TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AtticusFrenchToast Archive

View 11 posts and 105 comments by AtticusFrenchToast on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
281

False AccusationAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights10/09/15 05:53 PM
181

DiscriminationAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights08/05/14 08:52 PM
65

False AccusationsAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights06/04/15 12:03 AM
53

Edu./Occu.AtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights24/07/15 06:55 PM
25

Valenti WarningAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights25/03/15 03:46 AM
16

DiscriminationAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights28/07/15 11:51 AM
15

NewsAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:54 PM
9

ProgressAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights21/11/14 12:59 AM
9

FeminismAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights24/04/15 06:27 PM
6

AtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights27/05/14 09:17 PM
3

False AccusationsAtticusFrenchToast/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:40 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

How would a bunch of guys listing the wrong height possibly motivate OKCupid to change policies? People already lie about things or leave their profiles blank or don't have pictures; you're not really going to stick out from the crowd or do any harm to OkCupid. So you'll annoy some women who might potentially be interested but don't want to date someone who plays games. That's really the only effect this will have. I mean, go ahead, if you want, but acting like this is some sort of valiant movem…
/r/MensRights06/01/17 06:56 PM
-2

What court? Well, if he complained to the administration they'd laugh and ignore, and if he complained to the Office for Civil Rights they'd sit on it for two years and then find no violation, so OP's most likely route of success is the courts. But he'd still definitely lose. You don't know if this TA has been sexist towards other men. Neither do you, and there's no evidence she has been. A bunch of baseless complaints is not going to bolster your argument in court. Please quote the part in the …
/r/MensRights19/09/16 11:00 PM
1

So did none of the other males in the class laugh or did the prof also speak with other males? Otherwise, it's gonna be pretty hard to convince a court this is sexism when all the discussion explicitly focused on race, not sex.
/r/MensRights19/09/16 09:17 PM
-51

How does this have anything to do with sex? And what's the injury here, that OP had to come into her office and talk for five minutes? Looks like OP is just assuming he's going to be punished when nothing has actually happened yet. And by being rude and walking out mid-sentence, he gave the prof a viewpoint-neutral excuse to dock his grade. Chances of him winning any kind of fight over this is basically zero. If the prof openly punishes him for his viewpoint and he's at a public school, maybe he…
/r/MensRights19/09/16 06:17 PM
3

If two people are both incapacitated (not just drunk—merely drunk sex is legal), then the initiator is the one who raped the other. If they both actively participated, then yes, it should cancel out. But if two people are basically mentally gone and one's making all the moves and the other is just lying there, come on, one person is clearly more culpable than the other, even if it's not violent. The problem is that, unfortunately, most of society assumes the man was the initiator and the woman w…
/r/MensRights20/08/16 12:59 AM
2

Yeah TBH I don't get why this case hasn't gotten more attention on here. It's a big legal step against the agency that's been hugely fucking things up for five years. Can't figure out if the legal strategy is too boring (admin law instead of sexy rape case) or if people are just waiting for a ruling or something.
/r/MensRights18/08/16 10:24 PM
2

I didn't say anything about the supposed message-writer or whether he's real; my comment was purely on the ridiculousness of the commenters here who defended the message. This woman being a liar and the guys in this thread being total assholes are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 11:03 AM
1

It blows my mind that commenters here can't tell the difference between being straightforward and just going on and on and on in a really unnecessary way. No, there's nothing wrong with the preference, but jesus christ, just say "I think we'd get along great as friends but I'm not feeling the physical connection" and be done with it. After that point, it's no longer about being informative and efficient; it's about you trying to get an "aw, it's okay" back from her so you can feel like a Good Gu…
/r/MensRights10/08/16 05:05 AM
2

Everyone there told him to go to find a lawyer or talk to FIRE, which is exactly what /u/aaronincali should do, so I'm not sure what more discussion will do except get all the people who are all riled up more riled up.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 04:51 AM
14

That's not a transman, that's someone who always fully intended on going back to living as a woman.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 11:05 PM
44

