TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Arby01 Archive

View 13 posts and 3,994 comments by Arby01 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 3,994 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

well if it was then women would not attempt suicde at 4x the rate Just in case you believe this - you should go look up the studies. This statistic is based on "self harm" which you listed separately (as it should be). There is no statistic on "attempted suicide", any collection of data, that I have ever been aware of, counts all female self harm. So, that attempts at 4 x the rate, includes the 20 times the teenager scratched herself repeatedly with a sharp edge of something.
/r/MensRights16/12/20 03:19 PM
3

Really? You aren't paying much attention to history. And we aren't talking about small groups. We are talking about larger organizations that were directed towards men and boys. Those are all gone. Women only organizations still exist on a larger scale, no men's orgs. We are seeing some form in fits and starts, but they all include women to some degree. It's the only way to avoid backlash.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:43 PM
7

“No, they [feminists] fucking don't [care about men’s issues], never have, and never will but will likely take credit for it when it happens.” ah, ok - my apologies. Let's address the moved goalposts. I assign my belief in what feminism cares about based on the actions of the groups generally believed to be feminist. While you have pointed out some recent activity in Nordic countries the bulk of activism by feminism shows a staggering disregard and opposition to equality in areas where men are d…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:38 PM
2

same author links to another article he wrote prior to the kidnapping of girls: https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-horrific-massacre-of-school-children-by-islamic-radicals-youve-heard-nothing-about/
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:15 PM
2

Here's one article, there were a couple better ones at the time, but they were hard to find then, now it's probably next door to impossible. https://www.mediaite.com/online/why-did-kidnapping-girls-but-not-burning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:09 PM
4

Your word salad is weak and you need more practice at obscuring the point. Regardless, that you haven't met any MRA's who don't hate women, is, as stated, on you. It's extremely unlikely to be true. There is a very large and diverse group of people under that label and your believing that they are all "woman hating" can only be taken as absurd. That only leaves your responsibility for the interaction and how you are interpreting it. Are you actually a victim in any of those cases, or did you say…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 02:52 PM
5

> I'm still interested in seeing actual examples, though, if you've got any you can think of. Anecdotally, there's the canard about candies and willpower that was reviewed many years later and once social status was accounted for it turned out to be more a statement of "where you start influences where you end up". That's not one where I actually read the study though. I do know some of these, but that's going to take time I don't have. I didn't develop this viewpoint from an echo chamber or vac…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 07:36 AM
5

I have said nothing hostile. You claim that you have only encountered MRAs that hate women. If that's your experience and there is proof that MRAs don't hate women, and there is such proof, then you have to start looking at why you had that experience. I didn't say your experience was false. I was saying you are probably the cause of your experiences. (or perhaps very unlucky, but based on this exchange, cause is the more likely choice). I also laughed at you. The position that most MRA's hate w…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 07:27 AM
3

> As to why the government denied him funding, I have a few theories So do I - I would posit that the women's activism held the majority of the sway and didn't want to let go of any of the money. That is, simply greed. We also saw several denigrating articles about Silverman after he passed. We still don't have a men's shelter though. As for the cheap shot about donating, well, I am good with that as long as we take all the public money away from all the other shelters/assistance for women facil…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 07:20 AM
6

Only what you have told us. Since your postulate (MRA's hate women) is provably untrue, all that's left is that your experience is unique to you.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 05:44 AM
97

This is a good thing, I guess. At least someone cares. Does anyone here remember the details of the "bringbackourgirls" thing? The girls were kidnapped from the *third* school that was attacked. In the previous two schools the girls were allowed to leave and go home. They were co-ed schools. In all three instances men and boys at the school were boarded up inside and burned alive and then machine guns were used on any who tried to escape. Nobody cared until they abducted the girls.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 05:33 AM
3

too much generalization in there for me to really comment on. I think that everyone wants to have equal opportunity and I think the narrative that women don't have it has the expected effect of people trying to correct that. It's idealism which is generally good, but the people promoting the idealism have been lying about the details.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 05:27 AM
5

You know, it's funny. The wage gap studies are often "debunked" using their own data - and often the "70 cents to the dollar" claim is not what the researcher really claims but is an uneducated media personage shouting the thing they think will get them views. It's so much simpler to do that than explain reality. But here's the funny thing. In the wage gap studies, they show that women make less. In the "who does the work at home" studies, they show that women do most of the work at home because…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 05:13 AM
2

but many, many men don't have those systems I agree many men don't have those systems. I disagree with your "reason" though. The reason, in my opinion, is that all the "spaces" that men could form those friendships in have been systematically destroyed by feminism. There are no longer any spaces for boys or men to form those bonds in. Outdoor clubs - coed, sports teams - coed, generally male endeavours - coed, men's fraternity clubs - coed, actual fraternities at universities - coed/or at least …
/r/MensRights15/12/20 04:56 AM
4

I don't think any moderate feminist would disagree. Then why do they oppose any legal challenge to amend parenting laws? Feminism (the ideology) is opposed to men having rights. Full stop.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 04:48 AM
5

Yep. this is the lie. The No true scotsman fallacy is that all the feminist activism you see doesn't have any "ACTUAL" feminists in it. SO, what defines a feminist, the label, or the actions of the movement?
/r/MensRights15/12/20 04:33 AM
20

I think that there is a major "gap" when it comes to therapy. Therapy is primarily focused on a model that works for most women. Guys therefore have to adapt to a model that doesn't seem to really "fit". My opinion is that all of this "men should be more emotional and sensitive and talk more" is actually telling men that they are defective and need to be more like women. I don't think that men are defective women. I think men generally relate and express and converse in different forms. And it s…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 04:25 AM
6

Social science peer review is incredibly weak. Many studies make it through that are not good science. The biggest one this sub should recognize is Lenore Weitzman's study, which posited "in divorce men's standard of living rises by xx% (don't remember, something like 30) and women's falls by 70%. This study influenced, and still influences, alimony and child support laws - the problem, it's completely false and when finally called on it, she blamed it on a grad student making a "math error". He…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 04:10 AM
4

LOL. Your experiences all have one thing in common. You. Which is what he pointed out the first time.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:56 AM
4

There are a lot of female MRA's. There are a lot of MRA's that don't hate women. There are MRA's that used to consider themselves feminists (was a member of feminist leadership in a major organization, iirc) until they were attacked for raising men's issues. Your viewpoint disagrees with fact and evidence. /u/Jakeybaby125 called it correctly, it's a "You" issue, not an MRA problem.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:53 AM
6

This is the best viewpoint, imo. EDIT: I would really like to see Feminism decry their toxic leaders/writers though, like Solanas and a bunch of others.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:50 AM
2

Maybe they do. Too bad they're basically unicorns. They don't really exist, because they don't actually do anything about the negative campaigning of feminism against men.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:49 AM
7

The wonderfulul people on r/menslib are giving men a safe space and are fighting for equality. As long as they don't contradict anything that feminism dictates to them. They're feminism's "useful idiots".
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:47 AM
8

What's the smell? Oh, I recognize that. That's a giant mound of bullshit. I rebutted this is another post, so I won't copy and paste, you can find it elsewhere in the comments.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:44 AM
5

No. That's not true at all. Women (mostly, I think) do care about these issues. Feminism doesn't - if you look at the real life activism of feminism, it is frequently in direct opposition to helping men or their issues. For example: Open a male shelter - feminism will campaign that all the public funding is already needed by the existing women's shelter's, causing a men's shelter to be inoperable. Campaign for equal parental rights - large, multi million dollar public funded feminist organizatio…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:43 AM
2

We could do this go around for ages. We simply disagree. I actually really appreciate your idealism, I just don't believe it. I watched moderate voices get lambasted over and over again for the last 20 years. The only progress has been made was because the "extreme" voices moved the discussion.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 03:32 AM
1

MRAs open themselves to accusations of sexism, and name calling. That happened even to professors who called themselves feminist when they raised issues facing men and boys before MRA was a thing. By advocating or doing any activism for men and boys, feminists are going to label you sexist and attack you. Those are easy and highly effective accusations because, as you say, the western world considers feminism to be *the* discussion on gender equality. That has to change and as I suggested above,…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 02:13 AM
1

Yeah, are you familiar with the concept of the Overton Window ? It's essentially how acceptable an idea is to the populace. The way to shift the Overton window is to use radical viewpoints to expand the window and that gradually pulls the window closer to the position you want. Feminism has used this quite successfully in a number of cases. The reason I bring this up is feminism, and thus women's advocacy absolutely dominates the "equality" discussion. As long as people believe that feminism is …
/r/MensRights14/12/20 12:25 AM
1

The larger community is still steeped in sexual bias and is going to look at her pictures and go "lucky kid" - It's absurd and sick but true. After that, all publicity is good publicity. If she can avoid the pedophile label, it's just free advertising.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 06:52 AM
2

commenced. Although, I don't completely disagree - academic feminism is very much the enemy. The rank and file have an idea of the same end goal, but really, my view is that feminism needs to be viewed as women's advocacy, which it is. and not viewed as "equality" which it isnt. Removing the ability to dominate the discussion would go a long way to letting both sides work together.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 06:42 AM
1

That's an interesting position - Given that feminist organizations campaign for continued unequal treatment of men for parenting, campaign for unequal treatment of male prisoners (actually, they campaign for female criminals to be given even lighter sentences than they already receive), and receive zero pushback from feminists on these issues. Add in that any time suicide is brought up as a discussion point, feminists will make it about women even though men are 3/4 of the dead. From the evidenc…
/r/MensRights25/11/20 05:58 PM
9

That's a bullshit statement. A Men's rights activist, and a feminist are two distinct and separate viewpoints. A feminist is a member of a women's advocacy group focused on improving iniquities for women and advancing women's interest in all areas. A men's rights activist is a member of a men's advocacy group focused on improving iniquities for men. (so far). The positions are not mutually exclusive but neither are they tied together. Most feminists want advantages for women and don't give a shi…
/r/MensRights21/11/20 06:27 AM
1

does this splitting hairs even matter? I think it does matter - when someone uses statistics there is usually a reason that they have lumped two very dissimilar categories together. The combination of Types 1/2/4 could be a very easy way to lie with statistics. That is, it might not be splitting hairs at all. If the "pinprick to satisfy religious doctrine" is the most prevalent form of FGM (I am not saying it is, I don't know) then adding that count to the minority worst case version of excision…
/r/MensRights10/11/20 05:45 PM
1

Data is good. Why do you think the WHO conflates type 1 & Type II (which are arguably bad and relatively similar) with Type 4 (which is potentially far less than circumcision)? Is there any data that separates those out?
/r/MensRights08/11/20 10:57 PM
2

Extreme feminists might be a minority, but they are loud. That's how they wield influence. Except that your and /u/Key-Cauliflower-7243 having the perception that they are the minority is incorrect. The majority of those doing activism that calls themselves feminist has the views that Cauliflower has labelled "extremist" - and that's gone on for a long time. However, major feminist organizations campaign against equal rights, or for elevated rights and privileges and with high support from their…
/r/MensRights08/11/20 03:58 PM
5

Type 3 is potentially equivalent and type 4 is going to be equivalent in some scenarios and less harmful in others. Also, you don't address the prevalence of each form. All MGM is the removal of skin through cutting.
/r/MensRights08/11/20 03:43 PM
1

Yeah, I wondered about that as well. She certainly has a lot of time. She has the "Lawyer" flair in a different subreddit, I don't remember which one and I have no idea how hard it would be to get that flair. There are lots of ways she could actually be a lawyer and spend so much time here. She could be doing something that doesn't suck up the time - like real estate (essentially an expensive notary that can actually give you advice). Or she might have just stopped working for any number of good…
/r/MensRights04/11/20 06:14 AM
2

Yes, I am very familiar with Karissa, she has been around for a decade or more and usually claims to be a lawyer. Which has been consistent, so it might even be true. Her arguments(historically) are usually anti-male and anti-"fairness", arguing that the current system treats men just fine and it's the guys problem that he is getting f'd over. (much like her advice above to "just let it go". I mean, the guys kids just aren't that important to him. It's typical of her blindness to her own privile…
/r/MensRights03/11/20 05:38 PM
1

If that was the case ... doesn't address my argument at all. Like you never even read it.. And since your account was summarily suspended, I must assume you probably didn't. Also, you linked a relatively unsupported hypothesis that doesn't really make any claim that men are the sole reason for conflict. So, your using a currently fringe theory, and that fringe theory doesn't say what you want it to say to support your absurdly stupid position. Also, no longer responding to these accounts. Which …
/r/MensRights01/11/20 11:59 PM
1

what's with all these dictionary word-number accounts that are quickly suspended. The trolls seem fast and furious, which hasn't every really changed but the quick suspension seems weird. Reddit used to let all the crazies troll in MR to their hearts content. What's changed?
/r/MensRights01/11/20 11:54 PM
1

I expressed a VIEW - not a fact - As did I. And you expressed your views as fact, just like I did. Because if we had to wrap everything with "this is my opinion" we would have to read a novella of disclaimer before stating what we think. Your "offendedness" over my saying what I believed about your position is stupid. (that's my opinion stated as a fact, if you must have delineation). Regardless, cause I don't give a shit if you think I am "purporting to tell you what you have done/thought" - th…
/r/MensRights01/11/20 11:52 PM
3

The anti-women MRAs are too loud. That gets all the attention and we're seen as a hate group, rather than a group striving for equality. It's not that Anti-women MRAs are too loud. All advocating for men is called "anti-women". The actual amount of "anti-women" viewpoints in the MRA community is very low. You have fallen into the trap of believing the complaints against the community. Or perhaps you have confused "anti-feminism" with "anti-women", which are two very different things. Without the…
/r/MensRights31/10/20 01:22 PM
2

ok. TIL. Thanks.
/r/MensRights31/10/20 02:45 AM
1

> But prosecuting her for the illegal act will happen as I will personally press the charges. Not how it works in Canada. All criminal charges are brought by the crown. You can't "press charges", it's all in the discretion of the prosecutor and in this situation, regardless of the wrong, they will never do anything about it, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue making noise.
/r/MensRights31/10/20 02:18 AM
2

At the moment I believe Canada is refusing to let anyone from the U.S. enter the country. So if she crosses the border for parenting exchange she can't get back home this is inaccurate anyways. (If non-essential) You can't drive through the land crossings, but you can still fly in and out of the country. And yeah, depending on province there is a 14 day quarantine. If it's classified as essential the border crossing rule doesn't apply but the quarantine still does. (and it's an absurd fine if yo…
/r/MensRights31/10/20 02:15 AM
5

That's ridiculously simplistic and misguided. The bulk of secretaries being women in the '50s was proof that they weren't capable of higher position? It's the same absurd argument. War is a result of competition over territory, dominance and resources, sure. Women compete over territory, dominance and resources as well. Good troll though, almost seemed like a real argument. 10/10.
/r/MensRights31/10/20 02:06 AM
5

that's not the definition of coverture.
/r/MensRights31/10/20 02:01 AM
3

Women have all the power in the world to break down patriarchy, simply by making a few small changes in their daily choices. They could choose to work not just for themselves but provide for others, they could choose to pick men based on altruism rather than dominance, and they could choose to pursue roles of power for themselves by taking on the risk/responsibility of leadership. These are all things that men are expected to do but that most women willfully avoid or feel very resentful about wh…
/r/MensRights30/10/20 01:34 PM
2

Equal pay for equal work, it's not that hard. If two people have the same education and the same job and do the same thing, then they should be paid the same. if one has slightly more experience or education or whatever, then they will get slightly more. I think almost everyone agrees with you on the principle. Mostly it fails in the assessment. It can also fail in the practice. Why does in fail in the assessment? Paying people differing amounts by gender for the same job is illegal and almost n…
/r/MensRights30/10/20 06:33 AM
4

A lot of the answers here aren't great. Not getting catcalled can be framed as not getting sexual attention. Greater upper body strength on average is statistically true, but you are an individual and it may not be true for you. Same with other traits like greater average height/better spacial visualization/etc. When I have seen this question before, it usually is a complaint about injustice. Women that you know received benefits that you desired for less work than you put in trying to attain th…
/r/MensRights30/10/20 06:08 AM
7

Women are not really tribal, without men there would be no war. Humans are tribal. That includes women, maybe even especially women. You're assertion is invalid without evidence. The rest of your statement only supports the previous poster. Men dominate in all those fields. 2% women plumbers would not become 100%. Also, it ignores that there is a very real tendency for the two people (a man and a woman) in (nominally) the same job role, to end up doing very different duties.
/r/MensRights30/10/20 05:28 AM
3

A woman was also property of her husband (coverture) That is not the definition of coverture. Coverture was a legal doctrine where upon marriage the wife and husband were considered one person. The wife was not the "property" of her husband. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture - first paragraph, while it goes on to jump into the feminists belief about the practice, the definition is a legal one).
/r/MensRights30/10/20 05:11 AM
2

Female queens had male advisors. So, your argument is that all women that have ever held power were only ever simple figureheads and had no real agency of their own?
/r/MensRights30/10/20 04:58 AM
3

What you have said is true. Women do advocate for these things - for women, mostly. And while they are often supportive of guys that do this, at the same time, they tend to show a lower regard for such men. ie "John Doe's awesome that he shares his feelings so easily. Date him? Noooo. He asked, but he's a close friend". Very few guys can honestly share emotion and still remain attractive to women that see this, it's a delicate balancing act. Only some ranges of emotion are allowed. And not stuff…
/r/MensRights30/10/20 04:50 AM
4

Yep. I saw that and reacted to it as well. Someone who really doesn't understand the idea behind "better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be wrongly sentenced". The white knight is strong in this one.
/r/MensRights30/01/20 02:42 AM
6

This is the answer. The methods and means by which men develop their social bonds have been systematically destroyed and demonized. Then the result is portrayed as men having "emotional deficiency".
/r/MensRights08/09/19 09:39 PM
1

That's never really been my experience or observation, but it is reasonable that it has been yours, so, sure.
/r/MensRights07/09/19 12:07 AM
3

Sure. Percentage wise it's worse to be black though. As for proving nothing, neither does your original comment, so I will call it equal and dodge further stupid from you.
/r/MensRights07/09/19 12:05 AM
2

no, but some are.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 11:50 PM
3

and is impossible to prove. When everything is graded on conjecture and opinion, there is no objective "correct" so the marking is completely justifiable regardless of the mark or the work.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 11:43 PM
3

This is the appropriate course of action - truth is irrelevant, just get the mark and move on. These people will hose you and screw up your future for not agreeing with their opinions, just don't bother.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 11:42 PM
1

somewhat funny, but not really true. The response that is more accurate is "That's great that you are connected with your emotions." and "That's not what I find attractive in a guy".
/r/MensRights06/09/19 11:37 PM
4

everyone still believes it. Even though the truth is available and repeated by reputable sources. People don't care. They have been told this lie and damn it, they're sticking to it.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 02:57 AM
3

Yep. That's been my view for years. As soon as something in MR get's major traction - probably something like suicide or shared parenting. Feminist orgs are going to claim "we've always supported that, it's been a major feminist platform issue for decades, you wouldn't be hearing about it now if not for heroic women leading the charge"
/r/MensRights26/02/19 02:50 AM
1

The fact that they've been doing this for 20 years and still haven't is a pretty big indicator has anyone asked?
/r/MensRights26/02/19 01:59 AM
3

Ok. SO set up a fundraiser and go ask them for equivalent sponsorship and exposure. (or start by asking them what they need to see to provide equivalent sponsorship and exposure, then build your fundraiser to meet their requirements). There really isn't a problem here until it's proven that they won't.
/r/MensRights23/02/19 11:51 PM
4

this is very consistent with my observations as well. The ones that have the most trouble, have trouble because they *don't want to be* parents.
/r/MensRights23/02/19 05:29 AM
5

While I agree that funding for men is lacking AND society in general falls over itself to fund women's issues over men's. This is simply a charitable fundraiser. There is nothing stopping anyone from running one for men with depression or men with post-natal depression. Run one of those campaigns and then when you get push back, complain about the double standard based on people telling you that it's sexist to not support women. This is just whining that someone else is trying to do a good thing…
/r/MensRights23/02/19 05:22 AM
4

It's also used to sell you shit - so, everytime you hear "real men", it benefits someone else. Not only women. (Mostly maybe, but not only). You can be certain that the goal isn't your own empowerment though.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 07:49 PM
7

note this happens in Canada too - if you are investigated for a sex related issue - like this - the investigation is permanent record even if no charges are filed. It won't appear on a criminal record check, but if you need a check to work with youth (called a vulnerable sector check), it shows up. Basically you have a permanent criminal record - you don't even have to ever know you were investigated.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 06:16 AM
1

Yep. Major projection. One thing I learned from an early relationship - if a woman tells you that "Never lie to me, I can't stand being lied to" - run. They will all have a story about how they were lied to and this is why the rule. The thing is, no one likes being lied to. The fact that they have to state it means that they lie like a sidewalk and they are trying to prevent competition.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 03:46 AM
2

Sure, there's a lot of arguments, and the studies do seem to agree, that women put in unpaid/family labour that accounts for the difference in hours with both parties in a family working close to the same total hours when you aggregate paid and unpaid hours. However, that also justifies a pay gap - they are working less, so earn less money. (actually, according to the article, a lot less - if we take the numbers from 5 years ago, men worked 15 hrs per week more, in money earning roles, that mean…
/r/MensRights02/09/18 09:08 PM
1

but there was a reported increase in depression, anxiety, and a slew of other things that were notable in the test group over the control group. or it's more likely that depressed, anxious people are likely to view porn instead of interacting with social situations that tend to be related to the anxiety and depression? I mean, it's possible that it reinforces what was already there or that it contributes to creating a feedback look.
/r/MensRights29/05/18 07:24 PM
2

Nice play on words! ok. I will give you that there are a lot of uninformed people that believe that they have been discriminated against because of their gender (probably because they have been told so since birth) and aren't able to face the cognitive dissonance when shown life is unfair to everybody and they aren't all that special.
/r/MensRights28/05/18 01:39 AM
2

Hey, I read once that they tried to conduct a study in Britain and that they needed a control group that had never seen pornography and they could find a single guy.
/r/MensRights28/05/18 01:29 AM
1

*hypocritical ?
/r/MensRights28/05/18 01:27 AM
1

I wonder if I'm one of those people who have been altered. everything you experience alters you. So, yes? The questions are; to what degree, in what direction, is it favourable to you, unfavourable to you, etc, etc, The studies (afaik) don't show any strong correlation between pron and increased sexual violence. Ymmv.
/r/MensRights28/05/18 01:27 AM
1

I don't remember there being anything particularly tear jerking in the incredibles, seems dumb. Now, UP, had a couple of snuffly moments.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 10:53 PM
6

This is astoundingly bad I think you could have just stopped there. It's not funny, satirical, interesting or remotely ... anything. It's just blather.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 10:51 PM
2

That is an excellent series of questions. Kudos.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 10:06 PM
10

I do get why the MRA community might be a little hostile towards certain feminist groups. You think you get it, but I suspect that you miss the bigger picture. You mentioned focusing on the 'positives for men' instead of the 'negatives of feminism'. This is a maze of competing interests. For domestic violence, you follow the money. The groups involved fight against men's shelters and other ideas because it would affect their bottom line. But the rely on the label of 'feminism' to do so, and when…
/r/MensRights27/05/18 09:50 PM
3

Lol. You know what, I don't have any. And if you think that is life long trauma, then get buckled in baby, because life is going to hand you defeats, unfairness, death, loss and grief that are going to scar you to the bone. If you can't get over getting slapped on the ass, then you aren't going to make it and no amount of punishing people who assault you is going to save you. Your position is moronic.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 09:27 PM
1

Any sexually physical act can traumatize for far longer than a day. If being (unconsentingly) slapped on the butt has any long lasting trauma, you have psychological issues well beyond the action being punished. Is it an assault, yes. Were you violated, yes. Beyond that, get on with life.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 08:17 PM
5

Proven false. Done deal. What is the problem? That you don't see the problem is a very good indication of the problem. The butt slapped woman will have almost no continuing issues from being slapped. The guy will be punished for it. As you say, good. The cop could have lost his career and been labeled a dangerous sex offender, the investigation into the video will likely have cost the taxpayers 1000's of dollars. The woman isn't being punished for a crime (false reports to the police are a crime…
/r/MensRights27/05/18 08:13 PM
11

Don’t take an outlier and pretend it’s the norm. Your situation is the outlier not the person you are replying to. Easily proven by looking at the number of civil suits universities are facing in response to unfairly biased title 9 investigations. This aspect of Title 9 is very harmful to men, that it benefits 1 doesn't undo that.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 08:05 PM
21

I do not understand why promoting fairness for men has to involve dismissing unfairness against women. You have confused two things. "anti-feminism" and "dismissing unfairness against women" are NOT the same thing. At all. Most of MR could be considered to be feminist, as feminism is commonly understood to be defined. The problem that exists is that the common understanding of what feminism means, and what organizations and individual feminist do, under the guise of feminism is radically differe…
/r/MensRights27/05/18 07:45 PM
13

If you are relatively young - look at scholarship opportunities. I believe there are significant scholarship funds available, especially if you are interested in STEM.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 02:49 AM
6

That won't be in a few years, he is immediately on the hook. He will be paying shortly if he isn't already.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 01:47 PM
20

The problem I see here is that she has any ability to say 'start a new life with my children'. That ship should have sailed immediately.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 06:16 AM
3

It's true that this is usually handled differently here, at least from the lack of stories that's my impression - but this is Quebec. Quebec might as well be a different country in a lot of regards.
/r/MensRights04/05/18 05:41 AM
3

Came into the thread to say the same thing, but I was just going to be sarcastic "yeah, like that's what happening". You said it much better.
/r/MensRights04/05/18 05:37 AM
1

Proportional self-defense gets you killed. There's a use of force continuum that is good to be educated in. Essentially though, you are correct. The crowd is never neutral and you want to remove the threat as quickly and violently as possible within the acceptable level of force response. Which is really just saying " If someone attacks you, you hit them back hard enough to put them out of the fight before their friends have a chance to stab you in the back or they do it themselves." with more w…
/r/MensRights03/05/18 08:14 AM
1

What I am into are monogamous relationships that grow out of trust and comfort, and I'm not going to trust or be comfortable around someone who I think may be prone to falling for victim culture. I think, rather than assuming that everyone else is doing it wrong, and you have the "clearly correct" way of doing it, you should entertain the possibility that knowing what's going to happen ahead of time is largely impossible and people do things that are completely unforeseen regardless of how well …
/r/MensRights03/05/18 08:09 AM
19

Good point. Drugs are appearing less malicious and harmful than this shit.
/r/MensRights02/05/18 05:13 PM
1

Hmm. troll didn't wait. Not surprised.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 01:59 AM
7

> I lost faith in Disney today. And not with the release of episode 7? Good lord man, what kind of masochist are you? (to be fair, ep 7 wasn't actually that horrible. It could have made a comeback).
/r/MensRights30/04/18 05:37 AM
1

OK. That was painful - since divorce and family court records are not publicly available this is hard to provide. A lawyer with legal access to briefs or some such would have more success. However, since you asked. Here is what is relevant: From the website: https://www.familylawhelp.ca/common-law-division/ Under the heading "Constructive Trust or Unjust Enrichment". While, as indicated, a common-law partner is not automatically entitled to equal property division or to share the family home, yo…
/r/MensRights30/04/18 04:48 AM
3

Ignoring the fact that this only applies in once province and is only applied to assets acquired during the relationship. If it happens in one province than "up to a 50/50 split" is accurate. Especially because the infographic takes pains to spell out that it varies. The article says "it doesn't mean that, except is does occasionally". One of those is much less truthful than the other. As for the "assets acquired during the relationship", that's *exactly* the same for marriage in BC. The protect…
/r/MensRights30/04/18 04:07 AM
2

If you drink 100 shots of Drambuie FTFY - and I suspect there would be a much more serious problem than date rape like death from alcohol poisoning. Obviously we agree though, I love the follow up satire and sarcasm.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:59 AM
1

First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. -- (union leader) Nicholas Klein
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:57 AM
1

I’ve said for a long time that allowing uneducated jurors is one of the biggest problems with this county. I have always wondered about the whole thing that I have read where: a juror knowing that the jury can validly come back after deliberations and tell the judge that the law is wrong is enough to get the juror removed from service I mean, it doesn't make sense to me that not knowing your rights makes you a better candidate. (alternatively, is this some BS I have come across and can someone e…
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:48 AM
1

ut I think your BF is in the wrong here. If I was to donate to lesbian couple, I would be doing it with the understanding that I was not going to be in that child's life. Everyone involved in this is in the wrong. You can't "anonymously donate" to a lesbian couple - you are still legally liable for child support regardless of whatever agreements you come up with. One of these women end up disabled or on any type of social assistance and the government will come knocking for the money and that's …
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:43 AM
1

That second item is interesting - it was my understanding that the charges were "Sex trafficing ... by coercion". That it is simply an issue that sex trafficing of children and sex trafficing by coercion are the same statute - thus the first one says "Sex trafficing *of children* **OR** by force, coercion". That being stated, the second item in the indictment cannot be read differently. It's possible, if you read more of the story there was potential recruitment of underage girls from Mexico ...
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:38 AM
2

yep. Covered in the article. Finished degree offshore, unable to get loans and has a school disciplinary record that will affect his job opportunities. Likely cost him hundreds of thousands. A civil ruling against the Title IX co-ordinator would be a good result.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:23 AM
2

interestingly enough, when the, I think, British police did a study investigating women who claimed to have been drugged they found something like 10 women that were illicitly drugged, 200 women that had recreational drugs in their system that they had willingly ingested and 9790 women who were just really fucking drunk. In other words, the worry about being drugged is vastly overhyped. The campaign should be "learn how to drink responsibly".
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:11 AM
3

It's EVE. Half of them are probably spies for other corps.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:06 AM
4

Who didn't know that kneeing someone in the balls was likely a good defensive move? The same person that didn't know that rain was made up of mostly water?
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:01 AM
4

The infographic LITERALLY says that they have the same rights as married couples up to 50/50 So does the linked article regarding the province of BC - also the infographic points out that the property rights vary by province - really, as far as I can see, both sources are saying the same thing. The misleading one is the article because it tries to downplay it (No 50/50 property rights, *cough* except BC , in other provinces you have a claims procedure) and in the case of "common law" status in O…
/r/MensRights30/04/18 02:49 AM
2

umm. Please explain further, I don't understand your position, because; The infographic has a whole paragraph at the bottom about how common law rights vary by province, so it's not propagating myth #1 Your article claims that: (as myth #2) Living together in a relationship similar to marriage may make you "common law" in most provinces, but it does nothing with regards to the division of property acquired during the relationship unless a cohabitation agreement or some other form of legal agreem…
/r/MensRights30/04/18 02:45 AM
2

While I drink socially currently, I have also had long periods of abstinence (> year). It has never been my experience that not drinking alcohol has made me unwelcome at social events that included drinking.
/r/MensRights29/04/18 03:59 PM
4

Not one mention of feminists literally and socially destroying relations between men, men-only spaces, and places where men can be men. Yeah, this was my thought. I read the first few paragraphs and it mentioned repeatedly about how men don't want to show vulnerability and that there's a stigma, but didn't mention that all the places, organizations and opportunities that men have for building trust and relationships with other men have been systematically destroyed. If we took all the women's on…
/r/MensRights29/04/18 03:55 PM
16

