TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Apemazzle Archive

View 3 posts and 300 comments by Apemazzle on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

What exactly was so credible about it? Dude fox news and commentators called it credible. If you really can't see that it was a credible testimony then I'm not gonna waste my time debating this with you
/r/MensRights07/10/18 04:49 PM
-1

What more did you want them to do? A proper investigation, not this farce https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/trump-kavanaugh-fbi.html Do you honestly think any amount of investigation would have satisfied the people who were against this nomination even before it was announced? Before it was announced?? I'm not sure whom you're talking about here, or what your point is quite frankly. My point is that regular folk, including most Dem voters, should be able to look back at this fiasco …
/r/MensRights07/10/18 04:18 PM
-1

40 year old accusations should be looked at They were not properly looked at, that's the issue here
/r/MensRights07/10/18 08:07 AM
1

Yeah but there are licensing laws, you can't just print out porn and hand it out on the street.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 03:45 PM
3

They were actually confiscated under public indecency laws because they contained some erotic fiction. There was plenty of absurdly offensive stuff in there too, but none of it was full on "inciting hatred" level stuff that warranted police involvement.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 02:39 PM
1

Doesn't exist, cos policing how people dress is victim-blaming bullshit.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:47 PM
1

There's just one problem with your logic, if you can't prove that there's that much rape and sexual assault happening out there as you believe you're going to look like a serious moron if people end up getting expelled over this or the rules get more and more ridiculous. My views are based on evidence (e.g. the evidence that compulsory education is, frankly, awesome for a country). Likewise I've seen good evidence that these consent workshops will be beneficial, but if they do a bellyflop I'll a…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:57 PM
1

I give a fuck if they're compulsory Yeah I know, I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't give a shit if a valuable, educational class (that virtually no one is penalised for missing btw) is officially "compulsory" or not. By the way all that bullshit you wrote just made university sound even more unappealing It's a simple exchange dude. They give you education in exchange for money and compliance with their rules. If you don't want to comply then fine, don't go to uni, but you can't expect…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:33 PM
1

How can people like you rant on about sexual assault and rape, two things which are forcing a person to do something against their will? And then turn around and tell another group of people that because a member of their demographic has forced people you know to do something they must now be forced to do something in return for another persons crimes? How can you be this dumb? actually finding a way to directly tackle the problem. Oh gee, you mean like preventing sexual assault by educating peo…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 09:58 PM
1

I don't understand how you're that threatened at the idea of men deliberately organising to not attend these classes Really? You really don't understand my objection? Has it occurred to you that I actually think these classes are useful, and that the more people go to them, the less rape and sexual assault will take place (and the more it will get reported as well)? I encourage anyone, including you, to go along to these classes, and voice any concerns you may have with the organisers, but for p…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 08:47 PM
1

"Organise a real boycott against sexual consent classes"
/r/MensRights19/10/15 07:55 PM
1

So you're presumably ok with compulsory classes for freshers on how the university library works etc, yet vehemently against classes that will prevent sexual assault amongst students (many of which are not compulsory btw), even though you don't know what they entail. I don't see much logic there.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:14 PM
1

I've actually said if it's well run then that should be applauded Lol you've made a post advocating a boycott without knowing anything about it.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 04:51 PM
1

I suggest you take these things seriously and do some actual research instead of just assuming that anything run by feminists must be awful. You literally know nothing about these classes, yet you're advocating for a boycott. You are the definition of an idiot. I on the other hand have actually been to one, found it useful, discovered that everyone else there found it useful, and that there have been no complaints about this year's batch of workshops at my college. If there are problems people s…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 03:25 PM
1

It's called sampling. At my college (reasonably representative subsection of my uni), attendance was literally 100%. Hence it's reasonable to assume that attendance was close to 100% across the uni. And do you actually talk to other students Yes. I also talk to the people that run the things, who told me they had no complaints.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 03:12 PM
1

Sexual assault is nonconsensual sexual touching, ergo groping is sexual assault, simple as that. if they're so reasonable then why are their men who want to opt out of them? Err, what? Those two things aren't mutually exclusive (not even close, actually). If they were actually reasonable and balanced conversations about sexual assault and rape, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an uproar about all of this, it's that simple. There isn't an uproar mate. At my uni 99% of freshers went along with …
/r/MensRights19/10/15 03:09 PM
1

groping/unwanted contact are completely different from sexual assault groping literally is sexual assault. Get your facts straight. going around and essentially telling men they're either rapists or 'potential' rapists That's not what they involve Enough with the arrogant and condascending bullshit already. You're the guy that's just making up stuff. You evidently know absolutely nothing about these workshops, yet you're continuing to spout strong opinions on them.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 02:24 PM
2

You can't just assert that "it's been debunked" without proper evidence. And why are you linking to a completely unrelated statistic for a different country that I haven't even mentioned? I know plenty of survivors myself; 1 in 3 is absolutely believable for common stuff like groping on nights out, while more serious stuff is much more rare, but common enough that I can think of several people who have suffered it - male and female, by the way. The stats fit with my anecdotal experience.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:01 AM
2

My opinions are based on facts, history and mathematics Loool, please explain to me the "history and mathematics" which led you to deduce that the people running consent workshops "aren't interested in conversation or debate", and only "want obedience", when you don't even go to uni. While we're on the subject of facts, here are some facts for you which illustrate the alarming need for consent education at British universities, and ideally, in schools as well.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 10:42 PM
2

Well, my opinions are based on first-hand experience of these things, unlike yours which sound unsubstantiated and frankly, made up, so maybe it's best if people go along and make their own minds up, yeah?
/r/MensRights18/10/15 10:26 PM
-1

Or you could just go along to the class, maybe learn a thing or two, and if you disagree with what they're telling you, start an interesting discussion about it.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 10:16 PM
1

Y'ever hear of a little thing called the great depression?
/r/MensRights10/07/15 05:10 PM
1

Ha.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:52 AM
-7

Now you're just getting into the philosophy of punishment. Ah yes, how irrelevant /s The thing is the woman chose to do crack. That harmed the baby. She knew it would harm the baby. I agree that it should be illegal, I just don't think it should be enforced all that often because enforcing it often achieves nothing.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 11:49 PM
-5

Just because she "really needs crack" It's not just "really needing crack" it is a recognised medical condition. A lot of these people would never normally dream of doing harm to their baby - or to anyone; it is only their disease that makes them act this way. If you sling these people in jail, you ignore the underlying problem and only cause further harm. Unlike other crimes, punishment neither rehabilitates nor deters. What's the point of punishment then?
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 11:00 PM
-4

So if I have a disease called alcoholism and I get in a car wreck and kill someone is it not my fault? It is your fault because you made a conscious decision to get in the car while drunk. You could've easily chosen not to drive. By contrast, a pregnant crack addict cannot easily choose not to smoke crack; their disease, called "substance use disorder", impairs their ability to make that choice. I'm no psychiatrist; I'm not saying addicts who smoke crack while pregnant should never be held accou…
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 09:29 PM
-4

You honestly see no difference between a pregnant woman who's not addicted to crack smoking crack and a pregnant woman who is addicted to crack smoking crack? You think they're equally immoral and equally culpable? Even though one of them literally has a disease that accounts for her behaviour and the other one does not?
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 09:08 PM
-1

I'm using the word addiction to refer to substance use disorder: Substance Use Disorder refers to the overuse of, or dependence on, a drug leading to effects that are detrimental to the individual's physical and mental health, or the welfare of others.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 08:41 PM
1

I wouldn't be morally culpable. I might be a shitty human being for doing it Interesting. Let's agree to disagree on this one. And I haven't gotten sidetracked. Actually you have. The discussion is about whether women who smoke crack during pregnancy should face criminal charges. I'm saying that if they are addicts then they should not, because they have no control. You're saying that they should, because they're (in many cases) still culpable for getting pregnant in the first place. I'm saying …
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 06:31 PM
-7

Oi, don't get sidetracked: you can't criminalise female drug addicts having unprotected sex. Since you asked, this is my off-the-cuff rationale which I may decide to relinquish. If we grant the following parameters: 1) The woman has a disease (drug addiction) which will inevitably lead to harm towards the child if she falls pregnant 2) The woman is too poor to abort the child 3) The man is fully aware of points 1) and 2) Then IMO, the man is partly culpable for the harm to that child. Wouldn't y…
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 05:56 PM
-9

So you want to criminalise female drug addicts having unprotected sex now? Maybe criminalise the men as well, who knowingly have unprotected sex with a female drug addict? Good luck with that.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 05:19 PM
-11

Pregnancy is a choice Often it's not.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 05:10 PM
-18

If she smokes crack every day and her baby ends up severely deformed, should she not be held responsible? Sometimes, definitely yes, but other times, it achieves nothing. If she has a disease, called addiction, that's making her behave that way, what she needs is medical help, not criminal charges. If you hit a woman and she miscarries, you are charged with murder/manslaughter. Not if you have a mental illness that precipitated the violence; in that case, you are sent to a medical institution fo…
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 05:05 PM
-10

See my comment below: what do you expect a pregnant crack addict to do? And how do criminal charges help the situation? (Hint: they achieve nothing).
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 04:48 PM
-2

You got any evidence that there's a gender disparity in convictions for crack possession? I was under the impression it was more of a race thing.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 04:13 PM
54

This guy gets it: addicts need medical help, not criminal charges.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 01:51 PM
0

They have their F@#!ing reproductive rights Rights are irrelevant when you can't actually afford to exercise them. is fair to ask for reproductive responsibility. It is fair, which is precisely why bad mothers up and down the country have their children taken away from them by social services. If you can't be a responsible parent, you are not allowed to raise a child. That is the status quo.
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 01:48 PM
0

You haven't thought this through at all. 1) An abortion may be cheaper than raising a child, but it's still prohibitively - yes prohibitively - expensive for a lot of people. As in, it costs so much money that you literally couldn't get one even if you wanted to. 2) You've overlooked the fact that parents can get financial support from claiming benefits (not to mention other help from charities in the form of clothing, food etc.), whereas no such help is available for a pregnant woman who wants …
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 01:46 PM
4

Yes, why didn't these crack-addicted women just stop smoking crack, a notoriously easy thing to do? Better still, why didn't they just get an abortion when they found out they were pregnant? Abortions are so cheap and easy to get done in the US after all. Some of them are definitely culpable for having unprotected sex when they knew they were in no position to have a child, but others may have been raped, or may have done sex work etc. Callous behaviour, yes, but you know one thing that makes a …
/r/PussyPass23/05/15 12:27 PM
1

