TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Arn13 Archive

View 3 posts and 231 comments by Arn13 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
10

Then when the men are forced to beg for food, they are "harrassing". When they have no other choice but to take food, that is taken as evidence that they are indeed troublemakers and riots. Which is then used as justification to withhold food from them. But that is just one of thevrationalisations. At the bottom of it, the real driving force is just another case of gynosympathy and androapathy, also known as the women-are-wonderful effect and the real-men-take-care-of-themselves effect.
/r/MensRights08/08/18 05:31 PM
7

It's like when a toddler thinks it's unfair he has to share his toys, but when he gets to keep them to himself, then it's unfair that the other kids don't share their toys.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 10:05 PM
1

The point is that degrees don't indicate ones levels of success If degrees are not an indicator of success, then the argumentation for affirmative action failed from the very beginning. A degree is either a level of success, or it is not. If it is, then the current statistics show that women already attain more of it. If it isn't, then the gender ratio of it never mattered. In the first case, you can of course take the next step and look at some other arbitrarily chosen indicator of success. Suc…
/r/PussyPass25/12/17 09:09 AM
4

Men do a lot more driving, but a lot of that driving is done to support women (e.g. as passengers), families (e.g. to the mall/work/soccer practice) or society (e.g. neighborhood watch, community event setup, etc). Just because a man is in the driver's seat doesn't mean he is the only one benefitting from the transportation. For quite a lot of drives there is a woman who benefits equally, so why aren't women behind the wheel in 50% of those cases? Whatever the reason, the consequences are clear:…
/r/MensRights15/10/17 10:26 AM
1

There is supposed to always be something wrong, because that keeps the resources and attention flowing, and keeps the complainers feeling relevant.
/r/MensRights04/08/17 06:33 PM
2

There is this insane group consciousness [...] This is totally unnatural [...] We tend to hate each other, we are biologically competitive with other women. As I will illustrate below, a herd mentality is not at all mutually exclusive with competition within the herd. For this reason I agree with the other comments you are getting, that it is not as simple as the quote above. Men tend to be either powerful on their own merits, or not. They will cooperate, but each wields his own overt social val…
/r/MensRights21/06/17 04:54 PM
9

That said, the majority of female victims of domestic violence report feeling afraid and unsafe, whereas the majority of male victims don't report this. Do you realize that the percentage of reports is not an unbiased reflection of the percentage of people who actually feel that way? It is already known that men underreport these things, due to society-wide gender-shaming. Weak men are mocked, weak women get sympathy and support. No wonder the men tend to not report their fear even if they feel …
/r/MensRights10/04/17 01:10 PM
1

The MRM and feminism are inevitably different in more ways than the sex they advocate for. Feminism runs on the natural response of their female base to perceived injustice/inequality/unfairness. This is easy, cheap (requires little coordination/management efforts) and it works for them since society is receptive to female calls for help. A male equivalent cannot run on the male natural response to perceived injustice, because society does not respond well to that. So unlike feminism, the male v…
/r/MensRights06/04/17 08:45 AM
3

The first question you need to ask yourself is: will reason, logic and factual evidence change their minds? Do you really expect that, if only you could present the perfect case, they will magically yield to logic? If yes, then carry on collecting evidence to build your perfect case. If no, then we need to be asking ourselves different questions than "how can I disprove this illogic". Edit: see also here
/r/MensRights14/04/16 08:56 AM
2

That irony tho.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 10:09 PM
2

The reason I've "flogged it to death" is because unfortunately, your point is just all over the place, so I feel the need to be very clear and spell everything out to make sure there is absolutely 0 potential for any miscommunication or ambiguity on my end. I'm sorry, but that's just what it is - you're not being univocal about what it is that you want to discuss. yet the point still remains that a lot of boys aren't comfortable with women, and not just for reasons of sexual tensions. Just engag…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 09:56 PM
2

Any adult M/F would be able to answer that. No need for an elaborate boys-asking-girls scheme. It is also uncontroversial factual information without a strong social component, so I don't really see how that sort of questions have anything to do with /r/MensRights As mentioned by another comment here: You have also shifted the ground on which you began - originally, you stated that the ‘issue’ was that "men and boys ... have difficulty interacting with women on a basic level” (in your experience…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 07:00 PM
9

If you became a man right now, you would have no idea how to deal with women and girls as a man. Even though you have been a woman dealing with men, that experience would hardly help you navigate the waters. A woman called Norah Vincent did exactly this - go through life as a man to see what it's like - and reported about it in her book "Self Made Man". She was surprised by how invisible you are as a man, how you are often assumed to be bad news/having bad intentions, how harshly people expect y…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 04:23 PM
8

Since it's so complicated, that's even more reason to discriminate exactly what it is that needs improvement. It is very, very complicated and convoluted - and that's why it's such a huge time sink. You will be spending years unraveling the threads of confusion that the feminist collective throws together in all its pluralism. In fact, they can make confusion faster than anyone can unravel it, so you'll never actually get to addressing men's issues. Anyone can claim to be a feminist, and anyone …
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:28 AM
2

If there is no way to avoid having men carry the heavier burden, then men should be compensated with a kind of respect that women do not get. Respect for doing the hard work noone else can.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 01:00 PM
2

Or how about this one with all its "that's YOUR money, your husband has no right to it!" comments. Perhaps that's not even unreasonable, but we all know what they would say if a wife had been paying for the husband's college, and then he refused to share his inheritance with her.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 12:53 PM
1

Don't tell prosecutors not to do their job; tell women not to make false allegations.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 11:33 AM
1

On one hand you're right: we (emphatically including you) should focus on doing some real activism. On the other hand you'll find that, as soon as you start doing so, opposition will come from feminists. And in order to achieve anything, their hypocrisy has to be exposed.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 06:34 PM
1

It can be explained by evolutionary psychology. In our ancestral environment, men in whom this instinct was strongly pronounced tended to get more offspring than men in whom it was less strongly pronounced, hence the trait was selected for. I elaborated on that here, including some evidence.
/r/MensRights16/07/14 08:49 PM
13

To add to this valid point: the men in power do more to help women (disadvantaged or not) than they do to help men. Reasons for this can be found in evolutionary biology, e.g. The Moral Animal by Richard Wright. (Read a summary/review here: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pinker_on_Wright_94.html). In short, consider the following: in our ancestral environment, a man at the top inclined to preferentially help or favor women, will have more reproductive success than a man at the top inclined to …
/r/MensRights16/07/14 07:33 PM
1

If nobody puts pressure on society, forcing the issues under people's noses, then everyone will go their merry own way and it will all be business as usual. Sites like AVFM would write articles, but nobody would read them. There wouldn't be an article in Time at all. There are so many things competing for attention in society as a whole, as well as in every person's life, that a clear and powerful incentive is required to put a specific issue on the map. Think of social reform movements in the p…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:03 PM
3

There's actually a strong argument to be made that this is the very reason we have 2 sexes instead of 1 or 3: so that one could endure stronger competition, allowing more efficient natural/sexual selection and thus evolution, without the resulting larger death rate disastrously affecting birth rates. Think about it: if there is only 1 sex, each individual matters equally in the reproductive game so every death means there will be less offspring. That would put a limit on the competition, the spe…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 05:05 PM
7

The vast majority of homeless are men, so his statement “A guy can find a couch, a guy can find shelter" is demonstrably false. It's just a rationalisation he made up (probably subconsciously) to explain to himself why he hardly helps men. My guess is that the guy, just like most people in our society, has more sympathy for women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274 - but does not want to admit to this, as that would bring attention to the unequal treatment men receive in our society.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 07:26 PM
2

Please note: the city of Adelaide houses three universities. One of them is called Adelaide University (University of Adelaide), another University of South Australia. The article is talking about the latter, not the former as your title implies.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 08:54 PM
2

I look at a guy crying and I think to myself "man the fuck up". The $1M question: do you think and feel the same thing when you look at a girl crying? If no, you still hold men and women to different standards. MRA's want gender equality. Obviously that means men and women should be held to the same standard, but we haven't quite figured out what that standard should be. Should women be held to the men's standard, so that everyone who cries is a pussy? We might as well outlaw crying then. Or sho…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 04:22 PM
7

After reading some of the responses in your thread as well, my summary is this. While feminists claim to fight for gender equality, their theory follows something that society has already been doing since forever: they downplay and ignore male suffering. Weak men are invisible. (Arguments for this, see linked thread in previous post.) Examples abound in this thread as well as the linked one. Feminists talk a lot about the glass ceiling, but never about the glass cellar that men face. Wage gap ye…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 06:35 PM
6

We recently had a similar topic, so I'll just redirect you to my reply there. Basically, the disagreement between feminists and MRA's usually centers around the theory you call "patriarchy". Please do follow the 3 links I posted throughout that exchange, if you're interested in a common MRM take on this. Here they are again for easy access: 1 2 3 If you're looking for a gentle non-offensive introduction to men's rights, the video at 3 is recommended. Requires some time though, so only if you rea…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 06:04 PM
1

