they were comic fans. Meaning that it's not actually a fanbase for comics first and foremost.It's people who clicked a like button for several co…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 12:44 AM
5

There are seven of them in total.The first one,the one that you linked is the one that deals with the subject you're talking about. You can find the others on youtube
/r/MensRights09/08/15 09:00 PM
1

They manage to sneak defeat from the jaws of victory with their Tarzanian view of relationships. What "they"?I said nothing about my view on relationships.I merely pointed out the flaws in what he was saying.The same flaws in what you are saying. If you think that I'm wrong one of you is free to actually address my points. These guys are too dense to figure out what the real problems are when it comes to reproductive rights. Ah,of course.That must be it.Those who disagree just need to be "educat…
/r/MensRights09/08/15 12:16 PM
1

We need to focus on dispelling gender myths Perhaps,but is it a gender myth? You're starting from the presumption that both men and women are equally capable as leaders.Or equally as desirous as being in the lead.I find that unlikely. Women are naturally less assertive,more risk-adverse,more reactive, etc. Then you factor in the number of women who take time away from the workforce to have children,thus slowing down their careers.Or who work and still spend a great deal of time at home with thei…
/r/MensRights04/08/15 04:15 PM
-1

You are making fallacies over fallacies Name one fallacy I made.And please be specific. There's a lot things feminists ask that are bad for men, or when they just don't care. But having the same opportunities as men isn't. Women don't have to care more about their kids than fathers. They don't have to accept a male authority and wanting equality isn't asking for a privilege None of that actually relates to what we were talking.What did the Op say that was misogynistic and why is it misogynistic?…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 06:31 PM
-2

as he is criticizing women who want to be treated as equal No.He's criticizing feminists.Who are a subset of women.But they are not all women. He says it's unnatural,and yes, bad, Where?As I said,be specific. So yes, he's saying men should be dominant. Naturally. Where?Be specific. You are trying to make excuses for him. All I ever did was ask you to justify your claim of misogyny.I made no value judgements on anything said. You project your inability to read his arguments on me. Then you should…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:47 PM
-2

Not treating them as not dominant isn't treating them ad inferior, but as equal. Yes,but that's irrelevant to the conversation.You claimed that he was saying that men should be dominant.Which he didn't say. And I pointed out what he did say. What you have just said here is immaterial to the claim that is being contested. So,again, where did he say that men should be dominant? Geez I agree,your complete inability or unwillingness to actually read what someone is writing and follow along is rather…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:26 PM
-1

That "mother" is more a job than "father" He didn't say that.Also is not misogynistic. Allow me to clarify something.To say that something is misogynistic is to say that it signifies a hatred or distrust of all women.Key word there being all.The Op is talking about feminists and their beliefs. Last time I checked feminists were neither all women,nor even a significant portion of the female population. So how is saying that mother is more of a job than father (which he clearly did not say) repres…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 06:59 AM
-3

Can you point to one single misogynistic thing that he said? And please,be specific.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 08:19 PM
8

Only if you think that using mockery is inherently wrong and unwarranted. If there's nothing wrong with using mockery to fight against a position (which,given it's great prevalence throughout human history seems to be the case) then it's not a matter of being bigger or smaller as it's a valid tactic for either.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 10:14 PM
1

Feminism isn't a cult, its a political and a social movement. Which does nothing to rule out the argument of whether or not it is a cult.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:00 AM
3

It's still one example. Which is irrelevant since he made neither a claim,nor stated a conclusion.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:18 PM
5

Short version:Blah,blah,blah.I believe in equality for everyone now let me explain why I'm more equal and should have my personal whims be accommodated.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:26 AM
2

I made the list.Score!It's always nice to be appreciated for my work.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 10:04 PM
4

Emma Watson is a good example of what an actual feminist should look like. Two responses to Emma Watson being a good example of that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3Gt988di0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5FNL2_bP9U The short version:Emma is just as bigoted as any other feminist who parrots the talking points of feminism.She's just so spoiled, narrow-minded, and uneducated that she can't understand why what she's saying is bigoted. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 09:28 PM
1

Is is not a problem with the construct of the gender binary and the roles with in it that is the problem? No.Or at least only to a very small degree.It's not the gender binary that is the problem.It's how the binary has come to be perceived. Most of what feminists call "gender roles" are just the results of men and women doing what comes naturally to them.Men are more inclined to enjoy working with tools and numbers and things with parts,while women are more inclined to work with living things,a…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 05:01 AM
4

Some of us still like the original meaning of feminism. The original meaning of feminism was never gender equality either. "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."-Senecca Falls 1848 If feminism was ever about equality women would have been marching to war along with men before they argued for the vot…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 04:46 AM
1

I didn't buy or read a single issue. I only bought the first two so that I could critique them,and it made me feel dirty and cheap.Like I'd paid to have sex with a monkey. So I download the others online.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 12:22 PM
2

I stopped covering this bs at issue 5 because it was getting too repetitive. By about the first five issues I'd pointed out all of the ways that the comic was crap and the rest of the series wasn't any better but sucked in pretty much all the same ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKNo0wZB2GE&list=PLEXMQj1Hwi6m2tXbnHlVQTa__BjP-E7BB&index=2
/r/MensRights26/07/15 06:19 AM
2

I thought this was about gender EQUALITY??? Equality is supremacist and discriminatory by it's very nature. That's why nearly every hate group and supremacist regime has waved its banner.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 06:10 AM
4

He's satirizing Mike Rugnetta's arguments in his latest video.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 11:18 PM
3

it looks like women are being paid less across the board. Then you didn't read it. The numbers are an average,not a direct comparison of pay. Think of it this way.If one were to take me and yourself and find the average amount that I make in a year and the average amount that you make in a year and compare them would you get the same amounts? No. Because we have different variable going in.Different education,work hours, experience etc. This is simply saying that if you average all the male sala…
/r/MensRights25/07/15 12:36 AM
1

Wow.It's like listening to a female version of me.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 07:20 PM
3

Or it was crafty.He got you to click and look,didn't he?
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:12 AM
1

I notice from your recent posting history that you analyze sjw rhetorical tactics in some depth. Actually I do that for irrational dogmatic and ideological bullshit in general.Feminism just takes up a lot of my time recently.
/r/MensRights23/07/15 01:03 AM
5

Black folks don't have the numbers or power to go it alone. That wasn't the point. The point was to not presume what things should and should not include blacks.If black people do not feel "invited" into a space (whatever that means) and feel that should change then WE can make that decision. There's no requirement for a guilty white man to pace around and worry about whether we might possibly feel included and need to be made room for. We can speak for ourselves.We don't need to be spoken for.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 04:02 PM
1

Canada chiming in. I think I would be hard pressed to find concrete examples of racial discrimination where I live. This is true.And I live amongst the conservatives and the rednecks. Outside of elementary school I can only recall two instances of actual and deliberate racism ever levelled at me. Not including my time spent on the internet,of course.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 05:55 AM
4

Additionally, doesn't it make you, as a black person, feel just a tad bit like a child who can't speak up or defend himself? Does it make me feel like that,no.Though I take it as attempt to do that.All it does is annoy me.A lot. All in all though, I'm a raging cynic who strongly believes that the bleeding hearts only peddle this white guilt bullshit if only to sleep better at night. I think the majority of them simply do it for selfish reasons. Many do.The majority I find are just ignorant or st…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 04:49 AM
23

How on earth is the movement ever going to grow if it can't create an inviting atmosphere for non-caucasian and non-straight men? How about just letting us black folk deal with our own problems?Believe it or not we actually have groups for this sort of thing. I know,it sounds crazy to think that we're capable of doing such a thing ourselves,but it's really true. I'm neither white,nor an MRA, and I did not need to feel invited.I just come in and start talking when I feel like it.And as I have yet…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 12:43 AM
1

I do think recognizing a "position of authority" type rule that prohibits teachers from fucking their current students is quite reasonable given the power dichotomy. Not really, "power" is just as vague of a thing as age of consent is. There are many ways the student could have the power in the situation as well.To an equal,lesser,or even greater degree.Also simply being the authority does not necessarily mean having real power over the person in question.Or even that such power was exercised in…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:55 PM
4

Simple answer:No.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 02:36 AM
3

Weighed down by three bags and a winter coat, she quickly locates an empty seat, beelines to it and sits down with a sigh of relief. Without much thought, she crosses her legs, places her purse on her lap and takes out a book she was reading So her story says that she had a load of heavy bags with her when she got on the bus.Yet she only placed her purse on her lap.I wonder where the other bags went to,because they never get mentioned again. Presumably they went onto the seat next to her,unless …
/r/MensRights19/07/15 02:01 PM
6

Ah yes,this.Anna and I have met before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=simQiaq0x94
/r/MensRights18/07/15 02:42 PM
2

Your comparison would work better if there was a book of feminism that was comparable to the bible. Not at all.All there has to be is a central core tenet of ideas which the group draws from. We have feminist theory, gender studies, etc. So no.It holds up fine. If you're going to try and say that anyone is a feminist who calls themselves one then you render the term and ideology meaningless. Whereas that's exactly what the problem is.If the whole of feminism was egalitarian and cared as much abo…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 11:42 PM
5

Yes I have,And as I said,my statement stands. They willingly associate themselves with a hate group.CHS calls herself a feminist due to a lingering emotional attachment to the ideology that she used to believe in.She is not a feminist in any other sense.But yes,she is still in her own way a part of the problem. More to the point this completely sidesteps the criticism. You're engaging in fallacy. A whole does not necessarily have the same qualities of various parts of it.One or two feminists who…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 06:15 PM
12

I am a feminist and I brought you this article. And my statement stands. You willingly belong to and support a group that is founded on sexism,racism,anti-intellectualism and supremacist thought.A person who actually disagreed with such things would not be a part of such a group.Yet you do. There are allies to your/our cause in some feminist circles and it can help to develop a language to refer to those strands of feminist thought that are instrumental in separating these kind of extremists fro…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 01:25 PM
8

(That said, feminism could be worse than creationism even beyond it's high public support because it's very possible that feminism isn't just at odds with reality but rather could be the complete opposite of reality, something I can't really say is as bad about creationism.) That's actually a good point.As irrational as creationism is,their main thesis is at the very least possible.Even if almost certainly untrue. Feminism is generally provably wrong on what it says as it's main points. Creation…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 06:46 AM
8

It's the self-righteousness of the ideologue and the moralizer.Humans are always at their worst when they believe that they're on the side of justice. What you're picking up on is the arrogance and smug narcissism of people who have decided that they alone represent the side of good in the conflict against evil. Those who fight monsters...
/r/MensRights16/07/15 04:14 AM
1

I prefer the approach of using facts and logic find or disprove perceived issues in society. The flaw is that facts and logic only work on people who care about facts and logic. I think that leaving emotion out of these arguments and discussions is the best way to win people to our side. Only for those who care about facts and logic.For the others,not so much. Which is the general problem with the tact you want to take.It's like wanting to drop your weapons and talk peace while the other side is…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 01:36 AM
23

I remember this feminist.Remember her well. Watch,and allow the hypocrisy to flow through you.Let it sustain you and make you stronger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KHEkR5yb9A
/r/MensRights16/07/15 01:14 AM
1

It might possibly also have to do with alien brain waves. There's a difference between "disadvantage" and "racism".One group having a particular set of disadvantages in a society is not the same as society being racist against them. Tossing around racism is just a convenient excuse that small-minded people use because they can't conceive complexity and don't want to acknowledge personal responsibility.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 05:03 PM
5

That alone doesn't invalid women's sports, though. No one said otherwise. A lower-ranked heavyweight boxer could KO Floyd Mayweather, but that doesn't mean he isn't worth watching. Could,but unlikely. More to the point however,it's not as worthwhile to watch as a match that will be an actual test of skill.Playing a video game using god mode is fun for a while,but it's not overall as satisfying because there's no suspense or challenge. No one remembers or celebrates the curbstomp battle. The thin…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 04:07 AM
7

To quote Serena afterwards: "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."
/r/MensRights05/07/15 11:56 PM
8

1, she would be ranked somewhere around #100. Much less.There was a time not too long ago (correction 1998) where Venus and her sister were bragging that they could beat any male tennis player below the 200th place. So a guy from Russia who was at 203th place took them up on that challenge.He beat them both in a single day easily, one right after the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters Apparently he didn't even try …
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:01 PM
9

is logic now sexist? It's been sexist for years.It's also abusive to women,you asshole woman-beater apologist!
/r/MensRights04/07/15 10:54 PM
4

Sounds like classic guilt by association to me? Actually no.It's just generally false.Though I suppose if you really wanted to you could stretch it out into a compositional fallacy. But it's not guilt by association,just stupid. I've never heard of a well defined and tested scientific theory that doesn't have a racist, anti-sematic, murder who believes in it, hence all science is wrong. That's a non sequitur.Not guilt by association.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 06:54 AM
2

Because they have a view of the world that's based on strawmen and fevered delusions regarding what people do and say and why they do or say them.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 09:47 PM
8

I like the part of atheism There are no parts to atheism. It means that you don't believe in a god and nothing else.Anything beyond that is something someone else is trying to artificially add on to it.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 04:35 AM
3

hold radical opinions only seem more extreme and unreasonable when compared to the majority of sensible feminists But they aren't compared to the sensible feminists.Because the "sensible" feminists (which is inherently a contradiction in terms) are so weak and small-voiced that no one can even tell they exist.That's why every mainstream feminist (except CHS,and we know how good her credibility is with feminists) is a radical nuthob. It's why all of the remembered prominent feminists were radical…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 12:55 AM
1

Not destroyed.Just yelled and bitched at.And I'm immune to that sort of thing.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 03:56 PM
1

Their argument is that the reason women get more time off than men is because women are seen as the child carers and that the men should do the work. Remind them first off,that it was feminists who did this.Then tell them to Google the Tender Years Doctrine,then read the essay that inspired it http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008723154. So if they have a problem with this,they have only their sisters to blame because they literally asked for it. Second,since they (feminists) created the situ…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 05:07 AM
1

I found it hilarious.I stayed and watched the rest of it and then went back to the beginning.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 07:33 AM
3

Would you say that the KKK is legitimately fighting for all white people -- as their scope of reality perceives? Actually yes.They really do think that they're fighting for the betterment of all whites.Actually they think they're fighting for everyone,just by way of fighting for whites. That's how hate groups function and spread.Not because you have a bunch of white guys who hate blacks.Because you have a bunch of white guys that are easily tricked into thinking that they're fighting for a good …
/r/MensRights27/06/15 01:15 AM
6

Short answer:Life is very easy when you don't have to concern yourself with logic and rational thought.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 02:24 AM
3

It works a lot better if you try to actually make a coherent point. This is just random clips from various people talking about feminism completely devoid of anything remotely resembling context. You're just wasting peoples time.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 10:19 PM
10

As I've mentioned before,it's inherent to the nature of bigots to assume that every right thinking person will automatically agree with them.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 03:13 AM
7

That was a lot of blatant lying crammed into such a relatively short piece of writing. I liked the part where she talks about the Millard experiment and how she made her image like that of a man and magically had no one harass her. Even though on Millards little article where she talks about her experiment she doesn't provide a single tweet that shows she was harassed or threatened.Nor does she show a single tweet that she got as a "man" which was supposedly friendly and debate sparking. I do th…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 03:08 AM
3

I mean we can rewrite story arcs but also sticking to original lore. No you can't.Because Bond being a white upper class english gentleman IS the lore.It's the backstory,it's the origins and core concept of the character. If you make him black,it's not Bond.It's someone else that you're calling Bond as a token and racist gesture to appease the lowest elements of humanity. But a change of skin colour wouldn't deviate that much. Bond is a character,he has a character,part of which involves his rac…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:20 PM
3

Wow....just wow....that is some prime-grade bullshit right there.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 11:49 PM
3

But, it's like they don't even want women in STEM, to be honest. Well yeah,that's because they don't.Things such as that are how they leverage power.If women were in STEM they wouldn't be able to complain about sexism.Without sexism they have no power.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:01 PM
2

Try this.I don't recommend it though.It will hurt. https://imgur.com/gallery/j9prc
/r/MensRights16/06/15 05:48 PM
3

Was he trying? Or does he think he is actually funny? "I wanted to do a parody, and I can make fun and I can have silly dialogue, so it was easy and I loved it.”
/r/MensRights16/06/15 05:32 PM
15

I truly felt my IQ drop while I was reading that comic.Why do these people always insist on trying to be funny?
/r/MensRights16/06/15 05:23 PM
3

if the moderates would have been more forceful and kept the reigns in that idea wouldnt have been planted in the first place. No.Becuase the moderates are the source of the ideas. You miss the larger point. It's not that every group has some extremists but in some groups the moderates manage to control them better.It's that not every group has the same type of extremists. The ones most dedicated to any idea will always be the ones running the show.But they won't always be crazy psychopaths unles…
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:27 PM
5

As i said in another post. a huge part of the issue is moderates dont drown out the radicals early on, and thus the movement draws more radicals, What you're missing however is that radicals are not a corruption of a group.They're a reflection of it. Extremists are considered extreme because they take the ideas of the group further than the normal ones do.Those ideas have to already be there (or else can be taken to a logical extension of) in order for the extremists to make them extreme. Case i…
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:09 PM
9

So my question stands, what exactly happened to feminism? This is from the Declaration of Sentiments at Senecca Falls.The very first "feminist" get together, circa 1848. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. Nothing happened to feminism.They were always like this.It's why they have always been a mino…
/r/MensRights15/06/15 05:52 PM
1

Because feminists are effectively creationists with lady bits. All of feminist theory starts out from the basic position that women are oppressed.Feminist theory is all about then finding out the ways in which women are women are oppressed.The obvious flaw being that feminist theory never bothers to address whether that oppression is there in the first place. This is exactly what creationists do when they do "science".They start from the position that the bible is completely true and god exists …
/r/MensRights12/06/15 05:49 AM
0

but not all women did. your logic is that because some women didn't want to vote, all women were to blame for their inability to vote at the time. No,it isn't. Please do not talk about logic until you understand it. You were the one who mentioned blame. I mentioned cause. The inequality existed because most women did not want it.It's called a democracy. The inequality did not need to be addressed because it existed due to what women wanted and desired.As they are the group it was supposedly disa…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:44 PM
1

rather than condemning them for things that did happen. No one is condemning anyone for anything.They are saying that if you didn't do x,why would not have happened. The problem is that some people like you are too intellectually deficient to comprehend the difference. "Don't wander into dark alleys, don't accept drinks from strangers, don't get overly intoxicated" rather than "You wouldn't have been raped if you hadn't accepted that beverage". We tend to ignore things that "can",it works better…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:30 PM
0

who is to blame for the inequality is completely irrelevant. Not when the equality exists because of a conscious choice on one side. women not wanting to go into STEM is different, that's a personal choice each individual woman gets to make and that choice is her right. Women didn't vote,by choice.They didn't want it.That's what I just finished saying. voting is generally considered a basic human right that everyone should have Now,yes. But we are not talking about now. and it was being denied t…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:47 PM
1

But it's not just over a label.It's what that label does, what it represents and supports,what they support by promoting it, etc. The labels you take say things about you.They say things about what you believe,don't believe,and what it is that you're willing to accept and overlook.That's why people are attracted to labels in the first place.They attach themselves and their identity onto them. You're essentially ignoring one whole aspect of a person arbitrarily, just because it indicates somethin…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:16 PM
1

suffragettes had identified a real inequality that needed to be addressed. Not really.The inequality was more due to women not wanting the vote (one reason being the aforementioned military service requirement). The anti-suffrage movement had about three times as many women in it. The women who wanted the vote were only the wealthy white ones. When John Stuart Mills came forth in the 1850's and said that they should give women the vote one of the first things pointed out by his main opponents wa…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:06 PM
1

I would prefer to be potentially cruel than to make it easy for people to be victimized. But that's why I'm not a feminist. I don't glorify and worship the rape of women. Now if you have a real argument make one.Infantile shaming tactics don't work on me.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 09:39 PM
1

my point was more that just because someone is a feminist doesnt mean they agree. Then one should not be a feminist. If one is part of a group,and the people who lead and direct that group are doing something that you feel is morally wrong then you have an obligation to stop supporting that group.If you still support said group,then whether you agree with what it's doing or not you are still supporting it's actions.You're just waggling your finger at them and shaking your head at the same time. …
/r/MensRights11/06/15 06:32 PM
5

Since he deleted his reply to this just after I finished typing it,I'll put it here anyways. If you talk to people who are moderate/rational and identify as feminists There are no rational feminists.That was my point.Feminism is not a rational ideology.You're confusing moderation with rationality.A rational person would not accept any of these ideas. most of them want the same things. Almost everybody wants those things,but most aren't feminists. The KKK wants equality too,it's just they measure…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:55 PM
2

Don't vilify the 'other side' most of them are reasonable and want the same things. Bullshit.Feminism is an ideology that has irrational and unfalsifiable preconceptions as it's base. A "reasonable" person would reject almost all of their ideas out of hand. Instead all feminists accept the same basic ideas,only differing in what they plan to do about them. There are extremists on both sides and they're ruining for everyone largely because of how vocal they are. That's a false equivalence.Having …
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:26 PM
3

I know,I know,only Great Lord Azatloth knows how much I know.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:40 AM
3

you are not going to do that person any good by talking about what she could have done differently. Yes far be it she should realize her mistake and what needs to be done to ensure it doesn't happen again.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 12:32 AM
8

But she didn't do anything illegal. I never said she did. So you are saying that you can be a victim of a crime, and it is your fault, when you were not doing anything illegal? No.That is specifically not what I said.Are you really that stupid that you can't comprehend the conversation? And in your similar things, we still investigate the robbery, we still say it is sad it happened. With rape victims, we don't. When we say, "she was drunk and therefore her fault of being raped", if is rare that …
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:25 PM
8

"Well this lady got drunk at a party, so if she didn't do that, then the rape wouldn't have happen". That's not saying she deserved it.That's pointing out that if she had refrained from doing certain actions,the actions that occurred as a direct result of those actions likely would not have happened. "Well if you didn't leave your house, the man could not have robbed you at the gas station." We tell people similiar things all the time. "If you hadn't been counting your money in front of the bank…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 06:57 PM
1

The ones in charge do. The "academics".The typical rank and file ones though honestly don't comprehend.Ideologies and cults are very good at teaching doublethink. This is a good example of that kind of thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YpXgKOhrAI
/r/MensRights09/06/15 05:45 PM
12

Probably because there's nothing sexist about that.Douchey maybe,but not sexist. Edit: What I meant is that one of the first things that any hate group does is try to justify why it's ok for them to hate the other group. Generally hate groups do this by first creating a narrative where their group is being victimized,or held in a subservient position by the target group.Then they claim that because of their victimization and oppression it is ok for them to behave immorally to the target group. T…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 03:31 AM
16

Short version?:You're missing the fact that bigots never believe it's sexism or racism when they do it.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 02:31 AM
8

Exactly dogma. Not SJW of feminism. Those words get discarded and are generalizations anyway. No.They're not generalizations.They're words used to define schools of thought(ie ideologies). They are what produce the dogma. We've got a problem with the dogmatic crazies. Which are the feminists and the SJW's. You see those systems of thought are dogmatic and irrational.So when you teach people those systems of thought you get dogmatic and irrational people. You see you can't have dogmatic people wi…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 05:19 PM
19

Not herpes,the next strain of chlamydia. Since she's already so familiar with it.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 04:36 AM
36

How I snapped and started taking up as much space as I deserve. I think the part in bold says it right there. "I deserve this space,so I can effectively assault men to get it." I wonder if she realizes that if it wasn't for the fact that she's a woman,there'd be an asskicking pending for such behaviour. Outside of a horror movie, I have never seen anyone react so quickly to get away from another human being. There was terror, then disgust, then anger. Yes,because you're a woman and he was likely…
/r/MensRights05/06/15 12:41 AM
10

Put simply, poverty is sexist Everything is sexist if you only see the world through your vagina.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 10:29 PM
1

Last week she was saying that all non-vegans don't even deserve to live.This was actually fairly tame by her standards.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:08 AM
3

Or as Wiki calls her, "a major feminist voice of the mid-twentieth century".
/r/MensRights25/05/15 08:08 PM
1

I value my time enough that I wish to spend it only on conversations I find interesting, and this does not qualify. Yet you took the time to snidely come back and try to tell me that you're not going to take the time.As opposed to engaging, providing reasoned rebuttal, or rational argument. rather than a willingness to examine my beliefs you haven't won any sort of moral or intellectual high ground. Actually I think I did.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:33 AM
3

How can you simultaneously complain that women don't do enough dangerous jobs and then complain every time someone makes an effort to get more of them involved? No one is.They're complaining that she got in without being in anyway qualified.In a job that centers around saving lives and emergency response. But,you know, why pay attention to anything people actually say.It's much more fun to listen to the woodpecker in your head, isn't it? But in general. This is in general.In general very few wom…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:35 AM
7

Same with the whole firefighter thing. Who do you think are the ones supporting getting women involved in these fields? You mean like the woman who got to be a firefighter even though she completely bombed her physical test?
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:17 AM
2

you're ignoring half of what I have to say Where? and building a strawman Where? word salad Where? but you are interpreting my conciliatory ideas as hypocrisy Concilliatory ideas usually are. rather than a willingness to examine my beliefs I'm not the one portraying you like that. there is exactly one person on this thread with whom I am still interested in having a conversation, and until that poster returns, I am done here. Case in point.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:16 PM
1

1: all power is "political" power. Bullshit. And even if true it doesn't change the fact that women had all of those things that I mentioned before. You want to say that all power is political because you want to narrowly define the term so that it doesn't effect your cognitive dissonance. 2: it sounds like you're saying that because (upper-class) women were the driving forces behind, say, abolition and Prohibition, my argument is invalid. Only because you didn't bother to actually read what I w…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 05:31 PM
1

well, "other feminists" say lots of things I disagree with. The point was that the same ideas that cause them to hate men,are the same ideas that you yourself perpetuate.So you provide justification for the ones who are man-hating. It's not a misunderstanding that you hate men.You actively spread hateful messages. but that won't change the fact that said historical record exists. Yes, the problem is that people like you are very selective about looking at the historical record. There's also the …
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:14 PM
3

y'all have been in charge in most societies for most of the history of civilization and these antiquated, harmful ideas come out of that legacy and continue to damage ALL OF US. Notably,that's the exact same rhetoric that other feminists use when asked to justify why they hate men.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:02 AM
3

Because feminism is an ideology, and all ideologies are at their core nothing more than projection. That's why is one looks at religions it is very common for people to note that the god that one believes in is always very similiar to the believer. You will rarely see a believer who doesn't agree with the words and ideas of his god. That's because they are projecting their own morality onto reality and calling it a command from god. The same is true of feminism (and again, any ideology).All femi…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 07:36 PM
2

They were LIKE slaves. Like slaves in that they were considered property. Either way it's untrue.But you seem to have this horse that you want to beat to death. They were not considered property.As I pointed out,slaves get whipped,beaten, used, worked to death, etc. That's what it means to be someones property.It means they can use you however you want because they own you. That is not even remotely applicable to either Muslim women, or women in the 19th century.They were not owned or sold, they…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 11:19 PM
2

I would argue that this is because they view the woman as the property of her husband, and it would offend him to have others gaze upon his "prize". Yes, but that's only because you have no knowledge of the culture you're talking about. What you want to argue does not matter. It's untrue and based on nothing but the assumptions of an ignorant person on the internet.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 11:12 PM
2

I'm not trying to say women were slaves. No.You're simply trying to say that their lives were analogous to that of slaves. In other words you are trying to claim that they were slaves in all but name. Which is false.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 10:47 PM
1

