TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Azothlike Archive

View 2 posts and 1,597 comments by Azothlike 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)
139

Red Pill ExampleAzothlike/r/TheRedPill23/08/15 08:43 PM
1

Azothlike/r/askTRP29/09/14 03:28 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,597 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Just here to watch your shit takes take it up the pooper again thanks, don't mind me 👌🏼🍆👌🏼🍆🥵
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 02:20 AM
7

MRA is generally a pejorative when used publicly irl. I'd definitely say most people don't know what MRA means in public. You definitely spend too much time socializing in academia. The conversation practically writes itself if someone is silly enough to try and use it as a pejorative in an actual public setting. "What's MRA stand for?" Answer plus some whiny thoroughly ignored nonsense "What, like, they upset about selective service and police brutality rates and stuff?" Backtracking and confus…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 02:13 AM
4

👌🏼🍆👌🏼🍆 Just here to watch your bad takes get it up the pooper thx
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 12:05 AM
1

"Not Register" =/= "Registered, as below average". Apparently you did not know that the study in question shows 80% of men are considered Below Average. Not 'unregistered or unnoticed'.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/19 04:19 PM
5

http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/s/MPVDatasetDownload2016-tg39.xlsx Yes. Police kill 19x more men than women. AFTER accounting for population difference, police kill ~4-7x more black people than white people. Sex Difference >>> Race Difference in police brutality.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 11:16 PM
28

It is an underestimation. Labor Statistics say women in the US work 36 hours a week on average. Men, 42. In a 5 hour workweek, that's 1h12m. Of course, this is not counting years worked, where it becomes even more absurdly clear who is putting in more billable hours. Not surprisingly, articles like this routinely attempt to justify this difference by claiming women fold laundry while watching netflix more per week, so obviously it's the same just different. /s
/r/MensRights27/06/16 10:37 PM
13

Men work on average 42 hours a week, in the US, compared to women's 36. Most "money earned for full time positions" statistical analysis which try to pitch the pay gap, consider a 36 hour week a full time week. When you account for overtime, that's 36:43, a 20% difference in wages. Hours worked is the majority of what they claim the pay gap is, already. Right now, men should get paid at least 20% more than women, because they straight up work that much more. This is before you even factor in rai…
/r/MensRights27/06/16 10:34 PM
1

Nobody said that. You asked why the gap -- which is primarily caused by heart disease -- has shrunk. The answer, is that medical science -- the thing that stops people dying from heart disease -- has improved.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 01:23 PM
1

Is... is that supposed to prove something? When you remove a large portion of men that die of heart disease before the age of 65, then yes, you will see a reduced impact of the gendered nature of Heart Disease.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 12:15 PM
1

Medicine and medical science is. My grandfather had a stent put in through his wrist a couple months ago. I imagine a few dead kings could have used that.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 09:57 AM
1

There are such statistics that exist, and I've looked into them before. Do I have them on hand? No. You can google "why do women live longer", and the vast majority of articles approaching Scientific relevance or using actual and thorough statistics will show and confirm that it's because of heart disease. Similarly, you can google why men have more heart disease, and you'll find the same study-driven trends towards testosterone and fat distribution being the reason. But it's 3AM, and I'm not de…
/r/MensRights17/06/16 09:26 AM
1

You would be wrong. "Why is there such an age gap?" is not a question actually informed people wonder about. They already know why there is a difference. It's because testosterone causes fat to be stored near the heart and that leads to more heart disease which leads to the vast majority of death gaps. Given men and women with "equal mass", men will have more heart disease due to testosterone's effects on the heart and surrounding tissues, and will die sooner, on average.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 04:06 AM
1

Women have a higher BMI on average. But you are close. It's not because of how much fat/mass there is. It's because human bodies with a lot of testosterone process fat differently, in ways that are harder on the heart, than human bodies with less testosterone.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 03:43 AM
1

Accidents, murder, and suicide, have very little to do with the life expectancy gap. The overwhelming majority of the gap is due to those "general health issues", AKA, a sex-hormone driven difference in how the body is affected by heart disease.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 03:42 AM
2

Some. The statistical gap that results in is minor in comparison to the vast chasm caused by heart disease, though.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 03:13 AM
1

Because men and women are biologically different. The vast, vast majority of the life expectancy gap comes down to Heart Disease. Testosterone causes fat deposits to accumulate in a more central, torso-oriented, close to the heart location. This is scientifically documented and anecdotally obvious, if you compare the stereotypical gendered presentation of fat (beer bellies vs thunder thighs, etc). This is the primary reason that men have much, much, much higher rates of heart disease at any spec…
/r/MensRights17/06/16 02:51 AM
1

not gender. If their positions were reversed - he was slapping her around and then she beat the shit out of him and attacked a witness after they'd apparently reconciled - I doubt he'd be charged, too Complete, unmitigated bullshit. Starting with you blatantly ignoring her punches and kicks, because you know it'd sound pants-on-head ridiculous if you implied a guy who punched and kicked a woman unprovoked and on camera wouldn't be charged.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 04:12 PM
5

This is the most pathetic piece of anger bait I've seen in a long time. These are the comments on this now-locked thread: https://np.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/4l17nh/i_hit_my_24f_boyfriend26m_last_night_together_5/ The overwhelming majority of people, and the most upvoted people, do not like what she did and told her to to get anger management/therapy/etc. If you have nothing better to do than go through /r/relationships threads, ignore all the popular and upvoted comments, and repost …
/r/MensRights26/05/16 12:25 AM
8

The behavior you're thinking of is called parasuicidal behavior, and yes, women do it more. Both genders do do it, though, as a precursor to actual suicide attempts. Same with basic self harm; women do it more. Hospital policies will show you that both are generally recorded as a suicide attempt, if authorities get involved.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 08:23 PM
17

I love the "women attempt suicide more" sidestep. So easy to shut down. Accurate Attempted Suicide statistics don't exist. Both medical and law enforcement statistics routinely include simple self harm and parasuicidal behavior in their "attempted suicide statistics", both of which are demonstrably not attempts at suicide.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 05:44 PM
1

Not only should OP say absolutely nothing during slides 6 and 7, he should do the majority of his talking in Slide 8. Human Capital Differences. That's the topic to key in on. Ask questions, polite and inquisitive at first. Examples: If Frank works more hours a week than Tom, is that an advantageous human capital difference? If Frank works more days a year than Tom, is that an advantageous human capital difference? If Frank retires later than Tom, is that an advantageous human capital difference…
/r/MensRights16/05/16 08:29 PM
5

Yahoo Answers? Really?
/r/MensRights09/05/16 03:11 PM
1

'Fluid sexuality' lol What bullshit have you been smoking.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 11:08 AM
2

After all, there is often plenty to debate. That debate is for a medical examiner to make. If it's ruled a homocide, it's by his/her certified experience and authority. There is no similar check and balance for suicide attempts. Again, virtually all self-harm incidents that involve medical or law respondents are classified as attempted suicides. There is no "did they really want to kill themselves" official ruling. They check the Attempted Suicide box and move on. There is no judgement there. 'A…
/r/MensRights08/05/16 04:45 PM
0

There is no such thing as an Attempted Suicide statistic. The statistic that people use in place of an Attempted Suicide statistic, is a Self Harm statistic. Women Self Harm at rates much higher than men. This is known. It is not comparable to suicide. And yet, virtually every incident of self harm that involves medical or legal authorities, is logged as an attempted suicide, regardless of the stated intentions of the people involved. You don't need elaborate explanations to explain why women tr…
/r/MensRights08/05/16 03:56 PM
1

On the other hand, how do we compare suicide attempts with actual suicides? Women attempt suicide 2-3 times as often by official statistics. What counts as an attempt? Every incident of non-trivial self-harm that involves medical or law authorities, and every attempt where someone claims someone threatened or is threatening to kill themself, is generally labeled as an attempted suicide. You don't need to be half-as-serious as a legitimate Russian Roulette attempt. This means, obviously, there is…
/r/MensRights08/05/16 03:53 PM
2

LA LA LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LA LA
/r/MensRights06/05/16 09:23 PM
21

" 1.) You don't get to speak for all women. As much as you want to pretend you do. 2.) Women, on average, work significantly less hours than men, take significantly more sick days, and retire significantly sooner. I guess it's totally acceptable for people to refuse to hire you for any serious job, because enough women slack off for you to be a liability. Prejudice against protected classes is fantastic, isn't it, you bigot. "
/r/MensRights06/05/16 07:21 AM
1

Have you had HRT? If yes, what ways has it affected you which surprise you?
/r/MensRights05/05/16 04:52 PM
3

banned from SRS Who cares.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 03:07 PM
2

I did not say exclusively. I said it was falsely promoted as a primarily women's problem. It is not exclusively or primarily a women's problem; online 'harassment' is primarily directed at men, and all forms of online 'harassment' aside from sexual or stalking -- such as insults, violent threats, and sustained abuse -- are reported more by men than by women. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/10/PI_2014.10.22__online-harassment-03.png http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
/r/MensRights04/05/16 08:55 PM
12

Schumer is an outspoken feminist. She is currently responsible for a bout of cyberbullying and 'harassment' against a man. Online 'Harassment' and Cyberbullying are common feminist talking points, going so far as to be represented at the UN; they are fallaciously represented as if they are social burdens primarily inflicted upon women. Ergo, an outspoken feminist conducting an online 'harassment' horde against a man is a useful news story, as it contradicts the false idea that online 'harassment…
/r/MensRights04/05/16 08:13 PM
2

What idiot wants to give the crime they're trying to conceal, a flavorful Terrorist Attack twist, anyway? How dumb can you be?
/r/MensRights04/05/16 03:16 PM
3

No. It's not great. Men are an infinitesimal portion of breast cancer cases. The next time someone wants to talk about cancer and help men, they can talk about prostate cancer, which is actually a credible threat to men and receives a tiny portion of Breast Cancer's funding.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 10:17 PM
2

Breast cancer cases are 99 to 99.7% women, depending on your source. Breast cancer is not a male issue worth talking about. All it does is drag the attention towards women's issues, even further away from actual male problems, like virtually any other type of cancer, heart disease, etc. Tired of breast cancer bullshit popping up every week when it's blatantly detrimental to men's health to focus on it.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 10:15 PM
1

There is no such thing as your idea of "evil people". People who knowingly do "evil things" are "evil people". Killing your child because it isn't your preferred sex and then lying about it is fucking evil. Whether or not you want this to be a Women Behaving Badly sub is irrelevant; you attempted to justify her actions and remove her responsibility, not simply tell us to stop talking about it. And now you're trying to change the subject because your argument is shit.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 09:56 PM
11

This is why all rape accusations that are not reported to police, need to be entirely disregarded. So that provably false accusations can be prosecuted.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 08:46 PM
1

More sad than the writer, are the mods attempts to delete everything that questioned the story's authenticity, before it reached critical mass and they had to lock the thread. You can see those by replacing www.reddit.com with r.go1dfish.me
/r/MensRights30/04/16 05:08 PM
2

Story: We're taking a bit of a roadtrip today, and left fairly early. We stopped for breakfast at a highway stop just across the state from Arizona to New Mexico that looked to be the kind of place with real food and good service. People were nice and polite in the parking lot and joked a bit about the crack of dawn and showed interest in our car as a bit unusual etc. It felt very nice and inviting. We get inside and it has the feel to match for being a nice establishment with an elderly sweet l…
/r/MensRights30/04/16 05:06 PM
5

Women already go home six hours earlier every week, take more sick days, and retire sooner than their shorter-lived male counterparts. So, doesn't look like they need an alarm clock to remind them to slack off, if that's the idea. But sure. "Don't worry about slacking off, ladies." That'll totally fix the fact that women earn less money because of their choices.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 04:06 PM
4

Checked the post history. He's not a feminist looking to make a hit piece. Survey ahoy.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 06:43 PM
1

I mean... I'd instantly demote a girlfriend to fuckbuddy-only-under-video-surveillance if I found out she was preaching #IBelieveWomen and donating to Anita. So, what's the big deal?
/r/MensRights29/04/16 06:04 PM
3

Hi. Newsflash for you. Does the person understand right and wrong? Was the person aware of their actions? Yes? Then it's not a mental health issue. It's a criminal act. By her motive and her lies, it's clear the answers in her situation are Yes. Which is why she's received criminal charges. Stop trying to excuse shitty, illegal behavior by pretending women are too intellectually and emotionally incompetent to be responsible for their actions.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 04:40 PM
7

The mens issues that feminism 'addresses', with the same lobbying, activitism, protests, and general fervor that it addresses women's issues: crickets Men's issues that feminists have tangentially talked about: Sex Crime is so super awful that it sometimes happens to guys too Selective Service Issues that feminists have tangentially talked about which they think are men's issues, but aren't because men don't give a shit about them: Men should totally be able to show their emotions more, gender r…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:17 PM
1

You can't use someone's poverty to have sex with them. Someone's choice to have sex with you, whether it's in exchange for goods and services or not, is what allows you to have sex with them. You're literally saying an option that Thai women in poverty have, which Thai men in equal poverty do not have, is 'abuse'.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 06:06 PM
9

There are 0 credible theories that will make apples fall upwards on Earth. Go back to /r/iamverysmart. Because you're not.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 01:05 PM
6

Quality shitpost here. Where's the evidence this Thai Law group is a feminist organization? The women on the street, for that matter? Why does anyone care about a series of street interviews, the easiest type of video to fudge, misrepresent, and generally edit into anything you want? Why would anyone care about what a handful of foreign tourists or immigrants have to say about Thai nightlife? Why does the MGTOW editor get his panties up in a bunch, over so few actually - inflammatory statements?…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 10:33 PM
2

Friendly Reminder: The wage gap is not due to college majors and career choices. The wage gap is due to college majors, career choices, hours worked, average retirement year, vacation time taken, and sick leave taken. Pretending it's just due to career is easier to refute than the whole spectrum of damning facts, which would seem to indicate that women in aggregate just won't work as hard for a fat paycheck as men do. And why would they, when the far-more-relevant Spending Gap shows they already…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 03:44 PM
3

Absolutely nothing wrong with this article. Mentioning marriage "without talking about how much it sucks for men" is not misandry. Calling him a Peter Pan Fuckboy because he doesn't want to get married would be misandry.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 05:36 PM
1

A lot of them are not doing it because of their opinion in the justness of the law, they are doing it because they are desperate and some are in mortal danger where they are. And some of them are doing it because of their opinion of, or disregard for, the law. At the very least, the group "illegal immigrants", which includes both "illegal immigrants breaking the law out of imminent desperation and duress" and "illegal immigrants breaking the law because they don't care about the law", can be sai…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 10:02 PM
2

If you are discussing future scenarios, correct. If you are discussing present or past scenarios, no. It's a valid critique. No matter what they or you think of the law, the law currently exists, and past/present illegal immigrants have decided that their personal opinion of which laws are just and which are not is more important than the law. This makes them criminals, and predisposed to breaking other laws that they simply disagree with, which other people who disagree with them might follow b…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 07:58 PM
0

That quote does not defame or dislike men in any way. That quote is her explanation as to why she does not feel comfortable in hero and action roles. Which you would know if you did an ounce of research. The best thing you can do for the MRM is shut the fuck up.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 05:28 PM
0

Get out of here with your Stormfront garbage. You've provided 0 evidence that Jodie is a misandrist. There is 0 evidence in this entire submission that she is a misandrist. Kindly fuck off back to the_donald.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 05:12 PM
2

TIL. Interesting to see that our social institution of coddling and paying for women has roots of being enforced under penalty of imprisonment.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 04:58 PM
2

We went over this a month ago. The law targets all excessive space issues, bag-spreading included. It is not a 'manspreading' law. This article is shit. Stop getting riled up over ignorant opinion pieces as if they're facts.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 03:44 PM
5

False. The reason the article doesn't cite the law -- which prohibits bagspreading as well -- is because it's a biased piece of shit. Pro tip. Next time you see an article composed of nothing but one persons whiny opinion, maybe don't give it any credit.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 03:42 PM
5

There's no point in getting into run-on debates with ardent feminists in private. 99.99% of the time, they won't change their mind, and you aren't influencing spectators. Stick to the facts, where you will win every time. Blatantly disregard all their opinion/anecdote-based points, of which there will be many. You could have accomplished the same thing by responding to her first message with "Your uncited, unsourced opinion is noted. People disagree with that opinion. Side note, your comfort is …
/r/MensRights22/04/16 09:11 PM
1

Maybe. Maybe so. Does it matter? She confessed to breaking and entering. It's like you're a cop trying to poke holes in a confession a criminal gave you.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:30 PM
9

She told that story in 2014. The only thing she's said since his death, was a relatively respectful RIP tweet.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 02:05 PM
2

She told that story in 2014. The only thing she's said since his death, was a relatively respectful RIP tweet.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 02:02 PM
1

The random anti-religion quotes in there kind of ruin the potential to use it as a citeable resource, TBH. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine). This, i.e., is a positive message IMO. From a terrible person, albeit... but listing this as some kind of message of hatred would make any skeptic or neutral party write the whole list off as nonsense / extremism.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 01:08 AM
6

I mean... simple text on a white background isn't really a good poster. And you're using terms that will sound like crazytalk to people who aren't already on your side. I don't think it's a very good poster, TBH. A better poster would have more easily understood facts(i.e., Hillary's quotes on war, and war-friendly votes as senator), with some basic photoshop design/infographic presentation.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 10:16 PM
2

Cheers.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 03:28 PM
4

Yes, of course!’ as they must do to be a Feminist at all, Blatantly false. Many, many feminists take an extremely moderate approach, especially when publicly debating an MRA. This is the basis of Motte and Bailey tactics. A feminist who shouts about rape culture on Monday would be happy to answer this question on Tuesday with "What does rape culture have to do with anything? I'm a feminist because I believe in equal rights for men and women. You know, the definition of feminism." then you can po…
/r/MensRights20/04/16 03:20 PM
1

I’m not. I disagree. It looks like you're shifting topics from Feminism Is A Hate Movement to Does Rape Culture Exist. It makes your argument look flimsy. Yes, I’m well aware of that, but are you seriously trying to tell me that this wouldn’t presented to you as rebuttal from a defender of feminism and social justice? I would hope they do try that rebuttal. Because it's so easily dismantled by proving the feminists in question are mainstream, central to feminist theory, and therefore not cherry …
/r/MensRights20/04/16 02:48 PM
46

There's no need to shift arguments. This is not cherry picking. Daly was a gender studies professor for 30 years in Boston, until the university finally took a stand against her blatant sexism. Gearhart was one of the original women's studies professors in San Francisco, where she taught for 20 years. The quote above, was made directly in the middle of that teaching career. Brownmiller teaches gender studies today. If someone attempts to claim that these people are outliers, they are demonstrabl…
/r/MensRights20/04/16 01:42 PM
-1

This has nothing to do with Men's Rights. Yes. It does. It's discussing the tactics used by SJW alarmists, and those tactics are routinely used to tar and feather men as a group. Stop getting your bitching-platform out every time someone points out a blatantly ignorant, immoral action committed by some shady black rights activists, like you did when people pointed out how much of a joke BLM is.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:49 PM
2

Food & Drug regulation is handled similarly in the US. Unlike general civil law, safety regulations ARE managed by a proactive government institution, and they will do inspections on licensed entities, etc. But that's still different than most civil law, which only comes into play when someone directly invokes it.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 02:16 PM
1

It's a civil law, not a criminal law. Essentially, there is no governing body that hunts around for people violating civil law. For instance, if you fraudulently libeled somebody in a newspaper, it would be up to the libeled party to claim damages and sue for them. Same with this.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 01:43 PM
1

Presuming somebody takes the time and effort to sue for discrimination, yes.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 01:18 PM
10

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications Mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ defense, as noted in the cases Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.[6] and Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co..[7] Therefore, customer preference for females does not make femininity a BFOQ for the occupation of flight attendant.[8] However, there may be cases in which customer preference is a BFOQ—for example, femininity is reasonably necessary for Playb…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 12:31 PM
12

It's 110% illegal here in Boston, where it's slated for launch. In all the US, even. But the founder is a stone cold idiot who wants to take legal charges against his company to the Supreme Court, in an attempt to legally justify women-only services. Because that's totally not an objective that would set discrimination laws back 60 years.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 10:58 AM
8

You don't seem to understand a lot of words on this subject, TBH. Transsexual =/= Intersex. Trannie/Tranny =/= Transvestite. Intersex is an entirely separate, unrelated terminology. It has nothing to do with Trans-terminology, except that intersex people become trans more often than non-intersex people. Transsexual is just a stronger term for Trans/Transgender, and it implies biological transitioning. Tranny is just a pejorative term for transsexual.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 10:39 AM
1

Only 1 of those 4 questions relates to the issue; that issue being, 'is gender a social construct'. The other three are all transgender people who have been biologically altered, and obviously cannot be used as any form of evidence that gender is social. Why you keep trying to change the issue to "look how close these individuals can resemble/become the opposite gender with biological modification", I have no idea. It doesn't help your point. Seeing as how you used the word 'inherent', then no. …
/r/MensRights17/04/16 10:03 AM
20

You missed the point. There would be no printing. The edit would be done via tape, instead of via a replacement piece of paper.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 12:46 AM
0

The argument has nothing to do with trans people. The only mention of trans people in this entire comment string, is that someone mentioned that the OP of the /r/science submission in question was a trans person. That's it. That was a side note, completely unrelated to OP-comment's point that they believed gender was a social construct, which is the point you decided to attack with terrible logic. YOUR argument, was that gender is a social construct. And that your assessment of people walking do…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 10:58 PM
0

Men and Women have NUMEROUS, BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. Aside from their genitals. You fucking imbecile. When did I claim otherwise? Right about here: Walk around in public and you'll see a bunch of men and women out there. But how do you know which are male and which are female? You're not examining their genitals. You're judging them by their appearance, and how they act. That's a social construct. And -- Right. But if you had been taking hormones since a young age, getting surgery, etc. then may…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 07:42 PM
0

That's because you present yourself as a male. You dress male, you look male, you act male. No. It's not. It's because I'm 6'3", have the skeletal structure of a linebacker, and have a 5 o'clock shadow two minutes after I shave. No amount of non-biological attempts to hide my sex would make people think I was a woman. Men and Women have NUMEROUS, BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. Aside from their genitals. You fucking imbecile. No. "Gender role" does not refer to your appearance. Gender roles are the idea…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 06:38 PM
4

You know your argument is shit, when you have to use the 00.1%-00.01% intersex population to try and prove your point. Height. Bone Structure. Body Hair. Vocal Chords. ALL of these things are affected by the dimorphic, biological switch that is Sex. When you walk down the street and see me, you do not need to see my genitals to notice that I am biologically male. The fact that I am biologically male has an impact on my behavior and my interests, for reasons ranging from my muscle fiber and bone …
/r/MensRights15/04/16 10:15 PM
3

At the end of the day, the business should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they want, in my opinion. That may be your opinion, but that's not the law. Sex/gender is a protected class. Discrimination on the basis of protected classes is illegal. And for good, historical reason. Unless you want to go back to a time where public opinion could economically and socially devastate an entire protected class via prejudice and stereotyping -- unless you want your sons to be excluded from This or …
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:18 AM
6

It's important for discrimination law to be consistently enforced. If you do not enforce discrimination law today, you will be less able to enforce it tomorrow, when your boss decides to only employ women.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:12 AM
3

Curves still promotes itself as a fitness club for women in California. This sounds like an action opportunity, if you ask me.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:10 AM
10

There's actually a small group of guys that abuses that law by actively seeking out things that are intended to be women-only in order to be discriminated against and sue. FYI, this is not abusing the law. The result of those cases is the way the law is intended to be applied. Those discriminations are illegal, and for good reason. Pro-active, opportunistic lawyers are using the law, in that instance, and ensuring that it is enforced, not abusing it. And they are 100% in the right for doing so. …
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:07 AM
8

2-8% is not rare. 2-8% of accusations have strong evidence that they are false is not the same as 2-8% of accusations are false. The latter directly excludes any reports that are neither known to be true or known to be false, of which there is certainly an additional percentage of false reports. Also, why is a youtube link to Laci Green on front page? When's the last time anyone has thought Laci Green was anything but a card carrying feminist SJW? Years ago?
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:00 AM
1

The key thing is, we're you there, is she willing to talk to you about it. Or does she view you as a potentially jealous beta male that would shame her for her past. If a woman thinks of you as an alpha, she'll flaunt her sexuality to try to compete against you. To make you think she's fun enough to keep around. What does this have to do with anything I said? We're not talking about flaunted behavior or SMV. We're talking about the average number of sexual partners of two group that consists of,…
/r/TheRedPill15/04/16 04:47 AM
1

There's one very distinct, huge flaw in that analysis. "You're hurting mean" could mean "trying to have sex with me is hurting me". But it could also mean "trying to do that, is hurting me". "You're hurting me" can mean "go slower". "You're hurting me" can mean "don't go so deep". "You're hurting me" can mean "don't hold my thigh so tightly". You're hurting me does not mean stop, does not mean no, does not mean rape. It could mean those things, and it would serve as non-conclusive evidence if yo…
/r/MensRights15/04/16 03:36 AM
0

"Women have more sexual partners than men" is an oxymoron. 95% of the population is heterosexual. Women as a group have the same amount of sexual partners as men do. The distribution is just different. Unless you think the ~5% of the female population that is gay, is dramatically out-fucking the gay population of men.
/r/TheRedPill14/04/16 02:55 PM
1

Life expectancy is a bad argument. Heart disease is the primary contributor to the life expectancy gap. Male sex hormones biologically result in different fat deposit norms, and men biologically build up more fat around their heart. This is akin to a feminist thinking height differences is evidence of oppression. Just don't. Work towards serious issues that aren't biological; like the fact that life insurance companies are legally allowed to discriminate against men, while health insurance compa…
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:02 PM
28

http://www.baynews9.com/content/dam/news/images/2016/04/03/questionnaire-412.jpg The "how much privilege do you have" form. Lol ridiculous. Kick her to the curb.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 07:36 PM
-1

Oxford English Dictionary disagrees. Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and issues, on the grounds of equality. The "on the grounds of equality" addition is functionally useless, because all advocacy for women is 'on the grounds of equality' if, like many feminists, you believe that the sum total of equality-related issues disadvantage women, and that any benefits on their behalf will help even that scale.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 07:14 PM
10

No, he's correct. No amount of underreporting would account for the massive chasm between male and female violent crime. And murder is one of the least underreported crimes, for obvious reasons. Your argument is wrong. Men and women are different. Testosterone affects risk behavior, and crime is risk behavior. The issue is, that none of those truths make stereotyping and discrimination acceptable. Your argument: This is bad because men and women are identical on this issue! The correct argument:…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 03:00 PM
1

It's illegal to discriminate in employment or customers, based on sex. Even for private, non-government companies. Chariot for Women is textbook illegal discrimination. Those protections were established to end the tyranny of socially-imposed restrictions on certain classes, such as black people, which made it impossible for black people to get a decent house/apartment, a decent job, or a decent burger. If YOU don't care that a private company is refusing to hire or serve you because of your sex…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 02:56 PM
3

Archive bullshit links. Stop driving revenue to sites and articles peddling bullshit and inequality. http://archive.is/DdzLW On topic, I made it all the way to the Reisch quote. Proud of myself. Here's more of Reisch: Jennifer Reisch is the Legal Director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), a national nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and education access and opportunities for women and girls. Feminism 101: 1) Proclaim you are fighting for equality. …
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:58 PM
3

And this is in Boston, USA? Where it's 110% illegal? “We look forward to legal challenges,” Pelletz tells TechCrunch. “We want to show there’s inequality in safety in our industry. We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there’s safety involved, there’s nothing wrong with providing a service for women.” Somebody sue this idiot into the dirt, before he tries to set civil rights back 70 years.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 03:06 PM
1

BLM isn't the black feminist who started it. It's similar to GamerGate in organization, basically a hashtag with no top down leadership. No. It's not. At all. BLM was promoted by a legitimate effort to establish it as an organization, by individuals who wanted it to be an organization. It has chapters. It has a centralized website. It organizes informed, premeditated protests. It is not comparable to GamerGate, an idea where the strongest thread that ties it together is an anonymous subreddit, a…
/r/MensRights10/04/16 06:51 PM
11

Uh, if you need an example of Feminists being categorically opposed to equality and men's rights/issues, all you need is N.O.W. lobbying against Equal Parenting laws in virtually every US state they pop up in, because the current unequal system favors women. Much better example.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 10:17 PM
14

"Cool. I guess you're either a men's rights activist or sexist, too.." Only Teflon response.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 05:12 PM
4

Here, check out this book they mention. http://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Poison-New-Updated-Edition/dp/0061863262 But, I mean, continue being an alarmist idiot and making a fuss about balanced articles if you want to, I guess.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 12:29 AM
8

I thought the article was a rather fair, multi-sided look at the issue, actually.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:55 PM
6

, I mean holy crap those vagina's are designed to bounce back from a baby, Persistent looseness/inelasticity as a result of pregnancy is a well documented, common side effect of birth in your 30s/40s. Kegels is a half-measure solution, but strengthening the underlying muscle groups doesn't directly solve the issue, only ameliorate it. "Vaginas are magical and not affected by traumatic stress such as childbirth" is feminist bullshit. Stop it. Plus, loose is simply another word for promiscuous.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 09:13 PM
3

Men have serious legal and economic issues of injustice, and pretending social expectations or emotions is something worth time out of my day, or your day, is fucking ridiculous. Repeal the draft. End the parental leave + primary caregiver legal policy of giving women child custody + exorbitant child support & alimony. End the legal discrimination against men in the insurance market. End the legal discrimination against men in Primary Aggressor domestic violence laws. Close the sentencing gap. C…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 08:03 PM
1

with what could have been said (what I claim to have been said) as a figure of speech. There is no figure of speech in her quote. There is no idiom in her quote. What part of that do you not understand? You can't just claim something is an idiom/figure-of-speech out of the blue, when there is no record of those combinations of words being used in any form of a 'figure of speech' anywhere. As for taking what she said too seriously, I've done no such thing. What she said was ridiculous, and comple…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 03:16 PM
1

Fine, a balsa wood hammer.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 12:52 AM
1

"Killing these men and white folks" is not an idiom. There are no lines to read between. Your analogy was proven to be demonstrably inaccurate. Nobody cares if you don't think the leader of an equality movement being obviously sexist and racist "isn't a big deal really". Pretending I have to go any further to prove she is a man hating racist, when she has directly stated her desire to kill white people and men and you have laughably failed to defend the statement, is a laugh. Even if she was att…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 11:32 PM
7

Answering your question is nastiness? At worst, disagreement with your rhetorical statement is nastiness? It's not surprising that you claim to see hatred everywhere in the MR movement, when you take personal offense to people disagreeing with you and then blame them for that offense.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 10:47 PM
2

Dramatically less than 1%.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 04:39 PM
1

Your charter makes it legal to discriminate in favor of "disadvantaged" classes, so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't apply to women. You guys need to fix that nonsense.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 04:25 PM
2

The rest wonder why a group of people dictionary defined as promoters of gender equality You need a better dictionary. Oxford: define: feminism the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Any and all facets of feminism are functions of Advocacy For Women, not Equality Promotion. If something is not advocating for women, it is not feminism. By definition. If something is advocating for women, and the person doing it sees that advocacy as a ste…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 03:56 PM
1

Oh lawd. Are you seriously trying to defend BLM? Reminder that police brutality is a gender issue first, and a race issue second. Police kill unarmed men 19 times more than unarmed women. The black/white difference is only 5-7x, small by comparison. Reminder that BLM calls their history webpage a HerStory page. Reminder that BLM guiding principles list Black Women, and say nothing about men or black men. Reminder that BLM is a joke, and that you have the tools to point it out now. MappingpoliceV…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 11:42 AM
15

There is no skin between your glans and the vagina, during uncircumcised sex. The damage your glans sustains by being exposed the other 99.99% of your life, reduces the sensation during that .001%. Circumcision was literally popularized in the US by Kellogg to reduce sexual satisfaction/desire. How ignorant can you be?
/r/MensRights06/04/16 11:34 PM
2

It's like me (a black man) saying "I effin' hate these niggas" No. It's not. Your analogy has a lot of secondary meanings and connotation. "Men" and "white folks" do not. It'd be like you saying "I effin' hate these black people". And if you were in a leading position of a chapter that supposedly wanted to work against an issue that most affects black people, that would be fucked up.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 04:33 PM
1

lol'd
/r/MensRights06/04/16 04:27 PM
2

19x more, yes, usually. IIRC, the unarmed statistics are pretty similar. But, again, MappingpoliceViolence.org can serve as citation for those.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 04:23 PM
4

5-7x = Police kill black people 5-7x more than white people, when adjusted for population.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 02:45 PM
42

Reminder that police brutality is a gender issue first, and a race issue second. Police kill unarmed men 19 times more than unarmed women. The black/white difference is only 5-7x, small by comparison. Reminder that BLM calls their history webpage a HerStory page. Reminder that BLM guiding principles list Black Women, and say nothing about men or black men. Reminder that BLM is a joke, and that you have the tools to point it out now. MappingpoliceViolence.org has spreadsheet data on police brutal…
/r/MensRights06/04/16 12:54 PM
2