It's a useful shirt. The moment someone shows up with it, you know who to kick out of your life.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 05:57 PM
0

As long as the criticism is fair (no intentional misquotes, false statistics, hysterical mischarterization of MRM as "rape apology" etc.) then I think all people, including feminists should be free to criticize the MRM. May the side with the best arguments win. If we demonstrably do our best to denounce and oppose bigots who try to identify themselves as MRA's, then we will be able to respond to feminist critics with dignity. (Yes, that no intentional misquotes etc. clause also applies to MRM cr…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 09:27 PM
5

I suggest we should just support gay marriage because it's something that deserves to be supported, instead of supporting it because doing so "is good for the MRM". That would be akin to the feminist co-opting of LGBT. So yeah, support gay marriage. But don't make your support more about MRM than about gay marriage.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 05:12 AM
1

I agree that women are absolutely discriminated against in modern society, but I have never claimed otherwise. You are not responding to any of my points by affirming this. I refer again to the first paragraph of my previous post - none of this proves your assertion that "women are/were absolutely oppressed much more than men", and hence you have not justified why feminism focuses disproportionately on the issues of the female side (which is how we got into this discussion). At this point I thin…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:35 AM
5

Most MRA's are absolutely with you on opposing the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia, me included. However, citing this example does not prove your assertion that "women are/were absolutely oppressed much more than men". Neither do any of your other examples, no matter how valid - so I will refrain from discussing them. The problem is that, while you cite ways in which women suffer from their gender role, you do not address to what extent men suffer from their gender role. Possibly this is h…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:11 AM
3

Feminism originated in a time when women were undeniably more oppressed than men This is absolutely where we will start disagreeing and it might easily become nasty, because this runs to the core of the differences. If you read all the links I've posted in this tree so far, they all address it directly. I find it hard to accept that you justify feminism focusing on the issues of only one side. This has caused a great deal of trouble in our time, because now one gender is largely free while the o…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:42 AM
4

I think we have seen different feminists than you have. Perhaps it would be interesting if we showed you ours, and you show us yours - so to speak.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:32 AM
4

I agree that there is no point in explicitly discussing which gender suffers/suffered more. However, I do observe that in our current society there is a lot of awareness of the downsides of the female gender role. There are many initiatives for freeing women from their gender role. It is also a political issue, with laws being enacted. All these things are currently lacking for men. As Warren Farrell says, we are now where women used to be in 1960. Anyway, so far I predict that you will have mor…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:26 AM
5

While power and privilege do, of course, go hand in hand, I'm sort of trying to address the negative impact of putting men into the "masculine, domineering, powerful, in control" gender role at all times That is certainly an overlap with MRA goals which I appreciate. We may have differing definitions of power and privilege, because women have their own distinct set of privileges. I, and many MRA's with me, believe that if you carefully examine the idea of "power" you will find there is female pr…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:12 AM
7

Here is my take on why the feminist portrayal of patriarchy does in fact sweep under the carpet how men were (and are) oppressed by their gender role. Acknowledgement of some men's issues does not mean they properly and fairly deal with all valid issues, which is required if were are to reach true equality. It is especially problematic if that acknowledgement is under the flag of "patriarchy hurts men too", and my linked post elaborates on why. An addition to the above: men as a class do not hav…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:02 AM
3

Then you clearly have a different understanding of a "program [that] is working to change the lives of female addicts" than I do. Seems highly unlikely that that program helps men - if it did, it would be referred to as a "program [that] is working to change the lives of addicts". I do expect that the parent organisation of which the program is a part, also has different programs which are for all addicts including men. But that is not the question here. The question is: why make a special progr…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 02:56 AM
2

Imagine OP talking to the people running that female-only help center. With a sarcasic tone he says: "It was such a learning experience visiting your help center. Today I learned that there are no male heroin addicts in this town!" What is he trying to tell them?
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:11 AM
7

The Hague is in the Netherlands.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:06 AM
4

Ask yourself the following: would there be outrage if there were programs exclusive to male addicts, who refused female addicts seeking help?
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:03 AM
0

a little research into the divisions between feminists would show that feminists criticism feminism more exhaustively than any other group You're repeating yourself. You already said the same thing here: On one hand you're right, but on the other hand shut up because I know, a lot of people in feminism know, we're trying to do something about it ...to which I replied with my previous post. So I'll just repeat: your assertion that feminists criticize other feminists does not make it off limits to…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 12:52 AM
1

Great article to show people who claim that "not all feminists are like that". Feminists who support equality for men not just in words but in deeds, are the exception.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:52 PM
26

Much has been said in this thread, so I'll just stick to adding one point. Rest assured that I did read all of your post. Criticism of feminism as a whole, coming from men, is a sore point. It feels like somebody from another country criticizing my country for all its human rights abuses. On one hand you're right, but on the other hand shut up because I know, a lot of people in feminism know, we're trying to do something about it Feminists want to discuss, analyze and change our society. That in…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:26 PM
3

Get a blog and link to it. That's much, much better than posting an article and continuing it in the comments.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:21 PM
3

You see, you've got it completely fucking backwards. [First sentence from the now deleted OP] Interesting way to "emphasize your lack of satisfaction". Anyway, it's not our job to satisfy you. We are equal conversational partners, not your lackeys. If you want interaction, treat us as such instead of demanding rhetorical satisfaction. For now, I'll just refer you to this triple gold post on another subreddit. If you come back with a more respectable OP (and I happen to read that) I'll be more th…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:36 AM
16

It's not too late, because multiple of your teammates have seen this happen and felt uncomfortable. You can bring this matter to light together and that's a big advantage. Talk to the other guys. Then later, approach the coach together. His initial reaction at the time could be based on sexism. But it's also possible that he just didn't notice that you guys were really uncomfortable with what happened. I'm going to guess that like typical guys, none of you spoke up really clearly about it at the…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:21 AM
2

The first sentence betrays the anger and hatred. This person is not here for reasonable discussion but for a flamewar. Let's not participate in that. "Teacup", if you want a reasonable conversation, start off by treating your partners with a basic level of respect.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:14 AM
21

Because it fits the stereotypes that "female" corresponds to good, caring, deserving of protection and sympathy, while "male" is dangerous, domineering, deserving of suspicion and restriction. It's a matter of marketing, and appealing to powerful stereotypes is one part of that. When you name your movement feminism instead of e.g. egalitarianism, you ensure that gender stereotypes will help you gather support. Related link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
/r/MensRights16/12/13 12:53 PM
1

I would like to suggest a better analogy: "telling people to lock their cars so that their radio won't get stolen, is victim blaming." The example in this image has a weakness, namely that rapists commit an intentional crime while car accidents are usually not intentional. Of course reckless drivers are still responsible, but the analogy is more accurate if you compare it with theft. Thieves commit an intentional crime, just like rapists.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 07:17 PM
29

Then white knight cameraman jumps to her aid, also loses.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 10:33 PM
1

I agree, I was disappointed by this book. Reviews and interviews such as the one this thread links to, are pretty good. But the book itself didn't seem very well written.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 12:45 AM
1

That was pretty effective. The discussion OP wants to have with an entrenched guy on twitter isn't so much. But if he wants to prove me wrong, more power to him.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 09:45 PM
3

Often, social groups benefit from the presence of some people who are less involved with socializing, exchanging affection and more involved with being objective, cold and distant (at times). The problem is that those people miss out on the rewards of socializing and exchanging affection. I remember travelling in a group where at times I was the only guy. When I would be socializing just like the girls were, solving problems and taking decisions would take ages because there was little focus and…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 09:20 PM
1

I see your point. It's true, they are traits that won't change, so if she were attracted to me simply for the isolated fact that I am taller then that would be ideal. But in practice it's not simply about the individual point of measuring more centimeters. The "being taller" feat fits into a bag of traits that make her feel safe, protected, taken care of - and that's actually why it's attractive. The attractiveness is not in the height itself but in its implications: the impressed feeling she ge…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:47 PM
1

I'd answer that just like I'd answer anti-fascist skinheads: you're not wrong, you're just ineffective.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:42 PM
-1

Here is another related post (not by me) which got triple reddit gold, so I'm pretty sure it can help further clarifying things.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 03:59 PM
0

Just a heads up: here is a related post that deals with one of the ways feminist theories obfuscate the realities of male suffering. tl;dr The claim that "gender roles are socially constructed" by itself can be defended, but feminists often combine that idea with patriarchy theory, i.e. women had the gender roles of victims and men of oppressors. This is false - it ignores the fact that historically, in order for the group to survive, men had to be forced into disposable roles. Both genders were…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 01:36 PM
1

It seems like that's actually what you want though?? Can you show me where you're getting that impression from me?
/r/MensRights10/12/13 11:16 AM
1