Still kill themselves way more than their female peers.
/r/MensRights31/01/15 12:17 PM
1

it is a men's behavioural problem Really? Terms that put the “man” in “portmanteau” tend to catch on because they describe a behavior that men (usually) adopt unconsciously and that women (usually) find annoying or (sometimes) offensive. Even the author of this piece acknowledges that it's rather more complicated than just a "men's behavioural problem".
/r/MensRights09/01/15 06:44 PM
2

Terms that put the “man” in “portmanteau” tend to catch on because they describe a behavior that men (usually) adopt unconsciously and that women (usually) find annoying or (sometimes) offensive. They cheekily point out microaggressions—a term coined by the Harvard professor Chester Pierce in the ‘70s to describe insults inflicted on African-Americans, but extended since then to indict all forms of privilege being wantonly wielded—and ask the subjects of their verbs to check, or at least acknowl…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 01:43 PM
15

Which law school did you graduate from?
/r/MensRights10/11/14 07:47 PM
13

Probably would've been more conducive to dialog and signatures if you'd just said that it was a 4-year-old boy. By intentionally mislabeling the child as a girl, you're risking getting an flood of angry people saying, "The most common FGM is way worse than male circumcision etc.", or taking offence at your assumption that they would condone this procedure on a boy - both of which would be massively derailing. But hey, that's just my 2 cents.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 07:42 PM
2

I'm glad to see the Liberal Democrats finally do something genuinely liberal. They've also pledged to decriminalise drugs and provide better services for the mentally ill. Then again, they promised to protect tuition fees as well, so who the fuck knows.
/r/MensRights10/10/14 08:44 PM
24

Don't see a problem with it as long as there are also equivalent posters with the genders reversed. Somehow I doubt that's the case though.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 05:00 PM
1

That's an outright lie, I'm going on what she said: When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 09:11 PM
1

OK that's they're ages, but the actual sexualisation they faced by the media is the issue. I'm not talking about screaming fans, but women's magazines saying like, "Justin looked pretty hot today" etc.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:06 PM
1

Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending like it doesn't happen doesn't make it not happen. True but if that kind of attention is harmful, we can certainly protect young celebs from that harm. This: to introduce them to the idea that they might be seen as attractive by some older people. is an enormous understatement of the pressure and scrutiny that these young celebs face. Every teenager has issues with their body image and self-esteem - e.g. it's the typical age range at which anorexia a…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:05 PM
2

When I suggested that women attempt suicide more but succeed less because those aren't real attempts but "cries for help" This sounds like a bullshit oversimplification of the human condition, frankly. I'm not sure that there's really a sound basis for distinguishing "cries for help" from "legitimate" suicide attempts (more of a spectrum surely?), let alone what qualifies you to assert that officially documented suicide attempts by many females are really just "cries for help", while the male on…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:14 PM
2

Man, what the fuck is up with this sub and the sarcy, condescending responses from know-it-alls who think they're so much cleverer than the original commenter? For god's sake, show me a modicum of fucking respect and articulate your opinion properly.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:45 PM
2

When feminism and you talk also about gender stereotypes against men and boys I do it all the fucking time man, including contributions to this sub. Plenty of feminists I know do it as well. It's your vaginocentrism that sucks. It's your "if [a good-looking woman] said it, then she would be right" weakness that sucks. Lol, this is completely unfounded nonsense. I literally picked up on one thing that Emma Watson said which I thought was pertinent, and suddenly I'm a gullible vaginocentric idiot …
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:17 PM
3

16 is the age of consent in many countries, including my own btw, worth pointing that out.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:11 PM
2

All of them about 17/18 when they had that kind of spotlight on them.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:11 PM
5

An entirely unsubstantiated contribution. Excellent.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 11:25 PM
4

Great debating tactics there mate, just telling me my points are invalid without the slightest explanation. My being a feminist is irrelevant to the validity of my words.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 11:21 PM
-6

A 14-year-old though. I mean I've heard feminists and non-feminists alike argue that we make far too big a deal about sex and should educate kids at a much younger age etc, and I'll gladly give those arguments my ears, but as it stands I think it's really fucked up to expose a 14-year-old child to the fact that they are the object of sexual desire (or at the very least, the "sexual" lens) of people MUCH older than them.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 11:18 PM
1

But how is that relevant to the validity of the points themselves? (Clue: it's not).
/r/MensRights29/09/14 11:15 PM
4

It's literally irrelevant to any of my points (which is all I said). To say otherwise is ad hominem.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 11:11 PM
-10

Only to the extent as to point out the hypocrisy of society and the media. Slightly ironic that Emma's own experience itself illustrates the hypocrisy of society and the media, given that male actors in her position are not subject to the same sexualisation - yet in your mind that's not an issue at all?
/r/MensRights29/09/14 11:08 PM
-1

Try "self-identified male feminist" actually, not that that's relevant to any of my points. I'm fairly certain that if a male 14-year-old actor were sexualised by elements of the media, this subreddit would (rightly) be uproarious in criticism.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 10:49 PM
18

Some good stuff in this article (e.g. the debunking of feminist stats) but I dislike this bit: Watson moaned that she was called “bossy” at age 8 and was sexualized by “certain elements of the media” at 14. At 15, her girlfriends started dropping out of sports because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.” Not exactly oppression. All of these could definitely be examples of oppression, and I particularly resent the author's decision to trivialise the sexualisation of a 14-year-old's body by parts …
/r/MensRights29/09/14 10:30 PM
2

Yeah pretty much. It's available privately for both sexes but only girls can get it on the NHS.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 01:53 PM
2

there will be demand. And can you tell me where I said anything to the contrary? Right here in your original comment: Actually, she says she's not holding her breath for it because men will have to have it injected into their nutsack, and I can't say I blame her. See? Not wanting kids does not make anyone, men or women, heartless. A complete misrepresentation of my point. You're denying your own words and misrepresenting mine, so this conversation is over. Don't care. Oh but you clearly do, sinc…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 10:32 PM
1

Some good points here. What I would say is a couple of things: 1) I think you're probably right that the film industry is largely a reflection of the public's desires; or more accurately, a reflection of the inclinations of the public that can be exploited to get them to pay £10 for a film ticket. Basically what I'm saying is that films with male heroes and female damsels are guaranteed to sell, and while many men and women alike would (I think) be glad to see a film with more women in it, these…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 10:59 AM
2

So, don't generalized based on my own personal experiences, but read a very particular subreddit on the internet, whose points-of-views represent far less than 50% of the population, and take its word for it? Oh come off it, it's obvious to anyone that this will be a very popular option if it comes in to practice. People already get vasectomies; they go under the knife to become (pretty much) irreversibly sterile, yet you think because you personally wouldn't like this injection that no one will…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 01:22 AM
2

Ever since this treatment was announced there have been heaps of men clamouring for it to be developed, including on this very thread. Don't generalise based on your own personal preferences, when all you have to do is scroll down to see some other people's views. Demand is sky-high. in the case of a relationship, let them choose what method works best for them. Like a pill that gives them high blood pressure or an IUD that gives them nasty period pains? Don't forget that many men in relationshi…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:42 AM
4

It basically says, men won't use vasalgel because they either use condoms already and couldn't possibly prefer the gel (ignorant, probably wilfully), or they don't use condoms in which case they don't give two shits about contraception (offensive). She doesn't say this second part outright but it's implied here: I’m just not sure whether a man who refuses to roll a latex sheath over his penis is going to put his legs in the stirrups and let a doctor pierce his scrotum. Like, apparently it's unth…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:26 AM
1

Interesting, thanks for the info.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 12:02 AM
1

Literally never heard of spermicidal lube before. How effective is it?
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:30 PM
2

Relevant part, for those interested: The effect the chemical has on sperm is not completely understood. Originally it was thought that it lowered the pH of the environment enough to kill the sperm.[5] More recent research claims that this is not enough to explain the effect. One explanation is that the polymer is an anhydride, and hydrolizes in the presence of water in the spermatic fluid. Due to the breaking of a cyclic group, the polymer becomes a hydride and has a positive charge. This distur…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:00 PM
1

Oh right, how does that work?
/r/MensRights17/09/14 10:47 PM
2

Well you can always have the ol' doctor's note saying that you've had it done. Of course, vasalgel or not, it's always sensible to use a condom with a new partner to protect against STDs.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:18 PM
2

I don't think it's fair to judge the entire Guardian newspaper on their comment is free section, which is full of self-important columnists giving their unwanted, deliberately controversial opinions to try and attract visitors to the site. Literally every newspaper has sections like this, and it's by no means a good barometer of the overall standard of their journalism. Also that Vietnamese sex worker thing is exaggerated. Let's look at the quoted passage once again: A report by the Sunday Times…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:15 PM
1

Have you picked up a copy lately, or are you just extrapolating based on the sensationalistic feminist articles that turn up here every week? The Guardian absolutely is a serious publication.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:15 PM
2

The Guardian is the Daily Mail of the left. Oh come on, the Guardian is nowhere near on their level. It's far more respectable.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:14 PM
1

Still a few of years away from coming into practice, they haven't even done human trials yet. Having just skim-read this article however, it seems that it works by forming a plug in the vas deferens that stops sperm getting through kills the sperm, but allows it to pass through. I imagine once the plug is formed, it's pretty much 100% effective, so the efficacy of the treatment is really just a question of the actual injection itself. I don't know at this stage what that is. However, I imagine i…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:08 PM
3

It's also the home of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke all the Edward Snowden NSA stories. It's one of the major left-wing newspapers in the UK, so I refuse to blacklist it on the basis of a few disagreeable feminist articles. On the other hand, it's wise to avoid commenting on these articles, cos then they know that this sort of stuff specifically is bound to get hits.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 07:48 PM
3

2017 at the earliest.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 07:46 PM
43

Ooh also I like this part: Even the term “male birth control” reveals that the world considers contraception a decidedly feminine endeavour Erm, isn't it you that's chosen to use the term "male birth control" throughout your article? Outside your fantasy world Jessica, it's entirely commonplace to refer to condoms - y'know, for males - as an example of "birth control", not just specifically "male birth control".
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:58 PM
11

Regardless, she writes for a paper with a predominantly British readership - a country where such a procedure will most probably be free (or at least heavily subsidised) on the NHS. But yes, I take your point that the price is hugely important.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:39 PM
32

Well we've had condoms and vasectomies for a while… but I think this article is more an effort to paint as many men as possible as irresponsible selfish pigs who don't care about getting girls pregnant, rather than a sincere effort to criticise vasalgel itself.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:37 PM
1

wander* and eugh no.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:20 PM
1