I think, when people refer to women as being treated like slaves in these areas, they mean in that they are viewed as property rather than individual human beings. Which does not change the inaccuracy of it. they mean in that they are viewed as property rather than individual human beings. They aren't. who have to hide their face because they belong to a man, Not even remotely why they do it. Depending on the exact sect of your faith the hiding of the face is done because either a womans face an…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 10:43 PM
3

but to talk about societies where women can't drive, show their face in public, work for themselves, manage their own finances, live on their own, etc, etc, and try to argue that they aren't treated like slaves is very dishonest in my opinion You realize that nobody treats their slaves like that? The truth or falsehood of the OPs premise aside none of that is remotely slave treatment. Slaves get worked,they get whipped,bought and sold,raped, used like human cattle. This is not exactly comparable…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 09:59 PM
1

Because it is widely regarded that this isn't the case. And,as I've said multiple times.Feel free to provide your evidence. Because I can find no evidence of the violence and man-hating that is representative of the movement at large. Because you refuse to look and acknowledge. I can't do anything about that. In the UK, the WSPU was one of many organizations and its acts of terrorism and other extreme measures led to it being cut off and criticized by the other women's suffrage organizations. Fr…
/r/MensRights08/05/15 06:42 AM
1

That hardly counts as the whole movement. My statement stands. You presented no compelling evidence that the whole movement was violent. Which I didn't say.Again, we were talking about representation. The suffragettes in the US were hated, so what? A minority of the population supported them, so what? So.......that was the entire conversation, remember. I pointed out that feminists were hated and had no support right from the beginning and pointed out the terrorism and racism etc, as an example …
/r/MensRights08/05/15 04:55 AM
1

Tone is very hard to convey online, so I want to assure you I am being highly respectful. Your tone is irrelevant to me. Only your argument. 2) If I didn't value you as a member of the community and have concern for you than I would ignore you and not take this not insignificant amount of time out of my day to make this comment. And that says a lot about you right there. It shows how much you actually value reason and skepticism that the source of the argument is so much more important to you th…
/r/MensRights08/05/15 01:25 AM
1

Well, it's entirely possible that these aggressive groups aren't representative of the whole movement Untrue. The aggressive groups were the movement. As for representation,the leaders condoned it and took part (in fact every prominent suffragette we know of was one of them),they did it publicly and openly, wrote about it,never denied, etc. If you think it's not representative then you're either dishonest,or using some new and interesting form of the english language of which I am currently unaw…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:08 PM
1

Those conclusions were simple facts.So I don't see where you have a lot of room for honest disagreement.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 12:24 PM
4

I don't understand your distinction between feminism and the feminists who believe it is pro-equality. By feminism I mean the ideology itself. Feminism is exactly what it has always been.A bigoted ideology that spreads hate.It's never deviated from that.People just think that it has because we tend to look back at things more fondly when they're in the past and we overlook the bad.Much as how your parents look back on their childhood and remember is as a happy and simple time with fewer problems…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:56 AM
1

Yes,that's what I was referring to.I don't doubt that most feminists really believe the whole line about equality.It's the core group that created and runs things that are the actual malicious ones.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 03:25 AM
2

But what is enormously unfair is pushing people into these roles without their interest or well being in mind. People are always pushed.That's how society works.Society has expectations of us based on what it needs in order to function the best.Whether we do them or not is a separate matter. Nothing about feminism changes this. Feminists just want their goals to be pushed rather than the current ones. Either way you're pushing people into doing what society says they should do. But you don't hav…
/r/MensRights05/05/15 11:29 PM
1

I believe if they were aware, they wouldn't be doing it. Well the coffee shop feminists wouldn't do it.Because they're the ones that actually bought into that whole "equal rights for women" thing that feminists claim to want to get them to side with them. The other feminists who actually adhere to feminist theory and know about all the dogma and such,they would totally still do it,because equality or rights was never what motivated them in the first place.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 09:02 PM
5

Feminism has a huge awareness problem and most feminists haven't the foggiest about the many atrocities committed Not at all.Feminism has no awareness problem.It knows exactly what it is.It's the feminists who actually believe that it ever had anything to do with equality that have the awareness problem. There's a reason why women have never liked feminism or supported it throughout its history.Because right from the beginning most of them realized what it was. Most women still realize what femi…
/r/MensRights05/05/15 07:57 PM
4

There's nothing to think.It's random numbers and statistics with no indication of how they're reached, where they came from, or why they're relevant (there are more men than women working in the industry, so what?. I could do the same thing and make it look like the industry was inequal in regards to men.Or blacks, or jews, or midgets.....or black, jewish, midgets.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 03:26 PM
3

Oh look.They're interviewing Sam Maggs.Yeah that makes me want to take this seriously.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 07:05 PM
1

Doesn't matter how it happened. Well it does in the specific context of this conversation. Which is that "Patriarchy Theory" is only a recent invention.Since the difference between that and their previous model is in how they say it happened. Obviously they're the same from a practical standpoint,but that wasn't the discussion.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 02:16 PM
1

What you're thinking of is the idea that feminists blame men for everything bad that happens in society.That's always been the feminist position. But it wasn't until feminism started going into Marxist territory that they turned it into an institutionalized and fundamental aspect of society.That was when they started using the term "Patriarchy Theory". Basically the difference is that before they said men oppressed and kept women down because we're naturally assholes. Then they created "Patriarc…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 05:16 AM
1

No, but this will go on for some time, so why start? And I will have to research not only mine but all of your quotations, and into context and understanding their positions Uh-huh.Sure. It's not simple to point to "good" and "bad" people in feminism. Well I didn't actually ask you to do that.I just used good and bad the second time as a short version of what I had actually asked you to do before. Feminism isn't a comic book. Oh I don't know about that.I can certainly see more than a few paralle…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 06:30 AM
2

I perceived you as very snide. I'm certain you did. Look, man, this is hours of my time that we're talking about here. It takes you hours of your time to name a single good feminist? That says something either about how many good feminists there are, or your mental capabilities. But why would I want to spend so much time doing this when other people are presenting me with fascinating points for me to research that seem to point to some pretty significant problems in feminism? Well,as I pointed o…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:57 AM
2

feminism is often meant here to refer to pop feminism. That's different to academic feminism. That's one example of why the generalization doesn't work. No.It's an example of why you're trying to portray the generalization as not working. Your argument for why it does not work however is simply because you say it doesn't. You're speaking in ignorance of why the generalization exists and what is meant by it.Which people are trying to explain to you. But you either ignore that, or fall back onto t…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 12:40 AM
6

Well this is the entire problem- feminism isn't a simple ideological hierarchy. When people talk about feminism they mean academic feminism and their ideological views and differences, prominent leaders and their differences, activists, college feminists, Twitter/Tumblr feminists and "SJWs", as well as all the people that read a book or watched a documentary in college and read an article about it sometimes. Those are all feminists, and that's a ridiculous amount of variety and differing opinion…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 12:38 AM
4

Solanas is not considered to be important by modern feminists. Catherine Lord said that "the feminist movement would not have happened without Valerie Solanas." The head of NOW at the time praised her a feminist icon.Not to mention all of the feminist plays and productions about her life.I think she's still fairly relevant. Regardless,what does "modern feminism" have to do with it?Your OP was about feminism.You're moving the goalposts now.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 11:59 PM
5

Can we be polite, please? I was polite.How long I remain like that depends on your counter-arguments. I have little tolerance for people who insist on being inane. Besides politeness or impoliteness is irrelevant to truth. If politeness is more important to you,then you have no interest in any legitimate discussion or debate and I don't see why you should be bothered with. The problem I have with your suggestion is that who is able to drudge up more examples is not necessarily proving that their…
/r/MensRights26/04/15 11:50 PM
4

but that these ideas aren't representative of the movement Name me a prominent feminist or feminist leader that is not a man-hater or racist bigot. For every one you name,I'll name two that are. Let's see who runs out first. Also name one instance of feminism fighting for the rights of anybody besides women,or acting in the interests of genuine equality,or behaving in a benevolent manner to other groups that are not them. For every one you name I'll name three where feminism has worked to remove…
/r/MensRights26/04/15 10:49 PM
3

It should be noted that he has since restricted that video.Can't imagine why.
/r/MensRights25/04/15 06:54 AM
13

Yes,but if they admitted that there was no rape problem,then they would have to stop fighting it.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 04:32 PM
1

Actually reality will be reality,irregardless of who's perspectives you're considering.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 06:58 AM
2

I couldn't help but note that at no point do they actually bother to explain what they mean by "power"? For instance in the case of the woman dressing sexy because she wants to versus dressing sexy because of societies expectations which have power over her. What exactly places the power of society over her power of choice?As far as I know there is no society on this planet that will send a bunch of armed MIB's to her door,put a black hood over her head, and send her to a secret facility for "re…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:02 AM
1

Which is a fairly good sign that they're all full of shit.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 09:41 PM
31

Like every other feminist.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 01:52 AM
2

It's not just patriarchy. I read a majority of the text version of that video of hers and I think it was in the third part where she starts criticizing Anita's analysis of tropes.She gives her analysis of certain tropes like the Smurfette Principle and it was immediately obvious that her analysis was just as shallow and unreasoned as Anitas was. Just not as obviously anti-male. But I would still easily tear them apart using a lot of the same questions and observations. For instance (I'm going fr…
/r/MensRights11/04/15 01:22 AM
3

Actually, if you listen to her,she's really not that reasonable.Just a different flavour of irrational. There's a difference between taking your side in an issue and being rational.She takes GG's side in a lot of things,but she's not very rational as far as her feminism goes (such as her belief in patriarchal oppression).
/r/MensRights11/04/15 12:21 AM
3

You think it was a parlor movement for rich white women by rich white women to not be forced to die from illegal back alley abortions? They weren't forced to die. Nobody strapped them down against their will and removed the fetus.They chose to get an abortion. Just as they chose to have sex in the first place. And yes,I would call being able to get a law changed because a miniscule number of you are dying due to your own choices is a benefit.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 07:04 PM
3

You're right I stand corrected.She does admit that female rapists likely exist.She just doesn't think they're in any decent-sized numbers.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:36 AM
1

Not exactly.They do believe that whites are superior, just disadvantaged socially due to society being run against them.The same way feminists view women as being equal to or better than men, just kept down and oppressed by men and society. In feminisms case, it's patriarchal society (men) that keep them down. The KKK and White Supremacists have the Xionist Conspiracy by which Jews secretly control the world.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 02:31 AM
4

Yeah,you can kind of see the sort of freaked out look on his face as she's talking.Probably the realization that he's going to bed at night with a woman who thinks it would be hilarious fun to drug him and rape him.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:16 AM
18

Naturally she has the mindset that a woman raping a man isn't really much of a crime, and that no one would be harmed by it. She says in her video that men are raped,but suggests that they guard their butts holes.Which indicates that she only sees men as being rapeable by other men.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 09:13 PM
6

Yes, that's pretty much it. That's why "equality" is such a meaningless term. It's entirely dependent upon how you measure the inequalities of the world. That's why the KKK says that they believe in equality among the races. They do, it's just that they think white men are in the disadvantaged positions and it's groups like the Jews that are keeping them that way. That's why every hate group/supremacist group always claims to be fighting for it.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 06:30 PM
55

It's at about the two minute mark. She's asked a viewer question about what she would do if she could get away with a any crime and she says that she would go out and rape a man because she's been afraid of being raped all her life and she thinks that it would be nice to do it to a man.It's actually a fairly long conversation. http://www.56.com/u30/v_MTAwNDcxNDY3.html
/r/MensRights09/04/15 06:24 PM
7

Actually that fits with other information about women and sex.Dominance/rape fantasies are always either the most common, or one of the top three fantasies of women on any survey or study about women.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 05:11 PM
9

But when you walk around fearing rape because EVERYONE IN YOUR LIFE HAS TOLD YOU IT IS A REAL THING THAT YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF CONSTANTLY, it would be great to know that guys are growing up learning that rape isn't cool & we're all afraid of it. Yes, and therein is your problem. It is not that rape is a real, and constant threat, it is not men, nor society that it is the problem. The problem is that YOU ARE IRRATIONAL.This constant fear is solely a figment of your own imagination.But no one bu…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 04:28 AM
3

You don't have to go post-suffragettes.You can go right to them,or even before them. The Declaration of Sentiments they wrote up at Seneca Falls very specifically says that all men have always oppressed women and kept them in bondage because they wanted to dominate and control them. There's a reason feminism has never been a very popular ideology,even among women.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 07:53 AM
1

Most people don't.That's why hate and supremacist groups are able to get the power that they do.They convince people that they're the good guys first,then get them thinking the "right" things. That's why every hate group,supremacist group, tyrant/dictator, etc. always claims to be fighting for equality or the oppressed. It gives you the moral highground, and humans are generally the easiest to convince to do bad things when they think they have the moral high ground. Most feminists,when you get …
/r/MensRights04/04/15 10:41 PM
1

Isn't it ironic that people think all feminists are crazy and hate men, and I mistakenly thought the men's rights movement hated women Not really ironic.More dissonant. The difference is that there's a good reason people think that all feminists are crazy and hate men.Nearly all of them very clearly do and are.Not to mention that the ideology and ideas are all entirely centered around demonizing men and are based on nothing more than fake data and fallacies. Their ideas are inconsistent and hypo…
/r/MensRights04/04/15 03:26 PM
2

Short version:Feminism is a hate group. By associating as a member of that hate group you support their hate,even if you don't do so actively.You are a part of that group that the leaders point to when they say they have the support of millions.You count yourself among them and help to give them legitimacy.You also give the haters at the core a reasonable shield to hide behind.When criticized they point to people like you and say, "See, Feminism isn't like that!". To put it another way,what if s…
/r/MensRights04/04/15 03:18 PM
2

And I'm sure that at some point you'll get around to providing that.I couldn't help that it was noticeably lacking from the article.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 01:04 AM
2

As soon as someone says rape is underreported you know that they're lying.There's no reason to think that. In order to make that claim you would have to know the actual number of rapes that are unreported, as well as the exact number of false rape reports. It's entirely possible that the number of fake reports is higher than the number of unreported rapes. Which would mean that rape is actually over reported. Bottomline,there is absolutely no basis for such a claim to be made.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 05:53 AM
3

I would say that the more accurate description is that feminism takes traditionalism and flips it inside out.All the negative aspects of traditionalism (women being unaccountable, infantilized, men being dominant, male sexuality being predatory) and emphasizes them, yet takes the positive aspects (Men being self-sacrificing providers, women being loving nurturers, etc) and treats them as negatives.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 09:49 PM
1

I'm going to disagree with you specifically because of your "Christian Movies" example. Note that I said "near".Not "all". However the overwhelming majority of them do suck. Type in "Why do Christian movies suck" into google and you'll see how little even Christians like them. Personally I tend to find them hilarious,but I'm a mean old heathen atheist and laughing at Christians is kind of what I do so...... Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ are all excellent films. (cough)bullshit(cough). C…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:09 AM
1

Wanna tell a story with a feminist message? Go for it, but make it good. Any piece of media made with the focus of sending a specific message will inevitably be badly written.That's why Christian movies near-universally suck as well.If you're trying to push a specific message through then you can't let the characters be people and you can't let the message be challenged.Which means it will always be ham-fisted and strawman the other side.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 02:18 AM
5

I'm not too surprised to hear that the storytelling wasn't done very well. In fairness, a big problem is that the Sensational Comics series is digital,and each "page" is actually only one or two panels.Each "issue" of the comic is really only about the equivalent of four or five pages of a standard comic book.So both issues together are about 1/3 to 1/2 of a real comic. Which is why so little is shown,it's not exactly conducive to complex story telling. Most of the issues are just "here are vill…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 06:37 PM
13

So the story is that the guy's a socially conservative douchebag who wrecks a concert and puts people in danger because he doesn't like that the comic's version of Miley Cyrus is putting on more racy shows instead of staying "sweet and wholesome" which is how he thinks young women should act. Wonder Woman saves the people and captures the guy, at which point they punch him in the face because he said things they didn't like. Funny thing is.Your summary is about ten times better than the way that…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 04:19 PM
1

This can be applied to your statistics. False equivalence. You aren't using statistics,or even a representative sample. You're simply saying that you say some things happen and using that to make a judgement about an entire population. I studied the field of human rights in my humanities classes. You studied poorly then.But it is, of course, a humanities class so that's to be expected. I'm no professional, but I've got a pretty good understanding of what goes down. I'm sure you'll start demonstr…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 03:47 PM
1

I'm not assuming it's true when I physically saw it happen... You physically saw it happen to every member of the society at all times? Because that is what your response would necessarily imply, you realize? This isn't some professional debate, we are just having a discussion over the internet. That does not mean you get to make random claims.Being on the internet is no excuse for being dishonest, or sloppy thinking.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 03:06 PM
1

It was my subjective opinion from my experience through living there and having family members suffer heavily. In other words, it's a bias and unjustified anecdotal opinion that you are just assuming to be true. When I pointed that out you took umbrage with it. In other words, I don't have a "qualification" as you keep putting it Then you shouldn't be doing it. and I don't believe you do either. I never claimed that I did.At no point did I try to portray any side as suffering more than another. …
/r/MensRights28/03/15 02:51 PM
6

It helps if you're a bastion of loathing and seething contempt for humanity to start with.That's why I can do it.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 02:46 PM
1

Now, that's not what I asked. No, it isn't.But the question was posed to you first.Once you have responded I will be happy to respond back.But you're the one who keeps dodging it. So what is your answer?
/r/MensRights28/03/15 02:38 PM
1

My answer will likely be the same as yours. Then answer for both of us.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 02:33 PM
1

Women cannot drive One country.And it's done, with the idea in mind that it makes womens lives easier.Not to oppress them.Whether it has that effect is a more debatable matter of course. they are disowned and punished, sometimes executed if they are raped That happens to men who are raped too.Or at least if the man ever lets people find out.I don't know what the rate of male rape is over there, but it's probably not too dissimiliar to the west so men and women would have about the same rate of r…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 08:00 AM
1

You are saying that one group of millions of people is suffering more than another group of millions of people. I am asking why you are qualified to make such a claim.Do you have evidence, facts, an objective measuring system?What gives you this insight into all of these people that lets you make such a claim. I'm a guy, I lived there, we had it much better off. Which,as I said, is entirely anecdotal.Which qualifies you for nothing more than talking about your own personal experiences. But you a…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 03:25 AM
1

Again,not what was asked. What qualifies you to make this decision? Edit:As a sidenote, if you're just going to say "Because I was there" that works in the other way as well.The men who actually live there, and are likely to say they have it worse, then are more right than you as they actually live there and live through it.Which, it seems, is your criteria.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 02:37 PM
1

What makes YOU think I already assumed this? Nothing,that's what it means when someone says "if". Edit:It was merely to point out the fact to you that there is a possibility that your position has some confirmation bias attached to it.Given that you haven't given any concrete reasons or explanations, your position does not seem to be factually based.It very well could be,of course, but you haven't shown it.Just said "because I've seen it". Also you're acting like I said "don't help the men, help…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 02:32 PM
1

So have I.But how does that give you the capacity to rate the suffering of one group over another? Not withstanding the fact that your anecdotal experiences are indicative of nothing factual or even realistic. If you've already presumed that women have it worse off,then it's likely what you're going to see.Especially since people already are naturally inclined to treat womens problems as worse than mens. But still,who are you to make judgements on the suffering of other people?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:31 PM
17

There's actually a subreddit for that already. I believe it's called /r/StormfrontorSJW
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:52 AM
0

That's what I thought.I rest my case.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:33 AM
2

First you answer my question.Don't try to dodge.You made the claim (lie), can you support it?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:28 AM
0

You didn't make one. Because you never responded to any argument I made.As evidenced by the fact that I have now asked you twice to point out where I said anything like what you are claiming I said. And,as of yet,I still remain without your evidence.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:24 AM
0

A straw man is a sham argument set up to be defeated. Google it yourself.I'm not the one having problems with my position.Or the one doing it. You: Claiming other suffer more is impossible! First you claimed that I said suffering could not be quantified. Now,after I showed how that was wrong, you're claiming that I said it was impossible that others suffered more. Where EXACTLY did I say either of those things? And BE SPECIFIC. Or at least keep your bullshit consistent.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:07 AM
3

A straw man is a sham argue ment set up to be defeated. No.A strawman is an argument in which one acts as though they have refuted a proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition. I provided one counter example to your claim to show how it wasn't universally true. But I never claimed that it was. Hence the strawman. What I said was that attitudes like his are the impetus for the oppression olympics that are so indicative of feminism. I then asked him what he thinks gives him …
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:31 AM
1

So,aside from the abusive partners thing,what she´s saying is that feminism fights for men.Just for nothing that men actually care about.Or even consider problems.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 08:34 PM
4

So saying that both have equivalent problems that should be addressed equally is extremism? You have an interesting grasp of the nuances of the english language.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:15 PM
2

The earth being flat was once thought to be common knowledge.Didn't make that true. But I never said that men were worse off than the women. In fact no one did.What was said is that both have serious,but different problems and both should be addressed. It is people like you who are trying to claim that one side has it worse. Which is the oppression olympics mentality that I had been referring to.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:14 PM
5

All right then.Quantify the variance in levels of suffering between rape and slavery. It's easy to strawman by using extreme opposites.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:10 PM
15

Men, as a group, and feminists, as a group, do not share the same amount of sin on their shoulders. I would disagree in the case of a group that you willingly belong to. There is a responsibility for the group,because you support the group itself. So when the group acts, it acts with your help unless you do something to actively oppose it. To go with the Nazism example you used below.Hitler could only do what he did because he had the support of millions backing him,without all of his followers …
/r/MensRights26/03/15 01:08 PM
12

That's the same kind of thinking that gives us the oppression olympics we all love feminism for. Who are you to presume who suffers more?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:58 PM
3

I point out that it's exactly what people like Goebbels argued when the Nazis were criticized for what was happening to Jews.In fact it's what nearly every hate-group argues when criticized. "Our problems are worse and more pressing,so it's entirely justified for us to ignore the problems and pleas of other groups." That's very convenient when you're a part of the most "oppressed" group.Which again, is claimed by most hate or supremacist groups.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 05:50 PM
4

Feminism,if you dropped all of the female supremacy and man-hating would just be egalitarianism. So basically your question is,"Would you mind feminism if it was egalitarianism instead."
/r/MensRights24/03/15 09:22 PM
1

All vertebrate embryos are inherently female,until the injection of certain growth hormones that cause them to be male. It's more efficient to start with a generic template and modify it,than to just create several different base templates.And nature likes efficiency,for the most part.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 04:33 PM
2

To be fair,it's kind of a lose-lose situation for them.Civil Rights Laws require them to cater to these students.But they also are required to allow free speech and can be sued if they do things like cancel talks or disallow conversations and groups. Which is really the core problem here.Colleges are caught between a rock and a hard place (or SJW's and free speech) and have no good or ethical decision open to them.They're buggered regardless of what they do.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 04:30 PM
10

The point being,children are easy to indoctrinate into ideological thinking;and feminists will beat a tired dead horse long after the corpse has rotted away.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 10:41 PM
3

Can't imagine why people think they're supremacists.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 08:57 AM
1

kind of hinders me to comment on things I find flawed, since "we aren't discussing that". You didn't comment on things you found flawed.You commented on things that I specifically didn't say and wasn't talking about. It's not an opposing view of how words work.It's that I said one thing,and you responded to that thing with comments that bore no logical relation to what I had said. I was partly commenting on how a practical and theoretical definition may differ Then your english skills need work,…
/r/MensRights17/03/15 08:55 AM
8

I am sorry you feel as though I am avoiding your point by not addressing every single part of your comment. You didn't address it at all. I simply disagreed with the part where you compared the nazi or KKK definition of equality with the definition that feminism uses. I didn't make that comparison however. What I was doing was pointing what I went into greater detail explaining in the previous post.That everyone claims to be wanting equality.They simply all define the particulars of it different…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 10:41 PM
17

Feminism is just a word that has the definition, as in the dictionary definition Yes.Because they defined it that way.Just as the Nazis did.The difference only being that the Nazis lost the battle of history so it didn't stick. Aside from that however,what you said is in complete ignorance or avoidance of the point that I made. Which was that it is a matter of how they define equality. Equality is a theoretical for the most part, useful in math but not so much elsewhere. Because it is entirely d…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:37 PM
21

The ideology of feminism IS equality. So is the KKK's ideology.Same with Stalinism, Nazism, etc. The problem is how these groups define "equality". The problem is that extremists have bastardised the true meaning of the movement. Unless you know of a feminist bible which has all of the true teachings of feminism in it, this statement is not possible. Not only that, it is fallacious and an outright lie. The "extremists" as you call them could very well be the true feminists,and it's the others wh…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 07:57 PM
1

I question her idea of a "friend". I don't see how you could go a decade and not pick up on that kind of behavior. I highly doubt he was a monk waiting to finally lay with her... Wouldn't surprise me if all the signs were there, but she was too stupid to see them and so blames him for her mistake. Yes.That was the general message that I was snarkily attempting to convey.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 05:28 AM
24

Then he ran off and slept with literally one woman after another after another after another…MULTIPLE women, some of them other men’s wives & girlfriends…using NO protection. At one point, half a dozen 40-year-old divorced single moms (he’s 28) all thought he was their serious “boyfriend”, unaware that he was making the rounds “servicing” other women all over town. Really?He was banging six women at one time,with more that none of them knew about? Dude must be Hugh Hefner, Gene Simmons,the reinc…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 03:33 AM
1

They were.Very much in fact.That's why most women hated them. Back in the day the anti-suffragette women who opposed them made posters and flyers warning other women that the suffragettes were man-hating harpies who couldn't get dates.Accused them of being sexist bigots, etc. The general opinion of feminists as being man-haters has remained fairly consistent throughout it's history.You can read the suffragettes own speeches on how they viewed the role of men in their group and see for yourself w…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 03:34 PM
0

No, contradiction only disproves that the claimed quality doesn't exist in the questioned entity. Which was only one example and you're also wrong. If the entity cannot possess the quality that is required to have by its definition. Then it does not exist. No. "Apathy" or "Ignorance" is the null position. No, it isn't. It really isn't.Because neither is a position.The null position of any claim is disbelief or rejection of the claim. You could have just googled that and realized you were wrong. …
/r/MensRights13/03/15 03:14 PM
0

since it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something. Untrue.It's just generally more difficult and dependent upon the nature of the claim being made.You can, for instance, prove that something does not exist because the qualities it possesses are logically contradictory. To hold something true in absence of proof falls under "conviction". Which is not atheism. Atheism is not an assertion held as true. It is a rejection of an assertion. Theism is the claim.Atheism is the rejec…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 02:52 PM
0

something believed; an opinion or conviction: And that's wrong.Which is why you had to go to Dictionary.com to find the singular reference to it.As opposed to Websters or Oxford or any other reliable source. The rest is simply semantic quibbling No.It's what the words that we use in order to convey thoughts actually mean. And they do not mean what you are falsely trying to claim that they mean. I would also add, that even if we accept that definition.It still does not apply to atheism, as atheis…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:47 AM
0

It's simply an opinion or conviction. No it isn't. To go to Websters, there are four definitions of "belief" 1.a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true 2.a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 3.conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence 4.a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable A belief is not an opinio…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:26 AM
-2

No.It is not a belief. It is the disbelief in a theistic deity.Or the rejection of the claim that there is a theistic deity. That's what the "a" prefix as applied to a word means. It means without or no longer.So "a"theism, is "without theism" or "no longer a theist". That is a disbelief. Belief only applies to positive positions. What you are thinking of is what would sometimes be referred to as "strong atheism" which is the outright assertion that there is no god. That could be classified as a…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 03:31 AM
0

just like atheism is a belief. Which it isn't.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 01:09 AM
1

but nice tits called Zoe Quinn Clearly you did not see her nude photos.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 10:53 PM
2

Meh,when I did my first video on Feminists creating the New Thor I got a death threat from a feminist within the first twenty minutes. So I guess that's one extra victim point for me,huh Emma?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:50 PM
9

To quote:““Any woman of taste would have a boy for a lover rather than a man. He’s easier to manage. His sperm flows like tap water, which happens to be a biological fact. And quicker recovery time and all that kind of thing. More rewarding in all sorts of ways. Conversation might be a bit lacking, but then, who does it for conversation? " Yeah,she's a peach. A real feminist icon. And naturally,she understands that women have never been worse off than they have now.Why? Sexual objectification an…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:43 PM
9