So that brings me back to my original post. What is my ideal relationship? In a perfect world - one where her attraction to me does not depend on me being passionate, motivated and succesful, so that I don't feel the pressure to keep up those qualities. Realistically? One where the consequences of failing the above can be dealt with.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 01:17 AM
1

This gets interesting now, because I was like your boyfriend. Graduated both my degrees cum laude with publications from internships etc. etc. When I met my girlfriend, I could tell her about fluorescence for hours (she happened to be interested because she also worked with it). Nobody could imagine me ever losing that. But I have been losing that passion recently. These things do happen, and people do change that way. If you're attracted to someone for having blue eyes that's going to be the ca…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 01:03 AM
1

Absolutely, those are also core parts in my view. In the frame of this discussion, with "core" I basically meant anything that won't change on a daily basis. I just tried to find some extreme examples of that, since it's pretty hard to change being a blue-eyed German but I can imagine people's views on politics might change over a decade. Of course in the sense of being meaningful, political views are more "core" to someone's personality than his eye colour, and I guess that's what you were refe…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 12:46 AM
1

I guess one way to realize the "ideal relationship" as mentioned in my original post, is to only be attracted to static core parts rather than behaviors and looks which are more prone to fluctuation. Many girls like guys who help them, many guys like girls who act cute and cheerful. That means there's pressure to act that way on the majority of days spent together. On the other hand when you like someone for having blue eyes or being German, that's not going to change any time soon. It's an inte…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 12:30 AM
1

I slightly edited my previous reply to make it more about personal perception (i.e. a boyfriend's) rather than society's. Of course you can substitute my example with anything applicable for trait X: "your partner being attracted to trait X causes problems because, although you are free to be non-X whenever you want, you know that if you take it too far your partner will find you less attractive" I guess my last guess was not accurate for you, so help me out here. :)
/r/MensRights10/12/13 12:15 AM
1

Sorry for not directly replying to your questions, but first I'm interested to hear how you feel about this part: Most men like pretty women, so women feel the pressure to be pretty all the time. Women can choose to ignore that, but they'll notice the penalty of getting less attention. It might be easier for you to identify with that, since you're on the receiving end of the fallout there (as opposed to the example of expertise being attractive in men). So suppose your boyfriend likes you becaus…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 12:05 AM
5

Please reconsider if it's worth your time engaging in a competition that basically amounts to: who can show that the other team slung more mud? Feminists demonizing MRA's, MRA's demonizing feminists, everyone pretending that the other camp is filled with hateful idiots in an attempt to assassinate their image. Reminds me of the US presidential elections. What is the point of such mutually assured destruction? If you want to prove that men and women both engage in bad behavior, there really are b…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 11:47 PM
2

I'm not saying any of the things in those lists are good or bad, acceptable or wrong. In an ideal relationship I simply wouldn't want my or her attraction to depend on them, because that has consequences. It's not an aesthetic matter, it's not that I find it ugly or unbecoming when a woman likes experienced men or a man likes pretty women. The problem is that liking a partner for doing or being X, restricts their freedom of doing or being non-X. Here is an example: If you as a girl are attracted…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 11:14 PM
10

In my opinion, the MRM seems divided over the question. This subreddit is not an official organ of any kind, it's just a bunch of guys and girls who have enough in common to stick around. Thus I predict you'll find supporters of the idea (but not in the feminist flavour) and opponents (but not in the 1950's traditionalist flavour). Personally, I prefer an evidence-based approach and I am not convinced there is sufficient evidence, but I'm open to seeing some. I think most MRA's will agree that, …
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:43 PM
2

Ideally? One where her attraction to me does not depend on my gender role (being impressively strong and succesful, having status, showing skillfullness and control, achieving things, being taller, being older, being experienced, guiding her, driving her around, taking responsibility for dealing with situations not just in my own life, but her and other people's problems as well) just as my attraction to her does not depend on her gender role (being endearingly pretty and sweet, elegant, making …
/r/MensRights09/12/13 07:36 PM
2

I cannot tell you the gist because you are a hostile conversational partner, despite my attempts to be respectful. I'm sorry things are like that, and I hope in time you will be able to have respectful conversations about this. Right now you are projecting anger instead of understanding. It won't get us anywhere, but Warren Farrell has this magical quality of bringing the message in such a way that some women can look past their anger. I obviously cannot do that with you, so I'll have to refer y…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 03:21 PM
1

The media portrays women as objects, pretty things, sexy things, girlfriends, love interests, prostitutes and wives, it portrays men as heroes who do selfless things and win the approval of their peers/society. Agency and objectification are different. This gets to the core of Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power". I have taken the time to read about and understand the way women feel pressured and objectified. Will you do the same for men and read his book? I am asking this for a reason. Ple…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 03:01 PM
0

not all gay couples are ravishingly beautiful young men, and not all lesbian couples are rich with enormous wallets and strong bodies. Not all straight couples conform either. Given a huge sample size, you'll always get a distribution that has extremes, less extreme outliers, "normals" and everything in between. Still we can identify trends and norms, and the fact that you can point to exceptions doesn't change their validity. If I point to one black guy who doesn't get discriminated for his rac…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 02:27 PM
1

It actually might be relevant: you've probably experienced people showing their appreciation when you're not wearing make-up. Maybe some even said they find that more attractive than with make-up. This will also help men - if people (not just women, although they have the most power in this matter) show guys at the very least that they don't get less attractive or valuable for being weak. As I said before, just saying it's okay to be weak doesn't help. Warren Farrell (18:12-19:40) compares it to…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 01:01 PM
1

It seems a nice and empathic question to ask so I'm happy to answer. First of all, of course everyone is different so I can only indicate trends that won't be true for all men and boys. Second, I'll assume you're asking how to help guys when they're feeling down about something - which you would solve with talking if you were helping girls. Men and boys tend to want space and respect when it comes to dealing with feelings. Space and respect are opposites of being forced or pushed to talk. During…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 01:22 AM
9

Sorry to hear that. However, do realize that in the 70s, 80s, 90s people like Warren Farrell (starts 7:35) were trying to have respectful conversations about men's rights, only to be ignored. He was welcome as a speaker at NOW events as long as he didn't talk about the male side of equality. After decades of having their valid, well-sourced and respectfully brought arguments completely ignored, many MRA's and men are starting to get pissed. You would be, too, if you were raised with promises and…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 10:16 PM
3

Why are you making this suggestion? Withdraw support means exactly what I wrote: withdraw support from organisations that are widely associated with feminism, but guilty of sexism. I have no problem with people who call themselves feminists as long as they are willing to do that.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 09:55 PM
2

Then the golden test would be, to show self-proclaimed "non-radical" feminists the sexist and often misandric stances, policies and programmes that come from well-known mainstream feminist institutions. See if they withdraw their support or not.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 09:51 PM
5

Don't expect a discussion of male disposability or female hypergamy in this documentary, even though both concepts are vital to understanding why we raise boys the way we do. The intentions of the maker may have been good, but the documentary gets hijacked by manginas like Michael Kimmel and Jackson Katz. By allowing such feminists to pretend they speak on behalf of suffering men/boys, the real issues I mentioned above get ignored in favour of a feminist agenda (i.e. "patriarchy hurts men too").…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 08:03 PM
7

How can we trust men to take the pill? They're offish brutes who can't do anything right Most importantly, this common reaction shows female solipsism. They assume that the reason for introducing the male pill is to make women's lives more comfortable. Hence they say "never going to work, I won't trust him so it won't do me any good". It doesn't even cross their minds that men are humans who might want to take the pill for their own peace of mind, instead of to save and help women. Their instinc…
/r/MensRights06/12/13 11:08 PM
4

Exactly. Of course it's her right to move if she wants to, but with rights come responsibilities. Some people might argue that forfeiting child support is "practically the same as forcing her not to move, because she won't be able to afford life without the money". But a person's right to relocate does not mean she has a right to have it all paid for. If I can't afford moving to the US because I'd have less benefits than I'd have in my native country, then I'm stuck here and that's not because a…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 03:01 AM
7

That's exactly what I also thought the moment I read: I think they believe Classic strawman sign. What's more, he conflates MRA's and men: They [MRA's] do believe that women are in power now, and that they [men] are suffering because of it.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 06:43 PM
12

Because catering to popular stereotypes sells, and so that is what the media reflects.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 06:39 PM
3

Men would be less successful and they'd stop feeling responsible to be the providers and protectors. As a result women wouldn't find them all that attractive anymore.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 11:10 AM
0

I'm a research scientist, I don't work in an office or move any boxes. The situations all are hypothetical. I'm not asking for personal advice, but interested in the different ways that people deal with these things.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 03:01 PM
10

More specifically, you have to start from the false assumption that women are the only ones oppressed. I do believe women were oppressed by their gender roles in the 1950s, but so were men. Just in different ways. Women were restricted from obtaining high status/money/etc. but they did have a level of guaranteed security. Men cared for them, the state cared for them, everyone looked out to make sure women were provided for. Men had no such guaranteed security but they got the opportunity to stri…
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:00 PM
12