I know Norah Vincent got some press for realizing the privileges women enjoy, after she lived as a man for a while. But she lived as a man for 18 months, not one, and she identifies as a woman; she never intended to stay a man to begin with. Is there someone else? Edit for the edit above me: You're getting downvoted because you haven't actually pointed out any time this happened, which is what the person above you asked for. Therefore your comment didn't contribute to the conversation, which is …
/r/MensRights14/07/16 11:03 PM
1

To be fair, that list was way overblown, redundant, and written in a way that almost definitely wouldn't appeal to anyone who wasn't already 100% on board with the MRM. I mean it's literally my job to deal with the bullshit that gets heaped on men in certain situations, but you can't expect newbies to the issue to not roll their eyes at some of this stuff. Like come on, you're never given the benefit of the doubt? Not when dealing with cars, computers, business matters, carpentry? And you're und…
/r/MensRights14/07/16 06:37 PM
14

No, that's not how it's going to work. Victims' rights groups have celebrated an increase in numbers because they see it as reporting going up, not the number of rapes going up. Conversely, they'll assume if numbers go down it's because victims are too afraid to speak up, not necessarily because there are fewer rapes.
/r/MensRights05/07/16 01:49 PM
1

For more information, original press release with linked complaint.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 01:00 PM
2

My thought as well.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 01:41 PM
18

Yeah, I don't know why whoever wrote this thinks she has the authority or omniscience to speak on behalf of me and my many female friends who most definitely wouldn't agree with all these "every girl" statements.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 12:53 PM
2

Sigh. Sorry about your downvotes, dude. I got similarly downvoted in /r/TwoXChromosomes for berating someone for not taking two seconds to check their facts (for their own sake). Advocating for men's issues is hard enough without giving people who are inclined to doubt our accuracy a valid reason to do so. And it's not cool when people just go "Ugh you're just a stupid MRA" and don't listen to us, so why would it be cool for one of us to treat "Ugh you're just a stupid SJW" as a helpful response…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 01:56 PM
1

That's what a pre-nup is for. If you can't get someone to negotiate, and you aren't willing to take the risk, you shouldn't marry them.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 07:49 PM
6

I never said "shut up." I said it's not slavery, and the comparison is ridiculous and makes OP sound melodramatic. There's tons of stuff that we should be warning younger generations about, but that doesn't make an analogy to slavery apt. OP could have—but didn't—frame this as "Let's warn our children to think carefully before having kids and getting married; don't make the mistake I made." Instead, he asked if marriage is "actually real slavery." It isn't.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 04:49 PM
32

No. Marriage, in your case, is a badly-negotiated contract that you entered into as an adult who is responsible for his own actions. You made a series of regrettable choices over the past 13 years. You did not have your agency stolen from you. The fact that you're even asking this makes me concerned about the extent to which MRAs are starting to turn into melodramatic whiners just like extreme feminists.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 02:37 PM
4

Free to write, yes, but has she actually written anything? I'd assume we'd hear about it if she did, because everyone would be trying to pick it apart.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:31 PM
9

No, it's not illegal to discriminate based on sex when you're living in the same space as the person you're renting to.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 08:48 PM
2

Yeah it pretty much means you're not sure at all, but you think it might have happened. I would say "clear and convincing" evidence requires that you're sort of sure, it's like 75%, so you mostly think it happened but you're not totally sure. But 20% is bullshit.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 11:31 AM
2

FIRE's write-up, although they promise more to come: https://www.thefire.org/guilty-until-proven-innocent-receives-support-at-congressional-sex-assault-hearing/
/r/MensRights11/09/15 01:15 AM
0

I'm not saying none of them knew what they were doing; I'm sure some intentionally did drugs. But my understanding is that some of the purported victims were kids and some were slipped other drugs. Your comment is valid if each of the dozens of women was an adult taking luudes but I'm not sure that's the case.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:20 PM
1

Oh yeah, just to clarify, my comment was a dig at the article, not at you. Sounds like we're on the same page.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:16 PM
1

This is exactly why it's ridiculous to compare these women to the supposed rape victims of today like Emma Sulkowicz. Sure, it makes sense that decades ago, people didn't know to watch their drinks and they didn't have the political power to speak up until years and years later. But now "survivors" are totally running the show and you have to have grown up under a rock to not know that someone could slip you a roofie or whatever. Just knowing human nature, I'm sure a lot of the Cosby women are t…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 12:11 PM
7

