TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Amunium Archive

View 0 posts and 1,282 comments by Amunium on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,282 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

If that were the case, we should expect to see vastly higher rates of STDs and UTIs in Europe vs the US, but in reality we see the exact opposite: magnitudes higher rates in the US.
/r/MensRights22/09/23 06:45 AM
6

They're probably not playing the same games, though. That's like saying that because 5 year-olds watch Peppa Pig, then any TV watching is by definition childish. That's just silly.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/04/22 06:48 AM
5

Ronnie fucking Pickering
/r/PussyPassDenied23/11/21 10:23 AM
3

Huh? Why would it be racist? It means she's from New Zealand. Her name looks Finnish, but she doesn't live in Finland and speaks English with an accent that's more Kiwi than Finnish, so she probably doesn't say the name in its intended Finnish pronunciation.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/21 01:26 PM
1

FYI, ä and a are completely different letters. Although being a kiwi she probably doesn't pronounce it like that.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/21 11:51 AM
0

Wait, what about Evan Wood?
/r/MensRights08/08/21 09:44 AM
11

I looked up the article, fully expecting it to be the usual narcissistic bullshit, but... I actually don't disagree with it. It appears to describe actual strong women, not what is usually sold to us as "strong women", i.e. loud-mouthed, obnoxious kind, who will blame men for any problems and whine about things instead of solving them. The "most men can't handle..." part is a bit silly, but that's just what to expect from clickbait, and it's not false that a certain amount of men would prefer a …
/r/PussyPassDenied02/07/21 06:13 PM
33

It might also help if you learn to use a bit of punctuation.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/06/21 10:45 AM
2

Pathetic. And I really hope you aren't trying to argue that entertainment is 100% subjective, as in you can't say e.g. Shawshank is a better movie than Sharknado, only that you subjectively enjoy it more. If so, you're just completely wrong again.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/05/21 09:32 AM
2

Really? Because you happen to like something that is objectively not very good (which is just fine, most people like some bad movies), that means everyone is a hater to fit in? What an absolutely idiotic take.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/05/21 08:28 AM
6

That's the reason she isn't in the image.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/05/21 05:25 AM
135

That means you're in control of everyone. I, for one, welcome our new rulingthewake243 overlord.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/04/21 12:34 PM
4

Pretty normal around here to have individual stalls or small rooms with toilets, then a larger common area with the sinks and hand driers.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/21 07:02 AM
8

Reeks? Wreak means to bring about or inflict.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/21 07:00 AM
4

These comments make me sad, coming from a country where the cheapest BMW 3-series is $80,000 USD.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/01/21 11:34 AM
10

Segue* — Segway is that hoverboard-thingy.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/21 07:20 AM
10

Yes, that is indeed the joke in the picture.
/r/MensRights16/12/20 09:45 PM
17

As it should.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/20 09:48 PM
5

There are some geographical areas where they don't.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/12/20 05:44 AM
1

Their* their*
/r/PussyPassDenied16/11/20 06:28 AM
13

Because the only way to "live life" is to never have fun.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 04:16 PM
6

Who has ever said this? Seriously, ever? People have hobbies. They're generally meant for entertainment, not health or usefulness.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 04:15 PM
7

Scot-free, though. It has nothing to do with the name Scott.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/07/20 10:42 AM
2

What about death for apostasy then? That fine too?
/r/MensRights15/05/20 07:25 AM
8

The power of Karen compels you!
/r/PussyPassDenied05/05/20 05:34 PM
1

Look, I'm not going to defend the quality of posts in this sub in general, nor this particular one. Almost nothing posted here actually has anything to do with pussypasses being denied. I'm with you on that one. But that doesn't change that feminism is not the same as women, and nothing about this post or thread of comments in any way insinuates hatred of women. You're not being any more mature by saying shit like "why is the concept of female equality so concerning to you". That dishonest and l…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/05/20 11:00 AM
2

... he says as a response to a thread that literally started with saying it's not about equality. Are you stupid or lying?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/05/20 04:49 AM
13

couldn't care less*
/r/MensRights06/04/20 03:26 PM
1

I don't disagree that it's wrong, but it doesn't change what I said: if that is literally the problem with society, then society is doing pretty damn well.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/12/19 11:24 AM
11

"You are what is wrong", not "you are one of the things that are wrong"
/r/PussyPassDenied25/12/19 01:16 PM
40

If the only thing wrong with society is that some people want to look at attractive people naked, then society is doing pretty fucking well. I guess it's time to abolish all rights groups and never complain about anything again.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/12/19 12:57 PM
1

Finnished the Danish*
/r/PussyPassDenied07/12/19 10:53 PM
9

And yet people constantly can't tell the difference between their/there, your/you're, and other things that I would consider so glaringly obvious and simple that only either an age or IQ around 4 could explain the confusion. This does not surprise me.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/11/19 02:31 PM
3

It's also impossible to say because we can't really define what a good driver is. Is someone who never drives more than 20 mph and is never even at risk of an accident because of it a good driver? While I don't condone driving like a lunatic, there's something to be said for someone who is able to drive like a lunatic without (so far) getting in an accident being a good driver as well. It depends what you mean by "good". Are we talking skill in control of the vehicle or pure accident avoidance r…
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 01:21 PM
11

Would have
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/19 05:28 PM
7

Seriously. That's the third time today I've seen that exact misspelling of it.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/10/19 07:32 PM
5

That's it, I'm skipping work now. Asshole!
/r/PussyPassDenied31/10/19 07:19 PM
3

I really doubt there are any Europeans who don't know there's a big difference in the wealth of European countries. I don't think that's it.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/19 12:54 PM
4

I think it's pretty bland, honestly. Not something I would buy, but if you think it's terrible, then I don't know what to tell you. So I guess we're stuck.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/10/19 02:16 PM
14

"Oh snap!" - and the gingerbread man's leg is snapping off.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/10/19 01:52 PM
1

Why?
/r/PussyPassDenied14/10/19 01:51 PM
17

I’m not being a snowflake for saying what i believe When what you believe is that a joke shirt "glorifies mental illness", then yeah. You are.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/10/19 01:48 PM
7

That would almost be relevant if notch were American.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 06:01 AM
1

Also Germany isn't Europe. There are plenty of European countries where you can say whatever you like (except actual threats, of course) to cops.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/10/19 05:19 PM
1

To do what? Not need sleep?
/r/PussyPassDenied23/09/19 12:29 PM
4

I also chose not to have children, still can't sleep more than 7-8 hours before I wake automatically. Not that I want to, I hate sleeping. It's time wasted I could have spent on something more interesting.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/09/19 10:18 AM
-1

No. No it wasn't. Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy. I honestly think you might be a bit slow in the head there, mate.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/08/19 05:59 AM
74

How was he an asshole?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/19 05:48 PM
34

Yeah, don't forget Mattress Girl whose rape claim was proven false and still she won an award for her "courage".
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/19 05:46 PM
2

What a loser, right? Normal men obviously shit standing up.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/19 08:53 AM
0

While it's pretty clear you're either trolling or one of those Americans who know everything about the rest of the world and will never change their minds, I'm going to tell you anyway. The US has about a 1% Muslim population on average, but that's counting all those southern and midwestern states. Several of the coastal states have about a 3% Muslim population. My country has 5%. Not a huge difference.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/07/19 05:22 AM
2

Yes, the kebab is technically just the meat, however - I'm not sure if this varies from country to country, but at least around here if you just ask for "a kebab", you get a pita with döner kebab. The second most popular form is the dürüm kebab, with dürüm being the Turkish word for "roll". It's kebab in a roll of flatbread.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/07/19 05:15 AM
6

They're pretty popular here in Denmark as well, maybe even more so than pizza. What I see a lot of references to from Americans is tacos, and those aren't a thing here at all. Maybe that's the equivalent.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/19 01:52 PM
17

Americans don't eat kebabs?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/19 01:46 PM
3

But they would probably still be killed, right? What else are they going to do with a truck full of pigs that they can't take back to the farm either? So the only effect is they'd have to breed an even larger load of pigs to make up for the lost shipment.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/06/19 09:33 AM
3

It's a "hard concept" because it isn't even close to true. That's not at all what it refers to, and it doesn't even make sense. Why would not being disadvantaged be a privilege?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/05/19 01:28 PM
0

It's a good thing men are 93% of the population, then. Otherwise that comment wouldn't make sense.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/05/19 01:21 PM
1

You haven't heard of this big thing called GDPR? It's not that the law stops you from viewing the articles, it's that American websites don't want to conform to European laws for data protection, so instead they just deny access to Europeans.
/r/MensRights11/05/19 01:32 PM
1

1 chance which she barely had a chance to react I counted 9 times where he told her to leave or put her hand on her head before the slam. That's plenty of time to comply.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/04/19 08:43 AM
17

That still leaves about 320 of the 481. Not much better.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/03/19 11:06 AM
11

you teat your employees respectfully Freudian slip?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/03/19 04:14 PM
14

£39 holidays to Spain? I should go buy DailyMail.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/03/19 11:19 AM
5

What acronym?
/r/PussyPassDenied23/02/19 10:14 AM
2

So we have to deal with the consequences of our decisions, except if you're a father who decides to have a child and be abusive, then you don't?
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/19 12:41 PM
1

No one said anything about not being fit do provide either. I don't know where you are getting these arguments.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/19 12:09 PM
2

It's a bit of a grey area for me, and I'm not entirely sure what I think is right. If we take this hypothetical scenario where the child was agreed on by both parents with the expectation of paying half the cost each, the mother had no way of knowing the father would be abusive, and it is completely fair that the mother get full custody... ... on one hand, it's not really fair for the father to have to pay for years for something he doesn't even get to see, regardless if it's his fault. ... on t…
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/19 11:39 AM
1

No one said they can't provide. The question is what is fair. Even if you could afford paying a million for something, I'm sure you'd rather pay half a million for it if possible.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/19 11:33 AM
1

So abuse is rewarded while the good parent is saddled with double the cost, despite having no fault in the split? Fair enough. Can't say you can't have that opinion.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/19 11:26 AM
9

Well, potentially because the other parent is a bad parent? I agree with you in most cases, but the mother could be getting custody because the father abused the child, for instance. Would it then be fair that the child he had half the responsibility for creating would now be entirely the mother's financial responsibility?
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/19 11:11 AM
9

be run over.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/18 08:54 AM
2

I only own two pairs of pants. And about 20 identical black t-shirts.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/11/18 08:44 AM
71

That makes me want to get drunk.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/18 04:49 PM
12

In self defense, yes. While you are apparently okay with her assaulting an innocent guy.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/18 08:14 PM
5

That's only relevant assuming you piss and shit an equal number of times per day. And even then, come on. Just take that fucking half second to put the seat where you want it. Complaining about that is just the epitome of laziness and self-centeredness.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/03/18 10:03 AM
15

BMI isn't a percentage.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/17 03:29 PM
3

Why?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/10/17 01:11 PM
1

You're still assuming the point was about BLM being attractive to those people, and not those people being attracted to BLM. If a statistically significant portion of rapists were Republicans, that could be an interesting fact about rapists without saying anything about Republicans as a group.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 03:13 PM
1

The claim was that they are a certain portion. The parenthetical remark was my personal opinion injected. Here's another one: BLM as a whole is a complete joke. Any point they might have had was lost shortly after its conception, and it's now nothing but infantile, racist whinging, while every example of their oppression they bring up is either pure fantasy or caused by themselves.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 02:42 PM
1

I can't speak for that commenter, but I believe I just gave you a likely point. ...rather than just that selfish people who are the cause of their own problems make up a certain (likely rather large) part of BLM'ers?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 01:45 PM
1

And how does that imply they are the responsibility of BLM as a group, rather than just that selfish people who are the cause of their own problems make up a certain (likely rather large) part of BLM'ers?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 12:16 PM
2

But... nobody said that.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 05:20 AM
50

But... aren't most of them correct? The woman in the picture doesn't even mention her gender.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/06/17 05:53 AM
1

Seriously. They couldn't even be bothered to vertically centre the text in the red box.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 05:28 PM
–

Comma between the words, dumbass.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/04/17 03:21 PM
1

You're around the twentieth person to make that point, and I'm just sitting here thinking... how fucking stupid do you have to be to think that's in any way relevant? The word "actress" exists. That word applies solely to women. Some people use that word. Ergo, since some males can only be referred to as "actor" and women can be referred to as both words, if we assume the amount of female and male actors is about the same, men will more often be referred to as "actor", because "actress" is used …
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/17 08:11 AM
1

It doesn't, actually. I don't know where this started, but it's a pretty normal and clear pronunciation of "earth".
/r/PussyPassDenied03/03/17 10:17 AM
4

What? Did you actually read the comments before? That's what this is all about.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/12/16 06:10 PM
12

you are on the wrong site to be protecting facebook Says the person with the opinion that's consistently heavily downvoted throughout the thread. What are you talking about? From what I've seen, the consensus is that you should be somewhat wary of what you share on facebook, and that facebook is a shitty company, but I've never before seen anyone say it's bad to use the site.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/12/16 06:00 PM
157

That's an odd reply. I mean, I'm not going to say communism works, but you can hardly blame Stalin on communism any more than, say, capitalism is to blame for American drone strikes killing children in Pakistan. All systems of government have had bad leaders and bad things done by those living in them. Communism, by definition, is just public ownership of the means of production. Nothing in that says anything about killing people, and that could have been done under any system.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 09:23 PM
4

Yes, if someone stands up a bit longer than you would like, it's completely okay to assault them.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/11/16 07:18 AM
5

Yes, mph, not km.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/16 09:00 PM
2

Yeah, but those are in mph, right? Which would be my point.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/16 07:06 PM
26

Yeah, I've never seen a km speed limit above 25 that wasn't divisible by 10.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/16 01:09 PM
14

I wouldn't call it sexism either. I'm just saying that is the absolute worst you could make any kind of argument for. Certainly not hatred of women. If anything, wanting to see beautiful women in little clothing is the direct opposite.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 05:59 PM
140

Eh, I don't want to spoil the party, but even calling it that annoys me. It's not any kind of misogyny, fantasy or otherwise. Nobody is hating, or even the loser definition of devaluing or mocking, women by giving them skimpy clothes. At worst you could call it a form of (fantasy) sexism, but certainly not misogyny.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 05:32 PM
1

Sorry, but compared to most of Europe, the US is still incredibly conservative. "Religion is shit upon", and yet you're still ~70% Christian. Socialism isn't popular, but the fact that you call what's popular socialism is rather telling. And politically, the American right wing, which is still supported by about half the population, is completely off the scale conservative compared to almost any European country.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/08/16 01:20 PM
16

The car driver admits he did follow the pickup truck after the truck smashed into them. Wait, why is that something you would "admit"? Isn't that just the right and obvious thing to do, when someone deliberately hits you and runs?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/16 09:34 AM
1

I agree. You just said: there are a lot of fake rape accusations that end up with no punishment, even if the guy ends up being acquitted I'm just saying, being acquitted doesn't imply anything more than that. If there is a false accusation, they should definitely work harder to find and prove it, but a false accusation trial not necessarily following an acquittal is nothing strange.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/16 10:02 AM
-4

Just to be fair, an acquittal is not the same as declaring the accuser guilty. Presumption of innocence goes for the accuser as well, and an innocent verdict for the accused simply means there wasn't enough evidence to declare him guilty, and we don't - legally - know what happened.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/16 09:25 AM
24

Yes, but unfortunately that's a rarity.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/16 07:55 AM
-2

That is the worst speaker voice I've ever heard.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/03/16 12:59 PM
3

That's… not even close to the same thing. What on earth are you even trying to say, you lunatic? Yes, you can catcall while following someone in a car, but that's not what catcalling is. That's like saying you should be afraid of boots, because it's possible to shoot someone while wearing boots. It's such an amazingly fucking brain dead argument, I really hope you are a troll.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/03/16 12:15 PM
2

Of course he never said catcalling wasn't obnoxious, he said that being terrified of it isn't exactly a sign of being strong. Nice strawman, though. Really showed that inner Nice Guy™.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/03/16 11:56 AM
6

You really can't get much farther west in Europe.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/16 05:43 PM
6

Well, you're just a right fucking cunt, aren't you? Even if he was displaying ignorance, what on earth would possess you to react like that? Are you touched in the head?
/r/MensRights09/02/16 11:08 PM
11

Then don't click on a link clearly stating that's it about this?
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/16 07:42 AM
4

According to other sources he was 26 but mildly autistic.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/01/16 06:28 AM
3

She apparently got it anyway, just elsewhere.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/01/16 06:01 AM
29

And wrong the rest of the day, what a stupid thing to say But... that's the entire point. That's literally what he was saying. How stupid are you?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/01/16 05:55 AM
5

That's the point. This sub is about women trying to use the fact that they are women to get out of something. Here she's trying to use her skin colour to get out of something. Doesn't matter that the cops didn't know.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/11/15 10:41 PM
27

Camera guy annoyed me more. "Is it okay [to call you a cunt]? NO!" Fuck yes it is. She's on his property. He can talk however the fuck he wants, and she's free to leave if she doesn't like it.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/10/15 09:27 AM
5

Not really an attempted pussy pass when many people do it.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/10/15 12:58 PM
4

All Really? You're going to assume he means every single woman here? Really? Perhaps that would make some shred of sense if all women made less than all men (though not even then, because there are more than those two studies), but come on.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/15 02:33 PM
37

She was probably paid to say it and set him up for the response. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to expect help from a stranger there.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/15 09:51 PM
0

Technically, OP did post a video. Just a video without sound. It's not really a gif.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 06:49 AM
4

Got news for ya bub, life ain't fair This isn't life, it's a courtroom. Are you saying the legal system should be deliberately unfair?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 06:47 AM
4

Why would you want that?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/09/15 12:26 PM
16

Except it's not missing the point. "Can not" and "should not" really are the same thing, when we're obviously not talking about either legality or anything physically preventing you from doing it. You, on the other hand, completely missed his point. Jokes have a way of self-policing, in that people don't want to tell jokes that people react badly to, so you tell a rape joke and everyone goes "dude, that's totally over the line", then you won't tell a rape joke again to that audience. Conversely,…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/09/15 12:17 PM
1

Those aren't American cops.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/09/15 02:49 PM
1

I would agree in most cases, though your phone could be dead or you forgot to bring the number (worked better before most phones had internet, but still - maybe it was a very specific number), or your car could break down in a tunnel with no service - whatever. There are some reasons, however unlikely. Personally, I would at least hear the applicant out before jumping to conclusions. Not that I would blame an employer for not giving the benefit of the doubt, but Methaxetamine made it sound wrong…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/08/15 10:02 AM
3

You can't imagine a single situation where someone might be delayed through no fault of their own?
/r/PussyPassDenied14/08/15 08:15 AM
3

I want employees who try to show up on time. I also accept that sometimes things will happen that make that - as well as calling ahead - impossible.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/08/15 07:31 AM
2

Yeah, felt like I was reading something written by a twelve-year-old… who holds interviews for a government agency. A strange dissonance.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/08/15 07:27 AM
3

Why wouldn't you? She might have had a good reason to be late. Why throw away a potentially good candidate because of that?
/r/PussyPassDenied14/08/15 07:18 AM
2

That... doesn't make any sense. Why would I do that when so many have already done that and every historian agrees? The enslaving of the Jews is solely a Biblical story, and those aren't known for their reliability.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 06:09 AM
2

Jews being enslaved by Egyptians is a myth. It never happened.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:20 AM
1

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but saying "these roads seem narrow to me because I'm from Sweden" doesn't make a lot of sense when Sweden has the same or worse in a prominent location.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/07/15 08:47 AM
1

You're Swedish and you think those roads are narrow? Have you never been to Gamla Stan?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/07/15 01:51 PM
10

50 millimeter dollars?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/07/15 05:32 AM
1

Good. You wouldn't want to be broke as well as dead.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:04 AM
-3

Is "Youtube" the new "Whirlstaaarr"? No less cringey.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/15 10:27 AM
5

That's not an NTS. He didn't deny that many feminists are like that and he didn't claim his version was the only "real" feminism. It's still kind of silly for other reasons, but it's not an NTS.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 03:57 PM
3

2. Fig. to pass out; to become unconscious. After I fell, I must have blacked out. I think I am going to black out. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/black+out You might be right about what they meant by it, but no need to be condescending and assume people are lying. I assumed they meant the same as well - as they clearly can.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 06:30 AM
229

If you didn't commit the crime, you don't have much to worry about Wow. I didn't think that level of ignorance was possible.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 11:03 AM
4

It's an insane rumour that started because Putin apparently said he supported them.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/05/15 10:06 AM
39

Is the camera hanging from his dick?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/05/15 05:17 PM
3

From what I can find, he was never even in the military, and his father topped out as major.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 07:53 PM
1

And Sweden did it just two years ago and Norway 7 years ago. That's such a small difference, it's pretty dishonest to use as a criticism of one of those countries over the others. It's also reasonable to note that these 'brothels' were very underground and hidden from public view, because very few people found it acceptable - meaning legality has little to do with it. Sexual exploitation exists everywhere.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 06:45 PM
1

No it doesn't.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:08 AM
1

That's a bad thing?
/r/MensRights16/05/15 06:43 PM
8

Denmark is the least feminist of the Scandinavian countries.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 06:39 PM
3

I don't like dresses and skirts. I don't even think they look good on women. So no thanks. I also doubt I'll be able to find women's wear made for 6'7" people.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:42 AM
5

The article seems based on the assumption that if marriage rates are down, it means relationship rates are down. I don't know how Britain is in that regard, but if it's anything like here in Denmark, much of the decline in marriage is simply because people don't see a reason to get married. Marriage is mainly because of tradition and religion, and lots of couples simply forgo it - but that doesn't mean they love each other any less or that their relationship is any different. There might still b…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 04:42 PM
4

would of Are you sure you went to high school?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/15 05:32 AM
35

Relash then?
/r/MensRights24/04/15 06:24 AM
13

It's wrong to hit a woman, did your fucking parents not drill that into your head when you were younger? Yeah. They did. And that's exactly the problem. This sexist idea is perpetuated through nothing but brainwashing and circular reasoning, a la "it's wrong because we're all told it's wrong". There's no reason for it.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/04/15 06:42 PM
3

OP didn't say he knew organizations […], he said he knew feminists Uh... What? You think organisations are not people? You think their directions are not decided by many people? You think a group of people who cared enough about something to start an organisation about it isn't a thousand times better as an argument than any individual?
/r/MensRights18/04/15 06:20 AM
4

Exactly. Pedromac's comment just doubly proved the point that it's very different for men and women.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 06:56 PM
4

And the only way it would be ironic and "part of the problem" is if it contributes to gender discrimination while "claiming to fight gender discrimination". Don't play stupid.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 05:28 PM
9

Not this crap again. An insult that only applies to one sex is not inherently discriminatory. It means "you are X sex and I don't like you", not "I don't like you because you are X sex". No one is offended because you call a man a dick, but they are if you say all men are dicks. Or cunts. Or assholes. Really, the word still doesn't matter. The idea that this would be sexist in any way is completely absurd, and it's pathetic that it's so prevalent anyway.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:13 PM
4

It's only sensible to wear a warm coat when it's cold. That has nothing to do with wearing a coat in a warm climate for no reason. Uh... what? I was alive in Alaska during some very warm times your analogy is pretty fucking inane. Seriously? That's what you're going to hang on to? You couldn't figure out that it was an example, and I just randomly picked some place that's generally considered cold, while still being pretty well known? I actually considered saying Novaya Zemlya, but I thought man…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:58 PM
6

Common sense in that country would be to bribe the cop that pulled that person over, but if you applied that same "common sense" in America, you would probably be hauled off to jail. That's a terrible argument against common sense. The sensible action would be to do what you know, or have good reason to suspect, would get you closer to the result you want. The fact that the way to achieve this varies by country has no impact on that at all. Common sense would allow - nay, require - you to take f…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 11:46 AM
13

X factor, I would guess from the big X on the desk.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/15 06:26 AM
1

Your grandpa's what?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:53 AM
0

No, but it may stop your work. I don't see how being stranded is necessarily worse. And roadside assistance will - at least where I live - usually have you moving again in less than 30 minutes.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/02/15 08:15 AM
1

Why? Isn't that like saying that in order to operate a computer, you should know how to replace a psu? Sure, it's not hard, but most people don't have a clue how, and they do just fine without it. There are computer shops, and in case of cars, roadside assistance.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/02/15 06:39 AM
4

I don't get why people say this. It's apparently obvious that "most cases" doesn't mean always, so why wouldn't the distinction be to be against violence against those weaker than you? It's just as easy to say but a hundred times more accurate if that's what you mean. Why bring gender into it, unless you think it'd be more okay for a stronger man to hit a weaker man, than for a stronger man to hit a weaker woman?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:09 AM
4

I'm anti violence towards women Why? I mean, why just toward women?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:37 AM
11

women posting pictures of themselves holding up placards explaining why they choose to reject feminism, a notion which, for the purposes of this article, will be defined dually, as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” So even though the placards mentioned all clearly show that's not how those women define feminism, you're still going to define feminism that way in order to dismiss their points? And this does not strike them as absolutely fucking pants-on-hea…
/r/MensRights21/02/15 01:19 PM
2

You don't need to prove yourself to anyone. Yet explaining why you disagree is sort of the idea behind a discussion board such as this. What's the point in participating at all, if only to say you're not going to participate? But you're sounding so much like the stereotypical "Not my job to educate you, shitlord" SJW, that you're only serving to confirm the troll hypothesis.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 10:21 AM
5

And not true Scotsmen either, right?
/r/MensRights14/02/15 08:44 AM
2

Yeah, that's what I thought. Troll.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 08:43 AM
4