No it doesn't. Sorry, you have no grasp of English. Ha! Now who's being condescending. Not to mention completely ignoring all my other points.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 12:05 PM
1

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. I am not changing my point, I am providing an additional, separate, negative interpretation of the word "cry". That's not changing my point, that's strengthening my point two-fold. At best/worst it portrays the shout as emotional, which just happens to be completely fitting, seeing as the topic they're shouting about is rape. That doesn't ma…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 11:53 AM
1

Oh my god, you're literally proving yourself wrong with those definitions. The boy from the fable didn't actually cry, he just yelled wolf. It was a false alarm and he knew it. Exactly, that was my point. It suggests that women reporting rape are lying. It's not the only possible interpretation of the word, but it's a MASSIVELY significant one that any well-intentioned, responsible reporter/news anchor/politician/public figure would avoid. From Oxford dictionaries: Cry: Say something loudly in a…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 10:45 AM
1

Bollocks, the emotive connotations are absolutely undeniable, e.g. "crying wolf" etc. Why would an accusation be shouted anyway? That has equally negative connotations of some kind of witch hunt.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 09:21 PM
3

I'm gonna try: 1) The majority of victims of rape and other sexual assault are women (yes, even looking at proper data that counts male victims of rape) 2) Women have much less representation (and less diverse representation) in mainstream media such as films and tv (e.g. Bechdel test). 3) Women are way more likely to get cat-called and/or otherwise sexually harassed in public, as well as in the workplace 4) Men don't have the same pressure to have children that women do, and are not seen as fai…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:57 PM
2

Hello, I definitely identify as a feminist, and I use this sub a lot. It's weird, most of the feminists I know personally are great people, but most of the people here seem to have had nothing but terrible experiences with feminists. On the whole, I think it's important for feminism to be criticised, and a lot of great criticism takes place here, but I definitely feel that this place is excessively anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:56 PM
9

I'm going to follow the economic incentives and assume that the insurance company is not discriminating against men without good cause. I agree, it's done purely for business reasons, not out of a hatred of men. But, IMO, it's wrong. Like charging women more for even the most basic haircuts, or charging men to get into clubs where women go free. All of these things have purely business motives, but IMO they're unfair.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:56 PM
0

Motivation business, outcome sexist.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:43 PM
1

It's about a system that rewards women to expel young men without due process Yes, and you can absolutely make this point without sprinkling your title with misogyny. This movement is going absolutely nowhere if we don't cut this stuff out. It looks bad, full stop. You would do well to take your criticism seriously, instead of trying to intimidate your critics with bravado. If I have offended you, I think I've done my job. I'll ask you again because you completely ignored me the first time: How …
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:41 PM
13

It's already been explained that the discrepancy is due to a difference in the amount of driving that men and women do. Companies should discriminate on this basis, not on the basis of gender, as that's unfair to men who barely drive and/or drive very safely.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:37 PM
1

Misleading title much? We already castrate many paedophiles, it's not ludicrous to suggest castrating serial rapists and the like. The only problem is the difficulty in proving that someone actually is a rapist; it would be terrible if someone were castrated only to then be exonerated.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 12:12 PM
24

Pretty accurate, except for the part where both men and women get charged "the higher rate", as opposed to a new rate which lies in between the original higher and lower rates.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 10:56 AM
96

The European Union has recently prohibited gender based discrimination in insurance premium assessments. This. The numbers support the policy because men get into more accidents, but that doesn't justify discrimination. It was outlawed here in the UK a few years ago.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 09:17 AM
1

It's not about "pleasing everyone", it's about being fair in your portrayal of people. "Women who cry rape" makes it sound like they're overly emotional. How would any of us like it if there was some feminist article about "men who cry rape", or "men who cry domestic violence"? Wouldn't we find it highly offensive for men to be portrayed as crying wusses for complaining about being victimised?
/r/MensRights16/09/14 09:09 AM
-5

I agree with a lot of this, but IMO the title is a bit misogynist; "women who cry rape"? Seriously? Like, you're overly emotional if you complain about getting raped? Or you must be lying, like the boy who cried wolf? You can make the point about false reports without labelling all rape reports by women as "crying". I'm not a female rape victim, but if I were one I would be very offended to be labeled as "crying" for reporting my rape, when in fact that would most likely be a highly courageous a…
/r/MensRights15/09/14 10:55 PM
2

the point is that just because there is some portion of the gap we can't explain, people don't get to automatically point at it and say it's because of discrimination. Ohmygod yes. I couldn't agree more. You raised some other interesting points as well.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 10:47 PM
0

Yup. I'm generalizing. Know why ? Because it's generally true. How do you know? Unless you've taken a sizeable, random sample of women that do dangerous jobs, you can't possibly know. Confirmation bias is another possibility; you don't hear about all the women who do these dirty and dangerous jobs properly, but you do hear about the ones who shirk their responsibilities, hence you get a warped view. Furthermore, if you think I'm the only man who's ever noticed this I don't. Anyway, even if you'r…
/r/MensRights15/09/14 01:23 PM
-2

Ignoring the fact that you're generalising from personal experience, what exactly is the problem with the comment from TrollX?
/r/MensRights14/09/14 09:26 PM
8

Her name is visible from two of the comments.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 08:32 PM
2

No, she's saying that even if there is no gap in what men and women get payed for the same work, there will still be a gap in what employed men and women collectively are payed, because men and women do different work (specifically, men do more high-risk work that receives higher pay).
/r/MensRights14/09/14 08:30 PM
1

What?? The comment was part of a discussion on the gender pay gap. There is no evidence whatsoever that she/they "care" more about women getting payed less than about men dying.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 08:28 PM
2

"Even if men and women earn exactly the same money in the same job..." which seems to imply they don't. Oh come on, it's hardly worthy of outrage for someone to think that there's a gender pay gap. There have been studies showing that otherwise identical CVs are received more positively if there's a man's name rather than a woman's, and suggesting that men are more likely to ask for raises, more likely to get them if they ask for them etc. It's not an entirely ludicrous concept to think that men…
/r/MensRights14/09/14 08:27 PM
3

Nah I think you've misinterpreted. She's not denying that men do more dangerous jobs than women (on the contrary, she literally stated that), she's saying that even if those men and women who do do the same job were to get paid the same wage, there would still be a nationwide gender pay gap because men tend to do more of the dangerous jobs that come with benefits. It's badly phrased, but I'm in no doubt that that's what her point is. It makes no sense otherwise, especially if you look at the con…
/r/MensRights14/09/14 08:14 PM
7

Really? Even if men and women earn exactly the same money in the same job there is still going to be a notable gap in gender income. Seems bang on the money to me. Even if men and women are payed the same money for the same job, there will still be a gender pay gap because there are more men than women doing dangerous jobs (and thus receiving risk-related benefits).
/r/MensRights14/09/14 08:03 PM
1

The satisfaction you're talking about though, it's not the worthiest of goals. It's schadenfreude, and indulging in it breeds a rather shallow, unempathetic view of the world; it feeds our inclinations to dehumanise perpetrators of crimes.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 11:50 AM
1

Besides "sayings" and religion are not data points they are sentiment, there is no validation in quoting someone, Of course, but the Gandhi quote is thought-provoking; it's supposed to make you question vengeance, and realise that it does more harm than good. In the case of Kelly Brook, vengeance is not the only way to make her see that what she did was wrong, and empathise with her victim. Vengeance would add more misery than it would solve. That's my opinion anyway.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 11:33 AM
2

I can play that game too "you reap what you sow" ," if you live by the sword you die by the sword etc" Just gonna point out that neither of those sayings actually condones vengeance, they just predict it.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 11:19 AM
2

if there is any justice in the world she will end up with an abusive partner Right here, you make it clear that you want her (or you think it would be "just" for her) to suffer abuse from a partner. That's what people are taking issue with. If you say "it's wrong to do X", and then say, "I think so-and-so should suffer X", then you are a hypocrite. And stop leaning on that ridiculous analogy about imprisoning kidnappers. That is pretty much the only crime which resembles its punishment (apart fr…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 10:57 AM
2

Stop embarrassing yourself, and just admit that what you initially said was stupid.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 10:20 AM
3

hoping someone falls victim to the crime they enact is not hypocritical at all. It is if you remotely condemn the crime in question.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 09:10 AM
1

That's definitely not the only comparable portion; it's the only portion that should be criminalised, but strangers viewing illegally uploaded footage of your balls is definitely comparable to strangers viewing illegally uploaded nude pictures of you.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 08:27 AM
1

But it was posted without their permission! Ofc it's not legally private insofar as it's in "public domain", but it's still an invasion of like actual, moral privacy to look at those images. I'm not trying to be high and mighty here, I looked at a couple of those pics myself before I actually stopped and thought about the implications. Let me put it this way: If some crazy person set up a secret webcam in your bathroom that streamed close-up footage of your package every time you took a shit or …
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:55 PM
2

millions of internet users clicked The author (who is male by the way) is clearly alleging that there were millions who clicked because they harbour a deep hatred of women, despite only a tiiiiiny minority of them making obscene utterances like "cut off your head and rape it". You're right it wasn't quite explicitly linking the clicking to the deep hatred, but by alleging that millions were motivated by such hatred he is clearly trying to portray image-viewers in the most negative possible way. …
/r/MensRights08/09/14 01:12 AM
6

Oh gosh, I can't believe it. I've completely marginalised and erased the experiences of streets through my own non-concrete-walking-surface privilege! How embarrassing.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:46 PM
1

As for "wrong," if it is wrong at all it is so far below a misdemeanor as to rank with spitting in the street. I'm not saying it's heinous, or that it should be criminalised, but it is nonetheless a violation of privacy. It's minor, yes, but it's worse than spitting in the street surely.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:22 PM
-1

Well look I mean if it's in front of you and you direct your eyes to it then you can't really be faulted for that, but if you actively click on the link then you are violating the privacy of the owner of those images. What do you think privacy means (in this context) but "not letting anyone see those pictures unless I so choose"?
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:19 PM
1

I think their definition of hate is fucked up. They seem to be defining it as "anyone willing to do anything that might possibly piss off a woman somewhere hates women." They go on and on about how it's women who are oppressed so women should speak first etc, but I think this is one of the instances in feminism where actually the women need to shut up and let the men speak. In other words, men are much more likely to understand the male psyche and thus interpret the behaviour as being based on h…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 07:45 PM
1

Nah just like presence, confidence when speaking etc.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 07:41 PM
105