Germaine Greer made an "art" (by that I mean photo-erotic lady porn) book once with pictures of young prepubescent boys.Including a half naked young fifteen year old boy on the cover. She has this theory that by women sexually objectifying young men they are reclaiming their feminity or something or other. She even raves about how good young boys are because their "semen springs forth like tapwater". You can easily find the book on amazon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Boy I don't b…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:30 PM
12

UFC color commentator Joe Rogan said last week that he believed Rousey, 28, could possibly beat 50 percent of men in the UFC's bantamweight division. Rousey said on ESPN on Thursday morning that theoretically she could beat anyone under the right circumstance. That sounds like when the Williams sisters bragged they could beat any man outside of the top 200 in tennis. Didn't go well for them.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 10:56 PM
3

Actually it's not shocking,it's fairly consistent throughout history. Feminism has always been a small minority opinion, even among women. Most women of the time hated the suffragettes and didn't support them, or even want the vote that much. Women made pamphlets and posters, even children's books, teaching young women not to grow up to be like these harpies.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 02:36 AM
3

You keep saying this is cross-cultural but provide no evidence. Name one society that ever didn't prioritize the safety and protection of women over mens. By the way,I'll note that you don't do that either further down.Just thought I'd mention it. When taking a look at other cultures, it's clear this attitude is heavily influenced, perhaps solely influenced, by Victorian morality that spread throughout the West as a consequence of the British Empire and globalization. Which other cultures would …
/r/MensRights03/03/15 05:37 AM
4

No, you can't. At least not entirely. If it was socially conditioned then you would have to have an extremely good explanation for why it's so cross-cultural. If something were simply socially conditioned then we should not see it everywhere. It would occurence would vary depending on the society.But it doesn't in this case.It manifests slightly differently, but it appears consistently. Any case you made for social conditioning would have to be able to adequately explain this.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 12:09 AM
3

The fact that it's cross-cultural throughout human history very strongly demonstrates that its almost certainly biological.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 10:18 PM
2

No one in their right mind will say that feminism is like Nazism. Untrue in a few important ways. There's a reason why people use the term "feminazis". It's because feminists use a lot of the same rhetoric and tactics as Nazis. Really all hate/supremacist groups do. If you read Nazi propaganda against the Jews and a lot of feminists ideas about men for a lot of it there really isn't much difference.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 08:19 PM
2

I mean, good lord, do you think all Catholics rape little boys Most of them seem surprisingly ok, with it, though. Certainly all right with it enough to continue giving their ideology full support while they keep doing it.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:05 AM
9

He's talking about the Norweigan Gender Paradox. There's a documentary about it on youtube and there was a massive study done which was mentioned by CHS and others. The upshot is that the countries with the most equal dispersion of labour (such as a 50-50 gender split in tech) are the most oppressive or socially backwards countries (India, China, etc), while the more socially progressive a country is (Norway, Sweden,Canada, US, etc.) the less equal it becomes. In other words when left to their o…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 03:33 AM
1

People do it all the time. Every hate group, every supremacist group, every tyrannical regime is made up of people convinced they're part of a good movement.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 01:10 PM
3

You're thinking of Eve Ensler. Dunham was the one who sexually abused her little sister.But in a good way, apparently.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 12:22 PM
13

You know some people who fought for equal rights and the oppressed would once march for miles and face beatings by police, riots, lynch mobs, and possible killings by race extremists. However whereas groups like the Freedom Riders faced being firebombed and then sealed inside a burning bus, before barely escaping and being beaten almost to death;feminist writers faced harsh words that caused them to run away and hide from their keyboards, never to write again. Clearly they are devoted to their c…
/r/MensRights21/02/15 09:09 AM
4

For those that do that, do you mean all feminism, or a specific form? There's no meaningful distinction between the forms. Feminism of any form is based on the same basic ideas and concepts. The different "types" of feminism are only different in the conclusions they make about the world and the solutions they propose.However since it's those basic ideas and concepts that are false, the resulting "type" of feminist does not matter. It's simply different versions of wrong.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 08:20 PM
0

If there is so much other "evidence," that people have been posting, then please show me. You mean all of the other arguments that have been presented over and over again for why the series is not liked?Well I can quote myself. The thing with making Thor a woman is that there is literally no need for it.I did a video about this when they first announced the whole thing and as I pointed out then, there is no shortage of female superheroes in comics. There's just a shortage of ones who have their …
/r/MensRights16/02/15 02:01 AM
0

They are saying things about the series, and then using only these 3 pages as an example to talk down the entire series. No.That's just the only thing you pay attention to.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 09:29 PM
0

No one said it did. They are saying that the series itself is crap because it is ideologically driven, done for an idiotic and pointless reason, and serves no purpose other than to push a false narrative. Those panels exist as an example and evidence of what people are talking about. Not a generalization. I can't help but note that you seem to very consistently strawman the other side like that.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 09:07 PM
1

No.They call her Thor.They gave her the name.They said it in the initial press release.They said it on the website, etc.They flat out said, she IS Thor.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 01:40 AM
1

a new person has been chosen to take the position of Thor. There is no position of Thor. It's a name for a person. That is his point.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 01:35 AM
18

You do realize that those three pages are: A)Badly written and ideologically slanted. B)Do not actually address any of the concerns and arguments people were making, only strawmen. C)Indicative of the rest of the comic, and the attitude behind the change. D)An utterly stupid, and incredible mischaracterization of several characters, all derailed so someone could try and hammer home a particular and pointless message. and E)Very badly written.I know I mentioned that already, but it bears repeatin…
/r/MensRights15/02/15 01:28 AM
18

No.This is actually how the comic is written. That really is a page from the actual comic, and it gets worse. The next page has Absorbing Mans wife throw down her weapon and refuse to fight FemThor because she "understands and respects what she's doing and how hard it is to be a woman". She seriously volunteers to surrender in order to maintain the sisterhood and makes her husband not fight her as well. You really have to read the new Thor comics in order to truly appreciate how insane it is.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 01:12 AM
0

Sure there is.Not a life or death need,but there is a need for the character because people love him and get off on seeing his stories. Nobody needed or wanted Female Thor though and there was no reason to do it if you wanted the endgoal that they said they wanted. In fact it was the absolute worst and stupidest way to do it. Hell,there are already several strong warrior women in the Thor mythos itself they could have used. Syf and Valkyrie spring to mind.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:28 PM
9

The thing with making Thor a woman is that there is literally no need for it.I did a video about this when they first announced the whole thing and as I pointed out then, there is no shortage of female superheroes in comics. There's just a shortage of ones who have their own series. If you want to have more prominent female superheroes,I can easily think of at least twenty female superheroes that I would love to see have their own series. They could have given more series to the women who are al…
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:17 PM
24

I'll just leave here an example of the dialogue in these comics. http://i.imgur.com/zpS0AoT.jpg Seriously.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 10:24 PM
1

There are no set objective definitions. Didn't say there were. People define terms, and each person defines terms differently. Untrue. We do have accepted upon definitions for words based off of common usage. That's the basis of human communication. If everyone just used words to mean whatever they personally want communication would not be possible. That's what you don't get. Not remotely. I get what you're trying to say. It's just that what you're saying is irrational, stupid and demonstrably …
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:09 PM
1

Only your definitions are relevant in your mind. No.Not my definitions, what the words and terms are actually defined as. I am not an activist, nor do I advocate for, or even particularly care about mens rights that much. Therefore, I am not an MRA in the actual meaning of the term. Whether you want to come up with some definition that would make me an MRA though is irrelevant. You can argue anything into being true when you get to just make up definitions to support your case. That's why dishon…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:46 PM
1

There is no one on earth more zealously religious than a die hard atheist no one more willing to attack (non)believers or heretics, no one more zealous in their desire to 'spread the word'. Ummmm, as far as I'm aware no one has ever suicide bombed a civilian population in order to spread atheism. So far as I'm aware the worst an atheist has ever done to the religious is tell them they're stupid for believing in magic sky fairies.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 07:31 PM
0

That's because you're not paying attention to anything other people are telling you.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 05:27 PM
2

You are by my definition. ;) Irrelevant. What you define it as doesn't matter. If someone is referring to themselves by a particular label, you absolutely have to use their definition of what that word means since they are the one saying it. No, you really don't. Just asserting it does not make your case. And again, this is irrelevant since you don't know what he means. If I define the word green to mean Kiwi, the word isn't meaningless. Sure, when I say green then it won't be what most people t…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 04:59 PM
2

Inference from a Label No.It would not be that. That is only a fallacy if there is no logical reason to assume that because something has a label it has those properties. Which is an argument that you have failed to make. Or even actually attempted really.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 04:25 PM
3

See, this is where I have a problem with what MRA's do and it pushes people away. Well I'm not an MRA, so your problems with them are irrelevant to me. Someone calls themselves a feminist by THEIR definition, then MRA's apply the MRA definition of feminism onto them Because there needs to be an understood definition in order to have a discussion. If feminism is just whatever anyone wants to say that it is, then the term is meaningless. (It's also not "THEIR" definition,there are large commonalit…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:27 PM
1

If you notice, he uses the term "radical feminists". Much as Christians use the term "evangelical Christian". I don't think he would agree with patriarchy theory, acceptance of rape culture by society (although he does think rape is a big problem) Key word is, you think, you don't know. But that's neither here nor there really and rather irrelevant. My point was that feminism is no different from a religion. Aside from a lack of supernatural elements they're functionally the same in every aspect…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:47 AM
1

I do recall him identifying as a feminist, correct?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:04 AM
0

Meh,same narrow-minded bigotry you always get from the religious.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:56 AM
2

I have yet to meet someone that's not conservative leaning in some manner that calls a liberal a moron. I do it constantly. Mind you I call conservatives mentally defective as well. And libertarians,and communists, you get the point.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:36 AM
3

You know, until the last little insult I was prepared to continue the discussion. Of course you were.
/r/MensRights31/01/15 04:22 AM
1

Normal by what standard? Normal was not the right word. I merely drawing a juxtaposition with her later behaviour which was more that of a mindless drone. It makes more sense that they used something more advanced than electro-shock and literally rearranged her brain to what it was supposed to be. Remember, this is a race that literally doesn't (isn't supposed to) have sex/gender. Actually they do have gender. Or did. It's not quite made clear how their sex parts work now, but they did have gend…
/r/MensRights31/01/15 04:21 AM
3

Actually I implied that we were both pedantic. More to the point though I pointed out that you used that pedantry to ignore the spirit of what was being pointed out to you. That you were wrong that you can actually categorize like that. Especially when that thing is an inherent part of it's nature or a logical extension of it's definition. For instance, I can claim in a sentence that all feminists are sexists. I can do so because feminist is a label that is inherently sexist as it is excludes on…
/r/MensRights31/01/15 04:04 AM
2

Ok, fair enough.I have been outsmartassed by your pedantry. Regardless the statement you made is still logically false. "Theists believe in god." Being an example. Some things are universally true, simply by nature of their definition or the circumstances required for a thing to posses that label.
/r/MensRights31/01/15 02:59 AM
3

You think those feminists are the vanguard because you never see the real ones. Well, in that case they would be the vanguard.So apparently he's right. If you are categorizing a vast number of people in one sentence, you are wrong. Black people posses black, dark brown, or light brown skin. Was that wrong?
/r/MensRights31/01/15 02:18 AM
1

More accurately they didn't seem to regret it. They had essentially undergone heavy brainwashing and aversion therapy using whatever the alien equivalent of electro-shock was. If you watch the episode the woman who had it done to her acts almost completely disconnected and not quite there when you see her just after. As opposed to before when she had possessed a more normal personality.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 05:21 PM
1

That article gets stupider every single time I see it. A response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzidSkYxMuM
/r/MensRights29/01/15 01:04 AM
5

Of course she deserves it.She goes to a great deal of trouble to get people to make those comments.Her hard work should be rewarded. Your question is essentially like asking me if I deserve to get paid for doing my job. This is Anita's job.She's a professional victim. She deliberately provokes these reactions in people with the things that she says and does. That's why she never does anything about it. When she got sent child pornography she did nothing to stop it,she just cried on Twitter about…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 08:10 PM
2

Same old. Same old. A feminist whining about how every negative comment is automatically harassment. Even when a good portion of them clearly aren't. Damselling, hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness. Nothing special, nothing new. Seen it heard it, been through it all a hundred times. She's a professional victim raking in mad cash who provokes people into getting angry and then runs screaming with crocodile tears streaming from her eyes when she gets the exact same reaction that she was trying to ge…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 07:12 PM
2

When dealing with a group of millions you have to generalize. Generalizations are not dangerous in the least, they're a necessity to meaningful discussion. Misusing generalizations can be bad, but that's something else entirely. People who respond with things like "don't make generalizations" usually only do so because they don't have an actual refutation. As for Summers, she's a feminist by self-identified name only. Nothing she says or does fits in with feminism on any level ever. There's a re…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:37 PM
7

Egalitarianism doesn't address the gender-based abuse that women and those who identify as "feminine" encounter. Well....actually it would. Since it's, you know, equal. It would just also address the ones men do as well.Because again, equal. The thing is feminism addresses the gender-based abuse that woman face (or rather typically makes it up) while not addressing or not caring about that of men. While still claiming to be about equality. The problem is women face life-endangering problems and …
/r/MensRights24/01/15 03:49 AM
11

Feminism isn't about being man hating, it's about protecting all of our livelihoods and rights to conduct our lives the way in which we choose, free of prejudice or judgment. Which is why they all continually are prejudiced and judge others. Even the name is sexist and exclusionary.
/r/MensRights24/01/15 02:12 AM
11

Because the suffragette movement was just a polite request? John Stuart Mills and other men were talking about giving women the vote long before. Women at the time told them no. They didn't want it. Same with the suffragettes.Most women didn't want the vote.A poll in england came out to only a third of the women saying they wanted the vote. It could have been a polite request.They just chose to be needlessly psychotic about it.Which then made people rethink letting women have the vote. One of th…
/r/MensRights24/01/15 01:55 AM
3

Emma Watson may use the word "feminist", but everything she has said clearly demonstrates that she is in favor of true gender equality, and she has gone out of her way to make it clear that she knows that both women and men face discrimination because of inequality and sexism. There is a difference between saying you think something and acting in a consistent manner with that. She says those things, as do many feminists. It's the doing and the consistency between saying and doing that is the iss…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 09:48 PM
2

A lot a women don't follow the rich and famous feminists and more than you'd think don't even know who they are. That's not the point.Those women are the leaders of feminism, whether the individuals necessarily follow them or not. They are the ones who determine who the power of feminism is used. Just because you don't necessarily agree with the leader of your country does not mean that you don't support his actions. Barring active opposition or open protest, you allow your leader to make decisi…
/r/MensRights20/01/15 05:54 PM
2

I didn't lump them in. They lumped themselves in voluntarily when they joined under their banner. They didn't need feminism for any of those things. Feminism sure as hell has never had any real interest in equal rights for women. They chose to stand with the bigots as their leaders and do nothing about them.I did not make them be feminists. So yes, it's entirely fair to do that. Because they did it to themselves. These "leading feminists" are appalling and only want money and to find problems th…
/r/MensRights20/01/15 05:11 PM
18

Oh good.She's finally catching onto something that's been happening since the beginning of feminism. With such crackerjack intellects among the feminist community I can't imagine why they've never managed to overthrow the patriarchy after all this time.
/r/MensRights20/01/15 02:02 AM
3

Numbers-wise, you are correct. The problem is the disproportionate power they wield. It only took a few real Nazis and their small amount of supporters to give us the Holocaust.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 08:59 PM
2

I disagree,if I were going too sum up feminism in such a way I'd use non-sequitor. Since that's what nearly every single feminist argument amounts to.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 04:37 PM
0

You can Bait SJW by understanding that there ultimate goal, is elimination of gender based Identity.. This is something most people are inherently opposed to. Probably because they can't make a single coherent case for why we should eliminate gender-based identity. Or even how one would actually accomplish that. Aside from, you know, "mumble,mumble,mumble, more feminism."
/r/MensRights17/01/15 10:07 PM
3

Oh yes.That would have been glorious.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 09:22 PM
15

Not really amazing. They redefine sexism to mean power+prejudice, and then only think of themselves as powerless. It's a flawless system. Life is very easy when you don't have to worry about little things like logic,rationality, and the real world.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 09:08 PM
2

That... actually makes a lot of sense. Thing is, if those are the sorts of premises people work with, they should be able to acknowledge them. The problem with your premise is that equality is a vague concept and really only largely applicable when you're working with theoreticals. In reality, nothing is really ever equal, especially when you're dealing with living creatures. Because living creatures make choices and will form preferences and groups with preferences. That's without even factorin…
/r/MensRights11/01/15 10:37 AM
7

I believe a true feminist fights for both. And those other feminists would disagree with you. So being a feminist is essentially worthless and has no meaning. It means whatever the person using it says it means. Here's a better question. Why do you need a name in the first place? Why do you need an ideology or set of teachings to define you? How about just calling yourself an Ibelieveinwhateverthemostrationalchoicebasedontheevidenceis-ist. Admittedly it's not as punchy or doesn't fit as easily o…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 08:44 PM
2

There may be an evolutionary psychological explanation behind the infantilization of women, but the forces that lead humankind to place a higher evolutionary value on women are largely absent in modern 1st world society. Which has no bearing on whether those impulses still exist. In other words, the reproductive advantage you mentioned really isn't much of an advantage anymore in modern developed societies. The same could be said for many of our evolutionary impulses. Again, this is irrelevant a…
/r/MensRights06/01/15 08:28 PM
1

Right but I mean from society's standpoint, males commit most violent crimes (I added in domestic so people wouldn't call me biased or whatever). In this case, most violent crimes are committed by males. Most victims of violent crimes are males. So a 'normal' crime would be male -> male. This is the reason that male -> female seems that the crime is 'gender based' to some. As in, they are arguing that had the victim not been female, they would not have been the victim of a crime. If that's the r…
/r/MensRights06/01/15 08:23 PM
1

But is it irrevelent? Yes. At least as you have presented it. Men are often more violent (something like 80% of all violent crimes, if i recall correctly) - outwardly at least. It evens out if you consider domestic abuse as well, and things like passive-aggressiveness (which has been proven that women do more - at least on average more often). As they are often more violent for biological reasons, it's considered more 'normal' or 'ordinary' for there to be crimes against men. This is just a leng…
/r/MensRights06/01/15 07:40 PM
2

Sometimes when I raise points like this, people often rage at me, insult me, or just thumbs down me. Not sure why this raises such issue with people. It's probably more that whether it's true or not is irrelevant to the argument, than a disagreement with the point itself. Even if we assume that you're right it still provides no rational reason for the different treatment. The points I made should be seen as much of a fact as simply stating, "men have penises". They aren't facts though. It's not …
/r/MensRights06/01/15 07:17 PM
2

I think the two factors are independent. That's very clearly false however. They aren't just perceived to be physically weaker however. They are physically weaker (on average), but they are also perceived to be weaker in general. We perceive them as less competent, less mentally stable, less responsible for their actions, etc. The perception of women is the same as that we generally have for children. Because we protect, care, and provide for them, just as we do children. We worry about their em…
/r/MensRights06/01/15 03:39 PM
9

You have your causation backwards though. It's more likely the reverse actually. We protect women because they are evolutionarily more valuable. As a side effect of protecting them we perceive them as being weaker, because you don't think of an equal as needing protection, you expect them to protect themselves. Protection is associated with weakness and infantilization. Hence why we tend to lump women and children together when we're talking about who gets protected, or who it's worse to commit …
/r/MensRights06/01/15 07:39 AM
2

Pretty sure we have different definitions for the word dialogue along with a few other perceptions. Hard to say since, as I mentioned, you never really say anything useful to discussion. But, like I said in the title, it's an opinion. And it was pointed out to be flawed. Which is where you respond to the points raised against you with counterargument. That's how dialogue and discussion work in the real world. Yes, it is just an opinion,and you asked for criticism. So you're getting it.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 05:22 AM
2

as does MR. Then you don't know what an ideology is. I want there to be a dialogue. There is. It's just not the dialogue that you want there to be. But we don't always get what we want. Both sides think they have the facts. Except that one side very clearly doesn't, and very clearly ignores them. Facts are not neutral.Reality is the arbiter or truth. What I'm saying is that I believe 90% of ground between the two factions of sexes is common ground. Then you've paid attention to neither. Case in …
/r/MensRights04/01/15 03:12 AM
5

Over hundreds of issues, they want equality on most where they see injustice and unfairness towards woman. The key phrase there though is "where they see", that's the problem. They see it, but it isn't actually there. And like any ideologues they refuse to acknowledge that because their ideology hinges on those issues existing. A religion needs a sin to fight. Just as feminists need an oppression to combat. Otherwise it has no substance. You see your mistake is that you seem to think that the di…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:21 AM
7

http://www.cheatcc.com/extra/toptensexiestmalecharacters.html http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-11-hottest-hunks-in-video-games-as-ranked-by-a-straight#.teNEB0Me6 https://laurendem.wordpress.com/t-mcbees-top-10-hottest-video-game-men/ http://www.ranker.com/list/hottest-video-game-male-characters/mrf47 http://readretro.com/features/retro-top-10-sexiest-male-video-game-characters/ http://poppyr.hubpages.com/hub/Hottest-Male-Video-Game-Characters http://www.thebacklot.com/virtual-beefcake…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 01:55 AM
14

Offhand? Tidus, Sephiroth, and Vaan. Just from Final Fantasy. At least a quarter of the male armours in Tera online,Albion or Final Fantasy 14 (not including all of the male bathing suits and special items in FF14, of course). Oh, also Vindictus. Arumat from Star Ocean:Last Hope. Kratos. Zwei,A lot of women like Voldo for some reason, etc. I'm sorry, but you're simply full of shit. Play a game. Also your criteria of "Sexy armour" is a nonsensical addition. Essentially it's a (false) complaint th…
/r/MensRights03/01/15 11:32 PM
17

They're happy because a company finally made a male character who wears "sexy armor" that doesn't cover anything and makes no sense A company finally did it? It's Final Fantasy. They do it all the time. If they think this is a new thing then those girls aren't actual gamers.
/r/MensRights03/01/15 10:04 PM
2

No, he isn't talking about that. He's talking about a father being permitted to have a vote in whether a child is brought into the world that he will be forced to provide for. This is not about the womans body. It is about the child. The womans body is ancillary and only relevant because the child resides there. It's a matter of how the rights interact. The prolife people (for instance) think that the childs right to life is more important than the womans decision on whether she wants to termina…
/r/MensRights31/12/14 08:08 PM
2

However, I believe you are pro-life based on your response. Then you're entirely wrong and probably shouldn't jump to conclusions. Understanding an argument and not wanting to see it misrepresented is not the same agreement.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 07:46 PM
1

You can't tell a woman what to do with her body. Period. Except that not a single person is. This is not the opposite sides argument. This is just what feminists and other far left people strawman the opposite sides argument into. No one is talking about regulating a woman body. No one. What they are saying is that the baby inside her is a living thing and has the same right to life as any other human. That the choice to have an abortion comes at the cost of another human being. When you try to …
/r/MensRights31/12/14 07:13 PM
17

The way I have to clarify this is: I find women attractive, In just don't find putting up with a woman's shit attractive. The same. The lengths guys go to in order to have sex with a girl have always baffled me. In my entire life I've only ever come across two women who were even remotely worth putting in that kind of effort.
/r/MensRights30/12/14 06:28 PM
1

Proving my innocence when you presume my guilt is not a burden of proof I will accept And this is why I point out that you are incapable of reason. Because you continually fall back on this strawman. I did not presume your guilt (I did, however, conclude that later based on your actions in this thread). I stated the position based on what I have seen and experienced. This is where you provide the evidence of me being wrong. Unless you wish to address the claim that you are trying to make, in cla…
/r/MensRights29/12/14 06:01 PM
2

"All feminists are shitty/unreasonable" is the only premise you have ever implied or established No. You see this here is an actual strawman, because I did not make that argument at all. What I said is that feminists always claim that there are many nonshitty feminists, but when called upon can never seem to demonstrate this. And that there is a difference between claiming that you believe in equality and actually putting it into practice. When you analyze what feminists actually state as their …
/r/MensRights29/12/14 05:23 PM
2

Begging the question is implying something like "all feminists are shitty" and then citing no evidence for it. Not even close. Begging the question is when the conclusion one is attempting to prove is contained within the initial premises of the argument. Assuming the worst of your opponent prior to knowing anything about them is categorically going after a straw man rather than any argument. Again, not even close. Evade the point if you like, or tell me how a feminist caring about equality for …
/r/MensRights29/12/14 10:33 AM
0

Let me start off by saying it is patently ridiculous to demand that I prove it to you that I, for example, am sufficiently reasonable in my understanding and application of feminism. I could demonstrate that I am perfectly logical about every one of my beliefs, and yet all you would need to do is snicker "nuh uh, that's not reasonable." I could,but if your beliefs were reasonable then I would be obviously wrong in front of everybody wouldn't I? And the fact that you find it ridiculous to be call…
/r/MensRights29/12/14 06:14 AM
1

if I didn't know better than to judge a idea from a few people's invocation of it. Was never said or implied. You worry that the term "feminism" is sexist. No. I don't worry that it is, it simply is. You implicitly demand that it be proved to you that there are reasonable feminists. Yeah.I'm funny that way. Insisting that I am mistaken or insincere about equality in feminism seems petty to me, and it's definitely a distraction, intentional or not. No.It's not a distraction at all. It's an entire…
/r/MensRights29/12/14 01:46 AM
5

To some, feminism really does mean equality. Which is why they use a name that is sexist and inherently exclusionary. Nonshitty feminism and men's rights are both fighting for that. The problem is that nobody can actually show that "nonshitty" feminism exists in any real or meaningful capacity. People claim it exists all the time, but no one can ever demonstrate it. Typically the best you get is a bunch of mumbling about how feminism is about equality (which is meaningless claptrap in and of its…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 08:27 PM
1

Probably Bill Cosby. Probably? So you can't actually name one,then. However, let's assume that you're right. If he thinks it's ok why does he hide the fact that he commits rapes? It seems to be odd behaviour if he thought it was ok. It seems more likely that he knows it isn't ok, and (assuming the allegations are true) just did it anyways for whatever reason. Regardless, the best you managed was a probably. I didn't even know who Mary Koss is (and you said she was "just a starter" to your list o…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 02:16 AM
1

Of course there are men out there who believe horrible things about women, and vice versa. That's not an honest response though. You specifically said that there were men who thought it was ok to rape women as an attempt at counter-argument. So name one. Giving me the specific name of an immoral woman doesn't change anything here. It proved your claim that no one was saying men aren't raped to be false. So it seems that it did do something. Note that I| only had to go as far one feminist. I don'…
/r/MensRights27/12/14 10:15 PM
1

You may wish to learn the terms "non-sequitor" and "ad hoc". They might help you in future argument.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:50 PM
2

The Tender Years Doctrine has been replaced. Which is irrelevant to the point that feminism is what caused the very thing that you are saying it will fix. There are extreme, fringe-feminists who 'tried' to redefine rape to exclude men. By "extreme, fringe feminists" you mean "normal, mainstream feminists", I take it. Do you honestly think a majority of feminists, or the population as a whole, agrees with this? Well apparently, yes. Since you certainly don't see most of them doing anything about …
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:12 PM
2

Things like child custody unfairness and rape erasure. Except feminists were the ones who created the child custody unfairness (Tender Years Doctrine) and were the ones who tried to redefine rape to exclude male victims. So basically you're saying feminism will help to fix the problems that it itself created. Very neighbourly of them.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 04:14 PM
1

Not all feminists respond like this woman. No.But they believe in the same things. Just have different conclusions. Since it's the beliefs that are false and objectionable, there really is nothing to distinguish between. I know plenty of people who self-identify as feminists because they believe in equality for all, but primarily focus their concerns on women's rights. Then they don't actually believe in equality for all. Or if you think they do, then they believe to the same extent that the Klu…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 05:05 PM
2