Just gonna latch this on but this isn't accurate also having been common law in Canada, this is more accurate than not. What particular details does this leave out?
/r/MensRights29/04/18 03:36 PM
7

best question.
/r/MensRights29/04/18 02:12 AM
4

She literally writes that she wants to pay her share by letting him "fuck her in the ass". I don't think it's "at worst a whore", I think it's very clearly, simply, "a whore".
/r/MensRights23/04/18 08:37 PM
1

Lol. Yeah. In most cases I agree with you. Women get 'victim' and men get 'responsible'. In this case... she didn't get there by herself, there was years of brainwashing. And she is responsible. It will be interesting to see if she receives a just punishment. What that is? I have no idea, I don't know how far down the rabbit hole she went, from the looks of it, pretty far.
/r/MensRights23/04/18 08:04 PM
1

poly relationships are 100% stacked in the womans favor Yeah, we completely agree here. It's a bad arrangement for most men. That's why I found it self-serving that they were starting to shame the men that were able to participate in poly relationships in a way that was advantageous to them by claiming some sort of "commitment-phobe" claptrap.
/r/MensRights23/04/18 07:59 PM
1

Worth now has a new boyfriend Who's the fucking loony that started dating her.
/r/MensRights22/04/18 02:50 AM
2

from my personal experience women eere far more likely to be the cheaters, and it always started with an emotional affair. This matches my experience as well. Actually, I will add that I have also seen the woman cheat to "test the waters" with a new guy, or to "test the waters" with the existing guy. Essentially seeing what they can get or get away with. I did want to clarify that there wasn't really any "cheating" in my story, it was a poly/open relationship. She wasn't sneaking out.
/r/MensRights22/04/18 02:45 AM
3

Because they essentially have access to a never ending selection of relationships, if one fails most of them have a bunch of orbiters around to feed them attention until they find their next Dick Dickerdown. They dont have to ever maintain a relationship because men are disposable and there is always a shiny new model around the corner she can try to shoot for. I recently saw an article that was shaming men for dating polyamorous women because the men weren't "really polyamorous" just "commitmen…
/r/MensRights22/04/18 02:25 AM
1

That is when you ghost the bitch so hard she shows up on a paranormal TV show. bahahahahahahahahaha!
/r/MensRights22/04/18 02:20 AM
1

There is an amazing amount of stupid in the article. for example, comparing an elite runner (male) who dropped out with hypothermia, to an elite runner (female) who was thinking of dropping out but the encouragement of other women kept her on track.... 'cause, yeah, a condition that is life threatening just needs a little "you go girl" to get over it.
/r/MensRights22/04/18 01:47 AM
1

these ones weren't told in advance they were going to do that until they had provided enough material to be blackmailed into it. This is the issue in this case that really justifies the use of the term "sex slave" - (some of) the women were blackmailed into it. I mean the cult itself was set up with these women calling themselves 'slave' and 'master' so the term would have come up anyways.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 08:43 PM
1

I don't think that there have been sex slaves in an organized way The sort of idea that people get from the phrase and how it actually seemed to work was much different - this was more like Charles Manson followers all slept with him and had his name carved on their bodies. In some cases though, these ones weren't told in advance they were going to do that until they had provided enough material to be blackmailed into it.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 08:06 PM
1

not just looking.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 08:04 PM
0

Of course they're already concocting the media spin that she's a victim of a the older man. well, in this case, I think she pretty clearly is a victim. The age thing is irrelevant in this issue. She obviously had some bent and broken parts that led to her joining in and harming others and there is not much that's going to get her out of her part in the whole thing.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 08:03 PM
2

This is a borderline sexual predator exploiting a young, defenseless woman We completely disagree - this is a narcissistic twit upset she had a date she didn't enjoy and found a platform to lambaste the guy for it.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 04:51 AM
1

if you put aside his semi celebrity status. That status is integral to why she wanted the date, you can't "put it aside".
/r/MensRights15/04/18 04:50 AM
3

Bat shit crazy is evident well beforehand, No, it's not. Not always.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 04:48 AM
3

yeah, let us know when she is actually expelled. I expect she faces zero actual sanction.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 07:18 PM
1

Wow.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 06:15 PM
3

who feel the same way about men charged with rape. You are right, there are plenty of feminists who feel that way. I am more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt. I am not talking about feelings though. The point I was making was that in order to charge her, the police have to have a much stronger case than the reverse. If they were to even appear to be punishing "uncorroborated reports of sexual assault" then the officers and DA in the case would all be headed to the unemployment line gi…
/r/MensRights03/04/18 02:15 AM
2

I would encourage people here not to leap to conclusions about her guilt, meh, when you consider the political climate and how much evidence the police would have to have to charge her with making a false claim, I would suspect the percentage chance of her being guilty is much, much higher than the reverse. It is still only a percentage chance though.
/r/MensRights03/04/18 02:02 AM
1

Doesn't change the answer to the question asked.
/r/MensRights27/03/18 05:28 AM
1

I think we were talking past each other here because I agree with a lot of what you said. That's plausible. women were effectively chattel - protected chattel, but chattel nonetheless. many men were in a similar situation because of economic oppression, but it's far from the same thing. In the dictionary definition chattel is: "an item of property other than real estate." You will find very little support for that claim outside of societies with actual slavery. Even within societies with actual …
/r/MensRights26/03/18 02:45 AM
2

Was the guy fired 8 years ago or recently? The op stated "I got laid off from my job May 1, 2017." It's the first sentence of the post. That you find the issue confusing is entirely because you want to find it confusing.
/r/MensRights26/03/18 02:24 AM
1

I think if the stats were done, family court is seeing a change. Slow and slight, but there. I hear a lot more stories of men getting custody or at least reasonable shared parenting. Almost unheard of 20 years ago.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 01:50 AM
1

There are discussions happening, drawing public attention, that's more than previously. There are knowledgeable scholars speaking out about facts that are brushed under the carpet, ignored and derided. That's more than previously. If things were to change, it isn't going to be all at once. Those are positive changes and awareness is necessary.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 01:46 AM
3

because when MRA's do do things, they're attacked for it And at this current point in society, being attacked for it can cost you your livelihood, your social connections and much more. It's not a simple matter.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 06:29 PM
1

that should be added to the sidebar for future reference.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 06:27 PM
1

Name one achevment the mrm has actually accomplished. I support the mrm but I know nothing will ever change CAFE in Ontario, Men's rights groups across N.A., talks by Warren Farrell and Chrisina Sommers. Really, though, I suspect you are right about not changing, but the two items are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 06:27 PM
1

I think you might have misunderstood me, but it doesn't matter - your post is right. Taking personal responsibility for yourself is always better.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 06:20 PM
2

LOL. "Thank you Mrs Perry". Yeah, imagine a male announcer "Thank god she's 18, at least". Never work again.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 11:27 PM
1

Yeah, I suspect the first part is the cost of not being thrown into the trash instead of published
/r/MensRights18/03/18 11:21 PM
7

This is closer to the truth - tons of "wouldn't trust them to take it reliably" - projection much?
/r/MensRights18/03/18 11:16 PM
3

Based on the wikipedia entry it is safe to say that MacKinnon's ideas are widely distributed especially in the legal field since: MacKinnon is the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School.[2] In 2007, she served as the Roscoe Pound Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[3] MacKinnon is a highly cited legal scholar.[4][5] She has been a visiting professor at various universities and regularly appears in public speaking events. On February 10, 2005, she…
/r/MensRights18/03/18 11:07 PM
3

In 1996, Fred R. Shapiro calculated that "Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence", 8 Signs 635 (1983), was the 96th most cited article in law reviews even though it was published in a non-legal journal.[30] From Wikipedia entry for MacKinnon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon
/r/MensRights18/03/18 11:03 PM
10

How about Catherine McKinnon, who is widely quoted and studies - who's phrase "all sex is an act of violence upon a woman by a man" is where this person got their ideas from. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon Given that she is an influential feminist, I have to disagree with you. There are a lot of people who take these ideas seriously.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 06:54 PM
3

The PiV is rape was the writing of at least one prominent feminist who is quoted and studied in Gender Studies courses. - it's a Catherine McKinnon quote "All sex is an act of violence". I am astonished at the number of people arguing "no feminist believes this, it's only this nutjob". That's clearly not true. There's a large contingent of feminists that believe this at varying degrees. Now, some of them are on the "we are oppressed so even when we say yes, it's not really yes because we are opp…
/r/MensRights18/03/18 06:51 PM
1

yeah, that was my immediate thought. Win-win.
/r/MensRights13/03/18 05:49 AM
1

Why didn't someone tell the "superintendent" that had privilege that she should give up her fucking job since she admits she didn't earn it?
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:33 PM
9

the comments are moronic cancer. I had to stop reading.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:22 PM
2

However, throughout that history, women have been unable to do many of the things men were allowed (or required) to do. Yes, men didn't have a lot of choices, but they had more choices than women. That's only an interpretation through a narrow lens - most of the "choices" you believe were available to men, weren't really. Yes, men had a variety of back breaking labour jobs, whereas women were less involved in those fields - but - most of those weren't "Choice", they were often born into those. C…
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:13 PM
11

Women are aware that human history is a history of their oppression We completely disagree - human history is a history of social and economic oppression, and while women and men were often oppressed differently, by no means was it just oppression of women. That statement is the single most fundamental mistruth in existence that justifies a ton of garbage. It's based on a lie.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:48 AM
1

The trades are reasonable options - IT is heavily skewed towards degree holders. However, society looks up to and expects it's leaders to have education and degrees. Pushing trades is pushing guys to accept lower social status overall.
/r/MensRights04/03/18 10:25 PM
1

I've never heard of ... That's a lack of data on your part. Happens all the time. Heavily documented, just go searching. Also keep in mind that nobody is perfect under the spotlight, if we held the mother in a custody case to the same standard we hold the father, kids would all be in foster care.
/r/MensRights04/03/18 09:37 PM
1

Sorry to hear that. How are you holding up?
/r/MensRights04/03/18 09:34 PM
1

Which ultimately means that it was never a 'key part of the platform'. it was a manipulation used to get what was desired and then discarded as soon as necessary.
/r/MensRights04/03/18 09:31 PM
1

So when the pedestal works in women's favour it is accepted as natural. Sure. I agree that is a very natural human reaction. Unlike many people here I also think that feminism serves a vital role as a "woman's advocacy movement". However, The idea that putting women on a pedestal denies their agency and full humanity has been a key part of feminism and So when the pedestal works in women's favour it is accepted as natural. don't go together. The women's advocacy movement doesn't ever recognize, …
/r/MensRights03/03/18 06:27 PM
3

wow. That whole article is pushing "This is good unless it happens to a woman" - it's not sane.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 01:55 AM
1

been a key part of feminism How can it be a key part of feminism if it's frequently forgotten and ignored by feminists and feminist organizations?
/r/MensRights03/03/18 01:21 AM
2

The idea that putting women on a pedestal denies their agency and full humanity has been a key part of feminism since the late 1960s at least. right up until it involves money or prison time, then it's "pedestals for all".
/r/MensRights26/02/18 08:09 AM
11

Yeah, but if they don't argue against it then they get it both ways. They get to accept and enjoy when it's wanted and they can call 'harassment' when it's not wanted. Why would anyone in that situation complain about it?
/r/MensRights22/02/18 09:24 PM
5

Also no such rule would be made to protect men, You don't say where you are, but the city I live in has a high immigrantion from asia and there are a number of guys who fetishize the immigrant asian girls. I don't see that same dynamic with women going after FOB asian guys. The sexist nature of the rule is largely irrelevant since it seems to be targeting a known behaviour. It's likely that /u/KingRobotPrince has a point with the 'take advantage of naive foreign girls' comment. Another commenter…
/r/MensRights22/02/18 09:22 PM
14

Why should violence against men be perceived as less offensive as violence against women? that's a great question.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 02:56 AM
14

showing lots of full frontal male nudity, and little if any full frontal female nudity There's lots of both. I didn't find it particularly one sided.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 02:56 AM
1

Yeah, our border guys have been going nuts since the election. Watch this news clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zabXCwvFKYg
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:26 PM
5

Well, honestly, who in the 18-35 range reads pornographic magazines at all? What percentage of the population reads these? Certainly not 13%. Unless we have decided that Sports Illustrated is pornographic, the answer rate is clearly a joke. Although, now that I am thinking about it, if we decide all male-directed media is pornographic regardless of content, then perhaps that number makes sense. It depends on what the actual question that was asked. Would 13% answer yes to "would you read 'Sports…
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:22 PM
11

I am pretty sure nobody. It was an absurd question and got appropriate respectful answers - ie, it was treated like the joke it was.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:09 PM
1

yeah, bagging peaks and conquering mountains is racist? Why?
/r/MensRights14/02/18 07:33 AM
-1

Dude, I live in Canada, don't hate on me. (joking really, other than placing the responsibility for her insecurities onto others, the write up doesn't make her that bad).
/r/MensRights14/02/18 07:32 AM
1

But if she never sought child support, she can't go back now and file for it retro-actively. this is dependent on jurisdiction. There was a case in eastern canada, iirc, that had a case that resulted in retroactive support. EDIT: seems highly unusual to date though, and if you are not rich, you are probably fine.
/r/MensRights13/02/18 01:12 AM
10

That's interesting - if I understand the article the issue is: She had sex with consenting 16 year old boys. Those boys are students of some school (the article doesn't say which school, or that they were students that she was in any way responsible for). She is a school employee, thus what she did was illegal. If she had not been a school employee, or if the kids had been dropouts, this wouldn't have been a crime, is the seeming argument. The stated law doesn't say the students have to be atten…
/r/MensRights12/02/18 09:51 PM
4

“sexing” it up for us. check comments for actual photo. Better yet, don't.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 09:44 PM
1

ok. You made me curious enough to actually google it. Turns out - they can wear shorts and t-shirts. They don't because sand has fewer places to stick to the clothing and cause chafing. (according to one athlete). Also, I guess, it's a team decision as egypt competed in long pants and long shirts.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 09:40 PM
1

So what's your theory on why they don't get to wear shorts?
/r/MensRights12/02/18 08:20 PM
1

We're talking about why I think it's wrong to write creepy buzzfeed articles Yep, but you brought up how you would feel about it. In my case, the double standard is really the only serious problem. The rest of it is going to happen whether or not the person in the image wants it to happen. if I were one of those athletes, I would really dislike it, and I believe that we should treat others with respect to how our actions might affect them I agree with you. I do however want to nitpick your state…
/r/MensRights12/02/18 08:15 PM
2

If society lives off enslaving men then let society burn. every society thus far has. It's been all we know.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 08:08 PM
1

good bot, I updated my link.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 06:13 AM
1

like why is this tagged nsfw? https://i.imgur.com/fYob2QQ.jpg
/r/MensRights12/02/18 06:07 AM
1

why is every post in that subreddit tagged nsfw when almost all of them are sfw. Many are promo shots, some are posted (not on reddit but on social media) by the athlete themselves and some are capped from broadcast. There's a handful on the first page that are questionable but only a couple that are actually nsfw.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:59 AM
10

Yea, and get this, neither does this sub. No matter how much you repeat this. You are simply wrong. CAFE in Toronto is opening a Men's Center, the attention on "A voice for men" brought about the documentary "the red pill", etc, etc, etc.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:53 AM
1

Given the uniforms, which are absurd, I agree with you. However, nobody gets to post articles of the "Top butts of volleyball" without being screamed into oblivion. I remain surprised at the volleyball uniforms though. My assumption is viewership would plummet to zero if they just let them wear shorts. So, it might be the only way to keep the sport in the olympics.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:40 AM
1

I'd feel creeped out that lecherous people- complete strangers- were lusting over me. I would suggest that you find a way to not react to what people are doing in their own mind well out of your sight. You can't control it and it has no effect on anything.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:37 AM
2

There is an argument to be made, and I don't know if this is her argument, that post was positing a hypothetical. I firmly believe that women should be equally slaves.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:29 AM
2

There is an argument to be made, and I don't know if this is her argument, that if men were liberated in the same way women are, that is, no expectation of their role in society as producers then they would operate similarly to women. Why is this bad? Women are net negative earners in society. Most women take more from society than they contribute (financially speaking). Most men contribute more than they take. If everybody takes more than they give, well, the problem is obvious. Keeping the gen…
/r/MensRights11/02/18 06:24 AM
1

Not surprised by brigading - that particular post was probably intended to be pushed to the front because the claim made "everything you see was made by men" is well-meaning but if chosen to be interpreted badly is really indefensible. Also, there have been a very large number of trolls in a lot of different threads for the last while. That would also suggest activism.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 06:15 AM
9

no. kind of like when you complain you can't find it and then your parent/significant other looks, finds it in seconds because it's right out in the open and you look like a fool. That's the point, this last minute shouldn't have been the last minute. Kid's been facing this for two years. Police didn't want to find it, or found it and ignored it.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 01:49 AM
2

With the way the abortion thing is phrased, I am not entirely sure she isn't lumping everything else in with the idea that "men's complaints are stupid", because the abortion complain is stupid and I never hear anyone say "women should have to get permission to abort". That's a gigantic red-flag. It makes the post look like it's lumping all those complaints in together and thus painting them as all equally invalid when the other complaints are significant.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 05:57 PM
1

I said your report didn't cover extreme situations. Which is true. I could cite a report of food in rural america in 1950, it doesn't apply to russia in the 1800's fuckwit. EDIT: At any rate, since the discussion has devolved into you using insults, you have no point. Goodbye and farewell. I wish you luck in your endeavours.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 05:39 PM
1

Because increased food portions for men are a consistent feature of most rural diets? And during famine + work scenarios this only becomes more pertinent. Men are your main source of work, and they have less fat reserves than women to start with. You cannot both feed them at equal rates (i.e 500male calorie defecit) and force the men to work, and expect sensible results. The men would have eaten at least a little more most of the time. That's complete supposition and unsupported with any data. Y…
/r/MensRights07/02/18 07:42 AM
1

good, but annoying, bot.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:52 AM
1

And you consistently find all kinds of situations where men are more likely to die, Since there are studies showing women more likely to die from burn related trauma, consistently may be true or may not. I am not familiar with enough literature to know. And it seems very strange that there are categories that each sex survives. i googled severe tissue trauma and found a chinese study but it only makes that claim for blunt force. Anyway, yeah, I agree it's likely that there is a biological advant…
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:51 AM
2

nd in return received 250 extra calories of food, Sure, but that's a very specious assumption. Why are you assuming he gained any food at all? Why not assume that there are 800 total calories of food and they are split equally and he has to do 500 calories of work? I mean, we are both making this up whole cloth (exactly like the researchers are in the case of the potato famine, for example) so why not that story? We also haven't looked at the breakdown of the data at all. Increased infant mortal…
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:39 AM
6

Because it doesn't work to get more business. As I said, if it works, she should do it.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:23 AM
2

thanks.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:09 AM
2

After all men do need more calories, so you'd kind of imagine they'd get at least slightly larger portions, especially if they worked. Or perhaps, not getting more calories, despite working explains more of the discrepancy. Since someone needs to work, perhaps survival is more likely if you are allowed to lay still and conserve energy and then eat an equal portion as the provider. Perhaps men's own desire for fairness kills them rather than any 'biological strength or weakness'.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:07 AM
2

A causal interpretation would be misguided if it were mutually exclusive. This is not, it fully allows and expects for the role of the environment Seems to me saying "women are biologically stronger and more likely to survive" is implying that they survive primarily because they are biologically stronger. While that may be the case, the data quoted also supports men starving themselves in order to help the women they value and the women valuing themselves and their female children over the males…
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:04 AM
2

So what? If it works to get business, she should do it. (If it's true, I am a little old-fashioned that way. I don't think you should lie. )
/r/MensRights06/02/18 01:54 AM
1

As an aside, I read through your linked study and didn't see any reference to male vs female foetus outcomes. While I find your statement about outcomes very plausible, I seem to have missed it in the study.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 01:51 AM
2

but speaking as an actual academic they're really not full of shit. The results may be accuration, the interpretation is heavily suspect. Their examples frequently include famine and their basis for "women stronger", is that women have a, let's say, 2 year longer average. What if we hypothesized that this was because of humanity's biological preference towards women? And women's biological preference towards women? As an example interpretation, if we say that essentially women are inherently sel…
/r/MensRights06/02/18 01:45 AM
3

It's good that the Uni is paying for this... but it seems like the law firms are getting compensated but the student that had to put up with this bs is getting ? zip?
/r/MensRights06/02/18 01:32 AM
3

I assume you have evidence she was cheating while she was manipulating you into selling your financial interest in the property? Sounds like she was planning this for a long while and covering her bases to leave you with nothing. I think this is the correct read. You have been involved in a long-con. She was willing to make you think she would 'work on it' with you in order to remove assets from you and build her position. Consider her a very expensive prostitute. If you cave and give in to her …
/r/MensRights06/02/18 01:23 AM
1

Interesting. I was extrapolating from the general shaming of niceguys to what I expected that sub to be. I hadn't done more than a cursory glance at the sub. So, I looked at the posts you indicated. Why did you go to the 'top' list rather than just link examples from the normal opening page? I think I will address that later. Post 1 - restaurant Did you read the part in my post where I said "So, they, understandably, get frustrated and angry from non-stop rejection" That what this post sounds a …
/r/MensRights03/02/18 08:07 PM
2

If fathers don't have equal parenting rights, it's not women's fault. It's not even that one women's fault for taking advantage. I don't expect reasonable people to give up advantage in a custody dispute just for the sake of equality. It would be noble if they renounced their advantages, but I understand why they don't. that is a great comment. Men would use the system to their advantage if it was slanted their way too. It's human behaviour.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:57 AM
4

It's a fear of what the state will allow women to do. Absolutely - this is the problem. Not that women are human and will do bad things, or act horribly in a moment of suffering. That the state allows, and assists them to do the bad things and doesn't correct them.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:55 AM
1

but the truth is that I just want everything to be fair for everyone. I'm naive like that. Most of the western world has that same belief. MRA's, feminists and SJW's alike. So, yes, I don't like that women's health problems aren't taken as seriously by doctors. I don't believe this is true, do you have any supporting literature? The rest of your position... interesting.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:51 AM
5

I believe you are referring to one very isolated case in Canada Since I am in Canada, that case is relevant. As for the 'very isolated', that is a subjective view and doesn't make your position stronger. There have been article in the US about creating laws around contraception fraud. The reason it hasn't got more play is that the greater number of conception fraudsters are women and it's only recently that the courts have become more favourable to laws that penalize men and not women for the sa…
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:43 AM
3

Hmm. I see that we have discussed from a very different definition of 'deal with'. So, yeah, if I interpret what you said initially in line with your continued stance, I agree with you.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:36 AM
2

I'm imagining techno monasteries in the future, where men can live well together enjoying shared resources and freedom from drama. oooh. Interesting idea.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:30 AM
13

Incorrect not entirely. If a man uses a condom that he damaged to reduce it's effective, that has been ruled to be rape. If a man slips out of a condom intentionally, that is very similar.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:25 AM
5

Sure. We don't have any evidence suggesting that boys are never frightened though, and we have good reason to believe the opposite is true. There is also zero effect at the moment from just accepting the comment. You are still trying to make this about rape when it's about you comparing something serious to something trivial. At any rate, you have proven your trollishness in your other comment. Please enjoy your chosen entertainment without me.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:19 AM
6

All MRA's are trolls. lol. Good one. Got me there.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:17 AM
6

spends no time focusing on how good women might be able to handle it and make it a nonissue. that might be true. But of the number of men who have lost their careers in the last 6 months, you believe none of them were 'strong'? if so, you're a fool. Feminism turns females into helpless bitches promotes victim politics and victim identification for women, no question. true. also irrelevant to the topic. That very victim complex gives them the tools to completely destroy your life. You just haven'…
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:15 AM
12

is a sub about pointing out how guys feel they deserve sex because they are nice. while that view has some truth, there is equal or greater truth in the view that the sub shames men who act the way they are taught to act around women, which is 'be a doormat, curry favour, etc' - or as your mother probably phrased it "be respectful, do stuff for a girl you're interested in, bring flowers, stand up straight" (at least there is one piece of good advice in there). Men act this way, get negative resu…
/r/MensRights03/02/18 03:03 AM
2

To the extent this anecdote is accurate, and to the extent #MeToo and the like continues, we're going to raise a generation of /r/niceguys. that's been true for at least 3 generations now.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 02:53 AM
2

they don't have the tools to deal with a strong man they have plenty of tools. You have just been lucky enough to not run into one who you've pissed off enough to use them.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 02:52 AM
7

a woman getting raped pops up, you all question That's not really true. However, the more important the claim, the more important that it be verified. we have a lot of statistical evidence that false rape is more prevalent than society believes. An accusation (not charges, not proven, just "she said so") of sexual assault (not even rape) has cost many men their jobs at this point, regardless of truth. You are comparing that to us believing that someone told him "a boy felt frightened"? fuck off …
/r/MensRights03/02/18 02:47 AM
2

In both cases consent is assumed based on an aroused sexual organ. sarcasm dude - we already know, "you were wet so it wasn't rape" is absurd. Doubles standard - not that I necessarily think it was a particularly good example but your acting dense is bordering on trolling. I just thought I would chime in as you might have actually missed it based on his phrasing.
/r/MensRights02/02/18 01:03 AM
3

lol. You didn't say anything about feminism, you said there were some nutso feminist groups. She had her mind made up long before she sent you the first message.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 05:44 AM
16

Most were actually just cutters, Actually, maybe somebody that has reviewed the statistics can speak to this - Someone commented in one of the threads about suicide that the count of women's "attempts" was counting self-harm and included things like using a razor blade to cut scratches in their thighs - things that would never be life threatening.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 05:41 AM
22

in theory, yes. In practice, maybe, but probably not. Resigning is the option you're given to make it look like you decided to do something different. Usually however, everyone understands it's a polite fiction.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 05:36 AM
1

I meant 'universally' in that all a-list actors are attractive, not that a given actor is attractive to everyone. A persons particular opinion of any given one, of course, is subjective, different people like different things. I, for one, have no understanding of why friends used to rave about Jennifer Aniston, just didn't work for me.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 05:30 AM
57

That kid is 6 and doesn't give a rat's ass. Unless the parents fear-mongered for the months beforehand and then when he was elected had to explain to the kid that his friends weren't really all going to be killed.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 07:26 PM
2

despite the poor reception of this comment. I don't actually think you're wrong. You have phrased this in the most offensive way you could and I think you are probably horrible to be around at parties, but not really wrong.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 07:25 PM
12

Do you really think that was their idea of making it, by sleeping to the top? 'Using Objectification' and 'sleeping to the top' are not synonymous. You have created your own imaginary argument. Both male and female actors use objectification to rise to the top. Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt - both just as much about their looks as their skills. You can say the same about almost all successful a-listers. Your opinion of their skills can vary dramatically, but they are universally attractive.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 07:20 PM
3

some research that suggested human memory was quite different Yes, there was some research done that claimed something like "every time you remember something you alter it based on your current perceptions". You could claim that your past is a story you are writing from what you believe reality to be now, not what it actually was. A big issue for 'remembered abuses' in my opinion. I have seen somebody completely swap their interpretation of an event based on how they perceived the relationships …
/r/MensRights30/01/18 07:18 AM
6

it's funny what you remember as important. I went to watch Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon (I think) with my son about 10 years ago. I remembered it as a martial arts action flick that I saw around when I was barely a teenager. Middle of the movie there's a whole bunch of nudity and I am sitting there going "oh crap, I didn't remember any of this being in this movie!"
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:39 AM
3

I think this is a cut and paste, not original content, but it's hard to tell since it's basically unreadable due to size. If it's cut and paste, then it's just bandwagonning. The amount of stupid in this particular bandwagon is pretty amazing though, it might be wisest to avoid anyone who exhibits this level of hate and blaming. regardless, if you have to ask, you already know.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 12:31 AM
1

Interesting article. I think the author hits upon a real element near the end but then breezes right by it. The 'dimorphic' thing - women and men are different physically. However, current western behaviour in attempting to make the world somehow completely 'fair' is working hard to create the delusional idea that biological differences don't exist. If we could believe that, then the thought experiments he proposes wouldn't be distasteful. But we know that isn't true. If you accept biological di…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 11:22 PM
5

Wants to? You haven't been paying attention, it already has.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 11:01 PM
1

You can cover pre-marital assets however, and other things related to child rearing. But those things end up still exposed once a child is in the picture. Pre-marital home? Child needs a place to live. Existing investments? - child needs to maintain standard of living A pre-nup is almost worthless. Any woman can claim coercion (he sprang this on me saying he wouldn't propose if I didn't agree. I had no choice in order to keep the relationship. etc, etc) and have a sporting chance (probably great…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 07:09 PM
2

Do you think giving one person If you have only heard "times up" once in the last 24 hours, you are hiding from life. This criticism has to be taken in light of the incredibly loud platform that is social media. There is no silencing to protest against. Tons of famous people have used their status to support the message. It's grandstanding for no reason other than self gratification.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 06:32 PM
1

Not really. Since the child support is for the child, and the child wasn't a party to any agreement, the courts have so much latitude that it's irrelevant.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 06:22 PM
2

Do this and it’s pretty iron-clad. Once you have children it's out the window.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 08:46 AM
38

The comments in the thread are pretty good - seems to immediately point out the wife is being abusive.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:42 AM
2

I haven't read it but I am also assuming they aren't looking at the advent of driverless vehicles as 'automation'?
/r/MensRights25/01/18 07:00 PM
3

Yeah, it's not even plea deals. The criminal charges were stayed. Even though there was a 3rd party eyewitness to the sexual aspect. Weird.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 08:09 AM
4

OK. well, I read a few articles on the blog. It appears to be fetish fiction. I am still not believing any of it is real. If you believe it's real then it should be forwarded to the authorities as documentation of child abuse.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 07:17 AM
10

Well, that would explain how they have so many pics. It's still a weird fetish thing, the comments about their panties, etc, - it's a sex fetish thing. At least, that is what it appears to be to me. I should have mentioned that the reason I brought up the comments, was because one of the commentors was linking to a location to buy non-prescription male hormone blockers. SO, if it isn't just completely bullshit, then it is very serious abuse.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 07:10 AM
1

That's a good read. I agree that was likely the intent. I think they blew it though, it's not obvious. It should be, I suppose, but it's not.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 06:37 AM
9

Clicked on one of the pics and read the comments: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133827690@N07/33808085004/ if there is any truth to this - it's serious abuse. I think it's more likely to be some weirdo's fetish than real though.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 06:35 AM
1

Yet, they were released later on by the group? I don't think so. The school raids were done multiple times. This reference to girls being released was from an attack prior to the kidnapping.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:50 PM
1

name checks out. lol
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:42 PM
2

Has anyone had any positive experiences with feminists about these sorts of things? Just need my faith restored a little. You will find positive experiences, in general, with many women in casual conversation. Those that are specifically identifying as feminist are engaging in debate and are going to cling to ideology for a variety of reasons. If you need faith restored, then consider that the majority of people just want life to be as fair as possible for everybody.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:01 PM
1

We can quibble over what "mistreatment" means Any action, or inaction, will always affect another. Quibbling over 'mistreatment' is the central point. You are painting this as ill will towards a group to imply that those that take precautions are acting purposefully to injure others. That's dishonest.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:44 PM
3