And the most troubling aspect of this is the revelation that a large number of males appear to harbour a deep hatred of women. Why this is so is a question for psychologists and anthropologists. But the glee with which millions of internet users clicked on the stolen selfies of Jennifer Lawrence et al is just the latest example of it. And there's lots more where it came from. So basically if you clicked on those images you "harbour a deep hatred of women". What the fuck. This is overtly demonisi…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 02:42 PM
1

Condemns hackers who leaked nudes. Suggests that taking nudes is unwise. Gets called a rape apologist. You couldn't make this shit up.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 12:28 PM
2

Yeah exactly. O'Reilly says stupid shit to sell his books, not because he's actually stupid.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 12:20 PM
-5

Those facts do not show that the majority of child abuse is committed by women, since they do not include child abuse committed by people other than the victim's parents. It doesn't include child abuse by teachers, priests, uncles, aunts etc. Please get your facts straight before making sensationalistic comments.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 12:02 PM
1

What kind of rapist is dishonest enough to drug somebody but honest enough not to lie when asked about it? What do you expect them to say? I think you're drawing a false equivalence here. "Dishonesty" is far from the most important hallmark of someone who drugs someone else then rapes them. Date rape often doesn't require an outright lie, since the question often doesn't get asked - the victim just drinks.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 11:33 PM
9

Well, he also has the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jon Stewart on there. The thing is in this case the opposing viewpoint is inherently ridiculous. If you bring someone on to defend a ridiculous viewpoint, what are they going to say but ridiculous things? It's not like bringing on an idiot to defend Obama when many intelligent people would do the same; no one intelligent would (sincerely) condemn his comments as sexist.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:35 PM
2

Don't really know either of those (I'm british), though I did just see the post about that horrible TYT video where they praise a woman who abused her husband.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:26 PM
3

You should try this thing I tried when watching a british show called Mock The Week (which consists of comedians joking about the week's news). On one segment the comedians take turns reciting one-liners, and I always used to notice that the women were never as funny as the men, often being downright unfunny. Then I started doing this thing where every time a female comic made a joke, I would imagine the same joke being told by a man, and to my surprise, the jokes often became funnier - about 50…
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:03 PM
19

Doesn't feel like good PR to be taking the side of Bill O'Reilly in a dispute but man, that was ridiculous. It's honestly embarrassing that the feminist movement was represented on television by, a-hem, "that woman". Tbf she at least had plenty of gravitas...
/r/MensRights06/09/14 09:46 PM
2

Well, don't forget that reddit is also 70% male...
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:36 PM
1

It's not that women are pressured to stay at home. Men are the ones who are pressured to earn a high status. It's both, many women describe the pressure to have kids that is placed on them by family and peers.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:39 AM
1

if you're not a retarded sexist? Let's try and keep things civil here. I've outlined in another comment why I think it would be good to have more women in politics. Women can (IMO) offer three things that men can't: the voice of women; role models for women; womanly characteristics. Only the last of those three is sexist, and it's explained/explainable by socialisation, not gender essentialism (so it's not really sexist). I'm not really sure what those characteristics are exactly, but there's be…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:03 PM
1

Further, your argument presumes men cannot legislate women's interests Well first of all, one benefit of having women in government is to serve as role models for other women. Some mothers chose kids over a career, but other women were pushed that way by social pressures - and many of them could've been very talented politicians. If there were more women in government, more talented women would choose career over kids (or at least, career over frequently seeing their kids…), and thus we wouldn't…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:49 PM
1

First of all, it was absolutely not cool that she did this in front of your daughter. Second of all, this was an act of violence (albeit minor), so it was not cool that she did it at all. Thirdly, was it abuse? It's hard to say without knowing if she does this sort of thing frequently, what the dynamic of your relationship is like, how the incident made you feel etc. It might be abuse, but it's also possible that it was an isolated incident which will not occur again. I think the most important …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:53 PM
1

Yeah but the point is there are not enough actual women in politics. I don't think it's something that has to be 50/50, but there should surely be more women than there are now. Also it's kind of a joke to say that "voting = representation" in a country with a two-party system. Likewise it's also a joke to say that "50% of politicians being female = representation", but that would certainly be an improvement on the current state of things.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:39 PM
13

These topics are good for philosophical discussions, not for practicality and reality. Thing is, while I'm against sensationalism, I am all for boys and girls alike having more varied role models. (Other) feminists say, "Women are pushed away from engineering because lego and meccano are marketed to boys and there are more male role models and engineering". I say, "I'm not sure I fully buy that theory, but y'know what it can't hurt to have a little more variety in children's media and toys; more…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:39 PM
3

Filing a false rape claim to get even with someone and ruin their life, while heinous, isn't quite as heinous as actually raping someone. Therefore, the same logic above would tell you there should be more people willing to cross that line. The flaw in this logic is that it assumes that "heinousness" is the only factor determining the prevalence of a crime, when in fact there are many other factors. For example, taking a shit on top of the statue of liberty is far less heinous than committing a …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 02:31 PM
2

"Laura Bates is a whiny woman." Jesus Christ, what an idiotic thing to say. Private conversation is one thing but to say something like that on tv is just plain moronic.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 01:38 PM
1

So I'm in the wrong for asking for help? What do you think the entire purpose of this sub is, but to raise awareness of men's issues so we can combat them? Yes, I've read it... and no I wont be giving you crib notes. So you will (presumably) use your newfound knowledge to take down feminists in arguments, but you won't use it to help your own allies? All because you look down on them for being lazier than you? This is supposed to be a team effort man. Are you here to score points against feminis…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 01:24 PM
1

Please tell me what you bring to the team other than requests that other people do your work for you. I don't have to justify myself to you. Besides, you're more than welcome to click on my account and see what contributions I've made to discussion on this sub. Of course you don't see me reading. How could you? Obviously what I meant was I don't see you analysing and contributing that analysis to discussion. Have you read through this particular thing yourself?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:25 PM
1

you want other people to prepare you and do your work for you, when you could do this all yourself with the resources posted here. Yeah, it's called teamwork my friend. I'm a medical student; if I'm gonna dedicate my free time to reading dense, wordy, impenetrable stuff, it's going to be medical, not sociological. You're putting me down but I don't see you doing the reading.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:20 AM
1

Just found this paper in the references titled "Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences". It looks an interesting read so far.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:20 PM
1

This is a very difficult paper to analyse from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the field at all, because every other sentence is a new (referenced) assertion; it would take days to comprehensively assess the validity of the first paragraph alone, with all these references: The central dogma of the gender paradigm is that intimate partner violence (IPV) is male-precipitated in order to suppress not only a wife or girlfriend, but women in general, and to maintain the patriarchy, the ma…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:17 PM
1

Of course, but as it happens being a master debater on men's issues is not a priority in my life. However, I do think it would be great for this community if the people who do dedicate time to trawl through this stuff can also (if they have the time) make it accessible to the rest of us.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 09:32 PM
2

Don't wanna sound like a lazy git but that's pretty long, are there any highlights to point out? No worries if not.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 07:40 PM
1

I really resent stuff like this: feminists who use their supposed "underprivileged" status as an excuse for bigotry against men. Almost all of them would agree that being "oppressed" does not justify murdering or assaulting the "privileged" (i.e. men), so why do they think it's ok to be openly prejudiced towards men by stereotyping them?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 01:49 PM
5

Stands for "Pick Up Artist": people like that guy Neil Strauss who wrote that book called "The Game", who basically devote their lives/free time to developing their skills at getting women to sleep with them. They make a hobby of manipulating women (hence feminists dislike them a lot), but some of them are more ethical than others, e.g. some believe that if the woman regrets having sex with you afterwards and feels bad about herself, then you have failed somehow.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 08:23 PM
2

I'm sorry if reality doesn't fit your narrative. That's not a me problem - that's a you problem. Y'know, over the course of our little debate here, I have gone back to your original comic several times to reconsider whether it actually was sexist, and each time I have reached the same conclusion. You, on the other hand, seem utterly unwilling to consider even for a moment that you might be wrong, which is probably because you're beginning to realise deep down that you are wrong. That's probably …
/r/MensRights30/08/14 08:17 PM
1

The point is there are hypocritical cultural expectations placed on men that slant towards benefiting women... These realities are contra to the over-arching feminist narrative that all women are victims of teh patriarchy. This is the problem - not about what I may or may not have insinuated about all married women. You realise you can point out this supposed problem without making insulting generalisations about married women right? The two are not mutually exclusive. Fighting for men's rights …
/r/MensRights30/08/14 05:08 PM
0

This is nothing to do with feminism and/or alimony; it's about you making insulting generalisations about wives. If you'd made similar generalisations about husbands I would've condemned it just the same. How many wives do you think don't have a financial expectation of their husband? Irrelevant. What's relevant is that most wives aren't selfish arseholes who insult and belittle their husbands, as your comic suggests.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 04:07 PM
3

Lets not pretend this double standard doesn't exist mmkay? I'm not pretending that at all! I'm just saying you could easily have pointed out that double standard without making sexist generalisations about wives.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 03:02 PM
6

Honestly dude, you can't really complain for getting banned for that comic. If you'd shown like, crowds of people/redditors saying that same stuff, like "why doesn't he get a job", "she's wasted the best years of her life" etc, then it would've been ok. Likewise if you'd labeled the two couples as "my friend and his wife" and "my other friend and his wife", that too would've been ok. However, the comic as it stands is sexist, because it seems to suggest that all wives are that mean to their husb…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:33 PM
2

Well, it's also too general and vague a petition.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 10:57 AM
1

Corollary: it is impossible for one gender to oppress the other, because human beings just don't work like that. (serious) I mean, I already elaborated on my "human beings just don't work like that" reasoning when I vaguely explained how gender roles can be oppressive and restrictive. What do you mean when you suggest that humans are incapable of oppression? By the way, I'm not of the opinion that there's ever been a society where one gender is oppressed and the other gender (sorry for binary) i…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 08:25 PM
3

I consider myself something of a feminist, so I'll give this a go. does it benefit all men over all women, or just some men above all women? Bit of a simplistic question. Certainly in any patriarchy that's ever actually existed, some women hold more "privileged" status than some men, by virtue of the fact that gender has never been the sole determinant of privilege (there's also class, wealth, race etc.). I would probably say that a patriarchy is a system where the average man is more privileged…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 04:29 PM
1

What did the message say? Do you have a screenshot?
/r/MensRights27/08/14 02:34 PM
5