The fact that you think a dictionary definition defines a movement doesn't really warrant any counter, but it's also largely beside the point here. You replied to someone who advocated the use of egalitarian terminology over "feminist" and "mra", which obviously, by their mere names, favour one gender. You can't reply to that that feminism is equality without making an arse of yourself, because obviously that would go for MRM as well, and that's the entire point: if you really want equality, why…
/r/MensRights14/02/15 08:08 AM
5

I think you might be the one embarrassing yourself. But considering where you are, you'd almost have to be a troll.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 07:45 AM
9

Fun fact: no. As for your edit: There is literally nothing you can say or do to convince me That's really not something to be proud of. And movements are not defined by dictionaries, they are defined by their adherents. Not long ago, as an example, most dictionaries defined atheism as heretics who hated god or some such. That didn't make it true either. Dictionaries are written by people. They do not define words, they attempt to describe them, sometimes erroneously.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 07:40 AM
14

You… believed this?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/02/15 07:37 PM
6

Only 32% of male Internet users have been called offensive names? What the hell do the other 68% do? Only ever check e-mails from family?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:10 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights13/01/15 01:33 PM
4

Why? I mean, some of the posts in this sub are definitely like that, yeah, but what made you comment that on this particular post? It seems extremely unbiased and egalitarian.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/01/15 07:13 PM
1

You were right the first time, it is HTML5 video, not Flash. Unless it has multiple formats and mine just picked HTML.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/01/15 03:13 PM
2

than*
/r/MensRights10/01/15 07:47 AM
1

But not much more. My 6'7" is often considered too much.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 07:43 AM
4

My thought after reading the title was "Oh, so at least one 16-year-old in the UK doesn't live with their father".
/r/MensRights02/01/15 10:56 PM
6

But not asking for sex is a sign of disinterest and therefore a turnoff.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 08:35 AM
9

From Albert Einstein.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/14 07:53 PM
2

She happily accepted them How the hell do you know?
/r/MensRights14/12/14 05:51 PM
1

Hey, I'm a pro-gay guy who finds the thought of anal sex repulsive. What other people do in their bedrooms is none of my business as long as all parties consent, but I don't want anything up my arse, just as I don't want to put anything of mine in someone else's. I don't think those two things are necessarily related.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 08:58 PM
5

If someone I cared about was being robbed or assaulted and no cops were available to deal with it because they were busy listening to old ladies complaining about their bladder infections and not being able to take any actions, I'd be fucking pissed.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/12/14 09:07 PM
42

Men don't get paid more for the same work, though, so for this to be accurate the cake (or whatever) should be 27% larger for men - and cost 27% more as now. That would reflect reality.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 05:02 PM
23

… can someone explain to me how that doesn't apply to mothers?
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:55 PM
21

Look out, we've got an internet tough guy over here.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/11/14 02:06 PM
23

To quote you: you can't complain how it ends. Yes, I can, I will, and I will be completely justified in it, whereas you will simply be a violent, sociopathic criminal, too weak willed and insecure to ignore something that doesn't harm you in any way.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/11/14 01:40 PM
74

You insult my family, i will break your face. Physical attacks are never justified for verbal insults, no matter how offended you are by them. If I call you a cunt and you beat me up for it, hell yes I'm going to complain - and make sure you go to jail for it. Also.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/11/14 01:17 PM
2

Whose* Don't mean to be a pedant, but "a male friend who is girlfriend" just threw me off.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 08:56 PM
3

Feminism may be linked to the left, but the left is most certainly not linked to feminism. As a socialist who is strongly opposed to modern feminism I have to say it pushes me away every time the MRM is painted as a conservative thing. In fact, given that equality is typically a leftist trait, and the reason I'm opposed to modern feminism is that I see it as the biggest obstacle to equality, I wouldn't even say it's linked to the left. It's much more authoritarian than liberal.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 11:00 AM
2

If anything it's the other way around. You can easily have marxism without feminism.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 06:40 PM
1

It's a complete fucking lie, though. The raw difference in wages in Denmark has been a pretty constant ~18% less for women for many years according to Danish statistics, and more women being in better jobs is just absurd. We have many women in high positions, but more than men? Not likely. Danish women choose high paying tech jobs, dangerous jobs and high overtime jobs much less than men, just like everywhere else. And Denmark is the least feminist of the Scandinavian countries. I really have no…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 01:54 PM
7

Any one who says otherwise is not educated on true feminism and what it stands for If you get downvoted, it's more likely for that ridiculous no true scotsman.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 05:54 AM
6

Wow, those are horrible. What's wrong with those people? No one is forcing men to be carers or preventing women from it, they just want men to have the same rights and possibilities as women.
/r/MensRights20/10/14 11:59 AM
6

Learn from what or who exactly? I've heard hundreds of feminists say the belief in a patriarchy is central to feminism, but I'll openly admit that "hundreds" is a tiny fraction of all feminists, even if several of them are considered prominent and have written best-selling books. But then how do I educate myself? Must I ask literally every self-proclaimed feminist in the world before my opinion is valid enough to challenge yours, which seems to be at least as anecdotal? I don't wish to just dism…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 10:54 AM
7

Yes, but it's only effective because it's told to and perpetuated by people who don't.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 01:48 PM
11

If you're making the distinction that myths are beliefs while lies are known to be false by the speaker, then I'm pretty sure it's both - some of each.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 01:41 PM
8

Comment: If a woman feels slighted in the most insignificant way, society has people (mostly men) falling over themselves to defend her honor. Nope, not true. In what kind of utopia do you live? If however a man feels slighted in the most insignificant way, women fall over themselves to defend his man ego (often by reprimanding other women, who are in the right most of the time too, to be nicer and) Whoa... these people actually believe this? I'm seriously speechless. How is it possible to belie…
/r/MensRights14/10/14 01:17 PM
2

True, it only becomes a lie when they add "for doing the same work", as they often do.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 10:12 AM
5

I'd say even the possibility of one false accusation would be enough to necessitate it.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:50 PM
9

Is it hurting them in anyway Well, it might when he's going down…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:43 PM
1

To begin with, the name “He For She” is problematic, no matter how you slice it. Yes! Finally at least a mention of how this was still completely biased against men. there is nothing feminist about a campaign that reinforces a gender binary that is harmful to people whose gender identities don’t fit into such tidy boxes. … oh, that's what she meant. Yeah, the poor transsexuals etc. aren't included. True enough. But those last 48% of the population still don't mean shit, I guess.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 05:42 AM
27

I don't even know how you guys have the patience to talk to these people. If anyone tried to ask what I was doing with a child or stop me from going wherever I wanted, I would completely ignore them and just keep walking - including if they tried to get in front of me. I have absolutely no patience for baseless, prejudiced accusations like that.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 04:13 PM
2

No, the majority of the ones I've seen were pretty good. I just found that one particularly disgusting.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 05:05 AM
3

Somewhere in Solo's story is a man not doing what he is suppose to do or doing something he shouldn't... When you deny that men are the problem you are part of the problem... Well... Not all of them.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 04:52 AM
1

Would you really not feel indignant about a headline about men who "cry DV", or "cry rape", or "cry sexism"? No. That would be completely fitting. It makes it sound like it's not really DV, or not really rape, or not really sexism No it doesn't. Sorry, you have no grasp of English.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 12:02 PM
1

Exactly, that was my point. It suggests that women reporting rape are lying Now you're backpedalling. You claimed it literally meant to weep, but now you've been shown it doesn't, you're suddenly changing your claim to be "well, the boy in the story was saying something false, therefore it's bad". It's still bullshit, because that's not actually the definition of the word, the boy just happened to be lying - but you are completely changing your point. Under this definition it portrays these wome…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:18 AM
1

Crying wolf is a perfect example of why you're wrong. The boy from the fable didn't actually cry, he just yelled wolf. It was a false alarm and he knew it. From Oxford dictionaries: Cry: Say something loudly in an excited or anguished tone of voice: ‘Where will it end?’ he cried out From Merriam Webster: to utter loudly : shout archaic : beg, beseech to proclaim publicly : advertise <cry their wares> intransitive verb to call loudly : shout So no, those connotations are very deniable. The word f…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 06:11 AM
1

To "cry" just means to shout in this context. That's a perfectly common meaning of that word. Town criers weren't people who stood around sobbing.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 07:29 PM
3

That's what Mitschu said, except, as he pointed out, it's not always that simple - many words can be both depending on the context. Take something like… you can have a lot of fight in you or you can be in many fights – or you can have a lot of war or many wars – and those are not at all the same thing. In this case having a lot of balls isn't referring to the amount, but the degree of the abstract concept of having balls, in which case it's not countable.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 06:32 PM
18

Wait, "badass"? There are people who think that's a good quote?
/r/MensRights14/09/14 12:12 PM
0

Why would I need something better than that? The unfortunate fact is that morality is what we humans make it. If you think it's just fine to fuck 10-year-olds, then the only thing telling you you're wrong and stopping you is really the collective consciousness of the society you're in, and yes, it can be wrong or imperfect, and often is - but it's the best we've got, and it's better than nothing. A society where gays are considered evil is better than one with no rules or morality at all, and we…
/r/MensRights06/09/14 06:39 PM
18

It's not really about what you want, it's about informed consent — whether you are able to reliably make a decision and stand by it after that. Before a certain age, our society has decided you aren't able to make big decisions on your own, sex being one of them. If you think only female paedophilia is fine, you're saying that boys are able to make decisions at that age, but girls aren't, i.e. that girls are dumber and less mature than boys. That's pretty sexist.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 04:57 PM
5

What? You thought I was comparing those? Seriously? No, but doing MR-activism by painting MR as exactly what SJWs claim they are, is like trying to convince people you're not violent with threats of violence. It's going to do the exact opposite of what you want.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 12:54 PM
6

Yeah, the same kind of activism as "Behead those who call us violent!"
/r/MensRights21/08/14 12:48 PM
5

Almost everyone who claims to be from reddit on Youtube is a 4chan troll.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 11:37 AM
1

"on reddit" has a strikethrough. Are you on a mobile app that doesn't show that by any chance?
/r/MensRights19/08/14 06:10 AM
3

I get the point you're trying to make here, but it sort of falls flat when the guy you're replying to literally said it's good to have gender specific posters for both genders in the same place. Nobody is criticising that here.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 11:03 AM
7

He had done the research, the authors of the studies just didn't have enough vaginas.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 11:19 AM
1

I like being punched in the chest. I don't know why, but a good fist to the ribs with decent (not bone breaking) power is just pleasant to me. My ex refused to do it, though. But of course it's all about knowing the other person's limits and preferences.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 05:21 PM
25

That makes me feel better.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 06:09 AM
0

Yes, you actually kind of did. there's no fucking way a woman should get off with anything less than a man when statutory is on the table There is no reason for that qualifier if you didn't have a somewhat different opinion without it. You wouldn't say "I like icecream when it's red" if you like all other colours equally. At the very least it's completely understandable and obvious to ask if you feel the same in other circumstances.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 05:22 AM
3

Same here, that farce of a justice system in the US scares me more than the fighting in Gaza would.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:32 AM
7

there's no fucking way a woman should get off with anything less than a man when statutory is on the table. Why only then? Shouldn't women always get the same as men for the same crime?
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:23 AM
1

Physically and mentally capable are two different things. I'm definitely physically capable of both killing and raping. Mentally I'm probably capable of killing if you push me enough, but I can't imagine a situation where I would ever be mentally capable of raping someone. That would require brain damage or insanity. Granted, they don't state which of those they mean, but physically capable is just meaningless. Everyone except the most seriously handicapped is. Of course when they redefine rape …
/r/MensRights18/07/14 05:43 AM
13

Women don’t "cry rape" with any regularity, and to propose otherwise is offensive. Men don't rape with any regularity, and to propose otherwise is off— …oh wait, that's totally okay and the basis of their ideology.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 11:21 AM
5

Tenets. Tenants rent apartments. Sorry, pet peeve. It's used incorrectly about 90% of the time I see it.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 11:19 AM
10

Yep. Some of them even come straight out and say it, like Hillary Clinton with her "women are the primary victims of war" crap.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 05:57 AM
20

That's just a nofollow link. They still get inflated views and ad revenue.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 03:07 PM
20

Eh, not to sound 2BRAVE or anything, but the US justice system is medieval in many ways.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 06:35 PM
2

Exactly. Number of cases would not be directly translatable to the chance of being a victim of it, but that's not the number we're given.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 07:24 AM
1

100,000 women and 50,000 rapes does not mean that 50% of women have been raped. No, that is correct - but no one has ever talked about the number of rapes. The article mentioned 50% of women being abused and 1 in 2 women being abused. Nothing about number of rapes. gossypium_hirsutum apparently doesn't think that's the same, and directly said " A 50% chance is not the same as 1 in 2". Let me just cite the article if there's any doubt: Girls Born in Canada Face 50% Chance of Abuse The organizatio…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 07:21 AM
1

Because you brought in the example of one vs three? But it doesn't really matter, as percentages work exactly the same regardless of the sample size. But by all means, let's go back to 50%. We have two women, A and B. A has been abused once. B has not been abused. 50% of these two women have been abused. 1 in two has been abused. New example. A has been abused 1.596 times. B has not been abused. 50% of these two women have been abused. 1 in two has been abused.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 07:12 AM
1

And yet if two women out of six were raped, it would still be 33.3...% of the women who were raped and 1 out of 3 - regardless of the distribution of rapes. It is exactly the same. Honestly, you people are embarrassingly poor at math.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 07:03 AM
1

Point taken.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:58 AM
1

Sure, but 50% is still exactly the same as 1 in 2 when both are per lifetime. I don't know where these people learned math.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:50 AM
2

Fair enough. I don't believe a "don't rape" class has an effect, and I honestly find the idea completely retarded, but I can respect the intention, just not the discrimination that's apparently inherent in it.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:44 AM
6

Could you please link or cite a comment that implies that?
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:18 AM
4

Then why is it discriminatory? Honestly, this would probably have a higher chance of helping if taught to women, because women actually have some risk of not realising rape is bad, as we're always taught that men always want sex. Your arguments would be fair enough if not because you're completely ignoring the entire point of contention here: the discrimination and the misinformation.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:16 AM
6

Education perhaps, but this isn't education. Misinformation and fearmongering is the opposite of education.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:12 AM
-5

Err... actually, if women have a 50% chance of being raped in their lifetime, which is what the article says, that's exactly the same as 1 in 2 being raped. Doesn't matter how many repeats there are.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 05:58 AM
3

So you're saying women don't need information, only men do?
/r/MensRights30/06/14 05:49 AM
1

Wow, only 1 in 6? I thought it would be around 50% for both sexes. Guess I'm more pessimistic than I thought. Wait, is that per relationship or per person?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:21 AM
7

Exactly. Brushing that off as if it's nothing is insane.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 09:59 AM
7

But according to the FBI, only eight percent of rape reports are unfounded What the fuck? I don't know if that number is true or not, but how can you dismiss that as unimportant? If eight percent of people accused of a horrible crime are innocent, we should just throw away presumption of innocence and lock them all up?
/r/MensRights19/06/14 09:25 AM
2

And you completely ignored what I just said, instead resorting to childish ad-hominems, condescension and straight up fabricating stuff. Did anything give you the impression I wasn't calm? What makes you think I particularly burn for the issue? Don't bother, I know the answer: absolutely nothing. You just want me to be upset because it's easier to condescend and brush off than to think for a second. Allow me to repeat myself, since there's a small chance you're just unable to understand simple s…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:06 PM
2

"a dad should be able to denounce fatherhood during the pregnancy or within X weeks of being told of his fatherhood". Bringing abortion rights into the matter is ridiculous. Then you don't understand the conversation, because that wouldn't make any sense. I do agree with that, but it would be completely meaningless to say here. Tufferugli's argument was that you should be able to force men into supporting a child they were conned into having, because it's all for the sake of the child, not the w…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:51 PM
2

And all of that is completely irrelevant to the moral principle of conning someone into becoming a parent and supporting a child against their will. It's just not the point. But even if we include that, and admitting I haven't exactly tried pregnancy, I'm still fairly certain I'd pick a pregnancy over 18 years of cutting my wages in half.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:40 PM
1

It's... insensitive to use the exact same argument with reversed genders to show how wrong the first claim was? Really? Are you that weak minded that you can't separate an analogy from a real event? The whole point was that I don't want this. If you think simply typing the words is insensitive, then... sure, I'm insensitive. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 05:35 PM
2

Err... what on earth does that have to do with anything I said?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 05:29 PM
2

In that case, any man who made a woman pregnant should be able to refuse her an abortion and force her to pay for that child for 18 years as well. That's only fair. I mean, otherwise she should have just kept her legs closed, right?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 03:45 PM
7

Perhaps, but those are usually downvoted very quickly here. I can't imagine it would be possible to honestly believe that is the prevalent ("without fail", "always") opinion here.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 12:36 PM
24

When has anyone here ever said that "women don't face a single issue in society"?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:00 AM
1

Huh, interesting. So asshole is somewhat gendered as well, fair enough.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:58 PM
8

That would be relevant if I had ever claimed it wasn't a gendered insult. But I never have. Quite the opposite, I've consistently said it is gendered.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:56 PM
4

You specifically said that you think the word "bitch" is appropriate because the person you're using it for happens to be a woman. This is how. That makes no sense. You're either saying that any word that applies to only a portion of people marginalises them, or that insults are somehow intrinsically different than other words and do that - and you're saying it like it's somehow obvious. If you understand that the word "bitch", used as an insult, is predominantly used against women, then your "f…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:09 PM
8

When you use a gendered term as an insult or in a derogatory way, you're normalising marginalisation of the gender via the term used How? what happens when you use it to insult a man? Usually he same. It's a random insult with no further implications than "I don't like you", but sure, sometimes it is used to imply weakness, often coupled with "little". I don't see the relevance, though. Many words have different meanings depending on the recipient. "Bitch" when referring to a woman certainly has…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 11:09 AM
5

you're making gender an issue in a way you wouldn't if you'd used the word "asshole". How? I could make exactly your argument to defend calling a black person the n-word No, that's different, because "nigger" (and you can actually write the word, when you aren't calling a black person it. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the word exists) is a reference to a trait of that person. You are denigrating his skin colour. "Bitch" is not, it's a completely arbitrary insult, just like "asshole", …
/r/MensRights30/05/14 10:31 AM
41

I have no problem with "bitch" over other insults, which is to say, insults should be used very sparsely in general. What I do have a problem with is the apparently huge group of people who somehow believe using a gendered insult is an insult to the entire gender. "Bitch" means "I don't like this person, and she happens to be a woman", not "I don't like this person, therefore everyone who happens to share her gender is bad". No one would think calling one guy a dick means you hate all men.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 09:26 AM
1

Then you only read his first comment. He does seem open.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:52 AM
0

Please don't downvote this guy. He seems to be genuinely interested. It's childish and extremely counter-productive to deter people from asking questions, even if you think those questions are stupid and the answer obvious. Not saying they are.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 06:18 AM
0

I obviously asked what she could have done because you ignored her, i.e. what could have gone worse than if you didn't. But thanks for the downvote, have one back.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 02:07 PM
0

Really? You think you have better chances of escaping the cuffs by hitting her? Nothing's fool proof, but I'd think the best defence you could possibly have if the cops show up is "I don't know what she's on about, I have completely ignored her".
/r/MensRights23/05/14 01:48 PM
1

I got shadowbanned once for downvoting a couple of comments after following a link from a different subreddit. I was unbanned after explaining I had no intention of brigading, I just forgot how I got there and acted as I always would.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 06:22 AM
1

but it was irresponsible Well, yes, perhaps. But how does that in any way at all make an unprovoked physical assault "somewhat understandable"?
/r/MensRights23/05/14 06:08 AM
0

How about just ignoring her? You answer once. If they keep asking, just let them babble on and completely ignore them. It's not like this person could have done anything.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 05:51 AM
4

Why would you think he was suggesting that?
/r/MensRights22/05/14 09:00 AM
0

Oh, you were asking seriously. Sorry. I thought you meant it in a "hah, you have that - we don't even know what it is over here"-way. It's an ad for registering for selective service, aka. the draft or conscription. You know, being forced into the military. I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country you still have the right to refuse if selected, and you can't be sent into actual combat as a draftee.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 09:49 AM
3

European here. We have it as well.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:53 AM
1

Actually, it's not. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) rejected a proposal to add sexual addiction to its list of psychiatric disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some authors have questioned whether it makes sense to discuss hypersexuality at all, arguing that labeling sexual urges "extreme" merely stigmatizes people who do not conform to the norms of their culture or peer group. (source)
/r/MensRights04/05/14 10:11 AM
1

Is there anything wrong with being a nymphomaniac, though? You're saying "Calling A = B is offensive because B isn't bad", which implies A is bad, but who says so? Isn't that just as much how you perceive it? Nothing in the dictionary definition of that word makes it inherently bad.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:27 AM
5

What? I don't understand what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 05:41 PM
2

This type of stuff isn't necessary You're right, it sounded more condescending than I intended. There's no outrage, though - I really just meant I'm surprised. Women can still be scum even if they hardly ever rape and men rape all the time. Absolutely. I have no particular interest in making women out as rapists. I don't really care. The thing is I've grown up believing a lot of these feminist statistics, because we're all bombarded with them, told to accept them as indisputable fact and attacke…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:35 PM
2

Don't you even realise how utterly absurd the 1 in 5 claim is? It would be an absolutely horrifying epidemic if it were anywhere close to true.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:29 PM
2

It sounds like you're saying you're male, so you should probably realise that the little guy has a life of his own, and not just "random boners". A bit of stroking will get most people up, regardless if they're actually in the mood - and it's perfectly possible to be sexually aroused by a woman without actually wanting to have sex with her. You can be in a happy relationship and not want to cheat without that making you impotent. It's not about "happens to have a boner". Honestly I'm still amaze…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:58 PM
11

Actually, legal technicalities is the only way a woman can't rape a man, because many countries have laws that unfairly define rape as non-consensual penetration with a penis. But are you seriously asking how a woman can force anything on a man? As in you believe every single man is physically stronger than every single woman on the planet, and only rape where the victim is physically held down, and without the use of a weapon, counts? No drug rape, blackout drunk rape, blackmail-rape, group rap…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:20 AM
8

A bit too obvious. 3/10. Add subtlety next time.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:18 AM
10

Actually, gender being the mental state and sex the biological is a relatively new invention, and one that has never become the sole definition. It's not incorrect to use sex and gender as synonyms.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:17 AM
2

I would hope most people who have kids actually want the responsibility of them. Otherwise they shouldn't have them.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 06:12 AM
1

Alright. You've clearly thought about it, though I can't say I agree at all - and I would strongly protest calling anyone a worse person for saying "sure, it's a nice drawing". I think young children get a lot farther with encouragement than criticism, even if justified. And no one said anything about "throughout their entire youth". Would you comment on the last paragraph in my previous comment?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 06:31 PM
5

Average for your age and (objectively) awful are not mutually exclusive. And what if the kid was awful even for his/her age? What about other examples? What about the example of the nazis in 1940 knocking on someone's door, asking if they're harboring any Jews (which they are)? Would it be wrong to lie then?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 06:11 PM
6

I don't think that the long term effects of even small lies are more positive than the long term effects of a "hurtful truth". Really? Never? So the next time a child asks me what I think of their stick drawing, I should say "Well, I guess it's pretty average for your age, but no one else is going to be impressed by that. It's really pretty awful"? That's about the most extreme case I could think of, of course, but I've still said plenty of little white lies that I in no way regret, and still ca…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 06:00 PM
1

Really? I thought it was pretty awful. Lies are quite often useful and even polite. For example, when a child asks you what you think if their drawing, most people would consider it wrong and disrespectful to say what you really think. And it's not just around kids. Sometimes there's just no need to tell a hurtful truth, if it isn't going to help anything. This doesn't really mean anything. This one is decent, although "honour" can have a shitty meaning depending on one's definition. It's not re…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:35 PM
1

Ovarian cancer?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:24 PM
34

With greater strength should come greater responsibility When you're using that strength, yes. But this isn't about violent, forced rape. That shit's cut and dry, there's no excuse for it ever, and the violent person is always 100% at fault and responsible. Very few people would disagree with that. This is about getting drunk and not really understanding what you're saying, and whether a "yes" given while intoxicated is really consent. And why would strength have any relevance there? Why is a ph…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:59 PM
1

No source on it actually being something she said. Just saying. It doesn't stop lots of insecure girls from quoting it.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 03:24 PM
3

Also you're not less of a man (or woman, for that matter) for not wanting children. Having them and then not caring is a different matter.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 03:21 PM
3

Naturally inclined to want to be caregivers, yes. The significantly higher number of women who choose to be attests to that. But if you mean naturally inclined to be better at it, I'm not convinced. You know, except for the obvious part that women tend to be slightly better at breast-feeding than men.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 05:18 PM
7

the idea that mothers--who literally make children--would be good caregivers is totally made up nonsense Well... yes? I honestly don't see how those two things are related in any way, but I'm not at all convinced women are better at child-rearing than men. I would be interested in some documentation if you have it - and no, the fact that women tend to make up the majority of caregivers is not evidence that they're better at it.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 12:58 PM
2

I find it hard to believe that you respect women, seeing as you apparently believing calling one particular woman a cunt for a good reason somehow applies to women in general.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 09:25 AM
2

Did you intend to reply to someone?
/r/MensRights14/02/14 09:22 AM
2

Unless you want a girl who's taller than you. Then you're shit outta luck.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 08:25 PM
4

its up for discussion whether that is relevant or not Not really. The only way it can be relevant is if you think members of one sex are responsible for what the others do, which is pretty much the definition of sexism. If a peaceful man gets beaten by a violent guy, is it his own fault? Is it somehow less important than if the guy had beat up a woman instead? Sadly, I think most people would say yes to that last question - but is it really?
/r/MensRights12/02/14 08:05 PM
3

its almost always men committing those crimes as well. How is that relevant? Are all individual men somehow responsible for what the others do, such that it doesn't matter when one man is assaulted by another - it's his own fault? Once again extreme mental gymnastics are needed to think you have a point here. Men are victims of violence far more often than women, period. That means men are treated worse by society in this area. Besides, one might make the point that men are only more violent tha…
/r/MensRights12/02/14 07:39 PM
7

Are you serious? Men are victims of all violence, including sexual, more than twice as much as women. Even if women are sexually assaulted more often, which isn't really clear, it takes some insane mental gymnastics to make that the only thing that counts. "Treated worse in society" is sort of a subjective claim, but you picked just about the worst example you possibly could. Women are much, much safer from violence and abuse than men.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 11:24 AM
8

SRS is like 80% white men. It's amazing how much people can be brainwashed to hate themselves.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 01:24 PM
3

Wow, that's stupid. While I do think it's kind of assholeish to not at least take it seriously when someone you know claims to have been raped, those things aren't remotely comparable. Nobody wants someone to take their wallet because they get drunk, but drunken flirting isn't exactly unheard of.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 02:18 PM
10

No.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 02:09 PM
8

Amazingly, that just makes the analogy better. Just because I couldn't think of a good reason for it, doesn't mean there isn't one.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:54 PM
5

Yes, that woulde be correct spelling. And someone made that same comment and had that explained to him 4 hours before yours. Stop being an idiot.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:38 AM
12

aren't needed I don't think a cup with three handles is needed, but I'm not about to dedicate my life to fighting anyone trying to make or sell those.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:24 AM
9

Except they're still men when choosing whether to hate and blame them. I'd be happy with a bit of consistency.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:19 AM
-4

Yes, you certainly sound intelligent. Would you care to elaborate on your - uh - opinion, or should I just go kill myself right away?
/r/PussyPass01/02/14 10:00 PM
0

I'm not sure I follow. I don't trust anyone, so I can't exactly fault you for mistrust, but you're still saying you hate women somewhat, you just mistrust them more - but then go on to say that most women don't deserve to be hated. Then why do you hate them a little? Also, not all women want to breed. I'd actually guess the proportion of women who want kids at some point is roughly equivalent to the proportion of men who do as well. But interesting conversation. Thanks for answering.
/r/PussyPass01/02/14 06:08 PM
-1

I am wondering that. Would you mind explaining why you hate women in general because of this?
/r/PussyPass01/02/14 05:21 PM
-4

there was blood all over her car Source? when you hit something wether another car or a piece of wood in the street you notice immediately. And she did. The article says "heard a bump, but thought she hit a rock."
/r/PussyPass01/02/14 03:01 PM
-3

Really? Vigilante death penalty for not noticing you've run over a couple of kids hiding in a leaf pile? That sounds like justice to you?
/r/PussyPass01/02/14 02:11 PM
3

Why not? Isn't one of the most important issues that men get much longer prison sentences for the same crimes, which can only be shown by comparisons to women's sentences?
/r/MensRights31/01/14 06:09 PM
2

So seeing as two children gave a 12 month sentence, it's safe to say that shoplifting is literally worse than killing someone?
/r/MensRights31/01/14 06:08 PM
4

Er... what? Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. Calling one particular woman a bitch in no way says anything about women in general, and the fact that the word "bitch" applies less to men is completely irrelevant. Maybe you think it's childish to call people names. Fine. But by labelling it sexist you just sound like an SRS moron and completely destroy your credibility and any point you may have had.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 06:03 PM
1

Would the fact that you were not in life threatening danger make you feel any better or make it any less illegal? Not any less illegal, but the sentence should obviously be lower. I also wouldn't think anyone deserved anything near 14 years for slipping me a laxative. I $100 fine + covering lost income during the diarrhea sounds about fitting for that horrible crime.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 05:57 PM
1

But are they really, even in a "strict definitional sense"? I'm open to having my view changed, but I don't see it. According to Oxford, patriarchy in this sense means "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it", and patriarchal is "relating to or denoting a system of society or government controlled by men" - but neither is the case in any western country I know of. Sure, in many countries men make up the majority of members of parliame…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 04:18 PM
1

I don't quite like that you're agreeing that modern western nations are patriarchal societies. Do you believe that?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 07:56 AM
2

Yes, you are obviously the adult here.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:33 PM
3

Since it is the norm in the US, the starting point would be to circumcise. Tradition is not an argument. The starting point is the least action or the least difference from how you would treat similar things. You are asking for circumcision to receive special treatment compared to other cosmetic surgery, yet you can't explain how it's different. It just is. Thank god there are other users who could actually answer a question, and talk about why circumcision is bad. Again your hypocrisy is stagge…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:05 PM
3

And you still don't see the hypocrisy? I could say the exact same thing right back to you: I'm asking for reasons, but all you can say is "why don't you give ME reasons." The null hypothesis here - the starting point - is not circumcising people, and treating this kind of cosmetic surgery as any other kind of cosmetic surgery, i.e. not forcing it on children. You are asking for circumcision to be treated differently than everything else. That's the positive claim. That stance has the burden of p…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:35 PM
4

No one will think it's healthy until there is proof. ... exactly. What, you don't see your hypocrisy here? We're saying "don't cut off parts of people when there's no evidence it does anything good. Leave the choice for when they grow up and can make up their own mind". You're saying "Sure, force this surgery on them. I have no idea if it's good or bad, but there's no need to give them the choice - just do it for the heck of it". No really, burden of proof is yours.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 06:27 PM
3

Again, an opinion is stated without backup You have the burden of proof here. Let's hear it.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 05:48 PM
8

the parental rights The "parental right" to give a child what's at worst mutilation and at best unnecessary cosmetic surgery? You're aware that those are illegal more or less everywhere, with the sole exception of circumcision, right? Parental rights are far from limitless.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 05:45 PM
1

Well, if you're talking about feminist theory, then I can no longer agree that it's remotely useful. Feminism, the good kind, i.e. the fight for women's rights, can be a good thing - there are many places in the world where women are kept down and could use some liberation and empowerment. Just not most of the west. Feminist theory on the other hand is a bunch of wannabe soft science nonsense, fundamentally based on the ideas of a patriarchy ruling everywhere, and women in all countries and cult…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 07:11 AM
20

Same here, I cleaned in a hostel for a short period once. Men's bathroom? Sometimes a little piss on the seat and floor immediately around the toilet. Women's bathrooms? Same amount of piss, makeup everywhere, including all surfaces and mirrors, used tampons in the drains and on the floors (and yes, they had bags for them) and the blood... jesus, the fucking menstrual blood under the seats and in every corner. Not to mention the toilets were often clogged from the ridiculous amounts of toilet pa…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 07:03 AM
1

Fair enough. I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll try to do better next time. I'm just saying we should address the counter-arguments that will be made instead of straw arguments, because the real ones are just as easily refuted. But really, you presume to tell me about condecension? Yes, the last few replies to you were deliberately condescending, but still a fraction of yours.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 09:21 PM
1

Great, now if you could stop name-calling like an angry 10-year-old while hilariously criticising my writing, perhaps we could move on and figure out what else you misunderstood.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 08:54 PM
1

Great, thanks. Just wanted to make sure, since I'm apparently being ridiculously misinterpreted.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 08:19 PM
1

Seeing as you've clearly demonstrated your inability to read and understand simple sentences, would you care to tell us what you think that sentence says and how that has any bearing on anyone's intelligence? Or am I being naive by assuming you're not simply a shitty troll? By the way, am I to take your sudden lack of interest in defending your ridiculously false accusations of me not thinking the man is a victim as an admission of error?
/r/MensRights06/01/14 08:18 PM
1

The "an innocent child is harmed!" is a silly emotional argument Agreed, but nonetheless the one that will be made. Which is all I said.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 07:50 PM
1

I'm sorry, are you fucking stupid? How much to I have to spoon feed you this? This is not my opinion. This is the common response I know you would get from those supporting it, and hence what we should respond to, instead of simply pretending it's exactly the same as any type of fraud. Pretty much the only thing in that comment that was my opinion was nor is it fair to put that burden on a man who has nothing to do with it - which is exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of, and makes …
/r/MensRights06/01/14 07:48 PM
-5

I like how you missed the part where I explicitly didn't.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:39 PM
-4

Just to be fair here, the reason paternity fraud isn't the same as most other types of fraud is that the victim of it is an innocent child. If the father suddenly won't pay, the child is the one that suffers for it - or at least should be, but we all know child support rarely only goes to the child. I don't agree with it. The woman would be in the same situation if she'd gotten knocked up by a guy she'd never see again, so it's obviously not a "right" for a child to have two paying parents, nor …
/r/MensRights06/01/14 01:35 PM
1

No need to apologise, I didn't think it was preachy - I appreciate you taking the time to explain your opinion. That said, I can't fully agree with it. The key, at least in the first part of your comment, is that "familiar bond". The difference between a non-family-member and a parent is purely that you're somehow "supposed" to feel connected to a parent through that bond. Now, first of all, that raises a couple of problems. Who are you supposed to have that bond for? Is it only biological paren…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:54 AM
0

Yes. He does. Apparently you're only interested in childish condescension and avoiding any actual discussion. My time is worth slightly more than that. Have fun.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 06:04 PM
1

difficulty in maintaining close personal relationships is a sign of a personality disorder. So... you're saying it's a requirement to have a close personal relationship with parents, but no one else? That if you treat your parents badly, that shows you can't have a close personal relationship with anyone, but treating anyone else the same does not? I'm not refusing to accept anything - very childish way to put it, by the way. It's just that it really doesn't make any hint of sense. how much does…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 05:54 PM
1

But having known people to treat their perfectly normal parents like shit, yes, i think this point is still valid. But again, isn't treating perfectly normal people like shit a bad sign, regardless if they're the person's parents or not?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 05:26 PM
0

If a person doesn't have a "bond" with his or her parents, you're in for a rough relationship with them? I still don't see the connection. Either the parents deserve to be scorned, in which case doing so says nothing about the person -- or they have done nothing to deserve bad treatment, in which case I only see a marginal difference between treating them poorly and treating any innocent person poorly. I certainly can't agree that treating good parents poorly is indicative of a personality disor…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 05:25 PM
3

Yes, I agree with that. But then again, why mention parents at all? If you treat anyone like shit when they haven't done anything to deserve it, isn't that a bad sign?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:16 AM
2

Watch how s/he treats their parents. If your partner is rude or dismissive to his/her own parents, how do you think you and any kids you might have in future will be treated? What? How are those two things even remotely related? Has it occured to these people that not all parents are great people, and some of them deserve to be dismissed? I like the rest of this list, but this is some weapons grade bullshit.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:12 AM
2

What? Where did I say anything like that? Edit: Oh, you misread me apparently. Sorry about that, I just didn't understand your comment at all. Thanks, /u/johnmarkley.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 09:16 PM
8

Over at the Reddit Mens Rights forum, another poster fumed: “This entire episode should be a warning to all those male hating feminists out there who believe that they are safe screaming their hate messages on the web. Finally, they are held accountable for their hate messages What? How is this a bad thing? Holding people accountable for what they say is always a good thing, regardless if what they're saying is bad. Even deluded, frothing MRA-haters should be able to see that. I'm not denying th…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 07:39 PM
1

I've never met a woman who went part-time because she had children. Actually I've only ever met two women who worked part time, and one had cancer, the other had multiple sclerosis. But I'm from Denmark, the least feminist of the Scandinavian countries. Anyway, I wasn't saying our women were better here than anywhere else, just that my alarm bells would go off at a woman (well, person - I just don't date men) not wanting to work here, exactly because she's fully able to because of the cheap chil…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 07:47 AM
2

That's why I mentioned where I was from. I'm fully aware that in many, if not most, other countries you will more or less have to at least go down to part-time work if you want to have children. I wouldn't judge a woman in one of those countries for wanting that - although I would probably still try to make sure that was the reason, and kids weren't just an excuse for not wanting to work. Anyway, I didn't say it to judge anyone, but just to make it clear that I really don't see working and self-…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 06:41 PM
58

I agree with you in not being offended by this. It's a film, likely a comedy, and I don't feel my gender is being attacked. That said, it still shows a double standard in society, in that a movie with the same premise and the genders reversed would be completely unacceptable. Imagine a film where 2-3 men found out a girl was dating them all, and decided to get revenge on her by slipping her testosterone, etc. No matter how much you called it a comedy, that would not be shown anywhere, and if it …
/r/MensRights22/12/13 11:10 AM
3

Here in Scandinavia homemakers are extremely rare. I'm always surprised when someone even considers it an option to not work and be self-sufficient. Honestly, if I were to date a woman who didn't want to work - or just not work enough to provide for herself, but wanted me to provide for her, I would get the hell out of there immediately. All my alarm bells would be going off. Completely different if she couldn't work, of course. It's not one's physical ability I'm considering, but the mentality.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 11:02 AM
2

Well, the page is gone now, but if you clicked her name, it said "I'm a proud black woman" in her description.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:12 AM
7

.... what? No seriously, what?
/r/MensRights15/12/13 05:15 PM
110

She's a black woman. In the US. Who is against freedom of speech. Some of these people just leave me completely speechless.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 04:33 PM
10

I... don't really know. Do you have any reason to believe that? The wage gap and glass ceiling are always disproved by any not feminist slanted research, including by the USDOL. Your reaction is probably going to be "hah, he doesn't believe women are oppressed in business, I can safely ignore him", but I would like to know why you think this.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 10:04 PM
3

Not to mention that prisoners of war are... you know, actual prisoners. If a woman is actually locked up and physically unable to leave, that's a whole different ball game, and then I could sort of agree with murder being justified. But that's not an abusive relationship, that's kidnapping or false imprisonment.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 09:48 PM
11

We control the world of business, government. We do? That's strange, I don't remember personally controlling any governments. I don't even own a business. You're not stupid enough to think "Most positions of power are held by men" is the same thing as "All men have power", are you?
/r/MensRights14/12/13 09:31 PM
1

I'd say there are big parts of e.g. the Middle East where women most certainly have it worse than men. The men can be very well off and quite free, while the women are extremely confined by religious rules and a sort of patriarchal family structure. I'm sure that goes for many other places in the world as well. But in the west? No. No, they don't have a single thing to complain about that isn't ridiculously shallow or just false.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 06:39 AM
1

The same link is posted higher up in the thread. Not that I mind, I'm just saying, that may be the reason for the 3 downvotes.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 06:54 AM
4

Eh, I'm a 31 year old man who can't grow any semblance of a moustache. I also have very little body hair, and no, I'm not Asian. That said, I don't feel excluded here. Very few things can be done by everyone. I just can't support it this way.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 09:00 PM
1

Yes it is irrelevant, because the topic is women. The OP is an article about women complaining about sexism against women in video games, the comment is a woman disagreeing, and mrwhibbley was making a point about women in general not valuing the completely natural look for themselves. Men are irrelevant. They may not be any better, but they're not being talked about.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 07:22 AM
2

And? No one said every single member of the female sex did anything, but most women do tend to do something to change the way they naturally look. As do men, often in other ways, but that's irrelevant.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 05:28 PM
4

Well, as it says as the first thing on the page you linked to: Strawman: You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack. A strawman is saying "you believe x, which is wrong because y, therefore you are wrong", when x isn't what the person said in the first place. That doesn't apply here, because no one is misrepresenting what these people are saying. They're being quoted directly - no misrepresentation is possible. If anything, you mean the fallacy of composition, as these are…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 06:12 PM
4

That's not what a strawman argument means. Maybe you should click your own link?
/r/MensRights21/11/13 10:29 AM
9

Vote fuzzing will never put you in the negative. It sounds like that's where he was at the time of the edit to me.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 10:28 AM
6

No True Scotsman What? Where?
/r/MensRights19/11/13 09:03 PM
42

Just FYI, it's scot-free. Scot is an old English word for a tax, so getting off scot-free means not having to pay taxes. It's not the name Scott.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 07:16 AM
3

It's on most buses in Denmark
/r/MensRights13/11/13 08:45 AM
1

Except you sadly already know the answer to that. According to the same people, not a damn thing. This is a rare exception with no significance.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 10:26 AM
7

I first understood it as "even when men are crazy, they're not that crazy, but crazy women are completely fucking insane, so it's more important that they're calm", which is insulting to women.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 10:18 AM
1

And I hope that if a woman passes the same test as a man, she's also paid the same?
/r/MensRights08/11/13 09:33 PM
2

This is not what I personally want to see here. As others have said, the fair thing would be to test them using the same standard, which would make fewer women able to pass and become firefighters, cops, soldiers, etc. Simply paying women less because they are women is sexist and wrong. I had hoped this place was better than this.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 09:30 PM
3

Look, I don't know anything about India, and I could be persuaded in either of your directions - but the fact is, you haven't presented anything to support your claim except for condescending accusations. He really doesn't need anything more than an "evasion". Do you have any good and not feminist slanted documentation?
/r/MensRights08/11/13 07:58 PM
8

A lot of men take offense to this, but you need to learn to bite your tongue. This is our movement. Well, at least this one admits that feminism doesn't cover men's issues. If only they could agree on it.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:33 AM
1

For every shirt concert Are the shirts singing or are the musicians playing shirts?
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:29 AM
19

So it could work? Then it would seem the logical - and only - course here. Living on 17% of your income before tax is just absurd.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:34 AM
23

Just throwing it out there: What would happen if he left the country for somewhere less insane? Would a country that would never impose such a ridiculous alimony on him in the first place still extradite him?
/r/MensRights04/11/13 07:15 AM
2

Actually, it is limited to today, since he spoke in the present tense - but I know it wasn't limited to the western world, which is why I asked.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:14 AM
1

As I've said, I certainly don't deny that there's plenty of oppression of women and patriarchal societal structures all over the planet. What I was interested in finding out was whether Sera thought it to exist in the western world, as I don't. Dismissing disagreement with ad hominems instead of explaining one's position does nothing to further the debate.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 07:19 PM
1

Well... shit.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 05:48 PM
4

What? I asked you for evidence of the patriarchy. You named two examples, one in Saudi-Arabia, one in Iran. I then asked if you would agree that patriarchy only exists outside the western world. How do you not see the relevance? I haven't accused you of claiming anything else, it was a question.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 05:14 PM
0

Right, so you're only talking outside of the West?
/r/MensRights03/11/13 04:21 PM
10

Instead of insulting him, why don't you name some of that obvious evidence?
/r/MensRights03/11/13 04:05 PM
1

I really doubt saying "Men are the only ones who can do this. Men are uniquely gifted in this area, women can't do this because men are just awesome, blah blah", even if it's just in one area, is going to garner much support from men. If anything, those who aren't already convinced that women aren't worse off, as feminism has succeeded in telling people over the past 40+ years, will be pushed farther away, and there will certainly be an angry backlash from women. It's hard to quantify, of course…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 04:02 PM
5

At least in the western world it is.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 03:54 PM
-4

Look, even if this were true, what possible good does it do anyone to state it? Seriously, even if women had just sat back doing absolutely nothing for the past thousand years, which they certainly haven't, how is it relevant to men's rights? This place should be for equality, not some immature "I did more so I want more" mentality.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 03:48 PM
32

Aren't most relationships and marriages also ended by women, making the "women are devoted and faithful" part a blatant lie as well?`
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:22 PM
6

Only sex from a female. Male sex is of course worthless.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 12:02 PM
4

The organisation may be fine, but the issue here is why this poster is gendered.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 09:42 AM
11

Are you serious? Jeez, USA. As if you weren't batshit crazy enough already.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 12:55 PM
5

This school may be blown up. Solution? Prevent anyone from leaving. Brilliant.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 09:39 AM
2

there are links between some men’s groups and misogny and hate speech. Wow, that's just extremely hypocritical. At least they're saying "some" this time, but then what about feminist groups? Can you seriously be so brazenly deluded as to claim there aren't at least some feminist groups promoting hate speech?
/r/MensRights13/10/13 02:14 PM
6

Well, according to SJW types, black people can't be racist either.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 10:26 AM
1

Yes, but this guy makes a good point about it: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1o0lol/paternity_test_proves_man_is_not_the_father_of/ccnx5ch?context=2
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:43 AM
2

Completely depends on the rape and the beating. Obviously getting anally raped is not something I want to ever try, it sounds absolutely horrible. But compare that to getting my teeth knocked out, an eye poked out, possible brain damage from having my head stomped on, etc - and I'd pick the rape any day.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 08:08 AM
5

Well, seeing as he's now dead he probably won't be. Probably.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 06:53 AM
6

Yet many people who buy internet subscriptions have no children and would just like to view any URL they type in. Why is a feature like that not opt-in, even if we for a moment accept that children must be protected from those horrible men's rights?
/r/MensRights03/10/13 05:58 AM
24

Of course he didn't take the picture, he was driving. He just found a picture of the same one later. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Obviously we don't know if his story is true, but this is a ridiculous reason to disbelieve it.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 06:45 AM
3

Possibly, depending on the level of pressure and your definition of the word. But regardless, sex based on verbal, non-threatening pressure is not rape -- but a lot of modern mainstream feminism is trying to make it so.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:14 PM
2

There's a difference between "pressured" and "forced". you can go to jail for coercing people into sex. So you suddenly change "pressure" to "coerce" just so you can have a point? Coerce is obviously a much stronger word than pressure, which could just be someone saying "come on, you know you want to" etc. That's not rape. "Have sex with me or I'll kill you" obviously is.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:09 PM
4

Meh. Someone is going to say "Hitler was right" as well. There are plenty of idiots in the world - but luckily neither of those is a common attitude.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 05:53 AM
1

It's there again, but if not, this comment described it.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 05:52 AM
31

... which of course means we believe some alleged rapists should go free, if we can't find enough evidence to fairly convict them. That alone makes us rape apologists to many tumblrites.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 05:46 AM
6

which was saying rape claims made on the basis of intoxication/inability to consent "ultimately amount to a poor choice" Actually, you just straight up pulled that out of your arse. Your_Fun_Counselor has never come close to saying anything like that. He may have meant that, of course, I don't know - but neither do you, and since his comment does not mention what it is that "amounts to poor choices", it would be logical to assume it's what the pic mentions. You certainly can't just make shit up …
/r/MensRights22/09/13 05:44 AM
8

We get told all the time "if you didn't want a child, you shouldn't have put your penis in her." I'm so tired of that argument. It's extremely easy to tell others to never have sex again when your gender isn't affected by it.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:28 AM
4

I just can't see the logic in giving all of us a free pass -- IE, the ability to say "I didn't even want it, so I don't have to take care of it" -- where there does exist a large amount of personal responsibility. And yet, this is exactly what women can. Why do you want a double standard?
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:26 AM
1

So it's just the word "battery" that's been done away with. Makes sense, thanks.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 11:54 AM
1

Not contradicting you as I have no idea, but are you saying there is no longer any legal difference between threatening someone and actually hitting them? That seems weird.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:02 AM
19

then they'll complain that skill-based games are the patriarchy They already have. In one of her videos Anita Sarkeesian said that most games are too difficult for women, and this is another sign of sexism in the industry. Because that's not an insult to women at all.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 05:38 PM
1

So even though 22% of the men are obese, women still can't completely the same physical fitness tests they can? That's kind of insulting to women. I don't believe it.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:15 PM
1

Well, there's this and this and this. So it's not even associated, it's just bigotry.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 08:33 AM
9

Only by a few percent. Over 40% of DV is female-on-male.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 08:21 AM
2

Acceptance of violence as a way to resolve conflict Except violence as a way to resolve conflict has never been accepted against women, at most it's accepted against men, including by women. So really this completely disproves their own point.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 08:19 AM
7

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with a country that sends 13-year-olds to actual prisons? I thought the fact that a 1 year prison sentence is considered "light" was bad enough. I'm sorry, this actually pisses me off. The US a fucking medieval piece of shit third-world country in so many ways.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:22 PM
8

I don't see why this is downvoted. It would. If women attempt suicide three times as often as men, and men successfully commit suicide five times as often as women, then that shows that a large majority of women who attempt suicide fail at it. We're not saying women are incompetent, because we don't believe this. We're saying this factoid makes it seem that way, which makes it an odd argument for feminists to use.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:10 PM
1

Yes. Of course it varies by family, but generally anyway - and I'll just add that there's a huge difference between saying a word and calling someone else it, i.e. saying "whore" is fine, calling someone a whore - usually not so much. But then, calling someone a prostitute would be exactly the same, so the word is not the problem, it's the meaning behind it. We have pretty heavy swearing in TV shows directly targeted at children and teenagers, such as Terkel In Trouble, which was translated to E…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:34 AM
1

Denmark, actually. I'm surprised at the UK, really - I would think having Ireland next door would rub off on you.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 08:58 AM
1

Right, sorry about the assumption. I've just noticed that many Americans are horrified of swearing, whereas in my country nobody cares. The Prime Minister swears on prime time TV and nobody bats an eye. I also don't consider it bad manners to swear, unless it's at some formal dinner party or something. Swear words are no more harmful than you make them.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 08:06 AM
1

You American? From what I understand it's a very American thing to be afraid of a little swearing, especially in front of or among kids. Can't say I empathise.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:39 AM
1

As a man with long hair, I'd be kicked out of most women-only hairdressers, even if I wanted a lady-do. What would be the problem with that?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:01 PM
8

If I had a son and one of his friends' parents tried to tell him not to say "politically incorrect" terms according to their personal definition, I'd be fucking pissed.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:50 AM
1

sites*
/r/MensRights26/08/13 11:38 AM
1

Did you see the video? It will never, ever save you.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 03:45 PM
21

Exactly. There's this one single thing in the entirety of western society that commonly symbolises marriage. One thing you can't buy for yourself without seeming perhaps a little weird, though I doubt many people actually would think that - as top post said, it's 90% in her own head - and she fucking dares compare that to a TV? An actually useful item that has no symbolic value? How dishonest can you be? I don't mind a sexist joke at the expense of men. No problem. But it pisses me off to think …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 11:38 AM
0

But they can't act on "sketchy". All they can do is stand around and think he's being suspicious - but who gives a shit? So no, it's excellent advice. In any situation. Never, never talk to cops unless you called them there. They aren't there to help you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:40 AM
2

Exactly. You wouldn't send a cop because someone didn't give up their spot in an elevator to an old person. That's just absurd. Cops are there to handle lawbreakers. Socially awkward things you handle yourself.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:30 AM
1

Wow. I happen to think smoking is the most disgusting thing in the world, and I'd honestly be happy the day it was downright outlawed - but I know that's just me, and I certainly wouldn't go around telling people to stop smoking in public areas, much less call the cops on them. You're the one who sounds entitled here.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:24 AM
8

The two should be the two sides of a coin They should be, yes, if feminism was anything like what it claimed to be. Unfortunately, it's not. Mainstream feminism/SJM is the biggest threat to equality in the western world today, hence it makes sense to combat it. Many feminists are actually for gender equality Absolutely - which makes it all the more important to inform those of what the rest of feminism is doing. The problem is that right now those that think feminism is just a fight for equality…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:07 PM
13

One more thing feminism has in common with religion. Evolution don't real. Evolution don't real. Evolution don't real. Evolu- what? It's been proved? Well of course it has, and we've known about it all the time. Obviously evolution was God's way of creating his creatures.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:05 PM
1

Still not the same, though, because no one would see anything wrong with having sex with a conscious guy who agreed to it, almost no matter how much he had to drink. Obviously, as we can see here, that's not the same for women.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:44 PM
3

Or just not wanting children. Doesn't have to be correlated with that at all.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 11:12 AM
1

I did think it was a little odd that so many didn't want parents or siblings either. This makes a lot more sense.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 11:09 AM
2

Wish granted. They are going to die at some point.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 11:06 AM
3

According to this men are 93% of workplace deaths, and according to this 4,609 people died in workplaces in 2011 - or 3.5 in 100,000. That means ~323 women died in the US in 2011, compared to ~4,286 men.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 11:03 AM
7

On the other hand, i am astonished that he served the time he did- that was unjust with such crappy evidence. Completely agree there. It's fucking terrifying that you can go to jail on a rape charge with no evidence whatsoever, apart from the word of the accuser.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:09 AM
0

Really, that's your argument? There's less freedom of speech in Scandinavia because you have to get non-standard names approved to make sure they aren't completely gibberish? I don't know why you're mentioning Australia. Last I checked, that wasn't in Scandinavia. And since you went there anyway, Scandinavia doesn't strictly enforce age limits on games and films, which the US does.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:56 PM
2

What a fucking sexist judge. "When a woman says no, what does that mean?" and "Why are you taking money from women", etc. Anyone think she'd have the slightest problem with a man giving money to a cancer stricken female friend?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 12:41 PM
3

Why hello, I'm just going to strip search you in the middle of the street here - after all, you could be carrying a bomb under those clothes. What, are you not concerned for our national security? Ungrateful git. What a fucking stupid argument. There's a pretty huge difference between reasonable concern and completely irrational paranoia.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 12:06 PM
1

Yet when someone criticizes feminism, all hell breaks lose. That's not my experience about Denmark at all. Really the only rad-feminist in our media is Anne Grethe Bjarup Riis, and not only is she not so bad (sure, she's insufferable to listen to, but she mainly just dislikes prostitution - she's not that bad of an SJW), but she's also taken seriously only by a small minority of hysterical women. Other than that, feminism is usually criticised and laughed at everywhere it pops up, and it very ra…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 12:00 PM
1

Danish Rad-fem government? Wat?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:57 AM
1

Wait, what? The US has much, much less freedom of speech than Scandinavia in general. We let Neo-nazis march and Westboro do their thing for heaven's sake. So does Scandinavia.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:51 AM
1

What is it with this namaste-thing? Is that a new douche thing? The only person I've ever heard say it outside of the TV is my girlfriend, and she grew up in Nepal.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 09:54 AM
2

Except, as the other comments explain, CertusAT completely misunderstood the point.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 09:49 AM
2

"I'm a man" really seems to be the only thing you could say to that without sounding snarky.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 11:57 AM
1

if a comment isn't censored the mods endorse it Or, unlike all the fempire subs, we don't believe censorship is a good way to deal with unpopular opinions. Nah, that can't be it. We obviously endorse it all.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 11:52 AM
4

Wow. The poor guy actually seems to believe feminism will help him.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:13 PM
1

Where does it serve a purpose? Twitter?
/r/MensRights14/08/13 11:27 AM
4

I can't help but envision a Nazi concentration camp in which the Jews were treated like royalty, didn't have to work as hard as the Nazis, and any Nazi who ever laid a hand on a Jew would be beaten by the other Nazis.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 11:18 AM
4

Of course sexism exists. Going both ways. Who ever said it didn't? That's exactly the point. Feminists insist that sexism against women is systemic and institutional, because that's what the patriarchy is, so ask them to prove that. If they would lessen their claim to simply "sexism exists", then I doubt anyone would contradict it.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 11:13 AM
1

You must be new ;) SRS = ShitRedditSays. It's a subreddit - or a series of subreddits - dedicated to pointing out sexist, racist, etc. things the rest of reddit says. Well, that's what they say it's about. In reality it's the worst of rad-feminists and social justice warriors sitting around, hating others and patting each other on the back for being more sensitive and politically correct than everyone else.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:53 AM
3

Exactly. I've never attacked anyone, but I've been assaulted four times. According to this, I need to be locked in with the violent people so women can feel safe, only because I happened to be born with a Y-chromosome. And hell, I'm a reasonably big guy so I have a chance to defend myself at least, but all the young, frail, handicapped and otherwise easily beaten men and boys get locked up with the violent ones too. This is every definition of discrimination, bigotry, sexism and pure fucking evi…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:39 AM
1

Why is this such a difficult concept for these morons? It is impossible to completely eradicate crime, at least with sacrifice anyone would consider acceptable. If it could be done, we would have done it a long time ago. It is a fact that criminals exist and will exist, if not always, then at least for many hundred years yet, until we invent some technology that's impossible to even guess at now. You can't tell criminals to stop being criminals. You can't just wave your hand and prevent all crim…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:29 AM
2

Even if it did only cost him, we all know being "famous" is what does it for this freak. He's deliberately leaving that part out.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:22 AM
9

Please don't conflate women and feminism. Regardless of what you think feminism is, those two are not the same thing, and accusing people of any sort of hostility toward women because they don't agree with feminism is incorrect and incredibly condescending.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 06:52 AM
12

Are you such a fucking crybaby that you can't handle a dissenting opinion? Okay, I was wondering whether you were unfathomably stupid or just a troll. Now I'm leaning toward the latter. You did not present any "dissenting opinion", you claimed something incredibly ignorant and unintelligent about a topic that's so frequently discussed here that you have no excuse for not knowing better. Dissent is no problem. Participating in a forum for advanced math without being able to add 2 and 2 is. It's b…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 06:36 PM
12

Unless you're impotent, I can guarantee you're wrong about that.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 06:22 PM
17

Honestly, I can't even imagine why anyone would include gender in a definition like this, unless it's written or managed by a rad-feminist with an agenda. Even if you don't think men ever get raped, or that women are capable of it, there's just no reason to include that in the definition. It just feels completely random and unnecessary, like defining golfing as "the act, performed by a human being, of playing golf".
/r/MensRights08/08/13 05:41 PM
25

What are you doing here? Seriously?
/r/MensRights08/08/13 05:36 PM
0

Nice grammar.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 10:17 AM
6

you don't know the fear of being a woman. So apparently the great fear women suffer under is not getting the best food?
/r/MensRights06/08/13 10:55 AM
2

But there are plenty of places where black people are in power. That's just variation, individuality and coincidence. Feminists would have us believe that in every single society or nation that has ever existed or exists now, men have managed to seize power and oppress women. If that were true, which I don't believe for a second it is, it would strongly indicate that men were just more powerful and better than women.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:56 AM
14

Of course I have a right to speak on behalf of all women, because women are on my side. Wow. Is she for fucking real? I don't even know what to say. I hope she's trolling in some sarcastic attempt to cast light on the "problem" of trolling on Twitter, but even though that would still be stupid, that's a naïve hope, I know. I just can't get into my head how it's possible to be that stupid and deluded.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:27 AM
2

Right. So if you don't cross the street to cater to a few nutjobs' paranoia, you're not an "ally" of women. What are you then, an enemy of women or just someone who doesn't care about women's genuine issues? Either way, it's still condescending bullshit.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:20 AM
2

No, he didn't. He compared one single thing they were/are asked to do. Stop over-interpreting.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:17 AM
3

Frankly, men have a lot to fear from strangers on the street at night as well. Yeah, four times as much, as men are four times as likely to be victims of assault by strangers. The entire premise that women have a rational fear of strangers that men shouldn't is bullshit - but that's what happens when you're brainwashed from childhood to believe the world is out to get you and you're always a victim.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:14 AM
3

No, he's saying that NPCs in video games have about the same amount of "agency" as players on a foosball table, as in you can't control them directly, but you can act upon them either with the player character or the handle bars, making them by definition just objects. He was very clearly only talking about NPCs and not the entire medium. But good job with your ridiculous over-interpretation. Now go back to SRS, please.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:02 AM
1

Seriously? What do you need to do to be allowed to reply to OP?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:46 PM
2

realize that if you could, you would prefer a partner with a higher income If everything else is exactly the same, sure, but that would take some coincidence. In a realistic case, there would be a hundred other things that would be more important.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:55 PM
17

No one would ever rape because sex isn't good when the other person isn't diggin' it. There, I just proved rape doesn't exist. We can all go home now.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 08:32 AM
3

But did he push her as much as he pushed you? That's the interesting part.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 11:06 AM
9

Well, possibly because there are two rapists out there who might not have any idea they've done anything wrong, and would do it again to someone who won't deal with it as well. Worst case scenario, they could give someone HIV. Also, as someone else said, there's always a chance one of these girls is going to suddenly show up with a baby in the future and demand child support. If he didn't report it as a rape, he's pretty much screwed.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:19 AM
1

True - not to mention tons of women, if not most, don't want a lot of the things feminism is fighting for, because it's no longer about rights but preferential treatment and forced victim complex.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 09:57 AM
2

They're not necessarily the same thing. Exactly, necessarily - but they can be, given a specific meaning of feminism, which is why I clarified what I meant. I don't see the problem. And I'm not saying women don't have problems in the west, I'm saying women don't have more problems than men. There is no need for a specific women-only rights movement any more, there's need for egalitarianism to fight for everyone's rights, including against those issues that still happen to be gendered.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 09:42 AM
27

Exactly. Feminism (as in the fight for women's equality) still has a place in many parts of the word, particularly large parts of Africa, the Muslim world and Asia. I'm not even going to try to deny that. Yes, feminism is still gendered and one-sided, but when women are directly targeted for being women, that's okay. Of course the last thing these places need is the modern oppression olympics, everything-bad-is-patriarchy brand of feminism, but that's an aside. But in the western world, that fig…
/r/MensRights08/07/13 08:32 AM
3

(Woman calls cops because her boyfriend is throwing stuff at her) I guess it would be hard for a cop to know why exactly he was throwing stuff at her. She could have tried to [do x to him] and he was assaulting her in self defense. So she called the cops first to point the finger at him for assault. Funny how it wouldn't work like that with these genders. There's no way in hell the woman would ever be the only one arrested in this scenario.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 07:32 AM
1

So according to radfems' own arguments, we actually live in a false accusation culture? Interesting.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 07:26 AM
1

I don't know if that's what Tim8080 meant, but we're talking about the deterring effect on other would be false accusers, and in that sense she is going to serve a year for multiple accusations. It doesn't really matter if the sentence is for multiple, it still tells others that you can get away with one year in jail for repeatedly falsely accusing others of rape.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 07:13 AM
1

Sure, in less developed countries, but it's a rare occurrence in western Europe, and not something that's overlooked and considered "part of the punishment", as appears to often be the case in the US.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 05:38 PM
1

Prison rape is an American thing.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 08:37 AM
7

You probably don't care now, but you can make all the *asterisks* you want, you just have to put a backslash (\) in front of it - that will cancel out any special meaning a character has.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:57 AM
3

Most of what they make is likely sponsor money, so they're doing the job of creating publicity for a brand. It's really no different than any other marketing person.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:28 AM
3

No, it was relevant. The first amendment applies to the government in the sense that the government can't abridge freedom of speech. But as it happens, the government is also really the only thing that can set rights for everybody. An individual can't just decide "you have no right to talk to me" - that individual can't limit other people's rights. So because the government can't limit freedom of speech, no one can limit freedom of speech. This woman can say others don't have the right to talk t…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 12:52 PM
5

True, but they hint that he was so destroyed they had to reconstruct him using more than just his body. Anyway, according to one of the ME3 DLCs, he had a clone - so same deal. Or actually, even more to the point: You have one guy who's 3 years old and one who's supposedly 32 - and they look exactly the same. If we go by stated age, it's okay to masturbate to one, but not the other.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 08:47 AM
18

I never understood how judges conclude what age a cartoon character is. Sure, it could be mentioned in the cartoon, but that's a ridiculous indicator - a cartoon character could easily be described as being 10 while looking like an adult. I mean, take - this is a bad example, but it's the best I can come up with right now - Commander Shepard from the Mass Effect video games. He died and was cloned in the second game, so technically he's only 3 years old in the third one, yet he (the default male…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:26 AM
1

Fucking absurd. I used to play like that with all the kids when I went to pick up my 14 years younger sister from kindergarten. They offered me a job.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 11:33 AM
2

Actually, he's not correct. "they're just doing their job" is a poor argument, and pointing that out is not. A hired killer is just doing his job as well. Yeah, that's an extreme case - but that's what you get when you don't qualify your arguments. Doing your job is not an excuse for malicious behaviour. Doing a job that actually has a positive effect when looking at the bigger picture is - but that wasn't the argument stated by blakrimson.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 10:24 AM
2

Exactly. Trying to prevent a child from being taken by a paedophile is very well meaning. It's the premise that's bad. That isn't an excuse for their behaviour because there's a limit to what actions ignorance can justify, but it is well meaning.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 09:27 AM
1

I never said we're "the same", I never said general differences can't be important, and I certainly never said one program will work for everyone. I'm not sure what your point is.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:28 PM
3

Although they appeared to feel there was something wrong with pressuring someone into having sex, many of the young women did not necessarily use the language of rape or sexual assault to describe the behaviour. That's because it fucking isn't rape or sexual assault. While I agree that pressuring to have sex is wrong, as long as you're able to just say no - and being weak-willed doesn't count as not being able - then it isn't rape. This sort of ridiculous rhetoric does two things: devalues the w…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:26 AM
2

I realise you're probably a troll, but then this is just some shitty-ass trolling. You're saying the thing that convinced you people here are "strange" and "deeply confused" was their realisation that women are not perfect? That some of them are bad people, and that women aren't inherently better than men? That's what made you feel dirty?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 07:06 AM
1

Our brains are different in many other ways. Not consistently so. I dare you to name just one thing not directly related to reproductive organs, that all men and no women do or think or vice versa. There are general differences, yes, but that doesn't justify the absolute statement that men and women are different in that regard.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 07:01 AM
12

Because radfems have the mentality of 2-year-olds in their "I can do it"-phase.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 10:54 AM
3

learn to punch up not down Wait, are you implying women are inferior to men? paid less just for being women More debunked crap? Is it really too much to ask for a tiny bit of fact checking before you come in here and try to tell others they're wrong? You've done nothing but spew old canards and refuted myths - do you really expect to change minds with that?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 10:43 AM
2

Well, they would prefer to hit that 1-in-5 statistic, so they wouldn't be lying about it any more.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 10:26 AM
4

Icyx said EVEN IF men's rights did indeed actually equal "oppressor's rights." - Meaning it doesn't, but even if we for the sake of argument grant their ridiculous assertion, they're still wrong.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 10:22 AM
1

As you said, if all men sat down [...] no one would have to accommodate anyone. If all men suddenly chose to sit down, yes, but that's even more hypothetical than the question. It's downright absurd to think all men would suddenly get that thought - hence what you're asking is for men to accommodate you/women. More hygienic Very, very slightly more hygienic. Arses don't tend to be the cleanest of body parts, and they still have to touch the seats. Urine is sterile in the bladder, and is only add…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 08:02 AM
1

Not raising the seat What? That's not what we were talking about. If you are not willing to lick a seat you just cleaned, then you know you peed on it. That's the most insane argument I've heard in a long time. I don't want to lick a toilet seat because other people's arses have touched it. In fact, there are a lot more things I'm not willing to lick than I am. Fairly certain I haven't peed on all of those.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:42 PM
1

How is that related to the post? I don't get this - every time this topic comes up, someone advocates sitting down to piss. Fine, whatever, if all men sat down to piss, women wouldn't have anything to complain about - but the hypothetical question "why should one group accommodate the other, but not the other way around" is in no way answered. Not to mention, of course, that no one gives a shit what you think is more comfortable. Where do you get off telling others how to do use a toilet? It's o…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:07 PM
1

How is this even remotely related to the post?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:01 PM
8

Now that is misogyny - and yet, they were probably considering themselves champions of feminism, and I wouldn't be surprised if mainstream feminism agreed.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:39 AM
11

I'm still amazed that people can seriously believe women are subjected to violence more than men. How utterly delusional do you have to be to accept that claim?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 11:47 AM
2

At this point video games have been around long enough that fully adult people can have grown up with them. I'm 30 myself and have been playing since I was 3. It's just odd how video games are always categorised as completely different from other forms of at-home entertainment. But yes, there's a lot of hypocrisy about it in general.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:34 PM
1

Eight out of 10 women cited playing video games [as childish] This argument never ceases to piss me off. Yes, I play video games, so they're probably just going to write me off as butthurt, but seriously, what is the difference between playing video games and watching tv or reading fiction? It's entertainment. If growing up means not having fun, then count me the hell out. In fact, count me out no matter what. I'm going to do what I like to do, and if some bunch of stuck up, self-proclaimed matu…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 06:37 PM
2

Democratic socialist, i.e. I want the highest possible economic redistribution without removing incentive for work, completely free healthcare, education etc, and equal opportunity for everyone - but also as much personal freedom as is viable (e.g. libel laws are okay in extreme cases) and no forced equality of outcome. I'm Scandinavian.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 06:29 PM
2

Well, it's another example of everything men saying to women being sexist. I agree his question was kind of ridiculous and probably didn't belong there (depending on the tone of the radio show, which I know nothing about), but saying there's a rumour that someone's SO is gay is in no way sexist, and it's just pathetic to make it into a big "women are so discriminated against" circus.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:32 PM
4

No reason to delete - it may help someone else who missed it.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 12:35 PM
12

The reply is from OP. Guess.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 12:28 PM
7

As someone who used to clean hotel rooms between other jobs, all I can say is a little piss on the seat is easy enough to clean off, but holy crap the blood and makeup everywhere gave me nightmares.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 12:24 PM
1

No, they want a "very harsh" punishment. Did you still not read what I was replying to?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:18 PM
1

Hence why I said the unfairness should be resolved the other way around.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:30 PM
1

Suspending a child for three days is by no means a "very harsh" punishment, so it's not what we're talking about. Makes me wonder if any of my downvoters have actually read what I'm replying to. Of course I agree she should get suspended for assault.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:28 PM
2

I don't understand. You agree with me, but you think my reason for saying what I did is ignorance? Where did I ever imply getting kicked in the nuts wasn't bad?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 11:47 AM
2

I wouldn't call a week's suspension "very harsh". But if that's all that's meant, no problem.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 11:44 AM
-18

To me this should be punished very harshly. Come on, they're kids. Sure, the girl was a bitch for kicking him, but she's, what, 13? Do you really want to ruin her education and possibly life over it? Eh. Maybe I just don't understand the American way to do things, but I'd say the unfairness should be resolved in the other direction.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:00 AM
2

I think it was in fact a rape joke If you really, honestly think that, then I think you should see a psychiatrist, because I absolutely guarantee you, you're not right in the head and you need some kind of medicine or therapy. I'm not even kidding. I've seen some dumb shit from radfems before, but this... if you believe this, you're either lying to further a radical feminist agenda, or you're literally insane.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:59 PM
6

Lots of comments, -4 overall comment karma. It's a troll.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:13 AM
6

but consensual sex is an oxymoronic term; without consent, the act of sex isn’t really sex at all. I think they mean tautological. Oxymoronic would mean sex couldn't be consensual.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:51 PM
6

No, but the analogy is fine. If it would be racist to say something about blacks, then it's sexist to say it about women (or men or whites). Their problem here is that there's nothing racist about it either. If anything, the racist thing would be to falsely claim that most black people are rapists, which is what they're doing for men.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 09:37 AM
17

Replace "men" with "whites" and "women" with "blacks" in your arguments you'd sound like a member of the fucking klan. Hmm. Let's try that. Let me be clear: Rape is TERRIBLE [...] but it's a vastly different world in which 25% of blacks are getting raped versus 0.06% of blacks. [...] Should we diminish the suffering of victims, both white and black? No. Nope, still sounds like a reasonable person.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 07:40 AM
2

I actually wanted to join the army when I was 18 (not US), not because I support the idea, but because I was pretty undisciplined, had a hard time getting up in the morning and going to school, so I thought it might do me good - but I was rejected because I'm deaf in one ear. Guess I'm not a "real man" and I threw away my future then.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:59 PM
2

It's warning anyone Then why does it explicitly mention sex? "If you're a man you could be causing the death of women". It is this subreddit that is misinterpreting it You can't misinterpret what you aren't interpreting at all. I'm just reading exactly what it says.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:58 PM
1

That's not relevant. The text says "warning, sex with individuals like myself will be the leading cause of premature death due to AIDS for millions of women". Why would only women need to be warned of that? Why is it only important that women die of AIDS? If a woman has sex with multiple men without condom, the men she sleeps with need that warning just as much as if the genders were reversed. Who has the organ is completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:50 PM
2

Exactly. Unprotected sex with a woman - usually, anyway. Hence it's not something men give women, it's something people give people, and there's absolutely no reason for the "if you're a male" line. It's like saying "If you're a male, you shouldn't jump in front of a moving train". I mean it's true and all, but why limit it to men? It makes no sense. But sure, this isn't enough to get me worked up, it's just still nonsense.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:40 PM
8

The guy keeps the mother at arm's length by not marrying her I'm sorry, did you escape from the 16th century or something? Not getting married is pretty fucking common these days. Marriage doesn't mean what it once did to everyone - that certainly in no way means you're keeping anyone at "arm's length". Go ahead and be old fashioned, just don't project it on everyone else.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:43 AM
11

Stepdaughter = girlfriend's daughter. With marriage not being anywhere near as meaningful as it once was, and many couples choosing to never get married, words like step- and in law have had to become less strict, at least in common use.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:38 AM
1

Just view it in incognito. Yeah, OP should use something else, but as a temporary solution.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:23 AM
3

The stats aren't the problem. The assumption that HIV is something men give women is. It doesn't even make sense - where are the men supposed to get it in the first place?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:53 AM
2

Jpeg compression isn't nearly enough to explain that mess. It looks more it's been resized with simple pixel reduction instead of resampling, and then saved as a really low quality jpeg.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:16 PM
2

I'm not really into the whole legalspeak thing, but my dictionary tells me that "whereas" means (mostly formal or archaic) it being the fact that; accounting for the fact that - Shouldn't these people be required to actually demonstrate the things they're apparently asserting as facts?
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:34 AM
0

Regardless what you think of the term "fag", there is just no way to construe a statement that it isn't hateful as homophobic in itself. He could have been saying it because he was homophobic, but merely having a different opinion than you on the implications of a word is not.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:27 AM
1

because the sentence [...] cannot be construed as a command. That's irrelevant. I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying "I" can be implied. About the tense, that's completely irrelevant. That was just the first thing that popped into my head, but present tense works just as fine. "Going for a jog now". The reason most "(I) present-tense verb" don't work like that is simply that they're rare in English. You would usually say "I am running", not "I run" - that latter implies it's a common occu…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:10 AM
1

Yes! Those evil men have instituted a system in which they control and subjugate women by making themselves appear less valuable. Sneaky.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 10:48 AM
1

It could also mean "I apologize if I am". The "I" can be implied, like in the sentence "Went for a jog last night".
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:36 AM
1

Yes, that's the fallacy you committed when you posted I... what? Do you have even the faintest clue what you're talking about? Argumentum ad populum is the fallacy of arguing something is true because many people believe it. I in no way attempted to argue that anything was true - I was explaining to you, that it doesn't make sense to argue from the assumption that patriarchy is true, when your audience likely doesn't share that assumption. a novelty account, one which is designed to respond in k…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:19 AM
1

you'll have to back up the 'rational people' bit Rational people don't believe in things without evidence, which you obviously can't provide either. All you can do is say "everyone in real life agrees with me", which, on top of being demonstrably incorrect, is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. It's no more an assumption that the concepts like assimilation or diffusion I'm sorry, I didn't think I would have to explain this to you. In the context of argumentation, an assumption is something yo…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 06:48 AM
2

So... what's wrong? Your downvotes are likely from the fact that you just said "you're all wrong, but I'm not going to tell you why".
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:20 AM
1

Here's a little tip for you: People in here, and rational people in general, don't tend to believe the patriarchy exists. Arguing from the assumption that it exists is going to get you exactly nowhere, without presenting evidence for the patriarchy first.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:19 AM
6

Perhaps someone should tell them what anarchism means.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:05 AM
3

Oh. Well, I guess that makes sense then. I just assumed he was referring to a specific good comment.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 06:01 PM
3

That doesn't link to a specific comment for me. Could you quote it?
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:50 PM
7

What? Everyone in Europe knows what a t-shirt is as well. Where are you?
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:05 AM
13