I don't believe that We disagree, but ok. I think a better example Again we disagree, but ok.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:41 PM
6

Are you suggesting that damage does not occur Where did anybody claim that there would be no damage? EDIT: as a follow up question. Of the damage that occurs, why are you choosing to lay it at the feet of those protecting themselves rather than those who made it necessary for such protections? I can buy unintended casualties, though it seems like the casualties are fully expected here. You don't believe casualties can be unintended but expected? mistreatment can and likely will occur to a group …
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:23 PM
9

group mistreatment Yeah, they do, because even though large numbers of women are likely to be affected, it not "mistreatment". There's no ill intent and it's not targeted at women. It's people, mostly men, protecting themselves from career and life ending situations. It has nothing to do with harming women at all, even though that might be a result. It's like saying that the intent in fighting in world war 2 was to harm innocent european citizens. A lot of innocent european citizens were unavoid…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:01 PM
12

No. That's not the point though. You are equating the non-feminist women who are harmed with this as ill intent. You asked if the majority of non-feminist women are acceptable casualties. I would posit that they are unavoidable casualties. You could argue whether or not the current environment is caused by "feminism". That might or might not be true. I would actually say that even though it could be claimed that feminism created the environment for the current situation, it's exploitation is fro…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:49 PM
25

Because this isn't "majority of women ... acceptable casualties". That is framing the issue as one that is punishing women. That isn't what's happening at all. It's a fundamentally dishonest view and it's stated as a trap. If I need to have a job for my family to eat and be housed, not taking risks with that job isn't "punishing others", it's protecting myself and my family. (which likely includes the women in the family).
/r/MensRights22/01/18 04:28 PM
17

Yes. Or more to the point, since you have twisted the issue: Men are not required to be casualties because there is some idea that 'it would be more fair' if men took the risks of ending their careers by having closed door meetings and intimate lunches with female subordinates.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 04:22 PM
1

Yeah, I don't think you read that carefully enough - she wants to ditch rape as a crime and replace it with a law about sexual consent, with the intent to make it easier to get convictions for 'violating consent'. Her rant includes stating that the bar for rape convictions is too high - this isn't 'do away with rape', it's 'do an end run around due process' by creating a law where the accused has to prove he had consent, since the accuser only has to say 'no, he didn't'.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 04:10 PM
1

feeling not reality. get with the progrom.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:35 AM
2

OK. I will take you at your word here: from this Article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates Is this excerpt there are references to studies made of this topic: Today, Are Women Asking Men Out on First Dates? No. One might think that after decades of increasing equality between the sexes, women might be doing more of the asking. To see if this is the case, I recently conducted a study, along with two of my students, …
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:24 AM
11

This tends to support my belief that we have gone too sedentary as a society and what we put young people through, especially young males, as physical education is school has become so light as to be irrelevant. If these youth were physically challenged, hard, on a daily basis and the parents and teachers didn't go "oh no, they can't do that", we would see a massive decrease in the prevalence of add/adhd. I compare what my kids did for high school pe vs what I did, and there is no equivalence. I…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 12:36 AM
1

change - sure. Exceptions exist? Yes. More so now than before. You were saying "yeah, that's a better approach and removes gender" - no it doesn't, not until the change has already happened. Statistics dude, my statement is not baseless in any way. Your anecdotes do not change the overall social environment.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 11:53 PM
3

It's depressing when people on Reddit can't pick up on nuance or sarcasm FTA: And I genuinely find this hard to write, because I’m not in the slightest self-loathing, and most of my heroes are men. You know, I speak fluent sarcasm. And I don't think there is anywhere near as much sarcasm in that article as you do. If it's satire, he missed by miles. It doesn't stand up as satire or sarcasm.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 07:41 PM
3

lol. what's the old story - the chinese general gets bogged down in the pass and won't make it to his position in time. Asks his advisor "what's the penalty for being late?" "Death" is the reply. "What's the penalty for attempting to overthrow the emperor?", "Death" is the reply. "Well, let's try for a coup today". If they are already going to treat you in the worst possible fashion, there is no reason to consider the punishment in your decisions at all.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 08:29 AM
3

I'm starting to think ... Ya know, it's a sad truth that usually problems exist on both sides of the fence in a nasty relationship. And not just "one is insecure and the other took advantage" which is usually true, but conversely there is usually bullshit flowing the other direction as well.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 08:18 AM
26

whoever suggests the date pays the bill, That only works in a world where men aren't expected to do all the asking. A man who doesn't ask, doesn't get asked. Your approach is the same (almost) as saying "men pay".
/r/MensRights18/01/18 08:10 AM
2

omfg, who let that moron near a typewriter? Let alone published it.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 07:59 AM
40

So her treatment then and now is completely unheard of for men. This is a post for /r/pussypass
/r/MensRights18/01/18 12:14 AM
7

End recording, end retention, end disclosure. Essentially for a sex crime. Women deserve to rebuild their lives. What about men who commit sex crimes? Should they get to rebuild their lives too? I don't understand in the slightest how this model of law applied to prostitution makes any sense. I mean, legalize it, sure. We can recognize that it's a victimless (at the transaction side) crime to exchange money for services, even sexual. But to criminalize the buying - that's just moronic and I can'…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 08:22 PM
2

FTA: There has been a harder push to punish men for the slightest impropriety against women than there has ever been to punish priests we know systematically raped children. Great line.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 07:24 PM
6

I'm pretty much going to have to find a way to make it work because she has no other options Make it work because it's in your best interest. Her options are irrelevant. There are a couple of ways to play this depending on your goals. If the kid is the most important thing, then ignore the money and hardship side, you're getting what you want because she's incompetent. That's in your best interest. Keep detailed records, time, dates, activities. Photos (daily with a newspaper?). Keep amassing pr…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 04:22 PM
1

agggh. Cues - clue, hints, etc (also billiards stick) Queues - line ups. aaaaghhh. word wrong. don't the english. gah! <clears throat> You appear to have used a homonym in your title that doesn't mean what you intended to say.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 03:55 AM
2

Yeah, it's easy to be an expert knowing the context and having all the information from hindsight. There is no way for you, or anyone else, to tell if that individual is 14 or 24 from that picture. You can say, she's likely under 30? and still might be wrong.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 03:50 AM
10

Having known very talented women, this comment is ridiculous. The parent comment may have a statistical point, but not an individual one.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 03:39 AM
3

In that thread, I found the lady who is imagining herself being followed by cars every time she goes jogging to be the most insane post.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 03:28 AM
2

upvote for great humor!
/r/MensRights15/01/18 06:49 AM
9

Interesting. What would happen if guys started making a list of gold-diggers, psycho drama queens and bpd women to protect other guys who might encounter them professionally or romantically? DO you think that would fly at all? I mean, it's not a bad idea. Oh, wait, yes, yes it is a bad idea!
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:56 PM
1

then click on the highlighted hyperlinks that direct you to the email she sent the guy? and from that hyperlink: "Do you remember how you acted like you loved me and cared about me in order for me to cooperate in such acts," Co-operate I'll buy that it's a violation of authority. Like a teacher-student - although 22<->17 is pretty close in age, there aren't a lot of 22 year old teachers. Consent isn't the issue here though. It's authority.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 05:34 PM
1

Directly quoted from the article: "Writing on a website about cases of sexual abuse, Ms. Woodson recounted that night in 1998 and how, she said, he asked her to unbutton her shirt so he could touch her chest." I'll take you home, he misses the turn, she asks and then tells her he has a surprise and then whips out his dick and tells her to suck it. Unless you are reading from another source, this is completely in your own imagination. There is nothing that indicates (in the linked article) that s…
/r/MensRights13/01/18 03:47 PM
0

I never saw in the article where she said yes or no. the article doesn't mention the oral sex except in passing. It does say he asked her to unbutton her shirt, so it would seem that she was a willing participant. You don't read gud.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 08:24 PM
1

whether or not in lines up with the flow of the companies goals. Yes, the skill, supply and demand affect the wage. So does alignment. Sales people get paid more because they are aligned well with the companies goals. Service people in profit centers get higher wages than an internal group for the same skill sets. Alignment matters. If you can make the company more money, you get paid more. Companies are NEVER protected by unionization. true. and irrelevant. Not at all. Yes. WIthin the scenario …
/r/MensRights08/01/18 09:17 PM
1

hmm. How to answer this? It's a really complicated topic. If the labour of some positions, like Janitor, that doesn't directly flow in line with the goals of the company and thus could be said to "not be of much worth" to the company was protected by unionization. That creates a floor from which other positions are paid. This means that you would have received even greater rewards from having the opportunity and making the choices to have an in-demand skill set. Which would imply that your wages…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 08:13 PM
2

Well, if it were only used in the cases of the type they use for examples, then that might be a good idea. However, since it will be used against every schmuck stuck in a child custody case and accused on violence or inappropriate behaviour, I am thinking, no. EDIT: and what's this "women" shit - psychopathic women with history could just as easily be included here to protect guys.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:53 PM
1

True. However, I wonder about the situation where the woman encouraged it, and maybe even actively pursued it, to get the role, but views it in retrospect of "I thought I had to". There were a number of stories in the media about women who didn't sleep with Weinstein and got the job anyways, so, how do you tell the difference between someone who was exploited by the person with the power, and those who exploited themselves out of fear of not getting the role, which is not really exploitation?
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:39 PM
5

Yep. That complaint about unions is valid. However, when you have all the employee market competing with one another, there is no reason to pay fair wages either. So, which way would you like to be screwed today?
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:33 PM
5

So she earned £10.5M in bonuses alone during their marriage most examples I have seen would have resulted in being awarded at least $5M because that is half of what was earned and the partner was doing the "emotional labour" to allow them to earn that. To only be awarded $3M and then have it reduced to $2M on appeal is completely not what would happen if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:31 PM
4

Surely all guilty pleas using the plea bargain system are coerced? This. The article is right to say that the system has too much leverage in most cases. The innocent will plead guilty because they can't afford, or can't risk, a trial.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 08:09 PM
3

That might not be unreasonable. To try to prove innocence after a guilty plea and many years; it might be reasonable to have it be as high or higher a bar to the conviction.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 08:08 PM
2

It's also interesting in that women often complain about 'objectification' but this writer's only concern or belief of the point of the relationship with a man is the man's 'performance'. Projection perhaps? I am slowly beginning to believe that the gender that does most of the 'objectification' is women.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 06:19 AM
1

Truth is irrelevant. It's all in how you spin it.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 06:16 AM
2

if I believed in giving Reddit money, that would get gold. (but I don't).
/r/MensRights07/01/18 06:12 AM
1

So?
/r/MensRights07/01/18 05:50 AM
2

It seems more likely that the final objective is that women get paid equally to men. (While doing less work, in less risky jobs, with greater flexibility, with more benefits, etc). Which you could say is 'getting paid more than men' but the actual dollar amount crossing the table will appear 'equal'.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 12:11 AM
2

we agree.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 11:33 PM
3

the validity of this case is the severity of the bruising. I wouldn't hold that too strongly. I had an ex that would bruise exceptionally easily. She could lightly bump a table walking through a cafeteria and a day later you would think she took a whack from a golf club. Black center, blue patterning and red lines. It was actually quite unnerving with a lot of our interaction, because I also have a strong grip and would easily leave fingertip bruising without even closing my grasp. This is reall…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 10:13 PM
4

Wow. That's a really good troll. Well done 10/10.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 10:05 PM
1

Despite Bill Clinton's opinion, I would class a bj as sexual intercourse. Although, admittedly one that should have 0% chance of conception. in this example, I believe the adult victim had sex with the perpetrator's roommate and disposed of the condom in a shared bathroom trashcan hadn't heard that one. Thanks.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 10:02 PM
1

Yes, there are liability issues. But let's keep in mind that the law goes overboard to protect people from liability because it has to cover all cases. I mean, having them in the garage, like he initially did, didn't have the liability problems of the basement, they were in the basement to be classed as a sleepover. I personally think you are looking at this incorrectly. If everyone did this, some percentage are going to have a house fire and (for example) 10 people will die from the conditions …
/r/MensRights06/01/18 10:00 PM
2

We disagree about the bot. I am curious how it decided to peg your post though. On the other hand, your argument seems pretty solid to me. Including pointing out that the other poster is already biased by perceiving the exchange of services for money as 'exploitation'.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 01:15 AM
-2

explain?
/r/MensRights05/01/18 12:48 AM
4

I assume that the previous poster was referring to Noonan, the "consultant" that was supposed to make the college look like it was hands-off on the investigation. Perhaps the title ix person, Means, as well since she clearly tainted all proceedings of the review panel because they were clearly simple proxies of her decision making.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 12:26 AM
6

Shitty that there's no alternatives but that's a different story altogether. no, it's not a different story. Yeah, in a perfect world, all those ordinances would be obeyed. This isn't a perfect world and a makeshift regulation is poor substitute for actual caring about other people.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 11:59 PM
10

--that is, they're doing well on tests but poorly in whatever else makes up the grade. Which is likely...homework. That's possibly true, but you are making assumptions that the homework is graded equally. Which is the basis of other studies claiming that boys get lesser grades for the same work. Without the data from the study, your assumption is pretty specious. You might think, in math, that would be a plausible conclusion - but the article covers a lot more than math. As regards math though, …
/r/MensRights29/12/17 03:29 AM
1

ah. Fair. Although, I think the poster is pushing a narrative that needs to be loudly rejected. It's leading to people, often women, being seriously misinformed as to when their responsibility ends.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 05:51 AM
3

well the poster isn't wrong, it IS rape. in most places, I believe 'drunk' is insufficient. You can still consent while drunk you have to be incompetent to make decisions or some such.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 05:27 AM
0

There is a huge scandal in the UK unfolding as we speak of cops with-holding evidence to ensure innocent men charged with rape are convicted. This is pretty common behaviour for the police in every crime - their job is to get convictions, not find the truth.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 05:04 AM
-7

I'm not commenting on any sort of vigilante witch hunt (mostly because I think thats ridiculous and unrelated), Yeah, let's not comment on the effects of #metoo while commenting on #metoo. Your logic is ... non-existent. I get your point, but the action, the intent and the effect are inseparable.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 05:01 AM
8

Yeah, her level of indoctrination is so deep she can't even question it or see her own contradictions. Like "Despite women getting more degrees than men in college, they don't get as many in engineering" as some sort of rebuttal that women aren't supported to go to college more" - it's insane.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 03:30 AM
10

No, there's a fallacy in the statement that is important. I don't know exactly how to phrase it but this piece: .. attempt more than once ... If women chose more deadly methods than the rates of attempts and successes would be closer. I can't put my finger on how to express exactly what's wrong with this - but it's something like this: If women's attempts being higher is simply that they try more than once before killing themselves, then we would see a similar death rate with more attempts. That…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 06:54 PM
5

As comedy goes, that's pretty good.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 02:43 AM
3

Innocence project has tons: https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/william-barnhouse/ Sentenced to 80. Served 25 . But you may claim that those weren't "made up stories" so: https://www.newyorker.com/sections/news/why-has-daryl-kelly-been-imprisoned-for-the-last-twenty-years-for-a-crime-that-likely-never-happened Brian Banks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149462/Brian-Banks-One-time-football-star-rape-charge-dismissed-years-prison-accuser-contacts-Facebook-say-happened.html While he o…
/r/MensRights15/12/17 04:10 PM
3

I think this might be an appropriate thing. It's an interesting idea.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 07:58 AM
15

Nobody in their right mind can seriously think that 32 years inside of a cell is an appropriate response to someone who made up a story. However there are men who have spent 32 years or more in prison for that same sort of made up story. Her story could have taken that much time from up to 3 people. So, what is appropriate? Why is 32 years an appropriate sentence for the crime but not for a false accusation that could take away that much time for each of the accused? Now the other thing is, focu…
/r/MensRights15/12/17 07:57 AM
5

jumped into this thread to say exactly what you did. They are probably including boys that are explicitly targeted as enemy combatants to inflate the figure to reach that 25%.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 02:10 AM
2

But you agree that I'm arguing for a rational justice system? Yes, the protections have gone way overboard. but in no way is this woman a pedophile. You are completely correct. However, the distinction has been completely lost in this current environment of moral hysteria.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 01:56 AM
6

not due to feminists, but from lack of funding. Yeah, see, here's the problem. All the public funding from the government goes to women's shelters. So, men's shelters (The very, very few that exist) have to constantly fundraise. That's a tough road, it throws them in with boys scouts, girl guides and kids sports teams in competing for the money. So, it might not be directly "because of feminists" but there is definitely a lobby in the government opposing diverting any funds to men's shelters. It…
/r/MensRights15/12/17 01:51 AM
3

I agree with you, but we shouldn't argue she deserves jail too. We should argue the male teacher deserves probation like she will most likely receive. Except in this world of increasing protections for women and children that result will be the same as pissing into the wind. All you get is splattered. People with this approach will be caricatured as wanting to go lenient on pedophiles and child rapists. You won't be characterized as wanting a sane and just legal system. Until it starts actually …
/r/MensRights15/12/17 01:32 AM
1

That's an astonishingly good response.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:48 PM
2

You think it goes from legal to 'child rape' because she's a teacher? yup. in most places the position of authority changes it from sex to statutory rape. Otherwise she wouldn't be in court at all.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:48 PM
15

I generally agree with you. With one exception. I don't care what the rule is but the gender of the perpetrator can't affect the result. Now, this is a crime, generally, because a teacher is in a position of authority and trust. A 23 yo Male teacher banging a 16 yo and a 17 yo girl, isn't likely to be rape either. But he is going to jail. The same result should occur for the female teacher. Equal treatment under the law. That's all.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:45 PM
9

Put some stock in women run goverments and watch all of these problems shift and change. Your naivete of human psychology is quite high. Go read studies about gender based in-group vs out-group preferences. Women leaders will help men not at all. It might make it worse, but at best it will maintain the status quo.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:32 PM
6

In practice, we see this in the way men are told to "man up." So, toxic masculinity is what women do to men? That would make sense, why aren't we fixing that?
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:29 PM
14

No. I think this is a result of women being expected or assumed to be the better nurturer and parent and the expectation that they should care for the kids solely. You might think that's the case, but you would be wrong. Feminists were the source of the 'tender years doctrine' that the courts used to assign children to the mother. This was a reversal of previous policy that assigned them to the father. This sub and many in it have actively campaigned for and supported various father's rights gro…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:26 PM
9

You guys can't pretend like this post isn't a symptom of absolutely toxic masculinity, No, it's not toxic masculinity, it's complete disregard for men, something feminism has promoted repeatedly and endlessly. Ref - "Male tears" mugs. one thing feminism is working diligently to erase. SO, what actual efforts of feminism can you point to that would be considered as addressing his issues?
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:19 PM
4

I think the same thing is happening now with masculine behavior. Or at least it could happen if we fight for it. That's an interesting point of view and only time will tell whether it's true or not. I think there is a strong counter argument that men are less selective about women than women are about men and that the changes you are suggesting are much more difficult than the ones obtained for women. You might be right though, we shall see.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:15 PM
1

that's fair. I can understand the low-cost/low-effort hate approach.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 05:26 PM
3

I have read a great deal more than just a 'tiny bit of the facts' on this stuff. There might be something to the "fields women enter experience lower earnings over time", that's interesting. Or, it might be complete bunk, like most of the pay gap claims. And that's where the problem lies, there has been so much propagandist lies by biased 'social science' that really, it becomes very difficult because every claim has to be completely dissected, because so much of the research has been dishonest …
/r/MensRights14/12/17 09:06 AM
1

but that doesn't excuse the contempt Frequently, but not always, it's a lower status position, often equivalent to unskilled labour. I don't think there is any contempt for it. Certainly no more than for construction labourers. Please explain where you found 'contempt'?
/r/MensRights14/12/17 08:45 AM
1

Technically, it's called "Early Childhood Education", but yes.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:49 AM
5

relatively low paying jobs too a bunch of those jobs aren't low paying, they are 'low status', which I think is important to note. Why? Because I have seen rhetoric that it's not a problem that boys aren't attending University because they can go into trades. In fact, it's probably economically better for them to go into trades (likely true statement too) - however, our society is run by University educated people. Politicians, corporate leaders, etc, usually have university educations. Saying t…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:44 AM
12

There is actually nothing wrong with this. Most of us agree with you. There is something wrong with demanding to have equal numbers at the top though, if there is a large percentage that doesn't pursue it. There is something wrong with claiming that there is a sexist pay difference in income over it. There is something wrong with claiming that it's men's fault. That's what the problem is.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:31 AM
1

still Caroline Nokes MP is getting away ..... That was pretty much my take-away. A ton of pain, difficulty and trials for the person who was attempting to get justice and the person who should have been accountable to the police is .... not mentioned anymore. Strategy works perfectly.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 08:35 PM
24

However, something might be up with dad too; they placed the child in foster care over awarding him custody. Yeah, you can find lots of stories about this sort of thing - what's likely up with the Dad is that a judge cut his visitation off "because he didn't believe the child was dying" - CPS in that case isn't going to restore the child to a father that had no visitation. The Dad's problem here is in actually trying to protect his son in a sick, biased system with no accountability against a me…
/r/MensRights13/12/17 08:15 PM
1

Get out ahead of it! Just hate everyone!
/r/MensRights13/12/17 07:53 PM
0

knowing i will probably partake in at least a couple hookups. So... don't. Actually, speak to a therapist too.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 06:31 AM
17

I agree with you. You dissented, you didn't say it wasn't worthy of discussion, nor did you say it was invalid. You did say, essentially, you thought it was stupid. I agree with that too. Tone policing is not what you did, but what the person accusing you did.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 06:13 AM
5

Claims that domestic and family violence are a leading cause of death are usually just outright lies - compare the number of deaths to auto accidents, they are usually a far second.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 03:47 AM
12

Men and women don't work at equal rates - many studies show that men work at paid employment more hours per week than women. Much like the 'childcare time' in the infographic - studies also show that men and women have about a 15 minute difference in leisure time - so that time that the woman is 'doing childcare' the man is doing ... yard work, home maintenance, errands... I am assuming you are in Australia, so tell me, how likely is it for the average Australian man to be able to tell his wife …
/r/MensRights11/12/17 03:45 AM
2

I think society should pursue this as a health option. Realizing that parents lie and it is in the child's and society's (insurance companies) best interests to have an accurate genetic history. Mandatory DNA confirmation of parentage at birth is the way to get to this - with the main benefit being the child knowing their accurate genetic history.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 11:44 PM
2

You can get by on porn, videogames, cheap whiskey and internet forums, but it's a rather sad existence. Buy better whiskey.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 10:31 PM
2

well, that escalated quickly.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 07:45 PM
3

adoptions an accepted legal procedure. A couple of people saying 'nah, we won't hold you responsible', isn't. I don't even begin to understand the people that play 'sperm donor' in this manner, they are absolutely moronic to believe that "we agreed" is useful at all.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 07:27 PM
3

John Oliver writes comedy - most of it is filled without wildly overstated untruths and tons of garbage. I went over one episode with a friend from a while back and pointed out all the untruths and still heard "No, that's all true" - frustrating as hell, my friend isn't dumb, he just wanted to believe in his beliefs and even things that were clearly lies were just 'ok'.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:49 AM
1

My bet, from the sounds of that, is that she doesn't remember you or the conversations that you said you had in the past. Her response (other than the male bit, which is clearly just that she is batshit insane - lucky pass for you) seems to indicate that she thought that was a totally cold approach (ie - cold in the sales sense, she hadn't met you, didn't know you and this seemed like the first contact). A creative with some amount of forward motion is going to be understandably put off if someo…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:40 AM
43

SO, the woman accused a man (her then husband) of raping her and submitted it through washington university's title 9 office. WTF? Why not the police? Universities have no place adjudicating crimes. They should provide sanctions after a crime has been proven and someone convicted and perhaps arrange accommodations during the process. IMO, she simply wanted to hurt the guy, she didn't want to get justice for being assaulted (if she actually was, her approach makes it doubtful) and she thought she…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 06:42 PM
9

False rape claims are effectively perjury and/or filing a false report. While that's true, the effects of this particular form of perjury and false report far exceed those of other forms. Some sort of alteration does seem to be in order - it might simply be not publishing the names of the accused until post trial or something, it might not be punishment, but something.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 06:00 PM
1

Yeah, I'm going with 'this is false'. I don't believe it. Much worse things get said all the time without bans.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 11:38 PM
2

Those sound valid criticisms. My only real comment here was that if Doe was conscious at the time, that significantly alters the situation. If that's not true, then it doesn't. That's only going to be determined from witness testimony, not the police or EMT that arrived later, unless they can establish a likelihood for earlier consciousness. Similarly, If she was not conscious some short time prior to the situation, then establishes a likelihood of her being unconscious. EDIT: rephrased slightly…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:45 PM
1

That scenario is played countless times all around the world every weekend. Only in your own mind. Although, your version is much more pleasant than reality, I understand why you stay there.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:37 PM
1

Hm well, I'm not sure if that other person got it right: Sorry, if that was unclear, that was my belief that I posted in a different comment.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:33 PM
1

What world are you living in, man? Clearly one that is less kind than yours. If I am being charged by two guys when I am at a party, I assume they mean harm and respond with whatever I think is the best option. but your opinion doesn't really explain the facts of the case What facts don't agree. It seems pretty consistent. EDIT: how did the jury not agree? It was pretty clearly a crime in the situation I opined.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:30 PM
1

But Brock Tuner wasn't laid out unconscious while the woman fondled his dick. This was the whole point of my discussion though, from the statements on that website, 'doe' wasn't laid out unconscious at the time she was being fondled either. Unconscious is a slam dunk. Blackout drunk is not. Sure, they should regarded the same. I mean in a broader sense - she's not responsible for consenting, which it seems likely she did at the time or earlier, whether or not she can remember it - but that's irr…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:46 AM
1

Well, from another comment I made Personally, I think they were both drunk and unable to sufficiently understand what they were doing. I think they were probably mutually making out and he was too drunk to realize when she became excessively affected by what she had drank earlier. That's a crime because intoxication isn't a defense. His verdict and sentence was probably appropriate. Although, I do wonder about the inconsistency of not holding people responsible for their actions when they are vo…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:31 AM
1

Sure, I'm just pointing out that this statement you made is not true. Let me rewrite - It would change to the prosecution having to prove that a reasonable person would be aware she was incapacitated. EDIT: The distinction is that if someone is unconscious, this is a slam dunk. If someone is just drunk, that's not so easy to establish. Now, the intent thing - that was somewhere else on that website - which claims to be written by two lawyers that were involved somehow. I am not a legal expert an…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:19 AM
0

The guy ran when the Swedes caught him—that alone speaks to his guilt. I don't believe that this speaks to his guilt at all - if you're drunk and two guys start yelling and running at you, you are either going run or start swinging. Running means that he is generally not a violent drunk. It doesn't mean much other than that. Personally, I think they were both drunk and unable to sufficiently understand what they were doing. I think they were probably mutually making out and he was too drunk to r…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 08:43 AM
1

Good lord, I have had drunken sex on a beach and had sand through everything, had nasty abrasions. Sex is messy, especially drunken outdoor sex. 2/10, don't recommend, but it doesn't mean I was assaulted.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 08:40 AM
2

In most states, it would be a "reasonable person standard." If a "reasonable person" (e.g. a sober person) would have been aware that she was incapacitated, then he is guilty of assault. Sure, but that's where it gets really dicey. If she functions without memory, the fact that she has no memory doesn't mean that a reasonable person would have understood that she was incapacitated. A reasonable person could have believed that she was functional. I don't know, we would have to go to the accounts …
/r/MensRights04/12/17 08:30 AM
0

What statement? So, you declared "not much useful information" without actually reading any of the information that the site claims. Replying to you further is a waste of time, I won't be doing so again. You aren't discussing at all. You are simply trying to shout down any discussion and stifle it. You may be right, maybe it's clearer than the website presented thinks it is. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "No,no,no,no,no,no" just makes you a moron though.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:56 AM
3

It would change to the prosecution having to prove that Brock was aware that she was that drunk and that he intended to take advantage of that condition. Both of those have to be proven for a guilty verdict. Unconscious is a story that makes both of those items easily believed. Drunk to the point of no memory does not. Blackout(memory) vs unconscious - I find a lot of people think these are equivalent, from first hand experience I can tell you they are not. I suffered from blackouts when overdri…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:50 AM
4

not much useful information that I can find there. If the statement that 'doe' wasn't unconscious is true, that she was simply drunk to the part of no memory that's a significant claim.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:29 PM
1

That's true - but the story that I read said that she was making out with him immediately before passing out and that he was falling down drunk himself. There might be a question of "did he intend to put his finger in an unconscious girl" or perhaps he didn't realize she had passed out. Really, though, the case is closed and he was determined to be guilty, so why rehash that part?
/r/MensRights02/12/17 07:42 PM
1

but good looking guys don't get a free pass. that's not true at all.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 12:12 AM
5

Wait she doesn't know ... That was my thought exactly - but the article makes it sound more like she hasn't been told the specifics of the charges. Which is necessary to make a defense, so, I suspect the title is bad.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 12:01 AM
4

wtf is "greened out"?
/r/MensRights29/11/17 05:15 PM
1

No, you posited a false equivalency between paying taxes and paying child support. Whenever I bring this up the response is, 'That point of the law isn't to punish the guy but to support the child!'. Which may have been appropriately sarcastic, but you then responded to a criticism of that comment with I do pony up. I pay taxes. Which is defending your original statement of it's to support the child, by saying that paying taxes, some portion of which go to welfare is the same as directly paying …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 06:50 PM
1

I am sure that we can find a deserving child whose father has passed away and you can assume the role of direct child support payer for that child. Look up the guidelines for your income level (approx 20-30%, depending on where you live) we'll find the address for you to submit it to. Oh, sounds like an excess of stupid? Yeah, because it is.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 04:06 PM
1

The damage is not causes by me in this situation but by her cheating. This is an appropriate viewpoint - if women were held responsible for their damaging choices, this would probably almost never happen.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 04:02 PM
1

so she can refuse and the court cannot order the test? Is that also considered proof by omission?
/r/MensRights28/11/17 04:01 PM
1

many. In any real contest, you are better off using the prenup to wipe your ass than bringing it to court. EDIT: Specifically around kids - kids didn't sign the prenup so any provisions in a prenup for child support or anything like that are automatically invalid. They may stand if they are sufficiently generous, but if it's contested, forget it.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:55 PM
1

Crazy but true.. at least in Canada. highly unusual though.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:53 PM
1

"Lonnquist said she would agree to stop collecting child support from Atkins if he would agree to terminate his parental rights." The problem is that terminating his legal rights is him filing some paperwork with the court. Her not collecting Child Support is ... not her choice. It's the right of the child and no court is going to agree with a guardians choice to "not get child support". She can say, "we want him out of our lives, he's terminated parent rights" and the courts will say "sure, tha…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:52 PM
3

because you were a convicted "male gaze rapist"??? no, because it might cause the rates the company paid for 'unemployment insurance' to increase. This has little to do with the challenge they fired OP for and more to do with their bottom line.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:44 PM
1

OK. That was not clear to me at all. The re-write is much clearer.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:27 PM
3