When exactly did the dominant definitions of patriarchy shift from "oppressor class" to "privileged class"? From wikipedia: Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupy roles of political leadership, moral authority and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, mean…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 12:23 PM
-9

No, it's cognitive therapy, family therapy etc. Please stop spreading ignorance about mental health.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:47 AM
1

what if the verry core of the ideology was offensive to me This is really the crux of it. I've been browsing this sub and feminist stuff for a couple of years now and I've yet to find evidence that the "core of the ideology" of feminism is offensive. Yes, I've seen dozens of instances of individual feminists saying and doing outrageous things, but the fact is I know many feminists personally, and they plainly are only interested in true equality. They listen to me when I bring up the pressures t…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 09:46 AM
1

In the poll of 5,000 women for That’s Life! magazine Just one note of caution, this survey is likely to be anything but representative. Nonetheless, that figure is shocking as an estimate.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 09:39 AM
-1

Lol "biological group"? So bigotry is ok as long as it's not against a "biological group"? What about xenophobia? Or anti-semitism? Or Islamophobia? Being from a different country or faith doesn't you a different "biological group", yet we condemn all those forms of bigotry.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 08:57 PM
0

Really good, well-balanced article actually. I was expecting to get through it and find that alimony is a complete anachronism, but instead it explained well the nuances of the issue, and the circumstances in which alimony may be appropriate, whilst still acknowledging that the status quo is enormously outdated.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 08:47 PM
2

I'm not convinced that men's clubs were a vital support network for the mental health of their members tbh. Sure, I can imagine many a man getting drunk with his friends at a men's club and joking about his erectile dysfunction, or his kid dropping out of school or whatever, and I have no doubt that this sort of male banter in a male-only space was therapeutic; however, when it comes to the really dark stuff, like deriving no joy in life, inescapable unhappiness, wanting to kill yourself etc… ca…
/r/MensRights20/08/14 09:12 PM
2

This was the cause of his depression and suicide This is a disgraceful thing to say.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 12:46 AM
8

Please people hold your horses until we hear more than just a vague " source close to him" saying that he had financial trouble. Signing up for Mrs Doubtfire 2 doesn't look good but we look like dicks if we try and say that his complex disease (depression) was caused solely by divorce settlements. Another thing: plenty of men hit financial dire straits without taking their own lives. This man was clinically depressed, so EVEN IF it turns out that financial troubles were a factor in his suicide, …
/r/MensRights13/08/14 12:41 AM
6

Maybe he was posting it satirically, but I very much doubt that all 452 of those likes were satirical.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 11:09 AM
1

Ah yeah I was pretty sure you were being sarcastic but an anti-MRA pedant might've said the same stuff haha.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 10:54 PM
1

Yeah but he writes it as though those two adjectives justify it, which they absolutely don't. It's misleading as fuck.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 10:44 PM
9

Literally stunned by this. He spends the entire article avoiding the original criticism (about reporting on Gaza), and then at the very end he defends the reporting with no justification whatsoever. It's unbelievable. He basically says, "Erm, so the reason we report as "women and children" is because it's assumed to be a good proxy of non-combatant deaths, which is actually not true at all, but I still think it's a good way to report it". Seriously, that's what he said: In the current turmoil in…
/r/MensRights10/08/14 09:42 PM
3

I mean, all I'll say is that there are loads of girls and women who have that curiosity as well. I'm not in a position to say whether more men have that curiosity than women, and if so whether that's because of society or innate reasons.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 10:21 AM
1

It's absolutely appalling and pathetic that DV charities in the UK are changing their definition of domestic violence to that "being the victim of 4 or more occurrences of DV", Well no they're not changing the definition, they're just looking at repeated DV specifically - which might be fair enough if there's data showing that victims of repeated DV are generally more in need of shelters etc.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 10:04 AM
1

but if it's actually only about the ruling class then it's class not gender. Again - what? If the entire government/CEOs (or waaaay more than 50%) is one gender, how is that not about gender? My experience of feminism is different to yours. The feminist I know don't absolve all women of responsibility and blame everything on all men. In fact they often talk about "internalised misogyny" for example, where women perpetuate their own "oppression" (as they see it) in various ways. They also talk ab…
/r/MensRights28/07/14 01:16 AM
0

No patriarchy in terms of feminist theory is about all men as a gender, not the upper ruling class at the top of the pyramid. Otherwise it's not gender theory it's about class. What? How on earth are the two mutually exclusive? If positions of power are dominated by men but homelessness is also predominately men, that doesn't suddenly mean that "it's a class issue not a gender issue". It's clearly both!
/r/MensRights28/07/14 12:55 AM
1

They point out that the top 1% of society is dominated by men. While at the same time ignoring that 80% of the homeless population is male. Just a point of note: this refutes the concept of "male privilege", but it does not refute the concept of "patriarchy", since patriarchy refers specifically to the make-up of that top 1% (or 10%, or just "positions of power" or whatever). And anyone who has ever seen firsthand of how the family courts will fuck over a man, knows that we do not live in a patr…
/r/MensRights28/07/14 12:23 AM
0

It is usually on religious grounds. The majority of anti-gay media comes from religious sources. Yeah, this is just bullshit. "Most overt homophobia is religious in origin" =/=> "religion is the main cause of homophobia". There are all kinds of other factors at play, like how America is a traditionally Christian country, and as such homophobic Christians feel entitled to say whatever fucking offensive shit they want, while other homophobes are more aware of the social unacceptability of homophob…
/r/MensRights28/07/14 12:10 AM
1

But for that to demonstrate a connection between straight males as a group to actual homophobia and isolate it from other factors I never attempted to demonstrate such a thing. I am NOT saying that straight men are particularly homophobic; I'm just refuting your claim that straight men are particularly unhomophobic.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 12:02 AM
0

Some of it is religious in nature. Sometimes it's just fear of the unknown. If it were the 1950s, I think the idea that a man behaving in a feminine way, because "that's not how men are supposed to be" would be a legitimate complaint. That is the patriarchy though, surely? Obvs we've moved on a hell of a lot since the 1950s, but a lot of the same problems (like "gay" and "faggot" being insults in school) are still around, and have their origins in patriarchy (where "patriarchy" is defined as "th…
/r/MensRights27/07/14 11:53 PM
0

You're just babbling now. It's like you haven't read /u/Underfolder's comment at all and just jumped straight to mine for stuff to refute. It wasn't me that said "straight males have oppressed gay males". I never said that. In fact, no one said that - Underfolder just levelled it as an accusation against certain feminist homosexuals. I only said that there was "truth in it", specifically that there has been a lot of homophobic oppression carried out by straight males. /u/ezetemp then jumped in w…
/r/MensRights27/07/14 05:55 PM
0

That's circular reasoning. Lol you're being ridiculous. You put words in my mouth when you said "straight men don't oppress gay men because they're straight", and now you're trying to call me an idiot for using a bit of a truism? Being "homophobic", by the way, does not necessarily imply "oppressing gay people", but rather "being prejudiced towards gay people", so no it's not circular reasoning. I.e. you can theoretically have a shitload of preconceived opinions about gay people without actually…
/r/MensRights27/07/14 05:50 PM
0

Don't ignore the context: I was refuting his point that, quote, "as a group I'd argue straight males care less about what goes on in peoples bedrooms than most other arbitrary groups".
/r/MensRights27/07/14 05:40 PM
0

Historical (and current) oppression of gay men certainly includes straight males but as a group I'd argue straight males care less about what goes on in peoples bedrooms than most other arbitrary groups. A rich history of homophobic attacks by straight males, along with homophobia in workplaces dominated by straight males, would suggest otherwise. Nowhere near as bad as it used to be ofc, but it kind of sounds like you don't have any idea what you're talking about here - you're just theorising, …
/r/MensRights27/07/14 04:12 PM
2

straight men don't oppress gay men because they're straight. Wait what? No one said it was "because they're straight", but rather because some are homophobic. Oppression of gays is usually on religious grounds Not true. Religion is far from the only source of homophobia. because of feminism ??
/r/MensRights27/07/14 04:02 PM
3

Some homosexuals hold an ideology that straight men oppress gay men for their "feminine" behavior. It's a generalisation, but don't you think there's truth in it? It's certainly not all straight men, and neither is it only straight men, but homophobia from various sources has historically oppressed gay men - where "oppression" means discrimination, and also being the targets of violence and abuse etc.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 10:29 AM
3

The law should be that people cannot mistreat nor exclude others in business, civic, and legal matters for reasons that include sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity or gender identity. Trying to force people to accept something is thought policing. I feel that this is a bit of a tenuous distinction tbh. If you can't "accept" homosexuality, it's very difficult to actually be tolerant and fair towards homosexuals, or as you put it, to not "mistreat" them. If you are truly capable of not mistreati…
/r/MensRights27/07/14 10:25 AM
1

All I want to do is underline the word "the" in "put the blame where it belongs".
/r/MensRights24/07/14 10:26 PM
1

Now I don't know how trustworthy Business Insider articles are, but you can sort of get the sense that the word 'guy' is NOT the binary opposite of 'girls'. That's just untrue though. Besides, my point still stands: 18-24 year old males are referred to as guys, not boys (a clear step up), whereas 18-24 year old females still get called girls as though they were 8 years old. Sure, it's not exactly the same use of the word, but it's still somewhat condescending in a way that "guys" just isn't. You…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 08:37 PM
1

The expression 'guy' has not shaped our perception of genders. Instead, the colloquial term 'guy' has more evolved to fit both genders in its contemporary usage. You realise those two are not mutually exclusive, right? First and foremost, we're talking more about something that's a symptom of a larger problem, rather than a problem itself. I would argue that the expression "guys" has actually shaped our perception of genders in a teeny-tiny way, but what's more important is that it's a symptom o…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:53 AM
2

You vomited? She has a point tbf. It's a bit weird that "guys" is a standard collective term for a group that has girls in it (or even a group with no guys in it at all). Hell, if you address a group of girls as "girls" it has connotations ("Hey guuuurrlls!") that don't come with addressing them as "guys". "Guys" is chilled, it's friendly, it's neutral - and what's more it is the word that satisfies all of those criteria (what else is there, "people"? "y'all"?). And yet, it's also gendered. It's…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:43 PM
1

I think it's a crazy idea to suggest that you can stop children from using the naughtiest words they know whenever parents and teachers aren't listening. You come across as overly stubborn. Yes, we all remember that one kid at school who would say "nigger" when the teachers weren't around and make the rest of us laugh. BUT we all ultimately learned that "nigger" is not an acceptable word to use, and thus almost all of us stopped using it - despite our natural childish inclinations to be "naughty…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 09:06 PM
2