I'm sure all the rapists will love having a place where they can snag themselves some parking lot ladies with the knowledge that there won't be any guys around to come to their rescue.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:36 AM
2

Yeah I was gonna say, I've seen threads on Reddit where girls were complaining about this setup because the codes were either changed without notice, or there was just a different code for different bathrooms all over campus so if they had to go to the bathroom someplace they weren't used to, there was no way to get in. Honestly I think this setup is stupid from both angles.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:31 AM
1

Agreed, and also want to point out that the video isn't even a proper demonstration of affirmative consent. If you're asking "Is this okay?" then you're already doing the thing you're now asking permission for—which means you've already assaulted the other person.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 04:23 PM
5

I think it was hard for /u/DevilishRogue to tell since there are already a handful of apps just like the one you described.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 12:45 PM
2

Well, Paul Nungesser at Columbia was found not responsible multiple times, but unfortunately Emma Sulkowicz managed to ruin his reputation through more creative means. So being absolved in a hearing doesn't always help a ton. I'm guessing Amherst wouldn't fairly investigate a claim by Doe against his accuser, considering what happened at Occidental. But it would be fun to see him try.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 05:52 AM
5

Half the guys bend over and try to block her hand or push her away. Doesn't look consensual to me.
/r/MensRights19/07/15 04:35 PM
22

Ok, I upvoted because this girl should be publicly embarrassed, but I would downvote the guy if I could, because the first thing he should have done is explicitly explain to her how penises work. He just made her laugh at his repetition of her logic. Maybe it would have actually affected her thinking if he'd told her that you can get a guy hard without him being a willing participant. C-.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:55 PM
15

Ok, I'm not easily offended, but you've crossed a serious line here, and you really need to edit your post to be more sensitive on this important issue: Dr Pepper does not have a period in it.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 10:05 PM
13

Yeah they say they want to end rape culture, but they aren't acting like they want to stop actual rape. When faced with demonstrably successful ways of preventing rape, they refuse to take part because they shouldn't have to do those things. Okay great, but pretend "not being cautious and also not being raped" isn't an option, would you rather not be cautious or not be raped? Argh.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 10:03 PM
2

So we're stooping to their level? That's a thing we're doing now? Look. Labeling things, putting them in categories, is the first step towards censorship. Censorship of some ideas is a step toward censorship of your ideas. And once you participate in this process, there's no way of non-hypocritically trying to stop it once you're at risk. So let's not start, please.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 05:16 PM
5

I'm pretty sure I don't want anyone who is off by a factor of 100 with her numbers working in STEM.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:06 PM
22

I agree that a there's a double standard with respect to whether it's okay to laugh at a guy vs. a girl being hurt, but these two instances you're posting with aren't really comparable. One involves someone who was invited to be on a show and talk. The other involves people interrupting a news reporter trying to do her job, for no good reason. Yeah, it might have been more on-point to focus on the fact that they were interrupting and not whether the words were funny, but it's not like these guys…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 08:40 PM
0

Are five-year-old boys really concerned with who's a romantic lead, though? I don't know; I've never been a five-year-old boy. In any case, these were just the examples that occurred to me in the 15 seconds I wrote this; I'm sure they're not the only ones. It took me a few minutes to come up with some girl scientists—the older sister in Alex Mack, Hermione Granger, a few episodes of Are You Afraid of the Dark. But again, I still think parenting makes more of a difference.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 03:14 PM
3

Well, arguably the dad in Beauty and the Beast, Doc in Back to the Future, Dexter's Laboratory, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, etc. But as someone whose parents sent her to science-y camp, I think parents themselves make a way bigger difference than what kids watch. Like go show your kids phenolphthalein or how to make a fake volcano or something.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 01:26 PM
7

You might be conflating two different arguments MRAs make: (1) Men earn more because they have more dangerous jobs; (2) Men are victims of homicide and suicide more. The first isn't an issue by itself, just in the context of people complaining about the wage gap. The second—well, homicide isn't a choice obviously; I think the suggestion is that suicide is due to social pressures that don't exist as much on women although admittedly I find this stat less compelling than the others. But I don't th…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 01:19 PM
41