We agree. And it's not that the relationship can't work - but both people would have to acknowledge that the issue exists and then work to keep attraction. However, it's pretty un-PC to even think that this idea might be true. The likely end is she gets the hots for some guy that is higher status than she is and the relationship is over.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:25 PM
12

her beliefs about gender equality allowed her to accept the idea of being the bread-winner in her relationship. The problem with this is that the natural desire for women to see higher status men as attractive and lower status men as unattractive means that she will likely choose to end her relationship, probably saying "I'm not in love with you anymore" or something like that and it will be very true and a direct result of her being the breadwinner, not because anything in their relationship ch…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 04:23 AM
2

I haven't been able to read stuff like that since I had kids. Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that became a lot harder to read or watch after kids.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:53 PM
4

I like the responding argument of - if it doesn't matter than why don't we just assign random babies to mothers leaving the hospital. It isn't punishment, its intended to give a baby a home.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:48 PM
5

But /r/mensrights is misogynist. Your assertion is unsupported. Certainly there are a few misogynist individuals that post here but not enough to label the whole sub. Of course, flinging shit in all directions without justification gets you a quite deserved label of 'idiot'. I can support that assertion - the parent post I am replying to serves as proof.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:43 PM
1

your walrus link 404's
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:39 PM
3

I think they might be referring to elderly abuse. When adult children mistreat their dependent elderly parents.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:35 PM
9

Suicide, I can feel sympathy for. Killing your kids with you, well, you're scum. Just as when women do it.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:33 PM
1

Western_Ways provides an interesting description - but your belief is extremely stupid, even the least informed here accepts that MGTOW is about men choosing not to associate personally or cohabitate with women due to current societal and legal rules and not really anything to do with women themselves. There's also a lot of variance within the group in terms of "how much associate or lack thereof" so, it's hardly an easy to define answer. None of it is group hatred of women though.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 10:09 PM
8

We deal with all domestic abuse reported to us in the same way, whether it involves a male or female victim by arresting the guy? /s - I am not really making a comment here, just taking the opportunity for a joke.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 06:35 PM
13

While your title is correct, when I reviewed the department description one of the first sentences was "Researching violence against women and gender based violence" - so, while you are "technically correct", the other poster's statement is likely far more truthful.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 05:44 PM
1

interesting. I went to find the stats in Canada regarding DV arrests and the data doesn't seem to exist. There ton's about female victimization but there isn't anything that says "30 million people per year are arrested for DV" - seems weird.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:39 AM
1

well, presumably from here, http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/research/centres/genderviolence/ but they have nothing before 2009 available online.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:33 AM
4

I interpreted the bullet comment as more "it is going to be worse for you if it comes out slowly, rather than quick and dropping out of the limelight, so I think it's better that way" than any exhortation around actual violence. I think that these sorts of things are not unreasonable metaphors and PC language policing is vastly overdone.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:25 AM
2

or any of the other bpd's - that sort of manip is common.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:21 AM
1

Well, my initial belief is that is bullshit, but cite the sources. Oh, and "but men attempt being arrested 4 x more"
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:20 AM
2

Not 'merely', completely and without acknowledging that she completely invalidated her statement that kicked the whole thing off. The impression that gives me is that she believes both things simultaneously. To not address the original comment makes her appear completely mental. So, I assume she is completely mental and deserves the appropriate ridicule.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:02 AM
7

To tweet - "I don't care if innocent men get screwed by a false accusation" then like 6 tweets later go "oh my gosh getting screwed by a false report is totally bad and is not ok" is a level of moron that is exceptional. She more than backpedalled. That's either stupid or spineless or both and neither one deserves any sympathy or respect. She is just as horrible as the context provided. Adding to the context doesn't make her less despicable. You can be persuaded or not persuaded. Whatever works …
/r/MensRights25/11/17 02:43 AM
10

Ultimately this is another example of something on the internet being presented without context to further a specific narrative (in this case, an anti-feminist narrative) Uhh. no dude. I have read the thread. She got called on it and backpedalled in a spectacularly stupid fashion that illustrated exactly how poorly thought out her statements are but that doesn't make this any different than what it is. The context supports the story here, the rest of it just illustrates exactly how much of a mor…
/r/MensRights25/11/17 02:30 AM
1

I've never said just as capable. We've had a number of conversations where your argument is that an adult manipulating a teen is no different than another teen being a manipulator. The implicit argument is that teens are just as capable. It's the basis of a bunch of your statements in the past. Where's your downvote for them. I didn't downvote you either - I generally downvote "this isn't men's rights" posts.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 02:26 AM
2

that too.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 06:16 AM
1

Regardless of whether or not this woman was preyed upon as a teen, it's not acceptable to turn around and repeat the cycle. A sentence of six months seems appropriate to me for a purely statuatory offense - and yes, a man would have gotten a longer sentence in identical circumstances. We agree.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 06:08 AM
1

Hmm. Yeah, that is true (with minor inconsistencies around dates). The story says she was his girlfriend for 11 years, the boy is 16, that would mean that the man and 17 year old met when the son was 5. The girlfriend didn't meet the son until he was 9. That would mean the girlfriend didn't meet the son for four years. That seems pretty unusual. We don't know the age of the man. I mean, he could theoretically have been something like 24 when they met, hardly outrageous, or he could have been 44,…
/r/MensRights24/11/17 04:40 AM
2

yeah, that's true. However, based on the arguments used - usually "kids are just as capable as adults" or some variation thereof, I have always just assumed he is an underage boy. I might be wrong, but the methods of the argument seem like the "I can so adult" form.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:59 PM
23

Better analogy: please explain your logic, I don't understand how your statement fits as an analogy at all, let alone a better one. I am missing some parallel you are trying to draw.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:54 PM
1

So what is used to reference sex if not male or female? I actually am curious why it was proposed that gender was a language construct vs a statement of biology?
/r/MensRights23/11/17 12:25 AM
1

If other men are telling you that what ever it is you are doing will get you laid a lot, then they are expressing admiration, encouragement and accolades all at once. Not too familiar with sarcasm, are you?
/r/MensRights23/11/17 12:15 AM
3

A talent like hers doesn't operate within borders. Yeah, below the border that divides talent from talentless.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 12:12 AM
2

Yeah, this is weird. It's even weirder that the local politicians didn't just ignore it.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 06:09 PM
1

I get that these are a percentage statistical display, but I really have a hard time believing that columbia and poland outsearched the US and Canada - how is the data being massaged here, it seems weird.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 11:01 PM
14

The goal should be to reduce female hysteria, not emulate it. The goal should be to have equal protection under law for all people. Your approach will not achieve that. The pointing out of hypocrisy is necessary, but so is the demands for equal enforcement of the law. I think the law is absurdist in many ways, having gone way over the line of reasonable protection. But that's irrelevant. Until it's equally enforced, we aren't going to see change. And even when it is equally enforced, we might no…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 09:38 PM
2

Not really, he's 17 in this and minors can't consent. actually one of the other posters pointed out to me a few days ago that this isn't strictly true - in most US states anyone 16 or over can consent as long as the adult isn't in a position of authority.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 09:34 PM
5

yeah, but the judge claims that if it was reversed the punishment would be the same. We suspect that he is lying but it's not wilful, it's blindness to his own prejudice, it would likely be difficult to find a counterexample though where the victim wrote an impact statement requesting no jail time for her knife wielding attacker. as well, she actually got like 14 months in jail, which was counted as time served while she was in jail waiting for trial.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 09:04 PM
10

The problem is the victim The biggest factor, he said, is the man wrote a letter to Borrello asking the judge to not send Smith to prison.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 08:55 PM
6

Yeah, that was my thought too - absolutely the answer can be avoiding women in the workplace. Best choice actually.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 06:04 PM
8

If you demand to be treated like children I hadn't realized this parallel but that is exactly what it is.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 06:04 PM
4

Hey Bud, Do yourself a favor and get some mental health counselling asap. This stuff is intended to string you out mentally and it will. Get a therapist that you can talk to, frequently, over the next few weeks/months, if you can. This is important since you have client-patient privilege with a health practitioner in most jurisdictions (not a lawyer, you should be talking to one). Don't discuss legal matters in any sort of detail with friends and family, you never know who's listening. Do what y…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 06:40 AM
1

You didn't read the other link then? The one where the court found that the child support obligation exists independent of the existence of an order? EDIT: and really, you are splitting hairs now just to be difficult - the reason for retroactive support is because the obligation exists, the obligation doesn't exist because the retroactive support is part of the order.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:09 AM
2

LOL
/r/MensRights20/11/17 07:25 PM
2

And yet more proof that pre-nup agreements are less valuable than toilet paper.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 07:20 PM
3

but part of me wishes that DNA was able to be taken from children so fathers could be confirmed without mothers involvement I think this should be a default thing done at birth - primarily because it is also a health issue. Knowing your accurate genetic heritage affects several health risk factors and I believe that every person has a right to this independent of the decisions of their biological parents.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 07:06 PM
1

AND: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7dxc4b/from_the_fathers_rights_movement_page/dq3pszo/?st=ja8k3yw5&sh=845f8373
/r/MensRights20/11/17 07:01 PM
1

A better source, I think, without having done a complete read through: http://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/27652 Relevant piece: The key points of the court's analysis in D.B.S. are these: An obligation to pay child support exists independent of any order or agreement on child support. The amount of child support is determined by the Child Support Guidelines. The Guidelines base the amount of support owing on the income of the payor.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 07:00 PM
1

Regarding retroactive child support: https://lukesplace.ca/can-a-woman-get-retroactive-child-support-for-children-who-are-now-adults/ Relevant pieces: In particular, because child support is seen to be the right of the child, there are some cases in which the court has awarded child support retroactive to a date well before the date on which support was applied for. And, in some circumstances, the court will allow retroactivity where one person had a good reason (for example, fear of the other p…
/r/MensRights20/11/17 06:53 PM
1

Table support guidelines and rules, including arguing for a variation: http://www.familylaw.lss.bc.ca/resources/fact_sheets/child_support.php
/r/MensRights20/11/17 06:51 PM
4

Please report to the Feminist Thought-Crimes unit for your reprogramming citizen.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 08:33 AM
2

I may or may not understand whatever particular reason you think you are quoting this for. Primarily I think it's just to be condescending and elevate your opinion of yourself in your own mind. If that works for you, be my guest.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 08:24 AM
1

Otherwise you are adhering to the already defined obligation Just a further note - if the custodial parent doesn't get around to telling you about your child for a few years - when they do get a judgment - you will owe for those years the child existed prior to the judgment - so, in a strictly practical sense, that obligation pre-exists the judgment and is automatic.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 08:11 AM
1

Also no automatic obligations. That's not true at all - there are default rules and amounts that a non-custodial parent needs to pay to adhere to state/regional guidelines. Those are calculated and set before you ever walk into a courtroom to get a judgement. Then, if you want to pay less, or a custodial parent wants you to pay more, that's what gets argued. Otherwise you are adhering to the already defined obligation That doesn't exist for fatherhood. There is no already defined obligation, eve…
/r/MensRights20/11/17 08:08 AM
2

Yeah, but in this case you have to spend a bunch of money and time to get an agreement in the first place. Both parents rights are not automatically protected.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 11:40 PM
2

Jesus, really reaching for the victimhood reward, aren't you? No, your statement is idiotic. If fatherhood was protected a custody agreement wouldn't be necessary to have your rights protected. It would be legally mandated and automatic. Edit: which is really what this sub is pushing with default shared physical custody.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 11:39 PM
9

Fatherhood IS protected by law. If you have a custody agreement and mom violates it, Are you so blind that you don't see those two statements contradict each other?
/r/MensRights19/11/17 09:35 AM
1

Whatever the fuck pleases whoever the fuck, as long as it is legal and nobody gets harmed, let it be. Yep, here I agree. Life is short, often ugly and challenging. Do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt others and we should all celebrate that.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 09:32 AM
1

Wow. And nobody here has answered "take out my phone and phone the police for her" Which is what I see as the rational choice. (Actually, Gregorian_Tree implies the same thing).
/r/MensRights18/11/17 04:29 PM
1

The link I received was supposedly to "upskirt videos". Yes, that was it. That was what I received too - calling it non-consensual is what threw me. Although, if they were actual upskirt videos of unaware people that would be exactly what it is.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:53 AM
1

So you're suggesting that experiences create the understanding? Then why delay experiences? That's an interesting question. I also believe that is very true. However, there is a balance between development and experiences. I think we likely delay experiences too much in our modern society, but earlier societies didn't delay them enough. I think we could also argue that the whole lack of human life stage rituals have a huge impact on the psychological and emotional development of youth and that t…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:50 AM
3

Most people NSFW to 'legal stuff'. I was referring to gonewild actually or, more generally, that there are a whole bunch of nsfw reddits and that collectively, they likely generate a bunch of reddits traffic. I must also admit that when I read the spam porn link, I don't recall anything about it being a link to non-consensual porn or anything illegal. Which is why I just figured it was run of the mill porn spam. Is porn depicting non-consensual situations illegal? I mean, didn't they just make a…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:42 AM
1

Its really not that much. Do you think it grows exponentially, or linearly? There is a significant jump in the first 5-7 years after high school. That's not part of a measurable curve, that's adapting to the real world. It rapidly and radically alters your understanding of the world. After that, probably for the next 10 years it's a flattening curve. Shortly after 30, if you haven't learned it, you likely won't. It's pretty much flat after that. Not entirely but pretty much. Really after 30, ind…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:36 AM
2

hey /u/theothermod - you wanted screenshots, I can't do that, but that user is the only one I have ever blocked, the message sender was /u/allwhiteys_R_racist if that's of any use to you.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:18 AM
8

It should be shooting fish in a barrel for a lot of reddit. Isn't nsfw reddits a large part of the traffic here?
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:09 AM
1

You don't gain magical mind controllign powers because you turn 18. An adult realizes this. In 10 years you will have greater personal awareness and experience than you have now. That is true of everyone that doesn't suffer from mental illness or a brain injury - hence, on average adults have greater capability than underage youth. That will translate into you having a greater ability to manipulate someone. If you focus that on a teen that experience is magnified because they have so much less l…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 03:07 AM
1

Yeah, we've been over this ground, specifically you and I, a couple of times. You like to believe that adults don't have greater development, and that teens are just as capable. I think you're either under 18 or close to it with no life experience and want to believe that. We simply disagree.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 02:46 AM
22

I just assumed it was spam and blocked the sender.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 02:41 AM
1

between teens just as easily as teens and adults. No, not "just as easily" - adults have an advantage (on average) of greater life experience and greater relationship experience. An adult is just more likely to be able to successfully manipulate a teen than another teen.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 02:33 AM
1

Sure, because we have decided that at 18 you have the minimum self determination that we can't babysit you anymore. So, if you fall victim to coercion at that point, that's on you. If you fall victim to coercion before that point, that's on society (us). Two teenagers are both below the minimum level of self determination and we recognize that these things will go on, but it is less likely that there is a large gap in social awareness and interpersonal skills between two 14 year olds than betwee…
/r/MensRights17/11/17 06:12 PM
3

By definition is kind of a silly claim. "There doesn't need to be evidence, faith is proof". Kind of like god beliefs. No. Not like 'god beliefs'. More like the way we believe a stop sign means that you are supposed to stop the car at that sign, because we have defined it to mean that. 'by definition' - not magical, not faith, but because we, as a society, decided it to be so.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 06:05 PM
3

Yeah, sure, there are a lot of weird outliers. That isn't how to set policy though.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 08:49 AM
6

Kind of a bit of a presupposition there, how do we know the 'position of authority' was abused? by definition. Because they are a position of authority, all non professional contact is prohibited. You need a person on the bottom to accept the authority Really? Try that with the police and see how far it gets you. Authority by position/authority by force is a thing, and teachers have it. TBH Im surprised there aren't droves of teenage males or females blackmailing their teachers with "fuck me or …
/r/MensRights17/11/17 08:48 AM
5

This isn't limited to teen guys. Same thing with 18 or older getting stuck with child support. Yeah, but we have to draw a line somewhere. At 18 we hold people more responsible for their actions than earlier. It's one of the only crimes where we hold the victim also responsible. Oh, and we let a statutory rapist be responsible for children, that seem kinda weird to me. To me teachers actually have quite a dangerous job because teens can destroy their lives with an accusation. Teachers, coaches, …
/r/MensRights17/11/17 08:48 AM
1

Maybe, maybe not. If she was grabbed from behind, in a isolated area there is a real possibility that she had legitimate (ie. reasonable ) fear for her life, which makes the knife a defensible choice. (Yeah, I don't know the details, I don't watch videos, ain't nobody got time for that shit).
/r/MensRights17/11/17 05:51 AM
1

Never use a weapon to threaten. That is a correct statement. Either use the weapon or don't use the weapon. Threatening only makes it harder for you to escalate to using it and provides the opponent the opportunity to take it from you.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 05:48 AM
11

I know you argue this all the time. However, since he could end up with 18 years of child support from being statutorily raped, yeah, it is dangerously unsafe. As an aside, 1. we don't know how old the teen is. 2. The abuse of an authority position means that action is appropriate even if it otherwise wouldn't be.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 05:25 AM
6

nvm, looked it up.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 05:23 AM
7

a science teacher at Yukon High School, was arrested by the Canadian County Sheriff’s Department wtf?
/r/MensRights17/11/17 05:20 AM
2

The tie-wearer might be influenced by the tie, but they are not trying to influence their own mood consciously the way Look up "power ties" - hell the colour Red, even when randomly assigned, is a predictor of winners of a Tai-kwon-do match. But, since that isn't completely reliable, how about the advice to "Dress for work, even if you work at home" - this is really common advice for entrepreneurs. Also, this isn't just anecdotal but it has been studied: What we put on influences how we act. A s…
/r/MensRights17/11/17 05:09 AM
3

This seems nearly pathological to me... She feels psychologically different from just wearing a different outfit‽ Really‽ This is true for all human beings, including yourself. Part of why uniforms exist. Same with changes in posture and carriage, etc, etc, etc.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 09:04 PM
1

I think we have to be careful to accept that the opposite complaint could also be true - that there are a lot of men whose housekeeping standards are too low and would choose to live in an unclean state. There is a middle ground, yes. It tends to be a difference in what each individual believes is the minimum acceptable state. Women tend to have a lot higher minimum for household cleanliness. That doesn't necessarily mean they are the ones in the wrong. The point I was making in the earlier comm…
/r/MensRights16/11/17 07:25 PM
1

Of course stress is increased when you have an insanely picky bitch who won't be satisified with any job unless she wipes up the last spec and then complains she had to "do it all" - this is just stupidity with zero empathy for the other side of the argument.
/r/MensRights15/11/17 04:14 AM
3

you've been lied to about what the rules really are. this - this is the key point.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 08:22 AM
3

The fact that he was accused by five different women doesn't suggest to you there might be some validity to their common view that his behavior was inappropriate? Come on now.... This is dangerous thinking. Yes, it does suggest that, In an age when people would have to complain without knowing about each other. Now, with the speed of communication and social media, I think this very natural belief is very broken. Bandwagonning, me too-ing and group dynamics are much more at play than ever before…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 07:16 AM
2

You're speculating that they mislead him into thinking they were open to it, but there's no evidence of that—he didn't even mention it. True. But he felt comfortable enough to ask and they said yes. That sort of implies that there was some amount of signaling. Yes, he could be that clueless that there wasn't but there isn't any reason to believe that. you can't just pretend people are entirely separate entities with no awareness Sure, this is a valid criticism of the argument. Mostly from the id…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 06:18 AM
2

Of course, if any of the affected women can truthfully say that he agreed to help their careers, or threatened to hurt their careers prior to asking them to watch him jerk off, well, now it's a serious problem and he deserves everything he's getting.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 05:42 AM
2

Honestly? Yeah, kinda. I do think the deviancy contributed to them feeling creeped out by him. Well, we completely disagree. I think if he had just asked for sex then he would be looked at exactly the same as Weinstein. It's a no-win scenario. I don't think the deviancy has any relevance at all. I think there are ways you can proposition people for sex that don't creep them out and make it clear you're not trying to impose or anything. I don't think so. I mean, sure, you can be more socially awa…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 05:28 AM
2

I think his behavior was deviant enough for the women to be legitimately creeped out So, you think if he had just asked them for sex and they complied, that he wouldn't be pilloried right now? I am actually thinking that his particular bent was even less of a problem than actually going for sex. I also think he would be just as savaged in the media - no, I correct that, I think they would be pursuing charges not just public humiliation and shaming.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 04:46 AM
1

wish these people looked up definitions once in a while. The definitions have been changed when used within a Social Justice context - Sexist is "prejudice combined with power" so since men are perceived to have power over women, that's sexism. Women can't be sexist since they are defined as not having power over men. Yeah, it's stupid. Go tell it on the mountain.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 04:40 AM
2

Dude, I think you are over-reacting. He asked for an received consent in each case. The power imbalance was one that is very specious. You are essentially saying that anyone who has significant success in an arena should never be allowed to have sex again because they "have a power imbalance over all other individuals" - That's a pretty dicey claim. I think the standard that is being applied here is too stringent - there is always a power imbalance. No two people can ever be equal in a given mom…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 04:30 AM
2

Interesting. In BC, Canada, lack of response is consent to first aid intervention.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 04:06 AM
2

In the strictest legal sense? None. Pretty good but not perfect - sure in the strictest legal sense - no, Canada has at least one solidly gendered law on the books.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 07:55 AM
1

In the strictest legal sense? None. In canada that's not true.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 09:06 PM
1

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7c382j/canada_revenue_agency_denies_ccb_to_fathers/?st=j9ue67nv&sh=48fb678f
/r/MensRights10/11/17 09:05 PM
2

Because painting women in a negative light causes negative attention, protests and accusations of misogyny. There have been a number of threads in the past about how it's really hard to have interesting female characters in movies because they all have to be Mary Sue's. You can't have women with serious character defects without making excuses for them. Actresses complain about a lack of good roles, but then demonize anybody that writes a female character that is not either perfect (Rey from Sta…
/r/MensRights10/11/17 09:00 PM
6

It's funny - this is the example I pull out when I say women have 'more legal rights' than men. It's even funnier when you realize that the actual legal wording means that when you get a girlfriend they will give her the benefit, not you because she's the woman. (If you had a live in girlfriend, btw, they would have just agreed to give it to her without any argument) - this law is fucked and how it got this way should be investigated.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 08:56 PM
1

Circumcision doesn't prevent masturbating, and is often done for religious or believed health reasons. I don't have the link but some of the 'religious reasons' were around reducing pleasure while masturbating.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 08:49 PM
1

Title is misleading - this was a secret group within a cult.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 08:46 PM
1

ascii is a lost art.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 08:32 PM
2

Most damningly for the feminist narrative, I haven't received a single threatening PM. That's interesting. And worth the price of admission. I always gave credit to the claims of threatening and harassing PM's just on the basis that there are a lot of damaged individuals out there and there are also a lot of individuals who speak in excessive language while having no real intent. To not receive any death or rape threats is a serious deviation from all the feminist who claim they get threats for …
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:01 PM
20

I would have addressed the "women still get it categorically worse on all fronts", by redirecting him back to the education comment - they very much don't get it worse in higher education.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:46 PM
27

Nice close, LOL.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:43 PM
1

It took me a couple of read throughs to understand your point - which was - even if the baby could talk they wouldn't be able to tell you about their brain function changes since even adults can't do that - yes?
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:14 AM
1

The argument is always about infants. No one thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to once you are an adult.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:11 AM
2

it's irrelevant either way. The question isn't one of 'like or don't like' or even 'prefer', it's one of bodily integrity and this procedure has no place outside of medical necessity.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 08:41 AM
4

Yep, I am with /u/ericallonde on this - you can strap down an infant and circumsize him, but you can't do it in an MRI to see how he reacts (since, you know, babies can't actually tell you). Your position is illogical.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 08:40 AM
1

In BC, Canada, the laws changed to this for child support (and I think alimony too) under the idea that the recipient was likely a lower income bracket and could less afford to pay the taxes (or some such bs) - this was about 15-20 years ago. If you CS agreement predated the change, you could keep claiming the deduction. Once it was altered or updated at all, you switched to the new rules.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 08:17 AM
2

In Canada Canada is a big place. There are several provinces and a couple of territories and the rules do vary between them. However, yes, depending on the province (except Quebec) and some circumstances the typical rule is 2 years to be equivalent to married for all legal purposes. My understanding is that there are some circumstances that make that as low as 6 months, but it's messy, like everything legal and IANAL.
/r/MensRights03/11/17 04:14 PM
1

•Finish all your alcohol if the article never once brings up an actual issue of the MRM. You know, getting the entire movement killed from alcohol poisoning isn't productive.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:53 PM
1

Well, could you say you identify as female when you buy the ticket? Maybe it could be considered the same thing?
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:36 PM
1

That would make business meetings awkward.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:01 PM
5

Perhaps you are right. But in the north American justice system, that would have cost Pearson many, many thousands of dollars. He likely would have been offered a plea-bargain, which about 75% of people would accept because they can't afford to fight. I see a problem that the people involved in that mockery, especially those that did the evidence tampering and in prosecutors office that decided to do it didn't all lose their jobs immediate and be barred from working in the legal profession ever …
/r/MensRights31/10/17 07:43 PM
1

That's actually a pretty interesting part of the video. It actually seems like almost no one pays any attention to her at all.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 07:34 PM
9

just not thinking with your dick would do a lot to help men. You are assuming that the women that get involved in this are 'crazy', 'irrational' or 'abnormal' - they are not. The problem here is one of power without consequence - and the use of it is pretty 'human'. Also, groupthink, wanting to be included, feeling like you should support others (in-group bias, which studies show gender in-group bias always goes to women). This combination will frequently result in bandwagonning (well-intentione…
/r/MensRights31/10/17 07:30 PM
1

I didn't say he was, I'm speaking generally. You literally stated "You can't assume.. " in response to his statement "Let's assume..." and you are saying "I didn't say he was arguing ..." The one with reading comprehension problems isn't me. You are a moron.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 07:21 PM
1

You can't assume there are no lasting consequences. Yeah, he isn't arguing that. He is arguing that even if you made that unfounded assumption and agreed it was true, there is a double standard and unequal protection under the law. Essentially, he is saying that even if the victim blaming statement 'the boy wanted it' was true, it's irrelevant. Equal treatment isn't happening. Yes, btw, I agree with you. That assumption is likely completely flawed. I think that was the point - agree to something…
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:58 AM
1

LOL no, that's totally wrong. Agreed. This place never resembled MensLib.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:50 AM
1

In this instance (even though op says he is in college) I have to support mwobuddy's interpretation of this - anybody saying it's weird has their own hangups. 18 and 16 is normal. As well, you say you aren't having sex and aren't expecting to have sex anytime soon - so wtf are you worried about? If she lies and says you had sex, well, that's an issue, but you have already stated you don't think she would do that.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:49 AM
4

Regardless, dating a 16 year-old at your age is pretty ridiculous. 16/18 isn't even remotely ridiculous. It's pretty normal. You are wrapped up in something else in your head to make this statement.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:43 AM
0

Sure. And I agreed that was a supportable interpretation - I disagree that the recounting is 'sexual contact' in the way you stated.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 07:20 AM
-2

No, I am saying that something she did at say, 9 or 10, is not really connectable to the pattern of behaviour she displayed at 12-14, which is how it reads in the excerpts - again, I haven't read the book, that may not be the case, but that is the sense I get from the excerpts.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 02:27 AM
-3

Right. that. I had forgotten that. Except that the way it's written implies that it is significantly separated in age from the candy, makeup, kissing and masturbation. It wasn't a contemporaneous occurrence.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 02:20 AM
1

before you count the money only being worth half as well.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 04:59 PM
-1

I recall excerpts saying she bribed her sister for physical closeness, like cuddling and watching her in her underclothing or some such. I don't recall actual sexual favours or any actual sexual contact in those excerpts and I would be very surprised if that was actually what was written.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 04:57 PM
7

Actually, I can't say I recall 'masturbate' - I would have subbed in 'don't get a blowjob'.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 02:27 AM
12

All of those conditions refer to cases discussed in this forum that resulted in pregnancy and child support obligations.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 02:26 AM
8

No unions, massive pay disparity, manipulated access to benefits, old-farts who have all of that telling us to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps. Yeah, I dislike a lot about unions - but man they did a good job at keeping the income disparity from getting as stupid as it is now.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:49 PM
6

Yeah, from that 'older generation' - I look at how the working world is now - there is very little incentive for being a hard worker. As soon as the employer can reduce costs they will. If a young person can be replaced by a cheaper young person - they're replaced. Even if the cheaper person does a shittier job. I think blaming the younger generation for this state of affairs is nice. It allows you to ignore your contribution to this shitty state of affairs. Keep buying from walmart and not goin…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:47 PM
4

This of course turns into an argument about why im an asshole. Yeah, but you knew that was going to happen when you did it. It was pure shaming. So, yes, you were an asshole. An asshole with a good point maybe, but still an asshole.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:39 PM
6

her 7 kids were all ready for school and were fed. Assuming you are in the west: The generation that had 7 kids, by the time they all had to be up and ready for school, the 7 year old was the one putting together the lunches. In a family that size the older kids don't get a free ride, or really any breaks at all - you can't equate the situation from that time in the past to now. Also, your grandmother probably worked a lot harder than any sahm in our current world, we are way softer than two or …
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:37 PM
6

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Truly spoken by someone who's never done it. I have done it. While it's not all TV, couch, and bon-bons, it isn't as difficult as a full time job and it's a far cry from full time job + home/child care, which I have also done.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:31 PM
1

A year? For a crime that had to be premeditated and planned? Actually, I think we must be missing something. Like that the attack on the neighbour was incidental to these two loonies just being horribly cruel to the animal.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:17 PM
8

SF? At the top end? Company moved him there? Prolly $150k+/yr. Top end tech support in Vancouver runs $90-$120k.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:06 PM
2

Sure, but the military is volunteer at this point and no-one expects conscription to happen in the foreseeable future - and if it was necessary, what you are suggesting would be what would happen anyways.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:00 PM
2

Yeah. Nice. Are you just dumb or a false flag? No, none of those are going to happen except custody and maybe alimony being eliminated in cases where both parties worked during the marriage. No-fault - why be forced to stay in an unhappy arrangement, simply not reasonable. Alienation - not needed with no-fault Marital rape - are you f'in joking? You're an idiot.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 10:58 PM
15

That's an apparently valid interpretation of her recounting of time spent with her sister in her book. Haven't read the book but the excerpts I have seen support that interpretation easily.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 10:54 PM
10

probably personal training. typically something like $75/session and they often push for 2+ sessions/week - So 150/wk x 50 weeks = $7500 - assume a couple of months off here and there - 10k is easy.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 10:51 PM
9

No idea. I'll upvote it on spec for you though
/r/MensRights28/10/17 10:21 AM
5

I don't know, but my expectation and observations around social assistance programs in Canada would be that if he hadn't signed, he would not be getting any assistance at all and he would be on the street begging, therefore the mother would have them full time. It's likely a catch 22 situation.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 10:18 AM
2

So there's some equivalency. That's good to see. Thanks for doing the legwork to show it.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 10:09 AM
2

That seems absolutely horrible.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 08:14 AM
2

I commented on the 'red pill raw files' - her intellectual viewpoints aren't actually that bad, like "men's suicide is an issue that should be tackled by Men's Rights Activism" - too bad her behaviour is "I first got noticed protesting against suicide activism by MRA's" Essentially, her behaviour says that everything she says she believes is a lie.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:28 AM
2