I’m going to give [Wood] the benefit of the doubt here and say maybe he really just has no clue that his behavior was wrong. [...] So how about we use this opportunity to link arms and work towards finding ways to fix this? So basically she says: I have the right to tell the whole world you are a bad man, and I have the right to unilaterally determine what constitutes a bad man even if he didn't break any laws, but since I don't like the idea of being held accountable for the legitimacy of my ac…
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:30 PM
1

I am aware of women's issues, there is no need to lecture me on what I "should" read or how I "should" analyze your comment. I have sponsored campaigns about various women's issues and to this day support them. I have never seen a feminist group do the same for men's issues, and that is the problem. It is also very telling that you come to a discussion revolving around men's issues, on International Men's Day, lecturing people how they should be paying more attention to women's issues. That is t…
/r/MensRights19/11/13 10:57 AM
0

They just won't prosecute women. Probably won't even arrest them.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 09:04 AM
3

The fact that they chose this statement as the conclusion of the article pissed me off. So he should just be happy and content with being forced into fatherhood? Would people say the same thing if a woman was made a mother against her will? "Think of the child, who cares about your feelings and your life!"
/r/MensRights19/11/13 09:01 AM
1

That's a pretty good description of what institutional feminism is about. Sophisticated game theories to justify getting most of the resources.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 08:38 AM
1

Thanks for clarifying that, I may have misread the article or possibly it wasn't specified very well there. So to correct, people preferred to spend thousands of dollars on this particular case to research it and present it as an example of SIDS while the more obvious explanation was not considered.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 09:48 PM
0

Like most MRA's, I don't support Conservapedia because I don't think going back to 1950 gender roles will do any good. If that's what you think the MRA message is, read this. Also, 1/10 trolling.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 04:13 PM
1

Nature doesn't roll the dice more with men than it does with women. People roll the dice more with men than it does with women. One does not rule out the other. While I agree with the rest of your comment, it is a well established scientific fact that biological properties (including their height) vary more strongly among men than among women. So both nature and people roll the dice more with men. In fact, it's the reason two sexes came into existence in the first place: so that one could compet…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 09:20 PM
3

I don't think it's safe to argue that all the feminist anger is rooted in sexual or romantic frustration, but for some women what you describe will certainly be a major factor. The problem for those women tends to be that they expect to have their cake and eat it too: they want to be equal to men, but they still fall for partners based on hypergamic criteria. Ideally, all men are her equals or less, except her partner - he must be a conquering lothario who sweeps her off her feet, makes her feel…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 08:54 PM
3

You have my sincere thanks for having an open mind and trying to see the common man's side of the story. We should stop playing the blame game and pointing the finger as if men (or women) deserve X because some of them Y. It's not easy to be one of the forerunners in doing this, but it will make the world a better place.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 07:21 PM
8

Yes, thank you for this piece. I have it in my archive but it's great to read again. For too long only one side actually showed up to the gender war. Men could have worked with feminists like her in the early days, but for whatever reason that didn't happen. We may be behind at the moment, but we've only just started picking up speed. Don't underestimate the power that men's side of the story will bring to the mainstream culture: it'll force the gender feminists (aka bigots) to back down and let…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 07:04 PM
1

From what you've described here, that does sound like an interesting book. I think those formative years descriptions are the most notable distinct characteristic of what you're looking for. Maybe include a description of that in your OP and see if anyone recognises it? I'd like to read this text too.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 06:57 PM
3

Absolutely, it's not just about how women see the top men. It's about male disposability, and that idea predates feminism. Feminism didn't introduce misandry in western cultures, and if it had continued true to its stated goals of equality, feminism could actually have helped root out misandry. For example, see what this old style feminist has to say: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1qtymg/lay_off_men_lessing_tells_feminists_uk_news/ Unfortunately, that's not the path feminism went d…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 06:51 PM
2

I prefer "pro choice for men" or "men's reproductive rights".
/r/MensRights17/11/13 03:34 PM
2

There's a huge market of gay porn (M on M) specifically made for the pleasures of straight/bi women. http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/search?q=gay+porn+for+women&restrict_sr=on But that's no problem apparently. Appropriating a form female sexuality for the pleasure of straight men - horrible misogyny. Doing the exact same thing with genders reversed - female empowerment!
/r/MensRights17/11/13 12:07 PM
11

Most powerful people are men, therefore most men are powerful people? That's not correct logic. Reality is that nature rolls the dice more with men than it does with women. Take any property (height, IQ, income, number of sexual partners...) and make a frequency distribution plot for M and for F. Nearly all of them will look something like this. Scientists have done such research for many variables. A greater variance in men means they dominate the top regions as you say, but they also dominate …
/r/MensRights17/11/13 12:00 PM
18

You could have read this in so many places. It's basically the apex fallacy: women only notice men of higher status, so if the 20% of men that they can see behave like assholes, then to them all men are assholes. The fallacy is basically "all powerful people are men, therefore all men are powerful". Women tend to be blind to the fact that most homeless people, suicide victims, and people dying on the job are men - because those are not the kinds of men that draw their attention. The underlying p…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 11:39 AM
5

Being a woman myself I believe that woman was put on earth by God for man. I think most MRA's will argue that men and women are equals. Neither exists for the other. So we wouldn't really agree with you. Now im not saying all women deserve to be "raped", but even as a women, I believe that sometimes we need to be brought down a knotch or two. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but we don't support rape in any form. Some bigoted female chauvinists and the like do need to be put in their…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 11:15 AM
7

To be fair I have heard people use this argument when a guy sleeps with a married woman and there was little outrage too.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 10:59 AM
2

I'm just curious: where did you dig this up?
/r/MensRights17/11/13 04:29 AM
2

This. Slut can still be used in a hurtful way, and so can creep. Reclaiming is useful to point out what's wrong with the original use and to take the sting out a bit. But it doesn't solve the problem.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 04:17 AM
7

I was wondering if anyone is familiar with any study or survey where people were asked in a hypothetical situation if they had the opportunity to save one woman's life or X number of men, what the consensus threshold would be People don't tick that way. There's a good chance you'd get the answer 1 man = worth 1 woman. Simply because people will consider your question rationally. The experiment really needs to be a little more sophisticated if you want to uncover the bias (which is very real, I a…
/r/MensRights16/11/13 09:25 AM
2

Yes, you can then keep the recording to yourself as a personal treasure. Duh, of course that's not it. Then take it to a lawyer and see if you have a case.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 07:53 AM
2

Record their admissions and/or get it in writing (unlikely they'll admit it there I guess).
/r/MensRights15/11/13 08:35 PM
3

Let's assume the best in our fellow man, surely they're consistent, non-hypocritical chaps. So surely a lot of the people in that thread would also think there's something wrong with a girl who doesn't want to give blowjobs to her bf. How dare she think his dick is gross, she puts it in her vagina so why not her mouth? They should surely agree that the bf is justified in trying to change her mind, and give him some advice on how to achieve that. If she still refuses, they will call her selfish.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 08:13 PM
5

Fighting for human rights and equality for everybody requires a brain and a heart, nothing more. You need reason and compassion, not a label such as feminist or MRA. It sounds like you've got the former, and your "friends" only have the latter. Good riddance. I hope on this subreddit (and IRL) you'll meet new people who are more reasonable and compassionate, regardless of what they do or don't call themselves. But yeah, there's a lot of anger here too, as you've seen on AVFM. It's a hard world. …
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:42 PM
3

The girl I was with told them they were being super rude, and then some girl behind me just started slapping my ass. Like 20 times. Hard. All her friends thought it was hilarious Sounds like teenage girls discovering their pussy pass (immunity due to being female). They think it's hilarious because society unexpectedly allows them to do things that should be off-limits. I often get cat called by teenage girls shouting stuff that no guy would ever get away with. It's like a game to them to see ho…
/r/MensRights15/11/13 08:48 AM
2

Yes, I have experience with such debates. The bottom line is that a typical audience is more likely to accept ideas that are presented as progressive, rather than ideas from the previous century of which the common vocabulary suggests they've been superseded or improved upon (i.e. second-wave and third-wave). Words have meaning and power, they allow you to control the narrative. A smart debater uses that to his advantage. YMMV, I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying, go ahead and try it. …
/r/MensRights15/11/13 08:30 AM
2

And that's exactly why many feminists moved on as soon as Friedan-style feminism wasn't getting them any advantages anymore. Of course I support you trying to host them by their own petard, but when you get dismissed with "we've since moved on", think of me :)
/r/MensRights15/11/13 06:46 AM
2

The problem is that Friedan's ideas have been framed as an older generation of feminism. Nobody ever wins a fight for ideas perceived as backwards and outdated. Ideas need to look fresh. Even if MRM ideas are identical or similar to Friedans (and I doubt it), it is better to use new terms rather than fall back on a discarded legacy. Otherwise people will just tell you "we've been there and have long since moved on. Get with the times!" And those times would be third generation feminism. No thank…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 11:23 PM
2