False. An "any gender league" + a "female only league" is still segregated.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 03:11 AM
1

I prefer the short and direct, "Your opinion is noted."
/r/MensRights05/04/16 10:26 PM
5

What about the fact that gay men also struggle with internalizing emotions/ openly discussing and displaying emotions? [citation fucking needed] I'm bi. Every single gay guy I know is 100x more forthcoming with their vulnerability-related emotions. Straight guys aren't, because toxic femininity finds it unattractive.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 05:10 PM
2

Care about =/= attractive So, no it doesn't.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 04:26 PM
4

The meme is fantastic. It's a cut and dry textual explanation of the fact that women find 80% of men "less than averagely attractive", and that the opposite is not true of men.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 04:25 PM
1

Yes. Inb4 you try to shame me for my basic, common, subconscious sexual attractions.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 04:24 PM
2

Uh, no. That's not how attraction works. Unless you think you can choose to be gay/straight.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 04:23 PM
1

Who cares about achievements? What "advantage" are you talking about? Why does that matter? We're talking about something very simple. Intelligence, and the simple genetic process of selecting for it via selective reproduction, AKA selective breeding, the same process that has given us beefier cows, eggier chickens, and cornier corn. Intellectual ability. IQ, which is proven to be genetically linked. Currently, there is no system in place to facilitate selective pressure on reproduction that fav…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 12:34 AM
2

I'd do it in a heartbeat, reversible or not. But being bi, probably makes that decision easier. Currently, it's a non-possibility. Being 6'3" and built like a defensive lineman, it's physically impossible to transition to anything other than a fugly guy in a dress.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:52 PM
6

Because they edited out all the confident men.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 09:11 PM
1

The babies coming from such marriages would therefore have an innate advantage as compared to babies from lower income people. What advantage? A genetic propagation advantage? Only if people with high income have as many, or more, children as people in low income. They don't. In a society such as ours, where children are an economic risk and a time burden, high income has a negative correlation with # of children. People with high income have the time for children less often. This statistic is t…
/r/MensRights04/04/16 07:20 PM
10

Back when I worked @ a station, I hated people that would use pumps as their personal bulletin board. But I suppose that's not terrible.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 05:46 PM
1

It's the reason why actual trans people would decide to not transition. It would need to actually be very positive for non-trans people en masse deciding to transition on a whim. Or it would have to be pretty costless and reversible (like a videogame, changing gender is pretty fast where possible). Again, as you seemed to have entirely missed the point.. If you intended to say "the only reason", and if you intended to say "would decide not to transition or decide to transition", you are blatantl…
/r/MensRights04/04/16 12:20 PM
-2

You having limits is fine. You misconstruing the argument to make it sound more ridiculous than it is, is not fine. You don't need to misconstrue the argument when it comes to circumcision. The facts are already on your side.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 12:17 PM
1

Education =/= intelligence -- Intelligence is proven to have genetically influenced factors, education is a result of school + effort -- and intelligence is absolutely not the guiding metric by which the human race is currently reproducing. IQ above 100 actually has a negative correlation with sexual activity.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 12:15 PM
2

Eugenics used to be considered a "progressive" cause before people found out what went on in nazi germany during ww2. Yep. Common topic on radio shows and whatnot, right before WW2. Just seems unfortunate that a terrible, inhumane application of something kind of like eugenics would completely remove our understanding and the benefit thereof of genetics from the public sphere.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:41 PM
3

Perhaps being told over and over again for their whole lives that they're evil for having the utter gall to be born male, that they're stupid, fat, are unworthy of the opposite sex's attention, that they're utter failures for failing to have a 6-figure income in a shitty economy, that they're evil pervert molesters for daring to go to the park with their own children, that they owe women reparations for all the evils committed by men that are long dead, evils that they'd never even consider comm…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:29 PM
0

And it's for the purpose of women's pleasure. No. It's not. The argument behind that statement is that it is for men's pleasure. Men want to have sex. Men want to be sexually attractive. Men would chop their leg off if it meant they'd get laid on a regular basis. Women don't sexually care if YOU have an uncircumcised penis. They can raise their hand at the bar and find someone who doesn't. You have, again, failed to understand that. The point of "women like how it looks" is "It is less of a bad …
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:26 PM
1

Defined as 'someone who experienced male male sex'? Or someone attracted to men sexually? Because using the former to conflate with the latter is like blaming someone who got punched on the street for being into boxing. Experiencing male male sex does not make you homosexual. Especially involuntary male male sex. An attraction and intention on sexual activity with men makes you homosexual(or bisexual, be it as it may). The studies involved did not ask "have you had sex with a man". They asked th…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:16 PM
8

Unlike Islam, such an idea does not have popular support from the people that subscribe to that religion. So, no.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 03:31 PM
2

That's not why they screen candidates. They screen candidates to reduce the number of people committing suicide directly after transitioning, which used to be very high, and as such their legal and ethical liability. This is mostly a result of the rash of suicides that came when SRS was first popularized. The screening process doesn't check why you want to transition. Only if you are mentally stable and able to live as the opposite sex. As for the rest of what you said, yes. That is a potential …
/r/MensRights03/04/16 03:18 PM
1

Auto correct strikes again
/r/MensRights03/04/16 03:13 PM
0

Russians split arctic fixes into genetically tame and genetically vicious strains in about 60 years. While I am against decimating the population, the fact that we've gone from Mendel to now, with 170 years, and not started some kind of morally-respectable incentived breeding program to foster human intelligence, is seriously negligent. When the robot overlords enslave us, we'll deserve it.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 01:57 PM
3

While, yes, the article is complete shit... 1.) Gender Dysphoria is not the only reason people transition 2.) Gender Dysphoria is not always a root cause, and may in turn be caused by something else 3.) Gender Dysphoria would not account for the fact that men transition twice as much as women do 4.) Social conditions undoubtedly affect the number of people who want to transition. If populations exiting prison have a notably higher gay population than populations entering prison, it's clear that …
/r/MensRights03/04/16 01:53 PM
1

Everybody is mentally ill, to some degree. Stop trying to use it to excuse crime by women. If a psychiatric professional has not assessed her and concluded that she doesn't know right from wrong and/or doesn't understand her actions, it doesn't matter if she's mentally imperfect.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:35 AM
6

"Promise not to be a manhating bitch, and we'll pinky swear on it.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:33 AM
0

Pretty sure I directly stated that, as a reason, it isn't enough to override bodily autonomy and infant torture.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:26 AM
2

Who said I was pro-circumcision? Oh, right. Nobody.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:21 AM
-1

Lol at that word garbage. 94% of men want to be sex objects for men's fulfillment. An understandable consequence of men having a study-proven sex drive ~twice as high as women on average. "Women think it's more sexually attractive" is a male reason to want something, 9 times out of 10.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:03 AM
-2

This may be difficult for you to understand... But your opinion is not the only opinion that matters. "Many men like being circumcised because women sexually prefer it" is a valid point to raise. Not valid enough to overrule bodily autonomy and infant torture, but valid all the same. Men do, want, and care about a lot of things in the pursuit of pleasing women and acquiring sex. Your opinion on the matter doesn't overrule it.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 10:56 AM
6

Women and children can also be soldiers, in third world wars. So, it doesn't accomplish that emphasis at all.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 10:52 AM
1

When people say Attractive, they mean Sexually Attractive. Relationship criteria =/= Attractiveness criteria. So, that may be the disconnect.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:45 PM
3

Lol, how can you be this deluded. Any 5-6/10 woman can raise their hand at a bar and get six offers of dick. That's what it means to be comparatively attractive.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:22 PM
5

Rekt2
/r/MensRights31/03/16 07:31 PM
8

Even if it were true, I couldn't see any reason why they exclude men from this program. Because it benefits them, and they can. People are shit. It's the government's job to stop them from being shit. Canada has failed it's citizens in that regard, by allowing legal discrimination.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 07:29 PM
2

This is what happens when your national law allows discrimination for "disadvantaged" groups. Canada. Sinking ship.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 07:27 PM
7

Canada? Canada. Canada law says discrimination is only discrimination if it's against a "disadvantaged" group.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 05:37 PM
2

Do your research on all the applicable bullet points. The key is not to aggressively breach a topic with her, but to be informed with contradictory facts when she brings an ignorant topic up. Feminism is pro-women, anti-equality. The definition of feminism is advocacy for women, in most dictionaries. N.O.W. is the largest US feminist organization, and routinely opposes equal parenting laws to favor primary female custody, something most feminists wound fallaciously call "a burden" despite 80%+ o…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 04:18 PM
2

Just another feminist trolling MR. Do not feed.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 04:02 PM
0

Never use an argument that falls to informed criticism. Men and women are biologically different. Male hormones cause fat to be stored differently; namely closer to the heart, resulting in heart disease and lower life expectancy. There are plenty of ironclad arguments available. Like the sentencing gap.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 11:58 AM
1

If black lives are undervalued Assuming more black police fatalities = Black lives are "undervalued" is an unproven leap of logic. The data simply proves that, if you are intent on making such a baseless leap, leaping to the Racism platform is the wrong platform to leap to. Black men would be killed because they're men AND because they're black The data proves that, if it is a sign of and caused by prejudice, that it is more because they are male than because they are black. Therefore, being ups…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 02:36 AM
1

Well, here's a half measure: http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/s/MPVDatasetDownload-qheu.xlsx It's not the source I originally used to calculate the 19x vs 5x, but mappingpolicedata.com compiled all the police shooting deaths in 2015, and labeled them according to race, sex, and unarmed status. The totals aren't listed. It would take some effort to find the totals for those categories, but you can scroll through the list and see the male/female disparity. 61 female killings, out of 1196 total. Th…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 01:03 AM
205

Doesn't matter. Get a lawyer. Sue the school.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 08:20 PM
1

I'll have to dig for the exact source I used; it segmented unarmed killings by race and gender. In the meantime, pretty much every police statistic that splits by gender will show the ~19x disparity.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 06:34 PM
4

BLM is a decent idea supported by belligerent idiots; No, not really. BLM was founded on black men being killed by police. What they fail to understand, is that it's because they're men, not because they're black. Unarmed men are 19x more likely to be killed by police than unarmed women. The black/white divide is 5x, tiny by comparison. If BLM wasn't founded in ignorance, maybe it wouldn't be the laughable Herstory/Black-Feminism front it is today. If BLM was BMLM or MLM, it would be a decent id…
/r/MensRights30/03/16 02:37 PM
19

Telling someone to hit you is "provoking them". Putting your arm up to block them is legally, ethically, touching them first. I'm sorry that you can't understand you're being downvoted because you're wrong. You'll get over it.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 12:46 PM
27

Putting her arm in front of him to intentionally block him is simple battery. You don't understand the law. You are not allowed to detain or physically block people. Doing something that "any reasonable person" would infer would result in said physical contact is battery. For example, if you drop a hammer from the second floor, you are not touching someone. If that hammer then lands on someone, and it is clear you intended for that to happen, you are guilty of battery. Putting your arm in front …
/r/MensRights30/03/16 12:26 PM
33

Putting her arm in front of him to intentionally block him is simple battery. You don't understand the law. You are not allowed to detain or physically block people. Doing something that "any reasonable person" would infer would result in said physical contact is battery. For example, if you drop a hammer from the second floor, you are not touching someone. If that hammer then lands on someone, and it is clear you intended for that to happen, you are guilty of battery. Putting your arm in front …
/r/MensRights30/03/16 12:25 PM
2

Nobody is "applying" #KillAllMen to you. They are applying #KillAllMen to feminism, as a movement/group/organization. When you ignorantly attempt to claim that feminism is some positive force for men, #KillAllMen , a hashtag used by feminists to psychopathically denigrate men for a considerable period of time, is the counter argument to that. Your response to that, was "feminism is more than twitter", as if salvation for the idea of feminism being good for men is somehow valid outside of twitter…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 04:23 PM
3

Guess what; feminism isn't just twitter, and it isn't just tumblr. You're right. It's national organizations hundreds-of-thousands strong lobbying against equality laws and doing everything in their power to advocate for women under any and all circumstances. 'Excuse my language, but really please do fuck off with this'.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 06:05 AM
2

As it goes, none of that affects me in sunny old England - regardless of how much of an issue it may be. As I've said, ML doesn't do meta gender discuission, so what benefit would bringing NOW up have? We prefer to actually discuiss men's issues constructively, not sit around uselessly complaining. Uh huh. Translation: There is no value to us in information or debate that could prove our premises wrong, as we will roll ahead with our current premises and positions regardless. C&P'd for readers t…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 06:02 AM
3

Soooourrrceeee. Everyone here knows that N.O.W. lobbies extensively against Equal Parenting Laws in every state that they come up in. Equal Parenting Laws operate on the presumption that, short of any compelling evidence otherwise, custody should be expected to be split 50/50 at time of divorce. NOW opposes this. NOW opposes gender equality. NOW is only interested in advocating for women. Because that is the god damned definition of Feminism; the advocacy of women's rights. Everyone here knows t…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 04:56 AM
4

Exactly the kind of comment I would remove on ML. Combative and not adding anything. Pretty sure I specifically added the ways your statements contradict themselves, and the fact that your idea you are somehow more persecuted is patently false. But whatever helps you sleep at night. It's not banning opinions for a steak club to eject a vegetarian, it's common sense. My aunt is a vegetarian. She makes a great steak. She just doesn't eat it. She also makes fantastic side dishes, for said steak. So…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:58 AM
6

While I'm here, we don't remove opinions we don't like, we remove ... anti-feminism Lolokay. This is fair and not an oxymoron because reasons Lolokay2 Guess what? Reddit hates MRAs. Somehow, we still manage to survive without deleting and banning shitty comments like yours that offer statements and opinions blatantly contradictory to the sub, and are also easily dismantled with evidence. Crazy, I know. I mean, I guess it'd be a little harder, if the evidence was working against you.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:34 AM
3

I have an obligation to see which sub is sending those users. Seeing which sub is supposedly sending users to comment on something =/= shitposting on that sub. Seeing is observation. Shitposting is not. What is it you hope to accomplish by coming here and making poor arguments, in -- as you put it -- bad faith? You certainly did not take the moderator approach, and mention who you are and where you're from, and request that people not brigade if it appears that's what they're doing. Why do these…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:04 AM
5

shitposting I am so surprised
/r/MensRights29/03/16 02:46 AM
7

Why have you been trolling our sub for the past 3 days, MensLib mod? Lol @ assuming "gender roles don't matter to people with real problems" is an opinion only I have. 99.9% of men don't give a shit about 'gender roles'. All of them give a shit about having to pay more for insurance because they have a penis. Or being the de-facto suspect because laws(re: not "gender roles") specifically say the male did it. Or numerous other serious, legal and economic issues. Feminists however do care about th…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 02:09 AM
0

Half your post is an exercise in terrible logic and cognitive dissonance. Like your continued failure to connect Sex Drive Inspires Sex Crime + Men Have Higher Sex Drive = Sex Crime Offenders Are Statistically, Majority-Male. Again, other requirements(like sociopathy) or motivations are 100% irrelevant, unless you can prove those are female-favored. Pro tip: The APA also says that, statistically, men are 3x as likely to be sociopaths. But I guess that medical information is also unsavory and soo…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 09:53 PM
-1

You are assuming that a higher sex drive means more likely to rape. One could argue you need to demonstrate men have that much of a higher sex drive in the first place, but that would be a red herring as it just doesn't matter really dumb idea, because dozens of readily google-able studies and authoritative opinions verify it. FTFY. Rape and sexual assault can just be a selfish behaviour using someone else for your sexual pleasure, and feeling so entitled that you don't care what they want. That…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 07:07 PM
0

Except that it's not biological that men are sexually abusive and women aren't, Which part are you having trouble understanding? That sex drive affects sex crime, or that sex drive is biologically influenced? statistics that only consider a man forcing his penis into a woman or the rapist forcibly penetrating the victim--which are most statistics on "rape"--are bound to underrepresent female sexual abusers who force men into sexual intercourse Every single statistic on sex crime, even statistics…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 06:55 PM
1

Fixed. But I guess a slip up in phone editing invalidates scientifically verified facts, such as men having a higher sex drive.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 06:48 PM
0

The point of a dictionary is to help people understand the meaning of words. No. It's not. The purpose of a dictionary is to catalogue words and the ways they are typically used. If a word is typically used in reference to something a man did, including that information is part of the dictionary's task. The phrase "Typically committed by a man" does not help one understand what "rape" means. Yes. It does. It's called context. The people who write dictionaries aren't stupid, they included that ph…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 06:25 PM
-4

No, it's because men have a statistically higher sex drive, by a factor of ~2. Because hormones exist, and men have more biology testosterone*. You should stop being mad at statistics and basic biology. You sound like a feminist. What Oxford said is statistically accurate. If you're trying to complain that rape is typically, statistically committed by men because justice system prejudice, you have to prove it.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 04:24 PM
18

Somebody with some time should go through this list and point out how laughable 99% of the entries are. Or at least, the entries that matter. 8,000 links of "gender roles are super bad guys" 1 link addressing one of the many laws against men, from the 80s, for the draft. Wiki link says nothing about feminist opposition, swedes opposing Swedish draft has nothing to do with US draft and if they want to drag Swedish feminists into the discussion then they're fucked. 0 links of addressing legalized …
/r/MensRights28/03/16 01:57 PM
2

If we were the ones deciding whether or not the man paid child support, there would be reason to not take the story teller's sorry at face value. The same ethics apply to deciding if some stranger you've never met or talked to is a scumbag that owes someone else 100,000 and actively avoids trying to pay it. Or should be obligated to pay it. Etc. I, and many others, don't just jump on the "welp you said some stranger is a douchebag so yeah he's totally a douchebag, sorry you had to deal with that…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 06:19 PM
2

I'm assuming the man was a willing participant because the person telling the story said he was This is not how $100,000 debts work. If you're claiming somebody owes you that much money(average child support monthly payment x 21 years, as student years 'til 21 are generally covered), you don't get to say "well they told me they wanted it" and have people believe you without evidence. It's completely normal to take the story teller at their word for the sake of discussion. When it's evidence of s…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 05:12 PM
1

Source? And considering that there are no concrete rules on the subject, it's pretty clear that any measure to prevent it is a positive measure when considering action against brigading.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 04:42 PM
3

You should edit your comment, to remove the direct link to another subreddit. Use np.reddit or archive links. Direct linking is bad, as it can be mistaken as / encourages Brigading, and gets subs in trouble.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 04:31 PM
2

(Assuming the man was a knowing and willing participant in getting her pregnant) How are you assuming this? In the instance of a man not wanting to pay, and a women wanting the money, this "assumption" will need to be proven. Your question addresses an impossible scenario. You cannot "assume" someone owes you money, if you want to get paid. You have to prove it. Here is your question, restated to not be a stupid question: Do you think that at any point up until birth (In cases where the man has …
/r/MensRights27/03/16 02:48 PM
1

So, he didn't. So, your claim that he wanted the child is baseless. An assumption based on the poor evidence that she, the obvious source of said claim, said he did.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 01:38 PM
3

In involuntary child support payments, yes, it does. The current legal system puts the power, privilege, and legal representation regarding reproduction 100% in the women's hands. This also puts ethical responsibility %100 in the women's hands. Why you're responding to a blatantly obvious MR forum troll, I have no idea.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 01:23 PM
1

The deadbeat guy in question posted a story about wanting a family? Where?
/r/MensRights27/03/16 01:19 PM
1

Feminism opposes equal parenting. Feminism opposes alimony reform. Feminism established the legal system for primarily awarding mothers with custody. Women are not "burdened" with children. 80%+, when surveyed, would prefer to be a stay at home mother. Women are privileged with children. You don't need feminism. You need the capacity to do basic research. You imbecile. When you come into our sub spewing uneducated bullshit, it is not our job to "help" you. It's your job to apologize and correct …
/r/MensRights27/03/16 11:09 AM
1

She says he wanted the kid =/= he wanted the kid. But yes. We can assume things.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 11:07 AM
7

A prompt to lobby for the impacted rights of a male student is stickied to the top of /r/MensRights right now. Rights that we believe in. Enough to let fools like you waste your time blabbering and trolling subs you don't like. Because that's so productive.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 10:55 AM
1

art of war Lolwow. I don't think I'm autistic enough to quote one of the many vague art of war principles that would support my position. Have fun with that.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 03:29 PM
0

Eating tasty, if fattening food, is not a character flaw. If you're trying to lose weight, and failing to do so because of your inability to stop eating tasty, fattening food, then yes. It is a character flaw. which may have been depleted already by all f the day's earlier stresses. Pro tip for reducing your daily stresses: Stop fucking eating so much.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 05:05 AM
1

not how the majority views these catfights. Yes. It is. Which, again, is why the public does not identify as feminists. Allowing feminists to shriek and yell because they disagree with a calm, reasoned position/argument has been the most effective weapon to date. which you can do far more effectively outside of feminist-controlled space, apparently acting in the service of a just cause instead of apparently fighting against one. You are able to do both.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 03:04 AM
-1

Nobody said it was easy. The word used was simple. It means basic. Not complicated. Easily understood. Composed of few noteworthy elements or variables. Losing weight is simple. Consume less energy. Expend more energy. That is it. At most, we throw in one additional caveat, which is do this while meeting the nutritional requirements for healthy bodily function; but that part is about remaining healthy, not about losing weight. If you are finding that simple task hard, it falls into the Character…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 02:58 AM
7

Just stop talking. You have zero fucking idea what you're talking about. Losing weight is a simple physics equation. Convert mass to energy. Expend energy. Stop taking in so much mass. Eat less and exercise. Period. Your body is not a physics anomaly. If you are failing to lose weight, you are not expending more energy than you are consuming. Use more energy and consume less. It is that simple. Period. If you're having a problem accomplishing something that is that simple, it's because you have …
/r/MensRights26/03/16 01:26 AM
2

I would argue that stress, and ego-depletion are two of the biggest factors. See everyone has a limited amount of 'make yourself do stuff' juice. If you spend all day acting then you're far more likely to impulsively go for the chocolate cake than carrot stick. LolWHAT. This is the most ridiculous shit I have read in a long time. You know what is stressful, and depletes your magical fairy do stuff juice? Being a fatass. But I guess if that makes you sad, you can go ahead and get another cake, an…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 01:24 AM
1

You can do both. Catfights with feminists MAY have gotten the MRM a little bit of publicity it didn't have, but it turns people off The catfights feminism has got into are the main reason the majority of the public does not identify as feminist. Being the stable, sane, informed rock against which legbeards thrash is positive PR, not negative. You don't need to fight with feminists. You just need to show up and calmly present facts and information.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 09:55 PM
1

you're making the assumption they care what you think Who's "they"? Are you pretending this is about trying to convince feminists, again? It's not. Lots of undecided third parties care about what you have to say, if what you say is worthwhile information. And an impromptu SJW movie to a general, non-feminist college population is a perfect place to present them with an informed, helpful opinion and information. i suspect you've never even tried While we're making baseless, ignorant assumptions a…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 09:42 PM
3

No, no, and no. "Arguing with feminists" is not to convince feminists. It's to convince bystanders and undecideds. Absolutely come to the Q&A session with legitimate, factual flaws and misrepresentations in the movie, and point them out.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 05:57 PM
7

TL;DR Allegations are not assaults. They are alleged assaults. Assaults are not assailants. 1,000 assaults are not 1,000 assailants. Assailants often commit more than one assault per assailant. 997 alleged assaults without a conviction is not 997 alleged assailants walking free. 'Sexual Assault' in this graphic includes everything down to unwanted kissing/touching, and the overwhelming majority of respondents considered the alleged incidents too minor to report. This is somewhat misleading, as s…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 02:04 PM
2

The gross crime tallies in info graphics like this is generally taken from self reported surveys like NVDS. In consent crimes, any incident without a legal conviction or confession of guilt is an alleged assault, not an assault. There is a 0% chance that the crime totals used by this info graphics are not unproven allegations.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 01:18 PM
7

LOL @ another black woman pretending "state-sanctioned violence"(re: police brutality) is her soapbox. Friendly reminder. Unarmed black people are 5x more likely to be killed by police than unarmed white people. Unarmed men are 19x more likely to be killed by police than unarmed women. Black Lives Matter and Black Police Violence issues are an ignorant joke. Next time someone tries to tell you you have it easy as a white man because police target black people, laugh a lung up in their face and b…
/r/MensRights23/03/16 07:53 PM
2

Wait, hold the presses. Someone was banned from /r/feminism for something stupid? That never happens.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:25 PM
5

Unpaid labor is not held to a market or competitive standard. You can slack off as much as you want on unpaid labor time. What a maid accomplishes in two hours, takes a week of "cleaning around the house". The idea that unpaid, unchecked, unhired and untested labor hours are somehow equal to paid labor hours is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 03:44 PM
30

Wow. Can confirm. Just looked it up. That's absofuckinlutely ridiculous. Going with GLBT now.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:12 AM
2

It's easy to write the paper from a liberal perspective. "Yes, women earn less money than men... and the solution is in encouraging them to work more lucrative careers, more hours, and more years. Together we can accomplish equality!", etc.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 10:52 PM
1

Overcome with the pain of information that makes them feels not good, the seasoned MR-contrarian throws down their troll club and starts linking random videos in defeat. Have fun with that.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 06:59 PM
2

This is a subreddit. It doesn't affect anything really... Like, I've never seen OP before - so why do you care?
/r/MensRights22/03/16 05:29 PM
1

And future "historical wisdom" will laughably be full of Just So stories making the same mistake of seeing correlation as causation, confidently declared to "prove" popular social ideas. [citation needed] An antivaxer's opinions are not patently superior because their dumbass bullshit can be expressed in a way that takes advantage of a higher state of biological and general understanding. Nor is a gender essentialist's. "Lolk." Antivaccine is not the popular scientific/medical opinion of current…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 05:07 PM
1

I must say I do admire the gay abandon with which you throw the word “truth” around; it’s almost touching. When virtually every single study done on a statistical subject repeats the same result, that result is true. It is factual. I'm sorry that you are having a hard time understanding that. On the one hand you want to insist that the male sex drive is much higher; on the other you want to deny that there are no consequences or sequelae as a result of that higher sex drive. It’s simply not poss…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 03:59 PM
3

Two general responses: Too True. Raising my daughters to have more respect for other human beings than the last generation had, too. Everyone, go let your momma know they fucked up. We gotta do better!
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:17 PM
2

While I would generally agree in day to day interactions, I feel the standard has to be kept high in arenas specifically designed to address inequality. What he is experiencing is the direct cause for the laws and social ills that cause men trouble. Men can't sit on an airplane next to an unaccompanied child because a small group of individuals committed a higher amount of sex crime than normal. Men have to pay more for car insurance, because a small group of individuals had more expensive crash…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 12:57 PM
1

...and has at other times been viewed as female, yes. Historical wisdom would tell us to drill holes in the heads of the mentally retarded to release the demons. Scientific and social opinions held in historical times, even if they were held for just as long as current opinions, are patently inferior, and existed at a lower state of biological and general understanding. Your opinion that the fact that we supposedly used to believe that women had a higher sex drive, despite the fact that you have…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 12:47 PM
2

Lolwhat. If you believe that men have a sex drive that is so much more powerful than women’s and that therefore he could not control himself even when she said stop then you would make an excellent case for the prosecution, wouldn’t you? Sex drive twice as high as women's =/= Uncontrollable. Sex drive twice as high as women's =/= innocent until proven guilty is no longer a worthwhile justice paradigm. Statistical truths about a group =/= legal or ethical basis to hold an opinion about any one in…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 12:38 PM
4

Yes. It is your problem. Your problem is that you are categorizing and prejudicing an entire demographic based on the actions of a small set of individuals. Some women/people suffer the same problem, about men. These women also occasionally experience actions they don't like from a small set of individuals. They extend the dislike of those actions from those individuals to a dislike of an entire group/demographic. That is their problem, not yours. Just like this is your problem, not "women's". T…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 05:03 AM
5

The "you'll cheat on me with a guy" fear is real. The go-to explanation I use, even though nothing seems to work, is: Me: Are you sometimes attracted to guys with black hair? (my hair is black) Her: Well yeah Me: Are you sometimes attracted to guys with blond hair? Her: Mmm, brad pitt~ Me: Do I need to worry about you cheating on me with somebody that has blond hair? Based on your answers to 1 and 2, it seems you reached the same conclusion I did, which is to just not bring it up.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:54 AM
3

Well at least you have some. LOL. Just saw your message, mate. Don't worry, I gotchu. I'm not used to providing citations for things no sane person outside tumblr would question. I remain personally doubtful about that LOL2 You already saw the primary link I give special bus people that for some reason are unaware of one of the most basic biological differences in the sexes. But here's some more to heap on you. NSSH masturbation statistics. - Surprise surprise, men masturbate a shit ton more tha…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:15 AM
1

brb, lmao
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:01 AM
1

Are you laughably trying to imply that passing a psychiatric evaluation as Emotionally Stable, or failing it as Emotionally Unstable, is not a predictive factor in your suicide rate? Because I'm about to laugh my ass right off.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:49 AM
3

What percentage of women immediately lose sexual/romantic interest in you when they find out you're not straight? How long does your average interaction with a female romantic interest go on, before they find out you're not straight? Honest questions from another bi guy, because the answers for me have always been Immediately and, after the former answer became apparently enough, Generally Forever.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:47 AM
1

1.) Did you just fail to read the reasons that comparison does not work, in the post immediately prior? People who have undergone SRS have already been passed through a filter that requires: Emotional stability A year+ of living with their gendered state 10,000 cash(re: class filter) Doctors that perform SRS surgery almost universally require those things, or they will not operate on you. They do this because, in the early/formative years of SRS surgery, patients that received it committed suici…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:34 AM
1

1.) So yes. You admit that having a high sex drive is currently viewed as male. Studies prove testosterone is linked to sex drive. Studies prove biological males have a sex drive ~twice as high as women, on average. Now you know that gender is often dictated by normal biology. 2.) Here, you complete evade the question. The question was "is the capacity for physical labor a factor in your gender role?". You gave your opinion on various physical activities, which has nothing to do with capacity fo…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 10:45 PM
6

No, it doesn't. On an aggregate scale, men have higher sex drive. This affects supply and demand. The higher (sexual) demand of men gives women more bargaining power in all sexually-linked interactions.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 07:32 PM
0

The way you entirely ignored the ways your argument falls apart is adorable.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:53 PM
0

The linked OP article is about people so have undergone sex surgeries, and how they are 20x more likely to commit suicide. Therefore, your attempt to claim Group B has a higher suicide rate, is comparing that group to people that have had surgery, and met the standard surgery requirements cited above. Transitioning is used as a synonym for SRS by many, many people; that is on no way relateable to Transvestites vs. Transgender, something that has never shared common terminology. You're an idiot. …
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:49 PM
0

So, you're just astoundingly ignorant. http://www.thetransgendercenter.com/index.php/prerequisites.html Virtually every SRS specialist/center in the US has similar or identical guidelines. They will not operate on you if you're emotionally unstable and don't meet a long list of guidelines. Because unchecked transition surgery had catastrophic suicide results, and that would open them up to legal and ethical liability. So yes, when you compare all transgender identifying people who have not had S…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:21 PM
2

1.) You obviously don't know what citation needed means. 2.) Emotionally unstable people are already prohibited from transitioning. People who have wanted to transition for less than a year are already prohibited for transitioning. Any source you provided that differentiates by whether or not someone has transitioned, is also differentiating by those variables.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:55 PM
2

Suicide rates of people who don't transition is much higher than just 20x the average. 1.) [citation needed] 2.) You do realize that who is allowed to transition is currently strictly controlled, right? Because transitions rresulted in such a huge rash of immediate suicides? 20x the average is actually close to divorced middle aged men right after divorce, [citation needed] While we're describing ridiculously specific scenarios, though, I hear 20x-the-average is totally close to people who were …
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:39 PM
2

Question for you: 1.) Is your sex drive a factor in your gender role? 2.) Is your capacity for physical labor a factor in your gender role? Pro tip: biology affects gender. Gender is not 100% psychological.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:12 PM
1

1.) Causation is not required. If being X is correlated with terrible thing Y, then being X is undesirable, unless YOU can prove causation is linked to something not affected by Being X. 2.) Suicide rates are higher in this category due to marginalisation, feelings of seclusion and discrimination like this article. [citation needed] People with body dysphoria, who are convinced they would be happy if they cut their leg off, are still unhappy if and when they manage to cut their leg off. Your "so…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:06 PM
2

Well, there's the obvious red flag, of telling you ten minutes into knowing you that she was raped before. Obviously, rape happens and is terrible. But people prone to false rape accusations treat rape as a commodity, and want you to know about it ASAP. People with actual trauma in their life tend to treat it as private information, and don't want to verbally relive it with relative strangers.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:31 AM
77

Studies show national charity spending/donations are a relatively stable percent of income. So yes, it is. Because charities compete for the same pool of money.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 11:18 AM
11