I actually considered that, but then on the other hand, women are usually expected to do so less. If the goal is to look good according to the most common perception among both men and women (and if it's about health, weightlifting is a poor choice), a man will still have to weightlift more to achieve it. And yeah, it's biological, not discrimination. I get it was a joke.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 01:31 PM
41

Holy fuck, what a moron. Does he really think we'll suddenly accept these lies if he uses a video game metaphor? I mean, would anyone think "No, life isn't easier for men - but yeah, okay, if life were a video game, then it would be easier". It's the same fucking thing put more condescendingly, and still without a shred of argumentation. So the requirements for "quests" are lower if you're male? Why? Oh, because you say so? Well, why didn't you tell me sooner, I'm convinced. But really, name me …
/r/MensRights28/05/13 08:55 AM
1

I think I agree with that -- at least I can't think of an example of the opposite. But fortunately there are still plenty of women who care about personality, and see men as more than just walking wallets. Are you heterosexual, by the way? What's your personal take on men in that regard?
/r/MensRights27/05/13 05:08 PM
2

You're still not listening. I'll repeat. "preferring" is not the same as being purely materialistic Now present the evidence or admit you can't.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 04:20 PM
2

Okay, I'm not even going to answer you any more, as long as you keep avoiding the issue. Burden of proof is yours. Present the evidence or admit you can't. By the way, "preferring" is not the same as being purely materialistic. I prefer tall women to short ones, but that doesn't mean it's the only or primary concern when looking for a partner. I'm suspecting you'll completely move the goal post next.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 03:48 PM
1

You aren't backing up your side of the argument either. Don't be a hypocrite. Seriously, do I have to explain the concept of burden of proof to everyone here? I honestly thought this place was more rational. I'm not the one making a claim, she is. She needs to provide evidence. I'm well aware that it's a subconscious factor to many women, but tb's claim is that women are purely materialistic, as in nothing else matters. Even giving her the benefit of not taking that claim literally (despite me a…
/r/MensRights27/05/13 06:35 AM
2

You're still not even attempting to read what I'm writing. I'm freely admitting that my evidence is not conclusive, but that it's still better than what you've produced, despite you having the burden of proof. And you're still avoiding the issue. Present evidence or admit you can't.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 06:30 AM
0

I'm not sure who was arguing that this was an absolute. You're kidding, right? Of course I know you're not being that literal, but my personal anecdote at least disproves a literal interpretation of your claim, whereas yours is completely meaningless. And yet, the burden of proof lies with you. You're once again avoiding the issue - and jeez, would you stop it with that stupid foot binding thing? It makes no sense. If you have evidence for your absurd claim, show it. If not, it is sexist to pres…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 08:39 PM
3

Evidence? Oh, come on. Burden of proof. You're claiming women are purely materialistic, you need to provide the evidence - which I've already asked you for. But accepting personal anecdotes, I can tell you that my SO has had plenty of opportunity to be with much more successful guys than me and not chosen it. That alone disproves that all women are like that.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 08:18 PM
1

Are you even listening to me? No one is ignoring it because it's "supposedly misogynist". I'm ignoring it because it's incorrect. Please stop repeating that ridiculous straw man.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 08:05 PM
2

So you're wrong. Plain and simple. Maybe some women are. Maybe even many. But it's not a rule or even a general thing that women only care about potential partners' wealth and power. That really is a misogynist assumption, unless you can back it up - which you can't, because it isn't true.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:34 PM
2

You're avoiding the question. Do you or do you not believe that women are purely materialistic in their partner choice?
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:29 PM
1

What was that even supposed to mean? Was it just a completely unrelated comment, or are you saying that all women only care about wealth and power because Chinese women have their feet bound? Do you honestly believe that heterosexual women are only materialistic when assessing potential partners?
/r/MensRights26/05/13 06:45 PM
1

But it's not true.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 05:36 PM
1

How so? Simply standing near someone ridiculous isn't what I mean by "associate". Ignoring them should be enough.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 05:02 PM
1

Sure, but people have the right to be ridiculous. The correct response is to not associate with ridiculous people.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:07 AM
0

Sure, but have you read the rest of the comments? A lot of people here apparently think hurtful speech should be illegal, and violence is a justified response to it. I've rarely been this disappointed with r/mr in general. I wasn't criticising you, just adding to your comment.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:52 PM
1

No, then the problem is with the boss and/or the justice system, not the joke.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 07:40 AM
2

No, but it does mean that it's silly to worry about being murdered constantly.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 07:38 AM
1

Then the problem is with your justice system, not people being allowed to crack bad jokes. I'm honestly pretty disappointed in how many here want freedom of speech thrown out the window.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 07:36 AM
3

Women cannot. That's pretty misogynist, saying that women are so incompetent that they can never achieve any kind of power - at least not while also being fat. Why do you think so poorly of women?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:40 AM
2

Oh, come on. It shows exactly one man as being a slob. This is exactly the type of shit I'd laugh at feminists for getting offended over if the genders were reversed. Not that I think the ad is good - who would buy something apparently targeted at Neanderthals? But I can't get up in arms either, sorry. This woman, Gail Dines, on the other hand, offends the fuck out of me. Apparently "masculine behaviour" is being a brain dead sloth, and we even get the old idiotic canards that women can't be sex…
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:20 AM
1

I'll choose to believe you're a troll and not actually that stupid.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 07:57 PM
2

And yet, that's what you are asking me to do for you. No. Your claim, your burden of proof. If I told you that dragons live in Korea and gave you a long list of books to read for evidence, would you believe me until you'd read them all to disprove me? Of course not. When you make a claim, you are responsible for arguing it in a format your recipients can reasonably be expected to read/hear/see and understand. If the only source is a book, you tell them what to look for and preferably give them a…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 07:30 PM
2

Or you could give an example instead of expecting everyone else to do your homework for you. You know full well nobody is going to read an entire book, when they have absolutely no reason to think you had a point to begin with.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 07:09 PM
2

Yes, and there are ways that women need to behave, that men don't, which hurt society if ignored. Well, name a few and why.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:30 PM
3

Quite obviously so, yes.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 12:55 PM
23

That sentence is so vague it's meaningless. What standards? Are you saying there are certain ways men need to behave, but women don't, which ruin society if ignored?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:41 AM
2

It's embarrassing that this post has more than 500 upvotes. That's not sexist in any way, it's correct. This place should be the first to acknowledge that observations of reality aren't sexist, even if they show a difference between genders - which this doesn't even.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:22 AM
2

ALL TAX are this thing What? All tax is sexist? How?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:30 PM
6

A group of men who feared the progress of feminism Feared it becoming a supremacist movement, while still being supported by society and governments? Sure. Feared women "gaining" equality? Bullshit. I haven't met one person here who didn't support equality and wasn't downvoted. They like having the power being a man provides I've asked this a billion times by now, but since I've never gotten an answer, I'll gladly do it again: what power? What is it I can do just because I'm a man, that I couldn…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:05 PM
3

It's nothing new that news media read scientific papers with their arses. In this case, teacher grading wasn't even the point of the study - however the study does mention other studies that showed this. To quote from the paper (available for free here, by the way): Previous literature on teacher biases has found a tendency for teachers to advantage female students (Lavy 2008) So it's not just female teachers, it's all teachers that tend to favour women.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:06 AM
2

both genders need and desire sex, it's just the intentions behind it that change from gender to gender. So men only want relationships so they can get sex? That's still completely wrong.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:21 AM
5

Do your own homework. No, stop this. "It's not my job to educate you, shitlord" is an SRS line. When someone asks for evidence of a claim you made, you either put up or shut up. Don't expect people to do your research for you. And yes, I know it wasn't your claim.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:19 AM
7

Are you being sarcastic? It's not really obvious, but I don't want to call you a fucking moron if you are.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:12 AM
11

Agreed, we'd appreciate a follow-up. I want to know if those blatantly criminal assholes have been sued like they should.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 08:08 PM
3

Exactly. It's just about the worst thing he could post.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 07:02 AM
1

You don't think physical sex differences are bigger then tall/short or fat/thin? To a child, no. The difference between tall and short is much bigger than breasts/no breasts and whatever other small differences you can tell without pulling someone's pants off. Hell, even with pulling someone's pants off. Also, logic. More condescending bullshit. No, it's not a lack of logic to not immediately know what imprint having a womb will leave in a child that doesn't see it or understand what a womb is. …
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:20 PM
1

You don't think that having breasts and a womb affords a greater difference than eye colour? A child can't see a womb, but the breasts - yes, that's a bigger difference than eye colour. You deliberately picked the smallest of the examples, however - I don't think it's a bigger difference than tall/short or fat/thin. this early imprinting creates a differential in emotional value between those who have breasts and a womb and those who do not. Source? That sounds absurd to me. Although, apparently…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:46 PM
7

Christ. If you need to be taught how to be a man, you're agreeing with SRS that gender is just a social construct. If that's the case, why would we want to enforce it? Why do gender differences need to exist, if they don't come naturally? This topic always brings out the absolute worst in r/mensrights. It's embarrassing to see how blatantly the "real man" stereotype comes out when we aren't trying to hide it because it gives ammo to the radfems.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:51 AM
1

Everyone is different from everyone else. Why would tits and a vagina be a more meaningful and consequential difference than, say, tall vs. short, fat vs. skinny, eye colours, hair colours, voice, etc? It's inevitable to notice you are different than your parent(s). What is the problem with that?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:30 AM
0

Yes, they are. You didn't think the MRM was about spreading some narrow set of viewpoints that could be defined as male, did you?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:25 AM
6

Except what typhon said was not to fuck someone you don't want children with. Not unprotected sex. I'm guessing that was Whisper's point.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:13 AM
11

Just some? I thought the entire article was extremely wrong, and the exact type of gender shaming that would never fly if directed at women. And I don't even do any of those things.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 01:09 PM
6

Exactly. All I could think was just take a look at the reaction the mrm is getting from pretty much everyone else. There's your very simple answer.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 01:03 PM
1

I've seen near multi So almost more than one?
/r/MensRights25/03/13 11:46 AM
1

You're either willfully ignoring it or trolling. No, I've understood it all three times, and you are either wilfully ignoring that or trolling. Stop being a hypocrite, please. If you are in public practicing your right to freedom of speech in a way that makes people uncomfortable, you are an asshole. You are still just repeating the unfounded claim, which I've asked you to support many times by now. Why? Why am I an asshole for doing what other people don't personally like, but which doesn't har…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 11:34 AM
1

Okay, first of all, stop insulting me. You keep telling me how immature I am, but you're acting like a butthurt 10-year-old. It's downright pathetic. Now, moving on: you should have the maturity to realize when to exercise them This is the same argument again. Apparently you define when something is right to do, and if someone doesn't follow your personal opinion on it, they're assholes and immature. Why? It's not a complicated question. Just tell me why I need to act as you think I should, inst…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 10:55 AM
1

I'm not forcing my views on you in the slightest. I don't think I've suggested you were - but your entire point throughout this discussion has been that people should limit their language to cater to other people's tastes. That is wanting to force your opinion on others. But if you're in a public (ie. shared space) and broadcasting your personal beliefs obnoxiously You mean like telling others how they can speak and what words they can use? then you're forcing your beliefs No, I am not. I am pra…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 10:34 AM
1

Putting yourself over others is an asshole move Exactly. Hence why you shouldn't force your opinion of how to speak on others. You are the one putting yourself over others. Your entire argument contradicts your opinion perfectly. At least the small part of your ramblings that actually is an argument and not just "you're an asshole, you're an asshole", and I'm the immature one? I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of communicating with a bigger hypocrite. Either present a rational argument or…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 06:53 AM
0

doesn't mean you're not being an asshole. An asshole as defined by whom? Why should I strive to not be an asshole by your standards? You'd be alright swearing in front of kids? Of course. What about swearing in front of a classroom full of kids? Of course. The teacher probably shouldn't, but there's a huge difference when you're on a job. Then your employers do get to decide how you behave to an extent. What about making dick jokes to a group of senior citizens? In a public space, of course. Whe…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 10:26 PM
0

You're personally entitled to your beliefs but forcing them on other people is not something you're entitled too. Are you serious? That's the most backwards thing I've ever heard. That's my line. A person choosing to speak however he wants isn't forcing his beliefs on anyone else. A person telling others they can't speak how they want, because he doesn't like those words, is. Your argument is fine, but it is directly contradicting your position. I still can't believe you're serious. You are the …
/r/MensRights23/03/13 09:20 PM
0

But just because you think that, doesn't make it alright to go swear at everyone, just an asshole. So, a person is an asshole if he personally uses the words he wants, but the people who think they can tell him how to speak aren't? Who decides which words are acceptable anyway? Can I tell you to stop saying any random word, and you'll comply? I'm guessing you're American? This mentality never ceases to amaze me.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 04:11 PM
4

It was at a conference, which means a "Would you mind being quiet, I'm trying to hear what's going on" would have been warranted. Telling them how to talk and what jokes are acceptable? Not really, but unfortunately it was in the conference rules, so technically she was right about that too. Should conference rules prohibit "sexual language" in the first place? Fuck no, what is this, a 15th century monastery? If people aren't adult enough to hear the word "penis" without crying, they can gtfo.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:43 PM
3

Of course there are individual men who hate women, just as there are women who hate men, but as an institutionalised or organised effort or culture? I've never seen any signs of that. Not in the western world, at least.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:29 PM
3

Adria reinforced the idea All the sentence says is what Adria did, not a single word about the rest of the female population. That cannot by definition be misogynist, and it wouldn't be the other way around either.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:27 PM
5

For the lazy. Seems a good comparison.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 08:54 AM
2

Sensationalist title. The article is about making threats and harrassment on the basis of sex illegal. That's fine by me, but that is nowhere near the same as anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 11:25 AM
1

Maybe it would if she got rid of that annoying background noise.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:23 PM
2

No reason to downvote this. Bambi is derived from Italian bambina, meaning young girl. It is girl's name.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:15 PM
4

How the hell does WAI mean Women in Aviation?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 11:52 AM
9

Instant jail-time and/or ass-whooping from white knights. Admittedly no one seems to care at all, so that's probably not their reason, but it would be the only thing keeping me from it. That should be crystal clear defence of others.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:23 PM
11

I'm not sure they realise it makes them look horrible.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:20 PM
3

No one walked in on anyone here - it was long after the fact. No matter how understandable violence would be in that case, it's revenge, not defence.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 07:22 AM
1

Assume, yes, but not conclude. We don't even say rape allegations are false just because they can't be proved, we say they're unsubstantiated. That way we assume both parties are innocent, even though that's logically impossible, because that's how the justice system is supposed to work. By claiming the allegations are false, you're not assuming the innocence of the accuser.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:49 AM
2

No it doesn't. You've completely misunderstood the post.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 07:55 AM
2

So my joking about your ad-hominem, when your comment contained no attempt at arguing, convinced you I was mad at you? Alright. I consider myself a catch-all egalitarian, and I've spent more time on arguing in favour of gay marriage alone than men's rights. That's just not the subject right now, and I have to say I honestly don't believe women are overall more disadvantaged or discriminated against in society than men. The difference is that the movement trying to improve things for men is seen …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:45 PM
2

It's not really a concession when you start out by implying my opinion is based on a poor understanding of statistics. Any reason to suspect I'm angry, by the way, or was that just another jab?
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:28 PM
3

you're bad at statistics Oh no, not the ad-hominems. Please, how will I ever desperately hang on to my preconceived ideas when you trot out the logical fallacies and call me hurtful things?
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:18 PM
-1

If it happens across 100 million people, it isn't "her preferences are just different than her husband's," it means "for whatever reason, women are generally expected to do these things" Citation, please. Your argument here is based on the claim that there is no difference in desires and preferences across sexes. Personally I don't know how much of the difference is cultural and how much is genetic, but for your argument to have merit, you'd have to prove that 100% of the difference is cultural …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:14 PM
1

A) No, I would look at the actual policies they made. If they seemed to favour women over men, I would probably suspect it had something to do with their gender. If they didn't, who cares? By the way, I'm not American. In my country 40% of parliament are women and the prime minister and the leaders of the two supporting parties are all women. B) I didn't say the pay gap means nothing, I said it doesn't exist. There is no pay gap. The difference in pay betwen men and women can be explained by dif…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:07 PM
3

then yes, I would say that Black people make the rules. That wasn't the question. What you're saying here is tautological - "if the rule makers are x, then x make the rules". What I'm saying is that doesn't automatically mean societal structures discriminate in favour of x. Cited Ah, the pay gap. Since you're in r/mensrights, you probably ought to know that's been disproved time and time again, not least by the US Department of Labor. This is in fact a prime example of feminist propaganda distor…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 12:39 PM
4

Men still make the rules, so as much as your life may suck, the structures in place still favor us to women. There's no logical connect there. The US has a black president - would you say the structures clearly favour black people then? Yes, I know the president doesn't make the rules - at least not alone, but you can't say that society automatically favours the race/sex/etc. shared by those in leadership positions. they are able to do less with said degree Citation needed. That's why I referenc…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 12:08 PM
10

What's your point? Do you believe only women can make laws that favour women? Do you for example deny that women win most custody battles almost by default, even when the judge is male?
/r/MensRights03/03/13 11:34 AM
2

Trying to be funny, would be my guess. You do know we don't define humour, right?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:07 PM
1

I said that I agreed with the article. - which is about how the Oscar show was sexist. How is the boob song un-related to sexism? You not finding it funny is unrelated to sexism. If you think the song itself is sexist, perhaps your argument should have been that and not "I didn't think it was funny".
/r/MensRights26/02/13 01:39 PM
1

I didn't think the boob song was funny, and not only that it's also not appropriate for the audience. Completely unrelated to sexism. think that the only reason men watch movies are for the tits. Or just him. I don't remember hiring him as a personal spokesperson. Plus, you know, it was a joke. Whether it was good or not is subjective, but he'd have to have meant it literally for this point to stick. The Roman Polanski joke is SOOOOO used up, and not funny to begin with! he made a Hitler joke Ag…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 12:58 PM
1

Technically, if you are unable to consent to sex when drunk, and rape is sex without consent, then the woman is raping the man if a drunk man physically forces her to have sex. No one believes it, but it shows why some of these definitions (which radfems do use when it's to their advantage) are completely absurd.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:53 AM
3

"Don't get raped" rather than "Don't rape" I wonder if these people also believe we live in a theft culture, since we advise people to put locks on their front doors. You'll even be actively punished and chided by your insurance company, law enforcement and anyone you tell the story to if you don't, so the theft culture is much more blatant than the rape one.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:35 AM
1

To be fair, he didn't say 90% were proven false. Statistically it's likely a certain share of the unproven ones are false. That said, I don't believe it's anywhere near 90% either, and reliable numbers will likely never be available.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:29 AM
2

I don't agree with patriarchy theory, but I accept that others are allowed to. Of course they're allowed to believe something, but that's not the same as having to let it stand unopposed.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:25 AM
1

No, but they are supposed to downvote if it adds nothing to the discussion. That comment was a perfect opportunity to also say how and why he disagrees with almost everyone else here. Simply stating your disagreement is meaningless and irrelevant, unless it's a completely subjective topic.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:16 AM
31

Wait, so according to this feminist, cheerleading is not a sport because it's girls dancing? So competitive dancing is not a sport either?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:41 AM
3

Source? "Bevisstløs", which is the word used in the law text shown, quite literally means unconscious - not without conscience.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 09:09 PM
21

Equality of outcome, as always. Women should be able to not give a shit about a business or company and still fill 50% of all the good jobs. We don't talk about the shitty jobs.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 01:33 PM
3

Agreed, of course - but the comment chain was about why men should have their own separate restroom. While I agree they should if women do, this is not a reason, because the hygienic women are no more responsible for the disgusting ones than men are.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:47 PM
1

But to be fair, should other women have to deal with it any more than men?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:17 PM
1

Yes, and my answer to that question was "only if, like feminists, you consider sex something that men take from women, instead of something people do together." Yes, and my answer to that was "no, it's bad no matter what because it's wrong". Now we're just starting over. - And yes, I know some people hate the movement even when they know what it's about, but that's really irrelevant here. Of course it's still bad for the movement if people think it's something it's not.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 07:33 AM
1

The question that spawned this thread was You don't see why people thinking MRM is the same as men trying to get women to have sex with them is a bad thing?"
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:33 AM
6

Yes, literally - but few words are used for their literal meaning in most contexts. Another possible meaning is simply "willingly". More importantly, however, you managed to ignore the second part of my comment, where I said the meaning didn't matter.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:32 PM
2

Gladly doing something doesn't literally mean you are happy because you're doing it, it just means it isn't a problem for you. But that aside, it's perfectly natural to feel good about winning a fight - but that in no way makes you a violent person unless you started or unnecessarily escalated it.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:38 PM
5

True equality Men do only what they exist for... SERVE Yeah, uhm - anyone got that Inigo Montoya pic ready?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:01 PM
13

"If you wish to attack me, do so and I will gladly defend myself" = "I am violent against you"? Wat? Honestly, if anyone believes that, they're so far removed from reality there's no use in trying to reason with them anyway.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:53 PM
2

No, it's bad no matter what because it's wrong. Like the guy above you said "It be like associating the civil rights movement with gangster rap". That's not saying there's anything wrong with gangster rap, but if people thought that was all there was to the civil rights movement, it probably wouldn't have gotten very far.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:17 PM
1

Lots of feminists are fighting to make prostitution and pornography illegal, but if they eventually succeeded, the same people would complain that governments were oppressing women's free choice. I think that's the point.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:35 PM
5

Except that's not at all what you said. What are those "oppressive societal structures" that women experience every day?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:00 PM
2

I don't like it either - I've just seen it suggested before that FB screenshots are taken there.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 12:27 PM
0

r/mensrants
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:26 AM
6

Yes, it is a case of "what about the men". The issue here is that only SRS see a problem with that. If someone says "Group X have it so hard", it's a natural and logical response to say "Well, that doesn't just go for group X - everyone is affected by that".
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:23 AM
1

How can you be a man/masculine without being violent? Uh. I've managed for 30 years so far. I think if I muster all my willpower I can manage a few more without assaulting anyone.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 12:34 PM
22

I don't actually know what feminism is. Subjective. We tend to look at the actions of mainstream, media covered feminism, not its stated goal. One is not necessarily more correct than the other. In any case it's pretty safe to say that very few MRAs are against those feminists who really and honestly are for equality only. That means most of the answers in the right column here are just deflection, focusing solely on the word used and not the meaning behind it, which should be pretty obvious.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 12:29 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness It's about attention, not intention.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 12:22 PM
5

Well maybe it was your phrasing? How so? I mean, even if he had been completely wrong, how would that in any way amount to hatred of women? I'm sure he wouldn't react the same way if she'd engaged in an honest debate but not believed he was right.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 11:04 AM
4

Because women should understand that they should never accept friendly gestures from a man without understanding that they are implicitly offering sexual interest. No one said that. ou shouldn't respect her if she isn't utterly direct and straight forward with you. No one said that. Plus there's no such thing as a woman who's actually unsure about something. No one said that. Yes! There's no such thing as date rape! No one said that. Because arguing is unladylike. No one said that. Because if yo…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 09:40 AM
1

But the biggest circlejerk on reddit is still the one about how bad /r/atheism is, and how much better than them you are for not being a part of it.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 09:04 AM
7

Also, it doesn't even say women are more typically discriminated against, it just says that's where the word is typically used.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 01:24 PM
5

Even if we could, that's got an ugly stench of censorship to me, which I'm not a fan of. I'd prefer to take the high road there, and leave the radfems to try to censor what they disagree with.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 12:35 PM
1

Anyone capable of doing that to another human being has serious issues Well, there you go, it obviously wasn't her fault. She has issues. /s
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:19 AM
1

While they of course have the right to do whatever they want with their own software, couldn't this be considered libel? I don't know much about American law, it just seems that directly calling someone a hate group is something you'd need to back up.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:03 AM
3

Actually, while it's true MSE has a lower detection rate than other software, it also has a much lower false positive rating, which is just as important, as the moment you have to tell your AV suite to accept reported files you know are clean, you start getting complacent about the real threats and risk allowing them. So MSE isn't really worse than the others, just a bit different. I'd say it's better for home users but worse if you have something really important to protect and know what you're…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:56 AM
2

Like what? I'm not saying you didn't, I'd just love to hear some stories of someone accepted as a feminist contradicting the usual anti-male bullshit. I can't imagine it would go over well.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 07:58 AM
2

Yes, clearly [no woman has ever worn a tie](https://www.google.com/images?q=woman tie).
/r/MensRights05/02/13 02:57 PM
48

Women are happier than men because they are stronger Wat?
/r/MensRights05/02/13 01:31 PM
2

Right, sorry it failed, but that's Poe's Law for you. Fundamentalists, whether religious or feminist, have such absurd opinions it's literally impossible to tell reality from parody. But thanks for explaining.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:27 PM
5

If you're not just a terrible troll, I'd love to hear your reasoning here. It's a poster advertising a meetup for men where they can talk about things unique to men. How is that even tangentially related to hate?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 07:46 AM
1

What is TWRA? Edit: Sorry, Traditional Women's Rights Activist, I guess? Somehow I've never heard of it before.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 10:59 AM
1

Am I right to do so? Absolutely not. Alright, you get an upvote for that.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:05 AM
10

I'm curious, could you point me to anyone in the entire history of this subreddit who has ever said that males don't have rights at all?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:33 AM
3

So anger justifies censorship? Does that work for everyone? Can I suppress information from anyone I don't agree with, if I say I'm angry about it?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:25 AM
4

To be fair, it's hard to give you civil answers when the entirety of your arguments amount to "I'm right, you're wrong, so there", despite many showing you sources and arguing rationally.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:23 AM
7