Except then she also suggested on Twitter that Robby Soave was disappointed Jackie hadn't been brutally raped. Seems like she's still desperate to make him seem like a horrible person despite him just trying to get to the truth of the matter.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 06:39 PM
1

We may know certain types of feminism are bullshit. But others don't, and some of us are less interested in circlejerking and more interested in actually educating the people who don't get it. Shit like this just hinders that goal.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 01:18 AM
8

Agreed. I went in expecting to be nodding my head along in agreement and found this utterly unwatchable. "THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT" is not an argument, it won't persuade anyone ever, and it's exactly the kind of thing we hate on Jezebel et al. for. Why couldn't this video just be her (edit: him? I can't tell if these two are in collusion or not) saying, for example, "Some feminist claim that women earn 76 cents for every dollar men earn, but studies show men choose more dangerous/high-paying profe…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 02:16 PM
3

If I lost my livelihood because I repeatedly failed to take the most basic steps essential to my field for six months, then I would accept the fact that I failed miserably and should find a different career. This is not a "single mistake." It is a repeated refusal to abide by journalistic standards over many months, in the face of numerous objections. I would feel very differently if this was a story that was written up in a few days and published as events were still unfolding. If Sabrina were …
/r/MensRights06/04/15 02:25 PM
6

Well we're not calling for her to die or never work again, just not work in journalism. Everyone makes mistakes—everyone does not make serious mistakes continually for six months on extremely high-stakes endeavors and expect for there not to be consequences. Would you personally go to a doctor who made the same mistake repeatedly for six months despite people questioning him and despite his mistake being contrary to the most basic medical training? I sure as fuck wouldn't. And if you can't trust…
/r/MensRights06/04/15 01:26 PM
1

Because the hits from /r/MensRights probably won't make a difference for Rolling Stone, but using the real link will help people find the Reddit thread they're looking for. I frequently see interesting articles and then search by the URL to see what people on Reddit have to say about it.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 11:15 AM
3

Like someone else's analogy, a news reporter can't just take a rumor from a bathroom wall and put it in a newspaper. Taking one person's word for a story like this when it would have been insanely easy to poke at it a little is reckless to the point of creating culpability. Trusting a friend and relying on that info is understandable if you're just defriending the supposed perp on Facebook, but not when you're writing 9000 words in Rolling Stone about someone you don't know. I wouldn't mind if a…
/r/MensRights06/04/15 06:08 AM
7

And yet people twist this statistic and say that studies show only around 2% are false. Sigh.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 03:49 AM
1

The note from Will Dana says "We would like to apologize..." And Sabrina Rubin Erdely also released a statement apologizing. I think it's fair to call these apologies. I think her journalism career should be over. This wasn't one mistake; this was a story that she worked for months on, and she had many opportunities/ways to investigate the many holes in Jackie's story. It's like, if a builder built one building with 1,000 structural flaws that all together led to its collapse, we wouldn't hire h…
/r/MensRights06/04/15 03:49 AM
7

I mean, "they" frankly detailed all the shortcomings because the report was written by Columbia Journalism. Given Sabrina Rubin Erdely's weak "apology" and Rolling Stone's refusal to punish anyone involved, I'm not convinced such a report would have been as legit if produced wholly by Rolling Stone.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 01:25 AM
3

Lawbreakers, women who lie, university officials, yes. But in huge part also, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, which keeps putting out "guidance" documents that aren't supposed to create new obligations for colleges but that do just that. And the new obligations amount to: Make it easier to find accused students guilty and harder for them to defend themselves. Let's not forget the White House, which piles more "recommendations" on top of that pile of bullshit, much of which…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:33 PM
3

No I get it. I mean all reasonable people understand that within almost any group there are insane extremists and reasonable people. It's just that extremists are very loud in this case and influential parts of the government tend to listen to them.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 04:06 PM
1

Well, in this case there was enough evidence to the contrary of what Jackie said that I think the conclusion that she just made everything up is reasonable. But for those hoping for a different result—yeah, it would be bullshit to come to a conclusion otherwise when she won't even talk. The climate w/r/t the issue of campus sexual assault is so bad here that regardless of how uncooperative and incredible a self-identified "survivor" is, it's somehow everyone else's fault when her supposed attack…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 11:16 AM
1