I don't have that much of a desire to tell people what they can and can't say, honestly. Seems kind of, you know, totalitarian. Lol what about the "n" word? I don't think it's a crazy idea to suggest that by stopping children from using gendered insults like "cock", "bitch" etc. we can make a dent in societal sexism. For example, it's a very pervasive idea that males have a certain capacity for aggression that females simply don't have, and part of that may be down to the rationalisation of immo…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:24 PM
2

Quote: I don’t think most rapists aren’t sociopaths. Unfortunately, they’re “normal” guys. That’s why the whole creepy-rapist-jumping-out-of-the-bushes is, for the most part, a myth. Rape is part of our culture; it’s normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it’s wrong.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:07 PM
1

No, in fact I agree almost completely. Gendered insults are bad, and that includes insults such as "dick", "cock", "ball bag" etc.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:04 PM
1

Yeah I find it annoying as well but it's just shorthand. Allow me to elaborate: Young children learn the two slang meanings of the word pussy, namely "vagina" and "weak person". This reinforces a pre-existing notion that girls are weaker (in character) than boys. Hence the use of this word to mean a weak person has a negative effect on their view of women, as it causes them to associate femininity with weakness of character (or at least reinforces such an association if it is already present). N…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 02:38 PM
-1

Nah the bottom line is that children learn that pussy means "weak", then they also learn that it means "vagina", and that reinforces the negative stereotype that women are weaker than men. The ailurophobic origin is irrelevant to the negative effect on women. Misogynistic? Perhaps the wrong word to use depending on how you define misogyny, but it's certainly sexist against women.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 01:47 PM
2

source?
/r/MensRights18/07/14 01:03 PM
3

I also like her claim that focusing on college rape means that these marginalised groups are "lost in the conversation". So what, immigrants/Natives/LGBTQ/poor women never go to college?
/r/MensRights18/07/14 01:03 PM
0

Yeah but pussy also means vagina, so it's nonetheless problematic cos most people using the insult "pussy" don't know that it's not derived from its use to mean vagina (including myself until recently).
/r/MensRights18/07/14 12:56 PM
9

Call out the individuals and people like me will upvote/support you.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 12:53 PM
2

"Perceived" as misogynistic? Anything can be perceived as anything. Those perceptions count for nothing. Ridiculous logic there. "Anything can be perceived as anything" does not imply that "those perceptions count for nothing". Reddit's full of stories about heinous crimes, but only on /r/MensRights did the top comments use to say things like, "the perpetrator should suffer such and such a torturous fate" - and only when the perpetrator was a woman. Proof of misogyny it was not, but evidence it …
/r/MensRights17/07/14 10:30 PM
2

Certainly in my eyes! There may well be a double standard though. By way of clarification: I've expressed sympathy with victims of false accusations who may have such strong feelings, but if you're just some random guy who's reading a story about a false accusation and you say you want the perpetrator to be "burnt alive", then IMHO you have a problem with women/people in general. Fairly similar example happened when someone made a troll account of the musician/paedophile Gary Glitter, who as I'm…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:47 PM
2

Wouldn't you find that it is immoral to discriminate? :) Yes of course! The point is that (IMO) feminism and men's rights consist of efforts to apply that moral law (the law that discrimination is wrong), whereas humanism is the effort to define all such laws in the absence of a god/religious text to define them for us. Arguably feminism/men's rights are a subset of humanism, but I feel like humanism is too general a name. Personally if I were looking for a less politically charged name for "ant…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:37 PM
6

Anyone else remember that time when a bunch of people from this sub submitted a load of false rape reports to some online reporting system that a university had set up? Yeah, that kind of thing is why this sub is controversial - not just cos we want men's rights. I've only been here about a year or two but my god have I seen a helluva lot of improvement in that time. When I first came you'd see people saying shit like, "That woman should be burnt alive", about some woman who made a false accusat…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 06:31 PM
3

Haha yeah I thought as much! Thanks for sharing your story, hopefully more people will realise that this kind of thing is just not ok.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 06:29 PM
8

"kounia" means swing dude! I think slide is "tsoulithra". Horrible story, I hope they see the error of their ways.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 06:10 PM
0

Yeah no doubt /r/feminism is unwelcoming as fuck, but I'm on a few feminist fb groups that are far nicer. Humanism is more of a general "moral code" thing as I understood it, whereas feminism/men's rights are more focused on discrimination.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 05:47 PM
6

Likes feminism enough to call themselves one but not enough to think the MRM is some totally misogynistic lost cause. Same as me.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 05:19 PM
1

Biologically, but often (in the case of lesbian couples) not in the parenting, which is what this pregnancy handbook is about.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 03:52 PM
0

Female-on-male rape is still punishable by law as sexual assault, and in fact trans women who still have a penis are capable of rape (as defined by UK law) so it's not "man-hate", we're just behind the times in terms of defining rape.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:07 PM
2

I tell you what, it's a helluva lot better than denying the existence of misandry. That looks like progress to me.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 11:26 PM
7

Think it's been deleted, but it looks like the commenter has responded with this: I never said that sexism was only against women. I even clarified in my previous comment that I mistook his viewpoint because he was being vague as to who he thought was being discriminated against. Again, i didn't realize he was arguing that it was anti-male, I used women in my comment because I thought he was arguing it was anti-female. Which seems fair enough. However, this is a very common feminist trope, and i…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 04:02 PM
4

Depends how you use it tbh. Of course it's harsh to condemn a film about some monastery for failing the Bechdel test, but if half the films out there are failing then there's clearly something wrong.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:47 PM
2

I was wondering what all the deleted comments were on that thread...
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:36 PM
-3

Really? I don't see it in any biology journals or textbooks.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 12:10 AM
2

You got a source? Only one I ever saw was in a cracked article, and it was a pretty small difference.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 11:55 PM
5

How dare they admit that? Because they are just a monolith with identical, awful views and motivations, right? Come on dude.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 01:00 AM
1

It becomes a lot more believable when you consider that grabbing a woman's arse in a club constitutes sexual assault.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:39 PM
1

there is no amount of coming forward that happens before a conviction that can't happen after conviction. I think what Pine argues is that many rapists don't even get convicted because of a lack of evidence, hence publicising their name before any conviction might be useful to encourage other victims to come forward, thus increasing the likelihood of conviction.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:33 PM
2

Professor A.C. Grayling refused to join the boycott, stating that Mr Sullivan should not be subject to the ‘kangaroo court of opinion’. Good for him — yet Pine would not be moved. She argued that the presumption of innocence does not mean ‘business as usual’. Actually, it does. Was wondering what people think of this? In particular, do people ever step down/get suspended temporarily on the basis of other serious accusations, such as murder, assault, fraud etc.? In which case she might have a poi…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:52 PM
1

So aren't you saying you're sexist to 'act on" the bogus association you claim? Since when did I say I was "acting on" it? I only said that feminists were "discussing" it. I wasn't justifying any sexist discrimination on the basis of the existence of an association. Constantly. Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth. This is just getting exhausting now. You are so disingenuous in debate it's not even funny. Making up shit that feminists said; making up shit that I said; ignoring counter-arguments; the li…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:35 AM
1

Who even gives a shit? I'm still right and you know it.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:56 PM
1

Rape is very rare indeed. Certainly compared to many other crimes. So right off you are talking bollocks. Where are you getting these numbers? Cos the ones I've heard are very bad. False accusations of rape are the most common of any crime. No shit, cos there's never any evidence. Still doesn't change the fact that it's waaaaay less common than actual rape. All feminists do this. Here's your fucked up Everyday Feminism site on it: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/06/lie-about-rape/ Crucially ign…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:16 PM
1

Ha, "studied". Is that what they're calling "making up random shit" these days? Or should I say "in your day"?
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:07 PM
1

Women have always had voting rights at various times and places dating back centuries. Exactly when do you think the first woman had the first vote? Your statement is essentially nonsense. even if it were provable either way what does "some" mean? Please stop ignoring my very obvious point. I meant that IN 19TH/20TH CENTURY BRITAIN some men (the wealthy) had the vote long before any women (including the very wealthiest, most privileged women in society). Hence it was a society that was sexist to…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:06 PM
1

You keep changing the definition. First it was interrupting people and then it was patronising people and now it's being sexist? I honestly don't understand how you can be so (apparently) wilfully disingenuous. Literally the first time I mentioned "mansplaining" was when I linked to the urban dictionary page that defines it as misogynistic patronising, and I have not deviated from that definition once. Perhaps you got confused when I discussed it as an example of sexism? Aren't women sexist? Obv…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:59 PM
1

I'm 21 years old, I'm at a Uni with a strong feminist presence, I browse feminist groups and subreddits, I read feminist "zines", I even talk to feminist humans, and all in all I have my finger on the pulse of modern feminism. You on the other hand are constantly regurgitating actual lies about feminism (see the examples above), so yeah, I'm pretty confident that my knowledge of feminism is way more accurate than yours.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:15 PM
1

Bullshit lies?!? All you're showing is a staggering lack of appreciation for intersectionality: In the UK most women got the vote in the same act of parliament in 1918 as most men This is because as well as SEXISM there was/is also this other massive thing called CLASSISM. While your statement is true, it's also true that some men had the vote long before any women had it. This is rock solid evidence that sexism against women was definitely a thing. You're just misled because classism and sexism…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:11 PM
1

Oh I see, I said that I was angry so you're trying to make me more angry. You were wrong about feminists denying the existence of false accusation, you were wrong about feminists denying the existence of internalised misogyny etc.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:43 PM
1

Wow. You've found something by a feminist that actually is abhorrent, and you've still managed to exaggerate it. You are quite extraordinary. the feminist position that women don't lie Nah, the position of (said) feminist is that male-on-female rape/assault is so common (and so much more common than false accusation) that this ridiculous measure needs to be taken, in spite of potential cost to the falsely accused. She comes across as someone who cares so much about helping female victims of rape…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:42 PM
1

The other is a feminist. the other just believes what they were told. The other has never examined these beliefs for themselves or questioned what they were told. The other has no personal view based on the evidence. The other is a member of a cult-like group that bans criticism so its members rarely hear any voice of dissent. All just made up ad hominem nonsense. FWIW I have many personal views based on evidence, including (shock horror) things that I don't like about feminism. Not that you car…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:12 PM
1