I mentioned the friend zone as well because it's a similar concept that's been invented and is being used by feminists to try and demonise men who behave well as these sneaky and manipulative predators who are all out to get women. I find it's interesting that the part of the 'friend zone' they don't call out is usually the woman hasn't been honest and straightforward. SO the guy is continuing to act as if he has a chance, which in guy training classes is 'buy flowers, take her to movies, dinner…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:22 AM
1

This may or may not have worked 20 years ago, nope. And it's not that it's seen as manipulative, just unattractive. Had a girl, when I was a teen, complain that she felt I put her on a pedestal as to why she wasn't interested. She also more or less simultaneously jumped into bed (separately) with two of my closest friends and after a 1.5 year relationship with one of them, with at least one less close friend. (nothing on my friends for this, she wasn't dating me so it's not like they were out of…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:12 AM
1

That's what women really want anyway. That has a greater success rate.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:11 AM
1

actually I missed the part in "developing your best self" about specifically improving social skills and comfort by engaging in positive ways with women until you get over the fear and anxiety part.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:07 AM
2

If you go read pua stuff you will have suggestions that have empirical evidence behind them - essentially it amounts to 'market yourself well' (groom, fitness, self-care, etc), 'be your best self' (develop yourself and your own interests) and 'realize you have a high value in the situation and don't settle for less than you deserve' (Your belief in your own value inspires confidence and confidence inspires attraction). More or less that's it - I mean that's what seems to be the cornerstones to m…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:06 AM
1

The problem is, that she abused her role as an authority figure to pressure someone into sex. The question is - would a 52 year old guy having sex with a 17 year old girl in exactly the same circumstances have received the same sentence - if yes, then this seems like appropriate results. If no, then this is a pussy pass. You suggested this was not out of the ordinary for sentencing. Have a comparable but reversed case?
/r/MensRights28/10/17 06:55 AM
3

Several of the lines in her monologue incorrectly attribute the problem For example: If a boy is upset about something no one for him asks or help him. Another reason why men are not empathetic is their thinking and male psyche; they think they are “MEN” and should be man enough to handle everything on their own without showing the world any weakness. That's because female caregivers won't give him compassion and male caregivers realize that treating him this way is compassionate since these exp…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 06:48 AM
2

Women declares all men are sociopaths. Assume this is all projection. Then realize what that means about the writer.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 06:41 AM
1

Yeah, we've discussed this before. Your opinion has been that the age of the older person is basically irrelevant since close in age couples could have similar dynamics and a far in age couple can have the reverse dynamic depending on the specifics of the individuals. While that's true, it completely ignores that, on average, the older a person is the more skill and ability they have in relationships and a greater ability to exploit a lesser skilled individual.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:29 AM
1

interesting. It would seem you are correct.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 05:58 PM
8

I loved the "it hurts my brain" - clearly it did.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 07:10 AM
1

Ya know, I was going to respond to a couple of these, but this list is referring to a particular society at a particular point in time.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:59 AM
3

I am pretty sure that if he had been female that would have been a sexual assault charge. Also, school police department? For high school?
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:53 AM
2

seeing as 16 is the age of consent in 40 U.S. states In most of those, that's only applicable to "romeo and juliet cases" where there is a maximum age range allowable. In most of those "16 AoC places", a 30 year old, like in the article, doesn't qualify.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:38 AM
1

Or alternatively, maybe the registry is just a bad idea overall.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:34 AM
2

I wish this author was looking at teen guys who ended up on the registry for sex with their teen girlfriends, or guys who did something like take a leak behind a tree and get spotted and end up on the registry. Both of which actually exist and seem to be injustices. This is just "women shouldn't get consequences because vagina".
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:33 AM
1

We can also point out dozens of false accounts that are 'knowingly false' (Duke, et al) and never resulted in charges we can also assume that many that are provably false never make it into these stats either since police will likely stop wasting their time once there is no chance of building a successful case.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:21 AM
1

I used to have a link to an analysis, which is where I developed this view, but I can no longer find it after a couple of hours of looking. If I happen across it I will post. However, a simple logical test - in all cases that say the % of false claims, those are claims that were sufficiently false to lead to criminal charges or threats of criminal charges. In all studies there are a large percentage of accusations that are "unfounded" (which is often, depending on the study criteria, a 'likely t…
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:18 AM
2

Wow. This guys pretty much a child.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 09:19 PM
3

the 2% myth If you follow the reporting on this you find that when they quote this stat for other crimes - say robbery - there's approximately a 2% rate of false reports. If you were putting a top end on it, you would say something like 2-8%. The meaning here is that there is certainly no more than 8% false reports average. When related to the statistics about false rape claims the 2-10% is the estimate of the bottom number. IE. there is no less than 2-10% false reports - the top number of that …
/r/MensRights23/10/17 09:10 PM
12

Wow. Cassie was really, really nice to her with the questions. Didn't point out any of the inconsistencies in her answers and her actual behaviour: sure, men can have a men's movement if it's about suicide, etc - first appearance was her protesting a men's meeting about suicide Sure, men can have a movement about alimony and custody, we want the same things - no questions about why feminism protests every time someone tries to change the law. And a ton of other holes. The apex fallacy stuff, the…
/r/MensRights23/10/17 06:46 PM
2

I think the actual answer here is that the only real privilege in the feminist model of the world is economic privilege. It covers pretty much all the racial and gender issues directly.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 06:03 PM
5

and domestic violence. 'Cause that shit is funny and empowering. /s for the sarcasm impaired.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 05:58 PM
2

It mostly speaks that normal courtship behaviors, that most men must perform if they wish to enter a relationship, are being demonized. This is the truth. If I hadn't ever made untoward comments (cat-calling), unrequested touching, or made general asshole comments (Those are referring to specific incidents that all generated a woman being interested in me. They could also be retroactively recalled in a negative light, but they weren't viewed that way at the time) If I hadn't done things like tha…
/r/MensRights23/10/17 07:54 AM
5

not just dismal, mostly absolutely bullshit sickening.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 07:46 AM
2

Ya know, shitty behaviour is shitty behaviour. However, some people in trying situations lose their shit - we see it with guys all the time. it's human. Now, it's too bad that the cameras weren't working because she should have the consequence of an assault charge, since that is how we deal with such things these days but to suggest that she is "garbage" is a little excessive. She was an idiot, possibly only momentarily in a period of high stress.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 08:39 PM
1

Would they prefer if all men were inert and asexual? They would prefer that all men that they don't find attractive in the moment were inert and asexual, yes.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 08:00 PM
3

I would be 99.999% sure that this is to make some halfwit friend who's having trouble in the dating department feel that he's on the right track to keep sucking up to women as his strategy. Or she's giving her friendzone just enough hope that they don't stop buying her shit.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 07:48 PM
8

Well, that's disturbing. And some of it obviously illegal. Collecting workers comp for a worker and pocketing it?
/r/MensRights05/10/17 05:00 AM
1

I'm bad at subtlety. You are saying?
/r/MensRights05/10/17 04:52 AM
3

it's probably their attempt at being clever well, it is clever. I laughed. Of course the implication is the forum is allowed or created to limit the conversation, which we can be certain is bullshit, since if they had any ability to limit it this forum wouldn't exist at all. I think this is the feminists waffling between "mock you" and "fight you". Of course, I don't really think the end is "then you win", I think the end is "they claim it was their idea the whole time". Which is a form of winni…
/r/MensRights05/10/17 12:49 AM
2

I have read that one out of 4 boys is mobbed, probably not at school and probably not without consequences. I agree with your sentiment though - I don't think we see a lot of mobbing of girls by boys. EDIT: I think there is more mobbing of boys by girls than vice-versa
/r/MensRights04/10/17 07:24 PM
1

Fair scenario. I’m not gonna hear them announcing their presence over the sound of my shower. You shouldn't have to. They should exit as soon as they hear the shower. They might not be able to hear it around the corner, but as soon as they get past the entrance, they should exit. However, It might be worthwhile to mention the hearing impairment to the front desk and tell them that when their staff announce the cleaning that you would appreciate a male staff member check the room since your disab…
/r/MensRights04/10/17 02:25 AM
1

Ballet needs more men like Mikhail Baryshnikov. That's true - but I don't think this is the right approach to get there. How is this different from parents who force their kids into showbuisness like Micheal Jackson's parents? It may or may not be. I know some parents push their kids into stuff because of their own agenda, money, missed opportunity, whatever - this is usually wrong and is somewhat similar - it's rarely as outrageously abusive as the op story though.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 01:53 AM
1

Their argument would be that the female staff are there to clean the locker room. Which is true. Yeah sure. Post a sign, yell around the corner, let the people in there finish and then go in a clean. Not a big deal. I have never had a female cleaner enter a public male washroom when it was in use without leaving immediately upon realizing it was being used. Their secondary argument would be that male staff occasionally clean the women’s locker room. Which is true. While it's in use? That's askin…
/r/MensRights04/10/17 01:32 AM
-8

A man with a gun most likely buys it to protect his family. Really? That's moronic, get a sharp kitchen knife, more effective in close quarters with almost no training needed. I think actually though, your statement is just badly thought through. Most people buy guns to go shoot them for fun, for hunting or to build skill. Few people buy guns for protection.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:45 AM
1

The conflict in my mind is that individuals should also have the right to run their business the way they want. We actually agree here. (There's a caveat, tho). If it benefits the business to offer services to both then I expect the business to do so. And anybody who wants to operate a male-only gym should have the right to do that as well. Except that hasn't been allowed for some time. therefore any single-sex gym is forbidden. And that's not what we want. Except that it's already forbidden (fo…
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:41 AM
1

that includes a marriage contract. in Canada, co-habiting creates a social contract called "common-law marriage" that (except in Quebec) has all the privileges and responsibilities as marriage.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:35 AM
1

It sounds fishy because "zero tolerance" for bullying has been around for years. It sounds fishy because "no contact" has been around for years. It sounds fish because the teacher told them to stop and took no further action. - It sounds fishy because in 99% of schools nothing like this would be allowed. Boys grabbing a girls butt? I am pretty sure you can find a story where an elementary school boy got a sexual harassment charge for that, yet in this school the teacher did nothing? It's apocryp…
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:30 AM
1

also not co-habit.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:17 AM
1

Yeah. It's tough when you have been taught that standing up for yourself is wrong. Telling the front desk to keep women out of the men's locker room when it's in use shouldn't "sound weird". It should sound f'in normal.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:13 AM
1

no, the argument is just as strong. Men have access to less equipment for the same money - based on the assumption that the equipment in the women's section is for women only and the rest of the equipment is for both men and women - that's gender based pricing. There is no way it can be the same unless the gym has enough space that there is never a wait for any of the equipment that is duplicated. That's unlikely in most cases.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 12:11 AM
1

It's my understanding that most women's facilities have always been this way - private spaces within the women's changeroom. You are viewing it from the "men don't need or get privacy" that you have grown up with - because men don't need or get privacy.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 07:23 AM
1

an entire history of being subjugated to men and seen only as sexual beings. The history you have been led to believe is also largely imaginary.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 07:21 AM
1

They will likely tell you something similar to what I just said. Yes, and it will be equally imaginary with it happening to a friend or a friend of a friend. Even if we accept a less ridiculous story as true, that's a one out of 10 000 occurrence at best. It's essentially irrelevant.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 07:19 AM
1

Sometimes they can't focus because strangers are staring at them. This is really a big part of the problem. Women are told constantly that they are the focus of every man's attention that they believe that they are the focus of every man's attention. While it is true they may be looked at by a couple of guys, most guys ignore women in the gym. It's really mostly in their imagination.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 07:16 AM
1

Side question: is there anything ... irrelevant, if they are charging equal rates but giving women private space then men are paying more than the women are for the co-ed space - this is essentially pricing by gender and is illegal.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 07:14 AM
1

Even our locker room isn’t men only, female staff come in there constantly I'm betting that you have a legal complaint there.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 07:12 AM
11

wtf is with all the photos that give the impression of a professional hair cut?
/r/MensRights03/10/17 03:41 AM
1

It's still a lower sentence than if the circumstances were identical and the genders reversed. Really, I think there is a good argument that we have gone past appropriate protections for underaged youth, but that's a separate argument from the rights argument which is both should be treated equally under the law.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 07:15 AM
3

In a reasonable context it would be. With a woman doing the attacking and crowds of guys around, if you are not with a group of friends, it would be ill advised. This guy got the support of the group by putting up with it for so long that everybody else wanted to hit her too.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 07:11 AM
1

A lot of people think that if the other person instigated the fight, it's okay to start punching. actually in many countries it is completely ok - In Canada there is also the concept of consensual fight - that's two morons outside a bar yelling at each other until one takes a swing, or for another example, two people facing off and one says "come at me, bro" and the second one does - in both cases no assault occurred since the fight would be deemed consensual. If someone jumps you and you drop t…
/r/MensRights01/10/17 07:09 AM
3

Damn. I missed the point until you mentioned it.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 06:59 AM
1

In a holistic sense that may be true. However, the situation and inputs and outputs are vastly more complicated that what you have laid out and there are likely far more solutions than the one you propose.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 06:51 AM
1

ok - so it's more of a "they are against it because they oppose a set of solutions that you think is appropriate." not because they haven't expressed support for homeless men.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 07:52 PM
2

That might be true. In the meantime though, this is the largest forum available to those discussing these topics.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:51 PM
2

The people that actually accomplish things, like NOW defeating shared parenting laws - those ARE the real feminists. The feminists you are talking about, the ones that simply believe in equality - are the ones that aren't real feminists, because they have no voice.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:49 PM
2

Like many, many others, you have read the brochure. The brochure is great, white sand, buffets, drinks galore, sunshine. The reality is somewhat different, a rocky shore, rain and spoiled food along with a bunch of nasty surprises. What do I mean? I mean that Feminism purports to believe in equality, but what they actually campaign for and cause changes in, is for advantages only. What's some examples? - earlier in the thread you would have read about protests against shared parenting, something…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:46 PM
6

Hey that ssc link - radicalizing.. that link was an awesome read. Thanks!
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:36 PM
2

Anyhow, a large portion of the mrm is against helping homeless men anyway You're a long time poster, so I am extending the benefit of the doubt here, can you support that assertion with evidence?
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:03 PM
1

"just for fun". The title statement that "claim was for fun" doesn't match in any way the excerpt quoted in the article. In the article the quoted conversation was that "going to the police to report the rape, it's going to be fun" - that could easily have been sarcastic. Basically the article doesn't support the interpretation of the title at all. However the details support the outcome, but that interpretation of the social media conversation needs a lot more support to be legitimate.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 05:57 PM
1

Yeah, I am a big fan of "Whatever the societal expectation, it should have equal treatment." In this case however, I think the general response from women is beyond stupid. Someone saying "hi" and attempting to start a conversation isn't "street harassment" regardless of how unwanted it may be. So, short version, the situation I want is that neither group complains about something this weak.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 03:28 PM
2

I am getting my information from feminists, I just don't have the same belief in their good intentions that you do. I have observed behaviour to back up my lack of belief because feminists campaign against things like shared parenting (that's one of those items often quoted as toxic masculinity - women should be the ones to care for children, being reinforced by feminism - it's toxic masculinity when blaming men for working too many hours - don't hear a whisper when it might mean giving up their…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 03:18 PM
3

Yes there are some "feminists" who put blame on men for things, but they do not represent the majority of feminists. Yeah, I have seen this a lot lately. Are you familiar with the "no true scotsman" fallacy? My argument there is "the group that has influence, affects decisions and has the loudest voice" are the real feminists. It doesn't matter if they are the majority, if the majority have no effect and no real voice.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:58 AM
3

But then we are probably not hanging out/talking to the same people. I think we probably are, we are likely just hearing it differently. When you hear you have a set of preconceptions you believe, when I hear it I have a set of preconceptions I believe. While I accept that in some specific conversations there might be value in the concept as expressed, I believe that most of the time it is simply blaming men for having problems. Outside of academic discussions, it's simply blaming everything neg…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:35 AM
6

but it seems like she should go out and get another high paying job like she had before and hire a childcare at some point. Yeah, the op was particularly vague on when she had her $100k/yr job, whether it was before or after she had medical issues. I am betting it was never $100k, and it was short lived and then she had constant medical issues. Now she has a life line out and wants a few years of housekeeping to set her up for life. However, the guy is definitely undervaluing her and not being r…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:17 AM
2

Yeah, like I said, the common usage has overtaken any definition so much as to make the actual intended definition irrelevant. As well, there's no counterpoint - all of those traits have both advantages and disadvantages and the same can be said for every trait, masculine and feminine. The Mask is a comedy with Jim Carrey - I believe the title you are looking for is "The mask you live in". I have not watched it but I am aware of it. It has also been roundly criticized as essentially blaming men …
/r/MensRights28/09/17 06:08 AM
7

I believe that I fit an ADD diagnoses, although I never took medication. (EDIT: as a kid) I did have problems paying attention in school, but I was still a top performer. Would drugs have helped, yeah, probably. I have tried a couple of different ones as an adult and there was one that had significant positive effects on ADD traits (as well as anxiety and depression, which anti-depressants and mood stabilizers have proved to be completely useless for). The more I look at the nature of things, th…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 05:02 AM
3

Men being the victims of social injustice and things like rape and abuse are big topics that are widely discussed in the feminists community. Maybe you have not personally experienced this yet, but it is very true. You are right, never experienced it. As well, whenever I have heard a feminist recount having discussed it, it lands squarely in 'victim blaming', as in "It happens because of toxic masculinity" Feminists are only discussing it in terms of how it reinforces their ideas (like toxic mas…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 04:53 AM
1

I have knowledge of a similar situation. Small startup had a 'jokes' mailing list. - had grown to about 100-ish people. Some of the women flooded the jokes list with very nasty and hateful jokes about men. For weeks. After about 6 weeks the jokes list was deleted. While I know many guys thought it was over the top, no one dared actually complain - not so much because we were horribly offended but mostly because it would likely lead to ridicule - but it would have been easy to imagine that ridicu…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 04:47 AM
1

this response still annoys me. Auto downvote applied.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 04:37 AM
3

Good grief. Why not just take it for the non-threatening compliment it is and forget about it a couple of steps later.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 04:37 AM
1

I agree with your statement. She did answer tho'.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 04:09 AM
3

The answer that /u/bufedad seems to be avoiding for some reason is that if any post here in mr can be interpreted in any way (even if that interpretation is clearly moronic) to have revealed somebody's name or location then the reddit admins will ban this subreddit somewhat faster than immediately. Even if that rule doesn't exist for other subreddits or doesn't need to be followed as scrupulously in other subreddits, it does need to be followed that scrupulously here you could certainly create a…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:09 AM
4

She responded to at least one comment saying the short answer was 'yes, all children deserve to have both parent's in their lives'
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:57 AM
24

generally, yes. I believe this is referred to in - the war on boys by Christina Hoff Summers, but I haven't read it so I am not certain. You can find a ton of op-eds that talk about the education system being biased against boys by MRA types. The feminist types claim that boys massively failing in education is because they were given a free pass before and now they are not so they have to work and don't like it. Since we are talking from 5 up, it seems like a shitty attitude to me.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:42 AM
2

this is true - you are over-reacting. (Unless they get married and he adopts the kid - it's really hard to be on the hook for an already existing child.)
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:39 AM
1

Yes okay great they are whackos that have influence on the world. That shit happens all the time. That doesn't mean you write off all the real people too. Since the 'real feminists' aren't having any actual effect than whenever somebody has a valid complaint on this sub just sub in "wacko non-real feminists who actually do shit' - since that is what you are doing anyways. In case you don't realize what the problem with that is, the 'real feminists' (the ones that actually believe in equality but…
/r/MensRights27/09/17 07:54 PM
1

That's some real mind bending twists you have to do to get to where you are. Did you have to go to a mental gymnastics school for that?
/r/MensRights26/09/17 06:34 AM
1

Otherwise, you just sound like a woman-hater You must be relatively new to men's rights. Here's a flash: we will sound like this to them anyway. If you are new to MRA-land, this is a point you should carefully listen to. It doesn't matter how well-reasoned the argument is, or how gently it's presented, if it doesn't reinforce the feminist doctrine you are a mouth-breathing, basement dwelling, neckbearded misogynist.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 06:27 AM
1

women's tendency to marry into status, what is this other than societal pressure? to some extant human female hypergamy is likely governed by more than just societal pressure - this is a strategy that has improved the outcome for offspring for as long as the species has been alive. And arguably, as advanced by philosophy professor Jordan Peterson, has potentially been the guiding factor in why we have become the dominant species on the planet. He also argues that dominance hierarchies are an una…
/r/MensRights26/09/17 06:23 AM
1

yes. yes, it is crazy that people this stupid exist. But they do.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 05:59 AM
1

I think you are confusing his arguments with strawmen that he came up with for the purpose of discussion. Both of the items he lists are well documented actual social movements headed by feminists. Regardless of you saying that "level-headed people don't think this way" or "No real activist for women's right" would say such a thing, they do say exactly those things. default custody: http://www.christianpost.chttp://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439018/Women-s-open-prisons-to-closeom/news/opposition-…
/r/MensRights26/09/17 05:56 AM
1

Sure, if you are focused on your activity, it's possibly nobody would have been sufficiently attractive. (although, are you sure there is nobody who could have stopped you that would have taken your attention completely off your run?) As for the annoying part, it's likely the social awkwardness - I mean if someone was also running and asked you directions and started a conversation in a more normal sense before asking for a date, the annoying would be far less, wouldn't it?
/r/MensRights11/09/17 03:48 PM
2

not being anywhere near there, and having almost no knowledge of the place, rules, etc - this is clearly an exception so that 'bars, pubs and nightclubs' are illegal to carry into but restaurants are legal.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 04:56 AM
1

The pussy pass is that the world is scared of women's power to cry 'sexual assault' so the rules don't apply to them. That seems an almost literal definition of a 'pussy pass'.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 04:52 AM
1

Some women call this street harassment. That's an interesting point of view. So, some guy talking to a woman when the woman doesn't want to be talked to is 'street harassment'. I can buy that if the guy had started a conversation and been told 'I am not interested' or 'I would like to be left alone' - otherwise you are saying that men's lack of telepathic ability is somehow harassment. As a side note, since there are people who hook up while exercising or in the gym or running or whatever, the i…
/r/MensRights11/09/17 04:42 AM
1

slightly annoying (like if I'm clearly going for a run and they stop me to ask me if I want to go hang out with them in the middle of my run). How can you call this cat-calling at all? It's socially awkward, dumb and unlikely to work, but it's not cat-calling.
/r/MensRights06/09/17 09:52 PM
0

the proble is being catcalled by a unatractive male. This. It's only catcalling in retrospect of if they no longer like the guy or if they need to brag/shore up ego. OR if you have committed the sin of being unattractive in public.
/r/MensRights06/09/17 09:50 PM
5

Dating is a western concept, we don't have it, we never had it, and for sure we will not gonna start now. I am curious now. How does it work then? If you don't date, I am assuming you don't jump straight to married, and I am assuming that you don't do arranged marriages, so what's the process?
/r/MensRights06/09/17 09:46 PM
4

Lucas did far worse to Star Wars with the prequels than Disney has.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 06:31 PM
2

I actually really liked the movie. I liked the origin story rewrite - makes a lot of sense. Was a lot of fun to watch.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 06:29 PM
3

Good lord, watch the actual video of the arrest video. Halfway through an 18 year old guy would be on the ground bleeding. Maybe shot.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 08:29 PM
3

So, people who weren't the target audience are unhappy about how it was marketed?
/r/MensRights27/08/17 08:20 PM
10

Don't fuck with the German sex workers You're trying to put them out of business?
/r/MensRights02/05/17 05:43 PM
1

We shall enforce this justice at the next privilege meeting.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 07:36 PM
3

he did say 'somewhat'. If we interpret that as sarcastic it makes more sense...
/r/MensRights25/11/16 07:45 AM
26

What's with the choice of photos (and the number of photos) in that article - showing them drinking, partying, smoking drugs, hanging out by the pool or on the beach - you would almost think the news source wanted people to think badly of them.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 04:07 PM
1

i have a sister and if one of her ex's msgs me i could really give to fucks about what he has to say, least of all about what the hell they did together this is correct. Drop it and move on.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 03:28 AM
2

When given their own druthers, they WANT TO FILTER OUT UNWANTED ATTENTION. Do a hard think about that one and come back to me when you've connected the dots. best response.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 03:17 AM
2

Or here's another: bring up the fact that almost half of non-mutual domestic violence is committed by women, and thus isn't really a gendered issue. So, please try going to a real-life feminist meetup and challenging any point of feminist orthodoxy. Please let us know how it goes. Uhh. Let's not give suggestions that will have him assaulted or killed. His stance is broken but I fall short of wanting to read a news story of his hospitalization.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 03:15 AM
2

Feminism aims to make gender roles permeable, so that even if most people choose to remain in traditional gender roles, those that don't will not be punished for doing so. In theory, this may be true. In practice, this is not the focus of feminist policy and political advocacy. Pushing for more discriminatory laws, greater pressure to have men conform to the historical male role and greater calls for male obeisance are what feminism actually does. For example: For instance, feminism wants to do …
/r/MensRights22/11/16 03:01 AM
7

Actually, they looked like they were figuring out how to help. They didn't start gawking until he made it obvious that help was unnecessary.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 02:23 AM
2

to display solidarity when feminists advocate (as they very often do) for the improvement of boys' and men's well-being. Unsupported assertion - proof required.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 08:48 PM
1

Your link is only complaining that he mocks women and doesn't speak of the event you mention at all. It actually seems like a claim that women shouldn't be subject to bad names and mocking as that's "misogynist and bigoted". It's that sort of belief that women should get special treatment that stops them from being held to equality. However, I will assume that you posted the wrong link. If he mocked a specific, private, individual then it sounds like he made an error. If he apologized for it, th…
/r/MensRights21/10/16 07:17 PM
1

school teachers receive a full time salary commensurate to their training and experience (ie they get a salary similar to any other degree graduate + similar experience) while only working 10 months of the year. Within that 10 months, they get 4 weeks vacation and 10 +/- professional development days (another 2 weeks) - over time, yes, they earn less than engineers but they start at the same rate and they get more paid training and 3 months off per year - no engineer gets that in their work expe…
/r/MensRights21/10/16 02:31 AM
1

Strange article. Everyone de-escalates to avoid unpleasantness and consequences. Most guys "de-escalate" to avoid getting fired. Unless you have decided that being fired is better than tolerating whatever is happening. Same thing for violence, of which guys are at higher risk of. She is imagining that women are the only ones that have to deal with the real world.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 01:09 AM
1

I get to write sex toys off as a medical expense on my taxes at least there's a silver lining?
/r/MensRights21/10/16 01:04 AM
1

pointless, but funny.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:57 AM
2

he's a comedian, he's supposed to mock shit.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:54 AM
3

I have commented here that I have a friend whose wife died of cancer, and he was trying to get the benefit shifted over to him in the last few months of her life so it was one less thing he had to deal with afterwards. He was told "send us the death certificate when you have it". I have actually commented on this a few times in this forum, only to have the armchair lawyers (and an actual lawyer - or at least she pretends to be one here) tell me how that wouldn't stand up in todays laws (after I …
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:42 AM
1

it's only some basic grips to hold people in place. and if you think any of that works in the face of actual violence you are in for a nasty surprise.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:35 AM
1

This is why police officers always use stuff like grips to hold down somebody aggressive, use cuffs, or tasers and pepper spray. Police officers use "conferred authority" (ie, screw with them and your life will be much worse) and they use "overwhelming force" (5-6+ against one and they get batons and tasers - pick up a bat and you get shot). The situations are not comparable nor are the rules.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:34 AM
1

There are better methods, however, for the layman, you'd have no way of knowing or being trained to react as such. This is a really common misconception - This idea that with martial arts training you can subdue attackers and "nobody gets hurt" - it's wrong and has no basis in reality. Anybody that does that and it works was just absurdly lucky. Most of the time you try that and you just end up way worse off. You are trying not to hurt the other person and they don't have the same restraint at a…
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:31 AM
3

If it had been a guy attacking Ray Rice, even if the guy was only 120 lbs sopping wet, it would be the attacker on trial. I support responsibility for your actions. Even if you have tits. There might be an argument that Ray used excessive force - but with one punch, I doubt it. However, the woman was not charged.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 12:26 AM
62

Fuck that shit, she got what was coming to her. If you can't take it, don't dish it out This is the comment that I would have like to have heard on the clip - "well, if she didn't want to get hit, she shouldn't have started throwing punches".
/r/MensRights20/10/16 02:20 AM
2

not all men can stay completely stoic and in control when they're being physically assaulted ob.: if it's a real assault, your body has a way of just shutting that down?
/r/MensRights20/10/16 02:20 AM
3

No, there weren't better ways to deal with it. What he did was entirely appropriate. EDIT: he didn't do anything when insulted. He did something when he was violently attacked.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 02:18 AM
4

, so in essence it's not like one guy was passing out leaflets and the professor said, "Mayor! I choose you to sue!" and put him in a legal pokeball. And again, your use of english to communicate comedy is impeccable. Well done.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 06:09 AM
1

(If you've ever been to Shinjuku Station, you know it's like the final boss dungeon of train stations and in its labyrinthine passages and tunnels, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.) You clearly win at english.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 06:06 AM
1

lol. Well Hi! What a wuvable little ray of sunshine! Thanks, you made me smile.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 02:48 AM
2

I assume this is different in different locations and in different stores - Almost everywhere where I live has changing tables in the men's rooms and I suspect most big box/chain stores do this as routine. This change is likely only to affect smaller stores and non franchise places
/r/MensRights13/10/16 09:16 PM
2

It's so fucking, absolutely depressing that our enemies are SO fucking witless. and still mostly winning. It's bizarro depressing land.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 09:10 PM
2

well, it states that the time girls spend on chores is time that they aren't "doing homework, socialising or playing" so they are heavily implying that while girls are working, boys are either working on their future or goofing off.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 05:54 PM
1

Why increase that with meaningless bs like getting butthurt You are assuming that their competition isn't friendly and they are laughing over it themselves. It might be they are getting butthurt, it also might be that it's a stupid game that they play and laugh like hell over regardless of who "wins". That doesn't mean it isn't be viewed as competitive. Most of your complaints about competitiveness are complaints about some people's (perhaps yours but perhaps not) reactions to competition - whet…
/r/MensRights12/10/16 05:22 PM
2

That's certainly possible. I found the muscle mass argument interesting because it is certainly plausible, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in reality - there could be a lot of other causes for that too. Or it could be true but be masked by other factors.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 09:15 PM
2

yeah, I hinted at that possibility, but it doesn't really seem true to me either. I mean, adult women in elite women's soccer likely outweigh high school boys, but get trounced by a competitive high school boys team. It seems like that explanation is not sufficient.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 06:17 PM
1

ah, didn't see that. Thanks for the correction.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 06:14 PM
1

These routinely come up in MR and Relationships and other subs - there was a particularly egregious story a month or so ago. Sometimes they are linked to news stories, sometimes they are anecdotal. Here is an article spinning "guys using false allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in divorce". Tell me if you don't think this strategy is way more successful for women. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2012/05/22/how-some-men-are-upending-domestic-violence-laws-to-scam-an-advant…
/r/MensRights11/10/16 06:12 PM
3