Pretty much. The general problem is that people will recognize that every group that has extremists, but fail to recognize that extremists are not the same in every group. An extremist reflects the nature of the ideology. An extremist Jaine, for instant, is so committed to non-violence and preserving life that they often wear clothes over their mouths for fear that they might accidentally inhale a bug. Because that's how focused their religion is on not hurting other creatures. An extremist Chri…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 04:49 PM
3

Look man, I'm (more or less) on your side of this argument, but your response is incredibly patronizing, condescending, and dismissive to a valid point. In no way was it a valid point. Actually if it you want to nit-pick it wasn't even any kind of point. It was a justification. And a very poor one because it works equally well against his position. As for being patronizing, condescending, and dismissive.....well yes it was. Because what he said was stupid. And I just highlighted all of the reaso…
/r/MensRights25/12/14 11:50 PM
16

And discouraging sexist jokes isn't done because they're offensive, it's about making a welcoming campus that doesn't make people feel unwelcome and threatened. However you're making it hostile and unwelcome for the people who actually like and want to tell\listen to such jokes. Or who want to be able to freely express their opinions without having to worry about some pathetic whiner bawling their eyes out about their feelings being hurt. Essentially your argument is that, it's ok to restrict ot…
/r/MensRights25/12/14 02:52 PM
1

It's not the need for a counter-movement, you're simply mistaking a movement for an ideology. A movement has a set of goals that it needs to see accomplished and actual problems that it feels need to be dealt with.Hence the use of the word "movement", it moves a certain distance and then stops. Black people, gays, and other such groups had actual legitimate problems, stemming from hatred and oppressive treatment that needed to be addressed. They were able to point at society and point to what wa…
/r/MensRights23/12/14 02:06 AM
5

That poll was done by Forum Research Inc. Pretty much the biggest group of hacks in the country. They've sold their numbers before and it's been shown that their system sometimes phones the same numbers multiple times. Not even getting into the president who runs the company,but yes, he's a feminist and a slimeball. It's like asking the Discovery Institute to do a poll on whether teaching evolution in schools causes violence.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 07:39 AM
1

That's a lot of purple prose. Even for me.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 04:46 AM
2

I never said you said it was. Then there was no reason to actually say it to me as I had just finished countering that exact position. My point is that I have a problem with "this post doesn't say what I would say, so I'm downvoting it". Yes, you've said that twice previously. And, as I pointed out, you're jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on nothing more than your own bias. There are several other reasons for having downvoted it that have nothing whatsoever to do with that. You have no i…
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:02 PM
3

Regardless of the reason, downvoting is not supposed to be an "I disagree with you" button. I never said it was. In fact I specifically said that there were reasons to downvote other than disagreement and listed two possibilities. So I have to wonder what point you think you are making. Also this doesn't really bear on what you said and what I responded to. Which is your claim that the reason for the person in question being voted down was because he didn't take the mans side. As for the rest of…
/r/MensRights20/12/14 05:00 AM
4

Sad to see that people around here will downvote you for not automatically taking the man's side in any rape accusation situation. Maybe for them it was less that and perhaps more the blatant contradiction in his words. Or maybe the fact that he admits to not actually reading the article, and that he has no interest in reading information about the case, yet still makes claims about it. Believe it or not, there actually are perfectly valid reasons to not like what someone says other than it goes…
/r/MensRights20/12/14 04:22 AM
3

It was a win-win scenario. No matter what,we demonstrate that we don't support the harassment,and if the FBI does get involved and investigate, they either find the people doing it and take away the victim ammo, or find out they're faking it and they come out looking even worse.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:52 AM
4

That was a deliberate push to get them to pay attention to it.Myself and several others started referring to the threats against Anita and company as "terrorist threats" and used the FBI hashtag in the tweets while calling on them to help the poor women being targeted (ie. "Anita it's terrible that you have to suffer these terrorist threats, the #FBI should be looking into this), figuring that if they got bombarded with it enough they would have to actually start paying attention and do somethin…
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:12 AM
5

Well it is here, but I think the gamers are in denial because (as ever) they don't want to be associated with "extremist" MRAs. Not quite. There was a recent thread in KiA that turned into a long discussion of the MRM. Most there recognize that the MRM get a bum rap in the media. It's not the MRM, it's feminism. Most gamergaters are still in the NAFALT stage, since for a lot of them this is their first feminist experience. They attribute what's happening to the crazy minority,rather than to the …
/r/MensRights20/12/14 12:58 AM
3

Actually, I would say nothing is true and everything is permitted. ;) Functionally the same thing and just as useless. I suppose this depends on your definition of religion. Not really. Actually, a lot of my requirements here were inspired by the frustrations that MRAs have expressed in my conversations with them. Bullshit. My hope is that these requirements would help everyone respect one another and find common ground a little easier. Respect is irrelevant and, more importantly, is earned. And…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:45 PM
6

All participants must acknowledge that each of us has a unique experience and unique layers of privilege and oppression. That has no bearing on reality however. Which is where the central conflict lies. So this is ultimately a pointless condition.All this means is that everyone is bandying about subjectice statements. As a result of (1), no generalizations should be made about any gender or sex identity. That's just stupid. Generalizations are a basic cognitive tool,and a necessary one. ESPECIAL…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:32 PM
5

He didn't say "feminists" he said "feminism". There is a difference between an ideology and the people who support it.Whether individual feminists are nice has no bearing on whether the teachings and ideas of feminism are. It just means that the nice ones are rejecting certain aspects of the ideology in order to maintain their niceness. That, however, does not change the fact that they support an ideology that is primarily based on hate. Short version:You're trying to employ a false equivalence.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:19 PM
3

Tedx,not Ted. It's an important distinction.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:11 PM
2

Then you need a reason to support why it is not ok. Which is why the reasons for it become relevant. If the only thing you can use to justify your position is that you think it's "not ok", then your position is worthless.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 02:23 AM
3

That happened a long time ago. Matt Dillahunty was part of Atheism+ almost from the ground up. Where have you been?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 11:54 PM
1

I try to educate people on gender roles using my privelege. So,basically, you actually have no real plan. Gender roles tell men not to shwo emotion. Or men, in general, simply prefer not to show emotion. Society notices this and thus men are stereotyped in such a manner because it is the general rule. Your unsupported premises are showing. This lack of showing emotion usualy results in them being violent. So men not showing emotion leads to violence? Which is fueled almost universally by emotion…
/r/MensRights08/12/14 12:31 AM
3

I am going to stop answering your questions You seem to find many excuses to do that.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 12:00 AM
1

And how exactly do you plan to do that? More to the point,what is your alternative? Gender roles exist for a reason after all. So you need something to replace the current system.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 11:54 PM
2

By my logic people are what screw things up wether it's religious or otherwise. Which is completely irrelevant in regards to whether it's a good idea or not. So your logic does not really apply to the conversation in question. Even if you did have a valid and sound argument. And there's really no such thing as "by my logic". Either your position is logical or it isn't. If you have to use "by my logic" as an opening line, it's fairly safe to say that your position is unlikely to be very logical a…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 11:01 PM
2

Then your logic skills aren't very good, since atheism is an entirely entirely different thing. Atheism is simply a disbelief in a god. There is no ideology,set of ideas, or principles for any of that to apply to.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:43 PM
2

Yes. Of course no one has ever actually made that argument. But yes. Religion is bad because it is false, unfalsifiable, and unanswerable to reason and reality. Thus when religious ideas are bad, they are untrenchable and impossible to get rid of. Also it's easier to get people to accept non-rational ideas than rational ones generally because most people find rationality and logic hard and inconvenient. And ideas not based in reality have a proven track record of being inferior to ones that are.…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:12 PM
2

The fact that there are some good religious people is not an argument that religion is any good.Anymore than the fact there were some good nazis made nazism a good idea. It's dishonest to try and conflate an ideology with the people that claim to adhere to it.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 08:32 PM
1

That comes after he answers.Don't want to give him too much to think about at once.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 01:02 AM
3

Property: up until now in some parts of the world. Where? I said name one specifically. Semi-persons: until around the beginning of the nineteen twenties in North America. That was why they couldn't vote. A flat-out lie on your part.But feel free to demonstrate how this is true.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 10:45 PM
3

When exactly,were women ever thought of as property? When specifically? Or as semi-persons?
/r/MensRights16/11/14 10:29 PM
1

And you're not going to solve the issue of race, or sexism by propogating it. Actually, you're the one propagating it by treating this as such a problem. The sexist stereotype that exists is that women are too fragile to be allowed in male spaces and male company because all it takes is one word or one wrong gesture to make them afraid, or to offend their delicate sensibilities. That's why women had no place in politics. Or working in male jobs. That's why women weren't allowed out without a man…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 03:21 AM
1

So you admit it is a problem. Good. No.Not within the context of the discussion,it isn't. And you've failed to make any argument that it should be. Yes, I am sure the people who do consider it a problem are fictional characters. People,of course referring to people in the general sense. My apologies for assuming you were able to understand the obvious. I'm not being disingenuous or lying. I am correcting a moronic statement. Actually yes, you are being disingenuous. You are mixing claims togethe…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 10:05 PM
1

Nah. To be a problem it pretty much just needs to be considered one. But it isn't,except for a few people. So,in general, it is not a problem.And certainly not objectively a problem. And since the discussion is in the frame of it being a problem in society,you're being extremely disingenuous. It pretty much does make it a problem if people consider it a problem. But people don't. So it is not a problem in society. Which is what I said and what you were responding to.Again, you're being disingenu…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 02:53 PM
7

should have to worry about their personal safety and try to "travel in packs" just because one entitled asshole decided HE deserved to try and force his opinion into someone else's reality. It should be noted, that this is exactly what you are proposing for others. You are saying that just because it makes a few people feel bad to be harassed, everyone else should adjust their behaviour to cater to their feelings. Actually you're saying that society itself should adjust it's behaviour. It seems …
/r/MensRights07/11/14 02:04 AM
5

That people feel harassed or uncomfortable is a perfectly valid reason to consider something a problem. To consider it yes. But not to say that it actually is a problem. There is a difference between a subjective claim and an objective one. Actually it is. A problem does not need to identify with you as a person to be a problem. No.But that you consider it a problem does not make it a problem with society either. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it is.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 12:56 AM
8

I feel it's an issue because it limit's people's ability to go out in public with as much ease and casualness as they would probably like. Only if you're mentally weak. It doesn't limit anybody's ability to do anything. People have responsibility for their own actions and feelings. There is nothing stopping a person from going out other than their own weakness and insecurities. When you go out into a space with other people it means that other people might actually do things that you don't like.…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 12:50 AM
-1

Ummm,yes, I said as much.What exactly was your point?
/r/MensRights07/11/14 12:24 AM
6

Of course you don't have stats to back your statement up so you should probably just let it rest. I'm sorry, clearly I missed the stats that you provided to support anything that you said. So it is not a problem because "nobody" but the people you define as "stupidly weak" or "easily offended" finds it a problem. No.It's not a problem because nobody can provide a single rational reason for why it should be considered a problem. Other than that a small group of people don't like it and can't hand…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 12:19 AM
7

It IS a problem and honestly Why? Other than because you say it is. She was followed, do you know how creepy that is? By one person, in ten hours. For reasons we don't know. Maybe it was bad parts of town, maybe it was a video created to get responses, maybe she should have lightened up. But goodness gracious the creepy level of being leered at is awful. It happens not just on the streets either. So,by your own admission,the fact that she was apparently followed is meaningless. So how is it a pr…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 12:15 AM
11

Just because something happens to everybody does not mean it is not a problem. Yes,however you ignored the part that followed that,where I said that most people don't care or ignore it. So no,it's not a problem. Because nobody but the easily offended and the stupidly weak consider it one.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:46 PM
19

That's rather the point.It isn't a problem.It happens to everybody. Most people just grow up and deal with it, or have the maturity not to care. The fact that a few people want to whine about how it makes them feel does not make it a problem.It makes them whiny and annoying.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:01 PM
2

While ignoring all the ones that don't fit your thesis, is actually a pretty shitty way to handle the soft sciences. I didn't ignore them though.I pointed out what the statistical trend one was.Did you have evidence countering my point?Apparently not because I'm guessing you would have produced it. Not that the soft sciences aren't guilty of doing this too, but you guys literally pulled this trope analysis out of your asses, so you could flip off feminists, and then tried to rationalize it. That…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:29 AM
4

And we have individuals in either gender who don't share those traits, but stereotyping is a great way to steamroll over complications, I'll admit. Noticing statistical trends is not stereotyping,though.So your dishonest portrayal does not really work here. I'm still not sure why you believe every fantasy of being desired is necessarily a power fantasy for the one caught in the middle, or how and why you manage to ignore the lack of desirable men in the many damsel in distress narratives where a…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:53 PM
4

It's often a male empowerment fantasy, however... Typically they're the same thing.That's why the damsel in distress trope works so well.Men want to rescue,women want to be rescued. Male power fantasies generally align with female sexual fantasies, and vice versa. It's almost as though we're a sexually dimorphic species with naturally complimentary traits.........nah,that's just crazy talk.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 06:38 PM
0

All I want people to see is that it is a problem. No one said it wasn't a problem.But I can't find my nail clippers right now,and one of my nails is broken off,and I don't want to bite my nail straight because it always results in hang nails. That's a problem too. But it's hardly an important or meaningful problem.And you have made absolutely NO argument,of any kind, for why it should be. All you've done is assert that it's a problem that everyone should give a damn about because...........derpi…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 02:48 AM
3

The dark side of #gamergate is the anti-women vitriol associate with it. There is no vitriol with it.At least none that has ever been proven. The last batch of threat that Brianna Wu got was traced back to a click-bait journalist who was trying to start shit. There's no harassment that has been linked to gamergate.There is however.Plenty from the other side. just check the hashtag.People have been taking constant screenscaps. The man who interviewed Brianna Wu on HuffPost Live and then did anoth…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 07:23 PM
6

"One of gaming most memorable protagonists"? What world are they living in where Mirrors Edge has one of the most memorable protagonists. I don't even remember that characters name. Or most of the game itself. Samus,is a memorable protagonist.Aeris is a memorable protagonist. The girl from Mirrors edge.....not so much.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 02:34 AM
-1

It is simply, undeniably, the way it happened Actually it's very deniable. To go back to the previous topic. Women received the right to vote while having none of the responsibilities that men did. So if women had the power to vote with no strings attached,and men had the power to vote with strings attached...... It's a little hard to claim that it's men who are in the better position. If you can disprove this, please do. I don't have to.You have to first make the case that your argument is true…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 02:11 AM
-1

Actually it is because it serves to undermine the foundational framework of feminism. That society is set up to oppress or disadvantage women. It also provides evidence against the claim that feminism stands for equality. More importantly however it negates your particular counter-argument.Which was rather the point.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 01:18 AM
-1

Even if that were true,it does not negate that they had the privileges and benefits mentioned. An advantage is no less so because it comes with a consequence. Otherwise the privileges of men were a direct result of their status as expendable workhorses.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 11:54 PM
1

I found it essentially completely insulting to my intelligence. You can find out more here.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 08:41 PM
1

Since feminism is a philosophical field, it and what constitutes a feminist is up to interpretation, as are lot of the terms and labels associated with it. That's what I said.You are admitting that you're making it up. That is exactly what you just said,just with a lot more fancy words added in to make it sound like you're not actually saying that. I agree with you that feminism is a philosophical field, and that it is up to interpretation. Hence,you are making it up. There are a lot of sub fiel…
/r/MensRights01/10/14 02:43 AM
2

Or you could just make decisions based on evidence and facts,followed by a rational consideration of all goals and options on how best to achieve them. Thereby ignoring ideology and labels altogether. Believe me,it really can be done.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 02:42 PM
1

My point is that quantum physicists would be justified in banning people from their subreddit without putting any mental effort into considering their viewpoint at that time, merely because of their certainty. I would point out what I pointed out below.That many subreddits don't do that though. What you are describing is a daily occurence on /r/atheism with trolls and the religious making shit posts all accusing /r/atheism of this or that with no evidence,or asking the same old questions, or the…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:57 AM
2

What has feminism, an ideology, done to anyone? Did you want me to answer alphabetically,or chronologically? People choose to interpret it as they will You realize that's just a roundabout way of admitting that you're all making this stuff up,right? but the central ideas the feminism movement was founded on are still the same: equal rights and treatment for women on social, political, and economic levels when compared to how men are treated. How are those ideas irrational? Well for starters,equa…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:51 AM
2

you appear to be similarly biased by societal portrayals of feminists and some of the vocal bigots who love to stand on whatever podium they can find and spout their nonsense. It's not called a bias when there is solid evidence to support the position. You claiming it without being able to provide any evidence except for anectdote is bias. As is your unsubstantiated claim that feminism is positve,despite all of the evidence to the contrary. I cannot think of,nor find any evidence that these 'goo…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:28 AM
2

Rational people don't blame people not responsible for their problems for the issues they have. How are feminists not responsible for the actions done by feminism? Actions that they should be directly opposed to,yet do nothing to prevent?Actions which they enable through their support of feminism and it's ideas that are used to fuel their actions? It sounds like you talk to feminists that are not rational or logical about their beliefs on equal rights. A rational feminist would not be a feminist…
/r/MensRights27/09/14 07:46 PM
2

Then why didn't you name any? Also,since your response was "feminists I know personally" I don't see how it's me exhibiting any particular bias. I think you might be a bit confused on what that word means. are all about equality Provide a meaningful definition for that term. From the way you talk Since we've never talked,that would likely be a 'bias' on your part. rather than a rational discussion with. Apparently,I still haven't. You have not addressed either my challenge,or my question. Why ar…
/r/MensRights27/09/14 10:22 AM
6

But they wouldn't all ban people or remove posts for it.Hell if /r/atheism did that they'd be banning and deleting all the time.As it stands posts like those are constant,and really annoying.However they get downvoted and ignored.They don't get censored.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 12:47 AM
7

judging the group as a whole based on a few bad eggs. Name at least two feminists who have any pull in the movement that are not "bad eggs". If you're going to claim that it's a minority opinion,you have to actually be able to show that the majority does not hold it. If it is such a minority,then why is it that the "good eggs" are so impossible to notice that they are effectively non-existent?
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:50 PM
2

Another related factor is the whole Missing White Woman/Girl thing. People such as serial killers generally kill within their own race. So a white serial killer would likely target white women/men (barring a racist or profit-driven motive of course,in which they would kill whoever was the target regardless of race). Which means such cases would get more press and attention and would have more of a push to be solved.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 04:23 PM
6

First off I wouldn't trust that study since it doesn't provide any data about hot it reaches it's numbers or it's criteria and the link it cites does not work. The FBI disagrees with that number,saying that it's closer to fifteen percent and not nine. So I would wonder at their source. Edit:Also I just looked at their numbers again and those are bullshit in general.There are WAY more serial killers in general on that list than there are in any source I'm aware of.Like several times more.It state…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:33 PM
2

.......You do realize that not a damn thing that you just wrote actually pertains to what I said right? As for what you actually,for some bizarre reason, decided to write in response. men are generally bestowed more power and credibility, but with power comes responsibility The problem is that women have enormous power,but don't take any responsibility.And feminism just gives them more and more. Being a powerful man, an "alpha", is the most privileged position a person can be in. Bullshit,becaus…
/r/MensRights25/09/14 05:26 AM
4

that SJWs do not speak for feminism as a whole. Then the whole is very,very,very silent.Virtually mute,in fact. One could almost say effectively non-existent. They are the outspoken minority who don't stop to think before they speak, and who are only superficially engaged in what feminism actually is. In order so that you can claim that they're a minority you have to be able to show that the other side is actually the majority. Because the available evidence belies your claim and you present non…
/r/MensRights25/09/14 12:25 AM
2

All comments disabled on video.Can't imagine why.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 01:02 PM
4

but one way in which she is not privileged is that she has millions of people around the world judging her, sexualizing her, and assuming the worst of her because she is a celebrity. Which is in no way oppressive.So his point stands. Oh,and who do you know he doesn't know her? You know nothing about his personal life,do you.You just know what you've read on a screen on a forum. Just thought I'd mention that.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 03:23 AM
2

Yes her speech has some problems but what she says in general is for feminists to not hate men No.What she said was that feminism should not have the image of man-hating. She doesn't acknowledge that feminism is hateful and bigoted towards men,she acknowledges that that's how people perceive it. That's why she immediately went into the same definition bs that they always go to whenever you confront them with it. It's the same, "You just don't understand feminism" line that they've been using for…
/r/MensRights23/09/14 03:03 AM
0

Painting everyone who doesn't agree with you as inherently wrong does us no good. The thing is that feminism IS wrong. No matter the incarnation.The base principles of it are false. Think of it this way.You have one Christian who thinks that there's a cosmic sky-daddy telling him to love everyone and be kind to his neighbour,and on Christian who thinks there's a cosmic sky-daddy telling him to kill the jews. Either way,cosmic sky-daddy. They're both crazy and irrational,it's just that one is cra…
/r/MensRights22/09/14 06:49 AM
1

If.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 06:40 AM
1

You can't just state opinions as if they were facts He didn't.He stated the word of someone who is an expert on the subject who was referencing research that she herself had done.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:47 PM
1

You can't 'just' do that. Sure he can.He admits that it's anecdotal and has not pretended otherwise. He's simply citing the words of an expert. How you weigh that information in your assessment of it's veracity or not is up to you,of course,but what he did was perfectly valid.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 10:59 PM
0

The Catholic Church runs thousands upon thousands of schools worldwide. Many of which are run by tuition.Except for in the third world countries of course,where they are taught all sorts of things that help them.Such as condoms being a white mans trick to spread AIDS among them. If providing quality education You're joking right? as doing something to help the poor cease to be poor, I don't know what does. Which doesn't actually address my point as,even if we buy this load of you're trying to du…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 04:58 AM
1

PS: go talk to /u/wokeupabug about religion. just send her a PM about how you think all religions are debunked because they don't have physical evidence to justify their claims. she's gonna bitch slap the shit out of you, and I'd like to see it happen, so if you could copy/paste your conversation back here that'd be greeeeeaaaattt. Is that your equivalent of running home and crying to mommy to make it better? Or your equivalent of screaming that you'll go get your big sis to beat me up?
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:23 PM
1

any classical theist will tell you that an argument is evidence, and the weight of philosophy would agree with them. so when someone proposes an argument for God that is evidence for it, and you need defeaters blah blah the standard art of debate. And they're simply wrong. the idea that physical evidence, or the lack thereof, universally defeats the hypothesis of god, is just a fucking dumb idea, and it's clear to me that you've never argued with a theist worth their weight in salt. Never said i…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:28 PM
0

I agree,you certainly don't. But as I said,when you have an intelligent response, let me know.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:17 PM
0

So then idiot it is. When you can form an intelligent argument,let me know.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:07 PM
1

I disagree with that; you also need to look at the effects they have on people and society You can disagree but you're simply wrong. That is the only logical justification you need to oppose it. It's not the only one that exists,mind you.But it is the only one that's necessary. Unless of course you don't actually care about truth or reason at all,of course. in the case of religion that's largely positive Then why are the more religious countries always the ones with the greatest levels of social…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:06 PM
2

You can't justify it. Bullshit. It has no evidence to support any of its conclusions about the world. That stands for both religion and feminism. It is the only justification you need to oppose either of them. Also the simplest one out of the many possible justifications you could use. If you say you spent two years on /r/Debatereligion and you couldn't even figure that out you're either a liar or an idiot.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:53 AM
2

All we know so far is that Anita is definitively dealing with the FBI on some level in regards to these "threats".The exact nature of those dealings can only be speculated on until word is received back from the FBI.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 06:55 PM
4

As of Friday that particular journalist has not yet received any contact back from the FBI. All he knows is that according to the police they were never contacted about this last batch of threats.However she is dealing with the FBI. Who contacted who first or any other specifics are unknown to me at this time.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 06:52 PM
9

Not the police.It's the FBI.The same journalist who had talked to the police finally got in contact with the FBI and they said they knew about it.The police still say they knew nothing.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 04:36 PM
20

Surprisingly,no.It took me a while to figure that out because the logic involved was very complex,but I finally reached that conclusion.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 02:06 AM
61

My thoughts are that you have effectively no understanding of the subject matter.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 12:11 AM
5

Why can't we find some common ground? For the same reason Christians and Muslims can't. The short answer is that feminism is a world view that assumes it's true and correct. It is the same as any faith-based belief. It can tolerate no other ideas because it's existence relies on people not questioning it or being exposed to things like facts and reality.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 05:31 PM
1

And I was pointing out that your own logic was flawed in your arguments against him. So,you know,glass houses and all that.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 11:39 PM
3

A great case was made against Feminist Frequency by YouTube's best personalities. MrRepzion Repzion?One of Youtubes best personalities? Clearly you've been dropped on your head far too many times.Have a seat for a while and collect yourself.Just don't take the helmet off....
/r/MensRights12/09/14 07:36 PM
1

if there is even one feminist who truly believes men and women should be treated equally in society, feminism as a whole is not inherently bigoted. It is inherently bigoted whether they believe in equality or not. Equality means whatever someone wants it to mean because it's all in how you measure things. The Klu Klux Klan believes in equality too.They just use a different measuring stick. But if you ask them they will make the same claim about fighting for equality for all the races.They just b…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 03:43 AM
4

so it's still not fair to label feminists as "bigots." It is if the group is inherently bigoted. All of the underlying and fundamental ideas of feminism are bigoted. Even the name is sexist. Therefore,anyone who supports feminism must either be bigoted,or at least they support a bigoted ideology which is much the same thing. So it is,in fact, perfectly legitimate to say that feminists are bigots. it would be like me saying that republicans are all gun nuts. I'm not American, but as far as I am a…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 02:39 AM
1

"it may not be EVERY SINGLE man, but as of right now in todays society it is the VAST MAJORITY of people I see calling themselves men rape" First a false comparison,since a gender which you have no control over is quite different from a group that you consciously join. It is perfectly justifiable also to point out a genuine trend among a group. Also your comparison is based on a falsehood.The vast majority of men do not rape.In fact a barely noticeable minority of men are rapists. Whereas the va…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 01:21 AM
3

Ars Technica and Wired also came out with similiar articles on the same day all bashing #gamergate and defending Zoe Quinn. Funny coincidence that........... By the way did you know that all three are owned by the same company?Don't know why I mentioned that.Just felt like tossing it out there for some reason. Same company that owns reddit too....
/r/MensRights11/09/14 05:50 AM
5

I know.That's because,as I said,they're the only ones who do them anymore.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 06:51 PM
5

It's not really "winning" per se.More accurately it appears to be winning because they're the only unified front.Atheists aren't any kind of unified group.Feminism managed to forge a few people into a cohesive whole around their ideology for a while,but most left eventually or got chased out. On an individual level the vast majority of atheists are against feminism for the obvious reasons.Or they're indifferent to the SJW crowd.But those aren't the ones who do the conventions anymore. But they h…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 06:20 PM
3

Yes,they came second.Though not by much.Atheists outscored all the other groups combined.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 06:13 PM
6

OP, my journey was similar to yours, but rather than feminists trying to impose their BS on video games, it was their attempt to impose it onto the online atheist community. That's more or less what did it for me too.Except I was never neutral about feminism.I could tell from the age of eight it was bullshit.I had just never realized how pervasive the bullshit was until Atheism+.So then I had to fully go anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 06:11 PM
1

If two guys are crude to each other, it's just guy's being guys. If a guy is crude to a woman...it's an attack. It's misogyny, and the UNFAIR press will present it as such. And that will never ever change if you're going to play this little whiny bitch game with them. They will always whine about misogyny, you're right. Which is why you ignore it and push through. Your position does not change anything,it doesn't even try to change anything. You're just whining to everyone that the field is unev…
/r/MensRights31/08/14 06:17 AM
1

No.We don't have to play on their terms,whatever you actually mean by that since the statement is rather nonsensical in this context. Playing on their terms would entail going along with their male narrative instead of challenging it, which I'm guessing is not what you meant. Regardless you're simply flat out wrong. If you want to extend the game analogy,when the playing field is uneven you very rarely beat the game by going along with it.You win by changing the rules or exploiting them. Or just…
/r/MensRights31/08/14 06:10 AM
1