Women can do no wrong! Men are evil! You need to stop reading what you want to read, and try being open-minded. I said nothing along those lines. "Othering" is where you stereotype a group that is different to yourself on the basis of that difference. By definition, you cannot "other" a group that you are part of. Of course, a woman could hypothetically "other" a female-only group of people from which she is distinct, e.g. a non-muslim woman could "other" all muslim women, but a woman cannot "ot…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 04:04 PM
1

That (as usual from you) makes no sense and is sexist. It makes perfect sense, if you actually paid attention to the context of the rest of my comment. Did you see the part about "othering", or did you just ignore that completely, as you usually do for cogent points against your position? It's not an advanced concept dude. Yes, all genders are capable of misogyny, but, only "non-women" are capable of "othering" women. Ofc, not all "non-women" are men, and indeed maybe there are women out there w…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 07:57 PM
1

Seriously? A web site edited by propagandists? That's your appeal to authority? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that the authority on feminist language is not feminist websites, but rather /u/DavidByron2. I'll make sure to check with you next time! Would you prefer wikipedia? Then why say it is only if a man does it? Because why would any woman patronise a woman just because she's a woman? Mansplaining is an example of "othering" - seeing a group that you are not part of as different in some way. Arguabl…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 06:34 PM
1

Yes and you directed me to one of them and I showed you how it was filled with anti-male hate. You did no such thing. You took a series of benign statements and tried to pass them off as hateful. If you've found anything else hateful then please, feel free to point it out. The problem is you are so used to feminists hating on men you can't see it. You're pretty much in the cult at this point. Personally I don't see how they can hate men when the ones I know are friends with men, in relationships…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 06:24 PM
0

Important for society, not for survival of the species. Badly-raised kids become bad people. Have you ever watched Jeremy Kyle? Criminals, drug dealers, the dregs of society in general - so many come from broken homes, and so many could've been good people with good parenting.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:58 PM
0

Parenting is important, but try to keep some perspective. Raising a child is not some kind of fancy rocket-surgery. You seem to be confusing "importance" with "advanced" or "highly skilled". You don't need a PhD to be a parent but it sure as hell is an important job.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 11:28 AM
1

Seems like "manspalining" is the hate slogan that covers feminist belief that men have no right to an opinion? Glad you brought up mansplaining, as it's a good example of a misused feminist buzzword, which is something I talked about in a recent comment. If you look it up on urban dictionary, you'll see that "mansplaining" really just means misogynistic patronising, i.e. talking down to someone just because they are a woman. However I have seen it misused by feminists who seem to be oversensitiv…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:02 AM
1

Misandry not misogyny. No, feminists attack misogyny in a way which is (according to you) analogous to Christians attacking homosexuality. You were saying that they disguise their man-hate as misogyny-hate, in the same way that some Christians disguise their hatred of homosexuals as hatred of homosexuality alone. Good grief you're so messed up you couldn't even remember that the question was about hating men for two minutes. Actually, it looks like you're the messed up one here. In the end you'r…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:50 AM
1

Feminists have a big reputation as man haters because they hate men. That's a reputation that goes way beyond MRAs and anti-feminists and it's richly deserved. This is just plain untrue, and I don't know where you've got it from. I formed my opinion on feminism from talking to self-proclaimed feminists in person, and from reading many feminist articles and the like. You should try doing the same with an open mind. Dafuck? Seriously you're going to defend feminism with the exact same line Christi…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:01 PM
1

Can you show me some examples of feminists attacking the #YesAllMen hashtag I don't know of any, because I only discovered that hashtag today, because it's a very unpopular hashtag. However, here is a feminist article that condemns the use of "not all men", whilst also acknowledging that not all men are rapists/murderers/whatever. That article took me all of 10 seconds to find - it's the top hit when you google "not all men". or the #YesAllWomen hashtag? YesAllWomen =/= all men or defending the …
/r/MensRights13/06/14 03:29 PM
1

Whereas feminists react by saying #YesAllMen As I said in another comment, that is not even close to being a mainstream feminist statement, or hashtag. Look it up yourself on twitter (as I did yesterday) and you'll see that it's incredibly scarce, and hardly any of the misandrist tweets that use it have even a single retweet. That men are all rapists is a core tenet of the movement. This is just absolute nonsense. Please, educate yourself. try finallyfeminist101. Here's a decent page from it.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 01:12 AM
1

If someone is saying "not all men" is false then they are saying that yes, it is all men. They're not saying it's "false", they're saying it's derailing. hence the feminist hashtag #YesAllMen not even remotely a mainstream feminist thing. Look it up yourself on twitter, there's hardly anything. Yes all men are rapists -- etc -- is what they are saying. Yes all men are evil, yes all men should be killed, yes all men are perverts and violent and criminals and hate women and are a threat that needs…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 01:09 AM
1

No, it was #yesallwomen suffer at the hands of some men. In other words, "we know it's not all men but it is far too many men, so action needs to be taken". The point of the campaign was not as an excuse for women to be fearful of men… it was to draw attention to the fact that misogyny is (apparently) widespread. In other words, "it's not just a minority of assholes who are misogynistic. It's otherwise normal guys as well, hence there is a cultural problem that needs fixing". I'm not saying I ag…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 12:39 PM
1

I don't agree with this. There's pressure on everyone to become educated in order to get a good job. You can choose NOT to get educated, at your own peril. It's your choice. The reason women wear makeup is to attract men. You can choose NOT to wear it, but you do so at your own peril. It's their choice. I think this is reductive. Women wear makeup for many reasons, one of which is to attract men (or women), but they also wear it because other people wear it, because looking better garners them m…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:40 PM
1

Well, is "we know not all men are rapists, but the fear of potentially being raped means we have to treat all men as potential rapists" a core feminist belief? I don't think it is man.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:29 PM
1

You're funny. What are you even doing here? You're a feminist bigot come to do what exactly? Maybe I can help you out. You wanna know who I am? I'm a male from the UK who calls himself a feminist most days. There's a lot of stuff I don't like about feminism but broadly I support it, yes. Why am I here? Because I care about men's issues and want to contribute, and because I wanna help bridge the (massive) gap between feminism and men's rights. People like you, who take a completely negative view …
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:13 PM
-1

I think you've missed the point quite a bit with my racism example. You've made an interesting case to suggest that in some parts of American society, black people are actually privileged over white people, e.g. somewhere like Baltimore which is predominantly black. I think you might be ignoring the hindrance of poverty in those black communities, but I digress. You've also mentioned that black people have some support systems that are not available to white people. Still, none of this is actual…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 05:34 PM
1

What I said, not what you said. I notice you couldn't even admit the consequence of the bogus definition you came up with. Funny. As you almost had to admit if your definition was correct then feminists could not claim we are in a patriarchy at all. That you all do says that you're simply lying here. Bogus definition? You didn't even give one, and mine was paraphrased from wikipedia. How is it "simply lying" to describe a society as "patriarchal" when most of the positions of power are occupied …
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:54 PM
5

This video is simplistic and misses the point slightly, but it does touch upon one of my biggest problems with feminism: the excessive use of buzz words and phrases, to the extent that completely misusing these words/phrases can still win you tons of up votes, or win you the argument. You see, "check your privilege" does have a valid use. Here is an example: White person: I really don't think racism is a problem in this country anymore. Black person: Whoa there, you should check your privilege. …
/r/MensRights11/06/14 02:10 PM
1

I see, but there's just no evidence for that is there. There is no evidence that feminism is an anti-male hate group in the same way that the KKK is an anti-black hate group.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 01:37 PM
1

To then turn around and insist, "Oh, when we say men are shit, obviously we only mean some men, and if you object to our generalization you're derailing" is ridiculous. Yeah I probably agree with you there actually. Still, this comic is a ridiculous straw man.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 10:02 AM
0

Why do men feel the need to say "not all men" in that situation? Loool you just did it yourself! Not all men feel the need to say "not all men" in that situation. The ones that do? Well, they presumably feel that the use of the word "men" is damaging to the reputation of all men. HOWEVER, that may or may not be true, and even if it is true, it's still disingenuous to accuse feminists of accusing "all men" of stuff whenever they use "men" as short-hand for "some men".
/r/MensRights11/06/14 12:53 AM
1

They're not just saying that it's a derailment they're stigmatizing saying "not all men" as another form of misogyny. They're trying to omit it from the discourse entirely instead of asking themselves why people are saying it whenever they spout their rhetoric. This is just wrong, man. Haven't you seen the "not all man" comic? Here it is. I've seen it reposted in many feminist spaces, and the point of the comic is clearly that saying "not all men" is an irritating derailment of valid discussion …
/r/MensRights11/06/14 12:39 AM
1

Ok, you seem to be missing the fact that my claim was made in the context of another person's claim. Lemme just give you some context: dejour said, "Feminists almost never say, "I think all men are rapists"". Captainshitbeard2 then said, "You're right! They don't say that. Just like KKK members don't say "I think all black men are rapists"." Captainshitbeard2 was making a valid point: Just because a group doesn't explicitly state their beliefs, doesn't mean we can't deduce that those beliefs exi…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:49 PM
1

Now that they're trying to stigmatize people saying "not all men" with #notallmen by definition they are saying all men. I really don't follow the logic there. The #notallmen hashtag has been explained to me by feminists as the following: "Of course we don't mean all men when we say "men…", so stop derailing our discussions with "but not all men do that!"". This is clearly not an accusation aimed at all men. On the contrary, they're saying "WE KNOW it's not all men, we never even said that it wa…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:39 PM
2

Ok, first of all, those examples are all bullshit: "Patriarchy" means that the positions of power are all held by men. This is a far cry from "all men" anything, since "positions of power" are a tiny minority of the population. At the moment, most but not all positions of power are held by men, so it's tenuous but not ridiculous to say that we live in a "patriarchal society". "Rape culture" is not all men, at all. First of all, it's women as well. Second of all, it's a massive umbrella term that…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:34 PM
0

From Marilyn French's wikipedia page: At one point in the book the character Val says "all men are rapists".[3] This quote has often been incorrectly attributed to Marilyn French herself. French's first book was a thesis on James Joyce. As for the first one, that quite clearly does not state that all men are rapists. On the contrary, it tries to account for the high incidence of rape c.f. other serious crimes like assault/murder etc.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:39 AM
-4

The thing is, KKK members kill black people in the name of their organisation. It's not comparable at all.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:34 AM
1

Either you don't know what a straw man is or you genuinely think that feminists often say things like "I think all men are rapists"? Which is it? In ~2 years of browsing this sub and feminist subs/websites, I have never seen anything even close to "I think all men are rapists" (with the exception of straw-manning on /r/MensRights ofc). The closest thing I ever saw was that preposterous blog piece entitled "All PIV is rape", and that was widely panned among the mainstream feminist community. The …
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:29 AM
-14