While it might not be technically true, in a large number of US states they have a combination of a "must arrest" rule and a "must remove the person with the greater potential to cause harm" - this is effectively "arrest the guy" regardless of who the violent party actually is. So, the guy could be effectively correct. Unless you know all the circumstances you can't actually claim it is untrue.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 05:36 AM
1

outside the home is pretty public. You could be arrested for public indecency by being nude outside your front door. Although apparently you can be arrested in some places for being nude inside without curtains drawn, so - I am pretty sure recording in this situation is completely legal. Also, would really screw up security camera companies businesses if recording on the premises where the is no expectation of privacy was illegal.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 05:32 AM
1

wrong surrey. Not uk, Canada.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 05:06 AM
1

This group needs to be sued into the ground for this and the "member" who contacted the cousin also needs to be sued into poverty for doing so. Why the hell isn't this illegal?
/r/MensRights11/10/16 05:05 AM
1

Space Battleship Yamamoto But, yeah, I knew it as star blazers too.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 05:01 AM
1

Competition for the sake of competition just breeds animosity. The olympics are competition for the sake of competition. You will constantly hear how the gold medalist got his world record because the silver medalist did a personal best, and the silver medalist got a personal best because the bronze medalist got a personal best. (this part really isn't gender based either I don't think - you are a competitive person to be in these things). We often rise, or fall, to the level of our competition.…
/r/MensRights11/10/16 04:56 AM
1

I have read people with the argument that muscle mass is muscle mass and that an man and a woman with an equal amount of muscle mass would be equally strong. That may be what your professor was saying. I wonder if that belief is correct though, because if that were the case, then within the same weight class you would expect roughly the same results - and it isn't even remotely true. Now, there is a possibility that for the same muscle mass women are heavier than an equivalent guy - but I don't …
/r/MensRights11/10/16 04:50 AM
2

can be, yes, and some boys are not. All the outlying statistics can't be accounted for in any single system. Not treating them all the same is probably good since boys are overwhelmingly failing.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 05:41 PM
1

that's clever.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 07:09 AM
1

You're 19, you aren't going to get any significant amount of money out of making a big deal of it and you are going to screw with your future employment because of a shit show that might follow you around. Especially now when everything is permanently documented (correctly or otherwise) on the interwebs. Blow it off until you find another job. Move on. Take the best revenge - have a good life.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 07:07 AM
2

Interesting. There is a bunch of missing data I would be curious about - Percentages also can hide huge amounts of bias. Total population of boys vs total population of girls, age range being considered, etc. Nevertheless, it interested me to find that in 2013, among lower secondary school age children, there were more out-of-school boys than girls. In societies ravaged by violence (the societies that make up most of this disparity) the life expectancy of boys is often somewhat lower - perhaps t…
/r/MensRights08/10/16 06:56 AM
1

You would think so, but you would be wrong. Go look at feminist sponsored activism and laws and you will find that the actual lobbying done by groups that claim to be feminist are the exact opposite of what you have stated.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 06:30 AM
2

yep, except for the second guy who was wearing a suit that was vaguely victorian, all of these guys are almost interchangeable - they are all pretty much identical in their classicly handsome facial structure and features.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 01:06 AM
34

Great article. However, the story won't be "boys are the underperforming sex", it will be "women are naturally smarter".
/r/MensRights05/10/16 12:55 AM
1

it is a brand of bottled water.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 09:26 PM
2

ok. this sounds kinda good.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 09:24 PM
2

I also never just accept information that only supports my belief. lol. Truth be told, we all do this. We all have beliefs that we have formed about the world that are so deeply ingrained that we can't even realize that there is a different option. These tend to be as much a part of us as breathing is. With a viewpoint this firmly rooted, we will always slant and bias our observations and will always interpret things in the way that fits what we already believe. Finding these 'mis-perceptions' i…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 07:09 PM
1

This generally only happens if the bio-father is willing to adopt. If not, then the husband stays on the hook - as before, it's usually not his choice, it's someone else's. Yes, there might be the rare case where something is successfully argued, using other mitigating circumstances, like they had already been separated for an extended time or something, but most of the time this is not an option available to the husband.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 07:02 PM
2

wow, someone really dislikes the idea that a white guy could ever have a legitimate problem. actually, "even be portrayed as having a legitimate problem".
/r/MensRights28/09/16 02:37 AM
1

That teaches you that it's ok to be slightly MRA while attractive. Or the more common corollary "don't be unattractive".
/r/MensRights28/09/16 02:33 AM
7

Lol. Would be nice to see a justifcation for that.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 01:42 AM
1

I'm referring to how I can tell in specific cases it's because I'm a chick. But you can't tell, you just believe it to be so, and if you try to confirm it, when they tell you that isn't the reason you believe they are lying to you. So there is no way to falsify your statement. This will always lead to you believing you are correct since you will always accept information that supports your belief and reject information that denies your belief. That's an interesting cognitive bias. It may be righ…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 01:27 AM
3

Well, this is the lady who wore a vial of, then lover, billy bob thornton's blood around her neck. It's not like Brad didn't have any hints as to what he was getting himself into. That said, it might have been worth it - that's pretty psycho. Really though, this is absurd. Each of these people are in the realm of the ultra-rich on their own merits. Needing to have "custody" and "child support" rather than just working it out via their staff is stupid. (http://www.eonline.com/ca/news/590691/billy…
/r/MensRights26/09/16 10:07 PM
1

unless it's being provided for free at the uni's expense, then it is simply free advertising for a self defense class.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 09:54 PM
1

Yeah, I understood that. The distinction was that the guys were using basic action triggers like "talk to that character" or presumably, "attack the bad guy/monster/npc". The girls were using more action triggers - without examples, I am going to guess, "leave the area", "look in the chest", and most likely "trigger off specific dialogue path". This is better story writing. It isn't that guys weren't capable of learning to do this, it wasn't part of their story. As well, the article does go on t…
/r/MensRights26/09/16 09:31 PM
1

huh, that's interesting. I am not clear what part you are referring to with your analogy. The feeling?
/r/MensRights26/09/16 09:23 PM
0

Yeah, I read it. I have also heard this argument before. It's missing the point. It's working on the belief that the 96% is free choice. It's not. Legal advice in these cases is "you won't win" or "you can try but it will be in the range of $xx,xxx dollars or more to try". Claiming that custody is a minor issue because most isn't contested is not even close to reasonable. Custody isn't contested because the bulk of men in the situation realize that it is throwing money into a battle that is larg…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 09:25 PM
1

I didn't say anything about North Korea... my bad, was tired, must have mis-read. On the wikipedia page you linked I count 26 countries that has an age of consent that isn't above 15. and the same page has 26 over 15 - when you add in Canada and the US that's most - unless you mean per capita, that's a bunch of math that I have no idea what it works out to. I found some shitty data. Not on purpose. fair enough.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 09:17 PM
1

I have to agree with levelate, I only ever heard it used to describe emotion, mental and social maturity. While your description matches reality, it doesn't match the social usage.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:41 AM
1

Canada: 14 Your data is wrong. Also much of your data is cherry picked and/or wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Consent_by_age iceland - wrong, 15, croatia - wrong, 15, malta - wrong, 18, spain - wrong, 16, North Korea - where did you get data on this? Realistically it would be more honest to say that in the majority of the developed world the AoC is 16 or higher. most western countries has an age of consent above 15 isn't fully accurate. It is completely accurate. m…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:18 AM
1

The young people, aged 12-13, spent eight weeks developing their own 3D, role-playing games, using software made available with the popular medieval fantasy game Neverwinter Nights 2, which is based on the popular Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Games like these are built on ‘scripts’, simple programs that describe what happens if or when a particular condition is met – e.g. if the player kills the dragon, a message is displayed on screen. However, many young people with no prior programming exper…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:10 AM
1

(usually the mother because she knows she can get a primary custodial judgement from a court You imply but neglect to mention that knowing this and knowing that she will get money (child support) from doing this go hand-in-hand. It is incentivized and there are few women that opt out of this system.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:05 AM
1

Actually, in your analogy, you have learned one route, through one passage and then criticized others in different passages with different challenges for not being able to get through safely. You asserted that your route (love, family, feelings) was sufficient for everyone. That's is naive. It clearly isn't sufficient for everyone, it's not even sufficient for the majority.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:50 AM
0

Yeah, this Menslib guy has serious blinders on. If we take for granted that men get screwed in custody court settlements, which I don't, we're still only talking about something like 4 percent of divorces. The other 96 percent are decisions that are made without ever seeing a judge. So even if family court is screwing fathers over, it's a tiny proportion of the custody issue. If shouting the king has no clothes gets your head on a spike, and then someone comes along and says "that seems kinda ha…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:41 AM
1

Tools? Intelligent and capable people have the tools needed to do the type of work she's talking about if they are homeowners and if they don't then they don't qualify for being defined as intelligent. Really? every condo owner has all the tools needed to tackle every plumbing issue in their condo? Every homeowner too? You're a little absurd. She also never said that she couldn't, just that she likes it if he can. You do all your own plumbing, IT, roofing, electrical, carpentry, accounting and l…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:36 AM
1

but her belief system has taught her that what she wants is wrong and she's so neck deep in that shit she assumes she and him must be messed up before remotely considering that her beliefs might be wrong. this is a great statement.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:30 AM
1

I'm saying you're oversimplifying the problem here, No, he is just not saying the obvious, which is the feminist analogy was intended to justify all sorts of things - women only spaces, women only services, women only funding, reduced rights for men, prejudice against men, reduced right to fair trial for crimes involving women. obligations from men to address women's fears. Note that many of these things already exist, there is only the beginning of a "hey, this doesn't really seem equal" and th…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:19 AM
1

They will be the woman of your dreams and do everything you like to do, but when they feel like they have you, then the chaos and turmoil begins. Psycho is the best sex. And by the time this shit starts you're already under water. If the psycho is relatively clever or more experienced you only understand this shit long after it happened.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:09 AM
2

This seems likely. Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:07 AM
1

she instantly started saying "YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME" (not true). Then it just goes into this spiral her rehashing or recreating the past You mean this? Yeah, it's a pretty big clue that when she does something wrong she immediately accuses you of the behaviour that she did.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:06 AM
2

something something logic yep.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:00 AM
2

but it's insane that they expect colleges to take care of a serious crime. Yep. Why have police and courts, let's just refer all crime to a dean of English. Clearly they have good skillz in this. The idea that the college/uni should be involved at all in a matter for police is absurd.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:56 AM
1

I would be surprised if Rolling Stone and Erdley get out of this without a serious penalty, possibly more than one, since I was under the impression that the fraternity involved was seeking damages as well.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:55 AM
1

We get stories about custodial ex's who are living with a new guy for 10+ years and holding off getting married until child support runs out. Makes no difference here - the ex getting married doesn't relieve you of the child support burden. You still pay. Until the child is of legal age, or finished school, whichever is later.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:43 AM
2

We did LOTS of camping and outdoors stuff. He's not complaining about the activity but about the stuff about how adults volunteering with kids have to be concerned about safety, both for themselves and for the kids. His point is both good and bad at the same time. This much heightened status of protection around children and young adults does cause a bunch of head-aches. EDIT: This is mostly about protecting the adults from possible accusations of inappropriateness as I have been given to unders…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:32 AM
1

and don't when they talk to guys in the group Yeah, but within a group there are a lot more dynamics to consider. One is what relationship the people listening have. The other is what knowledge the speaker has about the level of competency the listeners have in the field being discussed. As an example: I have friends that are nutritionists, and physiotherapists. I have found that, being a technical person, physiotherapists and nutritionists will explain based on the idea that I have zero knowled…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:16 AM
1

Here, the guy gives no indication that he's going to leave. From his comment further down: Truth be told, I don't know if I can live with raising another guys kid. So, yeah, he clearly knows its on the table.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:05 AM
1

It's this weird, specific way that a guy explains something to a girl. Except I don't think that's true. I think there is a patronizing way that people can explain things to other people. I don't think it's gender biased overall. Men may do it slightly more because there is a little more social pressure for a guy to be an expert but I doubt it's significant.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 10:16 PM
3

Officer seems to have mistaken gun vs taser That mistake should have no bearing on the charge - an officer is trained and if they can't remember their training in a real life situation they have a greater responsibility, not lesser. I suspect the manslaughter to be more likely based on the officer acting based on fear and the validity of the charge is whether that fear was reasonable for a trained person to have in that situation. (as mens-advocate explains in another comment).
/r/MensRights24/09/16 09:52 PM
1

Naive: having or showing a lack of experience. Sure, but you are generalizing your singular experience across the entire population You are simply showing a lack of experience. I hold that statement as true.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 09:42 PM
1

If they guy decides to stay with her, he absolutely has a moral and legal obligation to raise that child. You may be right in that statement, you may not be, I am not arguing that issue - however the question is "should he have the legal obligation to raise the child if he doesn't stay with her?" Because right now, him getting divorced is irrelevant. According to the law, it's his kid. Even if it isn't.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 09:40 PM
1

I am not quite clear what you are saying... it sounds like you are saying this guy should be on the hook ... Abort it - not his choice. He has influence but not actual say. Divorce her - not going to happen before the baby is born. Here, there is a 1 year separation requirement before granting divorce. (yes, there are ways around it but not a lot and you would have to make the other party out to be an abuser or something similar). 3 Support it - so, that's the point of my post - this is the only…
/r/MensRights21/09/16 05:51 AM
1

Men aren't given seats when they are in some similar situation like an injury. it means that people in general should be more thoughtful and empathetic. yep, injured, elderly or pregnant, if I notice, I will offer my seat. However, Why is she on the subway if she is so pregnant she has to complain about it? She is clearly more than well off enough to have afforded a cab. Was she dressed so that pregnant was obvious and it was clear she wasn't just fat. I don't give up my seat to fat people. I wo…
/r/MensRights21/09/16 05:00 AM
1

You believe your statement isn't naive because you have had a long term relationship? Was your relationship really that easy that love, kids and company was sufficient? Or better question - which group do you fall into and do you disagree with anything I actually said?
/r/MensRights21/09/16 04:44 AM
1

Archie Bunker (with which I am not familiar) Damn kids these days. Yeah, Archie is from "all in the family" a 70's sitcom. ahh, your British and clearly old enough. Sorry. If you had been in N. A. you would have known All in the Family.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 04:16 AM
1

I think this is the best set of statements... except that I will add that for all the crimes not covered by the above, women's sentences need to go up and men's go down. Probably to the "slightly less than meet in the middle" suggestion of another poster.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 04:10 AM
1

It pisses me off that there's a women's only area of my gym, complete with pristine equipment (barely used of course) which I pay for but don't have access to. I put up with it because it's the closest gym and a private business, I knew it was there when I signed up. Just annoys me. yep. same boat. Annoying but I knew about it in advance - and as a private business it is probably a necessary evil - if they didn't have it they would have a lot less women sign up and that is a big chunk of the mar…
/r/MensRights21/09/16 04:05 AM
1

Love? Kids? Company? You know, feelings ... You are too naive. A relationship is difficult and challenging and requires a great deal of work. Either the two people have to be fulfilling a serious need that each have - not exactly a healthy system but it works - OR - they need to be so dedicated to the principle of marriage and making a relationship work that they surmount the difficulties because it's more important to them to be married. That second one is done by very, very, very few people. A…
/r/MensRights21/09/16 03:32 AM
5

That's not true - the presumption of fatherhood in marriage that puts this guy on the hook for paying for and raising another man's child is directly part of the decision process this guy has to face. Along with the realization that if his wife wants to carry it full term, he has to pay for it. Very much men's rights.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 03:18 AM
1

who the father might be sure. But "knowing who might be" and "knowing who the father is" are two different things. You can have sex with two different guys and not know which one is the father.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 03:12 AM
1

well, to be fair, she may only know it's a choice between two. More than that rates "ultra", but at two it's just "cheating slut". At least that is how I imagine a ranking system that includes "ultra-cheating-slut" works?
/r/MensRights21/09/16 12:38 AM
1

Yes, if he is arbitrarily deciding where the field is, who the opponents are and which ball is in play, what plays are legal, which plays are illegal and what constitutes a goal during the game. The reading of the playbook becomes irrelevant. Overall it's a garbage analogy, but I thought I would run with it, since you used it.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 12:36 AM
2

That's a good point. She could have been dumped by the source of her income. If that was the case, perhaps alimony is warranted - didn't really think it matters since she is getting alimony and that was not the question. So, rephrasing: She believes that her standard of living shouldn't change at all, despite massive change in life circumstances. Which is still horrific levels of entitlement. I mean, what would our sympathy be for the guy whose wife dies and he gets life insurance money and uses…
/r/MensRights19/09/16 12:02 AM
2

it's evidence that our constant countering or it's a matter of fatigue - really, cafe has done a good job of running event after event. It's relatively easy to raise outrage once, twice, thrice - but 6, 7, 8 .... 29, 30, 31? That's a lot harder. People will jump up and shout the first time, maybe for the dedicated the first 10 times, then it starts to get old. Their audience starts to blank them out, like spam. I think Cafe's, maybe unintentional, strategy of just out lasting the opposition is s…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:54 PM
3

The proposed bill appears silent on what happens if the woman refuses to divulge — or simply doesn't know — who the father is. I don't like bullshit phrases like this - "simply doesn't know" - yeah, she may not know exactly who the father is but she certainly fucking knows that there is more possible fathers than the one she is potentially defrauding by not disclosing.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:34 PM
6

She complains she can't date downwards in the social ladder so she can continue her lifestyle... This is the problem. She dumped the source of her income but doesn't want the responsibility of the pay cut that results from her own decisions. Therefore some other sucker must pick up the slack.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:30 PM
0

really? That wasn't my understanding. They just let anyone who wants a shot to go?
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:25 PM
1

or you are too invested to see the reality.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:23 PM
1

Have you actually read these studies, since I have specified the entire field, no, I have not read all the studies. Neither have you. I have read several. I find social science states are so subjective that, like I said, even good methodology is irrelevant to the bias of the researcher.
/r/MensRights17/09/16 07:12 AM
2

kid was 17 at the time bruh, wtf are you on about? 17 and 15 year old getting it on? Pretty much the definition of normal.
/r/MensRights17/09/16 06:58 AM
1

You can tell by actually reading it. Looking at the methods, and how they word the conclusion with the data in context is pretty telling. It can be. But there is a lot of issues with the postulates that are assumed in social sciences that goes into the fundamental experimental design. Even if the methods and conclusions are cleanly done (all but impossible for social sciences, just because of the nature of the field) the experiment design itself hides presuppositions and biases that are usually …
/r/MensRights17/09/16 06:37 AM
1

you would be able to tell which ones have a bias, and which ones don't. I actually don't believe this to be true. In general, you would find the ones you agree with to be less biased, unless it was obvious and egregious. This one doesn't appear to have a bias. Even if this one is completely unbiased and objective, it's tainted simply because the entire social science process is so badly broken and there is so much garbage being peddled as 'science'. hard sciences have bias problems as well. Yes,…
/r/MensRights17/09/16 06:27 AM
1

Well, it's not significantly different than "kiss my ass" ... actually, kma sounds better, lmwif sounds like she is mentally deficient. THe article makes he teacher sound like a peach. Why hasn't she been fired already if they have so many disciplinary notes in her file? Oh, right, teachers are so protected by their unions in the west it is almost impossible to fire them.
/r/MensRights17/09/16 06:20 AM
1

You may want to actually read the study first, before you make thse comments. My comment on social science is the same regardless of whether I agree with the conclusion or disagree with it. It's not good science and hasn't been for a long time.
/r/MensRights17/09/16 06:09 AM
3

Congratulations to the woman who actually qualified to be on the course. That's an awesome achievement regardless of whether she passed or not. That's true for all the guys on the course as well. Outstanding work.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 04:53 AM
1

That's not even saying I don't agree with the conclusion - I mean, it's possible, maybe even likely, but I don't think these studies will ever prove anything other than the researchers ideology.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 04:48 AM
6

The problem I have at this point, I completely don't believe anyone doing this "science" has any objectivity. They are completely invested in their findings before they start the study. They will always find what they want to find. Honestly, I think almost all social science "data" for the last 25+ years has to be thrown out as garbage. Data collected for other reasons, like Court proceedings, FBI and CDC, etc, they have problems, but at least they aren't ideologically broken at conception.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 04:46 AM
1

Though I don't know if there is anything the judge can do if he had been certified unfit to plead. regardless of his unfitness, I believe that he would still be in custody. He wouldn't be "free to go" as the suspect in this case was. I think I agree with your implied statement though. He never would have been ruled unfit
/r/MensRights14/09/16 03:48 PM
0

anybody that puts their hands on you without your permission has committed assault.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 03:44 PM
1

I am convinced that you are correct. If male birth control ever becomes a reality, we will see a severe drop in birth rates. (And a rise in contested paternity) It would make for an interesting future. I am not convinced MBC will happen though.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:36 AM
0

Going to attack their genitals is a bit much though. Nope. If you accept that hitting was an acceptable response (and the story as it is, then I believe it's an acceptable response if it was an immediate response). Then you have the responsibility to your own safety to make that response violent enough to protect yourself from further assault.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:13 AM
1

because she felt wronged didn't give her the right to physically assault someone. If the reaction was immediate, she didn't "feel wronged", she was assaulted and acted in self defense. Completely appropriate. If she waited and went back later and did it, she committed assault. However, the issue I would have with the story - a club is crowded. Did somebody grab her ass, or did a hand brush across it? If it was an actual grab - how does she know she got the right guy? I honestly think that most o…
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:08 AM
1

best answer. In electronics stores, none of them know what they are talking about.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:01 AM
2

Women are less suspected / investigated. yep, this was my immediate thought - the real world effect of the 'women are wonderful' view.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 12:00 AM
3

the policing of gender for boys seems much more restrictive to me than it does for girls. But somehow they don't learn that is true for everything ... and instead are worried about what they can dress the baby in? And really, I have known many people to dress their babies in what ever they wanted without regard.
/r/MensRights13/09/16 10:16 PM
1

none of which would result in reduced responsibility if the gender was different. It may be that her treatment by the courts was appropriate. It may also be that her treatment by the courts was irresponsibly lenient. What it indisputably is however, is biased.
/r/MensRights13/09/16 09:50 PM
5

So, where is the order into psych care? That wasn't mentioned in the writeup.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 07:16 PM
4

It is not good news without a judicial order to psychiatric care or incarceration. I can't agree with police applying the law. The courts should.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 07:14 PM
5

yeah, like the case recently here in the East Bay when a women walked in to report a rape, but was turned away because she didn't look distressed enough. link to news story?
/r/MensRights08/09/16 07:09 PM
1

they just look for opportunities to improve the health of each. sure. But to pretend that isn't governed by those that are either ideologically or politically motivated is hopelessly naive. I haven't looked at the breast cancer vs prostate cancer issue I wasn't singling out prostate cancer. Breast cancer receives far more funding than it's relative importance in the scheme of all cancers. Fund raising campaigns are not run by doctors, even if I were to agree with your idea that they are objectiv…
/r/MensRights07/09/16 04:58 PM
8

so close, and yet, so far. If she had actually decided to listen, as she claimed she was going to, rather than only listen to the creations that prove she is right to keep not listening, she might have learned something.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 10:16 PM
1

There is nothing to suggest women get it more. 1 in 3 implies a devastatingly high rate - without the corresponding male rate (and age brackets, etc) it is intentionally providing a statistic in a completely misleading way. To pretend to believe that this isn't intentionally trying to manipulate public opinion to give the impression that it's more serious is dishonest. Remember the medical community is evidence based. They don't consult the tarot to work out what things to target in public healt…
/r/MensRights05/09/16 10:08 PM
7

because, like the 'save the boobies" pink ribbons everywhere - it will actually be funded more even though fewer people are dying of it and women already enjoy a longer lifespan. Then we will hear about how the fastest growing poverty demographic is old women (which will be true, because boomers are the largest demographic and they are in old age and the men are already dying off) Look at the harm that misinformation is causing. It makes you think women suffer from heart disease at higher rates …
/r/MensRights03/09/16 05:13 AM
1

I see what you did there. lol.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 08:05 PM
1

If you petition it, you'll most likely get one, You really haven't been paying attention - this has been being pushed at many universities and are being shot down and banned. Do a search, it's in the news for the last 5 years.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 07:02 AM
5

I agree that his story seems incredibly unlikely. Your downvotes are undeserved. If his story was true, there would be a legal ruling that could be referenced.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 07:00 AM
3

temporary restraining order - Usually issued in the same day requested usually issued 'ex parte' - meaning the person being restrained had no say in the matter. Usually issued as a 'precaution', because a judge who refused to issue one and then the woman was injured in an attack would be out of a job (note that judicial immunity protects them from almost everything else, but not a bad decision around women or children, interesting, no?). Often used in separation (and suggested by lawyers) to kee…
/r/MensRights28/08/16 06:53 AM
3

I think they continue to have very valid gender inequities, I just want to highlight that men also have gender based inequities, and I want collaboration and partnership from women on addressing all of the gender inequities. However there is so little collaborative discourse; The lack of collaborative discourse is not the fault of MR campaigners. I think that angry posts about how crap feminism is and how more women should be in jail is just increasing the divide and hampering any progress for a…
/r/MensRights28/08/16 06:39 AM
1

uhh. Let me try ... gibberish, gibberish, conspiracy theory, bad grammer, unclear ideas, more conspiracy theory, gibberish, red pill is bad. The writer isn't coherently making an argument at all. Essentially, they said that Hillary shills are doing all the posting in the red pill, mr, etc subreddits and pushing the politics of those subreddits to the right... Bizarre, unsubstantiated drivel with a side plate of paranoia.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 06:15 AM
2

You otherkin-phobe. Your shaming has no place here. My ancient shadow-dragon gerbilness is more valid than your cis privilege. You know, when you have to re-read absurdity to ensure that sarcasm is clear and you have a worry that someone may have seriously written something similar, does that mean that your mocking has become better, or the world has become worse? I am going with the world has become worse.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 05:25 AM
1

I love that she made a button (or emulated one) for the wage gap debunk! That's hilarious!
/r/MensRights27/08/16 05:07 AM
1

omg. the comments. Our bodies weren’t made for that. really? I, uh, ... , you know what? There are no words.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:57 AM
1

There is something else going on here - either a) she wanted the tax deductions herself (what income does she have to pay taxes on? If she has income that would be a significant amount of money). b) she simply wants to screw him over as much as possible. It isn't about the charity receiving the money, they still get the same amount as if it were given to her, it's about hurting him somehow.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:49 AM
2

The character of his actions say that his death was a loss to humanity. We can honor that loss without raising up the culture of disposability that brought him to the self sacrificing decision.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:46 AM
1

They will have some level of respect for what he did. Some. It's an unrepayable debt, what do you really expect?
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:44 AM
2

she does go on to say that the activism in this area was only protesting that women have support against domestic violence and in protesting that MRA's were ignoring that men were at risk and that women are at much higher risk of domestic violence than men are. Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin... makes you dizzy.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:38 AM
3

If they intend to do with us as the Nazis did with the Jews, Is intent necessary? Or maybe the system is a runaway train after the tipping point? I don't think feminists (most) really have any ill intent, just a complete lack of empathy with any other point of view and a complete indoctrination to the belief that men have everything. Self interest run amuck. However, when government reaches 50%+1 female, will that self interest take off like a rocket leaving the pad? You know the routine "I am a…
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:28 AM
3

And here I was, thinking feminism had achieved its goal of stripping fathers of any right No, no, no. They will simply re-write history when there is enough protest about this - then it will be "feminism" that fought for and gained custody rights for fathers - destroying the patriarchal notion that only women raise children. You have to learn the game man.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 04:20 AM
1

Ya know. Everyone is sounding like this show is the holy grail of MR - all I have ever actually heard the film-maker say is that she was suprised that there were actual indisputable MR issues and that she was trying to be balanced. While that is certainly a step forward - I harbor doubt that this is the MR favourable movie that everyone is anticipating. Was there more information regarding the content that I am missing?
/r/MensRights27/08/16 03:55 AM
1

but for the fact that his 3 year old grandson was watching them do it random passerby and the random passerby's 3 year old - nothing directly related to the guy charged at all.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 02:09 AM
2

Ya' know, this really depends on the sense of humour of the two people involved and how they have previously interacted. In some relationships this is just sauce that both will giggle over, in others, it's a relationship ender. Personally, I would dump the girl immediately upon returning home. If I am choosing to drink an excessive amount, intentionally or otherwise, that's an indication of how much trust I am putting in my companions to care for my well being - to abuse that trust would be a de…
/r/MensRights27/08/16 02:07 AM
0

Yeah, that's what I was thinking - too clean cut, beard trimmed, clean white tshirt, clean feet, clean jeans - he didn't make much of an effort to actually look like he was in need.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 01:59 AM
1

necrotechnocracy google can't find a definition. I stop reading at completely imaginary words.
/r/MensRights24/08/16 10:06 PM
2

although much of it most likely revolves around the desire or necessity cis men feel for not facing their emotions and not being vulnerable, since those actions are seen as un-masculine. Huh. Really? despite men being able to let their emotions go with reckless abandon Huh. Contradictory much? Don't believe this was written by a guy. Look at the excerpts: Acknowledge your thirsty posturing, $50. Pretend to find you fascinating, $100. Soothe your ego so you don’t get angry, $150. Smile hollowly w…
/r/MensRights24/08/16 03:55 AM
1

wow. that has so many red flags it might as well be Will Robinson's Robot - "Danger, Danger".
/r/MensRights24/08/16 03:47 AM
1

And where are you going with the female senators/Weiner comparison? because body shaming those female senators wouldn't be tolerated even though they are as equivalently "unsympathetic" as Donald Trump is - or at least they should be. This is your argument, he said mean things therefore it is ok to be equivalently mean back to him. It's a point that proves that argument is untrue in the larger world because women are always more sympathetic to society than men. The appropriate solution, in my op…
/r/MensRights23/08/16 10:33 PM
3

The double standard in body shaming has nothing to do with the sympathetic-ness of the target of the ridicule. That we won't see nude statues of Hillary Clinton is the point (actually... thank god). She would be just as deserving of ridicule, or perhaps as a better example, those female senate members who expressed shaming of Anthony Weiner using his sexting photos would never have a nude statue of themselves erected despite having engaged in exactly the same behaviour - it would be considered m…
/r/MensRights23/08/16 03:40 AM
1

I get the point if the article. and once again prove that you don't get the point of the article.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 07:05 AM
2

you totally missed the point of the article.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 07:43 PM
3

'Cause that's how ethics work. Yep.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 07:42 PM
1

assuming one steal's money from your monolithic entity you call a 'bank' and it wouldn't have repercussions on working people that deposit into it, if that money was then donated to a charity, it would be ethical overall. Yeah. We definitely disagree.
/r/MensRights20/08/16 08:23 AM
23

I loved the comment from the woman about the dog - "I'd do the same thing if it were a child" - apparently not since no one actually 'rescued' the boy at all.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 09:39 PM
2

the money in the bank belongs to the bank - they insure it, lend it out, what have you. If it wasn't theirs they wouldn't be able to do those things. Banks are usually very rich entities. Much richer than Depp. The equivalency is not false, at least not in the manner you indicate. the best action is the one that procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers You are essentially saying that the ends justify the means. We definitely don't agree there.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 09:33 PM
0

the same way stealing $15 million from a bank and donating it to that same charity would still be immoral. The argument is the same, the use of the money is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 07:50 PM
3