BUT...when you go after a woman, even if she's 1000% wrong, it will look worse on you. All the more reason to do it. They're going to portray you as being the bad guy, no matter what so let them.Be the bad guy.Say the things that the good guys can't or won't, but that need to be said. It's like in the Dark Knight (just to nerd this conversation up a bit) where you have the distinction the movie draws between Harvey Dent and Batman.You have the squeaky clean knight in shining armour.And the Dark …
/r/MensRights31/08/14 03:17 AM
2

Current hashtags on my Twitter feed. #BoycottcorruptVGmedia, #thefirerises. All dealing with this.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 08:25 PM
3

That's because there's quite a bit of inconsistency and a lot of flaws in her screenshot that make it seem unlikely that it's real.Not to mention the irregularities in the tone.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 11:48 PM
1

The argument against women votes was "Why should a married man get two votes?" There was also concern for the influence of women over their husbands/boyfriends/fiances. A little sex and some cooing and kissing can get a guy to agree to a lot.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:22 AM
1

Better to push the SJW's out of the ones they're in now.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 03:42 PM
3

Basically, think "Hitler Barbie". That should give you a fairly good idea about her and positions.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 03:24 PM
8

He also had a bondage fetish.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 03:48 PM
6

I can never quite tell if Aerik is just amazingly stupid or a troll. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 05:13 PM
3

I would disagree. I would point out that they really represent religion (or at least their religion) at its purest. Their conclusions and actions are entirely rational if you accept their premise that god is real and the bible is true. These are what real Christians should be like if they actually believed their religion was true. It's what they were like for a very large portion of their history. It's only in the modern day when they don't have the power or authority or the domination of the mo…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 06:22 PM
10

So......two people? It was two people out of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands? Two assholes was all it took to make this an attack against all women. Fuck.....
/r/MensRights14/08/14 02:37 AM
2

Where did Dawkins come into the story? Dawkins tweeted this all over when he heard what PZ did. Basically a "WTF PZ?!" The OP seems to have mistaken that for Dawkins having actually wrote this.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 05:20 PM
6

Using terms like "mutilated" to describe a circumcised penis IS offensive, though. So what?Who cares if you're offended? That's not a point or an argument. It's a childish whine. THAT'S the kind of thing one would expect from a feminist. Perhaps that's why you're being ridiculed.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 09:35 PM
1

Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L37Y2Msk13w
/r/MensRights07/08/14 01:37 AM
2

Never underestimate human stupidity.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 01:35 AM
3

It's similar to how having black pride is acceptable but having white pride is not. Actually I would say that it's more that the only groups who use the term "white pride" are actual racist groups.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:50 AM
16

If she wants me to accept this premise she first has to explain to me why I've never met a man who fell into the toilet because the seat wasn't down.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:40 AM
7

No6: "When a woman tells you something is sexist, believe her". Which is, in and of itself, an entirely sexist position. You ever wonder if these people really listen to themselves?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:05 PM
3

How do we define feminism as separate from women's rights? Congratulations. You just figured out how religions and cults manage to stay in business. They do it by constantly blurring the boundaries of their "faith". Because it's much easier to defend your position if it's vague and multi-purpose. If there's no set definition then people can assign to it whatever they personally feel it should be, which makes them personalize the cause more and more. Meaning that soon any questioning of the cause…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 03:09 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 08:03 PM
0

What exactly are you talking about? Did you even actually read what I wrote? Or are you using some new version of english I'm not aware of?
/r/MensRights31/07/14 07:43 PM
4

She's a person who posts stuff publicly online that some people don't like. It's rather inconceivable that she's never received threats. Now has she ever received any serious threats? Rather unlikely. Has she received nearly as may as she claims? Also highly unlikely.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 07:32 PM
2

Secondly, it's revising history in a way that is completely over-exaggerated and vilifying of men. Even around the time that feminism came around, women still had a voice. They still had the ability to express themselves and influence society. It may not have been taken as seriously in some circles but it still would have been expressed and influenced our culture one way or another. John Stuart Mills (one of those awful white men in power) was putting forth the idea of womens suffrage in parliam…
/r/MensRights31/07/14 01:42 AM
1

No. That would be a compositional fallacy. But ONLY if you could not show causation between the idea and the action. If you can show how the idea caused the behaviour there is nothing inherently fallacious. Unless you say that all adherents must necessarily engage in that behaviour. Then it goes back to being a compositional fallacy unless you can justify that.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 08:42 PM
17

I'm guessing he thinks proper paragraphs and structure are tools of the patriarchy.......
/r/MensRights29/07/14 01:11 AM
2

You would have to be more specific of what you are looking for. It's actually several things. It's an ad hominem, a shaming tactic, a thought-terminating cliche, etc.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 10:29 PM
-1

Then absolutely every movement, every religion, every collective group with a common goal is awful. Even MensRights, when taken to an extreme, becomes clear and stark misogyny. There are two flaws to this. 1.Yes, every group or ideology will have extremists. However not all extremists are equally dangerous. It depends on the nature of the group and ideology. There is a world of difference between an extremist Jain and an extremist Christian. Jain extremists are so dedicated to non-violence that …
/r/MensRights26/07/14 07:03 AM
1

You don't understand the phrase "equality for women" is short for "equality for women with men". Which they don't actually do. Which was the thrust of the conversation. I think your comprehension skills do need some work. The word equality by definition means to reach parity with something else, in the case of feminism the need for women to reach parity with the privileged status of men. However since feminists ONLY focus on equalizing women with men. As opposed to also equalizing men with women…
/r/MensRights25/07/14 06:35 PM
1

First actually respond to what I actually said in the thread, as opposed to something you made up. Then talk to me about who has a comprehension problem.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 05:18 PM
0

That does not even bear the slightest resemblance to anything I said. Please learn how to write coherently.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 04:25 PM
-1

.......so then not working on equality at all? You can't say that you're working on equality when you only pay attention to one aspect of reality. Well, you can say it, but you're lying. Unless you're using some bizarre form of english that is vastly different from my Earth english.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 07:37 PM
1

The people at /r/feminism ARE working for equality by focusing on how women are treated by society .......so then not working on equality at all?
/r/MensRights23/07/14 07:17 PM
9

Take your pick. Pretty much anything they claim has no reliable evidence. There's a reason why "Feelz not Realz" is a meme that is often attached to them. You see feminism is an ideology. Ideologies are based on preconceived notions regarding how the world operates and works. Religious people, for instance, preconceive the existence of a god and several other things which will depend on the ideology in question (such as original sin). These are not things that are shown to exist in reality, they…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:49 PM
4

It has almost no evidence. That's really the only argument you need.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:27 PM
13

I went to the trouble of hunting down that study they cite about women leaving because of "hostile macho culture". http://documents.library.nsf.gov/edocs/HD6060-.A84-2008-PDF-Athena-factor-Reversing-the-brain-drain-in-science,-engineering,-and-technology.pdf They essentially break it down into "lab culture", "hardhat culture", and "geek culture". Because, you know, they're all sciencey and legitimate and stuff. This term conjures up the esoteric world of scientists bent on splicing genes in a st…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 10:49 PM
2

Which is why you point it out not to them, but to the ones that they're trying to convince.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:19 AM
10

Answers vary, but they usually center around patriarchy, and how since only women are oppressed, the fight for equality HAS to be a fight for women only, so of course "fem" is in the name. Which does not make the name any less sexist, of course, it's just a reason being given for why the sexism is supposedly all right.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 12:01 AM
2

Someone needs medication. A LOT of medication.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 11:19 PM
3

Because your counter argument amounts to "no, it won't work". No. That wasn't what my argument amounted to. Again, you are flat-out lying. Yep. And we are not going to convince any feminist of that until we have deconstructed patriarchy for them and made them realise that many parts of it don't make sense. That's not deconstructing. Only then can they look at the parts they still have left and realise there is nothing in there that merits the word "patriarchy". There was nothing that merited the…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 10:56 PM
4

I would say the same for you. I can only play the cards I'm given. You made the initial argument, which I counter-argued, but you just repeat the initial argument in response. No, that's not a "glaring problem". That is called progress doesn't happen all at once. No, it's a glaring problem with the overall reasoning.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 10:26 PM
3

And my point is that it will no longer be a concept that means different things to different people. It will be different concepts that mean the same thing to everyone. The thing isn't to chose what patriarchy means to you. The thing is to chose what parts of patriarchy you believe correspond to reality. So if you say I believe in Patriarchy C and D then you're not saying that to you, this is what patriarchy means, you're saying that to you, these are the parts of "patriarchy theory" you believe…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 10:07 PM
0

You seem to be arguing that when we define patriarchy as several different things we can no longer attack patriarchy. No. I'm pointing out that it is pointless to even discuss patriarchy for that reason. What you're missing is that we're not supposed to attack patriarchy (and never could, because patriarchy as a coherent concept doesn't exist) we're supposed to attack the individual variations of patriarchy that we may disagree with. See here's where your reasoning is failing. There is nothing t…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 08:37 PM
1

The thing most people forget is that while no one likes having their ideas attacked, it's important that they always be attacked because that's how we separate the good ones from the bad ones. The good ideas, the true ones, will always be able to stand up to the attacks. It's only the false ideas that need to hide from criticism and insult. To quote Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing mo…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:52 PM
0

I did you're just ignoring it. I don't think I'm the one ignoring anything. Case in point: I don't know how you can fail to see that if someone has to define their patriarchy we can finally attack it. I didn't. In fact I've openly acknowledged that twice now. You can be against the ones you want and for the ones you want. Which does not matter because they are all meaningless. Which is the point. One which I've made twice now as well. Just like the existence of the problem of racism doesn't some…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:38 PM
5

He means that even though feminism can very obviously be shown to be a hate group, you can't call it a hate group. That's why you don't moderate speech in a real debate. Because the truth is often hurtful and unpleasant and many people don't like hearing it. If you concern yourself with offending people then you are self-censoring and, more importantly, the weakest-minded and most easily offended become the ones who dominate the conversation. Offense becomes a weapon that can be used to quash an…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:09 PM
0

When people define their version of patriarchy you can hold them to that. I seem to recall saying that. You're not criticizing patriarchy theory, just patriarchy theory as defined and used by an individual person. Which is what you were doing before. Yes, I did say that, it seems. The part that you missed is that it doesn't matter how an individual defines it. If everyone can have a different definition of it then the term is useless and invalidated right from the start. There's nothing to argue…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 06:55 PM
-2

That's great as it allows us to critizise patriarchy theory without it devolving to sword fighting a fart and moving the goalposts. No it doesn't. The term is still meaningless and variable. Hence why you said "my version of what patriarchy is". Another person will have an entirely different version of what it is. Another might not agree with any of your 4 types. Are you going to say that they're suddenly wrong about what patriarchy is? And on what basis do you say that? You're not criticizing p…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 05:34 PM
2

In fact I don't see a lot of controversy at all in the sub. Not very surprising given the subreddits rules. The controversial ones were likely banned or went somewhere more conducive to having a meaningful discussion. /r/femradebates really has very little to do with debate. It's more like a friendly sit down over a cup of tea. Ultimately it's entirely vaccuous, but it gives a thin veneer of disputation so that people who really don't want their position questioned can pretend that they're being…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:13 PM
1

teach women not to rape Now a hashtag on Twitter. Feel free to add in your own stories, people.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 11:27 PM
1

Well Hyde does have a psychology PhD. Yes it's a soft science, but it does attempt to test ideas empirically. But nearly all of her work is in gender studies. She heads the department at the University of Wisconsin. I don't know if she actually identifies as a feminist but she does believe in a lot of the rhetoric. As for attempting to test ideas empirically....not really. Sometimes yes, but a lot of the times they don't. Especially in the last decade or so it's really started to go down. Honest…
/r/MensRights11/07/14 03:51 AM
1

I didn't read the last one but I did read the first one (due to time constraints). Personally, I'd take anything a Gender Studies professor says with a grain of salt. Janet Shibley Hyde has contradicted her own conclusions that she states in that study in other areas before. As to the study itself, it's rather vague in a lot of areas in terms of exactly what she did. However even if you take it at it's word about 22% of the factors she looked at showed moderate to large differences and 48% showe…
/r/MensRights11/07/14 02:01 AM
0

Men and women are more alike than different. What measurement are you using for that claim? His claim is that men and women are different which is what makes our relationships interesting and is why we need one another. We compliment one another. Since he never said how different we are, your claim does not contradict his. He merely said that we are different in certain important areas. If you think this is unfounded then I have to question your ability to perceive reality. The more likely concl…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 09:56 PM
3

So why are the penalties so much worse for bank robbers? The potential penalties are the same, however convenience store robbers do tend to get lighter sentences in the end. Your reasoning is false though. The reason bank robbers get harsher punishments is because robbing a bank or loan office is a federal crime. This is because banks and loan offices and the like are part of the Federal Reserve System. Also the fact that bank robbers take a lot more money and risk a lot more lives and damage th…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 04:44 AM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 12:11 AM
2

You forgot one possibility. That they've never met or noticed the "bad ones" because it's them.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 12:05 AM
6

But you know what I’ve noticed? Far more men are this way than women. Anecdotal, so pretty much this will be nothing but a baseless opinion. Thus, when we’re part of a conversation, whether it’s on the latest Spiderman movie or on the best way to dismantle the patriarchy, we need to be aware of how much we’re talking. This presumes that the initial premise is true. Regardless no reason is given for why we need to be aware of anything. Essentially his reason is "feminist say so". You see, it’s no…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 10:38 PM
2

By feminist standards, that is a moderate.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 03:21 PM
4

When they decided to do a new reboot of the Marvel universe called the "Ultimate" universe they did a complete reimagining of all of the characters and happenings in the marvel universe. When they reimagined Nick Fury they decided to base the new Nick Fury off of Samuel L. Jackson because he's Samuel L. Jackson, and therefore awesome. Samuel allowed them to use his likeness for the character on the condition that if they ever did a movie he would be the one to play the part. There's actually qui…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 12:45 AM
1

Yeah, the only excerpt on feminism from the textbook. Written by normal people who spent their lives studyig sociology and social mechanisms. Which holds no relevance to the topic as the topic is in regards to what feminists call themselves and say about themselves and the logical implications of those positions. So your pointing at two non-feminists and claiming that they don't say anything about killing men has no relevance because the discussion is about what feminists say about their beliefs…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 08:39 PM
2

Could be because you cherry-picked one exerpt from one first-year text book, which is about general sociology and not feminism, written by non-feminist authors. Just saying.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 08:26 PM
2

My main contention, then, is that there are those that identify with feminism that are very much willing, or even looking for, something that addresses both issues without being an ideology. Those exist. There are plenty of human rights groups. You can find any number of groups that are not gendered if you want to. The only reason to be a feminist is that you want the ideology and the association. People need to fit into a box, and if we have a box label, for example, Egalitarian, then they have…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:51 AM
2

Of course it doesn't. Feminism is irrational, it's an ideology. As I said, they are all irrational and based on supposition. There can't be a means of agreement because there's no consistent agreement on how the world works on their end. That's why you need to get rid of it. This is what I was trying to point out. I really don't think you have any clear idea of what you are trying to talk about (not an insult). You are mixing up terms and ideas that don't work together and conflating and misusin…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:09 AM
3

Why do sociologists use it in their studies? Because most sociologists are scientific hacks. Is a theory. No, it isn't. The aforementioned sociologists call it a theory, but it isn't. At least not in the scientific sense. We're all allowed to have opinions. Bullshit. We're all allowed to have the opinions we can support. I'd love it if you went to school, came up with a theory that describes why things have happened historically, wrote a book and came out with it showcasing your gorgeous brillia…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:46 AM
2

The answer is the same as before. We have better methods, we analyze the facts, look at them objectively and come to logical conclusions. It's what we do, it's simply that the ideologues continually get in the way and keep trying to insert their crazy into it. That's why there's the big push to remove things like religion. So that we can actually deal with these issues (like abortion) without these people trying to get their insanity/superstitions/ideologies mixed up in our facts and reason. Tha…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:26 AM
3

It's pretty much the best possible ideology that doesn't work on only one mode of oppression. It isn't an ideology. It's a hypothesis generated by an ideology as part of it's framework. If you think it's an ideology you have no idea of what one or both of those terms means. Intersectionality is what Feminism is based on today. Except when it isn't. Because feminism is an ideology and means anything someone wants it to mean. Unless there is some objective big guide book that all feminists must fo…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:20 AM
2

Could we not, instead, have an ideology who's objective is to address both sides equally? No, as I said, ideologies are inherently biased towards one thing or another. That is because an ideology is not an accurate model of objective reality. It's a preconceived model of reality based on ones own ideas. That's why we had to come up with things like logic and the scientific method. They exist to help us sift out all of the bias and bullshit that ideologies are based on. MRA actively does not real…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 12:09 AM
2

You'll see whatever you want to see, hear whatever you want to hear, believe whatever you want to believe. Ah, a personal attack as a response to a reasoned argument. There's a bold-defiance of established trends. I'm guessing you typed that while looking into a mirror. Because we've long-since established that this really only applies to you. Pretty much all I've done is point out the flaws in your reasoning and criticize them. You are the one who keeps saying that she wants an open discussion.…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 08:14 PM
2

Please, please, PLEASE show me one legitimate feminist What's a "legitimate" feminist? Since the term feminist is vague, ambiguous, and essentially means anything anyone wants it to mean, by saying "legitimate" feminist you've given yourself a cowardly way out. You can simply say that whoever is presented to you is not "legitimate" because they don't fit whatever your made-up criteria is. And then let's go look at /r/beatingwomen and discuss how because those men clearly support beating women, a…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:06 PM
2

I would just like to find an ideology that acknowledges both sides, lays out the information, and does so in a meaningful way so that we can discuss issues. You won't find that. That's why ideologies are rarely a good thing. By their very nature they contain biases and presuppositions. Rather than having an ideology you should simply look at issues and evidence reasonably and logically and come to rational conclucions based on the data available.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 06:07 PM
6

While this may be true in a literal sense - a woman can physically walk over to the police station and report her abuser - it shows a complete lack of empathy on your part of the psychology of abuse. No it doesn't. It shows no particular degree of empathy either way. You're claiming it does without providing any subsequent justification for that claim. It's simply a statement of fact (because we are talking about facts and law), as you just admitted she does have other options. The psychology of…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 06:00 AM
7

Lol your entire 5-paragraph long post was trying to prove that I didn't have a good reason to be sarcastic in one post. Huge waste of both of our time. Funny how so many of your conversations come down to you giving a response just like this one (in fact this is the third time with just myself that you've ended on nothing more than an ad hominem). Especially considering how often you talk about open-mindedness and open-discussion. Maybe that's the reason you end up coming to conclusions like thi…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 05:09 AM
8

Pretty sure you have to be alive to be abused. No. You have to be alive to be abused more than once. But that once is a doozy.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 04:48 AM
7

Because the law was actually introduced as way to lessen the sentences of women in long-term abusive relationships who saw no other option than murder. Which is meaninglessly subjective. There's no possible way to know what she saw or did not see as an alternative, but it's almost certain that she actually did have alternatives unless she was tied up or otherwise incapacitated. So all the law really serves to do is give a lesser sentence to a murderer. Anyway, to me, making fun of a sensitive is…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 04:43 AM
8

Mocking abused women is very mature and intelligent It certainly can be, depending on how its done. What exactly is so immature and unintelligent about it? Is mockery immature and unintelligent by itself, or is it just in regards to this one subject? Why? As near as I can tell, what you actually mean by this is "I don't like it, so I'm going to try to shame you into being silent". Do you consider that to be "mature" or "inteliigent"?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 12:45 AM
1

That our society evolved as and into an evermore patriarchal is an abstract theory fully supported by concrete evidence. From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: patriarchy, hypothetical social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole. Building on the theories of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin, many 19th-century scholars sought to form …
/r/MensRights19/06/14 10:57 PM
1

I really can't take anybody who subscribes to /r/bimbofetish very seriously when discussing feminism. Sorry. And I think this response more or less proves my point.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:56 PM
1

Right, cause I have the ability to go out this very minute and change the whole world. Which is actually a strawman of what I asked of you. Education. Research. Empathy. Dialogue. Sorry I can't accomplish that in the span of a day. So you have no actual plan. At least not one that would actually accomplish anything. Just because I'm not responding nicely to the sarcasm, challenges, and contempt you and the other two posters I never specified them, I spoke in the general. So, another strawman. do…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:31 PM
0

Lazy dismissal. That was not a lazy dismissal. As if I should go outside and yell at all the bad feminists who did bad man-hating things You should. You're the one saying that you want to "redeem" feminism and "reclaim" if from the others. If you don't actually go out and deal with those others then how do you plan to accomplish this? It would seem to me that he was giving you good advice for reaching your goal. and only then shall I be allowed to come into your sacred subreddit to discuss thing…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 03:58 PM
-1

I'm guessing this is more "open discussion"? You seem to have a different definition of this term than the one I am used to. You see, to reiterate my point, it's very hard to convince others that you're different than all of those other feminists when you demonstrate the same pattern of behaviour. What do you do when you're called to task on the things that you say? No, what he meant was to be a sarcastic asshole. Oh.. kind of like you. Or: You didn't even have a point to begin with. You were ju…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 03:37 PM
3

I entirely had a point. That point being that you claim that you are "doing something" by sitting around telling the MRA's and anti-feminists how you're so different from all of those others (which, coincidentally, is the same behaviour that all of the others engage in as well). Yet it would be far better to actually tell the other feminists how badly they are ruining feminism and stop them. If you want to "redeem" and "reclaim" feminism as you say. They are the ones you need to deal with. So wh…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 06:36 AM
3

Oh.. kind of like you. Partially true. However that didn't make my point any less valid.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 06:12 AM
3

I think by "doing something", he meant "do something that is actually useful to stop the people that you claim are bad feminists". For instance, instead of talking to the MRA's and the anti-feminists about how all of those bad feminists are ruining feminsim and how right your version of feminism is, talk to the ones you actually think are misusing feminism and try to corral them. Tell them how right and proper your version of feminism is. I'm certain that will work out for you.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 05:58 AM
2

Or because you think that one person can't make up for many who might've done wrong before them? That's not what it is though. You're not some lone hero standing up for what's right against all the "bad feminists". It isn't that there are "good" or "bad" feminists. It's that feminism is, itself, bad. The feminism that I know and wholeheartedly believe in benefits both men and women. And this is why. The feminism that you know is different from the feminism that they know, because the term "femin…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 01:56 AM
2

If you actually think that I think that, then you SERIOUSLY overestimate your reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:39 PM
3

That's probably a sign of some oncoming delirium. Take a nap and place a cool cloth over your head and it should pass.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:38 PM
4

"Veering" nothing. He's driving straight down that road singing a jaunty tune.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:57 PM
3

According to the author it's part of a larger, ongoing plan that you've all been cooking up for a long time. #Endfathersday was just stage six of the plan, or stage seven, or however many stages of implementation you guys have.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:04 PM
0

More or less. There's really no appreciable difference. All ideologies are pretty much identical in how they operate. It's only the dogma that changes.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 02:03 PM
5

The big difference is that white supremacists are very clear about their opinions- whereas feminism is more ambiguous The same is true of white supremacists. White supremacists use the same kind of rhetoric feminists do. Which is why there are always comparisons drawn between feminism and nazis or other supremacist groups. Because their rhetoric is largely identical. The difference is that feminism has enough "moderates" to shield the crazies. That's why the moderates in any group are usually th…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:36 AM
5

Speaking as a not MRA, it is their own duty to use a different term. If they are really "moderate" (whatever you think that actually entails) then they should not be part of such a group. Their response should be to look at the feminists like the one in the OP and say "Knock that shit off, or I'm out of here" and then they should subsequently leave. Otherwise, as long as they remain part of the group all they do is help the other ones by giving their support to the collective. The same support t…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:05 AM
0

So verbal abuse is irrelevant as well? Yes, it is. That's why we say "sticks and stones, etc." Pretty much everyone who is a public person on the internet and who did something even mildly controversial (regardless of gender etc) will tell you that that stuff does have an effect and will wear on you over time. Then they're weak and have no business doing it in the first place. Part of voicing your opinions in the public sphere means that you will be criticized, you will be laughed at, possibly e…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:35 PM
1

As I said, you demonstrate characteristics of being an extreme narcissist. For one thing people don't like that, so they treat you accordingly. Secondly, because you automatically latch onto anything that you can use to confirm your own beliefs in your need for self-validation.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:34 PM
1

Has no regard to anything you quoted.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:32 PM
1

There's no such thing as "made up" Feminism. Actually yes there is. Which is all of it. It is an ideology, it is an "ism", it is indeed "made up". You don't want us to say "Not all Feminists are like that" so don't dismiss other ideas in Feminism that you're not familiar with. You have no idea which ideas in feminism I am or am not familiar. You're simply using a narcissistic presupposition on your part that because I disagree with you, it means I don't understand you. Also, I don't really care …
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:47 PM
1

Not my Feminism. No one asked about your particular species of made-up feminism though. It was a question directed at the general feminist fantasy.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 06:58 PM
1

It's because feminism is an ideology, and in order for an ideology to exist it must have some kind of noble goal or focus in order to get people on board. Ideologies are not based off of logic or reason so they have to exist by manipulating the emotions of people into thinking they're necessary. To that end you always need an "enemy" of some kind to "fight". However since that enemy usually only exists in your head, it becomes a problem with people becoming increasingly more educated and the muc…
/r/MensRights15/06/14 01:46 AM
2

Not just one or two of them. Far more than one or two of them. I've done research and work on things like cults, mental manipulation, conditioning, etc. and this flat out is brainwashing in the case of a lot of those. ESPECIALLY if you're doing this to a young child. Some of them are abusive. Though, in fairness, there are also one or two that actually are good ideas.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 09:30 PM
2

I rest my case.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 03:02 AM
2

I've wasted our time thus far & I am not willing to waste anymore. You wasted a lot of time and effort writing that just to tell him you were going to take the cowards way out. Have a great evening! Does anyone else notice that when people like him/her end their "I'm leaving" post with this, what they're really saying is "Fuck you". Talk about passive-aggressive.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 02:56 AM
2

That's what I'm asking them not to do, though. Which is not how it works. Your request is ridiculous and irrational. Here's your problem, you want to have the label, however you don't want any of the consequences involved in having that label. It doesn't work that way. If you support a group, or an ideology you are at least partially accountable for what that group or ideology do with the support you are giving them. If the "radical" voices were just by themselves then they would be largely harm…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:50 AM
2

Which, as I said, speaks some very unflattering things about you. If you'll reject an argument simply because of how it's presented then, ironically, that would mean that you're not someone that's worth engaging. Simply for the fact that you're clearly not interested in any honest exchange of ideas. Just the ones that are presented in the way that you want them to be presented. Which also speaks to the possible shallowness of your own opinions as well. Not to mention that it's rather infantile.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 01:33 PM
3

By using the insult you invalidate whatever you just typed. Completely untrue. Whether you like the fact that you were insulted or not (which I'm neither condemning nor defending) has absolutely zero bearing on the veracity of whatever he said. In fact the insult compelled me not read anything you wrote beyond that line. Actually, to be honest, the fact that you would invalidate an argument simply because someone was uncivil is something that I find says worse things about you than his incivilit…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 07:22 AM
4

Wow, I just found your comment because someone linked it through /r/MensRights. You're 100% right. They are literally having a "sideways debate." And whenever someone tells them their straw manning and broad generalizations destroys any chance at a productive conversation, they call it nitpicking or concern-trolling. It's pretty sick and toxic. As a masculist, I'd strongly suggest not following me back there. I just happened to notice this comment that you just made over there in regards to this…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 02:48 AM
2