You’ll be richer – Yes. Not only do married couples make more [...] than lonely, single folk… This Crowder-guy seems to be arguing from the assumption that the only alternative to marriage is being single. That pretty much invalidates everything else he says, right there. His other arguments, that children are better off with both parents, that sex is more available, you'll be less of a sloth and you won't die alone are all exactly the same in just a normal long-term relationship without involvi…
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:16 PM
3

Or, alternatively, your humour wasn't very good or obvious.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:05 PM
3

Skyrim actually bothers me a little bit, because I'm not allowed to give my female characters any muscles. It just looks stupid to have a woman with toothpicks for arms running around with a giant two-handed sword and being stat-wise just as strong as her male counterparts. That said, I don't think there was any sexist thought involved in that decision, and as you said they aren't particularly sexed up, and the revealing armour types are just as revealing for men. Generally all protagonist lead …
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:02 PM
1

I'd say that depends a lot on how their relationship was in general. If my girlfriend hit me once in a fit of rage, I wouldn't dream of getting authorities involved. I wouldn't let it slide, but even if we were to break up over it - and it would have to be pretty bad to even get to that - I would have absolutely no desire to see her in legal trouble, and would trust that the "Being a girl does not entitle you to that shit. How would you feel if it were the other way around"-talk would be enough.…
/r/MensRights30/01/13 11:55 AM
3

You seem to truely believe all women are unfaithful. No, he clearly said "It's just far too large of a gamble", gamble meaning there's a risk, again meaning not all are like that. In fact he said the exact opposite of what you're accusing him of. I don't personally agree with him. I think if you get to know the girl and feel reasonably certain she's not a nutter, it's worth the risk to try it. Few things in life are completely risk free. But if you're going to criticise his point, at least repre…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 12:22 PM
1

In a protest walk in the UK? Yeah, it is. If they can get a million women on the street that day, I'll be seriously impressed.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:51 AM
1

Yep, the millionwomenrise.com website says the protest will be in Trafalgar Square. Pretty sure this isn't some limey slang, though. They just suck at English.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:49 AM
1

They speak very American in the trailer.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:43 AM
2

Yep, it's not about men looking like women, it's about men looking not like men. But count on radical feminists to find a way to turn literally any issue into an insult against women.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 09:51 AM
4

You can? I can't. If someone has a horrible personality, I just cannot see them as even superficially attractive any more, while on the other hand an average person becomes much more physically attractive if I know she has an awesome personality.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 09:19 AM
2

Now you're disagreeing with the quote in OP. "Why is that your business?" is a deflection in this case - it's none of your business why it's their business. The fact remains they have the right, under freedom of thought, to ridicule it, even if you don't like it. You are actually making a perfect example of why the quote applies to atheism.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 08:59 AM
1

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be that wrong in so few words. Literally everything you just said is completely incorrect. No, atheism is not a faith. No, atheism is not the belief that there is no god. No, it's not contradictory. No, agnosticism is not an alternative to theism/atheism. No, with atheism comes no automatic criticism.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 08:54 AM
1

To deny this is racist Does not compute. If a race of people wanted to murder you because it was part of their identity, would it be racist of you not to let them kill you? Was it racist of black people to not want to be slaves to white people, just because having slaves was a part of their identity at the time? How about wanting Muslims to not perform FGM on their daughters? That one is exactly the same. People can have any traditions and identities they want, but they stop at that particular p…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:17 PM
2

Wat?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 12:10 PM
0

I've been assaulted by a blond guy. It would be downright absurd for me to hate blond people because of that. Why would gender be different?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:52 AM
5

It would never be okay for a male artist to write a song about slapping the shit out of a mouthy bitch Ever hear any rap?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:49 AM
1

I still don't agree that all people are equal. No one said we are. If we were, there would be no need for movements such as the MRM. What we are talking about is whether or not equality is a goal to strive for. If you don't think it is, I would contend you are in the wrong place. If I don't like the look of someone, I will choose someone that doesn't look shifty. If you're talking about things like clothing and demeanour, then that person had the opportunity to dress and act differently. That do…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:02 AM
1

It still sounds like you think equality means being the same. That's obviously absurd. Equality in this context means having equal objective value and having the same opportunities and rights. It doesn't mean the conformity police is going to show up and tell you to act exactly like your neighbour. Having different individual strengths and abilities is in no way related to the concept of equality. If were equal, we would think alike No. Equality is one entity having no advantages or disadvantage…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:52 AM
0

We fulfill roles Individual roles chosen and limited by our individual selves, not our gender. I cannot bear live young, so I cannot assume that role. Neither can all women - but even if we ignore those, our genitals are likely the only consistent difference between genders, and the limitations and possibilities imparted by those are quite few. Why make gender the big dividing line? There is no equality. If there were we would be a clone of eachother. That makes no sense. Equality is not conform…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:29 AM
1

Then it doesn't make sense to not have equal opportunity. Your own limitations will keep you in that "place". How are you against equality?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:08 AM
1

Their place? Why would anyone have a place beyond what they want and are personally capable of?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:56 AM
29

That "science" part was complete fucking bullshit. First of all, women are objects, just as all humans. They are physical entities that you can touch and interact with - i.e. objects. That doesn't preclude them from also being people with personalities. Secondly, we're talking about a purely sexual response here. They were showing them pictures of naked women and measuring the purely instinctive, sexual response. What do they expect, that our most primitive instincts are to want to want to learn…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:46 AM
14

I see feminists in nearly every article Well, nobody said anything about just feminists. The question is, why are all those "moderate" feminists who supposedly really want equality not opposing the radical nutjob feminists who want to subjugate and silence the other side? I don't understand what you mean.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:27 AM
18

because "men still hold so much power over women today." I believe we're still waiting for an answer to what that power consists of. Anyone know? I mean, if I'm going to be punished for having it, I might as well take advantage of it, so if someone would be so kind as to inform me what this power I have over women is, so I can use it, I'd be much obliged.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:42 AM
1

Seriously, of course some atheists do this, but in no greater number than anyone who has an opinion. You might as well have said "take a look at having an idea if you get a chance". I imagine you were thinking of r/atheism, but a subreddit is not representative of the entirety of not believing in gods. And honestly, while hating r/atheism is probably the biggest circlejerk on this entire site, they aren't worse offenders than any other subreddit centred around an opinion or mindset.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:19 PM
1

No it isn't, but even so, "atheism" does no do these things.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:06 PM
1

Why? Does it bother you if truth gets in the way of what you want to believe? LeftoNhahe is exactly right. All we know from this story is that a man was treated poorly. We can surmise that a woman in the same situation would have been treated differently, but that's because we've seen other examples of that. Using this to support the MRM is a circular argument. We have to assert the conclusion in order to reach it.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 06:54 PM
1

No problem. Lots of people apparently think they're two separate alternatives to theism, so it's good you made sure.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 01:39 PM
4

I don't believe I ever said anything of the sort. But we're talking about atheism, so it makes no sense to refer to the definition of agnosticism.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 01:09 PM
9

For people who claim the answer is impossible to prove they seem pretty damn sure. That's agnosticism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, for whatever reason. And speaking rationally, you can be just as sure there is no god as that there are no invisible dragons in your attic, i.e. the step just before complete certainty. This is not dogma. But still, r/atheism is not atheism.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 01:00 PM
12

Atheism != r/atheism.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 12:43 PM
4

Then find a case where it's clear how society views men compared to women and focus on that. This is not such a case.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 12:38 PM
2

What the hell is wrong with you people? Stop downvoting this guy. He is right, no matter how likely they would have reacted differently to a woman, it's still speculation. Not only does guessing and strawmanning make us look like we have a victim complex, but there are plenty of real, cut-and-dried issues to latch onto. This story is ridiculous and should receive focus, but this isn't the place for that. There is no reason to conclude it's related to MR.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 12:17 PM
25

Wait, atheism is a dogma now? How does that work?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:14 AM
1

They are entitled to their opinions, but downvotes aren't exactly censorship, it just shows the majority here doesn't agree with their views. But of course I agree their posts should be judged individually. They just tend to include the usual linkspam to manhood101.com that's filled with actually misogynist bullshit.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:41 PM
1

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. That saying doesn't work so well in an age of digital watches, but it makes the point. Pure statistical chance says M101 has a few decent points - but on the whole, they're everything the MR movement should not associate with, most notably the idea that men should control women. I hope everyone will keep downvoting them whenever they post here.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:32 PM
3

Acting tough works best if you can look tough. I'm a 6'7" guy but not a fighter and would get my ass kicked by anyone with a little practice in it, but it's possible for me to look menacing. I've been assaulted four times as an adult. The first I tried to run and got my ass kicked. The other three I stood my ground, acted tough and dared them to come at me without actually making a move myself, and all three times it ended with them just shouting and provoking a lot, but walking away after a whi…
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:07 PM
5

Women in general are not responsible for what feminists do, so that doesn't make any sense.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:14 PM
1

This part is interesting, but I really dislike the article in general, and can't help not being able to take what this guy says seriously. So, she went through a procedure euphemistically called “Selective Reduction” and practiced Sophie’s Choice on one of her 3 daughters to be. When I heard about this, I told her in a barely contained rage Oh no, this woman didn't feel she could handle the responsibility of three kids, so instead of giving all three a poor life with a mother who didn't truly wa…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:07 PM
2

To a straight male, is every woman alive an attractive sex partner? Fuck no. Sure, some guys are less discriminating than others in that regard, but I'm pretty sure you could always find some woman they wouldn't find attractive.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 12:08 PM
1

You don't need evidence to not believe something - but no reason to turn this into a theological debate at all. I'm merely referencing his debate style, which could apply to anything. His case shows that, unfortunately, being the rational, cool-headed side in a debate is not necessarily a positive thing to onlookers. Bill O'Reilly is another example.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 11:41 AM
1

Unfortunately that doesn't always work. Look at W.L. Craig, for example, who has made a career out of debating in favour of the Christian god by shouting, cutting everyone else off and calling them stupid constantly, preventing the opposition from getting a word in. He doesn't have a shred of an actual argument, but lots of people fall for it and think he's an excellent debater who wins every discussion he's in.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 10:59 AM
5

We're men -- we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I'm sorry, what's this supposed to mean? I sounds like you're very close to actual misogyny territory. Men are not better than women. Men don't have higher standards than women. Men are equal to women and individuals have varying standards - and that's what we're supposed to be fighting for here. This kind of bullshit, even if you didn't mean it like that, is damaging.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 10:30 AM
3

Personally I don't dance, period. I honestly think it's a ridiculous ritual even if you're good at it, and I'm not. I might have slightly hurt a few girls - and at least one gay guy - by declining, but I've never had anyone tell me I have to do it. Generally you can decline whatever you want. It's just nice to do it politely.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 10:18 AM
3

Seriously, I couldn't find a single sentence that bore even a passing resemblance to truth in that drivel. That's pretty impressive. You'd think out of pure chance she'd come close to an actual point just once or twice, but no.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 10:03 AM
32

femyle Jesus. As if "womyn" wasn't enough, this one makes even less sense. It sounds like a vampire clan or something.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 09:51 AM
4

Most women I've heard try to explain this view it as a screening process. If a guy already has a girl, it means he has passed the filter and must be a good guy. Honestly, this just makes those women sound like a bunch of brainless conformists without a shred of personality. If some guy I didn't know had vouched for a woman, that would mean absolutely nothing to me, as I'd have no reason to think this guy shared my tastes or personality even remotely.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 12:39 PM
0

So what all this boils down to for you, is that if both parents want to be parents, both parents want the other parent to be a parent, and neither parent is prevented from being a parent, then both parents should be parents? That's probably the most meaningless statement ever made. What's the point?
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:20 PM
0

Okay, that's it. You apparently refuse to listen to what I'm saying, instead insisting on telling me what I said and meant, and I'll be damned if I think I know my own opinion better than you. I have no interest in that kind of childishness. You are hereby ignored.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:07 PM
1

Then it isn't a life choice. Like I said from the start, "If possible". It can very easily be. In my own case, my mother knew very well that my father lived 700 km away and had no interest in moving here, hence she chose to be a single mother without denying my father anything. If the other parent wants no part in raising the child you didn't choose to raise it as a single parent, did you? Yes. No point in continuing this, it's very possible. Last time I checked, sperm banks and surrogate mother…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:05 PM
-1

Those are your words, not mine Yes. Everything you've accused me of saying with that, however, is yours. Allow me to quote a few more of my words: then that personality type isn't natural and you are forcing the child to be a certain way for no reason (it's not better than the opposite) without giving the child a choice.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:01 PM
-2

What is bad about teaching people not to steal? Or teaching them not rape? Again you assume I said everything taught is bad, despite me just having made doubly clear to you that wasn't the case. Civilisation is not a natural state. Ergo teaching civility is bad. And still. No, you said if it isn't innate, then it must be bad for them. No, I didn't. One more time: Stop pulling childish accusations out of your arse, or I will ignore you. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask. Don't keep acc…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:44 PM
0

It seems to me like you think being a single parent is a perfectly valid life choice Yes, I do. I think it's completely fine to be a single parent, even if it's not completely optimal. Neglecting of course that conception of a child requires male and female zygote and the only way to raise the child as a single parent would be to deny access to one of the parents That's just not true at all. Of course sperm banks and surrogate mothers exist, but there's a much simpler way to become a single pare…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:33 PM
-2

[citation needed] I just explained it. "Bad" isn't exactly something you can put a scientific quantifier on. Well you only mentioned masculinity. Because that's what you'd likely get from a male role model. The girls aren't immune to this input, but you'd probably not get more feminine input from a father than a mother. In general. I'm not the type to make bold statements like "everything that needs to be taught is bad". Please, for the last time, stop pulling these ridiculous accusations out of…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:24 PM
0

Ok, your opinion is the right one. Now you are sounding defensive. Of course I think my opinion is the right one, otherwise I wouldn't have it. That doesn't mean I can't change it if shown wrong - but I'd need an argument for that. fatherless children are at the bottom of all social indicators of success That's very interesting if so. Have any good sources? If he is alive and willing to be a father to the child, why not let him? Still not what we're talking about. It's obviously bad to shut out …
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:18 PM
-2

even if it did, that wouldn't make it a bad thing Yes, it would. If it needed to be taught - if boys wouldn't grow up to be masculine if they weren't taught to be by male role models, that would mean it wasn't a natural state, but rather a cultural gender role we subconsciously teach our boys. That's a bad thing. You failed to realise that I wasn't only talking about sons but also daughters. No, I don't fail to realise that. I do, however, still fail to realise why they need it.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:07 PM
-1

So you don't see a problem with missing a mother and a father then? That's a slippery slope fallacy. There's a pretty big difference between having one parent instead of two, and having no parents at all. We are saying that it shouldn't be encouraged as the better option. I'm pretty sure I've never said it was better. That if possible the father should be present in their upbringing. And if possible they should be at least upper middle-class. If possible they should have stable jobs with lots of…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:00 PM
-2

Problem is, you should probably compare dysfunctional single parents to dysfunctional couples. I'm not comparing. I'm not saying couples aren't maybe 1% better on average than single parents, I'm saying that in the grand scale it's insignificant, and if we're going to see a problem with any little thing that may have a tiny adverse effect on the upbringing of the children, no one is fit to be a parent. I just honestly don't see the problem with missing a father. It's not like you can't have male…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 05:32 PM
1

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is it that it's just an opinion and not backed up with fact, or do you not understand what I'm saying?
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:49 PM
1

First of all, that's the dictionary definition of feminism, but not the mainstream feminism that exists today. You think most people in this subreddit are opposed to equal rights? Secondly, even if we accept the dictionary definition only, it still doesn't make sense, as women can be opposed to equal rights for women. Many Christians women, for example, want a return to male dominance.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:02 PM
2

But anti-woman is not the same as anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:54 PM
15

That was the most stupid part. Does this girl seriously think it works like that - that all women like the same type of guys, which is about 50% of the available population, and the other half of guys will just never get a date, let alone partner? And of course the same doesn't go for women - they are all equally attractive.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:50 PM
0

I don't know. I grew up without a father and I don't think it harmed me. I have no problem with single parents, and I don't think it harms the children - at least not any more than any of a million other things that commonly happen with both parents present. All I want is for them to admit the same goes for single fathers. Edit: Feel free to downvote, but I'd love to hear why.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:44 PM
50

judge [...] refuses to hear any evidence I don't understand how these people can have that job. I really don't. I don't even have to take this particular story at face value, there are just so many examples of judges who completely openly judge with their emotions and don't care about evidence. I don't understand how they aren't fired without backpay immediately.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:36 PM
9

One comment perfectly describes the mentality problem men face: She was drunk too so it's not like it's her fault. Yep, should have let her hit him then.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 12:54 PM
2

The blacks deserve the right to be free of slavery, but of course there's no right without limitation, so only as long as they do what the white people say. - Abraham Lincoln
/r/MensRights15/01/13 12:42 PM
2

It's not true. The SPLC has explicitly stated that they said r/mensrights was a place where misogyny may be found (which is true, like pretty much anywhere), but not that r/mensrights was a hate group in any way.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 12:13 PM
1

Maybe I'm missing something, but where do you see that assumption? I don't see how it's relevant at all.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 08:04 AM
3

But it would come right after something like "Not all black men are victims and not all white men are perpetrators - sometimes the black do shitty things too" - then followed by "You don't know what it's like to be a black man because you're white". Technically true, just completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 08:01 AM
1

It makes me sad that your probably rational and supported opinion would have been discounted in a heartbeat if you hadn't been Jewish. At least that's the case in many of these examples.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:57 AM
7

Also with RES you can just select the comment and press Z to downvote. Works even when there's no downvote arrow. Edit: Just saw someone else has mentioned that already farther down, sorry.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 02:17 PM
22

There have been several stories here of men who've tried calling rape hotlines and being told that it's for women only, so they should hang up. Not quite the same as saying it doesn't happen, but still...
/r/MensRights11/01/13 09:47 AM
1

From that article Victim blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible. So exactly what I said. It requires blame, not simply advice on how to possibly avoid it.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:42 PM
1

Is this not supporting the feminist claim that we live in a rape culture? If all the feminists mean by "rape culture" is that we live in a culture where rape happens - rarely, but still often enough to be visible in media and to make it prudent for people to take some measures to minimise their risk of it, then I don't disagree. In that case it's just a ridiculous and meaningless term, as we'd also live in a robbery culture, a theft culture, a murder culture, a jaywalking culture, an embezzlemen…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:31 PM
1

The message at the end says "watch guys get a wicked beating by girls on thebitchhitsback.dk". If you go to that site, it's completely exaggerated in its portrayal of violence as awesome, and if you stay on the site for a few minutes, it redirects to familievold.dk ("familyviolence.dk"), which is a campaign site against violence. That site says: "Did you get busted? Sorry, but partner violence is not entertainment, it's bloody serious, no matter who beats who". It's actually a very nice dose of …
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:08 PM
2

That's funny - I don't recall anyone saying anything near that.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 12:56 PM
4

Admitting you don't know isn't cowardice, but yes, you can have an unfounded opinion - and that will be a guess.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 12:47 PM
2

Right. I'm sure I don't have to explain this to you either, since it's so incredibly obvious, but a guess also doesn't magically become not a guess just because there are no better guesses. If you don't know something, the only honest thing to do as is admit you don't know and will have to wait for further data, not to make up something as the answer.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:33 AM
2

Aww, that's cute, did you run out of names to call people and had to recycle? I'm sure I don't have to explain this to an obviously intelligent young man such as yourself, but not having better figures does not magically turn a guess into not a guess.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:29 AM
11

intuitively estimated Definition of intuitive: "Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning" I.e. a guess.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:23 AM
16

say they keep a journal but really don't What the actual fuck?
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:00 AM
20

Oh no, how horrible, a man who thinks men are gifts to women. He should obviously think women are gifts to men!!!111 How do these people not see it?
/r/MensRights07/01/13 06:36 AM
22

How I saw the icon.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 06:31 AM
3

This argument is so pathetically stupid it depresses me every time I see it. Telling someone how they can avoid crime X does not mean that I am going to commit crime X if they don't take my advice. That leap in logic is unbelievably absurd. That the advice is likely incorrect is completely irrelevant. Giving bad advice with good intentions is not a threat.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 06:19 AM
17

This would make pretty much every man alive a rapist. For some, I think that's exactly the goal.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:37 AM
2

Maybe find one with some actual information about what happened and why it is rape?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 02:02 PM
2

Are you implying individual physical strength is the only thing that could ever threaten anyone?
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:36 PM
1

Just curious: would you say the same about a woman being slapped repeatedly by her boyfriend?
/r/MensRights27/12/12 05:42 PM
1

But you have to consider that maybe it doesn't. Maybe no one ever considered falsely reporting you for rape and you were in no trouble whatsoever until you illegally recorded someone. It's a catch-22.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:30 AM
2

Does "mom-to-be" mean she's pregnant? It doesn't say clearly, but I don't know what else it could mean - and if so, she's a fucking asshole for drinking like that.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:17 AM
2

Why? I just want to hear the argument for this, because while I understand that men cause accidents more often than women, I don't see how it's not discriminatory to make men who drive carefully, myself included, pay for the reckless drivers, just because we share a gender.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:13 AM
0

That's just not true at all. Usually it's just a rude way of saying male friends should come before girlfriends or the pursuit of sex. Everyone on UD has it that way as well: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bros%20before%20hos http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bros%20before%20hoes http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro%27s%20before%20ho%27s
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:08 AM
0

I'm not convinced gay men are doormats any more often than straight men. Why do you say that?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:02 AM
4

If she has ever complained about women being objectified, it's time to disregard absolutely everything that comes out of her mouth.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 09:45 AM
1

I'm Danish - not sure they were as big in the news here. Or I could just have bad memory. But thank you. Edit: Now that I've read it, I do seem to faintly recall it.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:31 AM
1

Link? I don't know those.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:22 AM
3

Agreed. I had no problem siding with her in the movie (note, I've only seen the Swedish one), and if I were in her situation, having been blackmailed and brutally raped by some asshole, I would want to get back at him/her for that, possibly by doing the same thing right back. But I wouldn't for a second think it was anything more than revenge, and while I can certainly understand the desire for revenge, it's not something that should be supported or encouraged.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 12:33 PM
1

It never said all men were killers. And either you know that and are being dishonest, or you never read the article. Or, alternatively, I never said the article said that. Maybe I was, sarcastically, drawing my own conclusions from this overwhelming evidence. But either you know that and are being dishonest, or you never read my comment. The rest of your comment is just bullshit. This article isn't just "exploring" why these people are male, it's directly asking what's wrong with white men and s…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:46 AM
1

which means he's wrong in saying girls aren't more mature while growing up Different discussion. Being wrong is one thing, but it's not the same as saying the opposite. That said, how do you measure maturity? I'm not fully convinced the common factoid that girls mature earlier is more than a feminist perpetrated myth, but I'm willing to be shown wrong. I know the amygdala physically grows faster in girls during puberty, but do we actually know this has any real impact on behaviour or intelligenc…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:57 PM
2

What am I looking for? Hopefully you're not trying to make the MRM into a right-wing movement, right? I can't tell if that's it or there's a math error somewhere in there; just saying, please keep politics out of it.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:45 PM
5

Although women and men are now attending culinary school in equal proportions, the number of male culinary professionals continues to be higher. - http://www.gatewaygourmet.com/blog/tag/male-female-chef-ratio/ Male chefs dominate the restaurant and hotel restaurant sector; according to the survey 77 per cent of restaurant chefs surveyed were male. - http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/People/Survey-finds-imbalance-between-male-and-female-chefs So, bullshit. Women may cook more at home, I don't know …
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:36 PM
1

Almost everything by girlwriteswhat is a repost here, but it's still fine to see it again, and it's a good vid. However, if you could write the title of the video in the reddit title next time, those of us who've seen it already will be be able to pass it up without opening the link.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:28 PM
4

Ugh, I was raging after the first comment. 200 upvotes for repeating the insanely stupid canard that because boys are looked down on for doing "girl stuff", it means society thinks women are inferior. Who even comes up with this crap? I'm glad it got better, and I'm certainly glad it's possible to contradict statements like that without being labelled as a raging misogynist.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:04 PM
10

6 examples of related incidents by men in America, out of ~150 million American men. That's about 0.000004% of men. Yeah, what is it with all those men, huh? Unstable killers, all of them.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 12:50 PM
1

I'd say "what the fuck" to both. I don't mind people having and showing naked pictures of their children, just don't focus my attention specifically on their genitals.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:09 AM
1

Objectively speaking, yes - but I think you're still more likely to be depressed if you're making 100k a year but are constantly made to feel like a failure, than if you're making 20k a year with emotional support. (Yes, I know it's not just about money - I'm just trying to simplify the point). The poor can be much happier than the rich, but I'd still pick wealth over poverty any day.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:01 AM
1

Isn't that exactly his point? People know minorities are disadvantaged and don't expect as much from them. But white men are becoming less advantaged than they have been, while still being expected to do the same as before.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:47 AM
1

How do you measure mental maturity anyway, do you know? I can't think of an objective way to do it.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:08 AM
2

so as to say that girls are less advanced and mature than boys. No. Seriously, that's not how sarcasm works. Or opposites. Sarcastically saying "girls are always better than boys" does not necessarily mean "boys are always better than girls". That's a huge baseless assumption. It could just as well mean either "girls are sometimes better than boys" or more likely "girls are not better than boys". (I realise no one said "better", that's just for the sake of argument) For example, if I said "Yeah,…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:03 AM
0

Everyone in the last few comments knows what sarcasm means. What you apparently don't understand, is that the opposite of "girls are better than boys" isn't necessarily "boys are better than girls" - it can also just be "girls are not better than boys", implying equality.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 07:56 AM
5

I seriously don't understand how a justice system like that can exist in a supposedly modern western nation. I know it's just one part of it, but compared to this, witch burnings and public floggings seem modern and civilised.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:02 AM
2