This was settled out of court. My personal opinion is that reporting this part of the settlement was what both sides agreed to. Since the paperwork will never become public, the ownership of properties and spousal support may have been agreed to but will never be publicly known.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 07:48 PM
4

/u/pariahdog has the right comment - societally, we like watching attractive fit women. Certain specific male events may get higher ratings - Track with Bolt, swimming with Phelps - but who wants to watch men's beach volleyball? As an aside, I do think that there is a ridiculous clothing issue here - why can men's beach volleyball essentially wear basketball knee length shorts and women are wearing bikini bottoms? Is this a choice by the women's sport to increase viewership or is it imposed?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 07:12 AM
3

given that they have people holding 6+ medal streaks, I think this is the most likely explanation. There is no way that the US just happens to have the most talented woman on the planet in several different sports where that woman is just so dominant that there is no real competition.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 07:09 AM
2

this is the closest statement But the more girls can grow up and watch Olympics like this, knowing they’re just as good as the men’s teams, Which is true only in the sense that they are as likely or more likely to win against the competition as the men's teams - I don't believe anyone actually thinks they can compete against mens teams - looking at the times makes that obvious - most female gold medal winners wouldn't even catch up to the last place male in their respective sport.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 07:07 AM
2

yeah, the article doesn't actually make that claim - the closest I was able to read is that the women have landed more medals. The title is somewhat misleading.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 07:02 AM
2

It's particularly funny when you think about the commonly cited (albeit wrong) origin of the phrase "let them eat cake" and the resultant outcome for the person who supposedly uttered the phrase (but really didn't). It's telling that they use this phrase - it symbolizes a complete lack of empathy and understanding for the plight of others, it even represents a refusal to even consider that there is something to be understood.
/r/MensRights18/08/16 08:46 PM
1

If this were true, you'd see fewer men having children out of stable relationships since child support became a thing and you do see that - the marriage rate is way down and the MGTOW is way up. This is definitely a choice being made. You are also hearing about more young-age male sterilization choices being made. The problem is that sex is a normal and natural drive and the guys only defense it to deny their own health to be effectively safe. Otherwise it's all risks and often in the hands of t…
/r/MensRights18/08/16 07:38 AM
3

Well that's an interesting ride in abysmal critical thinking skills. they are paid less from the very first day they enter the workforce. uh, nope. Actually they earn more until they start deciding they don't have to ... They are much more likely to work part-time. Which I am certain they are not forced into, but rather have the option to do, while still not reducing their standard of living. Now, let's spin a positive into a negative: The majority of those eeking out an existence on the single …
/r/MensRights18/08/16 07:12 AM
2

Stop shifting the blame. regardless, if there hadn't been a woman involved the police would have had no issue with interviewing the non-resident male outside the home. This is entirely because he refused to leave his home so they could interview a non-resident female inside his house. Really, if the cops come along knocking at your door and say "Hey do you mind leaving for a bit so that we can interview this woman in your living room" and you spend two months in jail for saying no, you don't thi…
/r/MensRights17/08/16 07:09 AM
2

The cop would have easily lied on the report. FTFY
/r/MensRights17/08/16 07:06 AM
3

In an argument between two men, do you think one would have been asked to leave his home, so that they could interview the man that doesn't live there inside the home? This is pretty clearly relevant.
/r/MensRights17/08/16 07:05 AM
8

Chances are he handles the whole thing, the yard work, and extra work from the office without breaking a sweat.
/r/MensRights17/08/16 06:45 AM
1

Well, I wouldn't. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just in case I wasn't clear - your approach doesn't change anything. The "two wrongs don't make a right" statement is fraudulent. What you are saying is that you support having two different standards for each gender since there is no way society is going to reduce the standards applied to men.
/r/MensRights17/08/16 06:41 AM
3

I'm talking about what I think ought to be the standard. You know, I think most reasonable people would agree with you. However, there are two very important points that you are missing. point 1 - the double standard - in sex, men are always viewed as active and women are always viewed as passive regardless of their actual levels of participation. Since this double standard exists and is obvious, using that double standard as part of your 'what you think the way things should be' will also almos…
/r/MensRights17/08/16 06:33 AM
14

Yeah, good question. Get attacked by a violent woman that happens to be attractive and spend most of a year in jail for not allowing yourself to be beaten. Not much of a victory.
/r/MensRights16/08/16 07:37 PM
2

presumably the mother and child have the same last name.
/r/MensRights16/08/16 07:31 PM
4

As soon as they go into feminist theory - kyriarchy, etc, etc - sexism towards men actually doesn't exist - they have changed the definition of the word sexism specifically so that, in their minds, it can't exist. It's simply not possible within their theoretical framework. Yes, it is bat-shit crazy - but only if you reject the feminist definition of patriarchy - which is (paraphrasing) - a system which advantages (all) men over (all) women. (They usually leave out the 'all's). If this definitio…
/r/MensRights16/08/16 05:30 AM
2

also i'm reasonably confident that this doesn't meet the criteria to be described as sexual assault. If it was a male sportscaster running his hands all over a female athletes abs and back and thighs - this wouldn't be considered sexual assault?
/r/MensRights11/08/16 03:16 AM
2

Yeah, this title is bad. Neither were charged with anything related to the sex. Both were charged for being in a stolen car. Seems pretty equal.
/r/MensRights09/08/16 05:08 AM
4

When the cops opened the door, she has a gun pointed at them. And they retreated and didn't kill her on the spot, if it had been a man, white or black, he would likely have been dead at that point.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 09:02 PM
2

Horrifically bad logic: Think about it this way. We know people who drive when they’re drunk are the ones most likely to injure or kill themselves and others. So not only do we make it illegal to drink and drive, we make sure everyone, and particularly young drivers, know the risks. This isn’t demonising anyone who drives a car, or even all people who drink. And we certainly don’t assume that every driver on the road is drunk, but the fact that most of us are responsible adults who would never d…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 06:57 PM
4

She should have gone to the hospital the next day to have her blood tested. There is no reason not to. Ultimately, I think drinking people are a shitty judge of "i've been drugged". It's just as likely she took a couple of shots a short while before and she felt the effects suddenly. Without making the effort to support her claim, she is just a person who can't hold her alcohol. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There was a study done in England (I think) that showed that of 1000…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 06:47 PM
1

I believe you mean 'Smiling and saying hi while not being in the top 30% of appearance'. Or maybe higher since that just nets you 'average looking'.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:40 AM
5

So, this is pretty weird: xamining 46 years of data on more than 6,300 married couples in the U.S., Killewald found a big shift in the risk of divorce in the mid-1970s. Couples married before 1975 were likelier to split up if women and men divided the housework equally, perhaps because the husband saw a threat to his traditional role in the household. Where the hell can you draw that conclusion from that data?
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:33 AM
5

Good to hear the passengers calling her out Only after she started hitting the guy who got up to protect her. She had to go full retard to get criticism.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 05:36 AM
2

true but the 'researcher' does state openly that no conclusions can be drawn other than it needs more research. except for the headline blaring the unverifiable conclusion, I suppose. EDIT: you know, it's a good point. It's also possible that the boards that have women VC on them are more developed, less risky VC groups that naturally attract more women and have higher success rates because they take less risk. It doesn't really have to be about the women's presence on the board at all.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 04:47 AM
2

They regularly post about what happened and what area it was in and so on along with any details that might actually help the police Yes the police regularly post vague statements to convey what actually happened with particular details that they feel might help them. They don't encourage full disclosure of anything they don't pre-approve of because they think it might help them. In fact, they discourage disclosure of anything by anybody else. You're trying very hard, but this 'evidence' that yo…
/r/MensRights29/07/16 04:45 AM
1

That's a really good idea.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 07:18 AM
4

Yeah, that's the most telling part of this article No. You can't conclude that at this time. Presumably she has reported this to the police and provided all data. Posting any direct non-vague information at this time would interfere with the police investigation.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 07:17 AM
3

The claim is that when VC Boards have women members then men and women leading the companies invested in succeed at the same rate (~40%). However, when it is all male boards, women succeed at about 15% and men succeed at about 27%. The previous explanation was "risk profile" with women being less risky overall thus creating less success. This article tries to argue that isn't true by pointing at the equal success rate when women are on the VC Board. The reasoning is ridiculously weak. The obviou…
/r/MensRights28/07/16 07:12 AM
1

but we don't call it that when the genders are swapped and I don't see any hint of the societal push to demonize men having sex with women under 18 slowing down anytime soon. I want my sons to have equal protection to my daughters. Your approach will not accomplish that, no matter how level headed you think it might be. It's a useless point of view that accomplishes nothing except maintaining a broken status quo.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 08:42 AM
1

but he's a bit of creeper who doesn't take "no" for an answer... Yeah, see, taking "no" for an answer after jumping in with both feet is what would make him a creeper. You've been socialized by feminists to think that apologizing for your interest when rejected is the correct choice. While I don't particularly like PUA or Redpill, in this arena, they have empirical evidence that contradicts the socialization.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 08:37 AM
1

ignore the completely gratuitous and unrelated picture of Ellen Pao. The claim is that when VC Boards have women members then men and women leading the companies invested in succeed at the same rate (~40%). However, when it is all male boards, women succeed at about 15% and men succeed at about 27%. The previous explanation was "risk profile" with women being less risky overall thus creating less success. This article tries to argue that isn't true by pointing at the equal success rate when wome…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 08:43 PM
2

Anyone think if the genders were reversed the prosecutor would give the family the option to not press charges for child porn and extortion/blackmail? yeah, this was my thought. Since when is it the families choice? Oh, let's ask the 7-11 owner first if he wants the armed robbers prosecuted? Like that happens.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 08:30 PM
1

Really ? Federal taxes allow you to deduct those things. So that's half your tax burden that allows deductions. As for the Quebec Provincial tax well, Quebec has a bunch of rules the rest of the country doesn't, so, can't help you there.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 02:46 PM
1

I want tax break for my work truck, fuel and for the thousands of dollars of tools I'm forced to have. generally speaking there are tax breaks for those things.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 02:44 PM
0

I'm always for equality in punishment (and yes, if the genders were reversed there would be a 10x bigger uproar and possible punishment for the dad), yeah. This one sucks. This is pretty much irrelevant to anything and should be ignored. Same as a father rough-housing with a son or daughter - the problem is one is viewed as abusive and the other is cute. In a sane world, this never rises to be an issue without extenuating circumstances. We don't live in a sane world. So, let's pillory everyone u…
/r/MensRights19/07/16 10:56 PM
3

yet they have already stated a commitment to a sequel... . http://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-2016-sequel-no-doubt/ interesting choice to double down on.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 06:21 AM
1

Oh good lord. You're the same twit who was posting the "let's cull women down to 10%" crap previously aren't you? This and your other post are just obviously intended to create something on the /r/mensrights subreddit that you can screencap with another account to claim "sick twisted MRA's - look what they say". I suggest that you need therapy. Please talk to your doctor.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 08:02 PM
4

I am aware this is not directly an MRA issue, It very much is an MRA issue. All of women's body issues are being blamed on men. The reality, I suspect, is that most of the shaming and other issues is mostly competition between women.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 07:55 PM
4

Good comment. I saw yesterday a claim of 65M in ticket sales and though - crap that did way better than I ever would have expected. Now from the link I see it's estimated to hit 45 - makes more sense. See how it did on Monday. The early "declare victory - movie is awesome" editorials almost had me convinced.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 03:39 AM
1

Interesting. That is certainly not how I interpreted your statement. Usually the "women have problem x in country y" is to stifle discussion by downplaying the situation in the western countries. If the point you were getting at is that "US is becoming the equivalent for men as Dubai is for women" then your phrasing needs some work. As well, most people in the west have no basis for cultural assessment of that culture and the particular law is horrible to our sensibilities, I have heard it claim…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:53 AM
1

ah, I should have looked up the 'clear and convincing standard' to better understand. Thanks.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 10:51 PM
1

No, but we are addressing problems that exist in the western world where we live. Using Dubai as an example is largely irrelevant to anything. It's simply a shell game to point out something happening somewhere else to excuse the bad thing happening here. Simply diverting the conversation to no good purpose.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 10:49 PM
1

Almost there. Might be beyond your capabilities though.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 10:47 PM
1

[if a person] “is found by clear and convincing evidence to have committed an act of non-consensual sexual penetration or his conduct in fathering that child.” How is this not "a conviction"?
/r/MensRights11/07/16 08:58 AM
1

but most of us aren't in Dubai. Are you?
/r/MensRights11/07/16 08:58 AM
2

It's not the class but one section - A class may have multiple sections, ie. multiple days/times - m-w-f at 10, m-w-f at 3 ... what have you. There may be an argument that another section isn't being run concurrently which gives women more options to fit the class into their schedule than men, but that's a much weaker argument than only available for women.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 08:55 AM
1

1-day old account. Garbage title. Actual claim is moronic. Comment history shows absurd responses. You are a low capability troll attempting to play false flag. Improve so as to provide actual entertainment or get lost.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 08:48 AM
1

i say guys. I use this irrespective of gender.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 03:36 AM
1

It is not the women who are the problem, but the film which pushes these a set of poorly thought out pro-feminist ideologies And here is the question that I have wondered from the beginning - who exactly is the person with the agenda? Because this is clearly one person with creative control who decided this right at the beginning. Who is it? Lets judge from their history if it was a bad experiment or if the information leads us to not patronize (heh, see what I did there) any of their work. (Ass…
/r/MensRights11/07/16 03:32 AM
1

I assume you are referring to that photo being something intended to be shared and be 'viral'. Yeah, whatever. Dr. Who video - f*cking awesome dude!
/r/MensRights11/07/16 03:28 AM
2

I didn't know MRAs dox people. yeah, those articles contain a ton of unsupported assertions claiming MRA's are bad.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 03:24 AM
1

She is using a dating app - whether or not she made her terms clear she is trying to be intentionally misleading. Similarly, the guy is an idiot for doing the work. Both have a fairly large measure of culpability here.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 02:57 AM
1

Yes, but you are applying personal responsibility to one and not to the other. Both are culpable.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 06:50 PM
1

Yes, there is personal responsibility. However, the platform she chose does cloud the issue.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 04:39 AM
3

true, there would also be a burden of showing that men get lower sentencing in general for the particular crime to call it a penis pass. From an objective standpoint, it might be worthwhile to say "hey sometimes guys get off easy too" as a counterpoint example - certainly not what happened in this case according to the court.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 09:23 AM
2

He was sentenced to 15 years which was reduced to 12, which was then reduced to 10. Forgive me for not really wanting to spend time re-reading. I think you might be confusing the rape charge and the concurrent sexual assault charge. I thought he went from 15+5 suspended to 10 + 2 suspended. It was one reduction. I did think the way they presented it was ridiculously confusing. I think it's at least fair to point out the penis passes too. You would have to argue that his sentence was out of line …
/r/MensRights08/07/16 09:15 AM
1

I agree. Although, doesn't the nature of the platform mean that "making it very clear it wasn't a date" still doesn't really make it clear. It's like getting jobs from a dating site. No matter how clearly it's said "this is a job", it's still not going to be clear. If she wanted free work, she should have posted on a platform like craigslist and said she wanted free work. Wouldn't have worked though, so that supports that what she is doing still isn't clear.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 09:08 AM
1

I would be with a wonderful woman who I loved to death and who didn't deep down hate me for being a man, but truly loved me as well. You should discuss this with your rinpoche. The issue you have created is a belief that you need love from someone external AND that someone external wouldn't love you. The first is suffering, which you are doing in spades, the second is a lie caused by the lack of love you have for yourself.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 08:59 AM
8

Yep. You're trolling. 0-day account. The title is inflammatory. The title is misleading. The sentence was challenged and reduced. The discussion on why and how much it was reduced showed it being discussed in steps so as to justify each element of the reduction. Then the article discusses the change for the sentence for a concurrent charge. This was somewhat confusing. Still, the title is incorrect. It wasn't reduced "repeatedly". Finally, the sentence was challenged because it was out of line w…
/r/MensRights08/07/16 08:23 AM
1

you forgot the link. Should probably use archive too.
/r/MensRights02/07/16 02:32 PM
2

Yeah, that's pretty much been the treatment in most Western countries, as far as I understand it. (prior to the, make it legal and then arrest the buyers, which is pretty much the same thing with "women shouldn't be punished for their choices' built in). Essentially though, that means it's effectively illegal. We just assume that the people involved are so poverty stricken and desperate that we try not to make it too much worse. Also it would probably have to be offered as a viable career option…
/r/MensRights01/07/16 07:39 PM
3

so, you can't 'streetwalk, run a brothel, advertise, ..." What part of prostitution is legal then? The get married and strip him in divorce part? That's tongue in cheek, but if you make it illegal to get customers, even if the thing you're selling is legal, then the thing you are selling is effectively illegal.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 07:22 PM
1

Prostitution isn't illegal in the UK If that's the case then what's this about: From the article: MPs also called for all convictions for soliciting to be wiped from the slate, in order to make it easier for sex workers to leave prostitution and find other forms of work.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 07:10 PM
1

Interesting question - my impression is that TROs are a criminal court matter, not a family court matter - so, not likely? but IANAL, so, let's ask one.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 08:08 AM
1

Yeah. I think it's a little sneakier than that - it's about the average age being younger and then the hiring person thinks that it isn't a good "fit", regardless of experience or performance. EDIT; I personally have seen the best candidate (my opinion) not receive an offer because he was an older guy. I did the interviewing.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 07:44 PM
3

Yeah, TRO's are rubber stamped but what is the alternative. "My husband has a gun and has threatened to kill me and the kids". "Well, there's not enough proof for a restraining order" - wife and kids get killed, judge is permanently out of work. The theory is that even if the TRO is wrong, the effects of an incorrectly issued TRO is not particularly significant. The problem becomes - why the fuck do the judges in family court allow the issuance of a TRO to affect anything? They seem to act like …
/r/MensRights30/06/16 07:36 PM
3

"Silver Bullet Technique", implying it is common enough that the name is widely known While I didn't watch the video - the term "silver bullet technique" is widely known and has had a number of articles written about. The form that I have read most often is that the wife get's a TRO, the man challenges it and has it removed, visitation with children is arranged. Woman moves (with children) to another state. Woman get's TRO without telling the father, father attends to meet children for visitatio…
/r/MensRights30/06/16 07:32 PM
2

Please increase the effort in your shitposts. You're giving the other false flag TERFs a bad name. bingo.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 06:03 PM
12

Actually, there is millions of dollars in funding provided for organizations that champion rights for women. Provided from my tax dollars so... I am doing plenty for women's rights. Now, fuck off.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:35 AM
2

Yeah. Like moving into territory that would make them look like false flag accounts to me, but they are older accounts with a history of reasonable considered opinions. Kinda strange to me.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:23 AM
1

e number of scholarships available to me (female) were astronomical. this is easy to believe and has existed for a long time now. It's the 'not admitted into the school at all' part with a perfect academic record that I find challenging. Other's seem to believe it, so , maybe?
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:21 AM
3

Look up Canadian law - Canadian Native Americans, men or women, didn't get the right to vote until 1960.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:18 AM
2

As an interesting thought exercise, think about any other society where one group of people are prohibited from looking at another group of people. Consider the relative position that must exist between the two groups for that to exist. Now, think about what you complained about with 'eye-fucking'.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 05:48 AM
6

My mom-mom told me that she had three choices when she was young : to be a nurse, a teacher, or a secretary - because there were no other jobs available to women at that time. She lied to you. There are easily tons of women engineers, scientists, politicians and business leaders your mom's age. If you were talking about your grandmother, Margaret Thatcher was probably older than your Grandmother's age. She is not accepting responsibility for her choices. Was it harder, sure. My dad wouldn't let …
/r/MensRights27/06/16 05:35 AM
1

The military as an entity could be held responsible just as this man is being held responsible. The poster is pointing out a reasonable consequence of this being precedence.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 07:13 PM
1

Manslaughter by criminal harassment? I am glad that /u/mortbund brought that up. I feel that someone actively encouraging someone to suicide intentionally is a far more egregious harm than the behaviour in the OP. However, without a lot of details it is hard to tell. Maybe it was very similar? So, maybe a new charge? Maybe the chick that kept telling the kid to kill himself should have been charged for murder. There's intent there. This guy, it sounds like, was just unstable and wasn't out to ki…
/r/MensRights26/06/16 07:12 PM
4

junk science (including fabrication of of studies and stats) this is a big deal and is the cornerstone for a huge amount of funding, law and action.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:54 PM
2

I will make one other comment. I have noticed some uncharacteristic behaviour from names I have been familiar with over the last few years. It makes me wonder about the security of accounts.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:49 PM
2

This reddit is filled with trolls, most of them being high scoring profiles and mods. It's not true about the mods in my experience, however, I have noticed a huge uptick in 'false flag' and hostile trolls. I assume these come from the usual places (SRS, Feminism, Two-x, amr, etc, etc, etc). I think there are some shifts in perspective happening and we are starting to see the first edges of real pushback within the current environment. I also expect it will get worse, then we will see more effec…
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:48 PM
3

wtf? Worrying about the singularity, a development of a super-intelligence that could very well spell the end of humanity, is distracting from whether current cameras are able to accurately recognize all skin tones? This writer, while pointing out a very valid problem that does need to be addressed, has made an absolutely moronic comparison and needs to go back to writing school.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:20 PM
-2

he described how his son was a 4.0 student, national merit scholar, had numerous awards and recommendations...and was not accepted into the Engineering school at all, I have difficulty believing this.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:17 PM
1

was in the same thread as my suggestion and was directly talking about my suggestion. Decided it was appropriate to reply.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:13 PM
2

realistically, she could have been just listing movies off the top of her head and not recalled that one. I think this is a pretty minor and insignificant criticism.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 08:25 AM
0

Go back further - I said "think" - I am not responsible for the other poster in between the posts. (ie. I am not /u/mens-advocate)
/r/MensRights26/06/16 08:18 AM
1

Well, I said "I think" and technically, these accusers were "unrelated" as in "not conspiring". Bill Cosby's accusers were all in the same room with Bill Cosby at some point presumably. Now, you wanted 'unrelated by specific times and places' - that's a lot more challenging and wasn't clear from your query.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 12:17 AM
8

My ask of you, the community of MensRights. Is to find 1 piece of evidence where someone was accused of something. Whether it be rape or murder then several people came forward with the same story and it later was found false. I think if you go looking all the "satanic" child abuse stories that happened in the 80's were pretty similar.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 09:18 PM
1

but I have never see that responsibility mentioned in the progressive feminist circles I hang out in. Then perhaps the group you hang out with is more honest. Or perhaps they don't say it because they aren't being challenged and there is no reason to bring it up. Since it appears to only gain mention when there is some competition for funds, support, or platform. Wikipedia certainly seems to think that feminism claims the mantle for equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality
/r/MensRights24/06/16 01:29 PM
5

who are the most upset and offended by a girl organizing a no-bra day. Actually the article was sarcasm saying that 'no bra day' was probably the worst way to make the point. Realistically speaking, outside of professional environments (including school) most guys have zero problem with women not wearing bras. You, again, don't read very well. Nobody was upset or offended about it. Think it's a little absurd and amusing, sure. The argument comes when people say that asking her to change her shir…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 09:40 PM
2

Can you show me literally ONE article where a man was told he had to wear a bra? You keep on the bra thing - it's not about a bra, it's about the combination of the shirt she chose and no bra. How about the dress code of a golf course: http://www.golfthefox.ca/contact-us/polices/ hmm. Mesh shirts not allowed. Would have to change shirts. Not any different from this issue. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about the outline of the nipple, considering this girl was discriminated a…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 09:32 PM
2

The outcome is the same regardless How can you type what looks like sentences when you are so incapable of comprehending what you read? No, the outcome is not the same regardless. Your choice is what determines the outcome. You have predetermined your choice thus you don't see a difference in outcome. You can pretend that you didn't have a choice that led to a different outcome, but you would be lying.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 09:18 PM
2

What are you talking about? Yes, he is objectively sexist. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from? I clearly stated that I agreed the statement was sexist. You responded with some poorly worded statement in which you rhetorically asked "is not sexist?". Clearly you didn't get what I stated the first time and was too lazy to go back and re-read what was written or couldn't comprehend it the second time. You are once again playing stupid, this time to avoid discussion AND continue your co…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 09:10 PM
2

She was unfairly discriminated against for not wearing a bra. Men don't wear bras, You're being purposefully obtuse. A man wearing an off the shoulder shirt drawing too much attention to his chest or torso would be cautioned about his apparel as well. She was dressed in appopriately. A bra was an option that would have made it appropriate. It wasn't mandatory. She could have stayed with no bra and put on a different shirt. You stated: Men don't have to cover their nipples I replied: How many boy…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 08:51 PM
1

I make sure the woman that I'm with continues to consent a couple of times at least through the process. That sounds theoretical.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:24 PM
1

good non-rapey porn etc. why specify? I mean, you may believe that rapey porn is bad, but then you have to have a serious hate on for women, where rape is a common fantasy. Read a romance novel lately?
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:22 PM
3

am only half in jest, not because the comment isn't sexist to a significant degree to which you respond: is not sexist? You aren't too good at reading comprehension? Or perhaps are too rushed and emotional to grasp the point. More likely, you have decided in advance that there are no valid arguments against your viewpoint and don't even stop to think. I'd say it's a great way to generate productive conversation. Conversation, yes. Productive? I doubt it. It's a tempest in a teapot. It gets femin…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:57 PM
3

Why should she have to That's a different conversation. I pointed out that she wasn't "unfairly discriminated against for not wearing a bra", she was addressed for inappropriate choice of attire. You responded with a non-sequiter about "reading the article". When I pointed out that that the article agreed with what I said, you have changed your argument. If you want to argue that women shouldn't have to cover her nipples or wear a bra, then lets have that conversation. It's a different conversat…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:43 PM
5

Yes, I did. From the article: Juvik claims that she launched the counterproductive bra-less event after the school's female vice-principle had the audacity to address the feminist’s “inappropriate attire" — an off the shoulder t-shirt with no bra — asking her to cover up or put a bra. Did you read the article?
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:05 PM
3

Why should I go in with an open mind Lol. I wasn't telling you what you should do. I was stating what I believed the outcome would be if you did so. You can do as you please. I hope you choose whatever brings you more happiness, whatever choice that may be.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:05 PM
2

Now, is it sexist? Or are you just interpreting it as sexist? I mean, he could be pointing out how those girls are holding society back by holding to stereotypic interests instead of generating a discussion about societal expectations of clothing and how to address that in society appropriately. I am only half in jest, not because the comment isn't sexist to a significant degree, but because you are only going to see what you want. Just screaming "you shouldn't be able to tell me what to wear" i…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:01 PM
4

You find what you are looking for. If you are looking for examples of systemic disadvantage for men, you will see that. If you are looking for what you believe are misogynistic statements, you will see that. What you bring is likely what you will leave with. However, if you keep an open mind, you will discern a lot more going on then either of the above points of view.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:47 PM
1

She was unfairly discriminated against for not wearing a bra, and women shouldn't wear bras if they don't want to. She was addressed for not adhering to a level of appropriate dress for the environment she was in. It was suggested that a bra, or a change of clothing would address that issue. She wasn't told, "she had to wear a bra", she was told "you are dressed inappropriately". The bra was one of the suggestions to correct her inappropriate dress.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:45 PM
9

But if there is only a chance that you actually get drafted, as it is here There is an additional consideration, the US army is volunteer and quite well staffed, any situation that would result in a draft would be so horrific that it's outside of any reasonable expectation. Which means that registering for the draft is almost completely symbolic. And they still don't want to do it.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:40 PM
1

I'll define feminism as the belief that there are structural and cultural elements in our society which give a raw deal to women, and that they can and should be fixed. I think that is one of the best definitions I have heard. Although, I would add something about advocacy for women because if it was just correcting cultural inequities they wouldn't conflict with MR, especially in family court reform, so often.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:27 PM
1

I refuse to call Brock.an assaulter. We do completely disagree. That he was assaulting her was proven and is obvious from the stories thus far. The only way to claim that he wasn't assaulting her is to claim that his state of inebriation made him incapable of recognizing that she was unable to participate or consent. I reject that interpretation. His state of inebriation is his responsibility, just as hers is her responsibility. The test is "would a sober person have recognized this was not ok" …
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:23 PM
1

dding lawyers to divorce strongly pushes you toward conflict, absolutely. I did realise they would see my wife as the natural primary custodian So, you expected to be disadvantaged. The argument is that they are giving priority to the direct care and ignoring or discounting the need for providing for the family by not considering it 'care' at all. In the breakdown of the family unit the man then becomes a 'wallet' and his time with his family, already limited by the choice to provide which is a …
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:17 PM
1

I was one of them, there was no possibility of me affording a lawyer. The thing to keep in mind here, is that there is no ethical reason you should have needed one to be on equal footing with the mother. Why should you need a lawyer to be considered equal? Regardless of how happy or unhappy you are with the arrangement, it should have been an active choice, not a default one. At least in my ideal world.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:58 AM
1

How did this stuff make the top 10 and Period bacon: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditsMuseumofFilth/comments/2xva3q/vagina_bacon/ and Period bread: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a49894/yeast-infection-sourdough-bread/ Didn't make the list?
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:51 AM
1

I think my response to that particular one is "Do whatever makes you happy!". I don't see a reason to care. The period blood stuff - kinda stupid - I mean, I am not particularly grossed out by it, but if I cut my arm and bleed, I am not about to protest that people should tolerate me being bloody around them. There's a legitimate public health concern. The menstrual blood as lipstick - much like the dyed hair - go nuts. With a caveat though, make sure you inform anyone you might kiss prior to ki…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:48 AM
1

I agree with you. The plug has me confused. Maybe the type of kayak matters - I have really only paddled ocean kayaks. Although, if one got nose or stern heavy, it would be pretty much f'd
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:40 AM
1

interesting chunk, thanks.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 05:19 AM
1

and the court can bring up good talking points The judge has already been pulled from future sex assault cases. The establishment is on notice that any sort of leniency will be met with huge outcry that will have effects on people's livelihoods. I don't think there will be any benefit to anybody by this seeing the light of day again. I think the assaulter got the best sentence he could possibly get and I think any further attention would only damage any discussions on the topic.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:58 AM
1

I would suggest that you watch very carefully, there are aspects to the game that are not clear to one not "in it". Note that this is not an indictment of women, more a statement on human nature. Women who have custody and allow visitation and are amicable, still have the upper hand. What happens is that they are confident that they get what they want - whether it's holidays, arrangements, what have you. When they don't get what they want, they blame the ex spouse, regardless of who actually has…
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:55 AM
2

the fact Mattel's clearly trying to ride a social wave to some sales and if it works for them, good. is reinforcing the notion that the industry is bigoted against women by doing so. I don't agree that this reinforces that at all. until their polling indicates that male nurse Ken would make Mattel some cold, hard cash, you sure aren't going to see that doll, are you? And this is how it should be. Really, if Mattel loses money on this, awesome! If they make money, also awesome! There is no lose h…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 06:01 PM
2

In the US men who seek sole custody are awarded it about 2/3 of the time. That is a misrepresentation - here is the breakdown of the most oft quoted study regarding that - basically using statistics to lie. http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php EDIT: Your statement that most don't fight over custody is correct. Your reasoning is faulty. There is a large percentage that don't fight because they are told they can't win. The difference in percentage from those that don't figh…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 06:53 AM
1