I also must note that yes men who do not work against it are complicit in the support of the patriarchy In other words, they're either with us or against us. It might help if you could properly define your terms and show that they even exist. Until then you can't make this claim. Well you can, but not honestly. but they do inhibit the progress of people who are trying to solve these problems. Except feminists aren't trying to solve these problems. You say that you are but that's just rhetoric, i…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:12 PM
2

The agents of the patriarchy are oppressive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all men are oppressive. There can be no "agents of the patriarchy". It's a social construct. It might help your case if you didn't insist on anthropomorphizing it. And yes, by your words it does mean that all men are oppressive. Since you claim that "men" hold the power. You can't have it both ways. Both men and women can be agents of the patriarchy, the media can be an agent of the patriarchy, advertising etc. No the…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:07 PM
1

However, it is in no way an active oppression of women by men. Then it isn't oppression. Oppression is a matter of action and intent. A social construct cannot be oppressive, nor can it enforce anything on it's own. Only the manner in which it is enforced by those in power can be oppressive. If women are oppressed then someone must be actively oppressing them. Since you claim that men have the greater authority, the oppression must be coming from them, or they must at least be complicit in it. T…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:19 PM
1

I would say that feminism has never been about equality. Largely because it's ideological structure has always presupposed that women are in an inferior position. This means that every inequality is automatically viewed as something that is being done to women, rather than a natural extension of the world, and that they are also seen as being inherently harmful. The big problem with the idea of "equality" is that it is more a theoretical concept than a real one. Equality does not exist in realit…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 06:17 PM
2

I would think that would depend on whether or not your goal as an MRA is equality, or helping mens issues. If your only goal is equality, then yes. If your goal is to deal with mens issues it won't really help the men being thrown under the bus if you throw a few women under after them.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 06:20 PM
2

More than some. It was almost frightening what an accurate reflection it was.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 10:12 PM
1

People have been pointing this out for the better part of two decades.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:15 PM
8

I don't like feminists but I am getting pretty sick of men who ignore the fact of how many women he wanted to kill. About the same amount of men that he wanted to kill. He also wanted to kill a bunch of jocks, men who owned certain cars, etc.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 04:19 AM
1

Usually I hear them reason that the images, or the characters (in say a comic book) have no choice in how they are portrayed or used. Thus this portrays woman as being objects. Yes, I know that makes no sense. I still try to understand it myself.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:59 PM
2

To my knowledge though, they weren't "won over" so much as "chased out". They voiced unpopular opinions amongst the group and then realized how toxic it really is. So this is more of an argument against your position and for the other side. The realization of how toxic and hateful feminists are, by and large, got you guys some of your strongest supporters.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 12:42 PM
3

You're going to win the "debate" by winning over those sitting on the fence. That's not going to happen as long as the moderates go unopposed. They're the public face of the ideology, the PR people. They're the ones who cover over the hate with a layer of acceptability. The point that I was trying to get through is that because there are no set definitions or ways to be a feminist both the moderates and extremists will always be a package deal. Because the feminist ideology supports them all equ…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 12:34 PM
8

I don't have any idea why you're so eager to call a bunch of innocent bystanders Because they're the power base. Those innocent bystanders are the ones who give the others credibility. Otherwise the radicals would just be harmless crazies. They have the influence they have because of all the people they have behind them. The Catholic Church, for example, doesn't get away with protecting pedophile priests because there are a billion pedophile catholic laypeople. The Church gets away with it becau…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 01:26 AM
5

If that's what you believe, that the actions of the ignorant and dishonest can dirty a word that is supposed to mean The distinction you seem to be missing is that the reason they are held equally accountable is because the "moderates" are the power base which supports the "radicals". Yet they do nothing to stop the ones who are using their support for bad purposes. It is only when they are being taken to task that they claim to not all be like that. When they are praising feminism they are all …
/r/MensRights31/05/14 01:17 AM
3

Source?
/r/MensRights30/05/14 07:34 PM
1

That is not how feminism works. Actually that's exactly how it works. Read feminist theory. What many call feminism, and if I use my context clues correctly you are implying, you call feminism is a far shot from what feminism is meant to be. So then you know what the One True Feminism is? You would be the first. Feminism is defined by Miriam-Webster as ( 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes). The Klu Klux Klan says they stand for equality too. What they cal…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:27 PM
10

Short answer: Because feminism defines itself as fighting for womens rights and empowerment. So if women ever weren't victims, they would have to stop. Edit:Good on you for teaching your daughter better however.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 08:54 PM
0

No. I know what I meant.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:52 PM
0

I'll allow a moment for the irony of that statement to sink in.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:39 PM
1

I'm not the one with the problem Yes, you are. Just quoting a dictionary doesn't make your case. Your claim was that judging someone on impossible gender standards was sexist. So how does that meet the definition of "prejudice or discrimination based on ones gender"? It clearly shows some serious catch-22's. I never said it didn't , that was not the claim. Your claim was that it presented "impossible gender standards". Showing, for instance, an image of one woman who is very obese and one woman …
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:34 PM
1

I disagree. When you judge someone on impossible gender standards, that's sexism. Then you have clear problems with the english language. But such matters aside, that didn't happen in the illustration. It was a series of disconnected pictures showing various situations devoid of any real context and making wide assumptions. There were no "impossible gender standards" on display. You're simply making up things in order to feel bad about them.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:21 PM
0

Yeah, and that's probably got a bit of truth to it, to be honest No there isn't. There really isn't. Most of those weren't even examples of sexism in the first place. Well they were examples of what feminists mean when they say sexism, but not what normal english speakers mean when they say it. It's just petulant whining.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:10 PM
3

So.....basically women are victims and face sexism no matter the situation.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 04:20 PM
4

As with any social movement, the extremists are likely to be the most vocal and receive the most attention. Which makes the non-extremists rather irrelevant, doesn't it? You just admitted the non-extremists have no power or influence and no control over what the movement does. So all you're actually doing is empowering them. The reason I currently feel most strongly about women's issues is because women still hold far less than half of the decision making power in America. Women are over half of…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:12 PM
1

but there are feminists who do want equality. Perhaps, but then they should not call themselves feminists. You sort of miss the point. If there are feminists who believe in equality (whatever you choose to make that mean as the term is functionally useless) it is entirely meaningless. The "feminazis" are the ones who control feminism. They control the rhetoric, the law advocacy, they write the texts and teach the classes, they carry out the public dialogue, etc. Those "equality" feminists are so…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 11:33 PM
2

That's what feminism should mean. Then it shouldn't be named after only one group. Correct? So perhaps you mean something else.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 08:05 PM
1

So yes it is a small group of power oppressing the masses, but historically these groups have consisted primarily of men. Which is irrelevant. Men having the power is not the same as men being the ones in power. You're resorting to what is referred to as an apex fallacy. While one can say that the ones in power were men, one cannot say that men as a group had any more power than women as a group. As I said, it's not a matter of gender but of class. The ones in power were men, but the ones at the…
/r/MensRights16/05/14 01:23 AM
2

Its foolish to claim anything along these gender lines Of course it's stupid to claim that. Which doesn't stop the fact that they claim it. Women are more easily oppressed due to their lack of physical strength Physical strength has nothing to do with it. No one ever beat women into submission with whips or chains, unless they were also beating the men. Generally we're evolved to go out or our way to protect women much more than men. Oppression of women is generally more socially oriented (restr…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 04:40 PM
0

I'm not sure when we decided to make personal attacks at my intelligence, but fine, I'll bite. So....saying you're wrong equals a personal attack? Sure, whatever. Women weren't allowed to own property in China until the Republican Civil Code was passed in 1930. Prior to that, it was passed down exclusively to sons, brothers or nephews. Women were not allowed to own property Yes, they were. The second draft of the civil code that you're talking about dealt strictly with the lines of inheritance. …
/r/MensRights15/05/14 04:27 PM
0

So questioning the obvious gaps in your knowledge and your incoherent presentation of your ideas is "personally attacking you"? Life must be very hard for you then if that's all it takes. I am sure you understand why I question your knowledge and biases when I am trying to project a neutral stance of "who has it harder is up for interpretation" while you are not allowing any opinion besides your own, regardless of facts. It's an internet forum. How am I not allowing any other opinion? By pointin…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 04:07 PM
3

The question was have women been oppressed? Of course they have. No. That's what the OP wrote, but not what he actually meant. There has always been oppression in human societies but it seems this oppression tends to fall across group divisions such class and/or race. Groups can remain cohesive and persevere despite these external threats. I don't believe the same can be said if a society has conflict between its most fundamental units - males and females. He is asking speaking specifically abou…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 04:03 PM
4

Dude, by this logic, men having to die in wars throughout history is rare and almost entirely voluntary. Except in the past it usually wasn't that voluntary. Usually it was conscription. Deciding to partake in the first stage of soldiery gives men the status of hero, and also a good paycheck, great benefits, and preferential employment status for life even after leaving the military. Again, not usually. In modern days we think of soldiers as heroes and pay them and give them benefits. Historical…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 03:55 PM
1

They could rise in ranks and become advisors and wield considerable powers. So did more than a few concubines in ancient china. Cixi became the de facto ruler of all of China because of her influence. Oh and since you're talking about China, the chinese Emperors had thousands of concubines. I doubt most of them really had that much sex. Most of their life was just laying around the palace reading poetry. On a whole, I personally feel that concubines lived a sadder more pathetic Existence than so…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 07:05 AM
1

There are many dynasties were concubines were not given a choice and are shamed. Not really. I think you're confusing being a concubine with being a sex slave. The two are very different. One was not necessarily the other. As I said, mostly concubines were voluntary in most cultures that had them. The others had both voluntary and forced/slave. You seem to be speaking specifically of sex slaves. When I consider which is worse I honestly just imagine picking between being a soldier at a random pe…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 06:58 AM
3

Perhaps not honour, but concubines were generally very well cared for and protected. That's why concubines were generally voluntary (as opposed to those women who were actual sex-slaves). In most cultures a concubine would be what we nowadays would call a "mistress". Also the negative implications of the word are rather new as well. In Rome there was no stigma to being a concubine, there were also male equivlents (though male concubines usually were slaves). Generally a concubine ended up being …
/r/MensRights15/05/14 06:27 AM
4

It doesn't matter that men were also oppressed Yes it does, because that was the topic of conversation. Whether women were uniquely oppressed in society throughout history as feminists claim. Hence why I said this: It's people being oppressed. Some of whom happen to be women. Because if it is people being oppressed, not just women, then the entire basis of feminist theory is falsified. Hence why the question was asked. So the answer is yes, for thousands of years women have been oppressed. Nobod…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:32 AM
6

Widows in India were forced to throw themselves onto their husbands funeral pyres to follow them into death. Sati was a rather rare practice and was also almost entirely voluntary. It was a path that women took consisting of three stages, of which the death on the pyre was the second. Deciding to partake in the first stage of the Sati was supposed to give the woman supernatural powers of prophecy and the ability to bestow blessings. Also to bestow curses. After her death the woman became the sat…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 01:20 AM
4

The HDI, or the World Happiness Report, or the PQLI, or the Social Progress Index, etc.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 12:00 AM
7

Which is the same for men. So it's not women being oppressed. It's people being oppressed. Some of whom happen to be women. Again, zero bearing on the discussion. Here, a good lecture on human trafficking. Listen to it first and maybe it will stop you from making these embarrassing mistakes. In fact I recommend that anyone interested in the trafficking of girls and boys watch it all.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 11:43 PM
6

You're saying there hasn't been oppression until feminists 'discovered' it? Sure, I'm saying that. If you completely ignore the topic, the focus of my response, and the actual words that I used. In such a case, yes, I am indeed saying that. You realize human trafficking has been around for thousands of years and still exists today... right? You realize that has zero bearing on the discussion....right?
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:51 PM
4

I'm not required to. The positive claim is yours. It's your position to prove that it is. Which is why you were asked how the term was sexist. You gave the definition but failed to give any indication how the term fits in the definition that you used. Probably because you couldn't. It is not sexist, because nothing about it meets the definition. Unless you have an argument that proves otherwise.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 07:43 PM
4

Is "uppity broads" not, therefore, sexism? Not if you know what words like "prejudice" or "discrimination" mean. Please explain your point further, as I don't believe I understand. The point is that nothing about the term "uppity broads" is prejudicial, discriminatory, or sexist. Not even close actually. It's simply a matter of words have meanings and nothing about that term fits those meanings. At worst, it's a kind of dickish thing to say.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 07:35 PM
5

No. The only reason it's thought that there ever was is because feminists have a very narrow lens that they look through. Since feminism assumes oppression by default when they go looking for evidence to support their theories they stop when they find anything that fits. Not taking into account that observation is not the same as evidence. For instance, the fact that there are more men in positions of political power than women is an observation consistent with the idea that men oppress women. I…
/r/MensRights14/05/14 06:02 PM
2

If they were killing girls as well, then it would be a big deal. They are killing girls as well. They're killing everybody in their way, or who they think might be in their way. Their estimated death toll is at 10,000 since they started arming themselves in 2009, it's just that the west hasn't paid much attention to them. The difference this time is that the Nigerian government didn't do anything when the girls were killed, and the media didn't take much notice either, so the civilian population…
/r/MensRights14/05/14 03:58 AM
1

Hehe. her ignorance is showing. It's an old habit derived from first person shooters and the physics engines of most games. Jumping around lets you move faster in most games and clear boundaries, such as other avatars in your way. It also helps you stay sharp when bored, and observe your environment from different perspectives. Yeah, pretty much that. Something which any gamer could have told her if she had only bothered to ask.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 05:07 PM
7

I believe it's because there's not enough communication between both groups, and I believe the only way to facilitate this communication is to identify as a member of both groups. Really? Because most people would reason that it's better to not belong to either side. Thus allowing oneself to serve as a neutral party who is not beholden to nor invested in either movement or way of thinking and avoiding a conflict of interest since both groups clearly have different ideas and goals. But you know, …
/r/MensRights12/05/14 03:09 AM
1

I'm guessing for the same reason that all of the atheist professor/creationist student stories sound alike.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 07:13 PM
1

So fight alleged sexism with a policy that is inherently sexist. With crackerjack thinking like that I can't imagine why they don't have that whole "rape culture" thing solved yet.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 04:01 PM
5

For me it's more contempt than resentment.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 02:33 PM
2

First, the citation. That's not a citation. It's just an article saying that someone did a study. It links to no paper that lists the actual research. Produce the actual study. With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the issue, which seems to be that you cannot accept that the concept of privilege is that every individual of a group has significant potential for inherent advantages over individuals who do not fit that group. Perhaps it would help if you could portray your idea consist…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 02:32 PM
1

This isn't about whether people can endure insults, it's about whether they are useful or harmful to the discussion. Which you've made no case for. All you said was that you didn't like my attitude. I then went onto explain why I said what I did, and why I thought you were wrong. So perhaps you shouldn't be the one lecturing about a useful or honest discussion? Again, you wouldn't insult people in real life, Actually I would, if the situation warranted it. You presume a lot. so there's no reason…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 05:54 AM
1

Except that what was said was stupid, and the actions were cowardly. As I asked the other one, why should one pretend otherwise? Presumably the other person is a grown-up human being and capable of hearing words that they don't like. If not, that isn't my problem. I am not obligated to point out the stupid thing someone said is not actually stupid just because they might not like hearing it. You see, that is an honest discussion. One where people actually say the truth and voice what they really…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 05:17 AM
-2

If you think that as a male, you don't generally experience some sort of advantage in society simply for being male, you're ignoring a lot of examples. As I mentioned to the other, an advantage is not the same thing as a privilege. Simply having a male name makes you more likely to get hired in STEM and business fields versus if you had a neutral or female name. Citation? Privilege isn't something you do or have, it's what people and society in general bestow upon you for how you are perceived. …
/r/MensRights02/05/14 05:08 AM
2

It's not semantics. It's the actual definitions of the words that you're using. If you mean something else, say something else. As for considering the idea behind it, so far you've failed to put forth the idea behind it. So there's not much to consider.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 04:52 AM
1

When he is completing his degree in CS or SE, its unlikely that people will say things like "You just got an A because you're a girl" or "You must have slept with a professor". No, but they might say that he sucked up to the boss or to the teacher. Or that he cheated, was dating the boss/teachers daughter. If it's a female teacher/boss that he hit on her to get where he is, or is sleeping with her. Or any number of similiar things done for the exact same reasons as the ones you just listed under…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 04:48 AM
0

Because I find it annoying when people say obviously stupid things, and tedious when they try to cower and hide to avoid taking responsibility for their claims. I have very little patience for people who can't argue or make points honestly. Here's a better question. Why not be so aggressive? Why beat around the bush with people who are going to use it as an opportunity to not give real answers.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 01:51 AM
-5

just trying to have a conversation. Which is why you ignored the subject.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 11:31 PM
-2

I don't know why you're saying "you people". Idealogues, or just generally stupid people. You didn't really comment on it. That's because it wasn't the part I took issue with, or cared about. And since you completely ignored everything I just pointed out about how flawed what you were saying is, maybe you shouldn't be accusing me of not making comments?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:49 PM
0

Totally depends. I don't know you or your situation. Then it's not actually a "male" privilege. It's privilege had by someone who happens to be a male. If it was "male" privilege all you should need to know is his gender. Or at least, that's how I think the word/concept should be used. How you think is should be used. So in other words not how it is. What is it with you people that you can't honestly make a claim? You have to continually lie and misrepresent your positions? Are you really such c…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:35 PM
2

As a sidenote, I would just like to add to this well-put post, that this same point applies to any ideology, not just feminism.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 10:46 PM
1

I rest my case.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:34 AM
1

Judging from your post history, I figured you would inevitably come up with nothing but a useless attack-response in regards to reasoned points.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:09 AM
1

I never said it was impossible. I explained to you why it doesn't generally happen, and why it was foolish to expect it to. Notably however, you still haven't answered my twice-asked question about how you plan to overcome all of the problems involved in having this debate which you say that you want. So far your only response has been to repeatedly say that it should occur. You seem to not only have no idea of how to go about this, you seem to have no knowledge of the relevant pitfalls involved…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:01 AM
1

However, a professional televised debate would not do your cause any harm. Not my cause. I'm not an MRA. And again. How are MRA's supposed to talk to them and address the issues when the other side is irrational and crushes all dissenting opinions? That might make it hard. See the reason that I made fun of your idea is because you're stating the completely stupidly obvious as though no one has ever thought of it. Such as a televised debate. Do you think that's never been done or attempted before…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:28 AM
10

Ooooh good idea. I can't believe that none of the MRA's ever thought of that before. Your ideas are truly groundbreaking. It's astounding that you thought of it because it's never occurred to anyone else. I do have on question though. How are MRA's supposed to talk to them and address the issues when the other side is irrational and crushes all dissenting opinions? That might make it hard. Oh well. Still a brilliant and original idea.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 11:58 PM
6

After twenty minutes of searching I have yet to find a single piece of research to support this. It all traces back to opinion pieces and a "survey" that only has one page to it displaying the results. Nothing about how they got those results or anything else.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 01:54 AM
1

It's the nature of their idea of "equality". Equality is really only practical in terms of math and theoreticals. The real world has too many millions of different forces and variables acting upon events to make any kind of equality really possible. The only way feminists and other SJW's can have the "equality" they want is to control all the variables. Unfortunately, like all ideologues, they're so blinded by their ideology and their feelings of self-righteousness that they're incapable of real…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 03:51 AM
1

Or she should just hire more women herself since she can afford to pay them She probably does. She pays women to be her nanny, and her maid, likely to cook meals as well. It's just not a sign of sexism in our society when she does it.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 03:44 AM
2

In your first point, you're arguing semantics and definitions Which in no way makes what I said about your position wrong. It's just your excuse for why you don't have to deal with the flaws in your position. Why are people locked out? You haven't provided any evidence that anyone is locked out. Just a base assertion based on an observation. An observation is not evidence. The fact that there are fewer women in science is not in anyway evidence that women are being locked out. It is consistent w…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 03:09 AM
2

The fact that you don't think that a meritocracy should represent the demography of the world when human beings all have similar capabilities shows that you don't want to live in a meritocracy. Similiar capabilities do not mean similiar choices. Not to mention even pure random chance renders this ridiculous. A ten-sided die rolled a hundred times is highly unlikely to produce ten instances of each number outside of abstract mathematics. You will get some numbers coming up more often and others n…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 02:59 AM
2

In a fair world, 52% of a planet's people would fill 52% of the slots. Actually no. You're confusing fair with equal. In a "fair" world anyone who wants those slots could have them without discrimination or bias, which is what happens now. However just because everyone has the same opportunity does not mean that everyone will end up equal. There will be outliers, some higher than others or some lower. Some groups will tend towards certain outcomes, such as women tending to be far more prevalent …
/r/MensRights23/04/14 02:54 AM
2

Actually her problem is that she only defines power as belonging to those in charge and nothing else. Just because there aren't a lot of women making the decisions it doesn't mean that decisions aren't being made in favour of them. Women may not run the businesses directly, but they make most of the buying decisions so they have tremendous power already as a market that needs to be catered to. Same as in politics. So if women are disproportionately more powerful than men in one aspect, and you m…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 12:40 AM
0

That leads to the assumption that making the relationship work is the man's responsibility, which in turn means catering to the woman's wants and needs. Hence the old saying "Happy wife, happy life."
/r/MensRights18/04/14 11:41 PM
2

You weren't talking about homicide though. You were talking about violence. Those are different claims. Again, I'm sure it was an honest mistake.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:55 PM
4

It's not a matter of not being honest. Of course it isn't. My claim is that there are in fact feminist group that are egalitarian in nature (or as I would say it 'done right') and that I feel that we need to acknowledge the existence of these groups and work towards working with said groups. Which does nothing to negate anything I said. In fact just the opposite. You are merely proving how meaningless the term feminism is. You are also making an objective/subjective claim again. All of those "ra…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:48 PM
5

This isn't a unified belief system. Then by "feminism done right" you mean "feminism done the way I want it done." You just weren't honest enough to admit it. The thing that annoys me the most about the people like you who try to defend your batshit ideologies is that you can never do it honestly. You can't even stick to objective claims or subjective ones. Go to the feminist subreddits and look at one of the many posts talking about who is or isn't a feminist. You will find about half say "You …
/r/MensRights17/04/14 07:35 PM
2

Mentions only one study, which is unsourced, and then a few bits of anecdotal accounts. Nothing substantive, meaningful, or interesting. Did a bit of quick digging though and I think this is where she's getting her statistics http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/index.shtml Notably all of the women they charted self-reported their harassment and stalking, so it does nothing to tell anyone how many were actually harassed. Also the number of female perpetrators is generally not much lower than…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 05:02 PM
0

And I rest my case. Thank you for making my point.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 04:15 AM
0

You're an asshole You only say this because you can't actually think of a real response. Case in point: Equality is in my definition blindness in a way. That's not a definition of the term. Everyone is a blank slate at birth, born with equal rights, and equal treatment. Again, what are you defining as equal. You're using the word equal as an important part of your definition/description there of. In other words in order to understand your meaning of "equal" one would first have to know what your…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:58 AM
1

A literal 50/50 split is equality. Split how? In what way? As I said define your terms. If you are only defining equality as in a 50/50 split then you're creating inequality in that it no longer matters how good or deserving one is of something, it only matters in terms of the numbers. So if there are fifty people trying out for a job with twenty five men and women on each side, but only thirty positions you want to give positions to fifteen men and fifteen women. But what if only ten of the wom…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:19 AM
3

You think that "equality", is by necessity a good thing? More importantly can you actually define equality in any meaningful way. Provide an objective means to quantify and measure said equality, and a possible way to acheive it. If not, then defining feminism as being "for equality" is pointless because it can be used however one wants it to be used. Which is why those "false feminists" can so easily and unironically claim that they're fighting for equality as well. The reason your premise is s…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 12:27 AM
2

No, you said that I should join there as I would fit right in. I'll chalk that up to your non-English speaking limitations. What you were "saying" was a vacuous and imbecilic thing in response to a comment about something that could actually be a serious problem potentially in the future in regards to rape and how it's treated in society. Instead of responding intelligently, or at least like an adultm you chose to be dismissive instead and make pointless and demonizing comparisons that added not…
/r/MensRights07/04/14 09:22 AM
4

Actually I didn't espouse a single belief. I provided a statement about the effect that something was having upon me due to a specific stimulus (in this case the actions and behaviours of feminists regarding the subject of rape). Though I do understand how words and sentences in this language can sometimes be confusing for some non-native speakers (at least I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a non-English speaker, as opposed to a dishonest person or idiot or possibly …
/r/MensRights07/04/14 09:09 AM
0

You should join /r/theredpill. You'd fit right in. Translation: "I couldn't think of any intelligent, insightful, or relevant response to what you said. However I want to display my self-righteousness for my own internal validation. To this end I will make a meaningless comment in an attempt to villify you in my eyes so that I can proceed with my life without actually giving your words any true consideration. Go me!"
/r/MensRights07/04/14 08:29 AM
2

You also need to ask yourself if they really are that reasonable why do other feminists who you know are not reasonable still consider them feminists. Or ask why they don't actually do something about the crazies.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 07:34 PM
3

This is actually true. After years of dealing with feminists and all of their rape bs it has had a noticeable effect on me where it's made it progressively harder to care about it. Anytime I hear about anyone who is raped my brain immediately discrards it as just more feminist whining. Then my logic centers have to remind the rest of me to look at the facts and circumstances before I judge. It's simply becoming an unconscious reaction, I've noticed. I just cannot care about rape as much as I did…
/r/MensRights05/04/14 06:39 PM
1

Society is the reason they don't negotiate So women are so mentally fragile that society controls all of their actions is essentially what you are saying? Because if society is responsible for the choices that women make then how can anyone view women as being anything but objects and things to be used?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:55 PM
5

The first, fourth, sixth, and seventh cite no actual research. The third one is based on a gross and unadjusted number, so doesn't actually tell you anything about where the disparity comes from. While the second and fifth refute you by either saying that the cause is not discrimination, or that no one knows for sure. Notably none of them actually do a direct comparison between the wages of one man in a job per hour, and the wages of one woman in a job per hour. They all rely on averages, which …
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:30 PM
2

These countries you call socialist successes are primarily capitalistic, with a smattering of socialist elements. No, America is capitalistic with a smattering of socialist elements. The other countries are socialistic, with a little capitalism. Again, you keep going back to communism, but that was not the topic. The topic was socialism, of which communism is one subset of. Let me put it this way. You keep saying that those countries are not socialist. Well those countries themselves disagree wi…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 04:20 AM
3

None of those are socialist countries economically. Speaking as someone from one of those countries, yes they are. They are mixed economies who are predominantly capitalistic. Yes, in other words, socialist. If you want real socialist countries in an economic sense that would be the USSR and North Korea. Ah, I see. "Real" socialist countries. In other words you don't actually know what socialism entails and are confusing it with communism. Which I mentioned previously as being the problem with p…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 03:11 AM
1

That's fine. You're still wrong however.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 01:27 AM
2

Nonetheless both state and communal socialism have a history of little economic success compared to capitalism when it comes to individual wealth generation. Even if that were actually true, there is much more to an economy and a functioning country than mere wealth generation. So you're arbitrarily limiting the scope of the issue.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 01:21 AM
0

Neither are terribly good at wealth generation if history has any indication Then you aren't very good at history. Out of the top ten nations in terms of national wealth, seven of them are socialist (possibly eight as I'm not sure about Australia). Socialist Norway beats the US for the top spot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_national_wealth Generally the best countries to live in are socialist in terms of ranking. Same with education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Ind…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 01:16 AM
0

Yes, I am aware. Hence why I said there was no attempt to differentiate between the two.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:57 AM
4

Nothing, but for some people there's no attempt to separate socialism from communism, or communism, from marxist communism, etc. Especially when you're dealing with libertarians, just saying "socialism" is a good way to have them marching along in lock-step and ready to fight with you. It's like when SJW's use "sexism" as a rallying call when they want to fight against something. She knows the audience she is speaking to and using their own prejudices.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 11:44 PM
4