Ah, it sounded like you were saying that because it wasn't codified in legislation, it was less clearly established that the First Amendment binds state schools. Just wanted to make clear that this isn't the sort of thing primarily governed by legislation, so case law is really the place to look.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:20 PM
2

Constitutional law is the Constitution + case law. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is what matters, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held that the First Amendment governs state institutions.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 11:12 AM
1

No, they were about school policies.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 11:11 AM
9

State colleges are indeed bound by the First Amendment—there are plenty of First Amendment cases against public colleges that wouldn't even exist otherwise.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 07:02 PM
3

What kind of school? High school? College? Public? Private?
/r/MensRights12/03/15 06:48 PM
1

Wait, 45 degrees? I don't even see how that's possible. Can somebody who understands please draw a diagram that shows where the 45 degrees go?
/r/MensRights06/03/15 02:50 AM
-2

Mountains of evidence? What has he provided besides the text messages and people saying they believe him? Like I said, I don't believe she has evidence against him, either. And I do think he should have at least been able to present the text messages as evidence. But they don't prove his innocence. Edit: Downvotes and no answers. I really thought /r/MensRights was better than that.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 04:39 AM
4

"There was no case" in the sense that there was no good evidence either way. That doesn't mean something didn't happen. It also doesn't mean something did happen. We just don't know. It most definitely has not been proven either way. And it's also not equivalent to civil court—civil courts at least allow both sides to present evidence, cross-examine, etc. The inaccurate assertion that campus hearings are basically the same as civil courts is part of what's being used to justify using the unfairl…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 03:52 PM
7

There were a bunch of studies; that's why people keep saying "only" 2–8% of rape claims are false. The problem is that too many people don't understand that this statistic (actually a range from different studies) applies to demonstrably false claims, like overwhelming evidence of innocence (not just lack of evidence of guilt) or accusers who admitted they straight up lied. The actual number of false claims is almost definitely higher, but impossible to know for sure.
/r/MensRights25/12/14 01:59 AM
2

Wow, husband doesn't even brush his teeth or actually fall asleep? No wonder he has no energy to help with the chores.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 08:13 PM
9

Look, I'm as skeptical about her story as the next guy/girl, but Chuck Johnson's reporting on this has been fucking weak. Pinterest? A Facebook page he got from Google's cache? Who fuckin' cares; those things don't prove anything. I have friends who have the exact same shit on their pages and are either mere allies or actual victims of abuse. Plus, LOL at him acting like he's the next Veronica Mars because he has idiot fans who send him all the stuff he's too incompetent to find on his own. Offe…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:42 PM
0

First of all, she could be mentally ill or damaged in some way where she really doesn't know what happened. The vast majority of people here don't know her personally and we don't know what's happened for sure. Second of all, she did ask not to be in the story—albeit at the last minute, but still at a point where if Erdely had had any sense of integrity or morals, the story wouldn't have been published and the large-scale damage would have been avoided. I think the response to her allegations we…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 11:38 PM
0

Hahaha oh god, if Sokolow gets involved. I think my favorite part about this whole thing was watching all my friends who normally have no idea about this scene go, "This guy Sokolow sounds like a douche."
/r/MensRights25/11/14 02:33 AM
3

Yeah. The sad part is that I felt like Katie chose really weird, relatively unsympathetic examples and the system still looks fucked up. But this evidence is nothing compared to evidence in that Occidental case with all the text messages, for example.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 03:25 AM
2

I know many people will want it to be overturned. I'm not saying it'll pass or be enforced without complaint. But newsflash, plenty of men have their lives ruined at a whim all the time. Anyway, good luck getting more opinions when you immediately dismiss answers and don't even upvote for thoughtful contributions. Shit.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 01:22 AM
2

Okay, it sounds like you've made up your mind, so I'm not sure why you asked for an opinion on whether it would pass. Whether it'd be struck down in court isn't dispositive on that issue; unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. But LOL at "men could claim the same thing." Yeah, they could in theory, but it's not that hard to see how things play out in reality.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 12:59 AM
1