This kind of manipulation is what women often do to their husbands, This is pretty standard from the women's side. The fact that it even registers as negative is because it's from a guy (and we get the internal monologue of "it's never going to happen" regarding reconciliation. Most women never admit that, they just keep just enough sex going to manipulate the guy until they have their better options locked in).
/r/MensRights19/06/16 06:39 AM
1

That's interesting. My father had a series of pretty shitty relationships after my mother passed away. I wondered why he put up with them and just assumed he had no ability to be alone. I wonder if that is somehow a generational thing?
/r/MensRights19/06/16 06:20 AM
2

ou are never going to be able to simply stop people from fucking each other. Nobody's trying to. You were arguing it wasn't the employers business. /u/mikesteane gave you a pretty good answer as to why it was the employers business. You are changing the goalposts. However, to touch on a couple of points. He is in a position of power, that makes it unethical. She could use the proposition regardless of whether he replied or not, as leverage in blackmail later. Disclosure is protecting himself. pa…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:50 AM
2

I suspect there are a couple of factors at play: If you aspire to something more than yourself, you generally tend to put more into it. Most people when faced with a big hill to climb, think about whether the reward is worth it. When you have a motivation, like a child/family to care for, you tend to consider the personal cost less and just jump in. That makes for a person to be more engaged in their efforts and life - that makes for greater satisfaction. There are other ways to do this, but res…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:40 AM
1

also irrelevant. The evidence doesn't matter for this charge.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 02:41 AM
1

He already has a new lawyer preparing an appeal. Looming forward to it. That is pointless. Public opinion on this is now high enough that any appeal is likely to cause him more difficulties, not less.
/r/MensRights18/06/16 07:09 PM
9

I wish there was just a card that people carried that said "I'm an adult" or "I'm helpless". You have to practice affirmative consent with the "I'm helpless" crowd, and the adults understand that no means no. Except that every woman would classify themselves as an adult until it was time to classify themselves as helpless. Not really a dig at women though, men would too if the option existed for them. It's human nature.
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:53 PM
1

disagree strongly with every question nets you 0 in both.
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:44 PM
1

only if they can get CS afterwards.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 11:18 PM
3

extremely prejudiced tenants against women and other groups in other religious texts I don't know about you, but nobody is living in my religious texts so there is no one to be prejudiced.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 11:11 PM
1

Why? The theory is that the sharing of responsibilities at home made it possible for the man to attain greater work accomplishments. Therefore the wife deserves to share in the reward for her efforts. I can believe that in some sense in the past that might have been true and that in some vanishingly small percentage today that it could be true. However, the reality today is that there is little to no support for men in most marriages, so this doesn't hold up any more.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 07:37 PM
1

the ranking is arbitrary, I think you are stretching in your interpretation.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 07:25 AM
39

Yeah, and if her son is crippled, brain damaged or otherwise seriously injured next time will she be just as proud? If so, she's a moron. Hopefully the boys father is smarter.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 12:54 AM
3

why would you want to downvote it? eDit: ah, i understand, it is being downvoted. Yeah, the other commentor has the primary point, amr/feminism/srs come in and try to obscure stuff frequently. As I understand it, this is the only sub that nobody gets cautioned for brigading.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 12:48 AM
3

You have a misconception. Marriage and child minding gives the woman the right to support. No part of marriage gives the man the right to sex.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 11:05 PM
2

Men's Rights Movements have arisen as a response to feminist movements. I get the sense that this is presented as a give and take statement, but it is more likely to view it as arising out of feminism as a recognition that there are several issues that apply to men. Feminism has shone a spotlight on societal inequalities and forced roles and that leads to other groups looking at and trying to address their own issues. The opposition that MR has directed at Feminism is actually the fault of femin…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 10:58 PM
1

That's an interesting document - from the letter: "Stanford recently surveyed the student body regarding sexual assault and found that 43.3 % of senior female undergraduate students experienced non consensual sexual assault ... during their four years at Stanford". that's half... I think Stanford needs to be closed in light of its serious threat to public safety. The government should be petitioned for it's immediate closure and all documents, records, research and other materials immediately se…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 02:57 AM
5

Slavery has been abolished for quite some time now, you don't get a say in what others do with their own bodies regardless of their gender. except when it applies to guys, then state enforced slavery is entirely ok.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 03:19 PM
1

I'd like to think he didn't realise Thank you for the relevant information from the police report. If that is at all accurate then,yeah, that's pretty bad. and has traumatised the victim much more by forcing her to wait a year then go through a trial in which his team attacked her. That has nothing to do with Turner and everything to do with the legal system. If you have a better legal system than propose it for critique.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 03:08 PM
1

I noted it a while back. It's interesting, there are a number of different attacks that occur - not an MR post, we should get along with feminists, false flagging, brigading - they tend to rise and fall in waves, as one method is dropping off, another is picking up. (You know, I should keep a list with examples, some are more subtle than others and I know I identified a couple of the more hard to spot ones over the last couple of years but they don't stick in my memory for easy recall) The 'not …
/r/MensRights13/06/16 05:50 PM
2

There are "not an mr issue" posters for almost every post. Downvote and ignore them, they aren't worth your time, effort or thought.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 02:34 PM
1

She was not used to drinking heavily so had no tolerance. At the levels where it becomes legally relevant, I don't think tolerance actually matters. Drunk out of his mind or not is not the deciding factor. He willingly became drunk and his actions are still his responsibility. However, I was merely theorizing that he might not have realized when she passed out. He's still wrong, just not intentionally.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 02:32 PM
2

It doesn't absolve him, but I would be curious to know what his BAC would have been. It might not have been intentional.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 05:08 AM
1

This has been around for years and years and years.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 02:50 AM
4

I got to the second one where she said "the guy told her that haiti was really dangerous" and somehow she decided that was objectification. tl;dr
/r/MensRights03/06/16 07:03 PM
2

If women in movies can't experience discomfort - what roles are left for women in movies?
/r/MensRights03/06/16 05:46 PM
3

The total for women perpetrators is only slightly above half of the physical death or damage caused. That's the stat. Even without ... So it can not be denied that men are far more of a physical threat to children per hour of contact. That's how to lie with statistics. even if you push the interpretation to ridiculous extremes it is impossible to escape the fact that men are very much more dangerous per hour. Unless you compare apples to apples and compare full time single fathers with full time…
/r/MensRights03/06/16 05:16 AM
2

Odd. The underground around here allows me to stand. Hell. Transit here allows me to walk wherever I want instead of using it.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 05:01 PM
6

I think that any lawyer or police officer that knowingly lies to the court should be permanently removed from that job.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 04:50 PM
1

I'm write.... for all intensive purposes.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 02:40 AM
1

First off, you can't assume that every 13 year old boy is really ready for sex and more importantly, you completely disregard the various states of pre-adolescent male sexuality with your "any proper 13 year old boy" generalization He's living in his imagination of how he wishes he would have been if he had gotten laid at 13. Between that and his twisted belief in how 'all men are' - which is probably a compensation thing, he is unable to grasp that this may not be what it seems. Logic will make…
/r/MensRights01/06/16 11:10 PM
2

the number of these mistakes I see online drive me insane. I mean, the point is mute... (aaargh!). Correcting them would be a full time job tho'. Why bother?
/r/MensRights01/06/16 11:04 PM
3

Well, unless the terms are clear and you get what you want and she leaves after. Let's call it what it is.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 05:15 AM
1

Smith can’t date anyone she would never normally date just because he asks her out, like a guy with kids or a guy just trying to hit it and quit it, or a short guy. Yeah, let's see a guy openly say that women with kids are off the table and see what response that nets him, hmm?
/r/MensRights01/06/16 05:14 AM
5

Have to agree. The message is shitty but it's comedy, it's allowed to be shitty. Comparing sperm to a fetus is pretty weak shit, but hey, if she can get a laugh out of the audience based on how she presents it, that's her job.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 05:08 AM
1

If you personally know a father who blocked an adoption, why in blue blazes do you continue to pretend that it's a decision women unilaterally make, because that is only once case. I personally know of several others where the father didn't have a choice. My personal experience is exactly the opposite of your claims. As I said, though, that has actual data behind it, we don't need to argue over it. or that when I differentiate between birthparents who transfer their responsibility (adoption) and…
/r/MensRights01/06/16 12:29 AM
5

Video doesn't support your title. All contests seem to be immediately ended once one participant is off their feet. The 'fist fight' was a weak couple of slap like swings that were literally before the referees could get there.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:47 PM
2

Sure, but she's right. If you are in HtH with your M-4 something has gone very wrong.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:45 PM
1

I'd argue that the legal relationship between mother and child rests more on the fact of gestation than of the DNA link. Gestation is just a decision to not terminate a pregnancy, it should not gain you more rights to the child at the end of the process. Once the child is born it is a separate human being and the gestation is irrelevant. I simply don't agree that the legal relationship is based on gestation at all. It's based on the fact that we indisputably know who the female parent is. That's…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:37 PM
4

http://www.businessinsider.com/confessions-how-she-made-1200-a-month-using-matchcom-2011-11 http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2013/11/i-date-men-for-the-free-dinners-and-i-dont-feel-bad-about-it/ You do see those articles. Except they are proud of it.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 09:25 AM
1

Well, for once this complaint is valid. It's not relevant. It is kinda funny though so ... whatev.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 07:29 AM
1

As an aside, I also think an adopted child should always have access to it's genetic history (perhaps withheld until adulthood). I think that is a health issue and is something that society has a responsibility to provide if it can be provided.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:18 AM
1

But most adoptions involve a known and acknowledged birthfather who supports the adoption plan. You are probably correct, I don't know. Yes, there are a lot of horror stories. This will have actual data behind it somewhere. We certainly don't need to argue over it. It's true or it isn't. I don't think "biology" gives anybody rights to anything. ok. We've decided that "simply" gestating a child creates the legal bond of maternity So let's "simply" decide that the existence of that child creates t…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:14 AM
1

I didn't think homeopathy (idiot-opathy?) was taught in universities. I thought that was alternative snake-oil medicine schools. To be fair, I don't like to lump all alternative medicine together.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 08:40 PM
1

(and men, adoptions require the knowledge and consent of the birthfather unless he cannot be identified or located, and that's rare) That's simply not true - the US has codified the putative father registry system which is an arcane system designed to make it hard for the father to claim parenthood. responsibilities and rights from the moment of birth, until and unless they find somebody else to do the job for them Well, the situation right now is that they have all the responsibilities and none…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 08:35 PM
1

that's an awesome comment.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:18 PM
1

Well, it does seem to be university connected, which is a step above the standard loony tunes.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:10 PM
1

I can see the appeal of that position, but I don't think it's logically consistent. Either the mere fact of the biological link between a man and the offspring of a former sex partner creates a relationship so important that we are justified in using the law to enforce it, or it doesn't. If it's that important, then it shouldn't be something that men can just walk away from. It isn't a matter of the relationship being so important. It's a matter of right to his offspring. The equivalent to what …
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:56 PM
1

I see. I should accept a private companies definition over the federal definition used?? It's a legal advice site - it's a legal interpretation of the law by lawyers, not a private companies definition. Since you admit that it is reasonable to expect injury and/or death to happen, LOL. nice. You have confirmed that you are either trolling or so bad at reading comprehension that this conversation is now over. Have a great week!
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:44 PM
1

Well, theoretically it does. It's just that upward modifications are fast and not a problem and downward modifications are usually argued against and denied to prevent people who can pay from avoiding paying. The funny thing is, I believe the statistics show, the guys who can pay and just aren't - usually aren't the ones that are getting nailed. It's the guy who's sleeping in his car that ends up in jail.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:46 AM
2

But I guess you're so blinded by your rage At what point is it rage? I said I enjoyed it but all the men/boys were dimwits. Which I supported with scenes from the movie. Your response to rational argument is to say I am 'raging'? Look, Merida's brave, smart, doesn't want to get married and saves everyone - ok. Sure. Lead character, has some self interest that she doesn't actually get over in the story arc, but ok. But what male character is there to look up to? Were not talking simple flaws here…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:38 AM
4

Her father was a well-meaning, brave and fierce but relatively incompetent father. He has physical and, presumably, political power, but it is Elinor, his wife who is shown to be patient and wise. Fergus jumps into the hijinks, fights and problems with nary a thought. Again, it is Elinor who leads. At one point hauling all the Lords plus her husband the king around by his ears. The attending lords are not presented as competent leaders of men either. Theirs sons, the suitors, as you point out, a…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:19 AM
2

It varies based on location but it is usually calculated based on earnings. As /u/Eulabeia points out though that can be based on potential earnings. As well, courts reject modifications when difficulties arise. You end up in a few different scenarios but common ones are: Option A: The father has a nervous breakdown from the divorce on top of the pressure from his high status job, becomes a sculpter and sells pottery. Goes from earning 500k/year to 25k/year. Judge orders child support based on 5…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:00 AM
1

Closet crossdresser looking for the one true feminist that will recognize his goodness and date him? There's nothing wrong with being a closet crossdresser but the begging for approval is pretty bad.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:46 AM
3

Your use of the word "you" is misplaced. The article you are quoting is actually saying exactly the same as you are.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:43 AM
1

Yeah, I saw the news article for this too. It's just depressing. Most guys can't afford legal assistance either and the lawyers know it and just drag it out until the guy has to fold.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:23 AM
0

Kung fu panda, the lead is a moron, his father's an idiot, but the sensei is male and has a role of wisdom. The female characters don't have such a 'balanced display'. I haven't seen 3, so, maybe it's better? I have to take a pass on the remainder having not seen them. Ice Age franchise suffered similarly to Panda though with more male characters being idiots but not all of them if I recall correctly.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:18 AM
1

Brave was one of the first disney movies that didn't portray girls as helpless damsels. Yeah, and I enjoyed it, but every male in it was a dimwit.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:15 AM
6

I disagree. That is a completely absurd attitude. These people, male or female, are performers. They should be paid in accordance with how much money they cause their employers to make. If a women's team draws more attendance than a male team, they should make more money. If a top performer on a team is what puts people in seats and money in the team coffers, they deserve a higher share of that money.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:12 AM
1

I don't believe that the fathers of bastards should have any rights or any responsibilities, Yeah, we disagree. I think the solution is to give men an option, the same as women have an option to abort. I think once a child is going to be born though, both parents deserve equal rights. I don't think we solve anything by removing men from their own children. Illegitimate or otherwise. I don't think marriage is relevant any longer. The bio-parent has the right to know his offspring in my opinion.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:07 AM
1

Culturally, my understanding is that there is a big thing in some asian countries with having lighter coloured skin. It's more attractive or something. I don't think this is intentionally racist (it is, though), but rather playing on a larger social thing. It's dangerous to take items like this out of their context, it's easy to misunderstand, misinterpret or draw meaning that it wouldn't otherwise have.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:03 AM
1

You must understand why she doesn't want you anywhere near her kid - no sane mother would want that. You missed my overall point - what the mother "wants", sane or not, shouldn't make any difference to anything. The act of having the baby meant that you automatically have to accommodate the male parents rights to the child. Unless you can prove that the male parent is unfit to have those rights. The male parent has the same obligation to the female parent. You are excusing the female parents beh…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 05:19 PM
3

The situation sounds wrong in every way. You're right, but you're wrong at the same time. The deviancy from societal norms at this times would suggest a deeply damaged and disturbed individual (the father too, but I see you empathy doesn't stretch that far). The multiple strangers, they aren't acting that far out of societal expectations, while it is still a deviance, we don't have as much reason to suspect mental illness. The reason I say you're also wrong, is that you are completely excluding …
/r/MensRights28/05/16 05:04 PM
1

I was thinking more something along the lines of "She already metaphorically had them in her purse, she just wanted to make it literal".
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:53 PM
1

There's a joke here somewhere...
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:57 AM
3

been saying this for years...pedophilia is glamorized in US culture. And actual sexual predators receive similar sentences to non violent weed smokers in some states. Its ludicrous. isn't that potentially saying that non-violent weed smokers are overly penalized. 'Cause I sort of agree with that.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:47 AM
8

Wow. That's got .. issues. The pay gap one is the easiest: Let's say you point out the well-documented gender pay gap. The usual diversionary response is: 'There are laws against unequal pay. ... The reason why this is a diversion is that the gender pay gap is something that has been exhaustively documented for decades.<snip> , you are being challenged to prove gravity exists. So, disagreeing with a completely erroneous presentation of data is asking the presenter to "prove gravity exists". Aski…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:45 AM
8

How then, exactly, is anyone supposed to have a discussion that isn't just an emotional shit fest?
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:38 AM
1

Allowing them to use deadly force against you. No. http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/ The definition hinges on what a "reasonable person" would think. You are in no way thinking reasonably. I love to hear how you don't consider a push to meet the federal definition of deadly force when the outcome can be death. Because a 1 in a million chance of falling killing someone doesn't meet the test of a reasonable person's belief that the aggressor is deploying deadly force. At this p…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:31 AM
1

You must understand why she doesn't want you anywhere near her kid - no sane mother would want that. Yeah, because a male parent has to be a saint to have a right to his children. You really need to look at your bias against men, it's cropping up again.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 01:19 AM
1

I am stating that the situation is at that level No, you can't take pushing and call it deadly force. Otherwise a person at a concert would be justified in shooting the people around him. If you want to know how pushing would stand in court then go push a police officer. The police officer will arrest you for assault Because it is assault. may use deadly force to do since you used deadly against them. No, this would not be a legitimate assessment of deadly force. Your understanding of what const…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 01:14 AM
1

Pushing is deadly force. good luck with that argument in court. No one is going to accept that point of view. You have crossed over into absurdity.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 12:48 AM
1

Canada.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 12:45 AM
1

Which is why I started that with 'talk to a guidance counsellor'. They should have suggestions that can help you with that. If they don't, which, occasionally the system or individual fails, that's still no reason to not figure it out. Try joining a club that is outside of school that is special interest. Take up any special interest, you can form at least superficial friendships with adults and they will be interested in helping you. If you continue to choose to socially isolate, you will make …
/r/MensRights27/05/16 07:48 PM
1

To prevent WHAT? generally to prevent the school from being sued for negligence by not preventing the continued employment based opportunity to offend. Offense happens at all levels and while a high school student might be able to be aware, a grade 2 student wouldn't - a policy like that usually covers all the situations because a high school teacher would be totally useless in the classroom once that charge shows up anyways.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 07:28 PM
1

Ok. So I can expect that your school has some form of Guidance Counsellor. Have you tried talking to them? Not just for bullying relief but for the social isolation? The two are likely somewhat related - social connection tends to make one less withdrawn and being withdrawn is one of the traits that bullies notice as a person with that trait is more likely to be a good victim and not seek help/contact authorities/act to fix the situation. The other thing that has been suggested here is martial a…
/r/MensRights27/05/16 07:24 PM
1

Be careful here. Biased studies can obviously be a problem, and such studies should not be relied upon. I struggle here - there are so many studies done by 'Lenore Weitzman' types and they are rewarded for blatant dishonesty. Then there are the studies done by the people who are just too blind to see that they are asking slanted questions to get the conclusion they want to get. Sociology is so sensitive to researcher bias that a large amount of 'studies' need to be classed as 'sociology masturba…
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:40 PM
1

Yeah, see the funny thing here is, I remember home ec being a grade 8 elective, and shop being a grade 8 elective - but at least one girl I went to school with has told me she "wasn't allowed to take shop" - Since I didn't notice and didn't care at 13 years old, I defer to her account of the matter. However, I have doubts that her account is entirely accurate, especially since I do remember a whole lot of 'girls can do anything' rhetoric from that time. That might have been specific to our schoo…
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:30 PM
0

That's a great question I would like to see an answer to. My understanding is that the answer is 'yes'. Is there an official place to look that up?
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:32 AM
0

the hilarious claim that she is being forced to take cooking class because she's a woman that was actually a thing in the 80's. At least in the place I went to school.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:21 AM
2

well, in Canada, if you are charged with an offense against a youth, even if not found guilty, the mere act of being charged means that you won't pass a criminal record check for working with youth. which is usually a requirement for the teachers job. So, I don't know. Maybe it's double standards, maybe it's not. I lean towards not, but I could easily be wrong.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:14 AM
2

By this definition deadly force is and has been already used against him. that's extrapolating a lot from the description that OP gave. It's possible, but a rational interpretation of OP's post doesn't get to that conclusion. If OP is indeed in a situation that dire, that's a different question. Also, If you were the type that would be able to effectively use violence as a mechanism to prevent abuse you likely wouldn't be in this spot in the first place. I stand by this. OP is likely not physica…
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:04 AM
3

great write up.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:44 PM
1

There are a lot of problems with biased studies. I agree. However, dismissing evidence because of personal experience is not a great strategy. You open the doors to a whole ton of problems there - "I don't get angry when I drink therefore it is not possible for people to get angry when the drink" is essentially the argument you are putting forth. Because the bad thing happened to me that means the bad thing must happen everywhere and evidence that the bad thing is very rare is obviously untrue. …
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:38 PM
5

The article implies, but doesn't state, that she is not employed in a teaching role. She used to work as an Educational Assistant (Which is something like a 1 year training program) - not a teacher. That fact that the article states that is no longer her position implies that she is in a non-teaching role, since the qualification for that role doesn't qualify you to do anything else. So, if a teacher, now working as (for example) a bookkeeper for the schoolboard is not suspended as a book-keeper…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:18 PM
0

No there shouldn't be. "Hate speech" laws have absolutely no use outside of criminalizing free speech. That's a respectable argument. I have not familliarized myself enough to confidently agree or refute your position.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:11 PM
2

This guys is flippin' hilarious. "If you actually got paid 0.77 for every dollar, we would hire you, that's what we do with illegal immigrants"
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:08 PM
1

The House Armed Services Committee voted to add all women ages 18-26 to the Selective Service, but the provision was later stripped out in the full House. That's interesting - missed that news. Heard about the Armed Services committee adding women to the draft, missed the news about that being stripped out.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:01 PM
1

That's interesting to know. Thanks.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:59 PM
1

Yeah, I agree, I don't see the state of war returning to a condition of needing bullet impact bags as a primary combat role like WW1/2 That means training and investment.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:58 PM
1

unfair and discriminatory practice in our family law a years marriage does not justify/qualify/reasonably have any reason for spousal support. It is likely being asked for as a tactic to gain a higher overall settlement. However, it should be something that works against the requester in cases like this - it should make her gold digging obvious and thus result in a lower settlement.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:53 PM
2

Context does matter, There are exceptions for hate speech and incitement to violence and criminal actions with good reasons.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:50 PM
1

That's funny. I saw cry baby when it came out - he was pretty popular from Jump Street at the time. It was so horrifically bad that I chose not to see anything with Depp in it again until Pirates
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:48 PM
2

I doubt your explanation, the more likely explanation is that the person running the department thought it was funny and has a lousy sense of humour.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:40 PM
2

Yeah, this. I have a hard time caring about a company that wants to drive away customers. I say, let this sort of thing go ahead and it will naturally correct.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:39 PM
3

I agree. I never had a problem with this. The unfortunate dad ran into an unbalanced individual.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:21 PM
5

While we are at it, how old are you? Is this high-school, middle-school or elementary? In my school, pretty much everyone hates me You need to talk to a school counselor/medical counselor/responsible adult about your social isolation, and get some connection and guidance with adults who can give you advice in how to build social support - joining clubs, improving cooperative skills, shared interests. Something in the real world where you meet and talk face to face - not that online friends aren'…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:14 PM
10

don't listen to this guy, you'll only get your ass kicked by any guys that think they can. - the /u/pariahdog119 comment was generally good advice. If you were the type that would be able to effectively use violence as a mechanism to prevent abuse you likely wouldn't be in this spot in the first place. Document and go to the school authorities and complain about bullying. Then, if nothing changes, talk to a local news reporter about how the school isn't addressing bullying.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:08 PM
1

The guy has a good point - the cameras should be required for all police forces and they should have disciplinary records if they ever get turned off.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:56 PM
7

All over this thread, all i've seen is 'it only gets worse. get out.' Yeah, cause that's the advice they give to a male batterer.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 07:56 PM
1

They want to control people's choices—I think mostly men I agree. because ... I usually don't criticize without offering an alternate but you explanation stinks.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 07:51 PM
1

The loop holes are numerous and very commonly used. If you don't like statistical proof, of which there is plenty, then how about this: Wage gap doesn't pass the basic logic test. If it were real, some company out there would be only hiring women and dominating their industry because of the savings on labour. The only thing you can legitimately say about the wage gap is that there is a 3-5% difference in overall earnings that can't be explained and that may be due to discrimination or another un…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 07:38 PM
2

Well the author may hold that they are necessary, the article just sort of assumed they existed without making any real claim as to good or bad. I think you could say the article assumed that they existed and were expected to be good, but i think that's a fair generalization. The bad examples are likely a lower percentage than the good.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 07:15 PM
1

The first couple of pages definitely have an anti-father tone. It just doesn't seem to be overtly supported in the rest of the document.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:53 PM
1

I read it more as the mother-child bond was assumed to exist (which sort of makes sense) and that without interruption the child would develop unhealthily. The paper you linked seems to hold the Oedipal issue as the context for this - in that vein any adult sexual partner of the mother would do but the paper doesn't actually say that. It may imply it but that would require a deeper read than I have done. I would have to spend a great deal of time analyzing that paper and even if I did, I don't h…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:50 PM
1

wow. that's long and dense. So, the opening language in the first couple of pages very much has the tone that father's aren't relevant, I can see how you might get that reaction - however, the later pages seem to not support that initial reaction. That being said, that's a very dense read with a lot of referenced concepts and after about page 3 my eyes started to blur as it's less exciting than reading the dictionary. I skimmed the remainder. I don't think the article supports the narrative but …
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:44 PM
2

I love that: But you didn't ignore me? I meant that I was about to. Lolololol.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:29 PM
3

OMG. Who in Utah has paid off the court system on behalf of the adoption cartel? The stories that come out of Utah seem like they should be coming from some 3rd world shithole where they are kidnapping and selling babies to the 1rst world infertile couples.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:25 PM
1

Well, it might say that - but the bit that you posted says exactly the opposite - it says that without the interruption to the mother-child bond the child will not develop a 'mature mind'. That's saying without the male parental role the child will be dysfunctional.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:19 PM
1

sure
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:12 PM
1

But fathers SHOULD be able to have the right to be a parent and to nurture and care for their kids. Maybe the context around the piece that you posted indicates that the writer is using the piece to advance that view. The part you posted itself I don't believe supports that view. It might be being taken out of context and misinterpreted to support idiocy, but that isn't the fault of the text.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:08 PM
2

(i.e., the guy who provided the other half of the kid's DNA) True. nor for the necessity of fathers having any actual right to assume the parental role. If you mean the article doesn't state that the biological father has a right to this role - you are correct. However, I don't think that this chunk is really talking about fathers (or mothers) much at all, it's simply saying that the mother-child bond needs to be limited for the child to be healthy and the male parental role serves the function …
/r/MensRights25/05/16 04:05 PM
1

sacred bond again, you are choosing to characterize the article emotionally. The article said nothing about the mother-child bond being any more important than any other bond, simply that it exists and the male parental bond serves to interrupt it. Think of it more like a chemical interaction or something. Piece b comes from piece a, piece c serves to help piece b separate from piece a. It's just a discussion of one mechanic of the interaction. There may be more to the article that causes you to…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 03:58 PM
1

is a nuisance to the bond between a mom and child. The article never refers to it as a nuisance. You are interpreting meaning emotionally from the word choice used. Probably you have some attached meaning to 'interruption' that isn't relevant to the discussion.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 03:53 PM
1

It's not a woman's fight if she gets lower pay. I am not entirely sure that I agree but even if I did that's not really happening on a societal level. Pay equality is already law. The 'pay gap' has been debunked numerous times. If you have that stance though, then in the same vein it's also not a man's fight to be able to know and parent his biological children, but feminists are fighting against that instead of for it. Even though that fight perpetuates and reinforces the gender norm that femin…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 03:51 PM
1

The patriarchy idea will be wiped out in the fourth wave. That's an unsupported conclusion. Just because you want it to be so won't make it so. I will just shut them out of my debate. And that matters why? Government isn't shutting them out of the debate. The base in education gives them more legitimacy than your voice. Really, if the 'patriarchy' thing changes at all it will be to become to convoluted and confused so that it can't be attacked. Some form of intersectional idea that still blames …
/r/MensRights25/05/16 03:45 PM
2

Interesting phrase that: many excess men's deaths? Are you asking if many extraneous men died or are you saying that there was excessive male death? I assume the second, but I think the choice of language might be telling. It would be interesting to know the answer to this but I also suspect it is impossible to know the answer.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 03:02 AM
2

OK. I agree your statement is accurate. What distinction are you trying to draw though?
/r/MensRights25/05/16 02:57 AM
17

Yeah... the dialogue is "yeah, I love you, I'll try" - that sounds pretty much like consent. Think that you're overthinking the issue.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 02:39 AM
4

That's a possibly strange conclusion. It says that the "interruption of the mother-child bond is necessary for the development of a mature mind". You are interpreting the use of the word "interruption" in a different context from how it is used. If anything this statement is that fathers are essentially to the child development and the lack of a father means that there are unhealthy mother-child bonds that delay and damage healthy development.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 02:26 AM
2

You know, if it helps you any. I could just as easily classify my stance as "against feminist organizations and groups that perpetuate and advance inequality and stifle discourse that might benefit men and boys". However, as I said, the ones that aren't doing that aren't doing much of anything except making the ones that are socially acceptable. At the end of the day, it just becomes easier to label the whole thing feminism, because, it pretty much is. Since I label the people that want girls to…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 02:15 AM
1

That's true. I think if the MR movement had the political power that feminism currently has and was unopposed like feminism has been until very recently, it would be just as bad. Maybe even worse. It doesn't have that political power right now. We don't have divorce laws shaped in men's favour by an ideologue researcher that knowingly lied and falsified results (and still has a senior teaching position at a University). "The patriarchy" is taught in University sociology programs. There's a diffe…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 02:10 AM
3

Yeah, you know what? Almost every guy here agrees with what you have written in theory. However, in practice: Regarding studies: Feminist professors doing studies actually have a profound impact on our legal system. Even when such studies are outright lies: http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm This one study has significantly impacted many men that are part of the MRM. Why focus on studies? Because they affect law and society. regarding rape arguments: “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain th…
/r/MensRights24/05/16 10:07 PM
4

This is rather lame. He could just not care. Of course, I can't understand the "The plot is so intricate and so brilliant" bit either. Haha, you slept with other women but I ruined a tv show for you.... Wouldn't an intricate and brilliant revenge plot involve her having a great life and relationships?
/r/MensRights24/05/16 09:22 PM
8

From the article: Nearly 10% of students claim to have fallen victim Yeah, and 9.98 of that 10% were simply unable to gauge how quickly they were consuming alcohol and were just drunk and looking for an excuse. Blood tests reveal that most of those who believe their drinks were spiked were simply drunk. From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658214/ In a UK study of more than 1000 women who claimed drug‐assisted sexual assault, only 2% were identified as deliberate spiking cases with…
/r/MensRights24/05/16 09:15 PM
3

That's interesting but I know of several cases where there were accusations against a male teacher by a single female student and even after the investigation was completed and conclusively found that nothing had occurred the male teacher either was forced out of teaching entirely by the social environment or was, at a minimum transferred to a different school. There's a double standard at play, whether you want to admit it or not.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 08:57 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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