Have you ever hired a maid/cleaner? They accomplish in 2 hours what it takes an average person "cleaning around the house" a week to do. The difference between paid labor and "unpaid labor" is that paid labor is accountable to market competition. Labor done for money must be laborious enough to compete with other people willing to do that labor for less money. Unpaid labor is not. I can take six hours to fold my laundry while watching movies, and it would be "six hours of unpaid labor". Because …
/r/MensRights19/03/16 04:33 PM
3

While the selective service point is good, I definitely prefer the insurance point of view. The defense against the selective service point is just "well yes, selective service is bad. Nobody should be compelled to serve. The expectation that men are fighters is patriarchy blahblahblah". Meanwhile, feminism is what created the insurance market double standard. Feminist organizations like N.O.W. heavily lobbied for Health Insurance Regulation in the ACA, and at similar points. Likewise, they have…
/r/MensRights18/03/16 10:39 PM
11

The fact that every time I have to pay my car and life insurance, I have to pay more because I'm a man? And the fact that every time I pay my health insurance, I pay the same as a woman because charging women more for health insurance was unacceptable? So, to answer your question: "Money being taken from me to fund women."
/r/MensRights18/03/16 09:54 PM
2

"You must be confused. 'Spay' is what we do to female animals. I think you've got a point though, sign yourself up. Be the change you want to see in the world."
/r/MensRights17/03/16 11:32 AM
10

Can we stop the ridiculous, daily Banned From /r/Feminism posts? They ban people that disagree with or speak against feminism or feminist concepts. We know this. They're ridiculous. We know this. Next.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 01:26 AM
8

Beiber literally has to run from hordes of women. Or segway away from them, per some videos. Even professional athletes aren't in the same market as male music supercelebrities. Beiber could make people finance their own drug, disease and psych tests before he banged them and his dick would never be dry. That doesn't really apply to how a standard attractive / sexually successful guy should conduct themselves, but a motto of being safe legally and physically is wise, of course.
/r/TheRedPill15/03/16 02:38 AM
3

The Massachusetts law against Groping, which is likely what an intentionally non-consensual kiss would fall in to, is called Indecent Assault and Battery, which is markedly below Sexual Assault crimes. So, there is a law against it. That law just isn't sexual assault, because kissing someone's face isn't sex.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:34 PM
2

No. What you need is "I would have accepted you as a tenant, but now I won't, because of your mental health issues", or something tantamount to that. They're not obligated to accept people with said issues -- they're just prohibited from denying people specifically for those issues. However, if you were to send someone one of those emails, and they responded with something like "well then I definitely don't want you as a tenant", you might want to talk to a lawyer. But that's pretty shaky.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:27 PM
1

IANAL, but if you had evidence that they discriminated against you because of that then yes.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 06:19 PM
6

Also, their repeated lobbying against equal parenting laws. Also, their lobbying against gendered health insurance premiums, compared to their absolute silence regarding gendered auto and life insurance premiums. Loud when women are 'being treated unfairly', silent when men are being treated unfairly. Largest feminist organization. Argument sunk.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 06:09 PM
10

Well, the answer to that is "Feminism =/= Women, there are male feminists". So, your victory there is kind of hollow. For a better angle of attack against "Feminism helps men too", study up on N.O.W., the largest feminist organization in the US, and their long and storied history of being pro women to the point of being anti-equality-laws. N.O.W. is the "feminism is equality / feminism helps men" torpedo.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 04:03 PM
1

Your logical position there, correct or not, gets its ass handed to it by motte and bailey debate tactics, which feminism is very proficient at. So, no, that's not a good idea.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 03:54 PM
30

Calling an unwanted kiss 'sexual assault' is the same kind of nonsense that gets us 1 In 5 Women Are Sexually Assaulted studies. Is that really the route you want to go down? And are you really telling people to link a URL with Troll in it, to prove any kind of point? Get outta here with that.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 02:27 PM
3

No, they're not. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disa…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 01:47 PM
3

The law you're referencing, which does not prohibit discrimination in favor of women. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 01:46 PM
2

Canadian Legal Text: (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are …
/r/MensRights14/03/16 01:45 PM
2

US Law allows tenancy discrimination if you share living spaces, so long as it's a 'preference' and not a requirement. Canada law only cares about discrimination against "disadvantaged" classes. Canada is fucked.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 01:39 PM
6

these damage control videos will never end as long as feminists keep hiding behind the dictionary definition of feminism Feminists aren't hiding behind the dictionary definition of feminism. The dictionary definition of feminism requires you to be an activist/advocate to call yourself a feminist, and it requires that your activism/advocacy be under the belief or intention of equality for women. The dictionary definition of feminism is one hundred percent incapable of addressing issues where men …
/r/MensRights14/03/16 12:40 PM
3

Can we stop the ridiculous, daily Banned From /r/Feminism posts? They ban people that disagree with or speak against feminism or feminist concepts. We know this. They're ridiculous. We know this. Next.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 12:25 PM
4

So you know nothing about BLM founders, and their organization/website? Are you unaware of the fact that police brutality is a gender issue, much more than it is a race issue? That unarmed men are 19x more likely to be killed by police than unarmed women, compared to the 5x more likely of black vs. white? Are you unaware of the fact that BLM was founded by privileged black women with nothing to do? That their website calls their history page a herstory page? That their guiding principles list "B…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 12:18 PM
1

Yep. They just check to make sure you're not bringing PR produce back to the US, for agricultural reasons. PR is basically the 51st state. Guam is also US territory.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:42 AM
1

I don't see how "I don't want a child" implies they can't want one later or with someone else. You could replace it with "I don't want this child", if you really felt the need. Problem fixed, no rambling explanation, no insinuation that children are an inevitable/mature decision.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:40 AM
1

There's no credit check to have a child. If you're choosing not to have a child because of money, you don't currently want to have a child. If you do currently want to have that child, stick it in and shake it around. All set. Nobody is erased/patronized by the phrase "don't want to have a child". The ubiquitous "not ready to have a child / not ready for commitment", however, when used to talk about people you don't know and don't speak for, definitely does give the impression that people who ch…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:37 AM
1

There's no credit check to have a child. If you're choosing not to have a child because of money, you don't currently want to have a child. If you do currently want to have that child, stick it in and shake it around. All set. Nobody is erased/patronized by the phrase "don't want to have a child". The ubiquitous "not ready to have a child / not ready for commitment", however, when used to talk about people you don't know and don't speak for, definitely does give the impression that people who ch…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:36 AM
1

All those reasons are covered by the less insinuating "don't want to have a child".
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:22 AM
1

Good poster, except for the phrase "not ready to have a child". Just perpetuates the idea that people who don't want children are somehow immature.
/r/MensRights12/03/16 09:00 PM
1

Even men who don't care one bit about the draught because their own demand is near-zero, don't have people lining up. So, you have no idea how supply and demand works? The female demand for sex is lower than the male demand for sex. One specific man who doesn't want sex that much does not change this. Why would women line up for him, when other men, who have the more demand will pay more for the same supply? Whether that payment is time, attention, "lining up", doesn't matter. Your individual se…
/r/MensRights12/03/16 06:15 PM
1

You ignorantly said that women are treated differently only because they have a womb, because you fail to understand that they're treated differently because that have a biologically different, lower sex drive, and as such, benefit from basic supply and demand due to having lower demand.
/r/MensRights12/03/16 03:58 PM
1

Again, false. Ignoring the proven differences in libido doesn't help anyone.
/r/MensRights12/03/16 03:37 PM
7

Your scenario also ignores the why; worse, it actually insinuates that the women have done something positive to warrant the difference in the dating scene, by comparing their position to people with superior education credentials. The why -- that men simply have a higher sex drive and therefore are obviously more compelled to pursue sexual activity -- is relevant. Without the why, people like the author of this ridiculous article can blurt nonsense like "well yeah, but that's because women are …
/r/MensRights12/03/16 02:17 AM
1

"double minority" How is she a "double minority"? Does she think being a woman makes you a minority? Which part does she not know... that minority means a smaller portion of a group, or that women are the larger of the sex demographic groups? And being "half cherokee" while looking white enough to be wearing sorority clothes in cancun suddenly counts? At best this girl is a half minority. Realistically, she isn't one at all. Don't care how reasonable the rest of her video might be, that's nonsen…
/r/MensRights12/03/16 12:03 AM
3

Women are more selective? What does that even mean. Her entire monologue is based on a complete failure to understand the differences between men and women. If you told this slag that virtually every study ever done on the subject proves male sex drive is twice as high as female sex drive, her head would explode. She pretends that, because women chase people less, it's because they have more refined taste in who they chase. When the reality is, they just don't want it as much as men.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:57 PM
8

PR is US territory, so, this means that he sued the pants off the justice system for false imprisonment, right?
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:43 PM
10

She was subpeonad. She had to.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:39 PM
1

was* a significant issue. Then they made laws to address the issue. Now those laws exist. Now, even though an extremely small amount of people die from vending machines every year, it is not a significant issue. Likewise, 99.7% of breast cancer cases are female. For every 1,000 cases of breast cancer, nine hundred and ninety seven of them are women. If you think male breast cancer is a serious issue, you must think we live in a apocalyptic breast cancer crisis for women right now. Because that's…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 08:11 PM
1

So do people that die via vending machines falling on them. But it's not a significant issue, and talking about it is a waste of time.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 01:02 PM
5

That's a pretty minor coincidence, considering it's also the gay woman capital of the world, and arguably the gender studies / "SJW" capital of the world.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:43 AM
0

You can starky all you want, but how about answering my question. Are you willing to murder someone over this law? I can think of a lot of incredibly stupid questions I wouldn't dignify with an answer. You should try to ask less of them. you think that a judge (a single person) should judge over people when they themselves don't know the laws Where did I say that? Pro tip: if a Judge has to judge somebody, they research the relevant laws and case precedent. You're an idiot.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:55 AM
0

One individual needs to enforce every individual law, now? I didn't know that. I guess now that I know that, your complaint that one individual doesn't know every individual law is relevant. Oh wait, it's not. We're talking about outlawing every little thing now? I thought we were talking about arresting people for every little thing. That's what you were talking about. I guess if you change your complaint after the fact, to downplay how dumb it sounded, you sound a little less dumb. Nope, you s…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:40 AM
0

slippery slope until we slip down the slope of this still unsupported fantasy slippery slope Lolk. no one person* knows all the laws that can make you criminal now Good thing we have more than one law enforcement personnel, and laws you don't need to know. But I guess "I don't know every single law we currently have and neither does the policeman patrolling my neighborhood for common crimes!" is relevant information in your fantasy land.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:21 AM
0

that make everything illegal Everything isn't illegal. Nobody wants laws that makes everything illegal. It's a fantasy Slippery Slope scenario inside your head. That was easy.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:14 AM
-2

99.7% of breast cancer victims are female. Breast cancer is not a significant male issue. Men's Rights complaining about male breast cancer issues, is like feminism complaining that boilermaker equipment(a profession that is 99.8% men) isn't made for smaller hands. Anybody trying to use men to push breast cancer issues, is either ignorant of the fact that it's a 99.7% female issue, or willfully using men and their suffering to advocate for women's health issues. Find a real male issue to talk ab…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 10:44 PM
0

If they say no after you ask, there's nothing you can do about it. Shitheads just get to clog up seats with their backpacks and purses. Yeah. That's the point. With this law, there is now something you can do about it. Who said anything about getting arrested? You're using a poor, unsupported Slippery Slope argument to complain about a law which would result in, at worst, insignificant problems. So lol @ the "next thing you know you'll be arrested for ___!" nonsense. The exact same poor reasonin…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 10:13 PM
0

Well then you have two choices, ask again and escalate it, And if they say no again? You're not allowed to solve the issue on your own. The only solution to people willfully breaking this rule, is assault. The question is simple. What's worse: the negative ramifications of this law, or the negative ramifications of people blatantly doing what the law is designed to prevent, with zero way to stop them?
/r/MensRights10/03/16 10:00 PM
-2

If you feel somebody is taking up two seats, kindly ask them to move their bags (or whatever) so that you may sit. And if they don't? It's amazing that you could consider this a government overreach, while you're sitting on a government mode of transportation.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:56 PM
8

It targets bagspreading too. Nothing wrong with this.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 07:32 PM
1

Do men and women pay the same for life and auto insurance in Switzerland?
/r/MensRights08/03/16 07:46 PM
2

A sad truth.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 02:47 PM
6

That's because they wrote you off as an obnoxious bigot and stopped talking to you about political issues. It's not an issue you can aggressively discuss. The wage gap already has public and media support. If you get aggressive about it, you'll just look crazy. The answer is to simply remind them of the reasons. "I mean, men work more on average and choose more lucrative careers. It's pretty easy for women to fix the wage gap if they want to." is a simple answer that might actually change someon…
/r/MensRights08/03/16 01:17 PM
2

Ah. So you're an idiot that just needs a dictionary. define: obscene (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency. Yes. Many people think a parade of dongs and flappy tits is disgusting. Yes, the accepted standards of morality and decency in the US are to cover your flabby tits up. Yes, Lena's material is "obscene", by fucking definition, and not just to "closet pedo priests", whatever inane bigotry-pit you pulled that …
/r/MensRights07/03/16 01:29 AM
1

Wherever you live, right now, has laws on the books to prevent and control the obscenity of human nudity. Walk outside stark naked right now, and try to go shopping. See how it goes. You'll get over it.
/r/MensRights06/03/16 04:35 PM
5

N.O.W. is the counterpoint to that argument. N.O.W. is the largest feminist organization in the US. You can google citations for that. N.O.W. has lobbied against equal parenting laws in multiple states, with blatantly false complaints against them. This is pro- women, anti-men, anti-equality. Google will easily find citations for this. N.O.W. has lobbied for, successfully, the ACA components that make it illegal to charge women more for health insurance. This is pro-women, anti-men, pro-equality…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:56 PM
2

I wasn't advocating anywhere that it isn't rape, or that it's somehow less-bad than nonconsensual sex. I was pointing out why Red's ideas of legal segregation between sex/pool-cues doesn't work.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 10:21 PM
6

The problem is that "sex" is a legally vague word. You can't use legally vague words. How would you define your idea of rape without using the word 'sex'? "Nonconsensual vaginal or anal intercourse"? Putting a broom up someone's ass is anal intercourse. "A nonconsensual act of vaginal or anal penile penetration"? So, lesbians can't rape eachother? Etc etc. 'Penetration' was the simplest way to define it.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 10:15 PM
3

'Frequently' is an entirely meaningless, subjective word. There is only one way to logically compare it. And that's to other crimes. And guess what? Compared to other crimes, it is not frequent. At all. And it's been in decline since the 70s. It is not rampant. I'm sorry for your experience, but your anecdote does not justify modern hysteria re: sex crime.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 09:19 AM
17

"I got enough friends" Done. If you're absolutely desperate to get laid, "I got enough friends. netflix n chill?" N&C is cliche, which serves your purposes of being direct here. Hopefully, you're not desperate to get laid, and can just tell her to beg for friends from someone else. But if you are, be aware that you'll have to cut her clingy bullshit off with a machete when you're done getting laid. Or, ignore this and go back to being some inconsiderate twat's convenient second choice/etc.
/r/askTRP29/02/16 07:56 AM
10

I... thought Canada had extradition laws for the US? What is this lolnonsense?
/r/MensRights27/02/16 04:39 PM
1

1.) This issue has 0 to do with sex 'trafficking'. Trafficking as a crime in modern, first world countries is low enough to be considered insignificant, compared to virtually any other violent crime. The 'trafficking' talking point is an entirely fake point propped up by people who are against simple prostitution. 2.) As far as men's rights goes, this approach to prostitution isn't that bad. Escorts are overwhelmingly Women, and this local law is designed to reduce police workload by simply fini…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:50 PM
1

Lolk
/r/MensRights22/02/16 11:12 PM
2

Canada is fucked. It's legally acceptable to discriminate against people in "advantaged" classes. Get out while you can.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 11:06 PM
4

"Knew better" than what? Knew better than the identical legal discrimination already in place, working the other way? Nothing you are saying justifies the courts position, from a legal or moral perspective.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 11:05 PM
1

What I said was correct No, it wasn't, for the reasons listed. Your context does not affect her scenario. Your context is not her context. If she had said "friendly reminder, according to the feminist definition of sexism, blah blah blah", she would have been correct. What she said, was not. Many words have many definition and it's not uncommon for context to determine the appropriate definition. If you are unsure which definition applies, that is relevant. If, instead, you are telling people th…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 10:56 PM
2

She's right according to the sociological definition No. She's not. The sociological definition is not the only definition of sexism and racism. When you pretend other definitions -- especially more common and more historically accurate definitions -- don't exist, you are automatically wrong, linguistically.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 08:27 PM
2

Here's a friendly reminder: Inventing a new definition for an existing word in your echo chamber doesn't erase or redefine the existing, more common definition. /problem solved
/r/MensRights22/02/16 08:03 PM
1

"You have not cited a single fact that contradicts anything I've said." "Hey maaan, you just, refuse to 'deal with reality' when facts that don't exist and I haven't cited or even addressed don't support your claim." Lolk.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 12:06 PM
7

Yes. It is. "No insert-race allowed" is discrimination based on race. AKA racism.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 12:49 PM
1

You have not provided a single citation to disprove a single thing I've said. Moreover, what exactly is the alternative here? A footnote. Assuming a perfect translation is always possible with a direct word to word swap is ignorant. and since "singular they" is indeed employed as a gender neutral third person pronoun in the English speaking world , it is quite simply incorrect to assert that the translation is inaccurate or misrepresenting I laid out the exact, simple reasons why substituting Th…
/r/MensRights20/02/16 08:33 AM
1

Don't get me wrong, I hate identity politics and what they're trying to do in Sweden, but what you're asserting is simply incorrect. No. It's not. Even the Washington post and Facebook are using it, so to claim that it hasn't been adapted is flat out wrong. News outlets using the word They does absolutely Zero to disprove anything I just said. After reading the Wikipedia article Wikipedia is quickly becoming one of the main proponents of Sweden-esque social policy, so using Wikipedia as a basis …
/r/MensRights19/02/16 12:04 PM
5

Sad that you're downvoted for saying unpopular but true things.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 01:41 AM
1

I would agree that something is indeed lost in this translation, but I don't think it's fair to say that it misrepresents what is meant by the pronoun "hen". It absolutely, 100% misrepresents it. The swedes invented an entire new word to pursue their non-gendered crusade. The linguistic audacity of that is relevant, and is entirely unrepresented by "they", a word that already exists, and would just come across as a strange choice to use in the context, and not the political-extremist made-up wor…
/r/MensRights19/02/16 01:33 AM
1

Libel, but yes.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 05:38 PM
1

Even in those cases, the college security department is usually a small sample of sworn officers and a bunch of not-cops.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 08:26 PM
2

A false topic title doesn't mean anyone is telling anyone to call the police. It means OP can't read.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 03:41 PM
1

Well, nobody's telling anyone to call the police, so...
/r/MensRights16/02/16 03:23 PM
2

University Public safety department =/= police. Very few university officers are sworn police.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 01:31 PM
3

Categorically wrong. Islam has always been a fundamentalist, comparatively dangerous belief system. The middle east was just less Islamic before the strife that America contributed to.
/r/TheRedPill13/02/16 07:19 PM
7

As a business, the solution seems pretty simple. Provide the information they request -- along with all the relevant information to put it into perspective. Essentially, bury the information in a sea of relevant, exculpatory information.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 07:15 PM
13

Came here to post this. +1, this is the counterpoint to use.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 05:59 PM
3

You are arguing against an argument I didn't make which is why I told you that. No. I'm not. Also, you probably shouldn't make things into quotes that aren't actually quotes. You probably shouldn't take poor logical positions or take personal offense when people point out the biased flaws in your submission.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 04:51 PM
4

Someone disagrees with me... oh no, time to say they need to go educate themselves, and imply my opinion on the matter has more merit!
/r/MensRights13/02/16 04:18 PM
5

Your assumptions of what was part of the issue and what isn't are noted. If the court didn't say it, you still don't get to imply they did.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 03:57 PM
3

Not true. It has less impact than a US case, definitely. But the case decision in a precursor case so similar, in a culture so close and so similar, will undeniably factor into the first US judge's online harassment decision.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 03:23 PM
7

Nah. He's not. He just provided a direct example of how the article is not balanced. Your assumptions of what was part of the issue and what isn't are noted. If the court didn't say it, you still don't get to imply they did.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 03:22 PM
0

What you linked had 2 parts. That's it. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=guy One described the etymology of a nautical term. This is not the word in question. One described the completely distinct, entirely unrelated etymology of the word Guy, a homonym, that is used to mean a person. This is the word in question. The former, the one you chose to pay attention to, is based on gui / guide. The latter, the only one that is relevant, came into use directly due to Guy Fawkes effigies, and ca…
/r/MensRights13/02/16 01:50 AM
1

Some men are better at reading minds than others. Many women do these things that you don't like, to weed you out and find the ones that perform better at these tasks than you do. It's pretty basic mate selection behavior. If you had an overwhelming advantage in the romantic supply/demand market, you would do it too.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 01:33 AM
3

Yeah, the expectation that men do all the work and expend all the effort in the dating and romantic process is totally terrible for women. Just awful. You are a mirror of "the patriarchy is bad for men too!" people. Stop it. Gender imbalance is not bad for both people. That dismisses it as a problem dealing with quality of life for everyone(which it isn't), instead of a problem dealing with equality of gender, with one being favored at the expense of the other(which it is).
/r/MensRights13/02/16 01:31 AM
-3

Grammatical gende LolWHAT. English is not a grammatical-gender language. The only words in English which have a Grammatical gender, are words that directly relate to a sexed object, such as pronouns and proper nouns. Guy as a proper noun, a name, has a grammatical gender - it's Male, as it's virtually exclusively a male name. "Guy", in English, as an improper noun, does not have a grammatical gender. You attempted to claim it had gender-neutral etymological roots; this is an entirely separate is…
/r/MensRights13/02/16 01:21 AM
-4

This seems to be difficult for you. Here's Oxford Dictionary telling you you're blatantly wrong, just like I did. The etymological history of Guy's 'A Man/Person' definition originated by association with Guy Fawkes,a male. But if you need a step by step rebuke of your poor points, here we go. For one, your google search yields claims that Guy Fawkes created the word guy despite it preceding him. It preceded him as a name, and as an entirely unrelated nautical item. His existence was the basis o…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:31 PM
-2

Blatantly wrong https://www.google.com/search?q=origin+of+guy
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:02 PM
-1

Yes. It did. As Guido, a male Italian name. At no point in Guy's history was it gender neutral etymologically.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 09:38 PM
-3

Simplified edit: False. Your link is blatantly clear. It lists two words, which are homonyms. One is a nautical term, which originated from Guide. This is not the "guy" in question. The other means A Person, and similar things. It shares zero historical ancestors with the nautical word Guy, and originated, in order, from Guy Fawkes, to the name Guy, to the names Guido/Wido. All of which are male. This is the word in question. Guy, as a word that is used to mean People, unquestionably and distinc…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 08:43 PM
6

Tape over the bottom two lines with a huge POSSIBLE VICTIMS. Done.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 05:56 PM
1

but it won't be "simple" The part where they don't charge you in the first place because they know it would be a waste of time and tax money is pretty simple.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:52 AM
3

The "there are no perfect victims" is a false generalization. They specifically use the word "perfect" because the connotation is binary; either perfect or not perfect, nothing in the middle. This is an attempt to generalize all victims, and claim that the victims in this trial -- relative pieces of shit -- are the same as all other victims, and that criticizing one is criticizing all of them. The answer is simple. "Some alleged victims are more 'perfect' than others. And on the sliding scale fr…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:34 AM
1

Because of the fact that they're unconstitutional, they are irrelevant and unenforceable. If you were charged with a crime under said laws, you could simply appeal it all the way up to the supreme court and have it and the law overruled.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:25 AM
2

The thought going through her head as she wrote this makes it a shitty marriage, whether she posted it or not.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 05:28 PM
1

Jackie is not accused of a crime. She filed no police report. Lying is not a criminal matter. Next justification.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 04:15 PM
2

Fishermen watch fish. They don't ask the fish questions, but they do observe it's behavior and use that information. When it comes to determining the value of sex, women are definitely the enemy. Women don't have to be honest, to make observations regarding them. Such as observations of common female reading material* that they find interesting or important. You're a dope. Who gives a fuck what other people think of what you read.
/r/TheRedPill10/02/16 11:08 PM
5

If he's mean to me, he must be out of my league, so I should try harder.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:57 PM
1

. It's actually after the violence and/or risk taking is when a male sees an increase in testosterone. Average Male testosterone is higher than average female testosterone 100% of the time. By an order of ~x10-x20. Testosterone is needed for violence as much as oxygen is needed to commit the crime of theft. Nobody said it was needed. I said it influences it. Crime is a risk-taking behavior. Reward vs. Risk Of Being Caught. Testosterone is proven to affect risk taking behavior. By like, 3479525 s…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:23 PM
3

What are you on about? Everyone knows nice guys don't get laid and bad boys do. For the same reason nice monkeys don't get laid and badass monkeys do. Sexual attraction is instinctual, and biological, not logical and rational. If it wasn't, gay people could just decide to be straight, and live content, fulfilling, heterosexual lives. But they can't, because again, sexual attraction is hormonal, biological and instinctual. Even girls attraction to boys. This shouldn't be new info.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 08:53 PM
1

She said no repeatedly, then froze when he forced her. You're making blatant assumptions with what she said. Her article does not mention what, or who, she said no to. It's incorrect to assume she said no to him, about having sex, when she stated no such thing. In other words, he advised that raping multiple unconsenting women is a normal side effect of Red Pill - style sex. This is the same attitude that got the woman in the story raped. Permanent consequences for her, but he got an orgasm. Cit…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 08:44 PM
1

A historical statement that you want X to happen at ___ time, is evidence of consent at that time. To change that reasonable assumption of consent, you would have to provide new, current evidence of non-consent. You would need to say no, or that you'd changed your mind and don't want to anymore, etc. As for talking about how 'most people have sex', not sure what you're supposed to mean with that. What most people do is irrelevant - the legal text doesn't care how most people have sex, only if co…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:21 PM
7

To be fair, they made good points mixed in with their shitty ones. Yes, testosterone affects violence and risk-taking, so yes, men on average do more of that. The complete disconnect there, is that they think sexism/racism/etc is acceptable if there's a statistically sound reason to discriminate. It's not, because not everyone follows a statistical average. If I'm running a business, and I would suffer greatly if people took long periods of time off or quit, I don't get to say "no women" because…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 05:42 PM
2

No, your point was that consent today has nothing to do with consent tomorrow. That consent was "instantaneous". Your point entirely skipped the fact that consent today, is relevant to allegations of consent or non-consent tomorrow, and to the perceptions of the sexual partners involved, which are what determines if a rape occurred. If you tell someone you want them to fuck your brains out next time you see them, and then the next time you see them they start fucking your brains out even though …
/r/MensRights10/02/16 05:17 PM
7

You can't vote out a 70% tyranny-of-the-majority.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 02:45 PM
5

It does make it more likely that you(re: they) did not say no in the moments that followed. You are assuming they changed their mind. An assumption with no evidence. Telling everyone you're about to go fuck ___ is evidence that they probably did not change their mind. The reason it's unlikely you'll prove rape in that scenario, is because it's less likely you were raped.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 02:38 PM
2

LOL @ this article pretending there's a college-centric rape problem over and over. Just LOL. Rape is more prevalent off campus. College alarmists with no hobbies crack me up.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 02:24 PM
3

You are aware that male sex drive is much higher than women's, and that for many women the former is comparatively true? The latter is generally lazy tramps. They're ubiquitous.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 01:34 PM
0

Consent doesn't have to be literally "yes", but it does have to be a very clear meaning of yes. For BOTH genders. That is not how the law works, in the slightest. It's just your personal opinion. Can you imagine having sex with someone who can't even move? This is the majority of tramps.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 01:32 PM
13

Rape legally requires the rapist, or a reasonable person, to be aware of the lack of consent. Throwing a consent to getting plowed parade right before the event will make it very unlikely, and very difficult to prove, that he supposedly knew you didn't want to have sex.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 01:29 PM
0

When I think activism to stop child kidnapping is a worthwhile endeavor, you will have a point. But not until then.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 01:41 PM
2

When you're using it to tell people women have responsibility or fault, no it's not.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 09:42 PM
3

Yes. People pushing 'male breast cancer' are not trying to help men. They're trying to help women, by falsely appealing to what little male-sympathy charity exists in people.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:47 PM
2

Because it is a gendered topic. 99.3% of breast cancer victims are women. Money and effort towards breast cancer is money and effort towards virtually, exclusively, women. If you give a dollar to breast cancer, men get less than a cent of it. This is a Men's Rights forum.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:33 PM
1

Okay, is there a credible online market for V? I've always been interested in taking good to great, but never enough to actually make the appointment
/r/TheRedPill08/02/16 08:14 PM
1

Lol downvotes. 00.7% of breast cancer cases are male. 350 men a year in UK, compared to 50,000 women. Find a cause that isn't laughably shitty. There are lots to choose from.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:03 PM
2

Is there any actual, credible online marketplace for these, or do I just have to book a doc appointment
/r/TheRedPill08/02/16 07:59 PM
34

Quoting the wage gap like it's a social injustice is such a handy way to recognize blatantly ignorant articles.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 06:45 PM
-10

The % of men affected by breast cancer is insignificant. Men have issues. Breast Cancer is not one of them.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 06:41 PM
7

FYI, the legal definition of rape requires you, or a reasonable person, to be aware of the lack of consent. Not saying no based on some unspoken fear does not constitute rape, legally. Still a fucked up read.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:03 PM
2

Google "define: feminism". It's fed from Oxford Dictionary. Advocacy for women, on the grounds of equality. There is only one way to interpret that. If you are not advocating for women, you are not a feminist, regardless of why you're doing whatever not-advocating-for-women thing that you're doing. If you disagree with that interpretation of the most widely accepted definition of feminism, it's not a matter of a difference of opinion, it's an ignorance of the language.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 03:57 PM
2

Yes. The line in the Oxford Dictionary about what Feminism means doesn't mean a lot all by itself. But what it represents, is the opinion of the Oxford Dictionary on how feminism is currently used as a word. They say, and I agree, that the majority of people using the word Feminism, use it to mean advocacy for women. And THAT means something. The evidence supports this. NOW, the largest feminist organization in the US, routine lobbies against state equal parenting laws, because that would disrup…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 01:38 PM
12

If this was true, it would be very easy to only allow in children and their parents. Like they're currently doing in regards to men. But that is not the policy there, and it is not the justification for the policy there. The justification is that women -- all women -- are more vulnerable than men -- all men. It just happens to be ignorant and sexist.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:53 AM
4

Per #2, it has specifically been stated that it's due to vulnerability. So, it is a vulnerability thing. It's just a false vulnerability thing. The reason he used a false vulnerability claim instead of an honest risk to society claim, is because we as a society are very comfortable with calling people that assume all of ___ are a threat because Some or More of ___ are a threat the bigoted shithead that they are. The same hurdles existed in the Black Civil Rights era, and even though black people…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:51 AM
6

This is what happens when you google "feminism definition" https://www.google.com/#q=feminism%20definition the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Which means you literally ignored the gigantic, Oxford-dictionary-fed definition that Google shoves in your face, to find the definition that you wanted which supports your narrative. The majority of definitions, which are generally determined by usage, define Feminism in this manner. Webster a…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:45 AM
22

No, she went AWOL 30 days ago. As of yesterday, she is officially a Deserter.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 06:35 PM
4

I will care about an unexplained 4% making money difference as soon as he cares about an unexplained 300% spending money difference. I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend money than make it. The very concept of a 'pay gap' being relevant is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:22 PM
1

So, you're completely delusional. Kay.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:35 PM
2

Pretty sure that's 100% illegal by US federal law. Do some research, and contact a lawyer in your area who will take the case for free. If I'm correct, many will, as it's a slam dunk and they'll be able to get paid legal fees out of the claim. Second, don't know what you're on about, regarding insurance arguments. Do you know anything about the US insurance market? It's legal to discriminate against men, and illegal to discriminate against women. Car and Life insurance are not gender-regulated, …
/r/MensRights03/02/16 02:03 AM
5

Which statistic is more easily tracked? Actual suicides. Which statistic is impossible to track accurately, and invariably involves many events going unreported, many victims being counted several times, and many non-authentic-events being counted as authentic? Attempted suicides. So the answer is easy? "Who cares about shaky attempted suicide statistics? We're talking about people who have decided to die instead of live in our world anymore. And the statistics on actual suicides are concrete."
/r/MensRights02/02/16 08:15 PM
1

K
/r/MensRights30/01/16 11:06 PM
2

What kind of documentation?
/r/MensRights30/01/16 09:07 PM
0

1.) She doesn't have to force an incapacitated person to have sex with her to meet the legal definition of rape. She just has to have sex with them. And she did. 2.) She literally stated that he was repeatedly falling asleep and couldn't stand up. That is textbook, precedent-set Incapacitated. 3.) If you can't stop yourself from having sex with incapacitated people, that's your problem. It's pretty easy.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 09:07 PM
0