Women were never "only" house wives though. They worked, they did jobs, when necessary. Most of them stopped that when they got married and had a man to pay for things so that they could take on the full-time job of raising children and maintaining a home (which was very much a full time job back in that time). Which most women still do, or want to do today. Except that now they have to work because the economy generally requires dual-incomes in order to make living possible. This theoretical pa…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:33 PM
-1

I'd say more "liberal-hippie" than social justice. As for anti-mra, not really. Even if it was though, that doesn't actually change the fact that you're stretching things in your depiction.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:35 PM
0

Very. I haven't read it in a few months, but before that I've probably read almost every other strip. Which is how I can say that you're being ridiculous and reading way too much into this.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:06 PM
-3

You do realize that the fact that one single character does something in one comic does not mean the author is actually advocating it correct? Notably she is also the only character shown at this time who thinks the "superhero" is a good idea. The other character assumes it's meant to be a villain.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:55 PM
3

I take it you didn't read the part of the letter where it stresses the importance of said "rape prevention tips".
/r/MensRights20/03/14 12:25 AM
2

How about just realizing that it's a bullshit subject and not caring about sexualization in either gender direction? Why is that never an option?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 11:26 PM
1

Religion means nothing more than believing in a god. I can play word games, too. No, theism means that. Religion and theism are not the same. So no, you can't play such games. This is such an incredibly stupid claim it boggles the mind. Any idea can have something done "in the name of." It isn't an idea. It's a rejection of an idea. Disbelief of an idea is not in itself an idea. I am sorry but words have meanings. I also note that you had to resort to ad hominems. So it seems that you've run out…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:51 PM
2

It's how he does all of his videos. He just gets in front of the camera and does it real time reading from his phone. He still does epic takedowns, especially when he gets pissed.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 01:06 AM
1

I never said a belief. I said an ideology. I also never said they had to be dogmatic (though I can't think of an example of a non-dogmatic ideology, but one would be possible). I said that they all operate in a similiar manner and use the same methods to convince people. If you're going to "disagree with such a broad statement", at least make it a statement that I have, in some way, actually said.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:41 PM
1

Also, irrationality and ideology is a sort of chicken/egg thing. ......No, it really isn't. And the problems with objectivity lie in fooling yourself into thinking you are completely objective. That's not a problem with objectivity. That's a problem with your own understanding. Thoughts are subjective, by definition. Nobody thinks that their thoughts are objective unless they don't know what the word means. That's why we had to devise other methods so that we could gain objective information. Wh…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 05:11 AM
1

You clearly don't get what I'm saying Perhaps it's because you haven't actually said anything yet. You said there were problems with objectivity, I've now asked you twice what those were. I have also asked twice what the relevance was. You've answered neither. Instead you spouted some vague nonsense. So perhaps the reason that I'm assuming you don't understand the topic is because we're three replies in and you've yet to respond to it coherently. rankly I don't understand the hostility. You thin…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 05:07 AM
1

I don't think he has any idea of what he means. All of his posts are seemingly to comicbook-themed subreddits or advice animals. I'm guessing he's not very old.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:54 AM
1

Right, and I think we can conclude that ideology leads to irrationality. Not necessarily. Irrationality more typically leads to ideology since an ideology requires irrationality to form and take hold in the first place. You still haven't answered my questions, however. However, subjectivity(as you have stated) is not irrationality, which is part of the reason true objectivity can be a problem. ........You don't actually have any idea of the subject you are talking about, do you? What I'm talking…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:51 AM
2

However, even objectivity has it's problems. Such as? Also how is this relevant since objectivity or subjectivity wasn't the topic. It was irrationality and ideology. Subjectivity is not the same thing as irrationality, you do realize right?
/r/MensRights16/03/14 03:55 AM
9

Actually this is true for any ideology, whether religious, social, or political, etc. They all operate the same way and use the exact same methods to convince people. The differences are generally very minor. Also the criticisms and arguments against are generally the same as well.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:48 AM
4

Apparently she's never been to /r/ladyboners before.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:48 PM
1

I can list pages of atrocities and anti-theist persecutions committed in the name of state atheism No. You can list things done by atheists. Not done in the name of atheism. Atheism means nothing more than you don't believe in a god. There's nothing to be done, in the name of. Anything beyond that is something else being artificially attached to it. Yours is a tired old theist statement that never seems to do die, no matter how many times it's pointed out that it's full of shit. What you are des…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 11:24 AM
1

Actually, since you can't generally prove a negative (that something didn't happen) it would be up to the ones making the positive claim (that it did happen) to prove their case. Which would be very hard to do for feminists since their claims of oppression are all based on their own feminist framework of reality. If you had to prove it objectively I don't see how you could support such an assertion without acknowledging that virtually everyone was generally oppressed, not just woman specifically…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:07 PM
0

Virtually every scholar agrees on this. Then why is it always so hard for you guys to provide actual historians? I will admit that you're the first one to actually provide the name of a real historian that believes Jesus was real. That being James Loeffler, and Robert L. Wilken. Emma Dench and Elm are questionable as to where they stand, and the others are not historians. So you did actually provide one, which is more than anyone else on bad history has ever done. But you say that nearly all his…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 01:13 AM
-2

And I rest my case. Thank you for making my point. Especially about not being able to name a single historian.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:27 AM
-2

Why? You and I both know that you won't present one in return? As I said above, this is a road you guys go down often. I don't need any substantiation. The claim is yours to support, and we both know you can't. You guys never do. All you'll do is lie, misrepresent how history investigates the past. Try to pawn off biblical scholars as historians (because you won't be able to produce a single real historian who agrees with you) and then you'll devolve to childish ranting. Since you presented noth…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:17 AM
-2

Didn't take long for the liars to crawl out of /r/badhistory and start brigading, I see. Unfortunately very sadly unsurprising.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:02 AM
1

Posting links is not an argument. So you're still asking him to defend from an argument never made. You say they did all the work for you, perhaps you should be the one to do some.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 08:14 PM
1

You didn't actually give him anything to defend against, you realize. All you did was assert that some people said certain things about a topic. And not even very well at that. If you're going to accuse these MRA's of not being able to defend against your points it would greatly behoove you to actually make a proper point first and foremost.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 07:28 PM
14

I think that what he's referring to is one of her videos where she was pointing out that in the past when men were given the role of head of the family, they were also made responsible for the legal consequences of his wifes behaviour. Hence men were given authority over their wives and daughters because there were no legal laws that women were held to that curbed their behaviour. It was on men to do that, and men got punished if they messed up and their wife did something. Or to that effect, it…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 03:49 PM
2

Try asking them about the Historicity of Jesus. I dare you. Then question their "evidence" for the historicity. I double dare you. They used to start massive battles over that. They're a fraud as far as any real knowledge of history goes. As was said they only care about the history and ideas that fit their agenda. They're essentially no different than creationists, just with history books instead of biology books.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 03:11 PM
5

Nothing new. Badhistory has never been nearly as good or knowledgeable about history as they pretend to be. It's been largely ideologues trying to put forth their version of events for as long as I've seen it.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 05:45 PM
8

Understanding Human Differences I found a few chapters of it online. I might be biased as a black male, but this guys a tool. I only read the chapter on prejudice but he very clearly has a rather severe case of tunnel-vision. Someone should likely explain to him that words have more than one meaning and that you shouldn't use the worst meaning and then portray it as the only true one. But I doubt he would pay attention to that. I also find him slightly sanctimonious in how he presents his argume…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 02:09 AM
3

Exactly which book is that? Because I want a copy.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 12:20 AM
2

A fun quote, although probably more accurate to say "ideology" than "religion" (noting that a religion is a form of ideology). Exactly.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 10:53 PM
2

MRA's and feminists have no need to ever work together. It's more important for MRA's and womens rights activists to work together. And feminists will never, and have never been that. There are however, other groups out there that I'm sure actually do care about women that would serve the purpose.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:59 PM
2

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals, you realize?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 03:35 PM
6

Actually I could. Which is why it should be done. I want to see the feminist heads asplode.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:25 AM
2

I see you've abandoned even trying to pretend as though you have anything intelligent to say.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:16 AM
2

I'm black. But nice try.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:12 AM
2

As I said. Your kind always devolve to this.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:05 AM
2

Actually, democracy depends on it. Not remotely. Democracy was invented by the Greeks. You know, the people who had institutionalized slavery. Actually democracy being equal is a modern affectation. There is nothing about democracy that says that you have to let everyone vote. In fact throughout almost the entire history of democracy only the elite classes had votes. Christianity does not have one set of beliefs. If you were smart (big if) you'd understand that. I never said it did. The fact tha…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:01 AM
8

There really shouldn't even be a Minister for Women.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:56 AM
2

Equality of men. That is not a belief of democracy. It's not even a necessary component of a democracy. Nothing about democracy says men are equal, or have to be equal. We just believe that they should be. That is not a component of democracy in and of itself. Democracy is a system of government, not a set of beliefs. Lie as much as you want but that won't make what you're saying true. Let's look at the definition you tried to use. You mean the third definition out of a set of five from that par…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:54 AM
2

By that logic democracy is a religion. No. Because democracy is not a set of beliefs. It's a system of government. By that logic Christianity is not a religion. No, because words have multiple definitions. Just because Christianity does not fit one definition does not mean it does not fit the other. Which you are, of course, aware of. It's just that now we've reached the stage where you start with the outright lies and obvious dishonesty.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:27 AM
2

Websters definition 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Dictionary.com Definition 2:a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: 3:the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices I could go on, but you're quite simply wrong. As I said, that argument is old and has been torn apart so often that it's just inane and tiresome. Did you have a real point to make, or are you just…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:19 AM
2

So then we're at the stage where you don't actually pay attention to what I say and start misrepresenting my words. Gotcha. I see you're also transitioning into the red herring stage already as well. You've moving fast. As I said, it's referred to as a cult of personality. Wherein the main figure is elevated to a god-like status. It's a religion centered around deifying, idolizing, or worhshipping a person. You do realize that religion does not necessarily entail the supernatural correct?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:18 AM
2

I never said they weren't. I never even implied that they weren't. What I said was that they created their own religions with them as the gods. Remeber, you just quoted me on it. Or is this the part where you realize you can't make a good argument and start getting random?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:05 AM
7

It would be interesting to see an actual,factual study on this. Instead of an article that claims there was a study,somewhere and at some point in time.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 03:46 AM
4

Really? You went with that tired old argument that's been laughed at for years? Ok,we'll go there. They did create religions. They turned the state into a religion with them as the god. It's referred to as a cult of personality. More to the point however, you'll note that I spoke of religion in terms of it's ignorance of reality and said that no society became worse because of rationality. What those men created was just as irrational and fake as something like Christianity is because they used …
/r/MensRights07/03/14 03:28 AM
6

However humans with religion are far more dangerous.See the above blasphey laws, eternal suffering, or non-citizens as an example. Humanity is always at it's worst when it no longer has to answer to reality. Conversely no society ever became the worse for being too rational.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:45 AM
2

Yes I know. I just saw it there myself. Though it could have been cross-posted from /r/exchristian as well.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:45 PM
2

So, basically, the argument is that your lazy and intellectually dishonest dismissals are all awesome (you've demonstrated not the slightest understanding of feminism, dismissing it all as gender essentialist and sex negative, regardless of context) I've already learned that when confronted with their hypocrisy feminists resort to ad hominems and strawmen yesterday. You don't need to teach me that a second time. and I'm a bloody cunt I never said that, but if you prefer....... You hug Dunning-Kr…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:21 PM
5

Naturally not. Religion is dangerous, harmful, and irrational. But saying that someone is an idiot for believing in magic sky fairies is a very big difference from say, trying to pass blasphemy laws. Or saying that all religious people should suffer eternally. Or that religious people should not be considered citizens of their country. That is hating someone. When you start seeing that on /r/Atheism, then I'll accept your position as valid.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:18 PM
-4

It's not that they "get along just fine". It's that the things that one believes effect their actions in the real world. Such as this https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights-religion-belief/pregnant-woman-suffers-you-wont-believe-whos . People who believe in irrational things about the world make irrational choices and decisions using that information. And those people are often allowed into positions of power and authority over others who also effect the lives of other peop…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:03 PM
2

In that one space, where they should reasonably expect people to care about their experience? If they didn't enforce it, the entire space would be filled with them being shit on. This is Reddit. There are more men than women. And the feminists here are outnumbered by feminist bashers. They ask for one space where they don't need to deal with sexual ranking. One. It's not that hard to give it to them, is it? Nothing about that argues against the hypocrisy. At best you're just making excuses for i…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:56 PM
13

I must have missed the part where ridicule equals hatred.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:51 PM
2

No. What you said was: It seems like you only care about your experience, and not how they experienced it at all. This is a hypocritical statement in light of the fact that they clearly don't care about his experience or the experience of others, yet you haven't called them out on it. You only admonish him. You can't accuse me of being a hypocrite, without accusing them of the same. Of course they're hypocrites as well. They're feminists. Feminism is foundationally hypocritical. I know you're em…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:40 PM
2

Not their hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy. Today I learned that feminists aren't very good with reading comprehension either. ....which could explain why you use the language so poorly.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 03:00 PM
-1

This isn't about the order of the sentence, it is about what he chose to say. Instead of saying "I respect female computer scientists", he chose to highlight the fact that they were female and that he found their accomplishments "hawt". Therefore he treats her as a sexual object first, as in, before he treats her like a person. Which is very clearly false. As I pointed out. He clearly does not treat her like that first because he acknowledges her sexual charisteristics last, not first. You canno…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:33 AM
4

Here is why: by saying a female programmer is hot you are referring to her as a sexual object first. Actually no, he first referred to her as both a female, and a computer scientist. You'll note the order of the words in the sentence. So he is not actually referring to her as an object in the sentence when he called her 'hot', because the subject of the sentence was 'female computer scientist'. At least not moreso than the fact that humans are in fact objects (assuming you want to use the actual…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 05:10 AM
3

That's cool. Today I learned that when confronted with their obvious hypocrisy a feminist retreats back to ad hominems and strawmen. So it seems we have both gained knowledge today. Congratulations to us on each being a little bit wiser now.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:29 AM
3

It seems they only care about their experiences as well. So your admonishment is a little hollow and hypocritical.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:06 AM
3

Eh, I am not gonna generalize the entirety of the group based on a handful of morons. Except that it is the whole group. Go to another feminist forum and try the same thing. It's not those feminists that are crazy and irrational. It's all of them, that's why they're feminists in the first place. The entire ideology is irrational and fails logically from it's very foundations.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:30 AM
4

So you admit that they're immune to logic, unwilling to have rational discussion, and are essentially closed-minded, judgemental bigots, yet you count yourself as one of them. Then claim to know right from wrong..... I think you're a little confused on the meanings of some of the words you're using.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:19 AM
5

but you would have to lack any kind of logic to take anything I said as derogatory to women in any way. You already seem to understand what happened perfectly, so what's to discuss? Were you actually expecting logic and reasoned discussion from a group of feminists?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 01:29 AM
-1

Again, thank you for proving me right. You are quite an accommodating fellow.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:30 PM
1

Thank you for proving my point.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:30 PM
1

Rape prevention advice which proves my point. As I already pointed out and you haven't refuted. Aside from just saying it's wrong. So, once again, thank you for proving my point.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:29 PM
1

No. I meant me. I'm trolling him. As I said, I realize he doesn't have the capacity for a real conversation, so all that's left is to fuck with him for my amusement.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:28 PM
0

It's proof of nothing except that I was right. Which I already pointed out to you. If you have a real argument present it. Until then, I stand unopposed and apparently correct.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:26 PM
1

Yes, same ad hominem as before. You aren't very original even with your bullshit are you?
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:25 PM
1

I'm not an MRA. And yes it is what you were saying. Again, that's why you haven't actually refuted it.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:24 PM
1

Again, you're just saying the exact same thing. To reiterate: Yes, because absolutely nothing a woman does effects what happens in her life in anyway. A woman exists only as a thing for the forces of the universe to use and abuse. No matter what she does or what choices she makes, if fate decides it's her day then she's going to get raped. Why bother taking precautions when there's nothing she can do? She's just a thing after all. It's not an absurd theory. It is what you have just written. Just…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:05 AM
1

How about you provide some evidence to back up your bizarre interpretations. I did. Your own words are the evidence. You're the one claiming that they're being misinterpreted and saying you have facts to prove this. But you can't seem to articulate how they are being misinterpreted aside from the claim that they are.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:02 AM
1

It's not opposed. None of the advice they gave would actually prevent a rape, except for maybe trust your instincts. Everything else is just telling women to either be clear about whether they want it or not or not to victim blame. Nothing about that actually involves women using any sort of agency to protect themselves. So, again: Yes, because absolutely nothing a woman does effects what happens in her life in anyway. A woman exists only as a thing for the forces of the universe to use and abus…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:01 AM
2

Which is still unopposed.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 12:34 AM
1

I think you're confused on what facts mean then.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 12:34 AM
1

So no facts then?
/r/MensRights03/03/14 12:34 AM
2

You're wasting your time with this one. It's called trolling. Of course he's too stupid to have an actual conversation with.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 12:33 AM
2

I told you why they object to random amateurs giving out rape prevention advice I know. Yes, because absolutely nothing a woman does effects what happens in her life in anyway. A woman exists only as a thing for the forces of the universe to use and abuse. No matter what she does or what choices she makes, if fate decides it's her day then she's going to get raped. Why bother taking precautions when there's nothing she can do? She's just a thing after all. We've been over this already.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:56 PM
1

I do want to bring facts into And yet, notably you didn't.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:54 PM
1

I don't think someone like you wants to bring facts into this. I doubt it will go well for you. But if you want to, provide facts that the problem isn't you. Because so far the only thing you've provided to show that my interpretation was wrong was your simply telling me that it was wrong. So as it stands it seems that I'm likely the one who's right.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:50 PM
2

No its not. Thats just an mra misinterpretation that has done the rounds in our echo chambers. Then the problem is you. Because what I said is a logical interpretation of your words. The fact that you don't like that and want to bitch about it is not my problem. If you can't portray your ideas correctly don't blame others for their misinterpretations. I am not to be held accountable for your lack of intelligence or coherence, and I resent that you attempt to. Or perhaps it's simply that you're f…
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:35 PM
7

That's entirely what they're saying. Just not the words they're using. And don't tell me that it's stupid. You and them are the ones saying it.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:23 PM
2

Yes, because absolutely nothing a woman does effects what happens in her life in anyway. A woman exists only as a thing for the forces of the universe to use and abuse. No matter what she does or what choices she makes, if fate decides it's her day then she's going to get raped. Why bother taking precautions when there's nothing she can do? She's just a thing after all. That's what I said.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:17 PM
10

They object to the sort of advice you gave because its misleading and suggests women are raped because they do stupid things Yes, because absolutely nothing a woman does effects what happens in her life in anyway. A woman exists only as a thing for the forces of the universe to use and abuse. No matter what she does or what choices she makes, if fate decides it's her day then she's going to get raped. Why bother taking precautions when there's nothing she can do? She's just a thing after all.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:13 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 05:30 AM
1

Thank you for the sentiment, but I have every single episode already. Most of which have been watched at least ten times.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 05:05 AM
2

Well said.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 04:05 AM
2

One of my favourite shows ever is Married With Children, I loved that show as a kid and still do. There's this one epic speech that Al gives one time to this woman who's called him a loser since he was a child. When she does it again as an adult he finally lets her have at it and tells her all of the dreams that he'll never accomplish and how bad his life is, then ends it like this. "But I am not a loser. Because despite it all, me and every guy out there who will never be what he wanted to be, …
/r/MensRights02/03/14 02:15 AM
5

There it is, always clamoring for the top while completely ignoring the bottom of which she and many like her sit upon. Nevermind the top or the bottom. They always conveniently ignore the middle as well. It's never ok to just be good. You have to be the best, the top, or women are clearly being discriminated against. It's not enough for a woman to be capable of doing the job, she has to be equal to the best or she isn't worth shit apparently in the eyes of feminists. Maybe it's not the patriarc…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:15 PM
1

Yes, I am entirely aware of this. You may have wanted to direct all of that to her.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:56 AM
1

Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different versions of what it means to them. Which makes all of them invalid as far as determining reality.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:19 AM
7

Well when confronted with reality we can't all fall down on our knees and service irrationality and dogma like a back-alley-prostitute.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 02:52 AM
8

Without a stable definition that everyone agrees on, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about whether something is true or not. No, it isn't. You're quite simply wrong, flat-out. It is entirely possible to have the discussion. It's just that one side will fail almost instantly. Because one side is making claims that are unfalsifiable. I claim that Shawshank Redemption was a good movie. Do you agree with this claim? Since you presented no evidence, and I have no personal evidence to dr…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 02:25 AM
12

Actually you don't. Or at least the other side doesn't. If the side making the positve claim (rape culture exists) can't even define their own terms in ways that can be quantified and tested then they fail from the start. There's nothing to argue against. So yes, you can comment on who's right. Lacking evidence or a coherent definition the only option for a rational peson is the rejection of the claim.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:45 AM
3

While he's correct about feminism, it becomes more than a little hypocritical when it's a Christian trying to complain about a lack of intellectual rigor and not being bound by logic.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 05:58 PM
2

I said I believed in kyriarchy, intersectionalism, sexism, in-group and out-group dynamics, briefly observed an effort to control women's bodies, and a lot of other feminist concepts that apparently went way over your head. None of which was what you were asked. Now you're whining like a confused dementia sufferer because I refused to use the definition of feminist theory you carefully wrote all over the walls in your own feces. You don't know what my definition of feminist theory is. More to th…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 01:34 AM
1

That's the first part of my answer. Which in no way actually answered the question. Or even addressed it. However, you guys seem to blame feminism for that. Not "you guys". I'm not an MRA. Feel free to rip them all apart. Why? You didn't say anything remotely substantive in the first place. Though for some baffling reason you took the long way around to not say it. Since you didn't support any claims or suppositions it falls apart on it's own. I can't wait to find out how I'm evil this time. The…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 12:58 AM
1

Them being for mens rights doesn't rule them out of also being egalitarian. One can be both. You can fight for mens rights when needed and also fight for womens rights when necessary. The movement itself though is only interested in mens rights because you need to focus your efforts on problems. But nothing they do inhibits or stands against the rights of others. So one can easily help both sides if one is an MRA. The difference is that feminism outright claims that they are the be all and end a…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 11:25 PM
1

Actually, explain, in depth, why you feel a sex positive equality feminist is exactly the same as a second wave radfem or whatever random Tumblrina you're trying to spam up to the top of Google search? I don't have to. I can simply ask a simple question. Do you believe in feminist theory. Since the most basic aspects of feminism are the ones that support and advocate the hate, if you subscribe to any of those tenants then you are just the same as them. You're just choosing to ignore those aspect…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 11:13 PM
2

You're strawmanning, and very badly. Shall the MRM be measured by the police who rip apart and dismiss rape victims in the name of fighting what they believe to be a tidal wave of false accusations? Show me an actual teaching, or philosophy of the MRM, or significant group of leaders who advertise this. By the crudest youtube comments I can find in your name? No one is complaining about the crude comments of one person. It is the entire actions and beliefs of the leaders of a movement as well as…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 11:05 PM
2

it's not because we're the hate group... Right, you're not part of the hate group. You just keep the same name and subscribe to the same ideology as the hate group. I can't begin to understand why the MRA's have a problem seeing the practical difference.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:31 PM
2

Feminism saved my life, when everyone else was ready to throw me away. With feminists, I don't need to explain why I'm a lot of really unusual things. They just accept me as an individual, and we can usually bond over struggling with the same problems... In other words it's a completely emotional reaction based on an attachment you have. Which does nothing to change the facts of feminism or it's nature. Nor does it change the fact that you support them and their harmful ideology. Which is fine, …
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:16 PM
11

Isn't feminism more about advancing women's right to be on even footing with men? The problem is how they define "even". Feminism holds as one of it's foundational frameworks that women are oppressed by society. This is not something proven, it is something assumed and then they seek out evidence for it. However "even" is not a very meaningful concept when you're applying it to reality. Humans are not equal, we are biologically, culturally, physically, etc. all different in our lives and experie…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:58 AM
1

Part of this is because statistics for things like human trafficking are not exposed to scientific rigor. So it's easy to fudge numbers. But that's a LOT of fudging in this case. This lecture is a much better source for real information on human trafficking.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 05:26 PM
2

Just looked this up. Why is this a thing?! I just read some of these to test the waters, and my conclusion: Everything is sexist in their eyes. Hyena-pack mentality indeed. I know, it's insane. I just did a video the other day on the topic about a talk that the site owner gave.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 02:35 AM
6

Oh good, I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that she effectively just told women to cynically and calculatingly use their sex to string a man along and manipulate him into marriage.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 03:06 AM
6

Am I the only guy that feels cheapened and degraded after reading this?
/r/MensRights18/02/14 02:33 AM
3

Agh. I think I lost brain cells reading that review. I'm positive I just heard some of my brain cells die a horrible, screaming death from trying to comprehend the words you just showed them.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 07:45 PM
5

Since this is getting rather hostile, I'll leave it and hope that any onlooker can sift through the arguments (drivel?) himself. In other words, you have no intelligent argument so you're taking the cowards way out. So, let's recap: the argument was "equality OR privilege" No. It wasn't. That's what you were trying to say it was. Just as you tried to misrepresent two (or was it three?) of my points before. It was not 'equality or privilege' that he said. It was that feminists were demanding priv…
/r/MensRights17/02/14 07:53 AM
5

Why would you assume I'd say we can't have someone around who thinks all women belong in the kitchen? Here's a better question.Why couldn't you actually respond to the point that was made? you're looking at the data and saying, "well these bitches just need to step up to the plate! that's all it takes, a little elbow grease and hard work!" Actually no, that wasn't what I said at all. But if you need to tell yourself that's what I was saying, feel free to go ahead. whereas I'm saying "why on eart…
/r/MensRights17/02/14 04:35 AM
9

And that's a bad thing, for the simple reason that diversity is good. Having other opinions is a good thing. Understanding other perspectives is a good thing. Meaningless universal claim. Is it good to have someone around who thinks all women belong in the kitchen, are they equally as valuable to have around? I'm betting you won't think so. What about having someone who never passed junior high or learned to read working in your tech company? How is that for diversity? That's the thing with maki…
/r/MensRights17/02/14 02:07 AM
2

and what does it mean to call a woman a 'dime piece'? As in 'perfect ten'.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 02:28 AM
2

One doesn't actually have to. Feminism, in general, can't even support itself with facts and evidence. It's hard, and rather redundant, to try and debunk something that was never shown to be true in the first place.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 01:27 PM
159

For those asking I went to the trouble of tracking the source since OP couldn't be assed to do it himself. It comes from this study and is found on table 3-9 on page 51. I have not bothered to look at the study myself as it's late and I'm very tired, so as a disclaimer I make no claims that the data in this study is accurate or true. But have fun looking it over.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 01:22 PM
1

"You claiming patriarchy for things you don't understand is like a Christian claiming God when dark matter or evolution is brought up. It's just a mistical entity you hide behind because you don't know or don't want to know." Wouldn't even register with them. The difference between feminism and a religion is fairly miniscule. The feminists who are atheists haven't so much gotten rid of their religious beliefs as they have found a surrogate for them. Even if you pointed that out to them they'd do…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 01:05 PM
2

don't bother to find out what these things are and strawman them instead Interesting...... How would you feel if a driver you know deliberately drove into you some night and there were all these idiots waiting to tell you how dumb you are for not staying at home, not walking on the other path, or not staying in a field. Which is, of course, a strawman of the opposite position.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:53 AM
2

Not you specifically, perhaps. However there is the chance that you'll meet that one whackjob who for whatever reason decides to take you up on the offer. The same as getting drunk in a bar. You personally might not take advantage of the situation but that does not mean another in your position would not.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:32 AM
1

Are you trying to argue against my point or for it? Because you're addressing this in response to me, which would seem to indicate you mean it as a rebuttal. However you're essentially making the same general point I did, just with a longer analogy, which means you should probably be responding to TRPACC. It's a little unclear.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 11:23 PM
0

I realize that. It's unlikely anyone could be so accidentally stupid. But sometimes it's amusing to play along to a point.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 10:22 PM
0