Fast forward to 2013. Now there's Schrödinger's pedestal: it exists when women want to, constraints on women are no longer justified (even reasonable ones) but special treatment is still expected and often mandated by law.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 11:19 PM
23

Many MRA's, me included, refuse to do any of those things and we get shit for it too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way can be framed in terms of "you're not respecting women" and I guess that's exactly how they like it. Always some way to blame men.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 11:03 PM
2

Why do you feel the need to specify that he's a tour guide, not a pedophile, just because he had a van. That's just as bad of a stereotype as anything in your post, and anyone whose mind automatically goes there shouldn't be allowed to speak among adults in the first place.' Irony.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 10:14 AM
1

Is it less stressful living there?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:55 AM
6

Unfortunately, in practice most men-only services and spaces get shot down because "they have to be inclusive of women". When it comes to men-only services, free market is not an absolute anymore and comparisons are made with "für Juden verboten" signs on German shops during WW2. We both know very well that if cab drivers started refusing female passengers because of the video I posted above, feminists would raise hell and get their way in court. That is probably the point of this post: I also d…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:50 AM
8

Would you be okay with men-only cabs to fix the very real problem of female passengers assaulting and falsely accusing male cab drivers?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:43 AM
2

Yes, unfortunately sometimes adults find it hard to believe that mothers can be violent to sons. But remember that there are many adults who know better and want to help you. It will just be a lot easier if you have undeniable hard evidence to show, so that's why I updated my last post with some tips for that. Good luck!
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:37 AM
4

I understand. Maybe it's a good idea to talk to a school counselor about this, you could ask them to keep things confidential. I'm glad your situation at home is a little bit better now, so I would recommend you try to focus on the school work. But get a cheap MP3 player with voice recording if you can, they can be found for $20 sometimes. (Google cheap usb voice recorder.)Use it when your mother says bad things (such as calling you a psychopath). If it gets worse, you can show the recordings to…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:29 AM
2

Fortunately she hasn't hit me since April Does that make life more bearable for you at home, or are there other things happening right now? I'm asking because you've made this post now, was there anything in particular that got you thinking about it?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:18 AM
3

That's okay. You don't have to be afraid that you'll get placed in an orphanage as soon as you talk about what happens to you. That doesn't happen that easily. In my country what will happen, is that people will look after you and check if you're okay every once in a while. For example they could give you a phone number to call if anything bad happens. They might also talk to your mother to tell her to stop hitting you. We people on the internet cannot do these things for you, that is why it's i…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:09 AM
3

My mom always told me really bad things happen in foster care Could you tell me how this conversation came up and what exactly she said?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 08:58 AM
4

My mom ran out yelling and asking what happened, then ran to me. I hid in a corner as she beat me, leaving me many bruises and giving me a small limp. There are other times she has hit me, and once I've hit her back. What she is doing is not okay. Parents are supposed to protect their children, not beat them. Do you have a phone that can record video? Keep it with you always, and start recording when things like this happen again. It is also good that you're writing down what happens, keep doing…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 08:48 AM
2

While I think the article is a bit harsh, the point is something that was a key element of the early MRM: men as well as society let women define what makes a "good man" and what makes a "bad man". Creep shaming is a perfect example of this: a woman calling a man a creep is a move of power. However, the other, "positive" side of the coin is equally problematic: a woman telling a man he is good because he does things she thinks are good. It's still her who is defining and evaluating his life. Thi…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 08:27 AM
8

I don't know what TRP means, and I put the word you are referring to in quotation marks because I think it is often interpreted too freely. However, this isn't the topic to enter into a discussion about what parts of "alpha" have a valid basis, and what don't. If you want to discuss this, feel free to open a topic and let me know about it. I will be happy to reply, provided you can be a reasonable partner in the conversation instead of the daft asshole you're showing yourself to be with this pos…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 10:18 PM
30

I absolutely agree it is a basic human drive, and men would do similar things given the chance. The point I'm trying to make is that society can constrain such human drives, but that doesn't happen when 93% of your HR department is female. In that case only the top men benefit, and they won't complain. This pattern happens in many settings: if women as a collective have all the power, the top men benefit. I'm not saying that's not natural, but that doesn't make it right. Society can and should c…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 04:00 PM
50

This is one reason the top ("alpha") men are in bed with the feminists and often defend them more fervently than other men: if you give women all the power, they will favour those top men while being dismissive of the others. It doesn't just happen in HR, it happens everywhere.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 03:31 PM
12

I think for many MRA's, the problem is not that guys like this get called out for their stupid behavior. The problem is that (1) women bullies doing similar things usually have their behavior excused by society or even framed as "empowering"; (2) chavs doing similar things against a non-female group are usually not seen as a problem worth addressing; (3) the punishment dished out to guys like this is often out of proportion, e.g. getting expelled from school. All this suggests that women are see…
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:09 PM
1

This is really a crappy situation. People everywhere are blaming men for not being present in the lives of their kids, but reality is that more often than not the mother keeps the father away by force and tells her environment an angry sob story about "that asshole who bailed". Technically, you have rights as a father but to enforce them you have to go after it. You could decide to get your name on the birth certificate and sue her for visitation rights or maybe even 50/50 custody. Of course tha…
/r/MensRights12/11/13 03:15 PM
21

This is a perfect article to point out whenever someone brings up the dictionary argument ("do you think men and women should be equal? then you are a feminist")
/r/MensRights12/11/13 11:50 AM
2

Is this an essay for school or a personal essay? I agree with your basic points and I admire your fire. What are your goals with this? Do you want to convince "mainstream people"? Do you want to debate feminists? For a mainstream audience I feel that a different style might be more effective. I elaborated on a related point here: /r/MensRights/comments/1q21qy/something_interesting_happened_tuesday/cd8n309 Basically, most young people nowadays are not feminists so there's no need to assume that a…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 03:41 AM
1

In which country do you live? In mine (Netherlands) this seems to be the way many young people would respond. This is also why I think it's important the MRM doesn't phrase all its points as a reaction to feminism. Directly attacking feminism is not effective because people aren't interested in arguments against a movement that they don't consider themselves part of - and the ones who do identify as feminists are too entrenched in their bigotry. Since most young people do not identify with femin…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 05:01 AM
8

This is the sort of article I'd expect to be contradicted and condemned by the "feminists who are not like that". Well, where are they? Why haven't they ostracized these "extremists" yet?
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:41 AM
3

You need to carry recording devices (audio, preferably video) so that you collect evidence when things like this happen again. Without it, nobody will believe you unfortunately. Seriously. Go buy recording equipment. Discuss with your lawyer, but don't wait. You never know when she'll have a "talk" with you.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:41 PM
1

Actually I have found that most women like looking at boobs, when you ask them in a fair way that doesn't suggest they're lesbians if they do.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 07:57 PM
-1

(1) Women make the vast majority of spending decisions so they are better marketing targets. (2) Male disposability means people tend to care less for the fate of men than of women, unless those men are close to them (and in that case it's partially about the women who depend on him) (3) Gynocentrism, we are more sensitive to the needs and perils of women
/r/MensRights31/10/13 11:45 AM
1

Not sure if this is a troll thread, but I sure hope so.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 11:03 PM
3

The problem with the rape study she cites, is (1) that definitions of rape exclude female perpetration, e.g. when a woman forces a man to "stick it in or else I'll stab you" that somehow doesn't count as rape and (2) male victimization and female perpetration are both underreported because they don't fit the cultural narrative. Talk about a prime example of confirmation bias at work.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:51 PM
2

You're certainly right about the victim mentality being bad for you, and how you should be careful not to fall into the same trap as they did. However, I hope with "lets move on" you mean "lets move on - without her". Don't be "kind of friends". Just avoid her. It's dangerous as fuck. That's one bridge you gotta burn.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:48 PM
4

I'm glad you took the time to look through the source. You put it very well: Every single statement in OP's picture is true Indeed every individual statement on its own can be considered true. But the complete picture lies by omission: it doesn't actually present a complete picture. My challenge to you would be to find some more bullet points from my source that complete the story. It looks like so far you've only hunted through the source to validate what OP's pic says. As I said, each individu…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 04:48 PM
5

The problem is not that it's wrong, but that it's incomplete and oddly described. Incomplete because female hypergamy is underdiscussed, oddly described because this text book is discussing mating strategies and the influence on behavior, but instead of treating them as such - strategies - subjective language is used. Men are "fickle, promiscuous, drawn to rape". Women are "devoted, faithful, cautious, prefer stability and safety". Completely wrong? No, the stuff written in that text has a basis…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:12 AM
1

Could you link some of those studies? I'd like to read them.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:03 AM
4

Female hypergamy is kinda missing from this picture, and as a result all the words describing men have a negative sound (fickle, promiscuous, drawn to rape) and all the words describing women positive (devoted, faithful, cautious, prefer stability and safety). Women don't always prefer stability; they prefer stability with the best man possible until a better one comes along. That could be described as fickle. They prefer sexual novelty as long as the new is better than the old. This lecture mat…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:51 AM
1