He initiated As soon as he was unconscious and she kept her pussy in his face, no. She became the initiator. She didn't do shit. Except have sex with an incapacitated person, who she knew was incapacitated, while not compelled by force or duress. you can go fuck your "I read about feminism once" expansion of the definition of rape. It's the literal federal definitions of the crime, upheld by case precedent; it has nothing to do with feminism's definition of rape, which usually misleadingly subst…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 08:23 PM
7

Her testimony is the only proof required for many courts to grant a protective(re: aggressive) order. Your gf needs better crocodile tears skills. Or your area is uncommonly fortunate in the sanity of it's judges.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:56 PM
1

WTF does feminism have to do with atheism? Why does Dawkins care about some tards that want to pitch a feminism/atheism mutant baby? I thought this was some actually reputable conference. Is it just /r/NicheBullshit circlejerk that he was invited to or something? I had to google it. Atheism Plus atheismplus.com/ Atheism Plus. Atheism+ is a safe space for people to Safe space lolwow. I'd be 100% done with any community/website that defines itself first and foremost as a safe space.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 03:50 AM
1

Going for or not, that is not the law, and you will not be criminally convicted for it.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 09:11 PM
1

but if you have a decent life, you don't have time to game and FUCK 4+ girls at the same time. This is 100% dependent on how frequently you're fucking them. I've found 4 to be about the soft limit before the ones closest to your SMV start dropping out. Women can only be counted as a "plate" if you've actually having sex with them on a recurring basis Oral sex is sex. That's why it's called oral sex. , but there is a waaay better method to get your dick wet. I'll take an enthusiastic blowjob over…
/r/TheRedPill29/01/16 06:55 PM
1

Wtf is atheism+
/r/MensRights29/01/16 05:36 PM
2

Hi. You must not know what the laws surrounding rape are. They're pretty simple. Here: If they don't consent, and you know or any reasonable person should know they don't consent, it's rape. If they are incapacitated, they are unable to consent, and therefore the initiator is guilty of rape. Incapacitation is a strong requirement. It requires a distinct lack of physical control and awareness of your surroundings and actions. Typically, "if they're unconscious or barely conscious, they're incapac…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 04:56 PM
1

Having a "typical brain" doesn't mean they're not trans. Literally nobody said this either. Even remotely. At all.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:45 PM
1

I guess you don't understand than male brain structures can be averaged, over a vast multitude of samples, and result in a 'typical, average male brain'? I guess you don't understand my statement, which states transgender brains are much closer to the typical, average brain anatomy of their birth sex, than that of the other sex? Well, now you know. Boys who prefer dolls exist, still stay being boys even if they like something forbidden. Literally nobody said anything about this. Even remotely. A…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:39 PM
2

{male brain, female brain}x{male body, female body}, which makes four option now. Just a reminder, this is not how transgenderism works. Studies prove, quite extensively, that before hormone treatment, transgendered brains have much, much more in common with their birth sex than the opposite sex.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 01:52 PM
2

Here is the thing where i look at this and think..... nope, don't give a shit, not a big deal at all. It becomes a big deal when people complain about how advertising treats women and demand change because of it. Yes, IMO, a good portion of Men's Rights is pointing at ridiculous things that feminists do to cause problems/drama, and explaining why they shouldn't do them, how they're wrong. If you believe nobody should care about sexist advertising, that's fine -- but the 'big deal' simply means t…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:53 AM
1

The world of 'police won't fuck with you if they know they risk forfeiting their life doing so'. So, you're completely delusional. Kay. Bring a gun on your next commission of a crime. Apparently that will make police less likely to 'fuck with you.' Its the major logic behind Amendment II. The major logic behind the second amendment was overthrowing an entire government in the face of tyranny, not a solitary arm of the government that you don't like. And the logic fails to function as soon as tha…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 08:31 PM
2

That's not what the dictionary is for. The dictionary is not for your ideal of a gender-equal utopia. The dictionary is for cataloging and listing modern day usages of language, describing those usages as accurately as possible, and providing those words or phrases in contexts that will aid people in recognizing and understanding their use - i.e., common, realistic contexts. Most nurses are female. She nursed her patients back to health is therefore the correct, most common, most realistic conte…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 05:07 PM
1

Unarmed men are killed by police 4x more disproportionately compared to women and population demographics, than unarmed black people are killed by police compared to unarmed white people and population demographics. Pretending that race is the most important police issue is ignorant. Not that you, a blatant troll account, care.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:56 PM
1

Oh, so its perfectly ok to let police kill you then? LOL. What fantasy world do you live in where complying with police less often results in police killing you less often?
/r/MensRights27/01/16 12:47 PM
6

This guy should have come out and plastered his own name over the news already. His case is ridiculous. How has it not been struck down on basic innocent until proven guilty premises?
/r/MensRights27/01/16 04:05 AM
3

Wow. That site is an unabashedly anti-male piece of shit. Get that out of here. Entirely apart from the 'decent definition' on that specific page. It's a 7-point bullet list that might as well say "They do not proactively agree with what you are saying" seven times in a row. Disagreeing to the point where you stop communicating is not "emotional abuse". 'The hand' girl is a sexist future nightmare to work with, but I hope to god you forgot your /s.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 04:01 AM
1

Oh, fun. 1 How does it feel to be the same sex as Donald Trump How does it feel to judge an awful person based on their sex? 2 Why do you hate romcoms? I only hate bad romcoms. Which is most of them, but not all of them. 3 Why do you make women sit around and talk about men in movies, when you'll easily sit around and talk about boobs for hours? I don't make women do anything in movies. And I wouldn't talk about boobs for hours. Talking about sex is boring. 4 Why do you automatically assume that…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 03:11 AM
9

I guess I dont see anything wrong with this article. Okay. Not figuratively, for the many women subject to a regular dose of rape and death threats — but not literally, either. Falsely implies women receive more death threats than men. Men receive more online harassment in total, more violent online harassment, and more death threats. Sexual online harassment and stalking are the only categories where women victims outnumber men. It’s not the digital equivalent of the public park, or public sphe…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:39 PM
0

There is a huge gap. It does not apply to MMOs, which is a favorite of female gamer demographics.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 10:44 PM
6

Sample sizes of 20 people, at a single university, which has an overwhelming female majority to begin with. This is not news. 'Princeton admissions fails male applicants' is news. Old news by now, but news.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 10:41 PM
10

Literally rabid feminists complaining about rabid being used to describe feminists. And enough of them whine that they change it. Wow.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 07:57 PM
1

Yes. With you, it's obvious that is going to be a hard lesson. Enjoy your aggressive police response to your aggression, in the meantime.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 05:31 PM
1

Proportionately speaking, men are being killed at a much more disproportionate rate than black people. It's not even close. Even by the most exaggerated estimates, a black person is 5x more likely to be killed by police than a white person. A male, even unarmed, is 19x more likely to be killed by police than a female. Simple counterpoint to BLM: 'Your statistics suck. 'Men' as a demographic are four times as vulnerable to police killings as 'black people'. If you're arguing for black people on t…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 05:29 PM
1

So do non-muslims. That doesn't make it a socially acceptable or common trend in the US. Saying "while gay men are gross" as if it's the opinion of the majority is wrong.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 02:08 AM
3

Eg, you can see this on dating sites. Bisexual men will have less women interested in them than if they just claim to be straight I didn't say bi, I said gay. A lot of bisexual stigmas still exist, yes. Yes, in my experience, women lose sexual interest to bi or gay men, extremely so. I'm bi myself. None of the female people I date/see are told this unless they ask, because of that fact. It tends to work a lot better than the logical reasonings as to why they shouldn't have an issue with it -- of…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:26 PM
2

and got a very hostile response. No you didn't. The general reception on that submission is positive. Your comment you posted on that submission did. It was a bad comment. The majority of OKCupid profiles do not go on about the patriarchy, and you're asking what they would say if you listed yourself as a menimist, as if you don't know they'd laugh at you or as if you think /r/OKCupid should care.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:18 PM
2

while gay men are "gross". I wouldn't say that's true. It's very socially unacceptable to criticize gay men in general. The rest of your points basically boils down to "men have a biologically higher sex drive, on average". Which, is proven by numerous, numerous studies, and results in social differences that no amount of protest / whatever will be able to change. You're not going to Men's Rights your way into more women signing up for casual hookups, etc.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:11 PM
1

Fantastic debate. Should definitely watch it, IMO, to get a sense of some political views in those countries. Small note, in part of the first half, they discuss using "they" as a nongendered pronoun in sweden; at least, that's what the subtitles say. What they're actually referring to is a new, made-up word, "hen", to replace "han/hon"(he/she). So, the subtitles use of 'they' is convenient, but, misrepresents and understates what exactly they're doing in Sweden.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 03:40 PM
3

Oh, fair enough.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 03:39 PM
3

It's not even top three on the HDI. wh... what. It's 4th. According to this judgement you pulled out of the air, that makes Denmark a better place to live than: United States UK Canada Japan Germany Etc etc
/r/MensRights24/01/16 03:23 PM
1

When you're specifically calling out a political group, you should expect that political group to defend themselves. That is not the same as feminists trying to find problems for women(re: not their expressly political group) in every day life or comedy. And that's IF this is comedy. It's not, it's propaganda.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 02:03 PM
3

SRS is not pretending. The fact that MtFs outnumber FtMs 2-3:1 tells a different story.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/16 08:16 PM
3

In the US you can. Not sure about canada.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:08 PM
2

Effortlessly making an amazing/well-cooked dish is an easy Display Of Value for a guy, as long as you're not coming off as invested/attached/etc. I bring my leftovers in to work some times, for my lunch. Always gets hungry stares for a variety of reasons. Plus, you're going to be making food for yourself the rest of your life, at least here and there. Life is better if you don't suck at it.
/r/TheRedPill19/01/16 09:43 PM
1

Testing is meant as a cure, not a preventative measure It's both. If condoms were a foolproof and practiced solution, STIs wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 04:49 PM
1

You don't need to count on him to tell anyone. You just need to diagnose him and treat him before he passes it on.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 03:32 PM
2

Fetlife, and 'BDSM-culture' in general, is a slag and psycho shitshow.
/r/TheRedPill14/01/16 03:28 PM
1

? No. It doesn't. Men may be less likely to be infected, but they will pass it to far more people if they are. The transmission exposures are equal for both genders, and treating either gender will create an identical reduction in exposure to the other and therefore an identical reduction in the spread of said STI.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:34 PM
0

Lolk.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 04:28 PM
1

One man brings in STD and it infects the single women in your argument. Four other men gets infected though her. Her power to infect is at least 4 times than man. Hence ACA test women more and my comment above. 1.) This is your fictitious scenario. You invented this scenario to try and prove women have more sex than men. Even in your fictitious scenario, you failed to prove that. 2.) Your fictitious scenario is not accurate to real life. Genetics prove that the # of women reproducing has always …
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:22 PM
0

Yes, they do. That is also why, in part, society slut shamed /shames and are generally against prostitutes and 'loose women'. It was /is a hazard to society. LOL? Society shaming female sexual desire would not be proof that women have more sex than men. Sorry. And that's if it were true. Currently, it's not. Currently, it's much more acceptable for women to express sexual desire -- which is usually seen as empowered, modern, exciting/'you-go-girl' -- than it is for men, who generally come off as…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 01:17 PM
1

All women have sex. With which men? Only 2 men have sex. With which women? Again, to assign actual data to this scenario, men are 1-10. Women are A-J. Women A, B, C, D, and E have sexual relationships with man 1. Women F, G, H, I, J have sexual relationships with man 2. No other relationships. This meets your 2 men, 10 women criteria. Sexual relationships: Men: Male 1 - 5 Male 2 - 5 Male 3 - 0 Male 4 - 0 Male 5 - 0 Male 6 - 0 Male 7 - 0 Male 8 - 0 Male 9 - 0 Male 10 - 0 Total male sexual partner…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:40 AM
0

"Justify" doesn't mean "oh hey this is the common form I'll use this like a moron" it means that you say WHY it applies. "Justify why you are using that definition of average PLUS YOU'RE DUMB" Because it's the most common definition. By a lot. And fits the context. A context which could imply an average or total discrepancy, neither of which exist. Y U SO STUPID THAT'S NOT WHAT JUSTIFY MEANS. PLUS YOU'RE DUMB Lolk. How butthurt are you right now, on a scale of 1-10? 28?
/r/MensRights13/01/16 02:15 AM
1

Where did I say anything about Sex Acts, and not Partners, in that question? JUST regarding "partners", it's logically impossible for women to have more total or average sexual partners than men, as a gender. Exactly like sex acts, the distribution is different -- women's numbers will be more consistent(dependent primarily on their sex drive, but a demand easily met by the supply of higher male sex drive), and men's will be very inconsistent(dependent on female selection i.e. attractiveness) -- …
/r/MensRights13/01/16 12:42 AM
1

What I'm saying is if 1 dude has sex 31 times a week and another only 1 time the average would be that they had sex 16 times each, however that isn't a reflection of reality on average amounts of sex. By the most common definition of Average, yes it is. By any kind of "total" tally, the answer would 32, as well. Not "1 + some guy that fucks a lot". If, when you say "woman have more sex than men", you don't mean on average, and you don't mean in total, I have no idea what you mean. But whatever i…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 11:38 PM
1

How is it not impossible? Again, assuming we're talking only about heterosexual contact,(which is in his favor, as studies generally prove that male homosexual and masturbatory sexual events are much more frequent than women's) every sexual partner a woman has would be a sexual partner that a man also has. Not sure I see your workaround. Purely based on the logistics of sex, how can women as a gender have more total or average sexual partners then men as a gender?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 11:06 PM
0

Lolk.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 11:01 PM
1

Username checks out. You trolling me? You just said it did sway it No, I didn't. By anywhere upto 4-6% and id need you to cite that both are at 4-6% a Use Google. I'm not your errand boy, you have not cited that they're unequal, and it's not an esoteric or difficult to find statistic. infact if men make up a slightly higher percent of the population They don't. Women outnumber men. there would be more male gsy people meaning men have sex more.. Only if you're referring to totals, and not average…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:59 PM
-1

Lol @ your middle school insults. Very few words 'always' mean anything. If you're using a word, and it's most common meaning fits your sentence/context, and you don't specify that you mean something else, people will rightfully interpret it with the most common definition. If that makes you look ignorant, you have only your ignorance or writing composition to blame. I said other things that weren't as utterly ridiculous, so that utterly ridiculous thing you quoted, which I said, doesn't matter …
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:45 PM
0

Where are the women that benefit from these screenings spontaneously getting their Chlamydia and Syphilis from? where do you think the men are getting their infection from? your argument is equally applicable (i.e its not a valid argument) You've completely missed the point of his argument. To get the point of the argument, you have to answer his question. Virtually every woman that contracted ____ , contracted it from someone of the opposite sex. Virtually every case of ____ a woman has , is a …
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:40 PM
-2

Words like 'can' aren't relevant here. The only relevant question is 'do they'. More then men? No. Every heterosexual physical relationship a woman is in, is also a heterosexual relationship that a man is in. It's literally a 1:1 ratio. Yes, attractive men with testosterone-fed sex drives hog most of 'the action'; more than attractive women, much more than moderate or unattractive men. That doesn't mean women are somehow slutting it up without men. Studies also show that men desire multiple sex …
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:32 PM
-1

Oxford definition of Average: a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number. (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number. There. Justified. The most common/typical interpretation of average, in that scenario, is false. That was easy. If of 100 men and 100 women the 100 wome…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 09:21 PM
0

if there are more lesbians than gays then realistically speaking its entirely possible they have more sex on average even if only by a small amount... There aren't. It's 4-6% of the population for both. And homosexual men have dramatically higher sexual activity, per many studies/surveys. oh yeah that would be erm any human being capable of having sex based on sexual preferences... 95% of the population identifies as straight. Are you trying to say "women have more sex because... lesbians"? Lol.…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 09:18 PM
1

Do you try and stuff vague generalizations into people's mouth, that they didn't say, all the time? Or is this a special occasion?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 09:13 PM
-2

I understand you think this paper proves, or even implies, that women have more sex than men. It doesn't. It doesn't even state that women have more descendants than men. It states that the # of females reproducing is twice as large as the # of males reproducing. What you don't seem to understand, is that biologically, this undeniably means that men who reproduce, though half as many, have twice as much sex as women who reproduce. You are confusing "more women have sex at least once in their lif…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 09:11 PM
0

rambling sexual strategy nonsense about how attractive men have disproportionately more sex then unattractive men. Uh huh. We know. The distribution of sexual activity within the male demographic does not change the total, or average, sexual activity. So, irrelevant. the averages have nothing to do with actual population but the population that's attractive... What averages? "Women have more sex than women" averages, i.e.,your idiotic statement? No, that 'average' means all men, and all women. Y…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 08:47 PM
1

So, no. You don't understand basic logic. Or the word average. Or both.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:20 PM
-1

Societal views and philosophy are irrelevant here. If you define sex as Woman+Man+Sexual-Activity, The statement "women have more sex than men" is a logical impossibility. The distributions within a gender might be dissimilar, but the gendered totals and averages would be identical - in fact, averages would be very, very slightly tipped in male favor, because women outnumber men.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:10 PM
-1

What does that have to do with average amounts of sex by gender? Nothing.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:04 PM
0

You realize the 80/20 rule states that 20% of men have much, much more sex and sexual partners than the average woman, right? And that, therefore, average male heterosexual activity is the same as average female heterosexual activity, right? Because heterosexual activity by definition requires a man and a woman. How dumb do you have to be to think Hypergamy/"the majority of women sleep with a minority of men" equates to "women have more sex"? It's a logically impossible conclusion, unless you're…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 06:57 PM
3

LOL. Who are they having this sex with? Hint: it's men. I don't know how anyone can be so fundamentally detached from logic and reality that they say something as nonsensical as what you just said.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 04:53 PM
-7

Lol? "Hypergamy" is not a female privilege. It is an attractiveness privilege. As an attractive male, I benefit from Hypergamy quite a bit.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 02:02 PM
4

Your younger friend's teacher's first comment is about a 'pay disparity' which exists only because women work less hours a day, less days a week, less years a lifetime, and less financially-focused(re: well paying) careers. Your teacher's first point is terrible. The rest are not much better. Your teacher sucks, and is a feminist shill. But arguing with him isn't going to accomplish anything. He's in a position of power over you. Pass the class, move on, and improve your life until you don't hav…
/r/TheRedPill12/01/16 03:28 AM
1

LOLk
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:53 PM
1

Oxford's definition of child is moderately ambiguous, yes. It hardly supports your narrative. All of its listed examples refer to after-birth scenarios. Example sentences The ultrasound probe is used mainly for head scanning of newborn babies and young children. Malnourishment prevents a child from reaching full mental and physical development. Is it inevitable when a baby or a young child gets these autoantibodies that they go on to develop diabetes? How many examples, Wiki or otherwise, do you…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:04 PM
0

"Abortions in the third trimester are very rare. Only a few hospitals in Quebec can carry out these abortions, such as Hôpital Sainte-Justine. Other health-care institutions are not equipped to deal with abortions at this stage of a pregnancy." Wonder why?? Because it's pretty fucking difficult to remove a 12 ounce organism from inside someone? nationalpost A national post paragraph, as a dear editor, from a doctor in Toronto(re: not Quebec, and not with Quebec's abortion laws), which amounts to…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:31 AM
0

Hopefully you are not a fellow Canuck, but if you are, we only allow it until 22 weeks. You don't say. https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/abortion-no-legal-time-limits Looks like my calendar is open for the full term. Weird, a whole province of cultured individuals thinks you can shove your opinion on acceptable abortion timelines up your thick ass. Pro tip. Canada has no national abortion restrictions. It's done by province. Because unborn fetuses are not children, and terminating pregnanci…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:15 AM
0

My wife is an OB-GYN. I think her usage of child to refer to viable life in-utero is fairly more relevant to the discussion than whatever your grandmother thinks about the celestial ranks. The angel comment was tongue-in-cheek, of course. The words have definitions, and those definitions generally state that Child = Born, Fetus = Unborn. But, language is descriptive, not prescriptive, and I certainly can't and wouldn't stop your wife from using whatever word she feels like, even if I and my frie…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:09 AM
-1

What's that? You don't have an opinion on 37 week fetuses? And you were so uptight about the 38 week ones, shame. (fun fact, the law doesn't even agree with you. In fact, no one here does either), Last I checked there was no restrictions on the Canadian books regarding abortion, thank you. And I am so overwhelmingly outnumbered in this deleted thread, my goodness. I think one of my posts even got to -1, the horror. you're a morally devoid, sad excuse for a human being Your opinion that my accept…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:56 AM
0

You LITERALLY believe people are not physically developed to be classified as people until the very instance of birth. [citation needed] Maybe if you stopped trying to put words in people's mouths, they would stop correctly pointing out that you're doing so(re: making poor strawman arguments). I haven't brought the physical development of the fetus into this once. The difference between fetus and child is extremely simple, and has nothing to do with physical development. One is before-birth. The…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:19 AM
0

To quote your own words, "even 30 seconds before it's born." This does not even begin to answer the question that was asked: "how do you define 'viable on it's own'?" You don't "answer" specifications. Learn logic and/or grammar. Pedantic semantics. Yawn. My argument was based on grey areas. Perhaps you should read it? I read it. I know it's based on grey area. That's why it sucks. pants-on-head retarded rest of your post. Wow. Good luck with that. You sure used my particular point against me. W…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:05 AM
0

Attempted murder laws regarding fetuses are a serious weakness in the legal footing of abortion laws, yes. The exact same fact/logic makes any and all abortions theoretically murder. Unless you think a person can only be murdered by Bob and not Jane. But we're not talking about the shaky contradictions between abortion-is-legal-because-it's-not-a-child and forced-abortion-is-murder. Or at least, we weren't. But it seems you're grasping at straws to try and support your abortion ideology now.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:00 AM
-1

And no intelligent person calls a 9 month pregnancy a fetus. It's a child. Your ignorance is noted. I'm sorry that you don't have a dictionary. https://www.google.com/#q=define%3A%20fetus an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. It's not difficult.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:25 AM
0

Well, no. My position was clear: a child who is viable on it's own outside the mother is a person. You're straw-manning me by changing the subject to zygotes. This position does not work. What medical attention is given to the child? Viable on it's own in an intensive care, premature-birth hospital facility? Viable on it's own on a medical clinic gurney in Zaire? Your definition is subjective and arbitrary. Even fully mature babies at birth are often not "viable on their own" without extensive m…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:15 AM
0

You need to look up what a straw man is. If I quote you verbatim, it's not a straw man. Uh huh. if you honestly believe all brain and organ development happens the instant the child touches air. This is a textbook example of a strawman. I never said anything even slightly resembling this. If you want to hide behind the legal definition of a person, realize that things like slavery, racism and sexism were all legal at one point or another. Doesn't make them morally right. The entire point of lega…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:07 AM
0

"Your silly logic" of "because she wants to" has no separation from mothers that want to drown their kids in the bathtub. Complete strawman and nonsequitor. Nobody is suggesting drowning human beings after birth. Abortion is a fact of life, Because people with sense protect it from people like you. there's a reason why there's a time limit on abortions. Because it's dangerous to the mother after a certain point. At some point there's a living person inside there. No, there isn't. Because the def…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 12:13 AM
-3

How mad are you gonna be when I vote, then? On a scale of 1-10, how much does it piss you off when people who disagree with you cast a vote, and win, preserving bodily autonomy over fetus rights? 28?
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:36 PM
-1

So, no. You have absolutely no tenable justification for defending that fetus while abandoning younger humans. Glad we have an understanding.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:35 PM
-1

I understand you continue to think a fetus is a child. By that same logic, a zygote is a child. It is simply a young human. You claim medical professionals are "arbitrary" when referring to a fetus as a fetus, yet you make the same, ridiculous arbitrary judgments in differentiating between a fetus and a zygote. There is no objective line where it flicks like a switch from one to the other. The most objective lines that exist, are birth, and conception. One of those makes logical, viable sense in…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:18 PM
0

If it's viable outside of the mothers womb, it's an unborn child, not a fetus. So, by this logic, as soon as we develop technology for an artificial womb, all fertilized eggs that become deceased are officially unborn children and now murder. "Unborn child" is an oxymoron. A child is by definition a young, individual human, and that does not occur until birth. You have to literally, physically cut the child the flesh of the child off from the mother after birth before it is an intact, non-biolog…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:18 PM
-2

So why, then, can't the woman give birth, and give it away? Why the need to kill the child? What child? Before birth, it is not a child. It's a fetus. If you're arguing for fetus rights, you might as well be arguing for Zygote rights or Gamete rights. The majority of 'unborn children'(re: not children) are lost in typical periods due to failure to attach to the uterin wall. That's not murder. It's basic biology, which humans can exert control over without having it called "murder".
/r/MensRights10/01/16 06:23 PM
0

While I understand where you're coming from... I 100% support female bodily autonomy. I 100% support someone's ability to terminate their pregnancy all the way up to birth; yes, even 30 seconds before it's born. However, with that 100% power, should come 100% responsibility, IMO. I am completely opposed to subjecting someone else to the cost or duty of raising a child, without any input or representation on their behalf if they don't want to.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 05:25 PM
2

I know you mean well, but the whole "on average" point isn't going to change anything. Nobody thinks he means every woman works less than every man. Nobody. The 'on average', or 'in aggregate'(my preference), is implied. Nobody thinks "men are taller than women" means "every man is taller than every woman", either. It's an obvious given. In short, the people who are offended when he does not say On Average, will still be offended and make up nonsense to attempt to refute it if he includes the On…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 05:19 PM
2

Very little brainwashing has happened about deaths and suicide I disagree, TBH. The existence of 'attempted suicide' as a class of injury/event is an example of the manipulation/'brainwashing' already done on the issue. Attempted Suicide is largely a false descriptor. Suicide is not difficult, mechanically; the process is easy, it's the resolve and consequences that are difficult. Attempted Suicide as a descriptor generally means Nonfatal Self Harm, and that's it. The majority of 'Attempted Suic…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 03:40 PM
3

same reason why insurance policies are not equal(GASP!!!TRIGGERED!!) What are you talking about? Insurance policies are equal. Oh. Sorry. I meant all the insurance policies where women would be disadvantaged are legally mandated to be equal. Who cares about the auto and life markets. Men can get fucked.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 03:04 PM
1

How would you compare wages to begin with? The data that would be required(accurate time worked in specific occupations) is not collected with any kind of centralized, accurate database.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 03:02 PM
15

Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, disagreed with the notion that Jackie had fabricated her story, saying that “I have always believed Jackie” and that Jackie’s trauma could have affected her memory of the alleged assault. "Affected her memory of the attack" does not translate well into "invented a fictitious person as her attacker, and used the photo of an ex classmate that lived across the country to depict him". Unless they want us to believe that a random UVA pe…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 01:40 PM
0

Yes, it does. There is no law that states that drunk sex equates to rape for either party, even if one of the parties is completely sober. That is why the conditions I specified went far past drunk, into Incapacitated, which is the legal term used. If you are drunk enough that you cannot stand up(re: losing bodily control), and don't remember anything, most courts will consider you incapacitated. If you have two beers and have sex and giggle, no, nothing happened. But that =/= blackout, falldown…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 08:11 PM
1

Legally, rape is generally defined as penetrating someone. Yes, the law is biased against men. Yes, the first flowchart bubble should specify that. No, the attorneys and judges are not biased, they're just following the law.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 10:16 PM
1

Nope, the law doesn't work that way. "Were they aware" is misleading. "Would a reasonable person be aware" is more accurate. Being drunk and therefore incompetent/whatever can't be used as a defense in that manner. Legally, if a married couple gets blackout, fall over drunk together, and then one of them takes initiative and penetrates the other, rape occurred. Maybe you won't report it/etc... but if it was on video and someone reported it, you could be convicted.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 10:14 PM
2

Why do women dump babies in the dumpster and fake being sick dramatically more often than men? Gasp. Men and women are different. People like you are so debilitatingly deep in the PC bubble that you don't know male sex drive is categorically higher than female sex drive on average, proven by study after study after study. 'Why'? Biology. Statistical trends, even if accurate, do not justify discriminating against someone's protected class. Unless you think we should stop hiring black people becau…
/r/MensRights08/01/16 09:35 PM
1

Trying to assign blame to 'selection' in that fashion is shaky at best. You could just as easily blame male genetics for their elevated sex drive ruining any possibility of a more altruistic / balanced selection process.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 05:06 PM
3

Yes. But implying females had greater inherited genetic influence because of this, as the person did, is fallacious, because male genetic influence is multiplied by a higher number of average descendants per male ancestor.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 03:36 PM
7

80% of our ancestors are female Phrasing the statistics this way is a huge stretch, and it doesn't work in the way you're implying it. 80% of the reproductive population might have been female, but the 20% that was male was more active. Collectively, our ancestors are 50% female, because ancestors can be counted more than once, and male ancestors often are. Your /s is for something else, so I figured I'd address the non-/s bad statistics, etc.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 05:37 AM
3

LOL All of that above requires intelligence to get. Yes, that's where I go to refine my wit, meet intellectually minded friends, and broaden my worldly understanding, the gym. No, it's where I go to improve my physical attractiveness, and where a large number of relatively unintelligent people with willpower can go to do the same. Stupid guys do not succeed. What Perhaps you meant to say 'as often as intelligent guys'. In which case you might have a point. But that does not make intelligence the…
/r/TheRedPill04/01/16 12:53 AM
1

If you're implying that mental differences are only organized by species, and not by gender, I'd like to direct you to Sex Drive, and it's demonstrable gendered differences.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 07:17 AM
2

IIRC, I've directly been told 20 of the 48-things-men-just-don't-get-told. "Hey hey hey, guys are told other things too that might be bad!" doesn't change the fact that their 48-things-men-aren't-told video is complete reeking bullshit.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 07:11 AM
1

They truly believe that women are so oppressed/disadvantaged that any and all blow/offense/problem for men is justified - or more, positive - in order to 'even the field'.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 02:15 AM
1

Statute.* A statue is a large stone/metal/etc art piece. A statute is a legal term.
/r/TheRedPill02/01/16 01:46 AM
2

women’s ability to give birth to human life was the only (biological) difference between them and men. What is this insane babble, and do people of note actually listen to the imbeciles saying it?
/r/MensRights31/12/15 04:45 AM
1

Rape Culture is Female Victim Culture. The two are indistinguishable.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 04:39 AM
-5

You delete your downvoted comment for this gem? You realize you're rebutting a comment while claiming there's no chance of that comment being rebutted, right? Stop while you're behind, dude.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 12:15 AM
-1

Death does not give you immunity from condemnation. If he said something really stupid right before he died, it's still really stupid.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 12:02 AM
3

The us-versus-them 'nerd' mentality is a bypdroduct of communal education, where abnormally intelligent or dumb people are ostracized. Everything you're saying primarily applies to children or young adults. Most 'nerds' grow out of it and become regular introverted adults.
/r/TheRedPill30/12/15 04:56 PM
5

Knowledge =/= intelligence. Intelligence is how fast you learn, not how much you know. Girls do not care about intelligence either, for the most part; though most will lie and say they're looking for a 'smart guy' with no reasonable explanation of what they mean. Looks, social skills, and social success(re: job, car, money, friends) are all much more important. As an intelligent guy, the first thing I had to do was stop acting 'intelligent'. Socially, it ostracizes you in modern US culture and w…
/r/TheRedPill30/12/15 04:52 PM
0

K.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 04:42 PM
3

In the interest of the future strength of the human gene pool, yes, it would be a problem. Which is what people mean by bad eugenics. Eugenics that does not effectively improve the gene pool in objective areas of health/intelligence/physical ability/whatever. Dyslexia is correlated with increased mental ability in other fields, and selecting against Dyslexia does not effectively improve the gene pool, therefore it is 'bad' eugenics.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 12:07 PM
0

self important horse feces without any actual content k.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 05:14 AM
2

You're an idiot. Are in constant motion Squirm and fidget Make careless mistakes Often lose things Do not seem to listen Are easily distracted Do not finish tasks These are the 'criteria' used to diagnose ADD/ADHD, provided some of them present for a span of 6 months or longer, in multiple settings. Every single one of them is subjective, dependent on somebody's personal opinion of the flexible words involved, such as 'constant' or 'fidget' or 'careless' or 'often' or 'does not seem to' or 'easi…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 03:03 AM
1

lol. No, it doesn't. You are objectively wrong You obviously have no idea how ADHD is diagnosed, or what objective/subjective means. completely irrelevant strawman attempt k.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 02:55 AM
1

Cheers, then. Towards the end of my post, I got the feeling that I might have exaggerated your position. My bad.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:56 AM
3

You spouting irrelevant fallacies doesn't mean anything, when you're trying to claim being ugly has a 'point'. It doesn't. Unless you mistakenly believe that being ugly makes you better at something else. So, pick. Your writing composition is complete shit, or you're making a terrible, wrong point.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:42 AM
3