I did, you think these people cannot understand a very simple concept. No. That's not what I said. That's what you keep trying to say that I said. That's the key word here you. You are responding to your strawman of what I said, not to anything that I actually said. As a final statement, when you can address it honestly, let me know. You misunderstand the point of their asking know it alls to stop treating rape as if the issue is women ask for it, and/or just cannot understand risk. No, I unders…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 10:05 PM
-1

As I said, when you can address it honestly....
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:34 PM
1

Are you talking to me or him?
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:34 PM
-1

But they don't know that Now try actually paying attention to the rest of what was said, instead of the five words that you want to acknowledge. When you can address what I said honestly, we can continue.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:24 PM
1

Its more like, you said the thing with your analogy, without realizing the implications of what you said. No. It's that you are misrepresenting what is being said out of dishonesty. I fully understand the implications of what I said. You're just lying about it. They want people like you to stop implying that rape victims asked for it. Which nobody has done. Again, this is you lying about and misrepresenting the other position.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:22 PM
2

The analogy was not indicative women asking to be raped, however. That's simply how you're misrepresenting it. But you know, whatever you need to tell yourself.....
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:13 PM
1

And again, that's simply you misrepresenting what was just said.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:09 PM
1

You think that they don't know that, thats just you infantilizing them and treating them like retards. No. That's you misrepresenting what I just said.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:08 PM
9

As if I don't already know that. But they don't know that. Or, more to the point, they refuse to acknowledge that or to tell other people who don't know that. A more accurate analogy to the situation would be you going to the store with a sign around your neck saying "please hit me with your car". The issue is that there are actions that can be taken to lessen the risk you face of getting hit with the car when you go out. You don't have to do them, of course, but you're less likely to be hit if …
/r/MensRights02/02/14 08:58 PM
1

Yes, he did own Russia. He was the government. That's part of being a dictator. The government owns the country. That's why Queen Elizabeth is the largest landowner on the planet. She legally owns every nation in the British commonwealth (Canada, Australia, Papa New Guinea, etc.), about 33 trillion dollars worth of land. Not uncoincidentally, the second largest land owner on the planet is the Russion state. As for owning the Russian people, no one said he did. The Russian people would be the equ…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 12:12 PM
1

I don't think that someone's control of their blog is comparable to a dictator's control of a country for the simple reason that no one lives in their blog. It is in the context of the argument that was made. The only difference is in the scope, and that's irrelevant to the point being put forth. He does not provide a counter-argument to the previous commenters claim. He merely excuses what is done by saying that because it is theirs and they control it they can make the rules. Which would then …
/r/MensRights02/02/14 06:50 AM
1

How is "murder is immoral" not a principle? By what standard? I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was neither a first principle, nor was it universal. As for standards, the standards of what those terms actually mean. As I pointed out, the fact that you have to keep changing the meanings of words is a creationist tactic. Why is it not universal? Since you're the one making the positive claim you have the burden to prove that it is universal. Which means that you have to prove all humans everywhere…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 01:25 AM
1

You misunderstand the meaning of reasoning from first principle No, I don't. You do, that was the point. For example, "theft/murder/rape are immoral" would be a set of of universal principals that apply to everyone at all times everywhere. That's not a first principle. Nor is it a universal one. I realize that you want to claim that it is, but you don't know what the words that you are using mean. It's not universal because you want it to be. You then use this as a basis for further reasoning su…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:23 PM
1

Creatonists don't use reason and evidence, nor do they reason from first principals. Neither do libertarians. With you serving as excellent evidence. Libertarians reason from first principal, which is something you appear not to be able to do given your statement above. You can't reason from first principle because there is no set first principle. You mean reason from a first principle. Furthermore, even if I accepted your assertion that you did start from a first principle that says nothing abo…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:58 PM
1

You're thinking of Poe's Law. Godwins Law is that mentioning Hitler or the Nazis in a discussion thread automatically ends the discussion.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:57 AM
3

Websters: an area of land that is controlled by its own government a political state or nation or its territory Oxford: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory: Mcmillan: an area of land that has its own government and official borders The definition that you are quoting refers to country in the generic geograhpical sense (ie. a walk in the countryside). Not in the sense of a nation and its people and leaders, cities, towns, etc. Which is what we're discussing. In othe…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 12:12 AM
0

Why do we use the word while fighting to change it if we shouldn't use it until such-and-such dictionary agrees? Because otherwise communication becomes impossible. If you can use words to mean whatever you want then you can argue anything and be right. That's why feminists keep trying to change the definition of rape. But if it becomes so easily malleable then it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion about it. However that's beside the point. He and I were not discussing what the d…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 11:29 PM
8

Yes, yes, I know the whole mindless libertarian spiel. Unfortunately words have meanings and reality disagrees with you. A country is defined by it's governments control over it. Your problem is with Websters and the english language. Not with me.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 08:39 PM
13

not even the government that states it does. Actually yes they do. That's what a country is. "Country" is a legal definition of an area of land controlled by it's own government. A country only exists so long as the government claims that land and can hold it against any other country or entity that might take it.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 08:05 PM
19

Nah, it's their site, it's their rules. That's not actually a counter-argument to his point. It was Stalin's country and his rules too. What you've said isn't an argument for it not being oppression. What you're saying is an explanation of why you think the oppression is all right for them to do. It is, however, still oppressive of them to do what they're doing.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 04:56 PM
2

Most likely. Though if you read through this subreddit and pay attention to what's being said you'll find largely the same things being mentioned and discussed. Actually she and Farrell come up quite often in discussion here. The main thing though, to understand the problems that so many people have with feminism is that you have to apply critical thinking and logic to feminists and their ideas. When I mentioned before that I have yet to see a single intelligent or rational feminist idea I wasn'…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:50 PM
1

Come on, that's just semantics Well yes, anytime that you are discussing about what words mean it's semantics. But that doesn't do anything to make your position anymore consistent or intelligent. men's rights groups would fight for the issues that effect men, and feminist groups would fight for the issues that effect women, and "gender equality" or humanist, or other groups would fight for issues that effect everyone Yes, this is the line that you keep mindlessly repeating. It's the counter-arg…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:34 PM
3

It isn't that there aren't moderates. It's that the fact that those moderates exist is irrelevant because it doesn't change things. The fact that not every feminist is a radfem doesn't matter for three reasons. 1)The radfems are the ones in control of the narrative within the movement. There is no prominent feminist I am aware of that is not what you call a "extremists/radfems/feminazis". With the exception of Warren Farrel and Christina Hoff Summers, and we all know how good their street cred i…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:21 PM
2

Yes, I do admit to that... that's why it's called feminism and not "gender equality". But you started this off by saying that feminism fights for equality. You now say that they wanted to be equal to men, but this brings us right back to my initial point. You say they want to be equal to men, yet they if they only fight against issues in so far as they effect women they won't be equal to men. They'll be superior. For instance in the case of domestic violence. We know from studies that DV is fair…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:56 PM
2

That's because they started out at a major disadvantage. Yet you claim that they fight for equality. However you have just admitted that they only fight for those issues in so far as they apply to one gender. Which is not "equal". Whether women started off as disadvantaged or not does not make it any less equal. What you are doing is providing an excuse for why the inequality is acceptable. Which means that you must also address other inequalities in this way as well. It's not enough to say that…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 08:25 PM
4

I've been seeing a lot of people all over the internet conflate feminism with radfems/feminazis/SRS-types. Perhaps there exists a reason for that. Radfems/feminazis/SRS are extremists who tag along with the title in order to steal legitimacy. By calling them feminists you are only assisting them in doing so. Then what exactly is the "One True Feminism"? Which is what must exist in order for your argument to have any validity. Because unless you can provide a "One True Feminism" and a way of judg…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:12 PM
15

They aren't "correct". Logic and deductive reasoning are tools, not ideas on their own. They are tools to help us filter information and ideas through so that we come up with accurate measures for reality. Which is also how we know they work. Because we can see the real world effects of the ideas we put into practice using them. Such as the computer that you're using right now.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:20 AM
2

In any case, I would still say 'yes', but mainly for pragmatic reasons as opposed to principled ones. However the reasons that companies are less likely to hire women are for entirely pragmatic reasons, which people have been pointing out. So if, by your own admission, it's valid to pre-judge and discriminate when you're doing it for pragmatic reasons........
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:24 AM
0

Is it fair to take those women's decisions and paint them on another group of women who have already shown through their educational and career choices so far that they do not regard their careers as disposable? Something being fair or unfair does not mean there is not a good reason to do it. Lots of things that we do as a society or as individuals are unfair or discriminatory against one group of people or another. We still do those things however because there are other considerations that we …
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:08 AM
1

If you choose not to regard women's legitimate expectations (rights) within an advanced industrial democracy as legitimate, you have no basis for complaint when other people disregard your legitimate expectations (rights). I'm not an MRA, so that doesn't actually apply to me. Also you didn't address the point that I actually made. Your claim was that it was unfair, thus it was wrong to do. I said that if the only complaint you have is that it's unfair your argument is invalid if you aren't going…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 09:31 PM
2

It's all wrong for the same reason - it doesn't treat people as individuals No. SR is wrong because it's based on false information and reasoning which is meant to demonize an entire group (ie, because it's argument is factually and intellectually wrong). If say, seventy percent of men were rapists then SR might actually have a point. However that's untrue. SR says that the mere fact that any men are rapists justifies it's sexism and demonization.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 08:18 PM
1

You can't pre-judge any given applicant on the basis that they're female, as it's unfair. Reality often is unfair. So that's not really much of an argument. The reality is that such a company takes a risk anytime that they hire a woman because they know that women as a group are likely to not pay off their investment as well as a man, and they are a business trying to make money. It may not be fair, but it is entirely reasonable to do so. Discrimination is not always unwarranted or unreasonable.…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 06:58 PM
6

They've been complaining about fictional characters for decades. Doesn't seem to even slow them down.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 05:25 PM
1

That argument is invalid Only in so far as I did not notice that you said deliberately, so my taking you to task for using an accident comparison is invalid. Your argument is still a strawman because you are still falsely portraying what is being said. No one is saying this: it would be so useful and logical to explain to you as if you didn't know that if you didn't go to the shop What is being said is that there are certain things that you do that can increase your risk of certain situations. S…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 01:56 AM
4

That's a strawman. It isn't the same situation. You are talking about a random accident (which I noticed is a comparison you called someone else into account for making below, apparently it's only a false comparison when others are doing it), what people are saying is that if you take these actions you are increasing your risk, so maybe you should think twice before taking those actions. It says a lot that you can't defend your position without relying on constant fallacies.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 11:07 PM
6

People that are raped, don't cause it, so that is victim blaming Which is entirely irrelevant. You can label it whatever term you want but that doesn't change the fact that if those people made different choices the situation might not have occurred. Nor does it negate the truth of those who are mentioning it. So all you're actually doing is throwing up a lame ad hominem to demonize and shame those people who are attempting to point out effective strategies to prevent said situation.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 10:59 PM
1

Furthermore, before that, women and children were property. Both. Owned by men. Then prove it. I don't know how else to prove that gender roles keep people shackled. Try starting with evidence. Usually works. These are not natural, innate desires. Men can be good fathers, and women can be good employees! Not really relevant. I mean, think about it. Feminism wants to end the wage gap, right? No. Because they do nothing to actually prevent it. In fact they use it and maintain the exact same ideas …
/r/MensRights23/01/14 01:50 AM
1

You see, women typically win custody battles because of the history of women being expected to raise the children, and men to provide for them. Which feminists started. Previously it was the case that men received custody because they were the ones who worked and provided. Until feminists changed that via the Tender Years doctrine and other laws, using that exact same argument that you just put forth. But I'm sure you didn't know that and weren't dishonestly pretending not to because you're a fe…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 12:15 AM
2

No one promised me. Yet you complain. I find it ironic, though, on a subreddit that loves to complain about how men are shafted when it comes to fatherhood also ignores the exact same forces that lead women to be shafted when it comes to the workforce. That force would be feminism. It is not society and it's influences that causes men to be shafted. It is feminists stupidly trying to fight it that cause it. All of those things that they feel shaft men (such as women being the preferred parent in…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 10:43 PM
2

Let me walk you through this step by step so that you don't get lost anymore. I'm not lost. Your ideas just go nowhere. You have to decide if women are moral agents who are capable of choice or not. If they are, then you have to accept the consequences of the choices you make. You can't blame social forces for influencing you. If they aren't capable of making choices, then you have to deal with the consequences of that as well. But you can't claim to be both as it suits you. A man who is not exp…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:48 PM
1

Men and women are both susceptible to social forces, a fact you choose to ignore and I choose to recognize. I never ignored it. I merely understand that people make choices, and if you want to be considered a person with agency you can't blame others for those choices. Also, you're not actually changing anything. Feminists apply social forces to behaviour as well. The difference is that they're behaviours that you want. So you're not against the social enforcement, it's that you want to dictate …
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:11 PM
2

It is not equal when a man has the role of provider and the woman has the role of housekeeper/childcare provider. Of course it isn't equal. That's because equality requires objective criteria and measurements. Unless you can control and measure every single possible variable nothing will ever be equal. So right off the gate you're spouting nothing but empty nonsense. For one, even though you assume that they spend roughly the same amount of time working, only one gets paid. No. only one gets pai…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 06:08 PM
3

Yet for some strange reason women are expected to raise them, and they have to take pay cuts, less hours, and tailor their work schedule around their children. It's not strange. In fact it's very understandable for people who understand how things like "reality" operate. This may surprise you but women are actually free agents who are capable of making choices. As opposed to mindless, socially-enslaved, slabs of monkey-meat that just happen to share a section of space-time relatively adjacent to…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:28 AM
8

step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism, computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. cough Sarkesian cough
/r/MensRights22/01/14 04:00 AM
3

1) No, because that is not the same thing as having no positive purpose. If you want to fit that under there then you have to change the wording of your criteria. You can't just move the goalposts afterwards. 2) That isn't what was said. Though it could be related. 3)Once again, why can't you respond honestly?
/r/MensRights19/01/14 10:50 PM
3

Ideologies can absolutely change. I never said they couldn't. In fact that has no bearing at all on what I said. One can only conclude at this point that you are deliberately dishonest, or simply not very bright. What I said was that the feminist movement and ideology are based upon false premises. Which, by rational extension, render all of their ideas which follow those premises unsound. I never said that those premises could not change. They could, however that's irrelevant to what is being d…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 09:59 PM
0

So I'm forced to ask again. Is there anything that you can respond to honestly?
/r/MensRights19/01/14 09:24 PM
3

And, as I said, it is a false analogy because we are talking about something different. We are talking about ideas, not countries or people. An analogy only works when comparing similiar things in similiar instances. If an idea requires a certain premise in order to be sound, then it can only be sound if the premise is true. If the premises are faulty then so is the reasoning that follows. If you actually have so little knowledge of basic reasoning that you don't understand this, there's not muc…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 09:22 PM
3

Not really. The USA was founded on the bodies of Native Americans and then later slavery, yet there is a good argument to be made that it is a good country overall now. We weren't talking about countries. We were talking about movements and ideologies. We were also talking about ideas, not people. Is there anything you can respond to honestly? This falls under "bad eggs outweigh the value of the moderates." Not as you worded it, it doesn't.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 09:01 PM
1

Even if feminism were not the sole cause, it undoubtedly furthered the movement. Undoubtedly? There's that assumption again. And yes, the argument was that women should not be allowed to vote. It was certainly not an issue of women fighting to avoid responsibilities. Actually nothing you just said was correct. Women's right to vote is an indisputable good. Very few things are indisutable. Especially things that are innately subjective. Again, there's that assumption of yours. You are hurting you…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:58 PM
2

Feminism originally led to voting rights for women. No it didn't. People were discussing giving women voting rights in parliament for decades before feminism even cared. Men such as John Stuart Mills had been bringing it up for years. However women didn't care and didn't want the vote at the time. Largely because it would have meant also having to have the same responsibilities to the government that men had. What feminism did was agitate until women got it without ever having to pay the same pr…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:33 PM
1

Untrue. It can also easily be done by showing that none of the movements positives are unique to it, whereas the negatives can only be provided by the ideology. Anyone can support womens rights, however there are a whole host of poisonous ideas, lies, and misrepresentations of reality that are unique to feminism. You can also tell that a movement is all bad when the movements foundations rest on faulty or unproven premises. Which feminism and feminist theory does (such as women being oppressed i…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:22 PM
3

Not the first time that's happened. A few weeks back I found a feminist on youtube who was saying that 80% of the victims of war and violence in third world countries are women. I went to check it out and I found it came from the UN but they sourced no study or citation for where they got it from. The only study provided on the page was on the right subject but nowhere in there did it make that claim. So I have no idea what they were basing it on. It seems the woodpeckers in their heads just tol…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 12:07 AM
2

tech's gender and race gap Has existed for 14 hours and only two comments. African feminist theology 10 hours and no comments at all. an introspective thread "Think about your words" 44 comments in 10 hours. I'll give you this one. a post about Saudi women No comments, yet up for an entire day. Sort by top comments, and you see the same pattern. A lot of introspection and some stuff about abortion. I think words like "discussion" and "introspection" mean something different to you than they do t…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 09:57 PM
0

Yes, I know about the chin-up debacle. What he said still makes little sense.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 06:07 AM
1

Seeing as how I never mentioned anything about pull-ups, or fitness requirements I fail to see whatever point you are attempting to make.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 01:04 AM
6

Interestingly, they keep throwing around the argument "women shouldn't be in combat" jokingly, as though it's something ridiculous. Then go on to essentially provide valid reasons not to let women into combat.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 09:24 PM
1

But that's not really relevant since we were discussing the effect that it might have on the psychology young minds. Whether you liked it personally is neither here nor there.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 02:13 PM
1

What she can be sure about, is how Barbie looks. That's actually entirely untrue. Barbie has had an official story and biography ever since the early sixties when the first novels were produced (that's two years after the doll was first made). She was a nurse in 1961, and astronaut in 65 and a teacher, a surgeon in 71, etc. The entire point of all of the different barbies is to give girls new careers and paths/lives to explore. There's a Barbie who's a world ambassador, a president, a paratroope…
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:10 AM
1

My definition of feminism is not unfounded Then why don't you justify or support it, rather than simply asserting it? You see when you say things like this: I honestly think that anyone who believes that men and women should have equal rights is a feminist. You are showing that you are not using the words right. Again, I'll quote myself since you seem to have a problem with actually responding to the points made against you. Because feminism as the rest of the world uses it clearly is not intere…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:08 AM
3

Don't be an ass I'll be nicer when you decide to be smarter. I'm just trying to have a discussion with you. So have it. But if you're going to say stupid and pointless things, you have no right to act surprised when someone talks to you like someone who says stupid and pointless things. Or when someone points out that that stupid thing that you said; was a really stupid thing, and you said it. I am not your babysitter, and I feel little desire to coddle you. But...is men's rights any less biased…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 01:15 AM
2

I don't think we can reach common ground on this because we kind of disagree on a few huge things. I honestly think that anyone who believes that men and women should have equal rights is a feminist. Which is entirely untrue. What you're saying, in effect, is that you're altering words and terms to suit yourself and then forming your argument. So you're right only in so far as someone accepts your improperly used terms. but I think feminism means the end of sexism--against both men, women, inter…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 12:37 AM
3

Feminism is no more than a label. Every word is a label. But if you think that feminism is just a label, then you should probably learn better english. Because either you're wrong, or feminism is the wrong word for it because both "fem" and "ism" are used to mean certain things in the english language. It's the actions done that are feminist in nature No. The actions done might be consistent with feminism, but they are not feminist in nature. If they were feminist by nature it would have been fe…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 11:58 PM
4

Women's suffrage predates feminism. Look at Mills who was pushing forward the idea long before feminists started to care. For the most part all feminism has ever done is attach itself to things that were already happening, whine and bitch about how it somehow hurts women, then claim that it played a major role after all of the hard work was done by others.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 09:55 PM
3

A person will either think critically and examine the evidence or they won't. If they won't then nothing you say will penetrate, because they don't care about the evidence or the truth in the first place. There's really nothing you can do about that. I have yet to encounter a feminist idea that stands up to critical thought, they typically fail right out of the gate. The trick is teaching people to think critically about the things they hear. If you can manage that then it's just a question of g…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:31 PM
5

It's ultimately rather irrelevant, since the number of redfems to non-radfems is not the problem. The problem is that the underlying ideology is false and irrational. It's not a matter of one group being crazy or not crazy, they're both nuts. The difference is that radfems are nuts and assholes about it.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 06:28 PM
2

wouldn't it be horribly dishonest to use a meaning that virtually no one is actually aware of without specifying that you're not using the default meaning? Yes, it is, which is probably why she did it. She stated in her article that rape comes from a word which means "theft", as in theft of a woman as property. She's wrong. Rape meaning any kind of property (an antiquated noun) is an improper usage of the word when she is clearly meaning rape as a verb. Which does not remotely mean, nor have the…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 12:49 PM
1

You're wrong, ultimately facts are all that matter.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:27 AM
-1

Actually the word rape (as a verb, which is how she is intending it), comes from the old french "rapir" meaning to "seize or abduct" which comes from the Latin "rapere", meaning "to seize or carry off by force". Rapere could also be used to mean "to sexually ravish". Though the Latin term most commonly used would be "stuprare" meaning, "to defile or ravish". The woman who wrote that article is using rape in it's noun form, which is an old word used for "booty" or "prey". Because, surprisingly en…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:05 AM
5

This is true. My younger brother was like this. He looked white and then started darkening over his toddler years. His colour didn't stop getting darker until he was about five or so.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:58 AM
3

There's an old episode of Teddy Ruxpin that I've always felt is a perfect example of how ideologies function, especially ones that have an irrational basis. In one previous episode Teddy and his friends are trying to cure Tweeg (main villain) of a sickness he has that is causing his skin to change colour. At the end of the episode it turns out that Tweeg isn't actually sick, he just accidentally drank water from the Rainbow Falls, which is causing his (harmless) colour changing. A few episodes l…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 04:42 PM
7

Humour is antithetical to the goals of idealogues. Humour is a way of easing tension, releasing stress, and letting go of the negative emotions that you feel about a subject. Which is exactly what they don't really want. They want you to feel tense when they tell you about that woman who was raped, or angry when they describe to you how poorly women are treated, and they don't want you to let go of those feelings. They want them to build up. That's why you have to always take womens issues serio…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 03:38 PM
10

You do realize that such a position defies logic rational thought, right?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 02:59 AM
14

I just go with feminists in general being the lowest form of life. No need for sexist discrimination.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:42 PM
4

It's a term sometimes applied to a segment of the moderate or "nicer" members of a movement. They are called useful idiots because they support a cause whose nature they are not fully aware of, or who are being cynically used by the leaders of the movement. Essentially they are well-meaning people who support a malicious cause out of naivety of what the cause actually stands for. In this case what he is likely referring to is that feminism purports to be about helping gay people, which garners t…
/r/MensRights27/12/13 08:40 PM
7

Yeah, it is pretty sexist that women are expected to be "marked" as being promised to someone else, but men are required to have no such mark. Yes, because men don't wear wedding rings themselves. Except for, you know, the fact that they do. As for the engagement ring, which is what you were actually talking about, it does not "mark" the woman. The engagement ring exists as a promise on the mans part. It is to demonstrate the fact that he intends to follow through on his commitment to marry, whi…
/r/MensRights27/12/13 05:07 PM
3

Meh, probably every human being has done something for which they deserve to die.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 02:59 AM
3

So, in other words, your inner feminist (much as the outer kind of feminist) is kind of retarded.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 09:40 PM
1

Very true. Open debate, honest discussion, and free speech become impossible the moment you start worrying about offending someone. Because at that point the most easily offended are the ones who gain all the control over the dialogue.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 08:38 PM
3

I checked the group that actually did the study, and they do mention the numbers of men as well (actually the whole thing is largely gender neutral), but it's very vague on how they reached their conclusion. As in I can find only the barest description of their methodology. They basically included questions on questionaires for people who were seeking help with financial/housing issues, then from whatever those questions were determined whether they had been victims of domestic abuse. They then …
/r/MensRights22/12/13 10:00 PM
4

Wow.....just wow.That is some serious fuck.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 06:07 AM
3

through underhanded means of "protecting women" by completely misrepresenting and fabricating the truth. It's already happened. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is already saying how this is horrible for women and how this sets our society back. Another woman from some womens foundation (didn't catch the name of the foundation "Emily-something") was on the radio here in Edmonton saying."This is a sad day that it's confirmed in this country that it's ok to buy and sell wom…
/r/MensRights21/12/13 01:46 AM
0

Don't bother trying. If I was going to converse with a liar and a troll, I would at least make it an interesting one.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 08:20 PM
2

My posts on a joke subreddit meant for venting about daily racism and sexism That's not what SRS is. If you think otherwise you really haven't been on reddit very long. And I think the content and nature of the joke is very relevant. As well as some of your other posts that are not here. Coupled with some of the other behaviour I've noticed. Such as the way you respond when your ideas are actually challenged. To put it simply, you don't act like someone who wants a real discussion. You act like …
/r/MensRights20/12/13 11:57 AM
2

I couldn't help but notice some of your other posts. Especially the SRS ones. You're celebrating a group's struggle with oppression? Well that's just not fair. You'd better make sure you also celebrate white people's overcoming of systematic oppression and historical hardshipsOH WAIT NO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN So exactly how serious of a discussion did you want to have? A redditor for seven hours who posts some of the things I'm seeing in your history doesn't exactly strike me as someone looking for …
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:53 AM
6

The typical set-up for this fallacy is as follows: Typical, but not necessarily limited to. Feminism is a belief system, which means that people who stray from that belief system, regardless of what label they use, are not acting on the ideologies outlined by feminism. Then what are the clear ways in which one can tell whether one is a feminist? What is the one true feminism? If I say that disliking music isn't a part of feminism, and you say that it's a NTS fallacy because this one feminist dis…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:28 AM
1

She may be coming in throwing peace signs but her dress seems to be made of knives to make broad slashing attacks with. It could be my status as a non-affiliated party, or maybe it's the english and literature background, but I find it fairly clear just from the first post that nothing the OP says is sincere. There are minor contradictions, odd tonal shifts, use of purple prose, not to mention borderline misandric, as well as other issues. Her writing reads more like a high school writer trying …
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:49 AM
1

As long as men are the doers, it'll be that. Movies with heroes and doers will primarily have men, because they're considered the primary doers. Beings is the women, people who matter without actually doing anything. It should also be noted that feminism goes right along with this, rather than opposing it as they would if they really wanted to fight against gender roles. All feminism ever does is stand around, complaining and bitching about how bad they have it until the men fix things for them.…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:22 AM
3

I can't help but notice that the criticisms you respond to are very selective.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:41 PM
1

You don't know that it's the time investment that's turning women off of taking programming classes. Which I didn't say it was. I asked a question and proposed a possibility. That's not a fallacy. The statement you pointed out was not supposed to be my argument. It was supposed to serentiary's. And since you're both the same person, yes, it was supposed to be your argument. Item one: it's trivial that "women can or cannot make large time investments". It's one way or the other: Yes, but this is …
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:05 PM
1

I am saying that both you and serenitary are basically spouting stuff off without invoking any sort of reality that we can agree upon. And you are wrong. I am not arguing anything. I pointed out the logical fallacy in his argument. Then he kept doing it, and I kept pointing it out. I have not provided any scientific results because I have not made any such claim. Nothing has said, so far, that women can or cannot make large time investments. Don't tell me that,sockpuppet. That was supposed to be…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:53 AM
2

My CS class was over 50% female. Which is anecdotal evidence. Also would be (if true) a rather stark statistical anamoly. Which is probably why you didn't provide any actual numbers.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:13 PM
1

Redditor for an hour with only two posts, both of which respond to responses to serenitary........... So you actually created a sockpuppet to agree with you, just to try and make your position seem more legitimate? Really? I mean, really? You could have at least tried to make a better response with this one. Instead of the same deflections away from the actual subject.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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