Send her a formal letter through registered mail (the kind she'll have to sign for before opening) that she is not welcome. Fax works too if she has one, cause faxes keep a list of what is received when (legally equivalent to registered mail). The point is to ensure that she has no way of plausibly denying she knew she wasn't welcome. Make sure you CC the police dept and the venue (and explicitly put that CC on the letter). For extra lulz make the letter sort of look like an invitation on the ou…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:33 AM
1

Sigh. Quoting means you actually copy-paste the specific words you base your accusation on, and then preferably explain what you think it meant.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:22 AM
1

You make strong accusations, but give no evidence at all. Quote me. I fear you've simply misread what I wrote.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:01 PM
6

Note that it's not the actions that define the archetype, but the reasoning behind expectations and actions. If a man pays the check because he's nice (and he'd do so too for a guy friend), or because he invited her for the date, or because she did it last time - then there is no problem. It's all about the "because you are gender A, you have to do actions B" part. So to apply that to the situation in this topic: if the guys this woman dates actually expect her to spend $100 on looking good, the…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:26 AM
12

The point of that argument is that women who liberate themselves from the female gender role cannot and should not judge men who liberate themselves from the male gender role. Women who demand that a man pick up the check but are offended when he demands she clean the house, are guilty of that hypocrisy. In this case the two societal archetypes are closely intertwined because they revolve around the same concept: because you are gender A, you have to do actions B. Due to this intertwined nature …
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:15 AM
8

Confirmation bias. If you're looking through a huge set of data (e.g. the world) you will always find what you're looking for. If all you're looking for is misogyny to be mad about, that's all you'll find (and talk about). This is how some Anitas would come to the conclusion that misogyny in video games is systematic even if you'd only find it in 1 out of 20 randomly selected titles (and usually bundled with an equal dose of misandry too, but that doesn't count 'cause we're not looking for it). …
/r/MensRights29/10/13 08:17 AM
6

Shaming the sexuality of others is not an act reserved to males. Being called out on it by feminists is, however.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 07:20 AM
5

It's a more effective approach to solving the problem for sure. It would also be more effective to give classes to black people about not stealing, because more thieves are black than white. Since most victims are white we could give exclusive seminars on how whites can protect themselves against black robberies and burglaries. Do you really think we should be painting with such broad brushes because it gives the best coverage? Sure it does, but it also smears paint all over places (or rather, i…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:47 AM
3

Yes, in that sense they were absolutely essential. But men have more value than cannon fodder and cheap labour. Unfortunately, male disposability denies that. We need to allow and encourage discussion of traditional male disposability and its biological origins, because if you can't expose it, how are we ever going to change it? The problem with that SourceFed video is that it presents male disposability as an undisputable unchangable fact. The problem is not that they discuss the concept at all…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:37 AM
1

The next step is taking it beyond the digital highway, onto the real streets. I notice many people asking "how do I set up a group" or "how do I deal with issue X in my school" - we need to get articles with tips and guides for those people. AVFM seems to be at the forefront of this, but the experience is still only starting to be mined. It's a tough job. The main problem is the power of social stigma IRL. Shaming tactics are more effective there, you just pretend that men's rights activists are…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:32 AM
14

I recommend you contact Jonathan Taylor of A Voice for Male Students and ask for advice on writing an open letter. Also bring this up with other guys at school and see if you can make a protest / boycott. If you can get girls to support it all the better, but don't count on that too much. At their age, teenage girls tend to be insecure and that makes the victim status with its attention, privileges and special protection very appealing. Only when people mature, can you really expect them to look…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 03:46 AM
3

Unfortunately I'll have to disagree. Some wars are known to take more than 20% of men out of a country and although those societies took hits for that, they didn't collapse. I completely understand the sentiment that it's wrong to state that men are disposable, as a matter of fact ("that's just the way it is"). We should recognize the reality of male disposability from a historical and biological perspective while stressing that it doesn't have to stay that way. However, bluntly banning discussi…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 03:37 AM
17

How would you feel if someone said that it would be nice of blacks if they crossed the street so that white people don't have to be afraid?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 11:06 PM
2

The name change should be the least of your worries. Her leaving with them and alienating them from you is the real risk. Get a lawyer and make sure you record every conversation with her. It is important that you get these threats on tape. Smartphones can record, computers can record, many MP3 players can record. The threats might get worse - you have to get them on tape or it's your word against hers. As said before, don't provoke anything - you should act normally until your legal action kick…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 10:48 PM
2

I think we can both agree that if a parent chooses to keep a child, that parent is responsible for taking care of it. The problem is that men currently do not get the choice to say no, while women do. This means that men are forced by the state to provide for the child, while women have the option to give it up for adoption if they're not willing or able to provide. You maintain that whenever anyone is forced to provide for a child in any way (physically or financially, 1 or 2), for whatever dur…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:17 AM
6

Actually I just didn't see any post saying "Feminist here, I am outraged by this news report".
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:41 AM
1

Have you noticed that the "slaveries", as you call them, in points (1) and (2) in my post are of two different natures? Those end results are not identical.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:35 AM
2

Because it's a matter of honor or in other words: because we're supposed to be better than the average feminist. We have to give a good example and respect other people's rights if we want the world to respect ours. If you pretend that the reasons for female abortion rights and male renunciation rights are the same, you are glossing over a specific woman's human right issue (specifically the right to her bodily autonomy for those 9 months). Not only will that make you lose credibility, it will a…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:30 AM
1

I understand what you're saying, but "Not being able to abort" is forcing a woman to (1) 9 months of pregnancy and (2) 18 years of child raising. For a man, it only forces him to (2) 18 years of child raising, and that's why the situations cannot be compared. Had you said "Not being able to give up for adoption" then for both the man and woman that would amount to 18 years of child raising. In that case the situations are comparable and the argument is sound.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:22 AM
1

I made it clear that I agree with your conclusion, it's the argument that will rightfully get you in trouble in a public forum. You will unneccesarily lose public support if you skip over one of the legitimate reasons women can have for an abortion.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:06 AM
2

Actually I wasn't looking at commenter genders when I said "no outrage by feminists", because not all women identify as feminists (far from) and some men do. You cannot conclude that woman = feminist
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:03 AM
1

But then this was a relatively futile exercise :(
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:58 AM
1

I agree with your conclusion (that men should have child renunciation rights) but think your argument is somewhat flawed. I am pro-choice and think women should be allowed to abort (until a certain amount of months) because it's their body. There is no equivalent to this right in men, because they cannot get pregnant. However, women also have the right to deliver the baby and then immediately relinquish all rights and responsibilities by giving up the baby for adoption. This right has nothing to…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:43 AM
1

Cool story bro. But seriously, respect for you and your girlfriend. Got any replies?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:27 AM
28

Even better: did you notice she's the one with the higher libido? Despite her wanting it more, her "putting out" is somehow more valuable than his putting out. Oh, the irony.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:18 AM
5

I would like to add that prenups have frequently been overruled by judges. They can get thrown out in court. Also, he should only state his reasons with the goal of informing her. His decision should not depend on her approval of his reasons. I don't think you were suggesting otherwise, but just to make sure he doesn't fall into this common trap.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:12 AM
12

She demands marriage. Does she actually demand marriage? The first thing you need to establish is that marriage, like any contract, is a decision both parties have to agree to. Get her to explicitly acknowledge this. Marriage is something that should only be done if both parties consent. We can only get married if you have decided for yourself that you want to, and I have decided for myself that I want to. Do you agree? You need to be absolutely sure that she agrees to this, otherwise she basica…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:36 AM
10

I keep asking myself what exactly caused this dialogue to suddenly be possible? Is it the internet culture finally allowing free expression unregulated by female social control techniques, is it the constant pressure from MRM commenters that is too overwhelming to be ignored, is it the articles from AVfM that are too shockingly harsh to be ignored... or are all those things simply symptoms of the fact that times are changing and the new generation sees things differently? The answer may have som…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 11:25 PM
1

I suggest we do not edit the wiki, because there's no need to censor the opinions of feminists. It's much better to leave their bullshit out in the open for all to see. Performing censorship conveys the message that your opinion is not very strong so you need to resort to other methods to silence the opposition's valid point. That's why it's typically done by feminists, and it damages their cause. (Look at the University of Toronto protests for example). Learn a lesson from this: if you attempt …
/r/MensRights27/10/13 11:04 PM
3

Coincidentally the black box gender roles are opposed in the comments, including by "big names" such as typhonblue. Which makes sense, since that's exactly what the sticky thread is intended for: debate on a work in progress, it's a draft a best, certainly not a document released to the outside world as official statement. You are grasping at straws to build more strawmen.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 09:01 PM
7