Maybe this is news to you, but Lots Of Women mating with Few Men is the biological standard for all great apes. Humans included. Genetic evidence proves that, even in humans, the female reproductive population has been much larger than the male reproductive population. Ranging from 3-4 women reproducing to every 1 man at best, to 17:1 at worst. http://a2.files.psmag.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,w_620/MTI4ODMwNDQ5ODU3MzY5MzYy.png http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-s…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:38 AM
0

The whole point of not having great looks is to have great intellect or at least try and get serious dough so you can get access to better eggs That is exactly what this statement implies. There is no point to 'not having great looks'. It's a con. A negative. A flaw on your ability to attract a mate resumé. The idea that you're presenting, that being unattractive somehow has an implied endgame of intellect or charisma or wealth is flat wrong.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:34 AM
-3

You can be tested "positive" and not have it. False. If you are tested positive, you have it. Period. ADD / ADHD only exists as a subjective diagnosis by a medical professional. There is no objective criteria for it. If a doctor says you have it, you have it. If a doctor says you do not, you do not. If you stop seeing a doctor, you can arguably claim that a previous diagnosis is now outdated, but you cannot point back at the 2 year history that a doctor proclaimed you had ADD and say "no I didn'…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:29 AM
0

My genes are a mixed bag, but I'd still be all for encouraged eugenics projects.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:06 AM
1

IQ is proven to be at least partially inherited. You can bet that if I ever had to be part of a sperm-choosing committee, I'd vote for something from someone with a high IQ.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:03 AM
-1

Your statement depends on the false idea that people with good looks are incapable of also having charisma/intellect.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:01 AM
1

I didn't have ADD before I went to the doctor. After the doctor, I did. Until I declared I did not, and stopped taking the medication that never should have been prescribed to be in the first place, and began living a healthy and social life again. His point is that ADD is not an objective, measurable disorder. It is a 'spectrum' pop-diagnosis disorder without anything approaching an objective test, and you can completely keep it off your medical chart simply by telling your doctor that you/your…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 12:59 AM
8

Eugenics doesn't require proactive removal of people from the gene pool. Your idea, limiting certain types of reproduction to people with favorable genetics, is eugenics, by definition. In fact, eugenics is generally defined as controlled breeding, not control over an existing genetic population, so your idea is more 'eugenics' than roaming kill squads ALA 1930s-40s germany. The problem is not that your idea is genetics. The problem is not eugenics in general. Eugenics was a popular idea even in…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 12:55 AM
3

Says the guy with nothing better to do than stalk the post history of the first pair of tits he sees in the morning. You're a sad man.
/r/TheRedPill28/12/15 09:02 PM
0

There is no need to present your own set of sources in that case. When you are claiming X or Y results in higher rape statistics, yes, you would need to provide sources to show that. 'People take rape more seriously in sweden therefore people in sweden are more likely to report, which is why reported rapes in sweden are higher' is one example of a shitty, unsourced point that he attempted to make while refuting Sargon.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 06:51 AM
1

And then repeatedly goes on to suggest other things may or do impact rape statistics, without any sources of his own to support those claims. In short, he's guilty of the same thing he's accusing Sargon of doing. Making shitty unsourced arguments.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 06:36 AM
-1

Half of the article is speculation on things that may or may not have attributed to rape statistics, with zero objective evidence to support said speculation. What exactly is this article supposed to accomplish? Whatever that is... it doesn't.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 06:09 AM
1

My half-brother spent a Christmas vacation week in MA with his father, away from his custodial mothers home in FL, and never came back due to our FL-stepfather being abusive. So, there definitely exists a channel through which you can accomplish what they want to accomplish.
/r/MensRights23/12/15 07:27 PM
5

If I could be a 1950s woman, that would be fantastic. I'm fairly attractive, and working is getting old. A free ride would be nice, please and thank you.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 11:41 PM
2

? Why? Sex discrimination against men is legal in Canada. They are not a 'disadvantaged class'.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 08:45 PM
2

College assessment =/= being found guilty. College is not law. Don't use legal terms when talking about campus nonsense, it's alarmist. If a college fucks you over, take them to court for it. People are winning.
/r/TheRedPill21/12/15 05:26 PM
1

There is nothing 'today' about it. What you call 'good' is what inferior animals do in the wild. What you call 'jerk' is what superior animals do in the wild. Women biologically want strong mates. Men want tits and ass. It has been this way since monkeys.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 06:46 PM
1

The 80s was a more mixed time. There were positive male role models, i.e. Knightrider, MacGyver, etc.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 05:07 PM
4

None of the men in Full House were competent adult individuals. They were all overly flawed caricatures. What you might call 'black sitcoms' were generally untouched by this trend. Whether that's because they didn't want to evoke Sambo-racism criticism or not, who knows. That doesn't change the strong, large trend in all other sitcoms of the era. Seinfeld. 2/3 guys are completely incompetent. 0/1 girls are. Friends. 3/3 guys are completely incompetent. 1/3 girls are. Frasier. 2/3 guys are, at th…
/r/MensRights15/12/15 08:43 PM
1

If old consoles today were as fun as new consoles, today, new consoles wouldn't sell. Most of the fun of old consoles is nostalgia.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 08:26 PM
4

"I would never even go with a 17 year old; except, you know, the time I'm admitting to fucking, blowing, posing nude with someone I claim I thought was 17."
/r/MensRights11/12/15 10:53 PM
1

There's a fundamental biological difference between these two phenomenons and you can't just lump both together and conclude: "Women are now more attractive than men." Yes. You can. The fact that men and women are biologically different does absolutely nothing to invalidate the conclusion that people currently, in subjective opinions, feel women are more attractive than men on average. If men find women more attractive than women find men, and neither gender finds their own gender attractive at …
/r/MensRights11/12/15 08:58 PM
7

And indeed, it's easier for women to fit into the "good-looking" category with all the make-up products, while men have to posses good genetics (especially height is something men simply can't alter, yet are judged upon daily) to fit the standard definition of a desirable man. So yeah, women do seem to have it easier in this regard, but men also can gain social status through their appearance alone. So... you agree that it is easier for women to be attractive... But you don't agree that people f…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:26 PM
8

, I think that it's conclusions are possibly a bit distorted by women valuing a man's financial/social status more than his appearance, but only when looking for a long-term relationship. Or they might be simply trying to appear less vain in their answers by claiming "I don't really care about looks", while the reality is a bit different. While men are more frank and admit looks do matter. All baseless hypotheses that would need to be tested, before you could invalidate the OKCupid data, to be f…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 04:47 PM
18

OKCupid Data proves that people underrate male attractiveness. Therefore, "People treat attractive people better" is still "people treat women better." And that's if what you're saying, that it's mostly looks, is true. And I don't believe it is.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 04:06 PM
1

While all of that is true... Marriage as an institution has been deteriorating for some time, and even at its apex, male and female reproducing populations were never equal.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 08:49 PM
2

Various things proven by linkable data and studies: Male sex drive is higher than women's, on average. Men desire more concurrent sexual partners than women, on average. The million+ OKCupid users rate 80% of men as Below Average. With these three fact-supported conclusions, it is impossible to come to any result other than a comparatively smaller population of more attractive men meeting the demand of the majority of the female sex drive market. Genetic Historical record confirms this: http://w…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 05:11 PM
2

I counted 20.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 11:48 PM
1

The "I thought it was really hot" line was a bullshit line attempting to get on your good side via sexuality, and she stalled with ums and I don't knows to think of one. You scared her. You took a conversational power play father than she was willing to go, and puppy dog eyes and pseudo dirty talk is her way of accepting that and trying to get things back on better terms with her man. This is good, it shows your S/O is willing to work for a happy relationship. But don't go thinking or pretending…
/r/TheRedPill09/12/15 12:03 AM
2

How many lesbians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
/r/MensRights08/12/15 11:38 PM
2

'Why do trolls target feminists? Why do trolls target women?' They don't. The majority of online harassment is suffered by men. Pew data proves it. Pew, like everyone, attempts to say 'but the womenz!' by insinuating that women receive more severe forms of harassment, apparently because Pew thinks that sex(ual messages) is worse than violence(aka, death threats, etc). But the data itself is irrefutable. Podium removed. Do not accept 'women are victims!' messages where they are not correct. And w…
/r/MensRights08/12/15 01:28 AM
2

Legally, you have every right to take pictures of someone in a grocery store, unless a sign is posted or an employee/store owner says you can't. But yes, you'd probably get harassed by police, and possibly have your phone seized temporarily.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 11:35 PM
2

No "leering". Typical motte-and-bailey feminist /social-regressive linguistic tactics. What does "leering" mean? Unpleasant or sexual staring. Who decides if it's unpleasant or sexual, seeing as how these are completely subjective adjectives? Nobody. Now that you have established a suitably vague concept, you can tap dance around it. Motte: a man has looked at me on the subway for more than 0.5 seconds. Time to mash the button. Security, this man was staring at me! He was leering, it was repulsi…
/r/MensRights04/12/15 11:23 PM
3

Some characteristics are more common in women, while some are more common in men, This statement in their article directly contradicts their conclusion. If some traits are more common in men, those are male traits, and brains with those are more 'male', as an adjective, brains. If some traits are more common in women, those are female traits, and brains with those traits are more female. So, conclusion wrong, to begin with. Unless the conclusion is "not all men have the exact same brain", in whi…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:31 PM
3

Studies prove that that conclusion is wrong. Pre-hormone-therapy, Hetersexual transsexuals have brains largely consistent with other heterosexuals of their birth sex, on average. Homosexual transsexuals have brains that are consistent with neither hetersexuals of their birth sex, or heterosexuals of the other sex. This is consistent with the fact that cisgender homosexuals have distinct brain differences, on average. 'Transsexuals have the wrong gendered brain' is a myth easily disproven with ba…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:24 PM
5

Confirmed, I'm ten dimensions of shitlord.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 10:44 PM
1

Lolwat? Simple question. Did more than 5% of your prison engage in homosexual interest and activity, even in private? And did they continue that behavior, and identify with that behavior, after they left prison? If your answer is anything other than 'I don't know', you're really exaggerating the usefulness of your anecdotal perspective. There is simply no way you can offer any useful information on the subject, beyond "I went to prison and I didn't come out gay", if all you have to go on are you…
/r/TheRedPill29/11/15 08:54 AM
0

I don't have intense negative feelings about women. What's my diagnosis, Doctor?
/r/TheRedPill27/11/15 04:05 PM
6

Lol? Both of those scenarios could very, very, very easily support an Environmental Cause (aka nurture, not nature) hypothesis. Terrible examples. Simple example to undeniably prove it's at least part nurture: Prison populations have a significantly higher gay population on the way out, than the way in.
/r/TheRedPill27/11/15 04:01 PM
1

Yes. Data for women between the ages of 18-24 indicate that people outside of college are sexually assaulted more. No data indicates the opposite is true.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 12:05 AM
18

being rich and famous doesn't mean you're never ever allowed to talk about things that bother you. Your allowed to complain if you're upset. But if you're rich and famous and that easily upset over petty social problems, you're a pathetic person with no grasp on reality.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 08:40 PM
5

It's the basis of The Fuck Zone
/r/MensRights19/11/15 08:39 PM
1

So, I think it's safe to say in laymen's terms, that a feminist is someone (usually female) who wants equality for women. Then you don't understand what the word advocacy means. I want high speed Internet. I have high speed Internet. Therefore, I do not advocate for this thing I want, because I already have it. For the same reasons, I do not advocate for equal pay. On a gendered axis, it already exists.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 03:51 PM
2

If you believe a woman deserves to get paid for the same work as a man, you are a feminist. Your opinion on the primary definition of feminism is noted. Oxford Dictionary says you're wrong.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 02:52 PM
6

Here's a guy who's never heard of Sharia Law
/r/MensRights18/11/15 02:38 PM
4

I'm sure she's had some terrible psychological trauma in her life to bring her to this POV You should stop assuming someone doing something awful has a valid excuse for doing something awful. Sometimes people are just dicks.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 12:03 AM
0

LOL @ thinking "I would trade 25 years for 2 million dollars" has any fucking thing to do with 'white knights'. So, you're just an idiot. Got it.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 05:03 PM
1

If you're going to start that plan with giving me two million dollars, I'm down.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 04:52 PM
0

we could (and almost certainly will) debate forever as to whether it should yield a jail sentence. LOL This is the format that most nonconsensual sex with either gender--but especially men--takes: emotional coercion. You need a dictionary. Consenting to sex under any condition other than legal duress or incapacitation is consensual sex. Feeling guilty because your s/o might not love you if you don't sleep with them is not legal duress. Get out.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 07:53 AM
13

As a bisexual man, I have two options when it comes to dating. 1.) Dudes. 2.) Pretend to be straight with women. The majority of guys don't really care as long as you're attractive and/or fun to be around. The plummet in respect and interest from women when they find out you're anything but straight, however, is palpable. It's become hilarious enough that I just bring up a male ex if I want to stop seeing a girl that doesn't have gossip-ties to future prospects.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 06:33 AM
-1

You seem pretty mad, man. Maybe you should get a brewski, watch some law and order, and come back to this without ridiculously exaggerated metaphors, swears, mouth-frothing silly typos, et al. When you are locked up by the state for a crime you didn't commit your financial responsibilities should end there. If your have been unable to pay your debt due to false imprisonment why should you have to pay it back when its not your fault you didn't pay it in the first place? He is not unable to pay sa…
/r/MensRights07/11/15 01:28 AM
0

No, he has been wrongfully imprisoned and forced to pay child support. Nobody has said this is not true. That money is his because the state wrong fully took away 25 years of his life. That wrongful conviction does not change the fact that he had a child, the financial responsibilities of which are due from both parents, in this country. Even then money is not good compensation for 25 years of your life. This is entirely subjective. A lot of people I know would trade the next 25 years of their l…
/r/MensRights07/11/15 12:19 AM
1

He's getting ~2 million dollars. Really, 300k in child support out of that is nothing, in a worst case scenario. He's living comfortably for the rest of his life.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 10:41 PM
4

Any. A. n. y.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 10:32 PM
17

Even fat, ugly Tumblrinas have sex. They have sex with men out of their league who don't talk about it, but simply have sex drives higher than women in their own league due to testosterone. Any 'sex-positive' hambeast can go into a local bar and go home with a guy slightly less disgusting than she is, if she wants to.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 10:14 PM
41

That lie makes me pretty mad. So I fixed it.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 01:24 AM
1

started because a cop said "if you dont want to be harassed dont dress like a slut". This is irrelevant if it doesn't encapsulate everything about the current movement. Hitler isn't a nice guy because he had good intentions when he was 7. Slut walk is an anti victim blaming movement AKA, an anti-'warning people of ways to reduce their risk'. We know. That makes it a dumb thing, because victim blaming is a dumb concept based on strawmen arguments that rarely or never apply. 'MR doesn't like anti-…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 10:13 PM
1

That does not prove your point. Slut walk is an idiotic display with chronic promotion of baseless 'rape culture' ideology and 'people say sluts deserve to be raped' strawmen arguments.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 10:01 PM
2

We've already discussed your blatant, unsupported bias.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 08:28 PM
2

we often advocate to call female victims stupid. Lol, no we don't. Nope, there is a large blind spot and unconscious bias from what I can see. Your poor vision and concern trolling is noted. Men take more risks, yet we preech about women not minimizing their risk. 1.) No. We don't. At most, we defend innocent authority figures from unjustified accusations and cultural Marxism, which idiocally assert that reasonable warnings are somehow problematic. 2.) Even if we did, advertising ways to reduce …
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:51 PM
2

I already explained how you're wrong, how people do preach personal responsibility for men here, and how 'anti victim blaming', aka, 'anti giving warnings to people at risk of anything' is a detrimental concept, no matter the Gender.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:32 PM
2

Neither of those are true. Your unsupported bias is laughable.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:11 PM
-1

I'm sorry that you don't understand the impact of testosterone, and can't read or comprehend every objective and subjective study ever done on libido. Men want sex more than women. You'll get over it.
/r/TheRedPill05/11/15 06:59 PM
1

A completely meaningless statement, because 'enough to warrant a warning' is undefined and subjective.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:57 PM
2

1.) Alerting people to potential risk is not blaming them. What an idiotic statement. 2.) One of the most common responses to those situations is 'don't have sex in college, it's a rapetrap', and 'invest in a camera'. We don't have to 'start' pointing out ways they or others could potentially reduce their risk. 3.) No, we should not stop doing either of those basic warning sentiments.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:56 PM
1

Do you? https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+normalized Crime is not normal in either of those areas. You are more likely than not to survive the day without crime being committed against you. More common than the US =/= Normal.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:40 PM
2

1.) Women are treated like men when it comes to prevention advice. Men are blamed for 'hanging out with the wrong crowds' all the time. 2.) Someone calling a male police officer a misogynist / 'rape apologist' because he's advising people on how to avoid crime affects men's rights. 3.) Whether or not the issue affects me/men's rights directly is irrelevant. Wanting other humans to have useful information is enough.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:37 PM
2

1.) Women are treated like men when it comes to prevention advice. Men are blamed for 'hanging out with the wrong crowds' all the time. 2.) Someone calling a male police officer a misogynist / 'rape apologist' because he's advising people on how to avoid crime affects men's rights. 3.) Whether or not the issue affects me/men's rights directly is irrelevant. Wanting other humans to have useful information is enough.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:37 PM
-3

Your experience is poor, and doesn't account for the fact that men generally want to sleep with women more than women want to sleep with men. Women want other things, and will often offer sex as a bargaining chip to get those things.
/r/TheRedPill05/11/15 06:21 PM
1

Why do amsterdam officials warn tourists that some heroin is falsely sold as cocaine? Hint: because shitty people will do shitty shit, and you can take steps to reduce your risk.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:10 PM
1

Men are assaulted dramatically more than women. If you're trying to use violence against men and society's handling of it as a 'role model' for handling violence against women, you're an idiot.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:05 PM
1

1.) Crime is not normalized anywhere. Crime being more common but still less common than following the law does not make it 'normalized', whatever you want to pretend that doublespeak fluff word means. 2.) Police didn't tell women not to go to America. So, no. Your false equivalence is lol. /u/ay_ch 's example points out why warnings and 'victim blaming' are normal functions of society. That does not mean the state departments warnings, or the danger those warnings are attempting to prevent, are…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:02 PM
0

That is not a good enough reason to support this video, if the other videos are bullshit and make him bullshit by association.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 10:50 PM
1

No, in Canada, it's not. Discrimination that favors 'disadvantaged' classes is legal.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 10:12 PM
3

Yes. In Canada, it's okay to discriminate via protected classes (such as race, sex, orientation, etc) if you are helping 'disadvantaged groups'.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 02:23 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of con…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 02:22 PM
3

Depends on the country. In Canada, where this picture is taken, gender discrimination is only against the law if it's against women. In the US, this photo could easily result in a lawsuit, and often does via opportune do-gooders who litigate these issues when they occur, where the bar would have to prove that their business model depends on the applicant being female; and it does not. Your example with applebees is definitely illegal in the US, and is one piece of evidence demonstrating applebee…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 02:54 AM
8

Then yeah, you're fucked. Canada laws allow discrimination against men.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 02:52 AM
2

'Contemplating' suicide and 'attempting' suicide are both poor metrics for measuring the actual suicide problem, through a gendered lens. The only way to measure 'contemplating suicide' is by survey, and survey's are poor, subjective assessments prone to lying for one motive or another. The next way to measure, would be 'attempted suicide'. The problem with that, is you don't know if something is attempted suicide unless you, A.), ask them if they did it because they wanted to die, which brings …
/r/MensRights02/11/15 12:29 PM
1

it exists relation to societal behaviors and perceptions, not biological ones. You seem to think there are clear lines between biological behaviors and perceptions, and social ones. There are not. That's why I never asked you about anyone's biology. I've only asked your opinion, on how you feel about other people's assumptions / beliefs. There are plenty examples of grey area in biology causing social differences(AKA, gender roles). Men are, on average, stronger than women. People who are lookin…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 03:54 AM
2

Does it bother you that people think most men have a higher sex drive than most women, This was the question I asked. I don't disagree that men are biologically different from women, especially in chemical ways that result in higher aggression and sexual drive. This doesn't answer that question. Your statement answers an unasked question, 'are men biologically different than women', which I didn't ask, because the answer is obviously yes. The question is... Considering the fact that men are biol…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 03:00 AM
2

How do you reconcile your hatred of 'gender roles', AKA society's different trends in treatment and expectations of men/women, with the fact that men and women are biologically different? Does it bother you that people think most men have a higher sex drive than most women, when virtually every objective and subjective study done on the subject confirms that?
/r/MensRights31/10/15 10:39 PM
6

I was going to post this, this is just pandering bullshit to try and get into the good graces of all the people he pissed off with the ignorant shit he's said prior raise money for women's causes by misleading people. Ruffalo is a long way from giving a crap about the people he's slandered.
/r/MensRights31/10/15 03:13 AM
-4

Women get breast cancer literally 100x more often then men do, per capita. Saying men can get breast cancer too is like saying women can have Y chromosomes too. Yes, they can. But they usually don't. Breast Cancer is not a male issue. It is a women's issue. Prostate cancer is a men's issue. And it's just as common as breast cancer, but massively underfunded by comparison. Twice as many people get vagina cancer, as men who get breast cancer. When's the last time you heard about vagina cancer? Nev…
/r/MensRights31/10/15 12:50 AM
0

Those would be good pieces of advice, yes. 'Don't get wasted drunk with someone obviously fiending to shove tea down your throat' would be another one. Oh wait, encouraging people to make wise decisions is victim blaming, my b.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 04:34 AM
1

The ad campaign completely ignores the fact that some people are going to shove tea down your throat no matter what, and how to deal with that reality.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 04:07 AM
0

No. I don't think I've ever been called a fuckboy. But if I am in the future, I approve of this message.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 04:20 AM
0

You did not 'show status'. They still consider you high status. Newsflash: this means social status is not something you actively show. It is passively demonstrated. They're not mad at you for 'not playing game'. They're mad because you're not interested in them and they feel they're in your league/higher. Showing interest =/= 'playing game'. My nerves are just fine. I just had to LOL at the silly idea of 'game' and women you had.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 10:12 PM
3

A+ response, may steal in the future.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 09:07 PM
1

You don't need to 'make a show' of social status to show social status. Social status shows itself. People knowing who you are is social status. Other attractive people being attracted to you is social status. You trying to show yourself off is the opposite of social status, it is social desperation. Women don't get angry at guys that have no game. They pity them or ignore them. Women don't get irritated by guys that have no game. They evaluate them as less than desirable and move on to the next…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 09:06 PM
-1

There is no 'the game'. 'The game' is shorthand for social skills. You can have social skills, you can not have social skills, and you can not have social skills but pretend you do. Both having them, and pretending to have them, is better than blatantly showing you do not have them, in terms of appeal to the opposite sex. PUA or whatever you want to call it, is essentially the short-term imitation of social skills; or, in some interpretations, the accentuation of some social skills(conversation,…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 09:04 PM
-1

Lol. Article sources 1-in-5 people think women often say no when they mean yes to another article. Other article sources it to Study Study says 16% MFW 16% is 1 in 5, and not Less Than 1 In 6, now. This femath.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 07:53 PM
0

I hear about rape claims a lot more than I hear about false rape claims. So in this context, the availability heuristic favors 'regular' rape claims, and goes a long way to explain 'rape culture'.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 01:27 PM
2

How can there be a citation, when the perception of how many rape claims exist is highly subjective? This exact reasoning is why your comment didn't make sense. How can you say it's 'Y is less than ___ believes', when that belief is subjective, and you've done nothing to cite the quantity of Y? one come to think that every other pickup leads to a rape claim. I have never seen this sentiment seriously expressed on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights23/10/15 08:54 PM
1

False rape claims are not as prevalent as one might think when reading in the mens rights subreddit [citation needed]
/r/MensRights23/10/15 07:24 PM
0

Everyone knows who the hoodrats are. Not true. Lots of people discriminate against all african american tenants, due to the fact that a larger percentage of african americans are 'hoodrats'. They've done plenty of studies on it; people who 'sound black' on the phone get less real-estate callbacks than people who sound white.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 10:23 PM
7

You support people denying housing in an area because they're not white? And a government's right?
/r/MensRights21/10/15 08:46 PM
14

Not in Canada. Canada is inequality HQ, right after Sweden.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 06:09 PM
1

women's suffrage will go away lololol Top tier political commentary here. 'will go away'. Like my sides.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 04:43 AM
1

Calling you certifiably insane for thinking women's suffrage will be repealed in the next 100 years =/= calling you insane for 'noticing what's going on'. Unless you think the end of women's suffrage 'is going on'. In which case, yeah. You're a fucking nutjob.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 04:35 AM
2

I would agree with that as well.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:10 AM
1

There are also religious/atheist voting trends Atheists make up ~3% of the population. If you are implying that a 3% voting body demographic is comparable to a 50%, you would be wrong. East/West voting trends The differences in eastern vs western voters are no where near as pronounced as the differences in male/female or white/black voters. Another ridiculous false equivalence. , North/South voting trends. The North/South manifestation of voting bodies is well known. It's strongly paralleled to …
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:09 AM
2

You failed to realize that both comments are satirical. That's what's wrong with your reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:04 AM
0

Actually, it will. The course we are on, which we are on due to women's suffrage, will not last another 100 years. So, you're just certifiably insane. Gotcha. Have fun wasting your time and having everyone think you're an asshole, I guess. Cheers. If you could stay away from this movement with your insane, hateful, pointless rhetoric, that would be fantastic. You're giving it a bad name while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:01 AM
7

I think "if you identify as a man, or take hormones / have surgery in line with a typical male, you can no longer attend this women's college" is a pretty reasonable position to take. There's nothing wrong with women's colleges, if men's colleges also exist.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:46 PM
1

You don't seem to understand the point. 'Repealing the 19th amendment' is not a feasible goal. It will not happen in the next 100 years. Talking about it is not 'discussing real solutions'. Therefore, you are again misrepresenting the choices. The choices are, assuming you are correct that everything is useless until the 19th amendment is appealedwhich is in of itself hilariously wrong: Talk about the 19th amendment, which is not a real solution, because it is not a possibility. Look like an ass…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:17 PM
0

That's the same context. Your reading comprehension is bad. Your bad reading comprehension isn't this subs problem.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:39 PM
1

Yes. There are. Unless you're implying that there are no differences in male/female aggregate voting trends, or white/black aggregate voting trends. Which would be false.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:36 PM
1

This is concern trolling 101. You can stop accusing the MRM of doing this without evidence, now. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:49 AM
2

You're misrepresenting the choices. Here are your choices: Speak out against the 19th amendment, 19th amendment still stands, you look like an asshole to all impartial and liberal parties, and to some conservative parties. Don't speak out against 19th amendment, 19th amendment stands, less people think you're an asshole. Those are the two choices on your table. While I agree that the female voting party has created a benefits gap legally, and preserved a beneficial contribution gap socially, I w…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:39 AM
6

Neither of those comments are 'coontown/kiketown' in nature. 'Because the jews think it's cool' = Tongue in cheek jab pointing out that a cultural tradition is not enough to justify mutilation. 'They should teach black kids to respect white kids' = 'This is how offensive it is, to tell people they should teach boys to respect girls'. Examples of things that would be coontown/kiketown comments: they should upgrade the process and just take jew penises at birth, problem solved black school dindu n…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:23 AM
2

No, absolutely not. Using the phrase toxic masculinity to describe toxic culture is still unnecessary prejudice against an entire sex, when your intended target is only a part of a culture. If you feel the "technical use" of the phrase is meant to describe cultural norms or expectations, then those things are not inherently masculine, and therefore it is not toxic masculinity. It is toxic culture masquerading as masculinity. The phrase Toxic Masculinity implies that a woman can never pressure a …
/r/MensRights17/10/15 11:22 PM
1

Wiki is not a good source. Wiki is not scientific or objective, and is often biased in how it chooses to represent an issue and which edits or editors it allows in an article. Wiki can point you to good sources, via it's own sourced statements, though. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180619/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754583/ Here are two solid studies that can be used as sources on the issue. The TL;DR of these studies is such, paraphased fairly by moi, is: Untrea…
/r/MensRights17/10/15 09:18 PM
2

Gender reassignment for those that seek it does not have much better outcomes. That's why enormous criteria and investments had to be put in place, to restrict who can have the procedure done. When it was first pioneered, and given to anybody that wanted it, the result was a wave of suicides and depression from people that received the procedures. Now you have to pass certain criteria, such as living as the desired gender for X amount of time. Even now, with those criteria in place, it's benefit…
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:38 PM
2

. (Structural similarities between brains of un-hormoned transwomen and natural-born women have been observed scientifically.) This is misleading at best, and a blatant lie at worst. Scientific observation has been done, yes; but it has proven that MtF transsexual brains are extremely consistent with cisgender male brains, for people that haven't been on artificial hormone replacement / treatment. In heterosexual samplings done via MRI, for instance, MtF brains are consistent with cisgender male…
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:34 PM
2

What grade are you in / targeting? Here's a simple slam dunk for your poster: "Applying for car insurance this year? As a man, you'll have to pay more than women." Meanwhile, the recently approved Affordable Care Act makes it illegal to charge women more for health insurance, making yours more expensive. Get aware. Get loud. Get involved. Sign up today. Etc etc.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 09:39 PM
0

this isn't about a dictionary definition. Oh? I don't think you know what Free Will actually is, or means Looks like you wrong again. That certainly is you questioning my understanding of what Free Will means, AKA, it's definition. Sorry that you continue to look like an idiot. Better luck next time, chap.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 01:47 PM
0

You seem to think that a dictionary is the word of god, and cannot be changed, or altered to reflect the truth. It is the authority on modern language usage. You can disagree, if you want. But if The Dictionary says Y, and you or non-dictionary authorities say X, the The Dictionary wins the Definition contest. The best you can attempt, is " also means ". Which, doesn't help you, if you're trying to say someone else's usage is wrong. The problem is with how you think Free Will applies to humans. …
/r/MensRights15/10/15 06:02 AM
1

You seem to be confused. My case was already made. You tried to question the definition of words I used. I showed you you had no idea what you were talking about by directing you to the dictionary, which chronicles modern usage of the English language. I then predicted you would attempt to throw up pseudo-intellectual philosophical ramblings, as if, in a discussion about the definition of a word or phrase, that would trump a dictionary. And I was right. Then I laughed. Haha.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:30 AM
0

laughable pseudo-intellectual philosophical ramblings ding ding ding, called it.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:11 AM
-1

I'm sorry that you're being so aggressive for no reason. It honestly seems like you have no idea how Free Will works. If you want, I can try to explain it to you. Here. I made your job easy, and picked up a dictionary. Wow. That was easy. Did you choose to do something? You did something with free will. inb4 your laughable pseudo-intellectual philosophical ramblings
/r/MensRights15/10/15 03:51 AM
-1

If you are changing what the other end of the stick is, yes. Obviously, you can make your end 'the short end' by changing what you're comparing to. But in his post, he was not comparing it to that; but rather, to a fictitious legal utopia where people who can demonstrate a vague and undetermined level of 'mental problem' are not punished for breaking the law.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 03:46 AM
-2

I think your father's best genes ended up in a sock. But you don't see me shitposting social-science pseudo-garbage about it.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:43 AM
4

mental problems aka anyone anywhere ever believing it acceptable enough to commit a crime, and attempting to do so Your definition of 'mental problems' is not mine. Anybody who ever kills someone not in self defense has a problem, and it is mental. We lock up people with mental problems. As we should. Lots of people have mental problems and choose to follow the law anyway. Having a mental problem is not an automatic out for the justice system. There are strict requirements for a 'mental problem'…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:31 AM
-1

Being demonized for committing terrible crimes of your own free will is not 'getting the short end of the stick'.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:20 AM
5

Don't put that voodoo on us. His buzzword nonsense would get laughed out of TRP too.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 01:11 PM
1

Gendered elements in article in order of appearance: Callisto Huge, prominent picture of abused woman Zeus Bill Cosby He Said, They Said Every gendered article references the Female Victim, Male Criminal stereotype. The entire app/program is named after a mythological woman that was abused by a man. "Better but still bad" isn't enough. Not when you don't even mention the possibility, maybe, that a man would be abused.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 12:28 AM
1

If you agree with what I'm saying, such as: You cannot "use someone up" physically or emotionally. and Being a sexually successful(re: 'empowered', in SJW-speak) male is not synonymous with being a serial killer and They are responsible for their own choices. 'Grooming' is something that is done to Then you agree your prior post was a load of horse shit. Good. We're in agreement. Cheers!
/r/MensRights12/10/15 10:20 PM
1

Your post is so hilariously ignorant, I've turned into a teenage girl and can't even You cannot 'groom' adult women. They are responsible for their own choices. 'Grooming' is something that is done to children by authority figures, and is dependent on a student/teacher relationship. You cannot "use someone up" physically or emotionally. Someone else's emotions are not your responsibility, and unless you have a blood transfer kit in your basement or are hiring professional athletes for your team,…
/r/MensRights12/10/15 07:01 PM
1