Same here. She hasn't hurt him in any way, she didn't take him for money, she just got herself a child just like she could have from a sperm bank - and the exact same thing could have happened by accident. I really don't care about this.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 09:42 AM
2

I'm not sure I'm following. If you write a common phrase that Cosmo incidentally also uses, you lose credibility? How exactly? That sounds like a "Hitler once said hello. You have said hello. Therefore you kill Jews" argument.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:36 AM
2

it's fair, because men have rights in other areas So he thinks equal rights means an equal number of rights, but not necessarily the same ones? Hand the guy a dictionary.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:31 AM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:28 AM
8

I don't think this is advocating violence, just acknowledging the fact that violence exists and then highlighting the double standard of some feminists.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:21 AM
-1

Heh. I like how you call a comment "really stupid" for saying something you completely pulled out of your arse. By the way, you are stupid because you think horses are green. I mean, obviously horses aren't green. How could you even think that?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:03 AM
37

They'd only have to go across the 50 km of water to France for it to be legal. That is fucking absurd. A small strait makes the difference between a disgusting, filthy rapist and molester of children who should be locked up and have the key thrown away, and "Hey, this guy had sex with a girl approximately his age. Way to go, dude!"
/r/MensRights17/12/12 01:53 PM
6

Almost everyone is privileged in some way. Even if we agreed that men were more privileged than women in the west, then white women are more privileged than black women, black women in the west are more privileged than poor tribal people in New Guinea, poor tribal people in New Guinea are more privileged than a pygmy slave in DR Congo, etc. Apparently a group of feminists has chosen the completely arbitrary level of privilege that western white males supposedly possess as the cut-off point where…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 01:44 PM
9

I've met my father twice. He seems like a nice enough man, but I feel nothing for him.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 09:13 PM
1

There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:45 AM
1

I agree. I just think I may find the perfect mix to include slightly more socialism than many. But as is my point, that's a debate for somewhere else.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:27 PM
2

I don't really understand your point. Yes, some governments are doing the wrong thing here, but that doesn't mean the only possible solution is to remove all government interference. It's perfectly possible for socialism and men's rights to coexist, which is why I just wish we could keep the political debate in r/politics and concentrate on men's rights only here, without trying to exclude a large portion for something that should be completely irrelevant. That's not to say you can't suggest a c…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:22 PM
5

and probably completely invisible to you. If you already realise he isn't going to understand what you're saying, why on earth would you not include an explanation?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:21 PM
2

Not entirely sure what you mean, but I'd say yes. Why?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:07 PM
35

Feminism is not going to turn Australia or any other country into a Communist socialist state. And if it did, that would be a good thing. No, sorry, not trying to proselytise my ideology, and I do agree with you - I just feel like mentioning that I am in fact a leftist and socialist, and I'm getting extremely tired of some elements constantly trying to politicise the MRM into a conservative movement. This should be about the rights of men, and those can exist in liberal, socialist and conservati…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:44 PM
8

But treating a woman like a servant is not male privilege, because other women can do it as well, and many women do it to men. It's simple arrogance/dominance/sexism. It has nothing to do with privilege or the person's gender. I mean, for it to be male privilege, it has to be something only (or at least almost only) men are able to do, right?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:34 PM
7

Defining men's and women's roles You know who does that most out of the people I know? I'll give you a hint, it's not men. But I guess these women are using their male privilege?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:32 PM
22

My grandfather gets an allowance. That's just because my grandmother is the one who does the budget planning etc, which he doesn't care about, so she pays the bills, keeps track of how much is used for food, and he gets a certain amount for himself every month. And while they're both pensioners, his pension is much larger than hers. Is my grandpa being oppressed? Is there a matriarchy in effect in their house? Fuck that, it's a perfectly sensible and responsible way to handle their money, and my…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:19 PM
3

Agreed. People can't see your balls, or lack of them, through your clothes everywhere you go. Only your sexual partners would ever have to know about a missing ball.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:22 AM
3

If dying is easier than losing a loved one, who don't those left behind by a dead soldier just shoot themselves in the head?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:20 AM
1

I dont know of any MRAs that are advocating for removing women's rights Those Manhood 101/Academy idiots who keep posting here come to mind. I still don't know if they're just trolls, but if so they've put a lot of effort into their writings, but they openly want men to control women.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:39 AM
3

While admittedly anecdotal, I have the same experience in r/justiceporn. Every time a guy gets beat up, no problem, shows on Youtube. Every time the bully is a girl, "violation of TOS", mirrors in the comments.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:36 AM
1

Edit: My point about a straw man argument is that you elicit a response by drawing parallels to other (fictional) arguments. That's not what a straw man argument is. Not even close. And using hypothetical situations with the same premise applied to different groups, that we all know would elicit a different response, thereby showing hypocrisy, is not a fallacy, nor is it a bad argument. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:30 AM
36

Just for future reference: Cropping with MS Paint.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:16 AM
1

Me neither. Even if someone sane managed to claw her way to a leading position in the movement, she'd be booed right back out of that chair by the majority the moment she suggested that maybe they should care a little bit about men as well.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:36 AM
1

So, to recap: Men's rights should only be about black, gay, transsexual or sexually abused men, otherwise it's not really men's rights? Aka. it's not men's rights if it's about all men, only if it's about a small subset?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:52 PM
30

Hah. Obama would be an off-the-scale extremist right-winger in Denmark.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:27 PM
30

I don't know. Despite all you read about Sweden here, not all of Scandinavia is like that. Most of the stories about anti-male courts, laws and general discrimination I read here about the US would never occur in Denmark. We have our share of shrill feminists, such as Anne-Grethe Bjarup Riis, but among common people it's pretty widespread to see those as crazy.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:25 PM
1

If the law is really on her side, why do they have to lie about him being a 80k webdesigner? Why not just come out and say that sure, he doesn't make a lot of money now, but he has a lot of savings? I seriously doubt they would have to make shit up, if the laws really did say that.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 03:41 PM
1

I didn't even realise there were comments until I read your comment. Why oh why did I go back to read them? "You know you’re working in a patriarchal society when the word feminist has a weird connotation. . . ." - Ellen Page Well, by that logic and considering the connotations the words "men's rights" carry to them, we must live in an extremely matriarchal society. Right?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 03:33 PM
3

Agreed. I'm not that far in, and I already really dislike this coverage, especially once the guy started talking about how the protesters were liberal and "covered in bad make-up and piercings". How the hell is their look in any way related to this? Are they wrong because their points are bad and they behave violently, or because they are pierced and don't share this guy's personal ideology?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:25 AM
5

Feminism is not anti-men's-rights. The feminism people here dislike is. If you define feminism as simply having the goal of equal rights for women - and possibly men too - then you'll find very few here who dislike or disagree with it. That's just not the feminism we see.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:42 AM
3

What a pathetic argument. Are you sure you like sandwiches? The last guy I knew who liked sandwiches bombed a hospital because they didn't serve sandwiches!
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:39 AM
3

Who gives a shit who said it? The point stands on its own.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:36 AM
2

You're misrepresenting your own earlier question. You implied there would be some sort of problem for anti-feminism because someone has killed in the name of anti-feminism. Hitler's motives are hard to know, but I'm fairly certain one of them was that he didn't like Jews. Is someone who doesn't like Jews then like Hitler? Sure, not liking Jews is racist (if we're talking about the people, not the religion), which makes it incomparable to men's rights, but not liking Jews most certainly doesn't m…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:31 AM
28

Or just plain ol' steady relationships. I've never understood the allure putting a contract on it.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:02 PM
1

For one, I was talking about the mile. The military gives no fucks about your hundred meter time. Right. Which may have been the reason I said exactly that. Obviously you didn't bother to read even the first four lines before replying. Comparing the two is RETARDED Right. Which is probably why I did nothing of the sort. Thirdly, you want to claim that a 12 minute difference in the marathon is even remotely close Nope, I was actually quite clear that in the sport that difference is huge. Finally,…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 04:57 PM
2

I got curious and looked up the fastest 100 m sprinters. The fastest man runs 100 m in 9.58 s, while the fastest woman is at 10.49. That's actually not that large a difference, I think. Yes, I know that second counts for a lot in the sport, but in real life less than 10% difference isn't that bad. 100 meters isn't all that relevant to the military, though, so how about marathon runners? Well, from the best source I could find, the difference is 9.6% (~2:15 to 2:03). Still about the same. So, if …
/r/MensRights05/12/12 01:26 PM
1

Holy fuck, that girl in pink is like a comedy show caricature of a shallow, brain dead blonde. I didn't even know those existed in real life. Off-topic: Does American tv seriously have three commercial breaks during a 25 minute show?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:44 PM
1

Anyone believe for a second that the angry audience lady was telling the truth about asking out and paying for lots of guys?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:25 PM
2

Exactly, posts. There's no such thing on comments from what I've heard.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:35 AM
10

Yeah, exactly, the message made no sense to anyone who didn't already share their view. It's like if a bunch of PETA people stood in front of a hot dog stand chanting "THIS IS WHAT ANIMAL MURDER LOOKS LIKE!" Yeah? I'll take two.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:56 AM
3

It's not sex when she's wasted - And yet the guy is the one holding alcohol. What's the message here? That guys can't get drunk or lose the ability to give informed consent? That it doesn't matter if he gives consent because he's a guy? Oh, I get it - of course he bought that beer for her so he could get her drunk and have sex with her. Obviously. I mean, he's a guy.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 02:16 PM
2

I am and have always been an egalitarian. If you define feminism as one side of that (or both, if you're feeling particularly facetious), then I am a feminist, but I've never called myself one. Ever since I was a child and didn't know what it was, every encounter with feminism put me off from it. Every time someone on tv identified as a feminist, it was a sure sign they were about to say something stupid or sexist. My mother was (and is) a self-described feminist, and every time she talked about…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:42 PM
6

I'm just curious, can you name me one significant thing mainstream feminism has done or fought for for men, not counting those dubious, indirect "if we give women x right, men will automatically be better off" things?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:24 PM
8

Why? You can't win. If you try to debate them or show them evidence of their ignorance, you're a "misogynist and rape-advocate". If you become violent or threatening in any way, even as a response to them doing it first, you are "proving how dangerous and unreliable men are".
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:20 PM
5

Another thing I don't get: if they insist that feminism deals with the same issues as the men's rights movement, why are they opposed to the men's rights movement? That's like an animal rights activist calling someone the scum of the earth for attending a conference about mammalian rights. Sure, the animal rights activist might say "why only care about mammals, why not all animals", but hating the person makes absolutely no sense. Surely sharing half your interests is better than none?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:16 PM
1

It says "another example" not "conclusive evidence". Sheesh. If anyone is basing their opinion on this alone, you'd be right. I doubt anyone is, though, and gathering examples is fine.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:09 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/140cw4/til_male_rape_victims_can_be_held_accountable_for/
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:50 PM
20

Each man told his story of how he was qualified for a job or qualified for a promotion that he did not get because of this putative reverse discrimination against white men. [...] I wanted to know about the word "my." Why did the men think it was their job? [...] these men felt entitled to the position, and that any effort to make the workplace more equal was perceived, by those men, as a loss. What? How does that make even the tiniest shred of sense? These men were complaining that they were pa…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:35 PM
4

While this ended well, this sentence worries me: He called for help from his roommate, who arrived just in time to see Molina strong-arm a kitchen knife out of Martone's hands. What would have happened if the friend arrived two seconds later?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 11:58 AM
1

tell me again why i shouldn’t hate men tell me again why i shouldn’t treat all men like a potential rapist or abuser tell me again why i should include men in anything involving women’s rights tell me again that all men aren’t like that Okay, why don't you start by telling me how this man is representative of all men and how "having whores" means he's a rapist or abuser? She's barking insane.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:45 AM
0

I didn't see him saying anything at all about all men. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand. It is a fact that rapists exist. That does not mean all men are rapists. These rapists are probably not going to be dissuaded from raping by hearing that it's wrong to do so. These individuals are the sun, etc. in Rationalization's example. They aren't going to disappear collectively with a few pointers on good behaviour, therefore it makes sense to also try to prevent rape from happening …
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:28 AM
13

No no no, the woman wasn't capable of drowning her own children, the man was capable of driving her to do it. At least that's what this judge tells us. But seriously, why are judges given this much reign rein? Imo, they shouldn't even be allowed to make any subjective statements "in uniform", yet I constantly hear about them making actual legal decisions based on (and admittedly so) nothing but their own gut feelings or prejudices. Why are they allowed to keep that job?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 10:25 AM
4

I may be somewhat polite, but it's completely hypocritical and incorrect. It takes more to be a man than to simply possess a penis…that’s trans-erasure. No, it's just common language that doesn't take into account every single outlier and exception. It's pretty normal to define men as people with penises in informal contexts that don't explicitly deal with transgendered people. That's no insult to or "erasure" of them. She's just looking for reasons to be offended here. Yes, because all of us fe…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 09:30 AM
2

Every time You know you can add words to the database for next time, right?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 09:18 AM
1

Why did you post that here? You realise OP is saying nothing of the sort, right?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:22 AM
7

Here's a direct quote: "I don’t believe in vaccination either. That’s a… well, that’s a… what? That’s another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamp was right: it’s not the invading germs, it’s the terrain. It’s not the mosquitoes, it’s the swamp that they are breeding in." And a tweet he sent: "If u get a swine flu shot ur an idiot"
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:59 PM
8

Yes.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:45 PM
10

I don't know about degenerate, but he is a moron and an anti-vaccine nutjob.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 05:59 PM
8

Agreed. I'm sick of the expression "war on..." about positively everything where someone is slightly annoyed. There are no wars on anything in the US and Europe right now. There are simply problems and inequalities that some of us would like to see rectified. Denying that every person on the planet ever has had problems that he or she would be justified in preferring solved, is extremely ignorant. I don't understand why so many people have a problem with it.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:06 AM
2

That's interesting. What case is that?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:00 PM
11

Isn't that a crystal clear case of blatant racism? Imagine if they'd said "you shouldn't support this group because it's organised by black people".
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:21 PM
4

That's it. I knew I'd gotten that feeling somewhere before. It feels exactly like fundie Christians going "If you don't believe in Jesus and call yourself a Christian, you have no morals and will kill babies".
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:55 PM
7

No, men and women aren't absolutely different in anything but reproductive organs. Men and women are different on average or in general, but there is nothing that every man and no woman does or wants, or vice versa. Therefore it is inequality and discrimination to differentiate because of gender alone. You can differentiate because of behaviour or personality, but making anything in one way for all men and another for all women is discriminatory towards those that don't follow the gender norms i…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:53 PM
4

Frankly, making your date ride a train is abuse of women. It’s violence. A lot of idiot guys are so intent on satisfying their lust they don’t even realise this. They just want to jam themselves in a girl as cheaply as possible. Holy fuck, these few sentences made me rage more than anything I've seen here in a long time - and she claims this view is shared by a majority? I really hope that's bullshit.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 10:59 AM
1

Wealthy insurance broker Tina Greenland, 49, had sex with divorced Nicholas Mouna, 55 She's the wealthy insurance broker, according to the article. Not that it makes sense she would be taking care of his kids, then, so it's probably just a really stupid journalist - but that's what it says. Edit: Yeah, stupid journalist. This article says the opposite, which makes a lot more sense.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 09:16 AM
1

anything less than 6' is short. 6' is average only in the Netherlands and Denmark. Calling anything below that "short" is setting that bar pretty high. I'm a 6'7" Danish guy, and I wouldn't consider 5'11" short at all.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:21 PM
1

Even those of us who can't?
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:07 PM
5

public profanity Is that seriously illegal over there?
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:04 PM
3

This post was in r/politic as well, where he said the exact same thing. I'm guessing troll. Either that or really intent on making himself look foolish.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:40 AM
5

In the men's restroom?
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:31 AM
1

Even when large men are mocked for their bodies, they are referred to as having “man-boobs,” for fucks sake. Pretty sure a woman would be mocked for having a "woman-cock", you dumb twat. They certainly do get some flak if they have big muscles or other things generally considered masculine. Man-boob shaming is not because boobs are something women have and women are bad, it's because boobs are something women have and they're NOT ON A WOMAN.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:25 PM
2

What is it with this Neo-McCarthyism I keep seeing in MR forums? Are we really back to the 50s red scare mentality of using "socialism" as some sort of bad word that we should all fear, actual meaning aside? I don't care if people disagree with the ideology, but please, please stop trying to politicise the MR movement. It's divisive and excludes those of us who happen to like socialism - and it is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. The problem with radical feminism is not that they want to make …
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:22 PM
1

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm not saying you can't ignore them, I'm saying ignore them because you've heard their previous arguments and they were stupid, or alternatively "I don't have time for everyone and you're not on my list". Just not because they have a star in a logo. That's exactly the type of non-sequitur used against MR all the time.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:34 AM
3

Please don't do that. That "Oh, they are ideology x, we can just safely ignore everything they say" is probably the biggest problem the MRM faces from everyone else. "Oh, they're just MRAs, then we can safely label them as nuts and not consider their points". These people are idiots, but not because they are socialists or because they have a red star in their logo, and don't enable that kind of thinking. It's incredibly hypocritical if you want any of what we're talking about here to be taken se…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:28 AM
12

Because men aren't at risk of being raped Yes, because that's the only crime that matters. Who cares if you're mugged and beaten, get all your teeth knocked out, bones broken and will never walk again - at least you weren't raped. I wish I was kidding, but isn't that the message we get every time? "At least it wasn't rape".
/r/MensRights19/11/12 08:48 AM
76

And on that day you learned that violence is perfectly acceptable if someone is blocking your way. What a great role model.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 09:15 PM
0

That is exactly why I don't like the idea of marriage. I think the second you don't really want to be together any more, you should be free to leave. I don't want my girlfriend through ten years to only stick with me because she promised to. I want to wake up every morning and know she's lying next to me because she wants to, not because of some ridiculous contract. Sort of off-topic, sorry.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 09:11 PM
11

Interesting, but: If you looked at TV and movies from the ’50s and ’60s, the promiscuous guys were always very clearly the bad example. Early James Bond movies disagree - a lot.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 08:57 PM
1

I don't really know what "defining factor of the universe" is supposed to mean, but logic is the only tool we have for discerning truth from wishful thinking. When you renounce logic, you're saying you don't care if what you believe is true. Still, your rant made no sense. You were asked to explain how there was an issue of social dominance in society, and replied with basically "men are assholes". Even if you were right about that, how is it an answer? How does being an asshole mean you're domi…
/r/MensRights17/11/12 08:31 AM
15

America is, as is common, dominated by a few people who happen to be males. 99.9% of males have exactly the same disadvantages and lack of power as women.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:33 PM
0

I'm not poor, but I am a socialist. I think it's a damn shame that the American (which I'm not) left wing panders so much to feminists, but I'm not going to change my entire political ideology based on that.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:12 PM
2

Is "chauvinism" the word you are looking for?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:59 PM
12

Even more funny thing: You can't actually say it about patriarchy, even if we pretend for a moment that patriarchy exists. It's a complete projection.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:53 PM
1

tiny country Just to nitpick, I think you mean not very populous. Its area is much larger than Germany. And even then, 10 million people isn't "tiny".
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:52 PM
2

Well, yes, exactly. I don't have a problem with not having a gendered pronoun, because honestly it's not all that useful or necessary. Might as well have a pronoun that included the hair colour of person. No, I have a problem with deliberately dropping it from a language that has always had it, simply because it makes no sense and has that extremist "we must annihilate gender" vibe to it. I support not forcing gender roles, not forcing them away. Some of them may be natural.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:01 AM
2

It's Swedish. A hen is a "höna".
/r/MensRights15/11/12 05:55 PM
3

So simply displaying the fact that prostitutes exist is sexism? Even if all men in the movie had been perfect, peaceful angels, that's some of the most senseless radfeminist whine I've heard in a long time. Sorry, don't want to insult your mother, but seriously...
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:06 PM
2

Completely agreed. The pronoun is the only insane thing here. Letting kids play with whatever they like and not herding them towards certain gender stereotypes is a good thing. – But the pronoun-thing really is insane. Acknowledging gender is just admitting reality. Kids aren't going to treat each other differently based on a pronoun alone, but if you completely refuse to acknowledge that genders exist, that's going to do nothing but raise some awkward questions later on, when the differences st…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:04 PM
1

Seriously, feminism has always been about rights for women. It started out as equal rights for women and has gradually to most become more about special privileges, but it has always been exclusively about women, hence the name. Technically, if we don't go into how the movement has changed recently, you can be a feminist and support equal rights - though I'll agree with Pecan that it disqualifies you from most of modern feminism. But in no way can you say that supporting equal rights is what mak…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:01 PM
7

a pre-existing metal condition \m/
/r/MensRights15/11/12 11:17 AM
2

Me too. Maybe she's the only one "understanding" it because it's fucking stupid. Voluntary prostitution does not condone forced prostitution any more than any other work condones slavery.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:14 PM
3

So, then why are chimps still around It's clear you think evolution is a ladder, when it is in fact a tree. There is no such thing as "more evolved". Chimps are no less than humans, they're just adapted to their environment, as we are to ours. But as others have said, you're obviously either trolling or completely uninterested in actually learning about it.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 01:48 PM
2

I don't know. I think it's an annoying ad, but it doesn't seem particularly anti-male biased to me. She's more of a cunt than he's a doormat, and if we reversed the genders, everyone would say the man was an asshole. What's with the voices, though?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 01:36 PM
2

Manhood Academy? Those people are either trolls or actually misogynistic scum who do not in any way belong in the MRM. I don't blame her for not making it through two of their terrible videos.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 01:24 PM
16

This issue deflects from the negligence of driving around in a hurricane with kids in the car. Exactly. There might not have been anyone home in the house, in which case the exact same thing would have happened, but she wouldn't have anyone else to blame. If her story is true, I think the man is an asshole for not letting her in, but I'm not going to judge on that as long as their stories differ. But no matter what, she put her children in that situation, not him.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:56 AM
1

Wait, you don't seriously think that's an argument, do you? That's like saying "I'm not dead, so obviously my t-shirt is bulletproof".
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:57 AM
56

Well, "sorry" can mean "I apologise" as well as "I empathise with you". The latter fits here.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:18 AM
0

That was pretty childish and unnecessary. Am I to assume you're throwing another tantrum because of last time we spoke? If so, you're making a fool of yourself by holding a grudge like that.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:13 PM
0

I'd say he is, and yes - that's the point: everybody panders. With regards to democracy, it's certainly not perfect, but please do tell if you've got a better idea. As far as I know there are only two alternatives: anarchy and oligarchy, both of which suffer from inherent human selfishness and will always make it worse for the majority.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 01:48 PM
25

Agreed. If a woman wants to cross the street to avoid me or start running because I'm walking behind her, that's her prerogative. I'm somewhat offended by the implication, but I can't do anything about it. Just don't expect me to give a shit. I'm not going to cross the street or walk slower or in a different direction because of the completely baseless paranoia of others. If you have a problem with me, you move.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 01:21 PM
21

Fuck, I hate this world when something like that is news material.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 01:16 PM
3

Yeah, let's all vote for the utterly insane fundie with no trace of a plan for the economy or anything else, just because he's pandering slightly less to the feminists. Great idea.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 01:04 PM
1

True, it was the quick, dirty and not entirely accurate version. I figured I was dealing with small enough discrepancies to ignore it.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:23 AM
19

Ugh, I absolutely loathe that kind of pathetic white knights.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:47 PM
25

One in four women are raped in their lifetime. Welp. False statistics from the get-go. And let's have a look at the source she provides, shall we? One out of six men is sexually assaulted at some point in his life. Right, so even if we accept this, the rate is 25% for women and 17% for men, and that giant difference somehow makes it reasonable for women to assume all men are rapists, and men should accommodate this? Also: 84 percent of the women knew the men who raped them So still, even if we a…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 02:43 PM
2

Protected Blog. http://cmd-n.org/ is marked private by its owner. If you were invited to view this site, please log in below. Sooo... mirror? Tl;dr?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 01:56 PM
3

Are you incredibly stupid or just a troll? *checks history* Okay, troll.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:57 AM
17

Gasp! Misandry! VICTIM BLAMING!
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:25 AM
1

The video didn't work for me - or so I thought, until I tried it with Internet Explorer. Great work there. But seriously? "If you feel angry, do x"? That's fucking bullshit. I mean, it would be okay if that were one of several videos, but that's all there is. Still, that site isn't the worst I've seen. The test thing to see if you'd react to common signs actually says "he/she" about the victim. There's a long way to go, but this is a baby step in the right direction.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:20 AM
10

Manhood 101, also known as Manhood Academy. I don't know if they are SRS trolls or really mean it, but they are - or pretend to be - a bunch of actually misogynist assholes who seem to think they belong in the MRM, with ideas like "a real man should control his woman" etc.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:44 PM
6

Yeah, I linked to his user profile in the quote above for posterity.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:55 PM
15

cry harder faggot mangina lol And that was the same response he also deleted below. You've got to hand it to these morons - at least they're persistent.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:43 PM
1

i.e. - not e.g. /nitpick
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:32 PM
2

It says "write to us if your mom, dad or girlfriend hits you". (Actually it says something equivalent to "your sweetheart" - it's gender-neutral, but since it's directed at boys, I'm assuming they mean girlfriends.) That's still pretty good. Not perfect, but...
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:06 PM
26

Same m101 spammer who deleted his post below.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:24 AM
11

http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/12r0hc/judgewhoallowsstuff_explains_why_parents_get_mad/
/r/MensRights07/11/12 08:16 AM
19

I think Revoran realises that, but the bestof link in question was a comment from JudgeWhoAllowsStuff simply saying: She fucked up losing her kid, so she needed to deflect attention from her own shit parenting. And nothing else. I don't think that's bestof material either. It's probably true, but it's not quote worthy.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 08:14 AM
1

No, it's not cowardice. In this case, it's healthy realism.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:46 PM
1