Some people realize what's going on. But not enough. After all, California's bill passed, no problem, even with increasing publicity for railroaded students and the few dozen lawsuits male students have brought against their universities. I'm not saying a nationwide law will pass but we absolutely should not be dismissing this as an idle threat. In cases where there's a dispute as to whether sex happened or who a stranger rapist was, sure, this won't be a deal breaker. But in too many cases, the…
/r/MensRights19/11/14 12:43 AM
2

It's really hard to say whether it would actually successfully move through Congress or not. But yeah, it's fucked that it's even sort of possible. And yes, most people, men and women, are rapists under the affirmative consent standard, at least how it's written in California's law regarding college students. Many people are outraged, but it's dangerous politically to advocate for due process because you immediately get labeled a rape apologist.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 12:24 AM
3

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a movement to adopt this standard nationwide, considering that California has already adopted it for college campuses and many universities across the country are implementing the standard as well. However, a lot of lawyers will argue it's unconstitutional, because it effectively shifts the burden of proof to the accused person. Some courts—recently, for example, Washington's Supreme Court—have found that this sort of burden shifting (in the real world, at le…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 11:57 PM
1

Not all women are afraid of being raped. Source: Woman with woman friends.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 07:55 PM
6

Interesting that this happened for, I think, the first time where both the accuser and accused are male. Still, it's a big step!
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:55 PM
1

FIRE didn't have anything that wasn't already public. I don't think it's "on them" to redact information that's been public for six months. But even if FIRE did redact it, anyone could have just gone and looked up the less-redacted versions for themselves. It's certainly not FIRE's duty to hide the fact that the documents are publicly available, when they clearly show Occidental's wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:46 PM
1

Here is Tyler's article and here is FIRE's response (written before Tyler's correction.)
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:41 PM
1

Nope. Well, not unless the standard is such that she would have been too.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:40 PM
1

Yeah, sorry I probably should have not used the default title. But your point is a good one, too.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:56 AM
1

Everyone who's actually looked at the case docs sees this as a case of a male student getting completely screwed by the university disciplinary system, and all Tyler Kingkade can do is write about how public court documents should be censored. Once again, everyone's talking about everything but the due process issue.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:37 AM
3

I think this is it: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-women/
/r/MensRights10/07/14 12:11 PM
3

Looks like this: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-women/
/r/MensRights10/07/14 12:10 PM
1

They probably will accept donations. Then again, who would turn down incense, myrrh, and sun ripened dates, either.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 02:31 PM
1

Spend it on legal representation for plaintiffs in college due process cases with good facts. That way you can't be accused of supporting the bullshit things that people associate with MRA, but you can help students whose entire lives are being derailed. And with legal cases, you can establish good precedent that will help everyone else down the road.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 08:20 PM
19

Yeah and here's Craig Ferguson being really classy while Bill Maher was saying child molestation isn't always that bad.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 11:27 AM
3

I think there'd be plenty of people willing to join a men's rights college group if you advertised well. And if you're at a public university, the school can't stop you just because they don't like it. OP, I say give it a shot.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:29 PM
0

News stations do have legitimate news stories on men's rights sometimes—they're just not called "men's rights." For example, my pet thing is due process issues (particularly in college rape cases), and although there is perhaps a louder crowd speaking on behalf of victims' rights, I think there is growing and compelling coverage of the cases where males accused of sexual assault aren't given a fair hearing. I find myself saying this a lot, but I don't think it can be stressed too much: Progress …
/r/MensRights11/06/14 11:04 PM
1

Money quote: "Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 12:38 PM
4

Honestly I don't know why we're hanging on to this label of "Men's Rights" when most people have defined it for us. We need to stop trying to mirror the women's rights movement because it's not the same. It made sense to group women's rights issues together back in the 1900s because for a while women basically weren't even treated as adults. Men's issues are just as urgent but they are specific and they should be addressed with specifics. People do not have nearly the same negative reaction when…
/r/MensRights28/05/14 12:27 PM
3

Six allegedly free subs.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 01:32 AM
1

The university is required to investigate/respond to sexual assault, and since 2011 it is required to use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. It is not required to ban lawyers, as is clear from this paragraph of the April 4, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter from the Office for Civil Rights: While OCR does not require schools to permit parties to have lawyers at any stage of the proceedings, if a school chooses to allow the parties to have their lawyers participate in the proceedings, it mu…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 01:31 AM
1