Are you trying to imply the article does not paint the issue as "protecting women from terrible male rapists"? Because it does.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 06:54 PM
11

Uh, no. 'Creep' is an anti-male word, used specifically against men 99.9% of the time, to mean 'male that is not attractive, and therefore worthless'. Women have their own C-words, namely Cougar and the C-word, but are almost never called creeps, unless they're out and out schizophrenic wearing diapers and hair-rollers in the middle of the street.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 05:15 PM
1

People always have access to money they earn themselves. Open a solo checking account. Deposit your check in it. That was easy.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 01:41 PM
6

As a bisexual guy, I have felt no indifference or animosity or anything. But I've never considered 'LGBT' or Mens Rights as related issues. I'm pretty comfortable with american culture in regards to gay rights issues at the moment. Gay marriage was legalized, discrimination is against the law, I can't think of any anti-gay laws on the books at the moment. The war's over, we won. The same isn't true when I look at it through the lens of discrimination, legal and economic, against men. There's a l…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 11:21 PM
10

The point isn't do men cost car insurance companies more money in claims? They do. Women also cost health insurance companies more money in claims. Both of these facts are sexist, and in a free market, men would pay more for car insurance and women would pay more for health insurance. The question is, why did they pass a lot that diverts women's extra cost onto men in health insurance, but ignore car insurance? Why did feminists lobby for A, and ignore B? Because feminism is not interested in to…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 06:24 PM
22

Sexist means discriminating based on sex. "Oh, you're male? We'll charge you more, then," is sexist by definition. To honestly think otherwise is simply ignorant of the definition. This is not related to the pink tax. Nobody is making women buy Venuses and men buy Mach 5s, and they're different products to begin with. It is related to health insurance. Health insurance used to discriminate based on gender. Insuring female patients costs more. Now that sexism is illegal(a law that was lobbied for…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 04:04 PM
3

1.) Alimony. 94% of alimony is paid by men. Alimony is in pure terms, a wealth transfer system from men to women, contingent on marriage, which makes marriage bad for men. 2.) No fault divorce and/or even split assets. The combination of these two things puts majority earners at a disadvantage. People who work more, earn more, buy more, and therefore lose more. This is also contingent on marriage. Removing either of these(splitting arrests based on who bought it/an income gradient, or only in th…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 11:12 PM
2

Why does he not just hire a locksmith to change the locks, or open the door? If he has legal right to the property, than I hate to say it, but it's his fault he's sleeping on the lawn. His masochism isn't helping him.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:27 PM
23

I know why she's doing what she's doing. It doesn't change the fact that she's wrong. She's white. If she called herself white, nobody would question her, or be suspicious. If she goes to an open house, she isn't going to encounter any of the supposed 'racial prejudice' that plagues america Maybe she's not caucasian, per racial identity. But she is white, by color. Maybe she is one twelfth arab by racial identity, but she is not 'a person of color'. The only color she has is white. The idea that…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:25 PM
5

Freckle which are most often visible on people with a fair complexion. That is why they are an indicator. She is pale. She is very white. She could be much darker than she is, and she would still look 'european'. Right now, she does not look 'european', which is a very flexible term. She looks white.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:20 PM
8

She has freckles. She doesn't 'look European'. She's white as fuck.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 04:59 PM
61

Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system." this white girl lol women of colour LOL minority genders LOLOLOLOL
/r/MensRights06/10/15 04:12 PM
11

There's more than one way to be masculine In simple terms, this is a false. Being masculine either means nothing, or it means things associated with the Y chromosome. There's only one direction for that. Bone density is masculine. Muscle growth is masculine. Crying less is, biologically, masculine. The opposite of these things is not masculine. In every scenario where men and women differ, there is one direction that is masculine, and there is one direction that is feminine. In all of those scen…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 04:47 AM
11

It's one or the other, IMO. If you're being nice for no reason, if you're giving up your time and resources for nothing, it goes right to the reptile brain as a sign of weakness. Why are you doing that? Why is that other person doing that? Do you want that other person to have your children, when he's just going to give all the food away? Etc. If you're doing it for a reason that benefits you/your family, then it's 'manipulation'. Spoilers: Everybody 'manipulates'. A white lie is manipulation, t…
/r/TheRedPill04/10/15 05:50 AM
11

Uh, no. It's just what people call men who are nice. Feminists want to turn all acts of male kindness into some mystical ulterior motive. It's an insult, because being nice is a sign of weakness and desperation. No matter why you're being nice.
/r/TheRedPill04/10/15 05:09 AM
1

Some high quality masturbatory fiction here, folks. Author looks like she's 40, not 29. Apparently, when you're a journalist and mad enough that people don't hit on you anymore, you write fake articles where super hot guys use cheesy lines on you.
/r/MensRights04/10/15 05:06 AM
1

You don't have to be a radical to be called a feminazi Okay If you use the word feminazi you're hiding your dark extremism Lol wow. Contradict much.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 09:08 PM
1

I love all these articles going 'The ___ and ___ in the media is responsible for ___!" [citation needed], argument trumped. 'Do violent movies cause violence, too? Should be ban all violence in movies?', argument trumped. But they keep trying it.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 04:49 AM
3

Adding 'you say' doesn't make your answer of 'Whatever' any less laughable. You sound like a teenage girl, not an old man, trying the same old concern-trolling. Take your complaints somewhere else.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 04:21 AM
4

Are you attempting to change your argument from 'women shouldn't be drafted because they're unable to fight', to 'women shouldn't be drafted because it will result in more total people dying, even though those totals will involve much less men and more equivalent gendered consequences than otherwise'? 1.)Then no. I disagree. I don't support the idea of extra men dying to save women lives, which is what you're advocating for. 2.) If your goal is preventing loss of life, repeal selective service a…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 07:33 PM
2

I don't like your opinion, stop sharing it. Get bent. Xo
/r/MensRights28/09/15 07:12 PM
3

Again, so what? Draft two women to go along with them.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:14 PM
2

False equivalence. The military is not a chain. Your platitudes are meaningless. A drafted girl plus a drafted boy is more military strength than just one drafted boy.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:08 PM
4

There is a huge, enormous disconnect in your logic. 'Not as good as men at __' does not equal 'Not fit / able to do __'. There is zero reason women can't be drafted.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:02 PM
3

The only way to change those minds is to go back ten years and prevent the lies and propaganda they were told from being told. You can't change the mind of people like those guerrilla protesters. You can change public opinion by being the better, logical, sensible person though.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 12:21 AM
1

For god's sake. I wasn't saying you should call women by literally the exact same word that you use for men, No, you're saying that you should call women only by the exact word you find acceptable for women, for completely inane reasons. It's about using EQUIVALENT terms, in order to treat people approximately the same way. 1.) This is about word usage, not treatment. You're going to have to prove that calling women females results in treating them different if you want to try and 'intersectiona…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 06:47 PM
1

Edit: or just think that all sexual objectification is sexist, but that just means that anyone who has ever thought about sex independent of a high brand of agape is really a sexist pig This is a feminist objective, yes. The male sex drive being higher than the female sex drive makes sex as a whole a target for many feminists; the demonization of sex, sexualization, sex markets, etc is very common in feminist mainstream, and goes all the way back to first wave, and the second wave feminists that…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 02:39 PM
5

OK... well why the slang term "dude" for men, and the scientific and proper "female" for women? You know that you're using the abbreviation OK... a bastardization of Oll Korrect, which is a bastardization of All Correct, because people in the 1800s got bored, right? And you're complaining about people using female instead of woman, for no reason other than the fact that they didn't use that term historically/before that way? You need a serious lesson on etymology and general language. You can't …
/r/MensRights27/09/15 02:34 PM
1

Your comment is pants-on-head levels of nonsensical. Women is a different word than men. By your logic, it's sexist to call women women, because women is a different word than men. Female, in the contexts quoted, is just a modern colloquial synonym for woman. You can't use the same word for an adult human female as an adult human male, unless you want to leave out the differentiating information that the person happens to be female. The only thing you're mad/getting-insensitive about, is that so…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 02:31 PM
2

This girl ain't heard, the pussy market crashed. Pussy doesn't buy daddies that pay all your bills anymore.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 12:05 AM
1

You're assuming that, because some of what she says is unsavory, the savory parts must be true. That's not how it works. This woman thinks her cooking and vagina are gifts to give out, in return for your money. A month into dating this disaster, you'll need to write a check for the hair salon just to get her to start cooking the food she bought when she drove your car to the grocery store you don't prefer after sitting on her ass all day raising someone else's kids. And you can damn well count o…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 12:03 AM
1

Costing someone a $1.5 million a year job with false accusations sufficiently counts as ruining their life. And also, you don't actually know what he got from the settlement. You only know what he asked for. The court ruled in his favor. The company appealed, but then dropped the appeal in favor of settling. It's obvious that the settlement was in the plaintiff's favor; or, given the fact that he had already won, he wouldn't have settled. Ice doesn't completely undo a facial injury. No problem, …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 11:55 PM
2

30 million was compensation for lost future wages, not for 'his life being ruined'. That's exactly how they got the number 30 million - wages from that job for the rest of his life. Your analogy is shit. Ice doesn't completely undo a facial injury. 30 million dollars up front does completely undo 30 million dollars of lost future wages. In fact, it's better than 30 million dollars of lost future wages, because you don't have to work, and you get interest on the 30 million dollars that you were p…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 10:54 PM
-2

If he is currently sitting on a stack of 30 million, the statement 'his life was ruined' is obviously false. Perhaps 'threatened'.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 06:22 PM
0

How is his life ruined? It was a lawsuit for ~30 million. They settled out of court. Now, instead of working for 30 years to earn 30 million, he gets a check for that much and can sit home and watch football. His life is cherries, justice was served.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:29 PM
2

Yes, legally, it is. The hug and phone number don't prove anything conclusively. But it is evidence it was a positive, consensual experience. She had zero reason to give him her real phone number.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:21 PM
15

Maybe YOU skimmed. 1.) You're quoting court testimony, not fact. 2.) 'Not really, I don't know' wouldn't hold up in any single duress claim. She was not under duress, she consented. 3.) She hugged him and gave him her phone number after. Again, not something you do with someone that just forced you to have sex under duress.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:34 PM
1

Hate is an intention, not an effect. You can't accidentally hate something, but you can accidentally cause something negative to happen to it, etc.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 03:56 PM
9

Hate? I disagree. Straight and bisexual women view gay and bisexual men with condescension, not hate, IMO. They're a cute novelty, a curious but altogether insufficient, insignificant and inferior person, who's good for occasional fashion and shopping advice or talk about penises, but doesn't really have any value as a human being outside of that. Not all straight/bi women, of course. But certainly the majority. You really learn how women are taught to interact with men(through a lens of expecta…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 10:21 PM
2

You're gonna have to do a tiny bit of googling, I'm on my phone. The statistics for these: Rape is more common outside of college. . Rape has been in consistent decline since the 70's. Are found easily by googling, studies were done on the former and general crime statistics prove the latter. Rape is more common in urban city areas which are not college towns, than college towns which are not urban city areas. For instance, Berkeley versus Oakland right next door. Is based specifically off of th…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 01:44 AM
8

Simple statistics refute these silly claims rather easily. Rape is more common outside of college. Rape is more common in urban city areas which are not college towns, than college towns which are not urban city areas. For instance, Berkeley versus Oakland right next door. Rape has been in consistent decline since the 70's. In order to think there is a modern campus rape epidemic, you must ALSO think there is a modern not-college SUPER rape epidemic, and that the 70's-80's was a plague of rape. …
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:32 PM
-1

Combining income isn't permanent. If you want to live together without making a permanent commitment, you're just a roommate. And roommates owe 50%.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:55 PM
-1

'No, I don't want to partner up financially, but could you subsidize half of my rent and utilities?' doesn't make sense anywhere. If you need help to pay your bills, you need help to pay your bills. The answer in that situation is to accept the form of help someone else wants to give, or reduce your bills.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:31 PM
5

There is nothing practical about asking someone you're 'co-habitating' with to subsidize your rent. It's identical to paying your 50% share and then asking your S/O for a monthly allowance because he earns more. Take some responsibility for your own bills, and either pay them or admit you can't and need help. And when you're asking for help, accept whatever help is given.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:27 PM
3

Fairness is not contingent on your incomes. Both of your desired outcomes are completely reasonable in 2015, hers is not. Frankly, your s/o is a little delusional. This is the conversation you need to have. You: I'm not using 73% of the house. I'm not eating 73% of the food. I'm not using 73% of the electricity and hot water. 'Fair', is not 73%. Fair is 50%. If you think 50% of the expenses is too much for you to handle, that's fine. I want to be in this battle with you, and we can do it as a te…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:23 PM
2

His whole post is very depressing. The solution is simple. Say no.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:10 PM
2

Take your complaint about what a woman said about a man to the school board and see what happens.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 12:29 AM
0

In my opinion, it’s very telling that most furries are men… In general, men are discouraged from self-expression. They are coached to hide their emotions… stuff like this attracts a disproportionate number of men because it provides something they have a much harder time getting than women: self-expression. They are encouraged to show everyone their true selves This nonsense gobbledygook is not something to encourage. This sourceless, subjective, dataless pseudoscience is the same school of thou…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:24 PM
1

This post should be top comment.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:23 PM
7

Feminism is not about gender equality. It's about advocating for women on the grounds of gender equality. Those two things are not the same. For a simple comparison, Black Rights is about advocating for black people on the grounds of racial equality. It is obviously not 'about racial equality', because it doesn't consider Asian people at all.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:48 PM
2

Racial nepotism: new doublespeak for plain old racism. Doublespeak is toxic. Call it out when you see it.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:34 PM
0

Completely out of the blue strawmen now, too. You're really trying here.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 10:02 AM
0

Resorting to ad hominem attempts after losing an argument is not clever or effective. Have a good one, good luck attacking information and sourced statements with your personal opinion and sarcastic insults elsewhere.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:46 AM
2

Do I need to make an argument supported by scientific research for every widely accepted fact opinion that I state? Yes. You do. Do you know why? Because 'men are seldom kind' is also a 'widely accepted opinion' on the front page. If you're talking about the gym, then this has nothing to do with my statement of "People shouldn't be judged by their physical characteristics that they have no control over." If that's the interpretation you intended, sure. But it was pretty obvious that your intenti…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 01:41 PM
3

Right, that data alone doesn't prove what I said. But I'm talking about real world experience that most people agree on. You don't speak for most people. You speak for yourself. You're talking about your personal opinion. It's my personal opinion that making arguments solely on your personal opinion is a shit way to make a point. You do have control over it. 'There's no such thing as an ugly guy, only a lazy one' was the best dating advice I ever received. Sounds like you're arguing my point for…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 10:04 AM
3

I disagree. It means that women are less focused on their date's looks, and more focused on their personality/charisma/success/attitude, etc. No, it doesn't. All it means is that women feel most men are unattractive, on a 1-10 scale, and men give women a fairly even distribution. This says nothing about the weight women put on different characteristics. The only thing this data says, is that online women think online men are less attractive, than online men think online women are. The only thing…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:46 AM
4

You're an idiot. Someone's physical attractiveness is one part of them. By your logic, if I call someone attractive, I am objectifying them by putting one part of them(their attractiveness) over them as a person. Newsflash: Objectifying someone doesn't mean a damn thing. It's a doublespeak word with no actual meaning invented to demonize the expression of attraction. Calling men or women attractive, or focusing on their attractiveness, is not treating them as an object. Most people don't find ob…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 11:27 PM
1

I would specifically like to know how prevalent the belief is that men ought to pay, because women's company is worth more than men's. You won't find this information by asking them. That's the point. contrary to what you're saying here—people do admit to things that will make them look bad, provided the survey is anonymous. Admitting to 'things that make them look bad' =/= telling the truth. Admitting to an inch when you've actually done a mile is still lying. If your study only indicates that …
/r/MensRights07/09/15 10:37 PM
2

As you corrected me, the OKCupid question was about attractiveness, not overall worth, so how does it logically follow that women think men ought to pay for them, when it doesn't logically follow that disparity in attractiveness signifies disparity in worth? First off: when it doesn't logically follow that disparity in attractiveness signifies disparity in worth? I never made this argument. I simply corrected you for making it about worth, when it was about attraction, which is only one facet of…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 10:03 PM
3

While I think you and I are probably in agreement on the issue overall, I don't think you're making a very good argument for it. An OKCupid survey, while certainly better than nothing (I understand there's not a lot of research on this topic), only looks at the people who use their site, which naturally leaves itself open to the criticism that it's results only reflect the views of women who date online You could argue that. The only thing I would then have to argue is that men feel those women …
/r/MensRights07/09/15 08:22 PM
13

It's extremely prevalent. Women think 80% of men are less than average in terms of attraction, per a million-strong study from OKCupid. That means, the massive majority of women feel their typical date is under their league. That they are, in fact, doing this person a favor by going on a date with them, which it's really terrible that they have to do, and they're only doing because the super cute guy that's definitely, totally in their league didn't have time today. (explanation mine) Really, th…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 07:41 PM
1

I upvoted both your posts for being doubleright.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 07:36 PM
2

Is toilet paper taxed in EU? As a massachusetts resident in the US, I find it very hard to give a shit about tampon taxes when I have to pay taxes every time I actually give a shit.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 07:35 PM
1

A relationship where one person is obviously interested in romance, and the other person is not, is not a platonic friendship. You have not mistaken a platonic friendship for a romantic relationship. The 'friend zone' specifically applies to a relationship where one party wants more, and the other party does not. This is a dangerous relationship dynamic, because it generally leads to one party being unhappy(the party that wants more), and also has potential to lead to a parasitic relationship, w…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:48 PM
1

Telling women to stop whatever behavior leads to "friendzone" situations won't work. Women are advantaged by the phenomenon we identify as the friend zone. Naive men are disadvantaged. The solution is to make men more informed, not women. Empathy is a weaker motivation than self-preservation. The solution to 'the friend zone' is not 'Women, stop leading people on'. It's 'Men. Stop giving your time and commitment to other people for free.'
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:40 PM
1

You can be both an egalitarian and a men's rights supporter / advocate, IMO. Not that I'd tell you what you want to identify as. But I personally identify as both. I feel the latter is required to meet the expectations of the former.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:37 PM
2

Agreed. 'Friendzone' is politically correct. Know your terminology, and know the enemy terminology, and know how to defend yourself against their baseless accusations and threats; because there's nothing 'misogynistic' or even sexist about the term friendzone.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:35 PM
1

Unrequited love =/= "Friendzone". Friendzone / Fuckzonethe terminology differs in general, depending on if you're referring to straight men / straight women = 'Wanting more from a relationship, while the other person does not, and continuing the relationship in the hope it evolves to that'. You can have unrequited love for someone you never even talk to, nevermind have a relationship/friendship with. The ___zone only applies to situations where an actual relationship exist, and it only came into…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:34 PM
-1

or intoxicated individuals False. Intoxicated individuals can consent. Incapacitated individuals cannot. Drunk =/= incapacitated. Drunk sex is not rape. I don't blame you for your ignorance on this. There has been a long running campaign by feminists to slip "drunk sex = rape" under the notice of everyone, because feminists benefit from any additional laws that would promote their gender as victims. Feminists wish drunk sex was rape. Feminists wish a lot of things were rape. Rape is a crime that…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:48 AM
49

1.) It blatantly says they were turned away because they were male. Courts have repeatedly concluded that they were discriminated against because they were male. 2.) Yes, she does sound like she would do that. There are multiple CEOs in this story, and you don't specify which one because your composition skills are bunk, but they all sound like they would discriminate against men. 3.) Going to court over someone breaking the law by discriminating against your gender is not "stirring up trouble".…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 12:55 AM
5

Disagree. Flagrant offenses deserve direct punishments/fines. I'm not okay with a world where everyone breaks the law to treats women better until someone complains.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 05:12 PM
-1

Do you have a source for that scientific newz? And not some sciencey newsy site LOL Wow. I have no words.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 10:25 PM
-2

Reptiles are not humans. In birds, Male is generally the default gender, acted upon by hormones that create female changes. Female and male reptile classifications do not apply to humans. The idea that if you have a vagina, and not a penis, you are phenotypically female is not bunk at all, and for the first 60 days of development, men have vaginas. I'm sorry if this is difficult for you to follow. the idea that until a penis starts developing the body is phenotypically female is bunk. Virtually …
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:34 PM
-1

Uh....no. Think a bit about why that doesn't work. Unless you're arguing that a female can be born from a female - and then fail to reproduce because there are no males to fertilize her eggs. Not exactly viable. Who said anything about viable? You said they couldn't exist. They can. You're trying to use the fact that females require males to reproduce, to pretend that these terms don't have established definitions other than broad biological theory/history. It doesn't somehow make 'female' a bog…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:19 PM
3

all women do [citation needed] Typical strawman, attributing an argument to me that I didn't make. this subreddit is officially cancer Typical concern trolling. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:24 PM
5

Not being charged is better than being charged and getting no punishment. She is less oppressed than she would be in your fantasy 'reasons we should be offended' scenario. Being charged with criminal charges when women would not be is not similar to a shortage in subway seat space. At all.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:04 PM
6

The fact that she is a dumb cunt is irrelevant. The fact that she was not punished, and men in her position have been and will be, makes it a men's rights issue. I'm sorry that this is hard for you to grasp.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:01 PM
-2

So, extremely desperate. K.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 11:59 AM
0

You're being semantic. Yes, the phenotype we identify as 'female' could exist without the phenotype we identify as 'male'. It would be a very short lived and ineffective biological experiment, but it could certainly exist. The way Gender evolved, is by developing genes that activate after-birth and modify the base/'default' organism, which in this case, is female. That's not some social slight against men. It's just basic biology. http://www.livescience.com/32467-why-do-men-have-nipples.html Bra…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 11:58 AM
-1

Now you're attempting to call me wrong again, by changing your wrong answer for a new one(a study that only measures those that have pursued SRS, a procedure that is considerably easier and more achievable for MtF transsexuals than FtM transsexuals due to the difficulties in constructing a functional penis, and is therefore not an accurate representation of total transgender numbers). The same study that OP's Top Comment has linked and I referenced before, in case you thought you were some inter…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:37 AM
2

You're posting in an OP that quotes and sources a 3:1 dataset, trying to 'correct' my unsourced 2:1 with your unsourced 5:1. You're the definition of pedantic. I've done plenty of research on the issue, and 2:1 is a fair and conservative estimate for the US.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:12 AM
4

Statistics generally confirm that MtFs outnumber FtMs 2:1. There's two standout reasons to consider. 1.) Biologically, female is the default gender. 'Maleness' is a product of the female natal body being acted on by the Y chromosome. For instance, virtually all intersex births are genetically male; the intersexuality is a product of incomplete Y-chromosome expression. Ergo, it would make sense that ambiguous brain conditions would also be majority male. 2.) Life is better as a woman.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 12:04 AM
3

I'm quite capable of proving that "advocacy for women on the grounds of equality" is a female supremacist definition.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 12:07 PM
15

Don't fight them with their definition. You're giving ground you don't need to give. Sexism is not prejudice plus power. You don't need to get dragged into the quagmire of "who has power", as if it's some on/off switch currently flipped in the Men position. Sexism is prejudice and discrimination based on sex. That is it. Period, end of discussion. The word "institutional" is useless, and if they disagree with your definition, direct them to the closest dictionary.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 02:17 AM
1

Devil's advocate question: What makes you think they're trying to find that out? They're interested in the best way to target women. Not the most ethical way to target women. If their company data shows them that calling men buffoons makes Women choose their product, they'd be silly not to do it.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 09:27 PM
1

They don't need to 'identify an issue' to have meaning. They state a fact. That fact has meaning. Hint: it means that fact. Claiming that women earn less per hour across the board based on that fact is misconstruing the meaning it does have. Just like claiming women earn more money per hour by combining the two facts above is misconstruing the meaning behind those.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 06:24 PM
1

They're not meaningless. They both have meaning. They're just different meanings that don't affirm or contradict eachother.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:50 PM
1

If women are 50% of the population, it sort of makes sense that they should have 50% of the say in running things. In the US, they have 53% of the say in running things. I suppose you're right. They should start removing voting rights from 6% of the women voting population, so that our country is run by an equal split of male and female voters. Not sure how they'd manage that, though.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 04:29 PM
1

This shouldn't be stickied. It's a statistical fallacy. 'Women as a whole work 75% of the hours that men do' is not statistically comparable to 'Women who work 36+ hour jobs make 77% the money that men who work 36+ hour jobs do'.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 04:19 PM
2

You said intimacy, an interesting word choice. Virtually every objective and subjective study shows that men like sex more than women. Surveys show that women think most men are unattractive(80% of men are 'below average'). This is why it's this way.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 03:53 PM
1

Few women would actually be so proactive in cheating, Your statement is entirely variable, depending on the attractive value of the person they think they can cheat with. Examples one, two, and three. There are two things that primarily cause this. 1.) Women typically undervalue how attractive a man is. Women have difficulty being forward with men actually in their league, because they believe those men are under their league. They have difficulty hitting on men they think are in their league, b…
/r/MensRights30/08/15 03:49 PM
2

Two things need to be said in response to your post here, OP. 1.) The wage statement isn't factually wrong. Women do earn less wages for the same job. Wages is generally defined as pay by day/week, and women work less overtime/hours for fewer years, so they do generally receive less money. Because they choose to work less, and therefore receive less money. This does indicate an inequality. That inequality being... why are men wasting more of their lives at work? 2.) Here's the simple fact people…
/r/MensRights30/08/15 03:19 PM
3

I'm a man. If you ask this question to me, you will be inconveniencing me, not helping me. If you try to shame me for not asking this question, you will be hurting me, not helping me. For every man you 'help' with this, there are literally 500 of me. Again, 66% of transgender individuals are MtF. 00.3% of people are transgender. Saying this issue is about 'helping men' is like saying reducing health care costs is about 'helping men'. Neither are focused on, or primarily benefit, men. You're in a…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:30 PM
7

Telling people they should do it is not asking. Telling people that assuming someone's gender based on appearances 'marginalizes' the 00.3% of the population that is transgender<sup>whatever the fuck that means, other than 'acts like transgender individuals are a tiny part of the population', which is factually accurate</sup>, so they should therefore take extra measures with the other 99.7% of the population, is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:37 PM
10

If your idea of defending trans men(less than 33% of the trans community, by all surveyed counts, and less than 0.5% of all men) is restricting the rights of all men so they don't get offended, then no. I don't defend them on this issue. And either should /MR
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:49 PM
23

Anybody being told to change their language choices is in a position to speak on it. For an exaggerated example of your silly thought process: "I have brown hair. Brown haired people are now legally allowed to pickpocket anyone. If you don't have brown hair, you don't get to talk about this new law."
/r/MensRights29/08/15 12:51 PM
5

If you think women's bathrooms are cleaner than men's, you haven't done your due dilligence. Women hoverpiss and Dextertm bathrooms on a regular basis, to conditions far worse than smelly urinals. The list was good, but he makes a solid point about some things needing citations and duplicates being removed(editing) , etc.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:59 AM
2

Pro tip: Nobody cares if you think it's obnoxious, and loud is not a bad thing.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/15 01:25 AM
1

Bisexual, would be more appropriate. And didn't Pitt just come out as bisexual, too? Really, it seems to be a hollywood trend. At this point, I'd wager that involvement with scientology is putting a lot more on the line than a sexuality confession, and saying they should just confess their orientation might not be enough. I find the whole bi thing intriguing, though. Why does incidental bisexuality seem more common among celebrity alpha males? Is it a product of absurdly high SMV+Money? Cruise, …
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 01:31 AM
1

A 7/10 35 year old man marrying a 7/10 woman is marrying someone under 30. The only failure in that is the idea of getting married at all, in the modern US.
/r/TheRedPill24/08/15 05:08 PM
4

No, feminism has never manifest in a reasonable position. This is the unfortunate truth. First, second, and third wave feminists have all been historically rooted in man-hating.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 08:01 PM
1

It notices that feminism's dictionary definition and slogans ought to equally benefit men FYI, this isn't true. The most common dictionary definition of feminism is "advocacy on behalf on women, on the grounds of equality of the sexes" etc. This definition has two general interpretations. Advocacy for women on the grounds of equality on specific issues, or advocacy for women on the grounds of total equality. Both of these definitions are anti-men, especially if you believe that no other activism…
/r/MensRights23/08/15 02:45 PM
2

How am I confused by that? I was just pointing out that the phrase you used (consent after the fact) isn't a thing.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 10:45 AM
0

So, just thick in the head. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 10:56 PM
1

"(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; Uh huh. repeatedly following from Here, let me help you out. repeatedly There. Got it, yet? Following someone for some distance is not harassment. Repeatedly following someone is. For it to be considered harassment, it has to happen multiple times. If I get behind you on a street and follow you for 14 blocks in varying directions, I have not harassed you. Again, your ridiculous victim complex has led you to b…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 10:13 PM
5

and how every issue can be seen as misogyny or misandry dependent on perspective This is nonsense. Many issues undeniably favor women, or undeniably favor men. Thinking these issues are acceptable, is therefore undeniably misandrist, or undeniably misogynist. The fact is that misandry and misogyny have a similar relationship to eachother as the vase and two faces, in terms of both being a valid way to view a situation Viewing a situation that undeniably targets and harms men inequally as 'misogy…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 09:26 PM
1

And if they only accept 50% of non-feminist narratives? Not so binary.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 09:23 PM
3

Legally, you are correct. But nobody's talking about the law, here; the school code of conduct is the subject. Vinegar's point is that the school policy is different. Per the school policy, it would not be assault, or harassment, as long as he liked it. Naturally, this is a really fucking stupid rule. Mandatory codes of conduct should not be subjective.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 09:07 PM
3

There is no such thing as consent after the fact. Either they had consent at the time of the occurrence, or they did not. Consent, is permission to do something in the future.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 09:05 PM
1

Are we talking about a video here? No, we're talking about harassment in general False. The post I responded to, was about you thinking you can and should end Street Harassment, not harassment in general. my personal examples are of people clearly crossing that line by following someone a distance, Following someone a distance is not illegal. Not even in Canada. You are so ignorant it is ridiculous. If your testimony is any indication, you're absolutely right. People don't know when they can <su…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 08:56 PM
1

Harassment is already illegal, I'm in Canada so I can link you our criminal code, or if you like I invite you to look it up yourself if you live in another country. Nothing in the '10 Hours street harassment' video is illegal in Canada. Nothing you've described, except the fantasy scenario where someone follows you home and threatens to kill you, is illegal. Pulling up on a corner and inviting people into your car is not harassment in Canada. Following someone, WHILE repeatedly communicating wit…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 08:35 PM
1

What does stopping street harassment have to do with removing free speech, are you serious? Does someone really have to spell this out for you? Classify certain speech as harassment Make that harassment illegal Speech is now illegal It's really not fucking complicated. You think you're allowed to do this because you don't like the kind of speech in question. People shouldn't have to debate walking around the block just to be sure someone isn't following them. Men are assaulted on the street more…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 07:43 PM
1

What on earth does child abduction have to do with catcalls. Are you serious? And yes, you can legally call someone a faggot all you want. Even if it makes you an asshole. you can call someone an asshole too, don't worry The issue isn't even legal as it's already illegal to harass people Catcalls are not harassment. Catcalls are not illegal. Harassment as a legal definition is miles above and beyond anything the "10 hours in NYC" video woman experienced. So yes, the issue is legal, because idiot…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 07:21 PM
1

Modern Feminism is not someone that wants men and women to be equal. Modern Feminism is the academia brainchild that came from decades of actual, man-hating lesbians opening the first gender studies classes and teaching them in large, respected colleges. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” - Mary Daly Regarding Mary Daly:…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 12:16 PM
1

I like the idea that we stop things like street harassment, You can't. What you call 'street harassment' is protected by free speech, and the people you're trying to 'enlighten' don't give a shit about you. The only way you can stop street harassment is by changing the constitution. Are you attempting to mitigate free speech?
/r/MensRights22/08/15 12:13 PM
5

Considering that's exactly what they try to do, by ignoring actual Men's Rights issues and repeatedly characterizing it as "Men deserve to be able to cry and wear pink too!", then yes. They do attempt to make men's rights about things they want(the destabilization / eradication of "social gender roles"), instead of what men's rights activists want(An end to unequal laws, government programs, and economics that legitimately harm men), because they can't relate to the latter because they have noth…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 12:09 PM
2

I checked again, and only the video has the ellipsis. The text article that accompanies it does not. So, it's not your fault, but the presence of the ellipsis in the video certainly indicates that it's likely a fractured quote. Amended my parent post.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 12:27 AM
2

No. It's not. It's because she has man-face. I'd wager she has or had a lot of testosterone growing up, the adam's apple is another indicator. From a psychological sense, per what men are attracted to in aggregate, that makes her appropriately weird and undesirable. Side note, you're an idiot, plenty of 40 year old chicks are hot and I intend to have sex with most of them.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 12:04 AM
11