Taken on good faith the rejection of the patriarchy framework is an attempt at resetting the discussion, saying "look, yeah, stuff happened, but who cares how, let's just focus on the present." "Women weren't as oppressed as they make it sound! Look at Marie Currie and Jane Austen!" You are pretending that these are the only arguments by which anyone could reject the concept of patriarchy and then proceed to attack those strawmen. Again, that is not the behavior of an honest debater and it is re…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 08:47 PM
12

You are pretending that the only reason for rejecting concepts such as patriarchy can be ego protection, and then proceed to make a mock show out of that strawman. I see no reason to take such a response seriously.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 08:00 PM
2

Maybe you two should organise a low-key meet at a cafe, see who shows up, and take it from there. Just ask if people in this reddit are from Calgary (I guess you just did), then PM an invite to them. I recommend not making a public invitation because you don't want to get picketed by feminists - yet.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:26 PM
4

Chances are it'll all be within the framework of feminist theory. Not saying your suggestion has no chance of succeeding, but trying to improve men's rights from within a feminist organisation usually means you have to fight 2 battles: not only against misandry in the wide world, but also against established elements in your own organisation who feel you're violating the party line. It just tends to be less effective because the world perceives it as an internal quarrel. Sometimes it's just bett…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:23 PM
57

Both lists are entirely about women, women's rights, women's issues. Men are only mentioned in relation to those issues. It simply shows that the author is blind to the issues that affect men (willfully or not) and/or couldn't care less. I wonder if she's ever heard about the concept of male disposability, where men only matter as tools for what they can do for women and children. That happens to be exactly the position she is taking with these articles. Gotta love this comment about point 1 on …
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:12 PM
5

I don't see any outright coercion in point 2. Sure she's nagging, but there is no evidence so far that she's preventing him of making his own choice. Rape hysteria is something we should leave to the feminists.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:02 PM
19

Point 1 is outright fucked up. That girl should be in jail for making false accusations. Point 2 is a case of you having to stand your ground. She has no right to forbid you from using condoms (although it is up to her to decline sex over it), so it is still your responsibility to use them if you don't want her to get pregnant. Don't rely on her taking the pill. Seriously, insist on using condoms. You don't even have to explain yourself but you can state your reason: "I have a right to protect m…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 06:43 PM
13

Outrage in the comments, but not by feminists. I guess they just don't frequent the HuffPo? /s
/r/MensRights27/10/13 06:15 PM
3

Oh, the irony.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:31 PM
2

Miley is challenging what feminism is all about. I don't think any sane person, including in the mainstream, will take that very seriously. Or am I being too optimistic?
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:48 AM
1

I'm glad you are able to be honest and identify this fear in yourself. Please realize that if you hang on to this fear, it will lead you to accept being treated in ways that you should never accept. Abusive people sense these feelings of fear and thus know that their victims won't leave but instead put up with whatever is done to them. That's likely why she's pushing your boundaries - she's confirming that you won't stand up to her and testing how far she can go. If you do not stand your ground …
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:10 AM
1

You may say that now, but talk to me again after you've experienced it. The thing is most women manage not to experience it consciously - as long as they don't think about why they get special treatment, it doesn't sting. But the moment we start reminding them for what it really is - basically you're like the special needs kid who has to get extra attention and be treated with kid gloves - it'll become a lot less appealing.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 04:51 AM
2

Not all women actively support gynocentrism. With my comment I meant that besides feminists, it's usually the hardline conservative family moms who push it. They have this traditional, chivalric belief in "women first". The link is an example of that, since it's from an organisation called "Moms Demand Action". The major problem is that there are very, very few women who actively oppose gynocentrism. Most just don't notice, and when it's pointed out they don't care enough to go against the grain…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 04:37 AM
1

You are quoting something that I am not sure you understand the context of. With "the solution" I am explicitly referring to the solution to the hypothetical situation brought up in the beginning of that paragraph, namely the situation where one partner tricks the other into a pregnancy. My point in the quote is that, in order to prevent one partner tricking the other into a pregnancy, both parties should use contraception. If you don't want a kid, you should take responsibility to have safe sex…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 04:04 AM
2

I hope there will be a lineup, will make for some nice pictures and interviews. Times are changing!
/r/MensRights27/10/13 01:46 AM
4

That girl doesn't understand personal boundaries (at least not when they're someone else's) and you need to step up and define them, defend them, and demand she respect your boundaries. It is essential to any healthy relationship. If she cannot respect your boundaries, you have to connect consequences to this. Breaking up is one of them. First, I recommend googling and reading up on personal boundaries. And, of course, the golden uterus syndrome.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 11:24 PM
2

I guess you could set them up by first suggesting if they maybe prefer the rule "never hit anyone weaker". Then if they outright reject that, you can slam them for being sexist because they explicitly choose a rule that is less effective in protecting the weak, just so that they can have a sexist element in it.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 11:20 PM
12

Typical American conservative soccer moms. This is a good example how feminists aren't the only ones enforcing gynocentrism. It's more outrageous when they do it because they claim to be for equality, but the effects are the same: male victims are ignored. Anyone else notice that in the poster they call themselves "women", but men are "males". The difference between "men" and "males" is that the former refers to humans, whereas the latter is a technical word generally reserved to cold, objective…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 11:07 PM
2

Yes, I agree that that is possible. Indefinite stalling is a no-go, but if there still is the potential of reaching an understanding, then it's an option to give it a go. However, during that period of possible transition I would make my boundaries very clear.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 10:52 PM
8

Well, I would suggest going for the more open, honest way and just telling her you cannot accept this shit. Despite what some feminists might think, you have a right to stand up for yourself and take unreasonable golden uterus bullshit to task for what it is. If she can't deal with the fact that a father is just as worthy of a parent as a mother, she can go ruin someone else's life. Or preferably grow up before she gets into a relationship and especially before she gets a kid. Oh yeah, and I'd r…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 10:43 PM
2

To me it does completely solve the case, because it explicitly notes that the rule "never hit anyone who is weaker" is more efficient in protecting the weak than the rule "never hit women". So if your opponent sticks to his/her argument that "the rule is to defend the weak" (e.g. in your story they affirm that they think strong men shouldn't hit weak men) then they will have to accept that "never hit women" is inferior to "never hit anyone who is weaker" when it comes to protecting the weak.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 10:39 PM
5

I haven't quite figured out how to make this as totally fullproof as the one on drunk sex, because I haven't found a way to account for the few who decide to stubbornly say 'yes thats what they believe How about the following: "you say men should never hit women because women are weaker. We all know that that's only true on average; there are plenty of exceptions where the woman is stronger. So this establishes that your rule does not always protect the weaker one in a conflict. There is a very …
/r/MensRights26/10/13 10:15 PM
17

This would be a 100% dealbreaker for me. Especially the "I'm the one giving birth". This attitude is commonly referred to as the golden uterus syndrome (you should google that) and it predicts BIG trouble. I prefer to call it the mother monopoly. This shows you that if you ever have a kid together, she will feel entitled to have the final say in every decision about him/her. (But you will have to support her in her decisions, enforce them and pay for them. Because "you have responsibilities as a…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 09:47 PM
3

It's the same story every time. You rephrase some idea they have with the genders reversed, and they say "But that's different!" How is it different if both genders are supposed to be equal? "Well women are physically weaker / want to feel appreciated / need to feel secure and affirmed / ...". Where's your equality now? "Why are you so offensive / do you hate women / do you want to go back to 1930..." Still, I don't think all self-identified feminists are like this. I always test them with a dis…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 08:51 PM
3

Because they're being open about the drug approval trials that they're asking donations for. They need donations for each step in the process, and it so happens to be that those major milestones are stages in the animal test process. If they had to shut up about animal testing all they could tell their funders is "we've just reached another major milestone in the process (but we can't tell you what exactly it is)". That's not very specific feedback. The damage to PR from hiding these details and…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 08:37 PM
4

Probably not, because you cannot make a contract against the law. And what the law in most countries basically says is that men have to support the kid if the mother asks for it. It's just like prenups, they get thrown out in court too. Don't count yourself safe because of a piece of paper. Obviously at the very least you should use condoms. If you're sure you never want kids, consider a vasectomy.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 08:28 PM
1

Not among my peers (<30, West Europe). They've never heard about patriarchy, unless they happen to have a radical mother or mental issues, and most tend to think feminists are over the top. However, as a result of feminism they do have some contradictory ideas^ that I think are better remedied by focusing on principles of equality and the downsides to male gender roles, rather than focusing on bashing feminism. If you bash feminism, these kids won't listen because they couldn't care less about f…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 07:58 PM
22

Still yet, people who believe men are not entitled to equality consider themselves feminists The problem is that most other feminists continue to accept these people as sisters, and do not speak out against their obvious sexism. You are a notable exception and you have my respect for that. Don't feel too bad about being ousted by a mob of bigots; it means you're not part of them.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:50 PM
4