My comment wasn't just for you, not everyone is going to poke around your website, and your post makes things seem more unilaterally bad than they are.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 11:13 PM
1

Things aren't all bad in mainstream media. USA Today had an editorial that was pretty balanced. The Wall Street Journal published an article explaining due process issues in campus sexual misconduct cases. And of course there's the usual suspects speaking out, too; KC Johnson at Minding the Campus helpfully rounded up a few excerpts this week from due process regulars (although maybe some of these aren't that "mainstream"). But yeah some outlets kind of suck.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 10:24 PM
6

There are a handful of men trying this right now, but I think only one has been resolved, maybe with a settlement? Not sure. In any case it'll be interesting to watch these cases over the next few years...
/r/MensRights13/05/14 10:14 PM
1

I think relaying that Sokolow was avoiding answering questions and was misunderstanding things probably would have helped convey the reality of Sokolow's "expertise" a bit better—from the intro to the interview it looked like this was really all your correspondence. As for being a correspondent, I'm not sure I have the time right not to properly prep interviews, but that's why I'm not soliciting them (yet, anyway—I expect one day I will in some form). I appreciate the offer though.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 11:32 AM
1

I'm glad O'Hara did this interview, but he could have been a little better prepared to push back against some of Sokolow's answers. And, frankly, he could have been more precise/accurate with his questions, too. It kind of sucks, but when you're already facing an uphill battle, you really have to put in the extra effort and be flawless, especially when you have the opportunity to speak directly with someone who plays such a big role in such a fucked up system. I know it seems like I'm being real…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 11:24 PM
1

Yep, thankfully there's a handful of men now suing their universities for Title IX discrimination in their sexual assault hearings. Should be very interesting to see how those turn out.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 09:43 PM
1

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in schools. That includes sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. And it includes schools not adequately responding to all those things. So therefore schools are supposed to respond to rape in a way that lessens or otherwise ameliorates the problem. Which means they need to try to figure out who the rapists are on their own, or at least they think they do. I think this is a ridiculous extension of "discrimination" but there you go.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 12:23 PM
8

He wasn't proven either guilty or innocent. In the legal system people are determined to be guilty or "not guilty," in the campus system it's responsible or "not responsible." But think of it as shorthand for "There's not enough evidence to be sure enough that someone is guilty," not another word for "innocent." In any case, it was still alleged that he was a rapist, so it's not inaccurate, and it explains why Katie Baker is objecting to it. The headline wouldn't even make sense otherwise.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:08 AM
1

Well, at least now there are a handful of men suing their schools over this.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 11:44 AM
3

Title IX. It prohibits sex discrimination in schools. That includes sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. And it includes schools not adequately responding to all those things. So therefore schools are supposed to respond to rape in a way that lessens or otherwise ameliorates the problem. I think this is a ridiculous extension of "discrimination" but there you go.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:47 AM
2

I think the MRA movement might be more effective as a bunch of mini-movements. Fathers' rights, anti-genital mutilation, due process rights, etc. We don't have to make this like the women's rights movement; different considerations call for different strategies. Focusing on the specific issues will make clear what we're really about at the onset of the conversation, instead of people having a knee-jerk reaction and dismissing us as "Oh, MRAs," making us get/sound defensive. I know it sucks to ab…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 12:52 AM
12

I'm a woman. I do a lot of due process related work (especially with guys accused of sexual assault), so it eventually led me here. But I also just like seeing what everybody's up to, so I subscribe to TwoXChromosomes, OneY, Liberal, Conservative, etc. But I upvote here a lot more than I do in Conservative...
/r/MensRights08/05/14 12:19 AM
1

Proponents of "enthusiastic consent" or "affirmative consent" believe that each escalating step of a sexual encounter should happen only after the parties unequivocally and enthusiastically express that they both want that step to happen. It's sometimes phrased as including non-verbal consent but if you think about it, unless things are expressed out loud, someone crossed a line without asking. Even if I take your hand and put it on my breast, well, maybe you didn't want to touch my breast so th…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 12:09 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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