1.) This story is ugly as hell, she deserves serious consequences. 2.) This reddit post is an example of misleading reporting being misreported. The video in question has a quote that reads "If you'd just ... stop fighting and let it happen, you'd be a lot less uptight and happier". This means that when the text was copied from the source to the news channel, text was omitted between just and stop, meaning that this actual sentence was never written. Who knows what the original two sentences wer…
/r/MensRights20/08/15 12:02 AM
5

Preface: There likely is a pretty severe disparity in the public's perception of abuse committed against men, vs committed against women. But, Videos like this are useless. They are not scientific. They do not prove anything. They are entertainment media with a monetary incentive to create views edited cut by cut. There is no proof that these are all the reactions that occurred. There is no proof that the 'public' people in this clips are not actors. There is no proof that this is applicable to …
/r/MensRights19/08/15 11:21 PM
6

Men work more than women. Men take less sick days than women. Men work longer years than women, and seniority translates to money. If you think women earning less than men is a problem, you should start asking why women are working less than men. Here's a hint: If I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. Working is not fun.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:50 PM
11

On a societal level, white men do have more power. No. They don't. The majority vote is female, and the majority of spending is female. Women have elected every recent president, and women have majority-funded those CEOs. The fact that you think a woman has to be president for the president to have women's best interests in mind, or that having a man as president somehow inherently benefits men over women, is proof of your bigotry. It's not open and shut at all. except your bigotry
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:47 PM
5

The patriarchal idea that men do not express emotions or show weakness generally is why men have higher suicide rates [citation needed] Oh wait, you don't have one. You just found out your general idea that men have it easy and women don't therefore men suck doesn't hold water, so now you're trying to blame men for men not having it easy to. With no evidence or proof.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:45 PM
6

White =/= white men. So, the numbers don't correlate.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:43 PM
3

Is there a source on that beyond this article? Seems far fetched, like the actual law would only apply to convicted sex criminals.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:12 PM
3

Step one: Inform your wife of the problem. The problem is that your children don't respect how much this family depends on you; on your working hours and on your successful career. Step two: Assess your wife's response. Does your wife agree that this is a problem? Does your wife agree that the children need to start receiving positive reinforcement of your existence and behavior? I'm going to assume the answer to step 2 is no. If it's yes, stop here, you can both work to solve it. If no, though.…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 08:34 PM
2

That's not how evolution works. Evolution works as a species. Human beings evolving to be more physical via gender dimorphism and male muscle density wouldn't require a female counterbalance. It would necessitate a counterbalance in our predators and prey.
/r/TheRedPill19/08/15 06:45 PM
9

I've only heard it uttered by women. What that has to do with the points at hand, I'm not sure. In my experience, men crying is treated as a serious, grave(or extremely joyful/emotional) situation, mostly because it just seems to be a fact that they cry less. There's considerable scientific basis as to why they cry less, as well, from basic facts such as men having larger tear ducts less likely to overflow, to hormonal differences. My view of this news headline isn't that it's intended to malign…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 06:34 PM
3

Used to buy Bic clickable markers for work. Looks like it's Sharpie, now.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:56 PM
27

Let me get this straight. You think 'conceptions' are the only thing 'feeding what is normal'? Do you think gender is a social construct, too? Do you think that it's normal for men to be sexually attracted to women(96% of the male population) because there is a preconception that men are sexually attracted to women? Or does your silly 'our societal views are damaging people!' ideology have absolutely no way of accounting for the fact that sexual attraction, a fundamental difference between the s…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:39 PM
48

And if that preconception is, in aggregate, correct?
/r/MensRights16/08/15 12:31 PM
2

The school in question has an across-the-board crew-shirt dress code for everyone. It was put in place to remove all subjectivity and measuring. Everyone knew about it, and she willfully broke the rule with advanced warning.
/r/MensRights15/08/15 07:11 PM
6

If you're forced to pay that item or go to jail? Yes it does.
/r/MensRights15/08/15 04:27 PM
4

False. Men suffer alone because the thirty percent of their money taken from them by the government is not going to support them and address their problems. Unlike the problems of women. Men suffer in suicide rates because life for men has many problems and pitfalls for which their is no safety net. Homelessness because of lack of shelter support for men. Financial and family ruin, because divorce and family courts overwhelmingly favor women. Your idea that male behavior is caused by "traditiona…
/r/MensRights15/08/15 09:37 AM
1

Point me to where you answered the question about how you would react to office temps being rest to womens summer clothes in mind, making men in suits uncomfortably hot Okay. My office does keep the temperature too hot. Well above room temperature. Amazing that I haven't classified it as overarching sexism, come on reddit, and complained about it. That was easy. Ok, mra's are concerned about feminists trying to impose female sitting norms . Also false. Feminists are incapable of imposing anythin…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 09:22 PM
1

You didn't answer the hypothetical question . Yes. I did. Mra's have been pretty concerned that feminists have been trying to impose womens sitting norms on men . False. Feminists are incapable of 'imposing' anything. If you are this concerned about this feminist making that argumen I'm concerned? [citation needed] You're really bad at this. People here are laughing at this supposed example of sexism, not concerned about it. Society is laughing about it. This article, this newspiece, is good for…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 08:58 PM
1

My office does keep the temperature too hot. Well above room temperature. Amazing that I haven't classified it as overarching sexism, come on reddit, and complained about it. It's almost like you're wrong, as we've just discussed. Laughing at petty first world problems like manspreading and "Sexist AC", and then complaining about serious issues that affect men like gender-discriminatory laws on the books, plummeting college enrollment, and massively disproportionate homelessness, suicide, and im…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 08:07 PM
2

Cute attempt to change "the air in offices is set to room temperature, and women get cold and easier than men" to "something in workplaces is slanted to men's preferences". Classic bad faith doublespeak. No, this sub would not complain, or support complaining about, such ridiculous, trivial, easily self-solvable issues. We do not manufacture #firstworldproblems into gender oppression. That's feminism.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 07:43 PM
3

If it was something equivalent effecting men , this sub would care and talk about the discrimination No. They wouldn't.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 06:48 PM
3

That's not the underlying point. Nobody with any brains cares that the AC is set for people that have to wear more clothes. The 'underlying point', made by people without said brains, is that this is somehow a problem that can or needs to be fixed by air conditioning operators.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:59 PM
3

Yes. I do. And this forum is clogged with ridiculous things feminists say 24/7.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 04:56 PM
10

Drunk sex =/= rape. Incapacitated sex = rape. Drunk =/= incapacitated. Drunk sex =/= rape. The answer to this poster is not 'they're both rapists then!', it's 'No, drunk sex isn't rape. For anyone.' Don't let feminist ideology try and sneak that legal definition under the table.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:54 PM
1

Testosterone is masculine because the traits that testosterone controls are masculine not be Wow. Do you hear yourself? Do you know why those traits are masculine? Because they're more common in men. . If something is split 52-48 calling that feminine is asinine because the majority of the time men will have that same trait. So? Women have testosterone. Testosterone is still masculine. Women have bone density. More bone density is still masculine. Masculine/feminine are not on/off descriptors, i…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:45 PM
5

It's ridiculous because cold people can always put more clothes on, and hot people can't always take more clothes off. /your ridiculous attempts to justify this viewpoint
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:32 PM
1

Your opinion is just as subjective. Correct. The difference is, my opinion is about me, where I am an authority, and your opinion is about all of humanity, where you are not. Just because women value those things more doesn't make it a feminine trait Yes. It does. Women have testosterone. Testosterone is still masculine, because men have more of it. Sad I have to explain that.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:10 PM
1

1.) Everybody dies alone. 2.) Sex is great, and I'd be happy to die at 70 with a 24 year old hooker ontop of me. 3.) I already told you you're wrong. You think your subjective opinion is so grandoise, that somebody needs to go live a life you haven't lived which you claim would be horrible, just to refute it? Lol.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 01:50 PM
-2

Hi. Man here. I don't desire those things. They are not innate, and virtually every study on this subjective issue shows that women in aggregate value those things much more.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:16 AM
1

If you don't believe in "bio-troofs", how can you explain why 96% of men like women, and 96% of women like men, sexually? The idea that men and women are psychologically different from birth is virtually impossible to deny, based purely on sexual orientation demographics.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:14 AM
3

She doesn't want a guy. She wants a better guy. You have to understand it from the female perspective. It's not about whether or not you got a guy; virtually any girl can approach strangers on the street and find a boyfriend. It's about the quality of the guy you get. Something that makes you more attractive or desirable, increases the quality of what you can get. Girls can get a guy without makeup, too, but many choose not to.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 03:41 PM
2

I agree with the second part of your statement, but my recommendation isn't out of fear. If the trend he's in continues, it's quite likely he'll be terminated, and that will look bad on his resumé. It's the more financially sound decision to quit now and get a different job, or at least start looking.
/r/askTRP09/08/15 10:39 PM
3

Quit and get a different job, before you're fired.
/r/askTRP09/08/15 10:07 PM
11

That's irrelevant to the title. Even if elected national government officials only rank Population's Best Interests as their 3rd or 10th priority, Population's Best Interests still translates to Women's Best Interests because women are the voting majority, and it's still a priority on that elected official's list, even if you think it's further down the list.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 08:54 PM
3

This whole post is bullshit. Call out people when they make offensive jokes. No. Jokes are not offensive. They're jokes. Either they're funny, or they failed to be funny. If you don't think it's funny, good for you. Act offended if you want. Nothing happens. Stand up to those who treat girls like objects AKA, doublespeak for 'Male sexuality is the devil, don't let men express their sexual desire when it's not wanted'. You can keep this one, too. Expressing sexual desire is not treating someone l…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 01:20 PM
1

Women are sexual creatures. Humans are sexual creatures. So what you mean is, "don't show unwanted sexual interest in women, even if you have no idea if it's wanted/unwanted yet", or "if you're going to show sexual interest in a woman, you must also show interest in her character/personality/what she has to say". Great, now that we've established that you think male sexual desire, and the expression of said desire, is bad... How does that equate to "treating women like objects". Where you're fro…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 01:36 AM
1

Here's my conversation starter. What does "treat women like objects" mean? Aside from being classic doublespeak attempting to demonize male sex drives?
/r/MensRights08/08/15 01:03 AM
1

This is not true. There is no head of the family. There are no laws that preserve any "head of the family". My family grew up with everyone listening to my abrasive grandmother. Nobody found this socially unusual. This is not a patriarchy. This is a representative democracy. A representative democracy with a female majority vote. I'm sorry that you were misinformed. If your biggest argument to support 'patriarchy' is who they put on the dollar bill, then you really don't have a case. He's not be…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 12:59 AM
1

Your idea of evil people only exists in psychopaths, which account for 1% of actual evil people. Hitler, for instance, is not evil by your definition, because he did not consider jews, gypsies, and gays People.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 02:09 AM
1

Safe Spaces officially renamed to Propaganda Places.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 01:32 AM
1

I disagree. Nobody believes they are evil. Evil is a subjective definition given to those who commit bad things on account of ignorance and stupidity.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 01:28 AM
4

Violent revolution and protest is the typically most-effective weapon of the oppressed. Just saying.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 11:28 PM
4

Doesn't matter, they brilliantly used a rape counselor to parrot the statistic as hearsay, that way they don't have to provide actual sources for their "news".
/r/MensRights25/07/15 11:23 PM
6

No, it doesn't. Because a lot of false rape allegations are threatened or told to acquaintances and friends, but never reported to police.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 11:22 PM
2

Most of the guys in this video were reasonably attractive. I'm going to infer from that, that they have at least a modicum of social skills with women when they choose to, as reasonably attractive men tend to build these skills purely in the successful pursuit of sex and day to day interactions of flirtation. That said... Guys who are really into video games and also romantically/socially savvy, hide the fact that they're really into video games. Most girls don't like video games. It's not somet…
/r/MensRights25/07/15 01:10 AM
4

It's psychopathic to be honest. Narcissistic. The reason it doesn't really qualify as psychopathic, is because her anger is focused at this one individual, instead of just enjoying causing suffering in general. In her mind, his actions have insulted her, because they contradict her ideas of herself(that she is worth spending time with / amazing, etc). In order to remedy this, she has to make him, in particular, look weak and insignificant. His reaction to his property being destroyed is exactly …
/r/MensRights25/07/15 01:04 AM
4

Jennifer Wilde was a nom de plume. That doesn't mean it's a woman. Or vice versa, for this fictional article.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 08:37 AM
5

No, you're getting tired of being downvoted for your consistently shitty concern-trolling. Spoilers: Nobody cares what you think of the mens rights movement, or if you think they're misunderstanding and misrepresenting feminism. If you don't like it, you can find the door, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 08:26 AM
6

More than that. It's a 99% chance she already has a guy she likes more than you lined up, and it's a 99% chance she doesn't think you can find someone as good as her or better. No girl proposes an open relationship if she thinks you can go out and bring someone hot home tomorrow. It's both emotional(at least) infidelity and an insult.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:59 AM
1

OPs study did not pretest for spacial awareness in order to control the gender bias. Therefore, your word soup is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights23/07/15 01:53 PM
0

Absolutely nothing you said contradicts the fact that OPs Study cannot demonstrate gendered leadership ability, because it's testing something that is already gender-advantaged. The fact that you think sourcing different research material regarding leadership, but not involving spatial awareness proves your point is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 08:25 PM
1

False. Every single female on the team, in a task devoted to something men are demonstrably better at(spatial reasoning) , is a flaw that should hurt the groups performance. Likewise, a team of mixed-professionals with a Tailor as a leader will perform better at Tailor tasks, than a team of mixed-professionals with a Welder as a leader.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 04:53 PM
3

No she's not. Feminism is not an egalitarian movement. "Advocacy for women's rights on the grounds of equality" is the most common definition, and has been for years, despite modern feminists trying to change the definition to "equality!" for the last few. There are two ways to interpret this. One is "advocating for women on individual issues where women are disadvantaged, so that that issue is equalized." This objective is blatantly supremacist. It's end goal is to fix all of women's problems, …
/r/MensRights22/07/15 06:30 AM
2

Bold, maybe. Silly, not at all. Lust and love for other people while in a monogamous relationship is standard. Modern society just happens to understand that acting on it is socially unacceptable.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 02:33 AM
2

So if the "date" thing isn't the same as paying for a prostitute, how come the paying them to leave thing is the same thing? Paying people to leave doesn't happen, because prostitutes don't do business under a "I hope they pay me, but I guess I'd be okay with staying instead of leaving if they don't". The question is always, "can we prove a money for sex transaction took place". So, for instance, "escort services" that don't guarantee sex, have plausible deniability, and many agencies bill thems…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 11:45 PM
-2

How is that relevant to my comment? My comment was about polyamory. Loving or lusting after multiple people. Virtually everyone is polyamorous. Married women still have crushes, married men would still bang hot sluts if they could and it was morally acceptable. This is entirely unrelated to polygamy, the practice of actually doing it. If you're trying to argue that polygamy is a tenable societal structure, you've got a lot of accounting for disgruntled men to do.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 07:59 PM
4

Nope. It's illegal to pay for sex. Not "to have sex after you've paid for it". Cops doing a sting don't actually have to sleep with their Johns.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 07:10 PM
6

How much spatial reasoning do you need to count the edges on a 2-dimensional object? Enough to sway the results.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 07:04 PM
-6

Disagree. The point of the post was to demonstrate that men have more functional teams. It failed to do so because the teamwork test was centered around a subject where men demonstrably perform better than women. If you're saying "it's not scientific", then, no shit. It's a 4chan post.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:18 PM
2

TL;DW - Anita Sarkeesian isn't a gamer, and has admitted to not liking video games. Anita covered a hobby called "vidding" in her feminist talks, where mostly-women would splice song or video material to create fan-fiction-esque narratives. Ergo Anita is just a feminist who has "Vidded" video game videos to create a narrative that doesn't exist in any organic habitat, just to be outraged.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:55 PM
4

Me too. It would invalidate the results completely, even if it wasn't just a 4chan post.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:24 PM
5

Unless men are superior to women. Then yes, the truth is the solution. The teamwork exercise outlined above is a spatial reasoning exercise. The people are blindfolded and given an object to perceive by limited touch senses. Science and studies have proven, time and time again, that men are better at spacial reasoning.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:22 PM
-1

The likes of ISIS hate the most fundamental features of our system of law So? They operate via Sharia, Islamic law. A statement from them could literally read identically to the quote; ISIS officials saying they only adopted their tactics because the courts were not upholding Sharia law. The moral of the story is that Person A doing something Shitty In Your Opinion, does not excuse Person B doing something shitty.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 01:13 AM
5

She has an ideal situation. A long term partner for comfort and support, and a short term partner for attraction, is ideal for your average woman. If she's really lucky, she'll be able to get both of those in the same person, at least temporarily. This would be extremely unusual, though, as the men that women are most attracted to are generally out of their league for real relationships. Likewise, men's ideal scenario is a harem of hot chicks. Men and women are just apes with language, thinking …
/r/MensRights20/07/15 05:11 AM
1

Unless they're paying him, no he's not.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 05:06 AM
5

Fantastic post. But I would leave out the word Radical. The idea that only radical feminism punishes men and boys is pretty silly.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 04:42 AM
5

...but we have no evidence that this was actually the institution's position. Yes. We do. The evidence is his wife's testimony.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 12:27 AM
1

In practice, they don't advocate for women in all areas, mostly just upper-middle-class women. Disagree entirely. Legally, the actions of feminism support and advocate for all women. Lobbying leading to the ACA banning statistically-founded sex-based premiums in health insurance? Helps all women, hurts all men. No actions taken to end sex-based premiums in car insurance. National Organization for Women lobbying against lifetime-alimony-reform in NJ, FL, and CA, when 97% of the people that pay al…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 08:42 AM
3

False. The dictionary definition is Advocacy For Women's Rights 'in the direction of' / 'on the grounds of' Equality. Which can be interpreted one of two ways, one being "give women more rights in all things until some mystical global parity with men is accomplished, determined only by how victimized I personally feel the female gender is", and the other being "give women more rights in the specific fields in which they need those rights to be equal"; which is less insane, but still supremacist,…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 07:35 AM
4

In theory, all feminists would be behind her No, they wouldn't. The definition of feminism is advocacy for women's rights. Selective service is not a right. In fact, it's the opposite of a right; an obligation. Selective service is the removal of the right to enlistment autonomy, giving the government control of that decision(whether or not you enlist) instead. Her action is egalitarian. Attempting to achieve equality and parity through the genders(without the specific pro-women angle and requir…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 07:27 AM
0

There are 0 states where "drunk people can't consent to sex". When, in fact, in every state (to my knowledge) drunk people cannot always consent to sex. It's painful that I have to spell this out for you. "drunk people can't consent to sex" =/= "drunk people cannot always consent to sex" The former is false. The latter is correct. The latter is not your original argument. People wearing red shoes cannot always legally fly an airplane. That does not mean it's illegal to fly an airplane with red s…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 05:16 AM
0

drunk sex isn't always rape. This is you conceding the argument. My original post: False. Drunk sex is legal. Incapacitated sex is not. Drunk=/=incapacitated. There are 0 states where "drunk people can't consent to sex". If drunk sex isn't always rape, then it's only rape if some other condition is met. The condition required, as I've said repeatedly, is "Incapacitated", a much stronger word, with stronger court requirements. "Drunk people can't consent" and "drunk sex is rape" are categorically…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 04:23 AM
0

I'm sorry that you think that means drunk? It doesn't. I make responsible decisions all the time while drunk. Like, for instance, choosing not to drive. Notice, if someone is charged with drunk driving, it's understood that they had the capacity to choose not to drive. If they did not, they could not be held responsible. Which is why "Drunk" is less than "Incapable" / Incapacitated.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 02:33 AM
0

Correct. Expelling students at will results in lawsuits, though, often settled in favor of students.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 02:02 AM
0

From your "source"(an open-answer question site is nota source), the "best answer": Having sex with a person who has consumed alcohol is not necessarily rape, many if not most couples have sex for the first time under the influence of alcohol. The question, as others have pointed out, is whether the person had sufficient capacity to consent given her mental state. If not, than it is rape. It is also rape to have sex with an unconscious person for much the same reason, the unconscious person's me…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 01:58 AM
0

Correct. The incapacitation standard is universal in this country, and the UK. As per that definition, it is routinely upheld in case precedent to mean Unconscious or very close to it, to the point of being incapable of communication and bodily control. It does not mean "drunk". Unless you think all drunk people are incapable of communicating.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 11:41 PM
0

Here's an example of a source: the legal code for new York, the state your linked lawyer providing not-legal-advice practices law in. Don't worry, you don't have to look through it. Like the other 49 states, it also uses the incapacitation standard.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 11:36 PM
0

Here's an actual source. The south Carolina legal code. TL;DR - If you make someone else incapacitated and then have sex with them, it's Sexual Misconduct In The 1st. If they make themselves incapacitated and then you have sex with them, it's misconduct in the 3rd. This -- you thinking you know the law in a state to revolve around intoxication, and then being wrong -- will be the case in every state. Because there are 0 states in which drunk people can't consent to sex. SECTION 16-3-652. Crimina…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 10:32 PM
0

You conveniently forgot the part where he said This Is Not Legal Advice. If you're going to try and prove a state in the US has sexual laws removing consent from all intoxicated individuals, you're going to need a link to state legal code or case precedent.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 10:07 PM
0

Stsm is a service for abuse victims. Their website is not a legal source, and carries just as much weight as that poster. You would need actual legal text or case precedent.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 10:06 PM
0

There are 0 states where drunk sex is illegal. It does not depend on state. The only time drunk sex with consent is rape is when they're so drunk they're incapacitated.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 10:04 PM
1

You should be saying men are raped more often. Because they are. The term Rape Culture originated in US Prisons.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 08:24 PM
0

No, it's not. except scotland The law requires incapacitation. The legal text specifies incapacitation. Case precedent upholds the legal text. Drunk sex is legal, sex with an incapacitated person is illegal, sex with two incapacitated people is practically impossible; incapacitation is generally regarded to mean unconsciousness, or an acute lack of awareness and bodily control. The poster is just fear mongering with lies.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 08:13 PM
0

False. Case precedent upholds the fact that drunk sex is legal, and incapacitated sex is not. Drunk=/=Incapacitated.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 08:13 PM
-1

False. Drunk sex is legal. Incapacitated sex is not. Drunk=/=incapacitated. There are 0 states where "drunk people can't consent to sex".
/r/MensRights14/07/15 08:12 PM
0

So you're changing your argument from "it says intoxicated people can't consent" -- which it clearly does not -- to "okay well it's being applied that way"? Yeah, ending it after admitting you're wrong is usually a good idea.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 04:11 PM
0

I've never seen a case involving that, so I don't know.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:30 PM
1

No, it doesn't. Case precedent in the United States and the UK upholds the law that drunk people can consent. The idea that a man can go to jail for having sex with a woman who is just "drunk" is it a fantasy told by feminists to scare men and by people on this board to pretend to be a victim. There are plenty of real reasons to feel victimized by modern culture, but this is not one of them.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:29 PM
0

Like I said. You need to read it again. This is the exact sub-article you attempted to source: (2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances: (A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused. It does not say anywhe…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:09 PM
1

Perhaps "meaningless" was a strong word to use. Yes, I agree this poster indicates public anti male sentiment. But it's also legally false, so it does not directly represent anti male laws.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:58 PM
0

You need to read it again. It says "believing you received affirmative consent, even though you did not, because you're intoxicated, is not a valid excuse". (A) The accused's belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication ... of the accused intoxication of the accused Turns out, being drunk does not get you off the hook for rape, if other, non-alcohol-related laws say you raped someone.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:53 PM
0

Then it's extremely unlikely they'd be able to have sex.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:50 PM
3

And other laws that say you are incapable of consenting while drunk. There are exactly zero states where you are incapable of consenting to sex while drunk. The only first world country that bases their sexual consent laws around 'Drunk' / 'Intoxicated' is scotland. Everyone else uses standards identical or extremely similar to Incapacitated. You're ignorant of the law. Drunk sex is not rape. Incapacitated sex is rape. Drunk =/= Incapacitated. Drunk sex is not rape.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:46 PM
1

Your reading comprehension is awful, and you need to go read my post a couple more times. :]
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:34 PM
15

Correct. Which is why no rape is occurring in the poster, or in the poster's hypothetical future.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:33 PM
1

Already answered that ignorant, false statement. :]
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:32 PM
-1

I didn't say that this country is in a good place, gender speaking. Only that this poster isn't an example of the problem
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:13 PM
3

None of anything matters, when you have no due process, sadly. Inside of college, you shouldn't even have consensual sober sex with a college girl. Outside of college, in the eyes of the law, though, drunk sex is okay.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:10 PM
5

Yes, you can. Legal definitions and case precedent have upheld that fact again and again. Drunk sex is not rape. Incapacitated sex is rape. Drunk =/= incapacitated. Drunk sex is not rape.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:56 AM
14

^ Correct reply. Drunk sex is not rape. Incapacitated sex is rape. Drunk =/= incapacitated.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:52 AM
18

This is a meaningless college poster, and completely lies about the law. The law and case precedent in the US is clear. Drunk sex is not a crime. Drunk sex is legal. Incapacitated sex isn't. But if you're having sex with an incapacitated person you're basically using a blow-up doll and you know you're doing something wrong.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:49 AM
50

Then it's a good thing there is no legal definition that says drunk sex is rape. Because it's not. Incapacitated sex is rape. And it's pretty damn impossible for two incapacitated people to have sex.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:48 AM
29

Drunk sex is 100% legal. Having sex with a drunk person while sober is not rape. Incapacitated sex is rape. Drunk sex is not.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:47 AM
-1

Dataclysm is a book. That counts as a source. You're really good at being clueless. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 06:13 PM
0

Oh dear. An internet student thinks my source is imperfect. Better listen to his non-existent source instead.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 04:15 PM
-1

I don't recall saying that eyewear was more important than physique...
/r/TheRedPill12/07/15 03:47 PM
1

Who asked if arousal indicates consent? If doesn't. The poster does indicate a viewpoint that's been fostered across the nation. That viewpoint being, drunk sex = rape, when it's not, by legal definition or case precedent. There is no legal double standard where drunk women can't consent, and drunk men can... because there is no legal standard where drunk women can't consent. What you're referencing, with that source, is Private Title IX regulation. Campus policies =/= law. Being expelled =/= go…
/r/MensRights12/07/15 02:08 PM
1

No. It doesn't. You're so busy debating the complaint that "only drunk women can be raped", that through simple misdirection, you've believed the bullshit statement that Drunk Sex Is Rape in the first place. It doesn't matter who's drunk. Because drunk sex is not rape. Not legally. Not in court precedent. Not anywhere. except scotland
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:51 PM
0

Here's the part where you're confused: I have data to support my statement. You do not. You can yap about my data supposedly not being representative of a greater whole, but unless you have the data to support that, your opinion can be entirely disregarded.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:11 PM
-1

Dataclysm is an actual source. You can't read. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:06 PM
-1

No it doesn't.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:04 PM
-1

Again, if you think surveys of 1,000,000+ sample size are a bad source, you're hopeless. If you think I need to link you exact sites, because you're too lazy to Google a source I've directly cited, you're also hopeless.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 04:07 AM
-1

Saying someone is attractive is literally a compliment. OKCupid Data literally proves that women refuse to acknowledge that 60% of attractive men(men between 50-80, on a percentile scale of attractiveness) are attractive. Because they don't even think they're attractive. In spite of the fact that, statistically, they are. Source: Dataclysm, the collection of OKCupid statistics. TL;DR - Women don't really compliment attractive men, certainly not as much as men compliment attractive women, and par…
/r/MensRights12/07/15 03:33 AM
0

I'm... I'm sorry if you think you can compete with a millions-broad sample-size study, with your personal opinion? You can't. Per yes, hard facts on subjective opinions of the first world population in aggregate, men think ~50% of women are above average in attractiveness, and women only think ~20% are. Obviously, 50% are, in both cases. That means women in aggregate don't compliment 60% of attractive men(men that fall between 50% and 80%), because they don't think they're attractive in the firs…
/r/MensRights12/07/15 03:10 AM
1

Contacts are generally better than glasses, in the male attractiveness index. Sorry, he's kind of right. Got contacts a year ago. Haven't looked back.
/r/TheRedPill12/07/15 03:02 AM
1

Drunk sex is not rape. Incapacitated sex is rape. Drunk =/= Incapacitated. Drunk sex is not rape.
/r/TheRedPill12/07/15 02:41 AM
0

Most relevant post in this thread. It's nothing short of misdirection, the way feminists have attempted to paint Drunk Sex As Rape, when it's not.
/r/TheRedPill12/07/15 02:40 AM
0

Yes. You did. And I specifically responded to each one of them. With quotations, to boot, in the first response. Nice try, though.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 02:17 AM
1

Not really, no. OKCupid data proves it. 80% of guys are below average, in terms of attractiveness, in the minds of the female majority. If you're in that top 10-20%, though, yeah. You get some compliments. Mostly from uggos, though, or middle aged ladies who like to be sassy flirts.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 02:13 AM
2

Is that supposed to be a list of sources that proves me wrong? Source 1: Prosecutor Kerry Malin said the woman was referring to a 2007 legal ruling that someone who is drunk may not be capable of giving consent. Do you understand what the word May means? This statement can be very simply rephrased as: Prosecutor Kerry Malin said the woman was referring to a 2007 legal ruling that someone who is drunk may be capable of giving consent. Do you know what that means? It means drunk sex is not rape by…
/r/MensRights12/07/15 01:47 AM
1

I just explained all the ways that's wrong and ignorant. Repeating it doesn't make it right. Women "attracting men" is utterly meaningless. Frank does not get to have sex with Susan, just because Susan put on make-up and a skirt to attract a man she likes(re: not Frank). If women "had to accept" a penis for sex to work, rape wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 01:18 AM
0

The first half of your title doesn't hold up in court. Men are not convicted of rape for having sex with drunk women, unless those drunk women: A.) Were so drunk they were incapacitated, i.e. unconscious or barely conscious B.) did not consent. So, considering you've based your question on a lie often reused by feminists(drunk sex is rape), no, the question doesn't hold up.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:27 AM
7

Pretty sure I'll take getting expelled over going to jail for a felony any day of the week. But if what you're aiming for is "sex in college can get men expelled for no reason at all", then yes. I agree. Preponderance of evidence standards leave so much room for error that the only way for a man to guarantee his college stay is to not have sex.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:09 AM
4

No. They don't. That's the point. Being expelled from college =/= being convicted of a crime. Title IX Regulation =/= going to jail for rape. Title IX regulation is bullshit, yes. But so is the idea that men go to jail for having sex with drunk girls that can still converse with you. They don't.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:06 AM
0

Calling bullshit. Your text implies ropes. ('tied up really good') As someone who's tied people up in sexual acts many times, the idea that three teenage girls would know how to restrain a man with ropes for an hour is exceedingly unlikely. The idea that the same rope constriction would be viable hours later is absolute bullshit. Rope stretches, skin compresses. That, and the whole sounds like masturbatory fiction instead of crime details.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 12:01 AM
1

women exist all day to attract men, with make up, pushups, heels, hot outfits etc. That's the goal. Is that not actively pursuing a man No. It's not. None of the actions you listed are pointed at a single target. So no, it's not pursuing a (singular) man. It's not pursuing Fred, or Tom. Saying this is pursuing a man is like saying "going to a restaurant" = "ordering coconut shrimp". Guys DO pursue women for the most part. Guys have a higher sex drive, for the most part, proven by numerous studie…
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:38 PM
1

There is no such policy. Drunk sex = legal. Incapacitated sex = rape. Law and court precedent has upheld this.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:14 PM
0

John Doe was not charged with or convicted of rape. Title IX regulation =/= rape law. Title IX college law based on preponderance of evidence is bullshit, yes. But saying men are convicted just because a woman is "drunk" is also bullshit. Court precedent and law has repeatedly upheld that drunk sex = legal, incapacitated sex = illegal.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:11 PM
27

No, it's not. The legal reality, in law books and in the court room, is that intoxicated people can consent. Incapacitated people cannot. Drunk =/= Incapacitated. Drunk sex = legal. Incapacitated sex = rape. Really, really tired of the utterly baseless idea that just being drunk is enough to convict someone of rape. By law and by legal precedent, it's not. She has to be unconscious or very close to it for you to be convicted.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 10:58 PM
7

No, my joke telling brethren. You shall not go negative today. Have this upvote.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 01:13 PM
12

Women are not interchangeable blank canvases to be acted upon by your super alphaness. Some are fucking boring in bed even when they're trying to make you happy. Get laid more, you'll figure it out.
/r/TheRedPill05/07/15 04:13 PM
-1

Nah, would definitely take the unfaithful nympho over the faithful dead fish.
/r/TheRedPill05/07/15 12:46 PM
6

FDRekt
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:59 AM
2

Lolol. You'd marry a girl without knowing if she's a lazy, whiny dead fish in bed first? Good luck with that.
/r/TheRedPill05/07/15 10:52 AM
6

No, it wouldn't be. The 1:5 statistic is a consequence of the disparity between male sexual desire and female sexual desire. A product of observable differences in libido. Not of some intangible social or conscious assessment of men. Even if every man on the planet was fucking awesome at a minimum, women's sexual desire as a gender could still be satisfied by the top ~20% of them.
/r/TheRedPill04/07/15 09:40 PM
1