Yeah, maybe that was a bit harsh, I'm sure he did it because he cared. I just think, if you weren't a coward he shouldn't exaggerate to make a point, and if you were - well, a scared person isn't going to be any less scared by being called scared, you know? It serves no purpose, it's just mean.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:37 PM
0

Ugh. I'm nauseated by just the fact that these women felt they could walk around in their Sunday clothes back in Britain, safe and sound, without ever having to worry about lifting a finger for the war that was threatening the entire western world - and still have the audacity to try to shame others into fighting, only because of gender.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:31 PM
1

Excuse me, but your dad is a cunt for calling you a coward, even if you had been one.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:17 PM
0

I don't know if that's how it works where you are, but my SO is mildly schizophrenic, and she's had plenty of counseling from psychiatrists. Most of the psychiatrists I've met through her were also psychologists, and most of the psychologists pushed pills as well - they just had to go through a regular GP for the actual prescription.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:14 PM
0

the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment postulates that at a certain point the cat will be both alive and dead at the same time Exactly. I don't even know whether to be offended or laugh at how these people constantly display their own ignorance by assuming the whole Schrödinger-thing simply means "I don't know yet". What, they think it takes quantum theory to postulate that we don't know what's inside a sealed box?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:50 PM
1

Are you sure it's a word-fail and not what they meant? Taking it literally is the only way that sentence will ever come close to making sense. Of course then I don't get the point of it. But I guess you can't have it all.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:40 PM
1

You're moving the goalpost. You were talking about the 60s. There weren't black slaves in the 60s.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:38 PM
2

people feel that they do not need to answer questions presented to them as though they are too important to do so. No, he probably didn't answer your question because it was condescending, felt rhetorical and was utterly irrelevant because the only mistake he made was with the age of the accuser. And that's not a problem, that's completely understandable. I wouldn't dignify that with an answer either.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:29 PM
1

You know stuff about tanks. Choosing to learn about something that interests you, that most women don't choose to learn about because it doesn't interest them, is somehow a male privilege? Jesus fuck, what is wrong with people? Edit: I do find it a little funny that most of these can be answered simply with "So can women, they just choose not to". Some privilege.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:20 PM
1

I'm on board with 2. I make what corresponds to 55k USD a year in my current developer job, and turned down a 90k job last year. In my current job I'm my own manager, I can work from home whenever I want, have no steady hours, no stress and I'm free to experiment with what I do, because the boss trusts my judgement and doesn't make too strict requirements for products. The 90k job would have me a part of a strictly managed team. I'm fine where I am, thank you.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 12:21 PM
11

And many girls that age would welcome sex with their 30-year-old male teacher, and just as many boys and girls would not. That's rather irrelevant to this.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:46 AM
0

I think I'm about done wasting time on you. Every single thing you've claimed I've said has been wrong. Every single thing you've accused me of has been wrong, and often projecting. You've somehow managed to turn my very simple and innocent statement of "hey, this hurts everyone, not just men" into a farce of epic proportions. At least I must admit you have some skill as a drama queen. If you don't want people to respond to your posts, don't fucking post them and then blame people for responding…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 11:02 PM
0

I think that we can declare your point of view null and void. There really is nothing to discuss Exactly. Finally you understand that my comment was never meant to be debated. It was a simple comment stating that I also feel sorry for some women if something came to pass. You been turning it into a ridiculous argument by overinterpreting it and reading what isn't there. Please, lets make sure there is no next time. Yes, let's. Next time, don't read shit that isn't there, don't overinterpret, don…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 10:22 PM
0

You whine a great deal No, that would be you. I've made one comment and you've been whining about it for several posts now. Stop being a hypocrite. Oh no! Criticism! Misguided criticism. You managed to misread and overinterepret everything I've said. I have no problem with actual criticism. The problem here is that you're just throwing tantrums because there was nothing in my comment for you to criticise. This is boilerplate shit Yes, because you're committing a very basic fallacy. So don't. Nic…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 10:20 PM
0

How is a single mom being a pariah in the dating scene an egalitarian issue, though? Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't realise every single statement you made in this subreddit, including insignificant side remarks, had to be an important issue. Oh wait, it doesn't. You're just being dishonest and moving the goalpost. I made one tiny little comment about this also harming women, and I've been the centre of a fucking shitstorm of butthurt MRAs, who are apparently so unfathomably weak and self-pitying they…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:04 PM
0

The law favors them in this case No it doesn't. Once again that's my point - the law favours no one in this case, because both men and women are hurt by it. The law is not just sexist, it's utterly idiotic. since appealing to single-mom-victim status is not doing much for me. What makes you think I care even a little bit what it does for you? Seriously, the pretentiousness of that comment is just mind boggling.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 07:40 PM
0

You went off the rails when you centered on women in a discussion of what is best for men I didn't centre anything, I said I would feel sorry for the women as well, but that it may finally get things moving for men's rights. You, on the other hand, are apparently throwing a tantrum because I dare to mention women at all in a men's rights forum. If that's how things work here, I don't want to be a part of this subreddit any more. I'm an egalitarian, not someone who only cares about men, and I hop…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:37 PM
0

I'm pretty sure the laws don't stop men who want to date single mothers. But that's exactly the point: they do. If he risks getting pegged as a father to her children and stuck paying child support for the "crime" of dating her, he'll get scared off. That's what this whole line of comments is about, and that's what I think is a shame. It seems you've missed what was really the entirety of my point, but I don't see how I could have made it much clearer. The guy I was originally replying to said "…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:26 PM
1

Demand? Seriously, where are you people seeing these things? I've never said a single sodding word about demanding anything. The only thing I'm saying, is that I don't think these single mothers deserve to have men scared away by the danger of being forced to pay child support. If a man is interested in dating a single mother, he shouldn't be unable to just because of a law that could make him a father for no reason.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:11 PM
3

So what you're saying Uhm... no? How the hell are you reading anything like that? The idea of "women with child" deserving an unlimited number of chances in their romantic lives is not a men's rights issue. And where are you reading that? Men don't have to pursue and reward women who don't bring anything to the table. And that? you're telling me that I, or any other man, should just get into a relationship with these women And that? Why should men date these women? And that? Seriously, I haven't…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:09 PM
4

why shouldn't it automatically mean that no man would want to touch her for 18 years? Because there's no logical connection between the two. Your question is like asking "why shouldn't you be forced to pay for child support, just because you've dated a woman with child for a few years". This is exactly the type of shit we should be fighting against - stupid laws that force things that have absolutely nothing to do with what's touted as the cause. Maybe women should actually pursue the type of me…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 01:55 PM
3

Aww. Everything is better now. You're toying with my emotions here, man.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:28 PM
3

Sheesh. Thanks for the links, but I was depressed enough already.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:25 PM
-4

Sure, but maybe they want to be single mothers? That shouldn't automatically mean no man would want to touch you for 18 years. Don't take this as some "women are worse off, boohoo" bullshit. As I said, it would probably have the silver lining of getting shit changed in a jiffy.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:23 PM
3

What? Why?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:05 PM
2

One wonders what the point is of a constitution if it's so easily ignored.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:03 PM
8

If this gains ground (as it should), I'm going to feel really sorry for those single mothers. Must suck being a complete pariah in the dating scene for 18 years because of a kid. On the other hand, I'm sure something would actually be done about it if it started hurting the women as well.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:01 PM
1

Exactly. I really don't understand why this offends people. It's not an accusation, it's advice on how to lower the risks of something bad happening to you. It doesn't even matter if the advice is incorrect - that doesn't somehow make it evil.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 08:39 AM
0

It's impossible to know that if a certain choice where different a certain out come wouldn't have happened. Impossible to know, yes, but you can decrease the likelihood. I hope you wouldn't say, for example, that someone who routinely jumps out of planes after letting a 4-year-old pack his chute is more likely to die than someone who never leaves his home and has food brought out. You seem to be suffering from the 'it takes but a skimpy skirt to make every man a rapist' Really? That's extremely …
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:10 PM
0

What do you disagree with? I'm pretty sure everything I just said is undeniable fact, but I'm willing to be shown wrong.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:34 PM
2

that's a bizarre thing to say to anyone. No, that's a completely normal thing to say to anyone other than women. That's the point. There's a double standard here. Man walks down a dark alley at night, fat wallet showing, and gets mugged. Everyone's "Well, it's not his fault he got mugged, but he really should have known better". Man dresses up as a KKK for Halloween and drunkenly stumbles into a black ghetto, gets killed. Everyone's "That's horrible, we must punish the people who committed the c…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:29 PM
3

Actually the picture is saying quite the opposite: It's not your fault, but it's possible you could have prevented it by acting differently. Going down a dark alley in a ghetto at night doesn't make it your fault if you're mugged, but you could still have prevented it.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:17 PM
1

I don't see anyone saying that.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:04 PM
2

Connotations, yes. Not implications, which is what OP said. It's relevant to just mention that the word "atheist" in no way implies antipathy towards religion or gods - but yes, many people will think that.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 12:25 PM
11

As a subscriber to r/childfree, I did realise that.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 12:39 PM
1

"A real gentleman would have waited" Okay. A real horse would have whinnied. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Where do these people get off more or less commanding people to be certain things? I have no interest in being a "gentleman" by any definition I've ever heard.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:18 PM
2

Obvious troll is obvious.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 12:56 PM
2

It used to not be because it relied heavily on terminal commands, but these days most distros work pretty much just like Windows, using "start menus", icon shortcuts and GUIs for everything. You can of course still use the terminal, but it's not required. The only problem is that very few games run properly on it.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 09:09 AM
7

Well, TIL. Thanks.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 08:15 AM
-1

Yes, you are - one title does not a circlejerk make. But please, you forgot to explain how hatred of single mothers is misogyny, even if that were the case.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 10:03 PM
-1

this doesn't have anything to do with "men's rights" I'm inclined to agree, but that's irrelevant to your claim of misogyny. It's just an image that offers you a platform to talk about how much you hate women "Women" in general are not mentioned here and have absolutely nothing to do with this particular image. Now you're being dishonest. and/or single mothers And here comes the backpedalling. Even if that were true, which it isn't, hating single mothers is not misogyny. That's hatred of women. …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:03 PM
2

This is one of the extremely rare cases where "literally Hitler" isn't far off.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:39 AM
2

12 weeks? In Denmark it's up to 34 weeks - specifically 2 weeks for the father only, then 32 weeks that the parents can share as they like.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:33 AM
-2

I'm assuming you're just a shitty troll, since you're writing that in r/mensrights, but just in case you think you have a point - would you care to explain the misogyny in this, and why this picture is only misogynistic when posted here, and not in r/pics where it came from?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:19 AM
9

Why is there even a "specific to women" column? Most of the ones that really are completely specific to women are obvious from the name, such as "bride burning" -- and for the rest, is that information really important enough to warrant an entire column out of only four? It just seems completely randomly thrown in, like it could just as well be "is performed with a knife" or "famously done by a ginger person". It would make a lot more sense in my head to use the column for e.g. "is typically con…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 10:59 AM
40

That's like a universal rule of all people: the more you feel you need to tell others how strong and powerful you are, the more you display you aren't.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:57 AM
3

Oh, I agree with everything you just said, but as you can see here, ErasmusMRA's comment has a clear libertarian, if not anarchist, agenda, which directly contradicts easily observable reality. Every successful country in the world has a lot of wealth redistribution and "rewarding failure" (which is in itself a horribly biased way of putting it), and most of the worst ones don't. Of course there are outliers, such as communist dictatorships, which tend to not be very successful, but generally it…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:44 PM
-2

No, it really won't backfire. Just as last time you said that, you would just have to look at the world to realise the most successful and well-functioning countries in it do exactly that. Helping the disadvantaged is a good thing, and it's necessarily everyone else who has to pay for that. That's not a problem, and it's not the problem in this case. The problem here is that women aren't a disadvantaged minority - especially in nursing.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:10 PM
0

I really wish weak people like you wouldn't constantly try to validate their own desperation by insisting that everyone feels the same as them but are hiding it. No, not every man wants to fuck constantly.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 09:27 AM
2

Not only that, but it does not differentiate between males and females in that respect. I can't imagine how that link could be any more directly contradictory to the point he's trying to make.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 09:20 AM
16

Agreed, but they also don't really make sense, so I feel like they're a waste of money anyway. Apart from what's been mentioned a million times here, that rapists are perfectly aware that rape is wrong and just don't care, I don't get the connection between e.g. "my strength is not for hurting, so when I paid for our date she didn't owe me". The fuck? How are strength and owing related in any way? This seems to indicate that if she had owed him, it would be perfectly fine for him to use that str…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:49 AM
2

2d has an error. It says "men are inherently violent and men are not" Also, I disagree with 2b. Wishing a man was more like one's female friends is just personal preference, not a claim about how men "should be", and hence not sexism. Minor nitpicks, though. The article does an excellent job of showing the prevalent double standards, and I wish we could make it required reading for aspiring feminists.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:33 AM
10

Wow. That's the first non-gore video ever to make me physically nauseous.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:44 AM
3

And yet, the best and most well-functioning societies on the planet do exactly that. All you have to do is make sure failure isn't rewarded so much you become better off by failing than succeeding and vice versa, and everyone is better off.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:01 AM
1

If self-respect is the neutral stance - as in not being ashamed of it, then of course - completely agree. I just don't see a reason to have any positive or negative emotions (voluntary ones, that is) because of something you have no influence over.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:21 PM
1

Ugh... ("Natural" marriage) creates children Which we certainly don't need any more of. And no it doesn't - this argument is stupid and hypocritical, because if they meant it, they would also work to ban marriage between old or infertile couples. Best raises children [Citation needed]. But if true, isn't it pretty likely caused by children of same-sex couples getting mocked and hated by bigots like you? Protects women What? How? The description offers nothing here. Civilizes men True, married me…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:06 PM
6

Which is pretty impressive for Y!A.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:49 PM
2

There's a difference between saying someone isn't a part of a group they clearly belong to (No True Scotsman) and saying they aren't a good representative of the whole group, or the established goals of the group. The latter isn't a fallacy.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:34 AM
3

But only men have a "post" down there. That's also sexist. Seriously, does anyone doubt they'll invent reasons like this to keep fighting?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 08:01 AM
1

It doesn't need to be all men or women to qualify as a sex difference. It does when you want to discriminate or differentiate because of it. the whole faulty argument that because there is a wage gap women are discriminated against rests upon the lack of acknowledgement that there are gender differences. Slight correction: it rests upon splitting the working population into men and women and then failing to realise there are general differences between them. If we didn't split statistics by gend…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:27 PM
1

but I don't think we should ignore sex differences entirely Fine, but can you name any? Name just one thing that isn't directly related to reproductive organs that all men do/want/can and no women do/want/can, or vice versa. If it's not common to all members of one gender, why differentiate because of that and not their skills, desires etc. regardless of gender?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:10 PM
1

In that case you clearly didn't understand what I said, because that's exactly the point. A woman should be paid the same as the man for the same work. A woman should not be paid the same for an easier, fewer hours job than a man, because that would be inequality. I'm honestly a little puzzled as to what you're missing.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:07 PM
2

Such as?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:35 PM
-2

Why be proud of something you have no control over? Edit: Downvotes for a question - that's very mature. If the answer is so obvious, would someone care to enlighten me?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:18 PM
2

I believe there are differences on average between the genders, but apart from the strictly physiological differences in reproductive organs, etc. I don't believe any of them are consistent in every member of a gender, which is why nothing should be differentiated by gender but by ability, personality, etc. instead. So yeah, I believe they should be ignored.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:10 PM
10

How so? Because íf women work less and in less dangerous jobs than men, but are paid the same, that would mean women are paid more for the same work. If I worked 4 hours a day in the exact same job as you worked 8 hours a day, should we make the same?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:23 AM
9

No, that's actually inequality.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:17 AM
1

Would anyone care to explain to me how calling someone a porn star is sexist? Even if we ignore for a second that porn stars aren't only women, the word carries absolutely no shred of implication for the entire gender.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:10 PM
2

Would "biologically programmed to look at objects culturally determined to be of sexual interest" be wrong?
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:23 PM
2

Taxation without representation.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 11:57 AM
2

Who gives a shit what you believe? Give us an argument.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:30 AM
10

I really didn't feel like being nauseous, but I had to see it for myself. Didn't get all that far. "Consequences: not just for women anymore!" Ugh...
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:22 AM
3

I don't think anyone is denying it. There's just a big difference between saying "violence against women is a big problem in country x, and we want to help stop that", and plain defining domestic violence as something that only happens to women. And they're not just talking about some underdeveloped African country - they plainly name the USA as a place where women are affected by DV. Only women, though. The message would lose nothing by removing the mention of gender. Why is it there?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:47 PM
7

Domestic violence is defined by the IRC as acts of physical, sexual and emotional violence against a woman... At least they're upfront about it. Thanks, IRC, for letting me know never to support you.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:37 PM
26

From your description, I was really hoping to see feminists complaining that only 8% paid alimony, and if they wanted to claim equality they'd have to get that number up. Women have worked so hard to get this far and make some serious cash — so why should they have to pay alimony to their exes? ... Sigh. Guess it was naive to hope for even a 2 digit IQ from these people.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:54 AM
1

What the hell? I haven't read all of that list, but it's apparently a list of misogynous sites, and most of the ones I read feature absolutely no explanation of what makes them misogynist - just short explanations that at worst make them sound uninformed. The False Rape Society, for example: The False Rape Society is an Internet news aggregator, subtitled “Community of the Falsely Accused,” that features stories about allegedly false rape accusations and “feminist”-crafted “anti-male” legislatio…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:42 PM
6

"The modern man"
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:52 AM
4

It's possible of course, but assuming it would be just like the typical "he probably deserved it"-crap when a man is abused or attacked by a woman.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:59 AM
1

Great letter - but I can only imagine the reply, if any, to be something to the effect of "man up, stop being a baby and realise women have it worse!"
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:41 AM
3

And obviously, according to this, that would be a bad thing. This whole thinking-thing isn't their strong suit, it seems.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:19 PM
27

Well, to be perfectly fair, and while I also disagree that the picture is "dead on" at all, RileyW92 didn't really add anything to the discussion by stating disagreement without any explanation of why. That's a textbook downvote according to reddiquette. No offence to Riley, and I didn't downvote. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a sign of bias. Not in this particular case.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:22 AM
7

Also because they'd have to call themselves S4CS, which doesn't have the same ring to it.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:38 AM
6

You sound like a 10-year-old. Grow up, please.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 09:31 AM
4

I'd sure like to know what he wrote. It doesn't seem to have been threats, but merely jokes about a couple of missing girls. If so, that's fucking insane, and I'd like to know just so I can write the same.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:39 PM
1

Tl;dr of what led up to this?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:34 AM
1

I imagine that was a joke on the fact that you're still alive, so it must have helped.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:21 AM
4

So, an image of hardcore anal porn in a public space next to a kindergarten is fine with you? Yes, that's an extreme, but it's one of the things that no control whatsoever would allow, and few people would be okay with that. If you agree that some things are wrong, then this stops being a yes/no question and becomes a matter of shades and degrees, and that's exactly what you would need an authority to administer. That they aren't doing their job well enough is another matter entirely.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:53 AM
1

Defending male privilege, and it's a job that will never be over as long as there are still people fighting against patriarchy. Whoa, I thought meaningless bullshit catchphrases like that only existed in humorous parodies of rad-feminism. They actually say that crap? Seriously, somebody translate for me. What does it mean? Their goal? Silencing oppressed groups of people. Bwahahaha!
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:41 AM
2

I thought it was pretty normal to have lower requirements for women in physically demanding jobs, such as law enforcement? There was just an article on r/MR about the same thing in fire departments in the US. It's bullshit but hardly anything unique to Sweden.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:29 AM
3

I have zero first hand experience raping people, but I still know it's wrong. Not comparing, and I'm certainly not saying porn is wrong - but there is nothing preventing people from having a valid opinion about something, just because they don't do it themselves. The problem with the feminist argument against porn isn't that they don't watch porn - that's irrelevant - it's that the argument is illogical and based on faulty and made-up evidence that directly contradicts all serious, unbiased rese…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:56 AM
21

I'm so tired of that ridiculously stupid argument that women shaving down there makes them look like children and the men turned on by it are pseudo paedophiles. I mean, not only is it so amazingly fucking retarded in itself, because having one feature in common with someone is not the same as being or looking like them - that's the old Erasmus Montanus logic akin to "Hitler had two eyes, you have two eyes, ergo you are Hitler" - but it's also blatantly hypocritical, because, hey, it turns out m…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:16 AM
4

“Shut up,” she snapped, “It’s not your decision.” Aaand that's the point where you immediately get up and go to wherever you go to file a divorce. That woman is barking insane, and thankfully not quite representative of women. I'm not saying men aren't often being pushed to the back with regards to reproductive decisions, but that? Just straight-up saying he has no say in the matter, and even being offended and/or angry he would presume to think he did? That's not normal. That's scary.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 11:56 AM
25

You know, I cleaned toilets in a small hotel once, between two schools (me, not the hotel). Sure, once in a while there was a puddle on a toilet seat or the floor in a men's room, but that never bothered me -- it's easy to wipe up with a bit of TP before cleaning. Not an issue. The women's room? Yeah, not a day without at least one toilet covered in dried-up menstrual blood that almost needed to be peeled off with a knife. Hair in drains, hair in sinks, all counter surfaces covered in 10 differe…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:43 AM
1

That means... you've heard of me? :3
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:33 PM
2

Oh well, I just got this PM from southfo: U MAD FAGGOT LITTLE BITCH MANGINA? LOL! 0/10. Terrible troll.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:24 PM
2

Sure, but the word "discrimination" covers that. It doesn't have to be negative.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:16 PM
9

It's from Manhood Academy. They're a bunch of loons who really are misogynist and have the mistaken impression they belong in the MRM.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 11:21 AM
18

Even then it's still not a very good definition. Saying "ha ha, women are stupid" is sexist, but it doesn't give anyone any social or economic power. It's just overcomplicating things. Sexism is unjust discrimination based on gender. There.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 08:11 PM
15

Great. Learning sociology from someone who consciously twists and misunderstands everything about sociology. What's next, biology from a creationist? Oh wait, we have that.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 08:02 PM
1

Huh. I still can't see it. The only thing from you there is this one line: "What? The point is that people need shelters, not just men or women." I don't know if it's just Reddit acting up or what.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 05:24 AM
1

I wanted to see your post in context, so I went to your post history, found it and clicked the "context" button -- and was taken the the topic. No sign of your post anywhere. Did they delete it? If so, that's just fucking sad.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 05:42 PM
1

Unfortunately most people are very bad at acting rationally.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:40 PM
0

Ah, a troll. I'm glad we cleared that up. Have fun now.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:38 PM
3

Yeah, actually it is. Ignorance can be helped, but that statement is wilful ignorance and shuts her off from learning.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:37 PM
1

So you're talking about a cultural difference in approach? If so, that's completely true, but it's exactly the point here. Men are seen as creeps for doing things that would be completely acceptable for a woman, and all because our culture almost demands it of the man. If he does what he's culturally pressured to do, he's creepy. If not, he's gay or weird. That's the hypocrisy we're working against here.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:34 PM
50

Grrr... I hate - fucking HATE - "agree to disagree" when people can't defend their fucking claims.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:31 PM
1

Elaborate?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:26 PM
3

People are not known for making sense or using logic. Seriously, people are stupid. Women no more than men. Please shut the fuck up with actual misogyny here. Even if you mean it, take it somewhere else. This is a place for equality and opposition to feminists who don't want it - not calling women stupid.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 08:03 AM
2

Victim blaming? That's just sad.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 04:40 PM
10

So by this logic, if two people both think the other wants sex and indulge them, they've both raped each other. Right?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:23 PM
1

Hey, my dog has more intelligent opinions than many people I know. And he's dead.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:42 AM
4

How is that in any way a different side of the same story? If you spend $687 on a pair of ridiculously overpriced dress shoes, just so you can get some idiot designer's name on them, I'm not going to believe for a second that you went to bed hungry last night.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:40 AM
2

Don't bother. These Manhood Academy morons get rightly downvoted every time they show up here, but they keep coming. If they aren't SRS trolls trying to make us look bad, they're a bunch of extremely insecure boys with the mistaken idea that they somehow belong in the MRM. Either way it's not worth it.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:33 AM
1

So what happened to her?
/r/MensRights19/09/12 01:10 PM
1

Do you have a link to, or know some examples of these policies they would like to have seen implemented? I'm guessing they weren't that direct about them being men-shaming.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 01:06 PM
3

I tried googling her name and there was absolutely nothing apart from DM. So yeah, let's just keep our knickers on a bit longer.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:22 AM
2

I have no diagnoses and I usually don't scare easily, but that fist smacking made me uncomfortable. I felt threatened. Even if his message hadn't been so sexist, it would have been completely ruined for me by his threatening demeanour.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 11:14 AM
2

The worst thing about SatC is how so many women, even women I'd consider to be otherwise rational and intelligent, look up to these ridiculously stupid, shallow, selfish, sexist and generally as you say horrible women as role models.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 10:59 AM
3

the news here is spinning it that the cop shouldn't have done this What? How the fuck? This video was in r/JusticePorn yesterday, and I completely agreed with that: it was justice. An annoying old women woman thought she was above the law and could order around a LEO like he were a small child, and the officer used precisely the amount of force necessary to get her out of the car and into his. I'm completely baffled as to how anyone could see a problem with that. If I was being assaulted or havi…
/r/MensRights14/09/12 09:57 AM
2

It's hard to respond to when there's no trace of an argument in there. It's just a list of baseless claims with no visible logical relation. It may as well have said "cream buns are the cause of racism". How do you respond to that?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 09:49 AM
6

Exactly. Because the best thing to sell a men's magazine is a naked man on the cover, obviously.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:31 PM
3

If she said this, the "white male privilege" part alone is moronic. But I'm going to need a source here.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:29 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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