That can be argued, but there is no other way to get it approved. Either test it on animals, or the drug will never be there. If feminists complain, why not point out that their beloved liberating pill was tested on animals as well? On another note, the Vasalgel FAQ states explicitly that they are complying with stricter European rules for test animal welfare. But still they're only having the drug approved in the US, as far as I can tell - which sucks since I live in Europe, but I might visit t…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:43 PM
2

And what exactly did this hypothetical Walmart heir do wrong? If he can find 300 women who are willing to have his kids, then that's their right. Women have this thing called agency and responsibility, just as men do. Babies don't happen to women, nor does the "male individual" force the "female individual" to become pregnant (and if he did, then he should be held liable). Both had sex, both agreed to have kids and both are responsible for the consequences. Nobody is being wronged in your hypoth…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:34 PM
1

Balaclava in Melbourne White feather also was in AU?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:51 AM
2

Coincidentally I was in Australia for half of 2012, and indeed I was shocked by the number of tumblr-girls who had a chauvinist way of looking down on anything male but were easily offended when they were treated likewise. I've seen a lot of raging feminists, blatant misandry and politically correct outrage when men dared stand up for their rights, including on TV. However, I don't think it's worse in your country because of feminism - I think it's because Australian culture has strong elements …
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:49 AM
4

Thanks, that's clear. I think it's a typical example of how women are trying to control the behavior and lives of men through the argument "the choices of those men do not benefit us women, they must be banned!" It's just as with the coffee story below. Both are good demonstrations of the very real social power women have, even if they're not in a formal position of power. But that seems to be all there is to this story. I don't think we should extrapolate it to the "women are peaceful" debate. …
/r/MensRights25/10/13 09:41 PM
-1

How did women bring about prohibition? I would like to see sources on that. My response usually is the documented white feather campaign in England, WO1. Women walked on the street handing white feathers to men that were not in uniform, to shame them into "not being cowards and going to war for the women and children". In other words, women helped enforce and police the male gender role, which includes violence by proxy (on behalf of women). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#World_War_I
/r/MensRights25/10/13 09:07 PM
7

The question is, should we keep focussing on debating patriarchy and proving the concept wrong? The more you focus on something, the more it grows - especially in the public opinion. Of course when feminists start bringing patriarchy up we need to have a response, but I think it would be better not to center our efforts around it and instead consider it a useless, ridiculous relic of the past that is best left dead and buried. Then when it happens to rear its ugly head in a debate, painting it a…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 03:59 PM
1

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to read that.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 03:36 PM
3

I agree, and think that attractiveness and social status are quite correlated for both genders.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 04:17 AM
6

It's not a gender privilege, but a status privilege; and yes, men hold more formal positions of status, but being a woman is, alone, a position of social status compared to men Women get a certain amount of social status and respect just for being women. Men have to earn their status by performing in society, and some are very succesful at that and become celebrities or other sorts of "top men". Some men don't earn any at all, they end up homeless or in jail (both of those groups are mostly male…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 04:03 AM
10

From the comment thread: Basically Wikipedia is a huge social experiment and as such a mirror of society. The notion that Wikipedia is skewed towards technical males from Western culture just supports this because after all that too is a mirror of our society. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about Wikipedia, voluntary initiatives or movements like the Pirate Party in Europe [...] Guess who founded Wikipedia and the Pirate Party? Technical men (not "males") did, and there were few women…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 03:28 AM
7

if a similar study came out saying the opposite, it would be suppressed so so fast. Anyone remember the Larry Summers scandal where he posed the hypothesis that maybe men are overrepresented among top scientists, because the male IQ Bell curve has a larger variance than the female curve and thus men are the majority of bottom performers as well as top performers? The man got fired as president of Harvard over this "controversy". Makes you wonder, if feminists are so certain of their world view, …
/r/MensRights25/10/13 02:59 AM
59

Because high-paying jobs like doctor, lawyer, CEO, programmer, etc. are so dangerous. Here we see an example of the apex fallacy. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/10/implications-of-the-apex-fallacy/ tl;dr Women tend to only notice the top men in society, they hardly see the ones at the bottom and thus they'll tell you with a straight face that "all men are privileged" because 1% of men are CEOs. In severe cases such as this one, the fallacy has such a strong effect that it trumps well-known…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 02:24 AM
7

The problem with your suggestion of compensating women for their natural tendency to make less financially rewarding decisions, is that those decisions give women benefits in other areas of life that men do not have. Thus, if you are going to compensate women because they tend to put less priority on work, then you should compensate men for the areas of life in which THEY miss out. It will become an endless web of compensations and entitlements from both sides. I think people should just make th…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 11:21 PM
185

Next week should be "Equal Death Day", where we promote awareness to women that men are way more likely than women to die on the job. (In most countries over 90% of workplace fatalities are men.) Then when people say "don't those men choose to work on such dangerous jobs themselves", they've just discovered the same reason why women earn less money on their jobs.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 08:11 PM
1

If I were on campus I would try that. But just like the women's classes, we'd need funding and a sports hall or something similar. In practice, universities/cities/government/charities tend to be very happy to fund women's groups but when a men's group knocks on the door nobody is home. This is also the case for men's domestic violence shelters: they are nearly always funded by private donations, whereas women's shelters get public funding. It's not that the men's shelters don't try - it's that …
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:29 AM
7

It would be even better if one tried to gather such evidence and couldn't find any. Yes, thank you. Unfortunately not everyone will agree, deep down. This sounds like a good introspective test to see why we are MRA's: because we want a better world, or because we like being victims/want to vent/like the fight/...
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:05 AM
1

My 5 ct that probably have been posted before. If you're actively calling out sexist statements, actions and organisations by feminists, then we can be in the same boat. There is plenty of sexism coming from feminists everywhere, so there is plenty to call out. If you're conveniently ignoring or even denying all the feminist hypocrisy while claiming that "we feminists are working on men's problems", then you're not in the same boat. With "friends" like that, who needs enemies? If you're demandin…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 01:56 AM
1

"women's self defence classes" simply consist of someone telling you to kick a man in the balls if he looks weird or offends you. I cannot judge whether this is true or not because I've never been to one of these classes. However it seems plausible that at least some classes will have this element. As knowses said in this thread: Wouldn't women come forward and complain that the courses are illegitimate? Of course it is also plausible that these courses cater to a specific subgroup of women, nam…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 01:48 AM
4

It's a men's rights issue because the class is only available to women and there most likely isn't an equivalent class for men. Is this acceptable because "men are stronger than women"? I don't think so, because not ALL men are stronger than women so on a big campus there WILL be men who would benefit from these classes. Besides, if anyone said "men are stronger than women" in any context other than this one, feminists would lose their shit and scream sexism. tl;dr If you were a male student who…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 11:44 PM
2

Seek help, for example at your school with a teacher you trust. If you fear nobody will believe you, take the recordings with you. In fact, I recommend doing that - you have been very wise to gather evidence. Also make sure that you have plenty of backup copies of the recordings (e.g. in a ZIP on the internet, on USB drives, etc)
/r/MensRights21/10/13 01:25 AM
2

My bet would be that AVfM manages to gather a lot of traction, support, recruits and mainstream media publicity because of its tactics (rherotical and other) which are around the border of being acceptable, and sometimes cross it. Will this do the MRM good? I'm not sure. Would the MRM have been this big of a deal without AVfM? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. Maybe this just shows that a significant part of MRM supporters are hurt and very upset about their issues being ignored, and they're not wait…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 01:01 AM
1

You are absolutely correct that there is a difference between women are without the capacity for moral agency and The real reason men and women cant be friends is that women lack moral agency. (which was what JtO really said) I should have properly checked the quote before I wrote my post here. To explain what happened: I had already seen the Daily Beast piece before commenting on Reddit (am totally new here but not to the MRM). At the time I did check for the original quote in the original arti…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:52 AM
4

I myself have always found the writings of John H (JtO) unfitting to AVfM or the MRM. To me he is kind of like a Dworkin of the MRM. Of course we can expect random commentors (hurt misguided or just plain malicious men) to say things like "women are without the capacity for moral agency". But putting an article with that stuff in it on AVfM? I can't believe they don't see how ridiculous, hurtful and damaging to the cause that is. However, the author of this Daily Beast piece suggests that's the …
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:15 AM
8

The core of the problem is that events like this make men feel like second-class parents, which is in nobody's interest (except for the few assholes who would like to alienate children from the fathers). In addition, the children are also given the idea that their father is somehow less trustworthy than their mother. This story is just one expression of the "mother's monopoly" on children, upheld by society. Then there are the stories of fathers bringing their kids to school in the morning, bein…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 07:27 PM
7

Yes, part 1 of that text is decent indeed. It basically says, let's not make a competition out of suffering - both raped men and women suffer, it is very hard to statistically determine who suffers most, so we shouldn't focus on comparing. But then part 2 goes on to say "lol, but women have it worse anyway and that's why society should spend more money and focus more on female survivors." Stats on male rape are "parsed", which really means downplayed. Underreporting of male rapes is mentioned in…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 03:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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