So we've upgraded from "disgusting neckbeard" to "dad bodded" now? Wtf does that even mean? All dads are fat neckbeards? You know why dicaprio has a pretty face? Because he's not fat and it's not full of pudge.
/r/TheRedPill03/07/15 07:18 AM
3

Lol what a bunch of horseshit. Your points are either logically braindead, sourceless attempts to take credit for things feminism had nothing to do with, or both. Expanded voting rights gave more of a say to individual families with more daughters than sons. Are you serious? Voting power in a democracy is directly divisible by the number of people voting. Giving women the right to vote negatively impacts the voting power of all men. This is zero sum. Fair? Yes. Pro-men? You'd have to be legitima…
/r/MensRights03/07/15 02:22 AM
5

Lolol. No. You know why? Because "disgusting neckbeard" and "hot face" are mutually exclusive. Lifting is part of physical attraction. Pudgy faces are never hot. Girls will overlook a butterface if he's got abs on a beach to go with it.
/r/TheRedPill03/07/15 12:50 AM
0

That means she's either a liar and untrustworthy or she's incompetent in the use of birth control. Option 3, she wanted kids more than she wanted to wait until marriage to have kids. 90% of women will choose Unwed Children With A Valuable Man over not having them and waiting for marriage. Most of the time, it's the man that doesn't want children. Therefore, all the time, it's the man's responsibility to make sure birth control is present. You can't count on someone to do something they don't eve…
/r/TheRedPill01/07/15 05:27 PM
29

Yeah, no. That's not how it works. Girls don't want someone relatable to them. They definitely don't want someone that likes guys.
/r/TheRedPill30/06/15 12:02 PM
2

Take it to the principal. Make a fuss about it. A LOUD fuss. You'll get out of the detention, at the least.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 07:20 PM
2

Women like children. More than men. Yes, women will dislike this.
/r/askTRP19/06/15 10:16 PM
2

I fear for your future, if you think your pullout game is strong.
/r/askTRP19/06/15 10:16 PM
7

Condoms suck. I use them, but as a birth control method, they're expensive, bothersome, and they directly negatively impact sensation and performance. Because of that, a lot of people don't use them. The fact that condoms suck is the sole reason the pull out method exists. Effective male birth control that doesn't impact sex would certainly have an impact. An increase in STDs and a decrease in pregnancy.
/r/askTRP19/06/15 10:15 PM
1

You made an ad hominem argument. I pointed it out. You think that shows an "awkward eagerness"? You think that it serves as any kind of indication that I recently found out what an ad hominem argument was? You're an idiot. Your argument isn't wrong because you're an idiot; it's wrong fit the reasons I already pointed out, which you've failed to address or counter. But, as an unrelated fact, you're an idiot.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 05:47 PM
0

Ad Hominem isn't a fad. It's a poor man's argument tactic. Every time you attempt it, you show that you don't have an actual leg to stand on. Every time someone points it out to you, they're not being a hipster. They're showing you that you don't know how to make a case for yourself or your beliefs. Stop failing at that so much, and maybe you'll stop seeing it.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 05:17 PM
0

1.) Pretty /r/cringe ad hominem attempt you have there. 2.) There are more negative stigmas surrounding being poor.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 02:07 PM
3

Double negative definitely doesn't not undo your point there.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 03:08 AM
1

No it's not. The fundamental idea of recognizing which mate opportunities are comparatively successful hasn't changed. Only the indications of that success.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 02:36 AM
0

Better is subjective. So yes, they do.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 02:34 AM
0

Your point is ridiculously flawed. Fake tits don't indicate better genes or offspring. Men still like them, because they're hardwired to. Likewise, it really doesn't matter if you're bringing home sabertooth steak or a Lamborghini. As long as you're bringing home more of it than the next guy, you're a more attractive mate.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 02:33 AM
1

Social standing is a product of our biology. Give chimpanzees bananaźmoney, and male chimpanzees will use their banana money to buy sex. Our biology, is that men want sex with lots of hot women, and women want a high quality mate and the resources/security to raise the child. None of that is a product of modern human society. Modern human society is, in fact, a product of that.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 02:30 AM
1

The US https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_assault.pdf&sa=U&ved=0CBMQFjADahUKEwianvfTkJXGAhXWLYwKHYs0BIo&sig2=paMSb6-B7Yni3lYODNqd7w&usg=AFQjCNFsuMSyDNdCbc5el4XLoIKk7VHxWg "The issue at trial will generally be whether or not the victim was incapacitated to the point of not being able to consent" The UK: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/13/three-men-jailed-for-raping-drunk-woman Other guys lawyer wife is mistaken. I'd Google m…
/r/MensRights16/06/15 09:24 PM
1

His point is false. You're legally able to consent to sex all the way up to incapacitation. Incapacitated is the exact word the law uses to define drunk/drugged-inability-to-consent.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 08:41 PM
1

False. The incapacitated standard is held up by numerous cases of court precedent.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 08:41 PM
1

Then no. Two intoxicated people can never be in a sexual situation where they're raping eachother. Having sex requires at least one person to be physically capable enough to commit the sexual act to/on another person, and an incapacitated person is incapable of doing that. Seeing as how it's only rape if someone is incapacitated, it's impossible to have a double rape scenario.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 07:09 PM
1

Do you mean incapacitated? Two incapacitated people can't have sex. That's what incapacitated means; physically incapable. So: no. But if one of those intoxicated people was intoxicated to the point of incapacitation, and the other intoxicated person was not, than the incapacitated person was raped by legal definition, yes.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 05:28 PM
1

To be fair, there isn't much in that quote that is technically wrong. "Incapacitated = rape" is the exact definitions used in the law. The quote only says that intoxicated sex MIGHT be rape; which, if they're intoxicated enough to be incapacitated, is true.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 03:29 PM
3

Ever seen a girl who wouldnt leave a guy alone even when he made it clear he wasnt interested? Yeah. They're called clueless. Or desperate. They're not called creeps.
/r/TheRedPill11/06/15 09:23 PM
1

girls can be ... creepers, too False. Creep as a noun is used almost exclusively to define men that give off unwanted sexual attention or appear to be considering unwanted sexual attention.
/r/TheRedPill11/06/15 08:59 PM
0

But that's also assuming that women make their mate selection solely off of physical attractiveness. Which is not necessarily true. False. Nobody said anything about selections being made off of just physical attractiveness. The OKCupid data states purely "attractiveness", and it doesn't specify what criteria, physical or all inclusive, was used to make that assessment. Likewise, seeing someone on the street tells you a lot more about them than if they're physically attractive. It tells you if t…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 08:02 PM
1

That men have interest in a larger percentage of women, than women have in men. The point was pretty clear. As was the sentence structure.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:09 PM
1

Stand next to them.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 06:57 PM
2

ugly women You're showing your disconnect with reality here. Per OKCupid data, women think >80% of men are ugly(less attractive than average), and men believe ~50% of women are ugly. Pretending women disliking ugly come ons, and men disliking ugly come ons, are the same thing? Is false.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 06:55 PM
8

Definitely not true. Without the experience as an adult male, to compare the experience as an adult female to, you have no control group. The person in question would have no idea if they were being treated differently because they were female, or because they were an adult.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:52 AM
12

False. I'd love to earn one dollar and spend two, like the average american woman does.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:48 AM
5

I can't imagine any amount of workplace "drama" getting exhausting. Because I, like most people, work for a boss that doesn't give a flying fuck about drama. And I, like most men, don't give a flying fuck about what any drama-inclined co-workers who are not my boss think or say about me. Living as a woman would be much easier. Which is probably why MtF transgendered people outnumber FtM transgendered people two to one.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:47 AM
0

Even transgender people identify strongly as one gender or the other This is a false generalization. Self-proclaimed gender-fluid people exist. So, providing you give full respect and deference to the self-identifying capacity of transgender individuals... then yes, it does work that way, sometimes.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:31 AM
2

To misgender yourself is a horrible thing to do, for everyone. Yeah, no. I can think of a million worse things to do than misgender yourself. Such as, stealing two dollars from someone. Or texting in a movie theater.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 07:07 AM
2

You need to look up Identifying in a dictionary. If I say I'm a woman, I am identifying as a woman. If you think transgender benefits and positions/status should require more than Identifying As Transgendered, then sure. I agree. But right now, it generally doesn't. If an when there is an actual scientific criteria for determining if one person is transgender and one is not, I'll be all for stabilizing and supporting it. But there isn't. And if you do establish such a criteria, you will be damag…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 06:22 AM
12

Yes. It should be taken seriously. The best way to combat a system aligned against you and based on nothing is to use that same system as a tool/weapon.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 05:24 AM
4

People you're claiming aren't transgender don't need transgendered people and people attempting to defend selective types of transgendered people telling them they aren't transgendered. So stop being transphobic, kay?
/r/MensRights03/06/15 05:23 AM
3

Identifying as a gender is a choice. Saying you identify as female makes it true. So, if anyone has a problem with that, they're a trans-hating twat. You really have no ground to stand on to attack this problem solving approach, that doesn't also attack the rights of every other trans-identifying individual.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 05:22 AM
1

Lol, no. Try that with a gay guy and see how fast he gets on Grindr. Withholding sex does not work in 99% of gay male relationships. And it doesn't need to. Because guys like sex pretty universally, gay guys included.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/15 04:55 AM
1

Fuck that. As soon as she goes on a star-rating allowance to realize how fucked she is, communal grocery shopping is over. I'm eating on the road every day and she's wondering where she managed to fuck up so bad.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/15 04:54 AM
1

+1, like this approach. I'd ask if it could come in coupon vouchers. And then I'd take my voucher down to the bar because whores are gross.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/15 04:50 AM
2

Studying for your exam benefits you. Your girl is trying to incentivize you to do things that are unquestionably good for you. This is a good quality. Doing chores that you don't think need to be done, or that you don't think need to be done as often, or that other people have created the need for, doesn't benefit you. The wife is trying to incentivize someone else to work for her. This is a bad quality.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/15 04:46 AM
1

This, sir. This is the answer. This is why you don't get married, and why kids come with serious flaws(that are for you to consider and evaluate). This ability is based on the foundation of being able to walk away. Once you can't walk away, you can't tell Susan that you can get it better at Sally's if she doesn't shape up.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/15 04:26 AM
9

If that's pre-arranged and agreed upon and all that, sure. But if I joined up as a roommate with someone, and then a month later they decided they were going to invite a bunch of people over to play loud musical instruments in the middle of the house in the AM twice a week I'd tell them to fuck right off with it too. That's the kind of thing you'd need to put in the Roommate Wanted classified. $500, Util. Included, Band practice in the living room.
/r/TheRedPill01/06/15 04:22 AM
5

If you don't want anything to do with her, why the fuck do you care if it looks desperate? Do what you want, period.
/r/askTRP01/06/15 01:14 AM
1

Either: You look like a skinnyfat twink, which is attractive to some gay guys but not as much to women, You come across as blatantly homosexual, so women lose sexual interest, or much more likely, you're just not communicating with women effectively. Talk to them. Understand your body language, and theirs. If they're smiling at you in any capacity beyond "Oh, hello there", they're blatantly noticing you. Converse. Men will tell you they want to pound you in the butt, if that's their thing. Women…
/r/askTRP01/06/15 01:12 AM
1

Uh, no. False. Drunk women can consent. Incapacitated women cannot. The law has upheld this consistently.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 01:18 PM
2

Nah, they don't. US Law has held fast and firm to the standard of Incapacitation time and time again, per court precedent. It's only in kangaroo courts with no real legal power like Universities where you can be penalized for having sex while drunk.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 08:38 AM
5

Drunk doesn't mean no. Someone needs a law book.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 02:29 AM
1

Here's the lessons you missed: 1.) Make yourself attractive; by working out, dressing well, smelling nice. A gym, sense of style(you can borrow this from magazines / others that look like you who have a sense of style, if you must), and a cologne that's received compliments can go a long way. 3.) Improve your body language. You can improve your body language by consciously practicing it, and you can consciously practice it by flirting/talking/hitting on women with an intention of improving yours…
/r/askTRP25/05/15 03:49 PM
3

If that's all you got from the story, you should give up now and invest in a cabin and a dog.
/r/askTRP25/05/15 03:14 PM
2

I'm also currently interested in a milf right now but I have no idea how to game her If by this you mean "I like one particular MILF-y woman, how do I win her over", you're doing it wrong. Abundance Mentality means that you never cater your attempts to an individual woman. Work on yourself, be open to/flirtatious with lots of women, and of those that show interest in you, choose the MILFy one (which may not be the same woman you're currently hot for). I worked retail at the time. I'm fairly attr…
/r/askTRP25/05/15 12:06 PM
2

I'm 29 at the moment, and I 'plated' a 48 year old a couple years ago. It was pretty enjoyable. She was still pretty cute, definitely an ~8.5-9 in her 20s. Understood to be 'just fun' on both ends, even though she did things a typical plate would do to try and win me over; cook for me, spend $$ on little vacations to the city to tear up a hotel room, etc. I think general trends should apply, and the game changes depending on the age dynamic between you and the person in question. But if you like…
/r/askTRP25/05/15 02:37 AM
1

Nah. Says she wanted an abortion. It's a slut defense, and/or angry offense. Being raped is less slutty than sleeping around, or rape accusations are an effective way to lash out at someone that won't hire you.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 11:08 AM
1

Why wouldn't you just walk in and relax? If they tell you you can't (because of your gender identity / sex), while they're inside that room, they're breaking the rules and should leave.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 08:13 PM
1

No, you do not need to change the scenario to an imaginary scenario where the sizes are different. The US government is not simply a scaled up replacement for corporations. It does not operate as corporations do and it is not comparable to "a larger country, next to a smaller one". Unless you can prove that corporations would run a 640-billion-a-year-profit war machine when the government's didn't exist, you don't get to imply that the only difference between the government and corporations is s…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:19 PM
1

"Being bigger" is an attribute inherent to government. Therefore, yes, the government is worse, because it is bigger.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:08 PM
2

I'd buy that.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:31 AM
3

I've seen some credible arguments that puts the existence of such privileges into doubt No you haven't.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:23 AM
1

I fail to see how that justifies the facts.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:21 AM
1

The only person mentioning it is you. Repeatedly. I haven't really checked into TRP for the last few months, so I haven't been here to run a highlighter over your identical shitposts. Last I checked, you were up to about 8 alts with 30+ copies of this identical topic. If I search recent TRP submissions for college keywords, how many more identical whiny examples and alts am I going to find? You're not clever. Give it up.
/r/TheRedPill11/05/15 03:02 AM
1

I spin plates in a small suburban beach town. OP is a whiny troll that makes this topic 2-3 times a week. But spinning plates outside of the city is easy, as long as you have a way to interact with the public and/or are Internet Savvy. Step 1 is still Be Attractive.
/r/TheRedPill11/05/15 02:10 AM
1

What kind of Grade A dysfunction do you have, to make this topic OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER, on 10+ alts? It's actually fucking unsettling. Get help. Real help.
/r/TheRedPill11/05/15 02:02 AM
3

No. But it's a disqualifier. Girls don't fart in front of Johnny Depp. You can use it as an opportunity to disqualify her, if you want: Something like "Classy." would do the job simply. But you should be making yourself more attractive, and pursuing girls that find you attractive enough to do/not-do things for you, like fart up your airspace.
/r/askTRP01/05/15 07:24 PM
3

The article illustrates that at least 98 athletic scholarships go to men, out of 184. It's just complaining about how those scholarships are distributed among the teams. Murray college really likes it's football team. This isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 12:28 PM
2

boo hoo I'm wrong
/r/MensRights01/05/15 02:03 AM
3

http://i.word.com/idictionary/allowance regularly Man you're bad at this. Want to go for strike three?
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:57 AM
0

If you have a shitty wife and you play the lottery expecting to keep all your winnings, it's your own fault for being ignorant of the law and putting yourself in a situation with a shitty wife.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:17 PM
14

"Money that a court orders someone to pay their spouse REGULARLY" So, basically, you're providing sources that prove you wrong? Making our job easy bro.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:15 PM
2

Opposed to a place for recently friendzoned college kids to vent their misogyny. Lol. Uh huh. Anyone who has anything critical to say about (cultural and/or biological differences prevalent among) women must be romantically unsuccessful. Gotcha. You're so ethically and intellectually enlightened, bro.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:54 PM
5

How's your Ending All Sexism campaign going? What's on the agenda next, biology textbooks? They totally discriminate between men and women. spoilers, it's because men and women are different, and much Sexism - such as, males have penises and females don't, or people tend to stand up to female assholes less often than men - is relatively factual.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 03:11 AM
1

If it wasn't for people choosing to serve, your world would be a lot less safe and comfortable. [citation needed] Ridiculous Conjecture and attempts at being a psychic. The US spends 640 billion dollars on defense every year. The next highest country's defense spending is China, w/ 150 billion (less than 25% of ours), and a considerably higher population and considerably more precarious geographical position. Your idea that our soldiers, and therefore our military spending, is required to secure…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:56 AM
2

the public citizenry are the ones that the soldier is serving. Lol what. Let me get this straight. You think that someone taking (tax)money out of my pocket, flying halfway across the planet, and kicking in doors in third world countries is serving me? It's not. Being a soldier is not a service to US citizens; it hasn't been since the 1940s. Being a soldier is a service to yourself in wages, housing, food, and training, a service to the government(re: wholly different than the country and especi…
/r/MensRights09/04/15 09:39 AM
2

TL;DR - Incorrect. You can, in fact, judge him for the actions committed by him and under his shared banner. The fact that something is your job does not excuse the thing. That's a false ethical rationalization. See: Nazis. The only question is whether or not those actions were good or bad in the microcosm is which they existed. On the one hand, the wars he participated in were unquestionably bad. They were founded on false testimony, wholly unproductive, killed many, many, many people, and cost…
/r/MensRights09/04/15 12:44 AM
0

Make identical posters for preventing theft. Tape them up next to each rape poster and take a picture of them side by side. If you find someone has torn one down, tear the rape one down too. Simple activism you can do.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 08:03 PM
1

The logic and strawmanning of your prior comment was pants on head levels of retarded, and didn't warrant a response. Your continued attempt to refer to someone as if they're guilty, when you have nothing but an accusation, is quite relevant. It's indicative of your poor logic and bias. Inb4 you attempt to compare taking her accusation as fact, to me using her confession, despite the two things being no where near eachother in legal weight. Hold those down votes.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:47 AM
2

Yes, in many ways, it does. Many areas of law and finance are zero sum. If you give tax dollars to women(feminism), it must come from women AND men(anti-mra). To give some rights to men(post-conception reproductive rights), they must be taken away from women(anti-feminist).
/r/MensRights31/03/15 03:44 PM
1

accusing an allegedly* abused woman FTFY again, bro. You really gotta work on that.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 03:32 PM
2

I'm fighting against inequalities men face. I really don't care what you're fighting for. This is not a battle of moral high ground, it's a battle of real laws, and real money.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 08:53 AM
2

Rape of someone else is rape, even if Requi3m enjoys it FTFY too, bro, np
/r/MensRights31/03/15 08:51 AM
2

Also irrelevant. The point of not being sexist is to not interpret to actions of every member of a sex by the actions of the majority.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:57 PM
8

The downvotes you're getting are because you're taking her account as fact when you should realize nearly all accounts are biased in favor of the self, And because your "we should take the high road guys" rhetoric doesn't work, while "look how ridiculous your low road is, feminists; how do you like receiving that treatment?" does.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:54 PM
8

allegedly assaulted FTFY bro And what you like in bed is irrelevant. Sorry bro.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 10:27 PM
2

David is correct. Womens success in chess does not even measure up to their population in chess.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 09:04 PM
3

Wise is closer than Smart, in this context.
/r/TheRedPill29/03/15 11:19 PM
1

Whether or not I support it is irrelevant. The point is that it's not a Freedom of Speech violation. If you say things like I Support Freedom Of Speech, you should at least know what it is. Freedom of Speech is a right that protects citizens from government, legalized censorship and penalties for speech. The reason Freedom of Speech is a big deal, and private penalties are not, is because if the government bans your speech, nobody can read it, while if a private entity bans your speech, any othe…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 09:16 PM
2

No, they wouldn't. The Independent is not a public (re: government) entity. Therefore, any punishment they enact is a private punishment, legally. Freedom of Speech as a law does not protect you from private consequences for your (bigoted) speech.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:19 PM
2

Freedom of speech does not protect you from private consequences for that speech.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 07:16 PM
2

Transwomen outnumber transmen at least 2 to 1. So, those two issues are not exactly weighted equally.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:04 AM
2

96% of the population is heterosexual, so those two hypothetical risks do not hold equal weight.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:01 AM
1

Wow, you're dense. We're talking about what causes biological sex. As just illustrated, there are scenarios in which you can determine gender without genes. There are no scenarios where gender is determined without hormones. In your specific example of "the SRY gene causes gender", it's still being caused directly by hormones, because all the SRY gene does is activate other genes that create hormones.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 11:24 PM
0

The SRY gene triggers other genes, which trigger hormone production, which is what creates the differences in male fetuses. Yes. You can produce sperm without an SRY gene; you would do so by artificially administering the hormones that the SRY gene triggers, if our medical science were up to the task and we had a legitimate reason. I'm sorry that you don't understand basic sexual biology. I'm sorry that you think your light switch is why the room is bright.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 10:47 PM
1

Those genes tell the body to create hormones. Which creates male gender differences. Ergo, sex is decided by hormones, which are decided by genes.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 08:12 PM
8

All sexuality is fluid. Kinsey put out an enormous report in the 40s. I guess everyone forgot to read it.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 07:24 PM
0

I'm not confusing anything. You don't seem to understand that the way those genes are expressed, in the interest of sexual development, is hormones. You're saying the light switch illuminates the room, I'm saying it's light particles. Hormones is the more correct answer, as hormones can determine sex and sexual characteristics even if administered without natural genetic processes, while genes cannot decide Sex without hormones.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 07:06 PM
0

Is it a chromosome Yes. Also, your insinuation that all klinefelters men somehow defy the binary biological sex manifestation is ridiculous. The average man with the condition doesn't even know he has it, because it does not impact their physical characteristics enough to be anywhere near ambiguous, nevermind biologically female. And even though the most severe 10%(we're down to 1:10,000 now) may develop a small case of manboobs, they still have a penis that ejaculates sperm and there would be n…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 06:39 PM
1

Nobody has ever been convicted of making a false rape claim, unless they actually made a false rape claim beyond a reasonable doubt. You obviously don't understand how the Justice System works. Here's a brief diagram: . False Rape Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .Rape Conviction < - - - - - - - - - - |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -reasonable doubt - - - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - > As you can see, there is a very large gap …
/r/MensRights25/03/15 05:47 PM
1

Sex is decided by hormones which are decided by genes.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 05:31 PM
1

Gonna go ahead and un-PC your post. Female privilege is off the charts, compared to male privilege. Transsexual Female privilege is not. The majority of transsexuals are MtF, per just about any survey on the issue, at a rate of ~2:1+. Of course they're happier. It's a privilege upgrade. If I could start playing a "I have tits give me free stuff" card, I'd be happier too.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:50 PM
-2

It sounds like you didn't read my post, at all. Biology is the only thing that is binary. It's binary in 99.99% of cases; those hormonal disorders you mentioned making up the majority of the 0.01%. Nowhere did I discount biology, or even suggest someone else should discount biology. Biology is paramount. Your examples essentially amount to using hormonal problems(biology) to prove psychological issues. I discounted the idea that 'mental gender', I.e. 'gender identity', is binary. And if mental g…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:40 PM
9

Do you have a citation for post-op happiness?
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:12 AM
-2

The idea of a binary 'gender identity' is ridiculous. Nothing about how gender identity is measured(spoilers: it's not) or expressed, is binary. This is contrary to physical or biological sex, which is most definitely expressed in binary manifestations 99.999% of the time. There's a lot of stupid things in the article. And I think people should certainly be free to change their physical gender, as best that medical science allows, if they so choose. But if it's making a statement against the cat…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:32 AM
7

The fact that this compares levels to "working lawyers" makes it pretty worthless. It says 79% of working lawyers are white and 53% are white male, which are higher than population demographics.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:07 PM
2

What this is intended to be is irrelevant. It is an intentional creation, and it is a part of the advertising double standard. It is a direct cause of the gender bias problem. It is identical to passing the flu around because you deliberately chose not to take common sense hygiene precautions, like washing your hands after you sneeze into them. Both the creators of this commercial, and the person who transmitted that flu, deserve to be directly scolded for contributing to a real, avoidable probl…
/r/MensRights23/03/15 03:03 AM
2

That's like pointing out feminism's bias but not getting mad at valenti. Like pointing out the Flu but not getting mad at the guy that gave you a handshake covered in flu snot. Like pointing out anti-semitism but not getting mad at Hitler. The latter is simply a vector for the former, abs getting mad about it is the right thing to do.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 02:29 AM
2

It's not about one person being offended. It's about persistent, one sided bias from public media sculpting public opinion, sentiments, and culture.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 01:58 AM
2

Man, nothing cheers me up like some laughably wrong jackass pretending he won an argument. Thanks for the laughs bro.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 01:56 AM
12

That does not allow you to legally restrict housing to other people on the basis of age, gender, or both.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 10:21 PM
3

Who said anything about traditional marriages? There is nothing "traditional marriage" about Meghan's umpteenth entitled bullshit hit.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 07:56 PM
1

Traditional relationships aren't exploitative. Dear Future Husband is not about traditional relationships. Traditional relationships are founded on the idea of the man working and supporting the family, and the woman doing all of the work at home(cleaning/cooking) and generally understanding that her role in the relationship is that of support and home care; not being an entitled ass, being an emotional loon, arguing, and demanding additional favors in return for sex. If anything, modern relatio…
/r/MensRights22/03/15 07:53 PM
8

No, it's not traditionalism. Traditionalism is not deferring to your wife 24/7. Traditionalism is not sacrificing your relationship with your family. Go watch some 50s-style sitcoms and count how many times the wife acts like an entitled twat and the husband apologizes for it. It's next to none. Some lyrics in this song are traditionalist, but some are typical, modern, anti-male fare.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 07:42 PM
7

Isn't this illegal in federally funded school programs?
/r/MensRights21/03/15 10:09 PM
-1

Tell me which of those problems was solved by trying to shame the people doing it. I'll wait. spoilers, the answer is none. Shaming the people not making truckloads of money(I.e., the people buying the products procured by inhumane means), or enacting/enforcing laws to prevent it, are the only viable solutions. AKA, shaming the boys donating to boobstreams, or changing twitch rules.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 10:50 AM
1

There's nothing Bell Curve about it, really. Gay men outnumber Bi men ~5-to-1, and that's not a bell shape at all. If you mean Sliding Scale, then yes. It's unfortunate that Kinsey did all this work on surveying and categorizing sexual orientation and behavior back in the 40s, but so few modern day people are educated on his work.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:33 AM
1

There are three functional ways to define sexual orientation. 1.) What you identify as. If the woman says she's bi, she's bi. 2.) What sexually arouses you, voluntarily or involuntarily. If a naked woman increases her heart rate and blood flow to certain areas, she's bi. 3.) What sexual experiences you've had to date. If she's slept/masturbated to/fantasized about girls, she's bi. By the latter two methods, it sounds like she's bi, no questions asked. The first method is up to her, obviously. Yo…
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:32 AM
3

What citations do you have for women being more 'sexually fluid' than men? Statistics show that rates of non-heterosexal orientation in men and women are pretty damn similar(4-6%). You can say that women are more often bisexual, but that was not always true; the boylovers of ancient greece, for instance, are evidence of time periods where the opposite was true. And with songs like I kissed a girl on the radio, it's perfectly reasonable to say that any differences between the genders you perceive…
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:24 AM
2

In short? Because statistically, bisexual women outnumber homosexual women ~5-to-1. Men generally know this, or perceive this trend, and as such, will still try their luck with women that explicitly state they're looking for other women. It's an unfortunate reality of your orientation being statistically rare(~1-2%) and men generally being groomed by society and encouraged by testosterone to chase anything cute on two legs. The best thing you can do is ignore the guys that falsely assume you're …
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:18 AM
5

You seem to be under the delusion that feminism is a multi-splendored thing. It is not. The dictionary definition of Feminism began "Advocacy for women da deda deda" for decades and decades. Only very, very recently have people attempted, unsuccessfully, to change to definition to one that is not wholly exclusive to Helping Women. Their efforts to change the definition are useless, because definitions are determined by usage, not the other way around. Therefore, Feminism will continue to be defi…
/r/MensRights20/03/15 05:53 PM
2

Did you glance over the OP title? It asks if the is a feminist that believes men are on average worse off than women. So, if you have an issue with that type of assessment, take it up with him, as I was merely responding to the question. I will say that my personal opinion is that trying to equalize all the differences between the genders is futile, because they're biologically, hormonally, and psychologically different. I, personally, would be satisfied with "on average" equality. But that's ju…
/r/MensRights20/03/15 05:04 PM
-2

Great. "Don't leave your car door open with your keys in it. You'll come back to find a stack of money in your car but someone else is suffering." is not what you said. Which is why the analogy is not the same at all. Altruism is a much, much weaker social mechanism than self preservation.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:53 PM
2

Women who are man haters generally believe that men have it easier. And I've yet to meet anyone that identifies as a "female supremacist". But yes, as I described, in order for those two things to combine, the personality they combined in would most likely be sociopathic.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:47 PM
-6

False. The ones spending the money are the ones with the power. And it's MUCH easier to boycott a product or service, or outlaw it(change twitch rules), than it is to tell someone to stop making money.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:43 PM
-3

The power of the almighty dollar is the only power in this equation. The only reason women are tittystreaming like this is because of the untapped buying power of teenage boys that want an internet gamergirl waifu.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:41 PM
-3

Disagree. The only power in this equation is the $$$, and the site TOS. Teenage boys and twitch staff have that power, respectively.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:39 PM
-3

It's not like that at all. Sky is telling women to stop doing something that directly benefits them. The car keys analogy is you telling someone to stop doing something that harms them.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:37 PM
7

Nowhere did I say that all feminists are man hating "super feminists". Only that feminism by definition and by its history of action is advocacy for women, and only advocacy for women. And that advocating for women's rights and issues, and believing women have more rights and less issues than men, are two mutually exclusive things.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 03:20 PM
23

No, they're not. The dictionary definition of Feminism began "Advocacy for women da deda deda" for decades and decades. Only very, very recently have people attempted, unsuccessfully, to change to definition to one that is not wholly exclusive to Helping Women. Their efforts to change the definition are useless, because definitions are determined by usage, not the other way around. Therefore, Feminism will continue to be defined by its actions, and not by an extreme minority of academia trying t…
/r/MensRights20/03/15 01:48 PM
66

No. Feminism by definition is advocacy for women and only advocacy for women. The idea of advocating for women, and the idea that women are in a superior position in those terms, are mutually exclusive. So, if you find a feminist that is advocating for women while agreeing that women have it better, it'd have to be a sociopathic woman or masochistic and sociopathic man.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 11:00 AM
11

Lolol. Asking that question in askfeminists will get you instantly banned, as well as anyone who agrees banned. It's thebanhappiest circlejerk around.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 10:57 AM
1

This is the correct answer. This is an issue solvable by first parties, 90% of the time. I didn't even have to say anything to my 5-year LTR. Just a look that communicated the same message when she raised her hand.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 01:48 PM
2

Why would it even want to own something that it does not pursue?
/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:21 AM
5

Actions speak louder than words or "ideologies". The actions of feminism are not "for equality". They are Pro Women, in all domains, all the time, and only pro women. Whatever ideological bullshit you like to whine about pales in comparison to the influence of one dollar donated to a feminist(re: pro women) organization or cause.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:20 AM
7

The author I am so surprised.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:32 PM
11

Don't care. "Women have always been the primary victims of war." - Hillary Campaigning for a feminist on a soapbox of false victimhood does not make it okay to espouse false victimhood on his show. He's just a feminist, no slack required.
/r/TheRedPill14/03/15 02:42 PM
2

Men are rash drivers, now? Hasn't it been proven repeatedly that men get into less accidents per mile?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 04:10 AM
1

I'm happy as a peach, I just know a shithead when I see one, and a bad social policy when I see one. 'We should all just help eachother' doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work. If people are allowed to be greedy shitheads, they will, as human nature just isn't that altruistic.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:25 PM
1

Dude, what? All she did was ask for help. assume other people's time and effort had no value. FTFY too.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:00 PM
2

No. I would feel indebted to them, due to my natural respect and empathy of others. If I were to choose between that moral debt and just shoveling my own snow, I'd choose the shoveling. This woman is a shithead that feels no such empathy or respect towards men, and when you help her under such blatant pretenses, you're just encouraging shithead behavior.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 09:31 PM
34

Men and women are different. Equal opportunity does not create equal outcome. Enforced equal outcome is enforced sexism. Enforced equal outcome only in fields where women are disadvantaged is enforced sexism only against men.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 09:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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