Whilst there are many examples of this kind of statement within feminist discourse (e.g. that recent thing about 10% of M&M's being poisoned), we really don't need a ridiculous straw man such as this to make that point.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 10:45 PM
1

Probs because they realised that "real men" is a problematic phrase but couldn't be arsed to think of a better alternative. Lazy.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 10:20 AM
1

Lol, I was "genderising" because that was the example you gave, that is all. Allow me to rephrase: "Their body, their choice". It has everything to do with the individual's choice. If you end up wasting your life with a dishonest, horrible person, then tough luck. That's life, shit happens, and I would be very sorry to hear that that had happened, but IMHO that is not something that the law should defend against. This law exists because a man/woman should be able to get a vasectomy/tubes tied wi…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:54 PM
4

Clicking "Like" on "end female genital mutilation" on facebook, is not going to stop these people from committing female genital mutilation. You could also donate to an FGM charity? Also, your "like" might bring the page to the attention of others, which may lead to them making donations to said charity?
/r/MensRights15/04/14 09:22 PM
0

if I was married and wanted a child and my wife had a secret vasectomy then I would feel betrayed. And you would have every right to divorce her, but what she does with her body is her choice, not yours.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 09:16 PM
1

Defo agree with the first one, I think it's been said before in feminist circles (believe it or not!). Second one's interesting, though I assume there's always a delay between the apparent refusal of consent and the actual act i.e. say "no" in public/church context --> delay --> say/imply "yes" in private context. Hmm again I think the third one also has that delay problem, i.e. if you say "no" but mean "yes" because of confusion/impulse, chances are you will then say/imply "yes" overtly before …
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:51 PM
1

Anything can mean something else given some fictitious context within the realm of extreme possibilities. That is because human language and thought is context-depended and never truly absolute. The whole point of the sign is to provoke thought about such contexts, in case you find yourself in them. They certainly are not "extreme possibilities". But note that the sign she wrote lacks such context, thus it implies to make a general statement. But it isn't a general statement - the sign specifies…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:44 PM
3

It takes a bit of imagination but it's true if you think about it. Here are 3 instances when saying yes does not mean yes: 1) saying yes under coercion, e.g. with a gun to your head 2) saying yes under the influence (in some jurisdictions) 3) saying yes if you're too young to legally consent The 3rd one is perhaps slightly irrelevant, the 2nd one is a bit of a grey area, but I think we can all agree that the first one is true.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:15 PM
3

Very similar situation. I was banned for this comment, responding to someone who'd said that nobody has ever infringed on men's rights on an institutionalised level (a slightly vague thing to define but wth). My tone may have been slightly arsey, but I just thought it was ridiculous the way hoobsher derailed the discussion with Oddmob, especially considering that Oddmob had explicitly agreed with every part of hoobsher's comment except for that one bit about an institutionalised infringement on …
/r/MensRights10/02/14 11:39 AM
-1

A source? How about the myriad people with anorexia and bulimia? How about the millions of people who repeatedly lose weight by following a very strict diet, only to put it back on again when they come off the diet, to the great detriment of their mental health? The healthy way to lose weight is a combination of a healthy diet and exercise. "Healthy diet" =/= instant results weight-loss diet. The word "dieting", as I used it, does not refer to having a balanced diet; it refers to those fad diets…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:13 AM
-1

If you understand so much, please elucidate, instead of coming out with cheap put-downs.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:59 AM
-8

Yebut on the whole, lifting to look bulky is a healthy lifestyle, whereas dieting to look skinny is not. One is definitely more damaging than the other. Edit: Jesus downvoters, it's a very simple point. If you disagree, comment back. The easiest way to achieve a skinny body is to (dangerously) not eat enough. The easiest way to achieve a bulky physique is NOT to start jacking yourself up with steroids like a maniac.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 07:49 PM
0

I don't know whether or not to rage or give up on europe. Dude.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 11:38 AM
0

Worth mentioning that it may not just be status that they're attracted to. A lot of them may perking up at the word "doctor" because it means you're probably a nice/easygoing/friendly/trustworthy guy. Ofc not all doctors are these miraculously awesome people, but there's certainly a perception that in general, doctors are "nice". You need to run another experiment: pretend that you're wealthy/successful, but not a doctor. That may separate the women who just dig the status from the women who dig…
/r/TheRedPill16/01/14 01:08 AM
0

Oh cool dude, bang on yet again about how the "uh oh" alarm is different for different people, while ignoring my point about many abuse victims getting an "uh oh" feeling when they're scared of what their partner might do is a genuine sign of abuse.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:45 AM
0

It is most certainly not useless, as there are definitely people out there in abusive relationships who find themselves dreading abusive behaviour (that they don't realise is abusive) with the phrase "uh-oh". I fail to see how it's stupid.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 12:52 AM
0

It honestly sounds like you're just missing the point about it being a mere warning sign worth investigating, as opposed to a surefire sign of abuse. You say it's a useless standard, but it's not claiming to be a standard of anything. It's not saying "uh-oh = abuse", it's saying "uh-oh? Check that out". Your point about how all people are different could be applied to every one of these tips.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 04:06 AM
19

"uh-oh" means fear in this context, not just mild worry. The article says, look hard at any incidents that give you an "uh-oh" feeling I don't think that devalues what "abuse" means at all. It's saying "if your partner's actions make you feel afraid, you should evaluate why, because it could be abuse". It even says at the end of the article that, Just because someone does one or two of these things does not mean s/he is abusive
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:12 AM
1

Haha, I actually upvoted you because I have a policy of upvoting all replies to my own posts, unless they are abusive.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 08:56 PM
1

"actual stats"? Link please.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:36 PM
1

Also men can't cry it's not how it's supposed to be right? I'm saying this is not the place for it, not that it shouldn't happen. women and studying them is taboo so it's hard to show you any evidence of how this and that women are. Nah what's taboo is to make generalisations about any group based on a few individual examples. I think more attention needs to be paid to why there's not enough support; trust me, it's not just feminist propaganda.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:34 PM
0

The way to estimate the population density of unicorns with any accuracy is with a statistical sample, not just by gathering all the unicorns you can find into one place and shouting, "Look how many unicorns there are!" First a person has to believe men can be discriminated against because they're men and different examples may be necessary to convince different folks. This is all these posts can do though; they prove that misandry exists, but they don't show any more than that. I'm saying there…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:29 PM
1

Hey man /r/offmychest is just the first thing I thought of, I wasn't aware that stuff gets banned there as I don't frequent it much. I am absolutely not trolling, and I'm glad you agree that there are some posts here that would be better placed somewhere else.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:25 PM
-1

You imply that we don't, which is false. Did I really though? No one who's done critical thinking would say that I had. My point is, this isn't really a piecing together of individual manifestations of misandry. No one's systematically collecting this stuff, it just streams in in no particular order, perhaps even with reposts (though I've never noticed myself). Do you really think we're gonna prove that society-wide misandry exists by posting individual examples? I don't think so - especially wh…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:22 PM
-3

Very few places? How about a new sub? There are already myriad subs like /r/offmychest where you can vent about whatever you want. It wouldn't take much to make one for venting about misandry.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 04:25 AM
7

No. Many people believe a male is more likely to rape than a female is to lie about rape. Big difference.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 04:19 AM
2

Me too, come on people let's rack up some serious donations!
/r/MensRights09/12/13 02:21 PM
1

This is the worst bit: Movember is divisive, gender normative, racist and ineffective against some very real health issues. Movember has raised $174m worldwide £for men's health charities since its inception in 2004, but apparently it's "ineffective against some very real health issues".
/r/MensRights01/12/13 11:06 PM
0

Pfft, I didn't downvote, but I disagree. Here are some choice quotes: At the same time, U.S. News and World Report projected that women will control $22 trillion of all wealth in the United states by 2020. That’s just a decade away! The bottom-line is that women are making their presence in the economy better known. Combine that decision-making power with the growing influence of women on the business side of the economy, and the stage is set for an interesting 10-20 years in front of us. It’s a…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 10:40 PM
2

Are you really only able to see the world through the lens of two political parties? ... No, my whole point was that the Republicans are not the only politically conservative party. Hence it's possible for BOTH Republicans to be the smallest group in the poll of this sub, AND for a large chunk of the sub to be composed of, "conservative anti-feminist types who dismiss concepts such as gender roles". Admittedly I was not aware that this sub had a significant non-American membership. This, however…
/r/MensRights22/09/13 11:13 PM
2

It's possible that a large proportion of both the "libertarians" and "others" in that survey are former Republicans who are disillusioned with their party - of which there are many. Many libertarians in particular are former Republicans, and politically conservative.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 07:47 PM
2

The number of women laying the smack down in the comments section of this article really lifted my spirits And the sight of something positive written about some women in this subreddit really lifted mine. Thank you.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 07:36 PM
4

She actually goes on to state that gender is more more serious then race, ethnicity or group membership and is most likely rooted deep within the brain quite possibly with biochemistry. But then she immediately returns to the feminist party line that "gender roles" were evil and oppressive and that they hurt men just as much as women. Dude, that's not a contradiction! Gender roles do hurt men, in the ways that she described (inner turmoil from having to suppress emotions etc.) You are basically …
/r/TheRedPill19/09/13 01:09 AM
1

Ah fair 'nuff.
/r/TheRedPill19/09/13 12:06 AM
3

from wiki: Patriarchy (rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The fem…
/r/TheRedPill18/09/13 11:13 PM
5

she concluded "patriarchy hurts men too" rather then accept men and women are fundamentally different. Quote from the article, : "I found out that gender lives in your brain and is something much more than costume. And I really learned that the hard way" It sounds like she did realise that, man.
/r/TheRedPill18/09/13 11:10 PM
2

Yes it might throw lots of people... to read the rest of the poster. That's the point.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 08:33 PM
21

That's just to grab your attention. When you read the rest of the poster, it's clear that they really mean, "getting raped does not make you less of a man".
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:45 AM
4

obviously from the UK where Circumcision is far rarer than it is in the US... For good reason, ThrobbingWetHole, for good reason.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 10:02 PM
1

I think that circumcision is linked to psychological trauma only after one learns that circumcision decreases sensitivity. Is that avoidable though? This is really the question.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:51 PM
5

"The National Health and Social Life Survey evidence indicates a slight benefit of circumcision but a negligible association with most outcomes." What do you understand by a "negligible association with most outcomes"? I'm genuinely unsure about what it means, but I think that's what OP was referencing.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter