TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Bartab Archive

View 14 posts and 2,253 comments by Bartab 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)
998

Bartab/r/MensRights13/11/13 03:06 PM
856

Bartab/r/MensRights23/09/12 11:16 AM
321

Bartab/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:48 AM
270

Bartab/r/MensRights03/04/14 12:29 PM
78

Bartab/r/MensRights09/02/14 04:26 PM
40

Bartab/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:37 PM
31

Bartab/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:57 AM
27

Bartab/r/MensRights07/12/13 12:14 AM
22

Bartab/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:06 PM
15

Bartab/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:22 PM
14

Bartab/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:07 PM
7

Bartab/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:47 PM
2

Bartab/r/MensRights28/11/13 03:11 AM
0

Bartab/r/MensRights07/11/13 07:37 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,253 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

Hmm? Thought it was common knowledge. Source is that bastion of anti-feminist, traditionalist, keep women barefoot and pregnant thought, the Huffington Post The by-gender stats are here
/r/MensRights04/04/14 03:17 PM
1

There's a reason only 23% of women (20% overall) identify as feminists while 32% of women (37% total) viewed feminism as a negative term. 82% said they believe in equality. Most people recognize that feminism has nothing to do with, and does not promote, equality.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 02:48 PM
0

That right there is again what I take issue with. There is no reason to believe these measures would not be effective in reducing sexual assault in prisoners. There's no reason to believe it will. So, impasse... Other than the fact that the all mighty Rick Perry pulled this belief out of his ass. Because clearly, Texas hasn't investigated the required changes at all. Really.. blaming the law on big govmint demoncrats despite the fact that it was signed into law under the ol George Dubz ten years…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:23 PM
1

Federalism isn't a real argument by itself. Excuse me? Federalism is the only reason necessary. That is your opinion and if Texas continues to deny implementing the measures I'll guess we'll know the result Refuse to sign off on the measures.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:20 PM
4

I have almost zero knowledge of the case but from what little I do know it seems to me that if I know my father has a gun saying my boyfriend is an intruder in my room it is not going to get better. Not just "has a gun" as in "a gun is somewhere in the house". He was standing there holding the gun. Little brother goes into room to say good night, sees boy, runs to father, father comes in with gun, asks questions, daughter lies, father calls 911, argument starts with boy, boy reaches down, father…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:18 PM
6

Law doesn't require facts to be known. It requires that a reasonable person would believe.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:15 PM
5

Being uninformed doesn't make you right. Just because you THINK someone is an intruder doesn't give you the right to murder them. You're right, good thing murder is a legal word that means "unjustified homicide", and homicide in defense of home is justified.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:13 PM
6

So if you just point me to where "dropping your hands" is a reasonable perception of threat that merits immediate lethal action. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31 You're going to want to read 9.31.a1A Right, it doesn't exist. Except it does. In all 50 states and DC.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:12 PM
6

Anyone you fight could have a concealed weapon. Doesn't give people the right to shoot anyone dead they are in a conflict with because they make some sudden move. It actually does, if it's not mutual combat and you didn't start it. That you would think it doesn't means you don't know the law. Zimmerman's actual successful defense, not the fake stand your grand the media used, was similar to what you describe. The keyword is reasonable in your earlier sentence. And a reasonable person will feel t…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:08 PM
7

The fact the father isn't even being considered for charges is goes to show you how ass backwards USA's gun and self-defense laws are. You mean constitutionally protected rights. It won't be changing. I can't name any Western country in the world where you can shoot an intruder dead without reasonable perception of force against yourself The US is a Western country, or did you forget?
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:05 PM
5

For start why he shot him into head, but not into torso? Because it's irrelevant. Both are kill shots. Trained shooters aim for the torso because it's easier to hit, not because it's less likely to kill. It's most likely that there's absolutely no specific reason it was a head shot. It just happened that way.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:02 PM
4

I am from European country with fairly liberal gun control, but in this case father would not leave prison for at least 5 years Then you live in a European country with no Castle Doctrine. Here, it's constitutionally guaranteed.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 11:56 AM
5

I don't know whether it's the anti-women view of this subreddit or a bunch of conservative gun toting americans came in here and are downvoting anyone who says that the father is guilty. Since anybody saying the father is guilty is factually and legally wrong, that's sufficient reason to downvote them. This occurred in the United States. Your pacifism doesn't make him guilty of anything. He was not protecting shit. The kid was fucking unarmed. The man I shot in my home wasn't armed either. Castl…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 11:55 AM
1

But, to claim it is ineffective and "counterproductive" like Perry does is just stupid. Counterproductive? How? That would imply these measures would only contribute to the specific issue of rape in prisons. Opportunity cost is a real thing. Spending money and effort for no improvement is counterproductive. Particularly stolen money from the taxpayers.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 11:44 AM
0

Sounds like an economical argument at heart to me. It's actually a federalism argument. Texas considers 17 yo to be adult, and doesn't want to separate them. Of course, economical arguments have value as well. It's why Texas isn't California. Not much of an improvement when it comes to expertize on reducing sexual abuse in prisons. Neither are the feds.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 11:16 AM
1

I only see arguments about economical problems with implementing the measures while I see no arguments as to why they are ineffective And that they don't match Texas law in regards to age separation. Unsurprisingly Texas is the worst kid in class Unproven. Most abuse in prison is guard-on-inmate.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 09:32 AM
2

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 09:07 AM
7

Equity feminists want equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. These two states of equality are contradictory. I don't like them either.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:44 AM
3

Don't understand why people put so much faith in that. If somebody has styles turned off - as I do sitewide - there is no indication that it's a np link. Posting and voting is both possible and appears on the site as of normal. In fact, I'll follow a np link, click on my name to get a list of my posts, click on the bar at the top to go to a new reddit, click on the reddit on the left to go to the front page...etc..etc..and then an hour and five posts later I'll realize I've been on np.reddit the…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:40 AM
10

SRS has been trying to get this reddit banned for at least 3 years and probably more. Still here.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:33 AM
0

Such a title holds as a presumption that the measures actually work toward that goal, instead of part of an ineffectual action by the feds in an act of continued power expansion. The Governor has no disagreement with the (claimed) goals, he just finds the rules to not fulfill those goals.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:13 AM
3

Are they though? Yes. LOL, but I'm the asshole here somehow? Yes. That's hardly an unambiguous example though, is it? IANAL, but it seems like giving sperm donors access to their children is not really something you want to happen. Because you're anti-father.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 07:22 AM
7

We don't even use the word rape anymore, it's all "sexual assault" and includes male victimization. I'm thinking this is a good thing? On the whole, it's probably a good thing, but that doesn't mean its without negatives. Notably, the lack of a legal usage and definition of rape means that feminists are free to use the word as any definition they choose. Since the negative reaction is to the word itself and not the definition of the word, they can capitalize on that reaction in all the ways deca…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 07:10 AM
6

I double-dog dare you to back that claim up with a basis in my user history. Posts to AMR are sufficient proof. Woah, I hate myself now? How is that even marginally surprising? [citation needed] CA SB 115 off the top of my head, no search needed.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:53 AM
5

I love it that your arguments basically boil down to "Well yeah, but you're a bad feminist." No, you're a piece of shit person who uses a radical version of feminism as an excuse to be a piece of shit person. When basically any feminist worth the name will be bad by MRA standards When those "worth the name" standards are "hates men" as you and yours like to use it as, then you're absolutely right! because the MRM is an anti-feminist movement. The MRM is anti feminist only because feminists are a…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:28 AM
2

Visitation rights don't require marriage. That hasn't been true since the 70s and persists only as a fictitious reason trotted out to not abandon the entire function of gov't recognition of marriages.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:08 AM
7

while I've personally been told to 'fuck off' several times. Add one to your count! Fuck off, AMR shithead. You are a tainted source, and no personal experience you may (or more likely, did not) have had here is not representative of the general experience others would receive.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 05:50 AM
4

This is the flip side of the debate over Title IX No, it's not the "flip side". It's exactly the same thing.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 04:55 AM
20

Of the 15 moderators, 7 are AMR/SRS So, big surprise they're idiotic there. I consider such reddits as SRS adjacent.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 04:22 AM
13

If there is an ultimatum, threat of violence, constant pressure to consent, etc... consent is not valid. Under what law? You don't get to define what is and is not consent. It's really quite simple, is saying "Come hiking with me or we're going to break up" illegal? No, it is not. It does not become illegal if you replace "come hiking" with "have sex".
/r/MensRights04/04/14 04:09 AM
4

If the only defining characteristic is sex, I do not understand how this statistic does anything other than bolster the claim that there is gender bias in the labor market when it comes to wages. Because there is a change to men's income when they marry: It goes up. Pressured to provide!!! they work longer. Which tends to lead to better success (sales bonuses, promotions, simply hourly wages, etc) That choice creates the illusion of discrimination by increasing men's income due to that choice of…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 02:29 AM
29

This is a common example of feminists trying to expand the definition of rape. "Pestering" somebody until they agree is not a crime. Five no's and then a yes is a yes.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 08:19 PM
6

No, really, it is. No, really, it isn't. This means any link to the site automatically sends a comment or submission to the subreddit's spam-filter. Spam filter isn't banned, you fucking retard. Nah. Yes, you do.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:53 PM
9

You linked to a regular SRS/AMR poster with an axe to grind who defines feminism as "againstmensrights". So yes, a troll. The claim that AVfM is "banned site wide" is pure fiction though and a fallacious attempt to poison the argument. It might be banned in /socialism, but it's clearly not banned site wide.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:39 PM
12

DeBeers. Most of the cost of a ring is diamonds, so that's the fantasy that's pushed. If any woman actually demanded that, it's a good hint to punt her.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:49 PM
41

Further, for the group of full-time workers who work 35-39 hours per week, women earned 111.3% of what their male counterparts earned in 2012, and therefore for that group there was an 11.3% pay gap in favor of women. ... Bottom Line: To claim that a significant portion of the raw wage gap can only be explained by discrimination is intellectually dishonest and completely unsupported by the empirical evidence.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 12:30 PM
72

Eventually the Crown dropped the numerous charges against Paul Fensome because, taken as a whole, the evidence showed that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. Emphasis added. Translated what this means is that if she had made only one or two false accusations Fensome would have still faced trial.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 11:29 AM
1

The other story is we live in America and can't wear a shirt with an American flag which is completely fucked up. They're both "cause disturbance". Pick both, or pick neither. You don't get to pick and choose.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:02 AM
1

No, it's not. Both issues have the same source: Heckler's veto. Somebody cries and whines and says it makes a disturbance, so the school bans it.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:34 AM
-4

Again, this is a school system that bans wearing clothing with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo because of the disruption it might cause. (Yet allows mexican flags every day, even july 4th - not that may 5th is anybodies independence)
/r/MensRights03/04/14 02:24 AM
11

Man hurt by gov't? It's just politics. Woman hurt by gov't? It's a travesty! We must do something!!!
/r/MensRights02/04/14 05:44 PM
12

The videos aren't very funny. The completely over the board reaction to them is fucking hilarious.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 04:43 PM
1

No, incarcerated people do not lose legal custody of their children. They can't have physical custody, obviously, since they're in jail, but stripping them of their rights make decisions about their children's upbringing is an entirely separate legal procedure. They have no custody. They can not demand input on how their children are raised. They can not demand the custodial parent bring the children for visits. They have to petition the court to gain custodial rights after being released. In no…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 03:31 PM
1

So traditional
/r/MensRights02/04/14 02:13 PM
4

The defense of Marital Coercion dates to the 18th century. It's not art. The defense is still valid in the UK, and apparently here in California.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 02:05 PM
1

Sure, men have a hand in raising their kids (when they're still around) but they're not giving up anything in the way that women are. This assertion is false and insulting. I reject it, and as its the primary basis of your entire claim, I reject that as well.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 01:34 PM
3

Everything I've listed is seen as a valuable commodity, which women often do for free None of what you listed is valuable. Domestic labor is simply not valuable, and reproductive services is by nature equal for both sexes. Child rearing is performed by both parents as well. In a thread created for the purpose of making it seem like women are economic leeches, I'm saying that if all women decided to stop having sex with men, decided to stop having children and raising them for free, we would live…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 01:01 PM
2

Domestic labour Which is what I referenced above. Its a service available on the open market with a low cost, and even when not directly purchased gets done even in households without 'stay at home' women. childbirth, child-rearing Women are responsible for their own decision to have children, and this completely ignores the value fathers bring to children. sexual services This is not a commodity for sale, but you're sobrave to call all women prostitutes. without which society as we know it woul…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 12:46 PM
-5

So, like all leftist thought. It's a secular religion.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 12:27 PM
4

This bill is not passing.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 12:08 PM
3

While a true statement, that's a small part of the bill and not a specific directed change. It's only one aspect of a bill that does an awful lot. Furthermore, since it does an awful lot, it has no chance in hell of passing.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 11:29 AM
9

An estimated 1,600 criminal nonsupport cases were filed in Indiana between 2011 and 2013, according to the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. That's already debtor's prison, and not related to contempt of court.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 11:23 AM
-1

Unwaged value of less than $100/week. That's not really "relies" on, it's not like bachelors or working women don't get it done as well.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 10:07 AM
0

Your treatment by the state should not be linked to how much you contribute in taxes. Why not?
/r/MensRights02/04/14 09:58 AM
1

Condoms aren't used to treat medical conditions, hormonal birth control pills are. This is a problem that's already been solved by the insurance company. They've covered medical-necessity hormone pills for years, without covering birth control.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 08:35 AM
1

Even the Library of Congress doesn't know how many federal laws there are.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 08:32 AM
0

I actually don't think the coverage of birth control is a gender issue. If that was true, then condoms would be an option. Such a claim also doesn't explain why vasectomies are not covered - they're cheaper and less invasive of a surgery. Condoms are not covered b/c a condoms is not medication that must be prescribed by a doctor. And why isn't hormone birth control available without prescription? Because feminists have lobbied against it, primarily on the grounds that insurance doesn't cover ove…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 08:27 AM
14

could result in the erasure of non-serious criminal charges The problem here is false accusations of felonies are considered "non-serious"
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:41 AM
72

Continuing the historic abuse of men, by making the husband solely responsible for any crime in which both participate.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:36 AM
3

You do realize that people don't lose their parental rights when they go to jail, right? In the general case, they do not. I said that earlier. They do however, lose custody. I said that termination of parental rights due to the nature of the crime in question is reasonable. You seem to be talking about a specific case, whereas I was speaking in general. I'm talking about the general case where a woman lies about use of birth control. It is financial fraud. Fraud does not exist only when the fra…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 05:27 AM
6

But no, women should not go to jail and children should not be placed for adoption because that would somehow mitigate the emotional trauma the man went through. You totally ignore the financial damage, not risk, here. The woman engaged in financial fraud, to the tune of monthly_child_support * 216. Jailtime for fraud is appropriate, and consistent with the general legal system. As an incarcerated parent, she would have no custody. Thus, the only unique penalty involved in this is removal of vet…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 04:30 AM
1

Occurs during their entire life. Thus, while 2 in 5 boys would have been coerced into sex, by the end of their lives it certainly would be higher. The "1 in 5 women will be looked at funny and we'll call it rape" stat often misrepresented by feminists is a lifetime stat, even though they further misrepresent it by claiming it's "on college campuses"
/r/MensRights02/04/14 02:02 AM
5

and go back to Texas and leave me here. She's already left you. There is no recovery for the marriage.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 12:35 AM
0

hug you when you punch him So their position is not only acceptance of abuse but rewarding it makes a man? Fuck that noise. Ethically, a reasonable level of striking back on somebody who hits you is absolutely legitimate. The legal system recognizes this in all male on male or female on female violence. That same legal system breaks down due to "judicial equity" when it's mixed genders, both giving female victims extra-defense measure like years later murder being excused while simultaneously ch…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 12:28 AM
1

Pullease. This is a school system that bans American Flags on clothing on May 5th because of the disruption it "might" cause. Any disruption there is caused by the disturber, yet it's still everybody elses responsibility to change clothing.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 11:49 PM
87

You forgot: http://www.returnofkings.com/31590/5-reasons-i-am-not-a-mens-rights-activist
/r/MensRights01/04/14 11:47 PM
3

For the math impaired, that means 41% of boys were coerced into sex by a female (girl or adult) That's 2 in 5 boys have been raped, which isn't even a "lifetime" stat.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:26 PM
27

You missed key points Just to make sure I understand, if a man pokes holes in his condom to make a woman pregnant regardless of if she gets pregnant or continues with the pregnancy, he could be charged with sexual assault, but if a woman does the same and chooses to take it to term, she gets a check in the mail every month for 18 years? At a minimum, the "mother" should be in jail with custody for the father. Full, absolute, custody that gives the right to unilaterally give the child away for ad…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:19 PM
15

To a feminist: All failures to convict, be they lack of evidence, evidence of innocence, or impossibility of any crime occurring, is a conspiracy to cover up rape.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:15 PM
5

Because it's a uniform. There is no purpose beyond that, and that is sufficient purpose.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 05:59 PM
3

Nearly one in five American women reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives. False claim
/r/MensRights01/04/14 07:44 AM
145

(medical professionals male and female included) I've been talking to recently are telling me my Husband is a lazy, horrible and an abusive man. Any medical professional offering up such an opinion should be replaced as your provider. And that's before you complain to the medical board.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 07:43 AM
10

It's to teach keeping their back straight while sitting, actually.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 07:28 AM
0

Considering MRA members lobbied for me, and I continue to have positive interactions there? "MRA members" as in "Mens Rights Activist Members" is nonsensical. Neither Guitars nor KRosen are /r/mensrights members. Since AMR gets to claim that FeMRADebates had "no real feminists" before they came along, then those two can be excluded from your claim of support.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 07:08 AM
6

Is that even a fucking word? When has that ever been a concern to feminists?
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:53 AM
2

I think if they volunteer of their own volition that they lied and a guy is freed from prison, they probably shouldn't be charged If the case progresses to where their victim - i.e., the falsely accused - is arrested, then such false accusations should 100% of the time be charged as a crime regardless of if it was confessed to by the perpetrator or proven by evidence. Leeway can be available for sentencing. Such as allowing a confessor to only serve 15 years, while otherwise receiving 30.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:28 AM
1

That's weird. The raw data suggests rape, physical violence or stalking was equal between the genders. Hmmm... The numbers for each category (rape, violence, stalking by an IP) could be equal while the combined would be different. In this case it would mean that generally the male victims of these crimes experience more than one of the categories, while female victims generally experience only one.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 05:40 AM
2

I don't think words would ever file under sexual assault, it would be sexual harrassment. "1 in 5 women in their lifetime will be sexually assaulted" relies on the improper usage of such terms, as was my point above. The statistic itself is false.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 05:36 AM
1

Your entire message is "I do not believe, therefore you're lying" and doesn't even deserve a direct response. Many truths get re-posted, that's what a meme is.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 04:57 AM
2

Curious how you skipped furball and bro. Simple: bro hasn't been active at all in 12 days, furball hasn't done any moderation for 7 days - even though he was active today. Both of which you'd know if you actually monitored moderation. C'mon, if you're going to accuse people of lying, they shouldn't need to fact check you. You're not fact checking. You're simply bringing up irrelevancies.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 04:54 AM
2

Well, the rules were abused against me, and they were overturned The rules were enforced against you exactly like they were enforced against everybody. You had a "rouge mod". Neither the rules nor your individual deletions were overturned, she just decided "rules don't count". You were given special treatment. It's why it was started in the first place. snicker
/r/MensRights01/04/14 04:53 AM
2

I dunno what you mean by "simple words," but it's pretty obvious you're intentionally making verbal assault seem trivial. I don't know why you would want to do that. Because verbal assault is not sexual assault. The usage of assault by itself and assault in sexual assault are dramatically different. Specifically, sexual assault requires touching. This is not part of the definition of sexual assault. And you know it. Agreed. So why is it counted? Saying stuff like this is really cruel to victims …
/r/MensRights01/04/14 04:45 AM
0

And the normalization of that comes from what? Not the normalization of criminal behavior. Because it's not normal.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 11:29 PM
0

Actually, if you'd bother to read the rules instead of spinning them in your favor, the rule is when the generalization is an insult and doesn't contribute to the discussion. Actually, if you'd actually look at moderation other than your own, you'd find that that's not how it's applied. There's a reason you shot up the ban list like a rocket Oh really? I was tier 3 at the forgiveness, you were tier 4. But then, lies are your specialty so it's no surprise.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 11:23 PM
2

So you would wear snow clothing and watch your back for mugging, where snow and mugging is not expected and normal. I wouldn't wear snow clothing, but to say nobody has ever worn it as fashion is really particularly dense. And yes, people watch their back when mugging is not common. Because mugging is not common, and people watch their back. All you can say from that is that we're "normalizing self defense and self awareness of safety", which would be an accurate statement.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:53 PM
4

it's that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted Given a definition of "sexually assaulted" that includes simple words, accidental touching, and consented too behavior that they "regret" later. Nearly 3 in 10 women (28.8%) and nearly 1 in 10 men (9.9%) have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one measured impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior in that relationship Here's where they get 1 in 5: More than 1…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:44 PM
6

As the article explains: "in England, unlike elsewhere in the world, a 'public school' is an expensive, posh private school". I wonder how hard it would be to find some SJW attacking Starkey for putting down gov't run schools, based on that quote. (Nevermind that US gov't run schools deserve all the scorn anybody can manage to work up through all the apathy)
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:39 PM
2

Where snow is normal, snow clothing becomes normal A⇒B not B⇒A i.e.: Snow implies snow clothing. Snow clothing does not imply snow. Muggings imply watching ones back. Watching ones back does not imply muggings.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:34 PM
3

You tagged me for stating a fact, sorry ideological police. No, I tagged you for being dense and misusing and defending that misuse terms long after your error has been pointed out. If the reason for the defense is normal enough, only then will defense will be normal. lol. Perhaps your tag should be "hopelessly dense" instead.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:13 PM
4

I'm using it correctly No, you're not. You're considering the normalization of defense to be normalization of the reason for defense. Which is particularly dense. Which is what I've had you tagged as for quite a while, ever since you claimed consent is a contract.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:01 PM
4

No, if you are mugged in a 5 star hotel bathroom or your quiet rural village people will tend not to ask what you were thinking of going there alone while they will do that if it happens in an notorious area where crime is normal and expected. They will ask why you weren't prepared. Suggest methods of self defense for the future, etc. i.e. "Mugging culture", per your usage. Yeah, gated communities only exist because crime is relatively normal and expected - so their existence and everyone knowin…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 09:53 PM
0

and /r/FeMRA debates is dominated by it's feminist moderator Until recently this wasn't quite true. She once described herself as "anti MRA", but not a feminist actually. Six/halfdozen. Historically, _femra_ was basically the same. Clearly anti MRA but not necessarily feminist. ta1901 was advertised as a neutral, and maybe was. They didn't do enough moderation to actually tell Recently however, they added two feminist mods because AMRs, including fallingsnowangel, bitched about "no real feminist…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 09:49 PM
2

Now to wait for bartab to come in and try to claim bias too, since his own trolling didn't work out for him Lol, you're really a whiny piece of shit arn't you. , and he likes to pretend I was the only one to ever have a ban overturned... Full of lies and bullshit again. What I said, which if you weren't an idiot you'd remember, was that you were the only one who benefited from "rouge[sic] mods" who went around the rules.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 09:39 PM
2

They will not give you that advice in a 5 star hotel, close knit rural area or gated community. They absolutely will, about outside. Nobody thinks they will get mugged in a 3 star hotel either, just outside their doors. The existence of a gated community is a "normalization of crime", by your definition. Why else would they need gates? And rural area crime is home breakins instead of muggings. Houses are further apart, neighbors don't notice. This is counteracted somewhat by gun ownership, but t…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 09:29 PM
9

If anyone is saying people should be careful at night, suggest carrying mace, or considering taking a self defense class, then that person considers muggings and murders "normal enough and expected outcome. So all rational people, everywhere, are saying that muggings and murder is a "normal enough and expected outcome"
/r/MensRights31/03/14 03:09 PM
10

Rape is so "normalized" that those accused can be guaranteed major damage to their lives, social and financial. Such damage will occur before any court appearance, presuming there is ever a court appearance. It is a crime so "normalized" in fact that if prosecution occurs, either due to lack of evidence or evidence giving alibi to a named victim, is considered proof of guilt and that the system is biased. It is a crime so "normalized" that people are willing to appear on television and declare t…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 03:06 PM
7

Cigarettes for women became popular after WWI, because the war made cigarettes popular with men since they were provided to soldiers instead of cigars. Virginia Slims were introduced in late 60s
/r/MensRights31/03/14 12:05 PM
1

You fucking shithead. She's Catholic, she's married. She loves odd words. She did fantasy modeling. She's a nerd, loves reading and Warcraft, and yes, she was fucking raped. vivadisgrazia says, "Excuses" She's worth far more than you will ever be, you sick, disgusting troll. Because you think I value your opinion, why exactly? Enjoy jerking off over the attention. You got the emotional reaction you wanted. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm good if you never reply, why are you? I think y…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 11:23 AM
-1

Right. I remember linking all kinds of facts about rape in Femra No. You linked opinions, which you choose to call facts. Here's a fact: The commonly cited "1 in 5 women will be raped" is mis-using the term rape and attributing non-rape acts to the count. Here's another: Any suggestion of a known amount of "unreported rapes" has no basis in fact whatsoever. One of my friends is a model who was raped. Let me quote your friend, vivadisgrazia, who has appointed themselves judge for all stories abou…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 11:12 AM
0

We've already established you don't know what you're talking about No, we've established that you break down and end a conversation when you can't argue on facts. Although your theories about volleyball players and a fear of rape were interesting... Lemme guess, you're a fattie chaser?
/r/MensRights31/03/14 11:02 AM
31

Is e=mc2 a sexed equation? I've heard this quote before, and I'm always struck that it must be out of context, because nobody could be that utterly fucking stupid. Could they?
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:40 AM
8

Its projects should be changed to "Fiction"
/r/MensRights31/03/14 09:37 AM
2

There's a huge difference between accusing somebody of making up a story, and accusing somebody of using faulty statistics. Stop conflating the two.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 08:28 AM
4

1- There's nothing stopping you from becoming a wikipedian except apathy I don't have apathy to being a "wikipedian" I have an active desire to not be associated with that site.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 09:38 PM
14

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (March 2012) Two years. The history is full of reverts of editing toward neutrality. Wikipedia is not an unbiased agency.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 09:25 PM
1

But the judge retained jurisdiction in the case, meaning McCormick could be free as early as 2015 if she successfully completes a prison program This is so called "judicial equity"
/r/MensRights30/03/14 09:19 PM
-8

Damn, even in Russia they've got the fatties. I guess 2 out of 5 isn't as bad as the 4 out of 5 here.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 09:18 PM
6

In almost all US states it's illegal to record somebody in a way that breaches their privacy. Yes, for non participants. In 38 states (and DC), one-party is the rule. In 12 states, all party is the rule. The law is the same regardless of if its over the telephone or in a private home.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 08:19 PM
0

A woman's chance of being raped in the U.S.: 1 in 5 Hahaha. No, it's not. The chance of years later, having a phone interviewer claim something is rape is 1 in 5. This has included nothing other than words, accidental touching, "i regretted it years later", and "one drop of alcohol." Actual rape is not feminisms definition of rape.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 07:27 PM
4

just remember that you don't need someone's permission to record them when they are in a public space. Just remember that in the few states (only 12) that are all-party, it's a misdemeanor to record private conversations instead of the felony you'd be protecting yourself from false accusations of. And if nothing happens, the recording gets deleted.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 07:23 PM
3

That would still be meaningless. Moderator effort is not limitless. If somebody says something and nobody notices, it's a non issue. It's like how AMR loves to post 45 minute old posts here with 2 upvotes and try and claim its a general feeling. Then a few hours later is in the negatives or deleted.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 06:56 PM
1

AKA direct MRA quotes. Out of context is still a strawman. Disagree That's ok. You're wrong. Explicitly advocating murder-suicide to avoid those payments is. Advocating murder-suicide is violent. There you go with that strawmanning again.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 06:54 PM
6

Educate yourself That's nothing more than a meaningless utterance which SJWs like you have developed to end a discussion when you have no ability to argue on the facts.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 01:22 PM
9

because of the patriarchy Prove it.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 01:20 PM
4

Yes I firmly believe in it. Even though it's not as claimed? That taking "all full time male workers" and comparing them to "all full time female workers" is data that's no more useful than background noise. Given equal professions and equal experience, men and women earn the same. When you compare the same by the hour, instead of by the year, then women out earn men. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/201…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 01:17 PM
2

When did you stop beating your wife?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 12:26 PM
2

.77 on the dollar falls into the area of statistics best described as "true, but misleading" Basically: The claim is correct under certain circumstance, but does not mean what it is being presented to mean. The number isn't hard to debunk, rather it's hard to do so in the 10 second limit that gets the point across easy. 10 seconds for a political statement. 10 seconds for an ad. 10 seconds before a feminist starts bitching about men. The best bet is to say "yes, but...." FWIW: Women earn more pe…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:22 AM
1

and you won't be banned from them. Not at all true. They ban people who have never posted there.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:16 AM
13

Victoria Bond: "Anything worth doing, is worth excluding men from."
/r/MensRights30/03/14 09:29 AM
3

Tsk tsk, you're an angry person who took joy in the death of my child just because I'm a MRA. "All your fault"
/r/MensRights30/03/14 08:55 AM
0

Classical liberals used to believe in well, liberty Classical liberals still do. Leftist politics are not liberal. They're extremely authoritarian and rights limiting, complete with promoting the idea that there are "betters" who should be leading all the unwashed masses. They promote aristocracy. Classical liberalism was formed to abolish it.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 05:43 AM
2

CAFE doesn't want to be associated with public naming and shaming of demonstrators Only by people who consider media coverage of anything feminists do that is even remotely negative "naming and shaming". Pulling a fire alarm without cause is a crime. Heckler's veto is unacceptable. Even the ACLU agrees.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 05:28 AM
5

What about the violent comments in this subreddit that moderators intentionally leave up? [1] AMR strawmanning does not a violent comment make. [2] A comment arguing against the pathetic anarchist position that "I'd celebrate cops being killed" is not a violent comment. So, how many AMR/SRS are anarchists? Even the celebration post isn't a threat of violence, as silly as it is. [3] "Would You go to Prison to stand up for your mensrights Principles?" A theoretical situation where somebody refuses…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:16 AM
3

I don't know. Why do AMRs still pull up AMV deleted comments and claim they were approved?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:07 AM
-1

I'd believe you No you wouldn't. Get it through your thick skull: I do not value your opinion.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:54 AM
0

Well you should care regardless of who it is coming from? I can't imagine why. You cannot make completely unsubstantiated accusations about an item of interest and expect people to believe you. I don't expect you believe me under any circumstances. That's why I don't care about your opinion. It doesn't work like that in the real world mate. Actually, not caring what some pathetic piece of biased shits opinions are is exactly how it works in the real world, "mate".
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:36 AM
0

Then why should I believe you? Why should I care if you believe me? I don't value your opinion or judgement in the slightest. AMRs like you add nothing of value to the world. This image is obviously fake That's your opinion. I think I've already made clear how much value that is.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:29 AM
0

I don't really care what an AMR "is going to need." The image isn't "super secret", it violates the reddit rules: Facebook posts must be done w/ screenshot & blanked names. Unlike AMRs, I actually follow rules. Even when I don't agree they serve a purpose.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:14 AM
-3

Why is it that I always see the neckbeards worried about false rape accusations and not the cute guys with decent jobs? Guys who are worried about it are smarter and better prepared. It is my understanding that the members of the Duke Lacrosse team were generally considered quite attractive. Of course "neckbeards" has no real meaning. Unlike fattie. How fat are you? I'd like to shame you some.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:13 AM
0

shrug We need a scoring system. Get a topic in /mensrights linked in /amr, 10 point. Get a comment linked, 1 point. Of course, being linked in amrs favorite biased website has to be worth a bonus, but I guess I'm biased. We can have a meta post keeping track of scores, monthly prizes. It'll be great!
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:11 AM
3

I note you refuse to address the part of my post that was actually on topic. Refuse? No. I just stop at the first stupid thing in a post.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:51 AM
1

You're talking about a legal system that allows the South Park style "he's coming right for us" defence for shooting an innocent teenager (as long as he's black). He wasn't innocent. Stand your ground wasn't even presented as a defense. Zimmerman was attacked, was lying on his back on the ground, getting beat up when he fired. Zimmerman case: Where a hispanic can shoot a black man, be acquitted by six women, and it's all the white man's fault.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:45 AM
-2

autisticsautisticsautisticsautisticsautisticsautisticsautistics jesushchrist you politically correct deluded fool. The oldest community of autistics has a website at Autistics.org Nobody calls them "people with autism".org
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:37 AM
1

I use ghostery and had to click on the "Allow once and reload", but it worked fine. The link dejour posted for ottowasun on the other hand doesn't work for me.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:31 AM
1

To be fair, she probably had a girly walk. Dailymail is a tabloid. Or so all the people who complain about it all the time tell me. As a tabloid, it would also fall under the category of "no standards of decency" I know you're worried that feminists will use the story with the nurse to make men look bad, but don't you think playing "hide the penis" only makes it look worse? No more than "hide the vagina", and they get away with that an awful lot.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:28 AM
9

... I'm wondering if it's coincidence or something else that the false accusers first name is Tanya.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:24 AM
1

I'd be interested to know how a US Supreme Court decision is relevant to a crime committed in Australia. Nothing except to show how a legal system with only the barest protections against idiocy handles things. I don't really expect Australia to concur, I'm sure "Daddy looked at me funny" gets people off of crimes every day there. Is this where I make a joke about "criminal genetics", to which you point out that most of the deportees were political prisoners?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:22 AM
49

This story is already quite old, and not only did she actually file charges of rape but she was not charged with filing a false rape charge, even though this very facebook posting was used as defense against the charge. I'd link it, but it has an unedited facebook graphic. While I think the idea of censoring facebook posts to be rather stupid, it is the rule as I understand them.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:16 AM
2

No, it appears they're strictly private. Complete with claims about how profits will be distributed - nevermind it's unlikely they will ever make profits. http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:08 AM
0

Al Jazeera follows no standards of decency. In some cases this lets them get out interesting stories other media refuses. In other cases, you get odd output. BBC: Stepping Hill deaths: Nurse Victorino Chua charged with murder Independent: Stepping Hill hospital deaths: Nurse Victorino Chua charged with murders Manchester Evening News: Nurse charged with murder of three patients at Stepping Hill hospital
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:05 AM
6

This is the first time the National Coalition for Men, which was established in 1977, has sent a letter asking the city to open the classes to men and boys. So, simple solution! Follow the law. I'm sure for many years that "gender restricted private clubs where significant business agreements are made" operated without problems before women made a big stink.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:59 AM
1

Nancy Silberkleit’s lawyer argues that a gender discrimination lawsuit filed against her earlier this year by a group of employees should be thrown out because white males aren’t members of “a protected class" When your defense is based on gender, then gender is relevant to the story. So much sadness for you.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:45 AM
1

I don't like this. Autistic persons for the most part do not impulsively touch people. "It is important for parents to recognize that it is common for individuals with ASD to display sexual behaviors. " Van Bourgondien, Reichle, & Palmer, 1997, "Sexual behavior in adults with autism". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 27, No 2, p. 113-125. And if your child has a mental disability that leads them to touch strangers in public at all, not just a woman's boobs, they need to have s…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:30 AM
1

I looked up the numbers at The Innocence Project. Of the 314 exonerations I referenced sex-only crimes, not sex-and-something crimes. At the time I examined: Exonerationregistry had 1,254 exonerations listed (1,339 now) with 238 being only sexual in nature and 184 of those based on DNA. They have a detailed report on the first 250 based on DNA.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:22 AM
2

Cullen v. Pinholster (2010). Supreme court found that "bad childhood" is not a defense. And that was a death penalty case.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:26 AM
8

While the intentions are to "better" my daughters living arrangements, this is not something that justifies an increase. Good lawyer (most are, honestly), and totally accurate.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:12 AM
16

Because the cute ones turn guys down all the time and nothing happens. Fatties never turn them down, so they have this huge fantasy that if they did it would end in violence.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:10 AM
2

It's not paranoia when they're actually out to get you.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:56 AM
-3

Fuck off. Tsk tsk, angry little thing aren't you? All hysterical and such. Perhaps you should have a warm milk and rest a while on the fainting couch. Your arguments have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and you know it. I know that pointing out your use of false stats like "most homicides are a crime" is always relevant to the topic you're spewing them into.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:52 AM
-1

It's okay to say you misunderstood something. Lol. I fully understand. Not all homicides are murders, and if you think they then I'll do more than simply suggest you don't understand, I'll state it outright.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:51 AM
1

Furthermore it was reported in 1997 that the FBI found that 25% of the suspects in 12,000 rape cases were excluded by DNA testing. That finding is particularly significant because exclusionary DNA evidence is only available in a small percentage of all criminal cases. That's a quote from For Justice: Denied magazine and would have covered the 89-97 range. (1989 is when dna testing became legally recognized) There are notable cases, such as Kevin Byrd who was exonerated only because the rape kit …
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:49 AM
-2

Hey, asshole, are any of the homicides in the cited material the results of an auto accident? No. No they are not, so stop arguing in bad faith. After you, sweetums.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:29 AM
0

But most homicides are crimes. [Citation Needed] Note that something as simple as a car accident that causes death is a homicide. Homicide simply means "caused by a human".
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:21 AM
1

Aww, your opinion of me wounds me less than Christine Capurso's fake "attacker" wounded her.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:20 AM
4

So your claim is that using ADD as an insult isn't offensive to people with ADD? If feminism and SJWs like you have proven anything it's that people can be offended by even the most innocuous thing. I'm sure somebody somewhere finds offense, but it's not offensive to all people with ADD, no. I mean, I hope you find it offensive. That was the goal.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:18 AM
4

Except that definition does not fit the subject at hand. Several of the cases singled out in the cited material involved murders, so we can hardly be working from a definition where "no crime occurred". Not all homicides are murders.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:16 AM
1

I simply suggested that behaviors may perhaps be learned. I'm not trying to absolve the girls of -their- crimes. Then what was your goal? If it's not an affirmative defense (and it most certainly is not) then what relevance does it even have? Perhaps their behaviors stem from living in a blue house!??!! But gee, I'm not trying to absolve them!
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:03 AM
1

Heard about this days ago, and never once considered it MRM related.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:56 AM
8

she filed a report with the university claiming Contact FIRE. They specialize in right violations in universities, with a recent emphasis on the horribly one sided so-called "investigations" universities are engaging and punishing under. Presuming it's a public university in the US, punishing a student without "due process of law" is a violation of that students rights. Due process includes but is not limited to equal representation by an attorney, right to cross-examine your accusers, and a rig…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:50 AM
23

it takes two to standoff. Otherwise it’s just a “stand.” Lol.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:42 AM
3

Occasionally, an agency will receive a complaint that is determined through investigation to be false or baseless. In other words, no crime occurred. If the investigation shows that no offense occurred nor was attempted, UCR Program procedures dictate that the reported offense must be unfounded in Column 3. Agencies must still record all such Part I offenses and then score them as unfounded on the current month’s Return A. Unfounded are false accusations.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:40 AM
2

Yes, let's belittle a condition that disproportionately affects boys. Belittle you. Idiots like you like to generalize things that are personal against them. I mean, it's not like this is a sub that's supposed to be interested in helping boys, right? Not AMR, boys or not.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:24 AM
3

What was he to do for that 30 seconds? I think I'd back up quickly if someone 8 foot tall was coming at me with kicks. I wouldn't. Their center of gravity would be so high it would be trivial to knock them on their ass
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:21 AM
2

And it's totally out of the realm of of possibility that he decided not to hit back because his assailants were two people who were bigger and meaner than him and he didn't want to do anything that might lead to him being seriously injured? Yes.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 02:21 AM
5

Not defending oneself is a learned response. Defense isn't. The youngest child will bite, scratch and tear at whatever their physical ability is. A common learned action to not defend oneself is that adults generally will not bite. That's learned behavior. It doesn't matter if he was taught to be a pacifist or "don't hit girls", he's been taught to not defend himself.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:29 AM
7

Even were it true - which it's not - I fail to see what comfort the individual is supposed to gain from "no systematic oppression" while behind bars for a false rape claim / false dv claim / false harassment claim etc. Women use the force of the gov't to oppress, and even if somebody doesn't agree its systematic (it really is) it just means they haven't organized the effort well enough.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:23 AM
1

The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence. Refer to the link above. There is no self defense. Game. Set. Match.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:12 AM
4

It's a troll reddit. Come here to regularly troll. Think SRS but even stupider. Now, being a year old account, if you ask what SRS is I'm going to write you off.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:08 AM
5

Unsurprisingly, you're wrong yet again. I guess 30 seconds really was too long for your ADD.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:04 AM
2

Perjury is illegal if you make a veritably false statement under oath That's a meaningless statement. Filing a false report "is illegal". Parking more than the time allotted on the meter "is illegal". Forgetting to use your turn signal "is illegal". While perjury can be a felony, it's almost always charged as a misdemeanor. Which means it will be no more effective deterrent than filing a false report now. The difference is when you sign a paper that says "under penalty of perjury", that's a misd…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:58 PM
5

what's with the personal attack? AMR is one great big personal attack. I see no reason to hold back.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:53 PM
0

How many times do I have to say this, there are people who have been sexually abused, whether as children or recently, viewing this thread. And they shouldn't be coddled. If somebody has issues interacting with real life, then it behooves them to not interact with real life, not for real life to comfort them.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:37 PM
6

Got any evidence of that? http://video.theloop.ca/news/watch/-/3399959242001 He certainly doesn't defend himself. Don't worry, it's only 30 seconds, your ADD shouldn't kick in until most of it is done.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:28 PM
4

That's how they roll in this part of California Correct. DV arrests are never "just the woman" here. Anytime a woman gets arrested for DV, all participants get arrested.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:15 PM
7

Discrepancies in her accountand hesitation marks in the shallow stab wounds found on her body led police to question whether Capurso was telling the truth, officials said. So... people do fake being attacked, after all... Somebody should investigate Danielle d'Entremont
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:16 PM
8

It's performed on those with actual dwarfism, not 5'5" people.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:39 AM
3

"plead to second degree murder" Get back to me when she's facing the potential for a death penalty. For the peanut gallery: Federal park. Federal crime. Charged by the US DA. Sentenced by US District Judge. The feds absolutely have an active death penalty and death row.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:20 AM
11

The next day, Daniel was fired.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:17 AM
8

If you are determined (and rich) enough you can change your height too. By a couple inches, at most. Painful, potentially crippling. The 5'5" guy would never be 6', and no doctor in the US would actually do the deed.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:12 AM
2

NO, I'm not calling all women sheep, for god's sake. AMR/SRS/NOW/radfems (Department of redundancy and repetition department, the administration of recurrence and replication, desk of Mrs. Reproduction) are sheep.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:10 AM
-2

More important: People are tall, or not tall, based on criteria they have no control on after the fact. Being a huge whale is entirely a choice. It is never "geneetiiciccs!!!"
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:07 AM
3

Well, no. The ruling has nothing to do with pleading guilty. It has to do with conviction, of which pleading is only one method. The article itself is miserable. Don't get legal news from the media. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-state-conviction-for-misdemeanor-domestic-assault-counts-as-misdemeanor-crime-of-domestic-violence-for-purposes-of-federal-gun-restrictions/ There's no reason this law would be considered unconstitutional, given that the case at hand occurred after t…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 02:17 AM
3

To make such a statement requires being completely blind to that country that sits just north (in most places) of the US. You mean the country that allows gun ownership? Seems like you're blind yourself. Also: Sweden, Norway, France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Greece, Northern Ireland Versus places like the UK which has an absolute ban yet still manages to have a higher criminal rate of violence.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 02:12 AM
2

EDIT: To clarify, they had two major points: All problems for men are caused by the patriarchy, and the MRM is a hate group because we blame women for our problems. Such irony.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 08:07 AM
2

You know, I always thought people were wanks for giving him a hard time over the Westley character, and they were. But he's proving more and more that he's a wank in his own right.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 07:28 AM
1

There is not a single accurate entry. Even the ones that are half right aren't half right for all MRAs. Tumblrina needs to realize that the idea of a centralized authoritarian group defining a platform of belief isn't particularly useful in the real world.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 07:27 AM
1

but you know some people will be like "no he plead guilty to terrorism! They made him! Doesnt mean it is terrorism!!!". So, the same arguments can be held to rape cases? "They made" them plead guilty?
/r/MensRights27/03/14 02:10 AM
4

some gay activist groups committed violent criminal acts You're minimizing "engaged in domestic terrorism". As in, plead guilty to domestic terrorism, not accused of domestic terrorism.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:48 AM
7

"Amazing work" in the past is no shield to shitty work in the present. The claim "fighting for equality" ignores the fact that there are different kinds of equality. SPLC fights for "equality of outcome", which is directly opposed to "equality of opportunity". Feminism wants equality of outcome. The MRM wants equality of opportunity. The SPLC alienated themselves from us.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:47 AM
1

There's a lot of positive to be said about Texas, particularly Austin and Houston and there's a good chance I'll be moving there soon-ish. However, there's still no requirement of equal dress code mandates except that which is covered by the EOCC. Which expressly does not bar "cultural norms" restrictions, such as women being allowed earrings and men not. Fact is, as a libertarian, I wouldn't want such a law but "want" and "is" are different things. However, in the calculus of "pissing off custo…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:35 AM
6

Texas Then no law against it. Poor choice of residence.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 10:22 AM
2

Everytime you post, you prove tagging you as an idiot was a good idea.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 10:18 AM
9

What State? That restriction (no studs) is probably against the law, if they're allowing women to wear them.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 08:42 AM
0

Your weight in gold. So, for somebody rich it's probably cheaper than the US. 80kg of gold is 3mil USD or so. Dave Foley, as an example, pays $15k/month in alimony and second alimony (aka child support), so the breakeven point is 17 years. Of course, Foley isn't going to be 80kg either.... Clearly somebody at median income wouldn't pay that much, but when something is all your income, 5x or 50x isn't a real difference.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 08:23 AM
14

Lie about personal info. The only field of interest is the email one, and only if you care about their reply. Create a new one on yahoo if you need too.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 06:11 AM
28

(C) 2005 That sign has been there for 9 years. Send your feelings: https://www.jimmyjohns.com/company/feedback/
/r/MensRights26/03/14 04:17 AM
3

It's less about "doesn't feel like" and more about "failed to convict." It's a lower requirement for finding fault but isn't a new idea to the system. For example, OJ wasn't convicted of murder, but lost a civil case over it. Given the current atmosphere, I doubt any case which wasn't even brought before a grand jury has any merit whatsoever, and wouldn't find any better outcome in civil courts.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 04:08 AM
4

CPS is the second most unrestricted and rights violating organization anywhere in the US gov't (IRS is #1, NSA is #3) and the only one granting individual states these abusive powers.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 03:51 AM
5

Halifax police "do not endorse" the condemnation of "shoplifters, child abusers, prostitutes and baby dumpers".
/r/MensRights26/03/14 03:42 AM
5

Note that you're quoting the original, and there's already an amendment which moderates the bill somewhat. It doesn't remove the "regardless of whether the defendant was prosecuted for his or her acts" but does add the requirement of "resulting in serious bodily injury or severe emotional and mental distress" and gives a penalty and redress for frivolous claims. "B. Upon motion of the defendant or upon its own motion, if the court determines that any action alleging domestic abuse is frivolous o…
/r/MensRights26/03/14 02:02 AM
3

It's scheduled for the Senate floor tomorrow.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:46 AM
1

The segregationists all of a sudden realized that what they wanted was unconstitutional and decided to shut up? Silly question. They haven't shut up. You may not be listening, but they haven't shut up. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech Antichoice activists also care about social acceptance. Not of people in disagreement with them. No more than feminists care about MRAs agreeing with them.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:16 AM
1

Do you think segregationists magically stopped wanting black people to use different drinking fountains? No. They still want it. Just as I expect people trying to silence anti-abortion activists will want it far into the future. Segregationists are arguing against constitutional rights, and people trying to silence anti-abortion activists are arguing against constitutional rights. That's why it's not happening, not because people changed their minds.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 12:48 AM
3

You're right, it's more.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:56 PM
1

It would take a retard of AMR proportions to claim that the same level of protest is taking place. For the retarded.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:04 PM
3

No, they're not protesting drone strikes because they're not protesting drone strikes. It would take a retard of AMR proportions to claim that the same level of protest is taking place.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:37 PM
3

Curious, I could have sworn Code Pink, at least, was impossible to ignore. You mean the anti-Bush feminist organization that used the war as an ideological cover for their hate then disappeared once a Democrat was in office? Yeah, I remember them.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:33 PM
7

I think you'll agree it is an important principle that you cannot legally be considered to have raped a person without intending to do so. Intent rarely matters, and when it does it's specifically written into the law. It is not a general principle and would absolutely be a really shitty legal system that made it so Intent is so irrelevant that if you mug somebody but they have a heart attack and die, you still committed murder.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 12:54 PM
2

It's a choice for diseased drug addicts. Oh, do piss off.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 09:34 AM
1

Agreed on all but one, do not pay for the abortion. Pay for it on the possibility it might be his unwanted child and that can't be determined until later. It's a good bet, even if you think she's lying. Hell no, if it was known to not be his then don't pay for the abortion.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 09:11 AM
4

Prostitution fact: It's a job choice of some women.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 09:09 AM
2

Because women clearly have no agency and can't choose to sell themselves as objects for pleasure.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 08:53 AM
5

She refused to get a paternity test if it is born. Nope. Doesn't work that way. Engage a lawyer, especially at your income. You can refute a claim of paternity for a limited period of time after being notified / after birth. The exact time period varies depending on state (I presume the US) from as little as 3 days to 6 months, but the clock doesn't start until birth. but I do not want a child Then don't participate, at least not until after a paternity test. Your best bet is to make it absolute…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 08:19 AM
1

Awww, junk science. How feminists love thee.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:21 AM
4

It's not fraud. I suggest you look the word up. (Hint: gain is required)
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:21 AM
4

Only if they approve of hitting children. I welcome them stepping forward and stating that.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:14 AM
0

edit: when you decide to downvote, please tell me why. You're an idiot, and you spouted some idiotic theory.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 03:30 AM
6

To summarize: "#killallmen makes you feel in danger, and that's why it's ok"
/r/MensRights25/03/14 01:19 AM
3

On public property, I think counter-protest along the lines of the Action Angels[1] is a legitimate tactic. Interfering with others protests is an act of force, generally barred by the time, place, and manner limitations in place for any limited public property. Such as a university, or courthouse. Properly so, in my opinion. Action Angels gets away with what they do because cemeteries are private property. They stand on that private property, if not at the request of property owners certainly w…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 11:45 PM
7

they are certainly scary and obnoxious and obscene And? You have no right to not be offended. Honestly, I'm disappointed that the UCSB students didn't run them off campus right away. Because censorship is always the right tact!
/r/MensRights24/03/14 08:49 PM
19

Miller-Young engaged in theft, battery, and vandalism in an attempt at censorship. Romanticizing her crimes does not reduce them.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 08:48 PM
13

I worry that she will be house poor and have to take more jobs to cover the bills. Utterly and completely not your problem. Your raise may mean the biased CS system will recompute to a higher payment on your part, but you should never take responsibility for your ex one single dime in excess of the requirement. If that means she can't keep up basic living for your child, that's her failing, and should be brought up before a court. This is another case where child support is being used as alimony…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 06:31 AM
10

Repeat after me: No expectation of privacy.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 06:27 AM
0

Guns are designed for the purpose of killing people. Guns are designed to give a human the option of proactive defense. You don't want to be honest because it makes your argument sound stupid Lol. I am honest, I just don't apply motives to some metal. Guns were made to shoot people. They can be used for other things but it's mainly for shooting people. News Flash! Deer are not people.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:15 AM
0

Guns were made for killing and if you can't see that then you aren't arguing in good faith. Guns are things, nothing more. They have no motives. "If you can't see that then you aren't arguing in good faith." Guns are used to take lives everyday. Guns are used to save lives everyday.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:05 AM
0

In some cases, a gun can change which person dies, but the end result is still someone dying. Again, no. Simple brandishment can be used as a self defense measure in which nobody dies and the life of the intended victim is therefore saved. Guns are extraordinarily lethal. Guns are entirely nonlethal. They'll sit on a table until that table succumbs to entropy and falls to dust and in that entire time kill not a single person. Acts are lethal. Notable to this discussion, both execution and aborti…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 02:24 AM
1

I made the argument that if you really are pro-life, you should be anti-gun. And that's the argument that doesn't follow from the premise.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 12:51 AM
0

Killing to save a life is still killing. And saving a life. Thus, the gun is not anti-life. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
/r/MensRights24/03/14 12:51 AM
2

Killing is not by itself bad, but it is by definition anti-life, Except when it saves a life. Which is pretty damn frequent.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 12:41 AM
2

I made the argument that if you really are pro-life, you should be anti-gun. Guns are not anti-life, so that argument doesn't hold water. The only way you can come to that conclusion is to claim that all life is equal. To claim that it's equal if a murderer kills their victim, or if the victim kills the murderer. Guns are used to save lives every day.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 12:10 AM
1

Guns simply aren't made to do anything besides kill, whether that be animals (I'm ok with that) or people. Killing is not by itself bad. Not even the killing of people. You're comparing the ownership of pieces of metal - using the implication that the gov't should force people not to have them - with the gov't using force to remove major offenders from society and the gov't using force to stop somebody from controlling their own body. The situations are not comparable. Not, mind you, that guns a…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 12:03 AM
3

they would be against [...] guns period Asinine.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 11:38 PM
9

As a current student there I can tell you that the posters and the signs that the anti-abortion protestors display on occasion are some of the absolutely most inhumane and disturbing images that I've ever seen. Doesn't matter. Let me repeat: Does. Not. Matter. You do not have a right to violate another just because they make you uncomfortable. Miller-Young acted toward a goal of censorship and oppression, and was willing to engage in personal violence and violation of property rights to do so. T…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 11:33 PM
42

"ladies first, show some respect to the females at the table" "Get your manager and a different waiter. Don't come back to this table."
/r/MensRights23/03/14 04:30 PM
0

And as I said before, you don't have rights as a parent, only responsibilities. Factually false. Your child however has the right to grow up without being abused, which is why there are laws against child abuse. And circumcision isn't abuse. All decisions made by parents should be for the good of the child, preforming an unnecessary surgery with a risk of complications is not in the best interests of the child. Fine. Bar bone marrow donations. Also, the gov't should start mandating exact diets, …
/r/MensRights23/03/14 04:09 PM
0

How can you know if you never knew what you are actually missing? Easy. I was not circumcised as an infant. No but I did not make the statement that my sex would make my opinions about male anatomy right. No, you just said your opinions about male anatomy were right without referencing your sex. Yes they should, there is absolutely no life threatening illness that can occur to a person having a foreskin. So? That's not sufficient to bar something from occurring. The government can't tell you wha…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:08 PM
1

Lol. No.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:02 PM
1

Its just ironic that the very thing you hold near and dear ("choice", or lack thereof I should say), might be the exact reason why women are still so low-represented in such areas of society. If woman's choice is to choose to not engage in whatever areas you think they're "low-represented" then that's their choice, and it would be a massive violation to deny them that choice. Yet you are not willing to examine that. Massive misrepresentation of my position. Again. Examine it all you want, I'm ju…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:51 PM
0

As a male, I do have a problem with that. So clearly, being male does not give one magical knowledge of what is and is not an important part of the male anatomy. Granted, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong either. However, the truth is that there are plenty of men who wish they hadn't been circumcised. Shouldn't the default be to not cut off any healthy bodyparts of small children? Sure. Just like it should be the default that infants are not given labiaplasty. The gov't / "gov't appro…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:28 PM
5

Charlie Sheen has been paying his ex-wife and baby momma Denise Richards $55,000.00 a month in support for their 2 daughters Child support is not supposed to be a second alimony!
/r/MensRights23/03/14 12:50 PM
2

If your contribution to reddit consists mostly of submitting links to a site(s) that you own or otherwise benefit from in some way, and additionally if you do not participate in discussion, or reply to peoples questions, regardless of how many upvotes your submissions get, you are a spammer. If over 10% of your submissions are your own site/content/affiliate links, you're almost certainly a spammer.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 12:12 PM
-1

By removing the foreskin you pretty much remove the entire male clitoris. Asinine. Seriously, I'll never understand the desire to hyperbole the circumstance. It's the failure to see the foreskin as an important part of the male anatomy that I don't like As a male, I have no problem saying that the foreskin is not an important part of the male anatomy.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 11:50 AM
-3

Removing the inner labia and or the external clitoris on a woman could be called the exact same thing. No. Removing the clitoris would be similar to removing the head of the penis. Both are certainly without excuse or forgiveness. Inner labia is a good comparison. In many ways in fact, as it's a voluntary procedure performed semi-regularly on adults. I would object to labiaplasty performed on infants as much as I do circumcision. Which is to say, probably best not done but not really rising to t…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 09:53 AM
4

Sarah Elizabeth Holmes, Bethel, North Carolina (arrested Jan 2012) Jaclyn P. Melillo, Sayreville, New Jersey (arrested Oct 2013) Amanda N. Brennan, Henderson, Nevada (arrested May 2013) Cynthia Mae Hartopp, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (arrested June 2013) Brittni Nicole Colleps, Kennedale, Texas (arrested May 2011) Crystal Gilliland Clowdus, Blountsville, Alabama (arrested Dec 2013) Nikki Scherwitz, Freeport, Texas (arrested May 2013) Kathryn Camille Murray, Houston, Texas (arrested Feb 2012) Sher…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 09:03 AM
11

The policy is basically "let the house members decide", which has historically led to a definite gender bias. Last year, there was a 3 minute felony assault and battery (arguably, felony DV) of a man on the show by a woman that got so bad the camera crew intervened, followed up by the same woman assaulting another woman with a hair drier, and yet no removal. The victims in this case felt so unsafe they decided to leave. A woman is more likely (actually, guaranteed) to be evicted for failing a dr…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 08:41 AM
2

Feminism only means that women should be treated equally as men. Actually its: "Women should be at least as equal, but better is better." I do not accept women being treated better simply for being women. I am therefore not a feminist.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 07:36 AM
2

Let's do the same with dirty+dangerous jobs Exactly. All those areas planning (or implementing) quotas for women in politics and boardrooms should set them to the exact percentage of representation of women in the 10 most deadly dangerous jobs. Which is about 2% Logging workers Fishers and related fishing workers Aircraft pilot and flight engineers Roofers Structural iron and steel workers Refuse and recyclable material collectors Electrical power-line installers and repairers Drivers/sales work…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 07:35 AM
1

Most people like making money...male or female. Most people like making at least a minimum amount of money to be comfortable in their chosen lifestyle. The exact level and form of that lifestyle varies considerably, and frequently includes trade offs that involve not working. People who work 80 hours a week invariably earn more than those that only work 40 in the same field. Few would consider that a perfect job. If it is because of the reason I put forth though That's ok, because it's not that …
/r/MensRights23/03/14 03:49 AM
1

Perhaps the choice you speak of, which you find to be paramount to anything else, simply is not available for women. Perhaps the nonavailability you speak of doesn't really exist and rather is just an excuse people make when others make choices they don't approve of.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 03:26 AM
1

I'm not against courts showing mercy. I am. Penalties should not be ranges, and should instead legislatively defined periods which don't vary for anything. Judicial equity is the primary reason we're all here. The laws are theoretically gender neutral, but in actual practice they are not.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 03:11 AM
1

It doesn't matter to you because you are not a woman. Inaccurate claim on your part. It doesn't matter to me because choice is paramount. You seem to be very illogical. You seem to be very antagonistic and purposefully misrepresentative.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:46 AM
1

I'm not asking for academic/theoretical reasons, though. This clearly has real-world consequences. It's only a consequence if you're willing to violate choice to change it. I'm absolutely not. And you haven't even attempted an answer as to why this trend is so. I haven't attempted to answer because it doesn't matter. It is thus, purely academic and not of interest to me.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:36 AM
1

But why do you think it is so? Certainly its not coincidence...so what is it? That's only of academic interest. Choice is paramount.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 01:07 PM
1

People (men and women) are biased against women, and consider women less qualified/efficient/capable/etc in the workplace than men. Then explain how women who don't leave work for children earn more than men. Explain how comparing based on same job, same exp, women earn more per-hour worked. I'll be here, waiting for you to fit that in your absurd fantasy rational.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:48 AM
1

And you don't see this as a problem, that women seem to hold lesser paying jobs than men, as a whole? Not when they chose to do so. I find it criminal to interfere with their choice.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:38 AM
0

And how much of that is because they have no sense of a negotiation range? I mean, if you ask for something that's absurd, then it's not a negotiation, it's a rejection. It would be a rejection for a man as well, and does. For example, you're up for a job that expects to pay 100k plus some regular benefits. Instead, you ask for 150k, four days a week telecommute, a company car, and 3 months every year in paid vacation. Such a request will not be entertained, and will not be considered a "startin…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:12 AM
1

constrictive learning environment Constructive. Grappling would generally be considered constrictive.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 06:51 AM
8

It's honestly more of a setback to women that they make up more English majors than men do. If you view money as the only value in a career, in which case I'll suggest that women who feel that way already enter the high value careers (which actually is MBAs, where women are 36.8% of graduates in the US, and 34.5% in Canada). Degrees like Physics, or English, all provide a career that has value in other ways. Physics in "actually accomplishing something" and English with lower expectation of work…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 06:30 AM
2

Because the proper definition for feminism, as lobbied for by NOW, is "women at least as equal as men, but preferably better off"
/r/MensRights22/03/14 06:26 AM
8

/b/ is a gloriously sane island in a world of crazy. /b/ is the recognition that some people absolutely deserve abuse.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:33 AM
1

Your lack of empathy keeps revealing itself. Not true at all. I emphasize with those people improperly imprisoned for years of their life, and wholeheartedly agree with the two hundred fifty year old maxim about letting 10 guilty to go free instead of jailing one innocent. I was molested. I was tortured. I was raped. I'm not interested in setting aside all evidence in a rape trial just because your diseased paranoia thinks every case is automatically created equal. You still fail to grasp the co…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 01:16 AM
1

Releasing everyone accused of rape because of the abuse in a minority of cases isn't a reasonable doubt. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" Blackstone (later updated to 100 by Ben Franklin) It's paranoid psychosis and a sociopathic disregard for public safety. You have such huge contempt for a long standing cornerstone of our legal system. Your hipster "fight against the man!" attitude isn't interesting.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 11:11 PM
1

Marsha fucks people for money and pimps out her mother too. - slander if I can't prove it. So? Nobody says such a site has to include such things.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 11:08 PM
1

And proposing more abuse of the law based on your very selective fears isn't a solution. Beyond a reasonable doubt isn't an abuse, its a wildly popular cornerstone of the system.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:27 PM
1

Opinion is not slander.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:19 PM
1

But you point to nightmares where the law was abused, and ignore the reversals. You point to the reversals and act like it makes everything ok, even though four men spent fourteen years in prison because of them. Asking that we pretend every accused suspect is innocent Good lord. Get it through your skull: INNOCENCE IS NOT NECESSARY. There is reasonable doubt that in any case with proscribed evidence that the "law was abused".
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:18 PM
1

Because when there's "overwhelming evidence of guilt", you need to clarify what kind of evidence currently and commonly withheld would overturn that conclusion? Diary admitting to making a false accusation. Evidence of consent. Evidence of prior false accusations, including a prior accusation (also false) that the accuser was raped the same night.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 12:21 PM
1

If, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you still have doubts, you probably aren't very reasonable. For evidence to be overwhelming, evidence to dispute it must not be banned from being presented. Otherwise, it's not overwhelming. The victims prior sexual history isn't evidence of innocence. Evidence of innocence is not necessary. Just curious, by the way - are you one of those who claims that Elevatorgate was purely innocent? "Elevatorgate" where some guy asked Watson to his hotel room for co…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 11:29 AM
1

Read again. I said I'd laugh because you guys are actually hypocrites on the issue. Your reading comprehension is lacking. My comprehension is fully up to par, and surpasses yours. Which is normal. Get some sleep. You can debate me again when you're able to hold up your end. snicker You're pretending that I'm suffering what you actually are. That's cute, in a 7 year old sort of way.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:56 AM
1

It's arguing that the standard for proof to convict should be minor alterations to the law elsewhere. The standard for proof to convict is the same for every crime. The so called "minor alterations" you propose of "guilty unless proving the accuser a liar" are not in fact minor. Much more popular than his proposed alterations. You're the only one suggesting alterations. Recognizing that there exists a reasonable doubt in the face of evidence not being allowed to be brought up is working within t…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:52 AM
1

punished for imaginary violence. Yes, like a 7 year old boy being suspended for eating a cookie into the vague shape of a gun. I'm sure you'll laugh at that little boy, it's what I'd expect from a feminist. Tsk tsk, such hatred of males.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:41 AM
1

I linked to the full article earlier. I read it in the past. My statement is closer to the thrust of the article as a whole, without necessitating quoting out of context. Most people don't want to be associated with a movement that's in favor turning rapists loose on the public in order to make a point. Actually, the "innocent until proven guilty" law system we have is wildly popular. In fact, the only people I've ever heard argue against it ever were feminists. Within such a system, your simple…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:38 AM
1

The rule against promoting violence in this reddit has no requirement for literalness or not. However, the threatening violence for anybody who doesn't agree with you is yet again another sign that your feminist outreach training is progressing well. You're really your own worst enemy.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:22 AM
1

By its nature, quoting out of context does not provide actual meaning. You're practicing well for the feminism outreach program though. Also, pretending that this wasn't said is beneath you. I pretend no such thing.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:21 AM
1

If your reasonable doubt is simply "a man was accused of raping a woman, in our society", as Paul Elam suggests, What Elam actually suggests is "The legal proscription against bringing some evidence to trial creates a reasonable doubt." you need to be castrated before being hung. Tsk tsk, suggesting violence on this reddit is grounds for removal.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 09:45 AM
1

You need to prove she lied beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of legalizing rape. During the rape trial, the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the crime. The default position is not guilty. If the prosecutor fails to prove it's case, then the accused is not guilty. Proving the accuser is lying creates doubt, but that doubt can exist even without such proof. This is how the legal system works.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 09:19 AM
1

If you refuse to hire a guy...that's your decision, not the government's. That's not true now, why do you pretend it was true before?
/r/MensRights20/03/14 08:10 AM
1

The alternative is not having marriage at all. Marriage means something because it is a change of status within an institutional framework. I don't understand this point. No. Marriage means something because the participants give it meaning. That can be an entirely personal meaning, religious, conforming to parental expectations or anything else. It has nothing to do with gov't interference in the joining and eventual parting of the couple. Gov't not being involved in marriage in any way shape o…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 08:02 AM
3

I'm actually against this, because rating other people (without their consent) should be entirely legal and accessible to all. However, equality is the most important principle, and as such Lulu has to go.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 07:33 AM
0

It's a defensible position. If you don't believe that an unbiased rape trial is possible, it is indeed your duty to vote for a conviction. Same logic. Given an understanding of "innocent until proven guilty", then no it's not the same thing. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is any doubt = not guilty. You violate that basic principle of law with your "logic".
/r/MensRights20/03/14 07:30 AM
6

IMO, the degree of "incapacitation" should be clarified too. In existing law, it is. In California it's "unable to resist", which also handedly eliminates any issue with "they're both incapacitated!" as somebody so far gone as to be unable to resist, would also be unable to engage in the act. My uncle admitted to having taken a cold medicine when he was pulled over for speeding. Although he passed a field sobriety test, by his admission they successful charged him with driving while intoxicated.…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 07:17 AM
3

Even theoretically mixed homeless shelters are male only, as women have superior options. Plus, they're setup as large rooms with beds, similar to a barracks or county jail. Often the beds are temporary cots in order to be moved and provide space for other services during the day.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 07:11 AM
23

The problem is framing paternal surrender as equivalent to abortion. It's actually equivalent to maternal surrender, which is already the law in the US. It's just called "safe haven" which is trivial to accomplish without the consent or knowledge of the father in all 50 states. In many states, outright adoption after the period of safe haven is also possible without that consent. Current California safe haven law is up to 3 days, so an equivalent paternal version would be surrender anytime up to…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:22 AM
12

Although I haven't participated in this bill specifically, I've mentioned in the past that I don't think it will pass unedited simply because in the end, the legislature must balance the rights of the accused or face being overturned in the courts. This is why current law in California and other states include language such as "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused" in regards to inability to give consent, as well as defining that inability as stricter…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:16 AM
3

When the entire basis of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty" is a trigger for somebody, then that is the problem of that somebody and not the world around them.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:12 AM
4

That's correct. For every 2 convictions there is a conclusively known false accusation, and 17 with no conviction or determination of falseness.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:11 AM
4

She was not convicted of rape. She was convicted of sexual assault. It's not counted as rape in the UCR statistics, nor all those "1 in ..." stats. Generally, the sentencing is far less for sexual assault as well. Since she assaulted an Airman, it's notable that if she had been in the US military herself then under the UCMJ she would have committed rape. he recorded more than an hour of audio on his phone from the conversation, which he shared with police. Everybody needs to set this up, or some…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:40 AM
1

Nothing unique to Texas, it's all 50 states. NOW regularly lobbies against any state bill coming up to fix it.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:30 AM
1

Therefore it ended 4 years ago and 21-4 = 17 Or 18. Do you even know how dates work? "A year ago" is "anytime in 2013." "A year ago", President Obama was 51..and then he was 52, also "a year ago".
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:27 AM
1

There is no excuse. Texas executes people who have IQs below motor oil. That phrase is meaningless, but no executions of the mentally retarded are allowed.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:23 AM
3

Just yesterday I defended the 21 year old with a 13 year old because that also was obviously not cut and dry. It's very cut and dry. There is no legal consent at that age, even if they're willing.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:22 AM
10

Watson is a horrible person, and nobody should expect better from her.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:58 AM
0

I'm not a "SJW" but, that's cute that you think it's an insult to accuse someone of believing in social justice and engaging in activism. It's cute that that's what you think SJW means. Why don't you see if you can't find the GitMo webpage comment section so you can spam it with false rape accusations against me... If they had an anonymous reporting structure which was used as a disciplinary measure, I would. Without hestitation.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:01 AM
0

I'm not the only one who has called you out on your inconsistent stories...you are rather infamous for them. Ahh yes, it must be difficult for a SJW like yourself to recognize that your highschool-like clique doesn't matter to me. Let me know when your ready to get help. The only help I'd be interested in is getting you into Guantanamo.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:21 AM
0

You are the one who comes on the internet and makes up inconsistent "stories" and gets caught telling them repeatedly. Nothing is inconsistent except in your mind. It's not just me who has caught you. You've built yourself quite the reputation Among AMRers? I am completely lacking in care what you think of me. You responded to me when the "stay-cation" I hated raising my child(ren) conversation was ongoing and you were absolutely not banned when we had the conversation. I didn't say I was banned…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:30 AM
2

You repeating your fallacious claims about me doesn't make them true. No. The fact that they're true is what makes them true. You were so overwhelmingly happy to find that I wasn't raising my son that you didn't care about the reason why. Now you're trying to handwave it all away because even you recognize that you're a shitty person. You play the part of "Trump" and " internet legal eagle" much better than you do of "grieving father". A "grieving father" that ironically stated in femradebates l…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 12:39 PM
1

Awh imagine a malignant narcissist trying to gaslight someone after their pathetic attempt at manipulation has failed... It's no manipulation to find disgust in your rejoicing in the murder of my son. If you think I'm a troll you certainly aren't demonstrating that. Everyone knows you "don't feed the trolls", and yet everytime I try to disengage you throw a fit and beg me to pay you alittle more attention. What "everyone knows" has no basis in what I do or don't do. It's six to me if you disenga…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:50 AM
2

Is she? 65k doesn't really sound like all that much, but I guess I took her at her word that it was standard pay.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 08:35 AM
2

like having her email spied Actually it was chat logs being read by a founders wife. Even then, it's open policy that they can be read by any employee. The complaint was that a founders wife shouldn't have access as she's not an employee. It's a very weak complaint. BTW: If you're not expecting every piece of your employee email is being read, you're either not very important or simply wrong. It's not only an employers right, but good business practice.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 06:02 AM
5

treated the same as anyone else That's what she's objecting too. Work is not a huggy cuddly exercise. Feelz don't matter.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:48 AM
1

the definition of rape used by the government and feminist researchers is technically gender neutral That actually depends on the locale. The UCR definition that the FBI uses isn't an actual criminal charge, it's just a reporting category. Some states still have very gender specific language. The definition used by the gov't is a far cry from the definition used from "feminist researchers", primarily in the realm of inability to consent. Legal consent is possible with three sheets to the wind of…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:35 AM
8

While I feel like this is a funny story, I don't really think this is a men's right issue. Wait until the sentencing - or rather, the lack thereof. That will certainly be a MRM issue. Felony assault would be 5-6 years and termination from the university for a male offender, at a minimum. I'd bet money against that occurring in this situation.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:33 AM
1

Disbelief and refusal to be manipulated by a known pathological liar and malignant narcissist isn't rejoicing. Malignant toward an AMR troll I'll definitely cop too, the rest is simply more bullshit ... from an AMR troll. I'm not surprised you are volunteering to "rejoice" in my pain given your nature. Actually it's your nature that makes me want to rejoice in your pain. A nature that actually sets you apart as worse than the average AMR troll.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:44 AM
6

She demands equal pay simultaneous with superior than equal benefits. Sorry dearie, one or the other. You give up one thing for another. Overall employee cost is what should be equal, not just raw pay.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:34 AM
2

Don't expect to get compassion from others when you absolutely refuse to give it. If you think not rejoicing in the same as compassion, you need to have somebody rejoice in your pain. I volunteer.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:21 AM
2

You're rejoicing in the murder of my son and then call me pathological. Murder is too good for you. Please get extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:09 AM
2

You call the murder of my son an "excuse" and expect me to cuddle you? Fuck off
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:52 AM
5

charge of falsely reporting a crime and a misdemeanor perjury count. Where's the felony charge.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:52 AM
1

Excuses. Yeah, it's all an excuse. You're a real fuckwit and I hope you get murdered.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:29 AM
1

Nothing presumptive about it. I put the failure upon you because of your previous statements and I know how family courts operate. Meaning you gave you child away either intentionally or by complete incompetence. Gave my child away? I buried him, jackass.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:25 AM
1

Given your previous statements and the way family court operates I sincerely doubt your ex-wife had as much to do with your custody situation than you did. tsk tsk. Presumptive and wrong. Courts had nothing to do with the situation, until after. BTW that "hand is waving" goodbye. Aww, whatsoevershallIdo when an idiot AMR doesn't agree with me so flees the discussion?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:01 AM
1

Poverty isn't an excuse for poverty? Poverty isn't an excuse, no. I sincerely hope you aren't homeschooling those children you claim are boring and easy to raise as a stay-cation dad. Child, and no. My ex-wife made sure of that. I've already pointed out the facts which directly refute your pathological nonsense. Hand waving.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 02:37 AM
2

You don't. If you did you would understand the employment requirements and monetary contributions intrinsic to it and not ignorantly be claiming it's a refusal to support oneself. I do understand them. I just don't accept them as excuses. PS you aren't "disagreeing" with me, you are literally make statements contrary to fact which is as ignorant as it is pathetic. Oh really? Specify which fact I'm making statements contrary too.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 02:06 AM
2

The Frequency of and reason for women being arrested also refuted your specious claims. I live in California, and originally referred to such. California a mandatory arrest state, and the charge is a felony. Women do not get arrested here for DV, except in cases where everybody in the situation does. "Facts" from non mandatory arrest areas are not relevant.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 11:23 PM
2

You clearly are not familiar with how housing support aka section 8 housing works I am, and I'm against it existing. Standard leftist drivel from you. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 11:22 PM
3

The only situation where a woman gets arrested on a DV call happens is when both (or "all" when more than two) involved get arrested. Again this is not supported by evidence. It's certainly not refuted by your evidence.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 11:03 PM
3

All of them are less credible and less accurate than the sources I provided. Hahahah. No Housing is not "refusing" to support ones self. Yes it is, seeking permanent housing support is an act of refusing to support oneself.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 11:02 PM
2

A voluntary organisation that provides refuge China During a 24-hour survey period in September 2010 Article is over two years old, not reflective of current reality. Emergency Housing NYC dedicated to emergency housing for Housing is different from shelter. 100 beds servicing 615 people in a year means they stayed, on average, 59 days. Housing is when they refuse to support themselves. I interact with shelters, purposed with the temporary short term safety for DV victims. In actuality they mean…
/r/MensRights17/03/14 09:28 PM
-1

This time you're confusing "opinion" with "fact". If you can't look at your above post and identify an opinion in every sentence, you need to try harder.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 06:59 AM
0

sigh Just because you repeat yourself won't make me agree with your opinions and false use of the terms.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 05:31 AM
7

democracy can certainly be [...] representative Perhaps, but the US is not one. Democracy holds no sway over a single federal legislation. Representative, Democracy, and Federal are all referring to the government "Federal" in regards to the US is a self defined use of a term. It's the proper word, simply because it is a title and there is no other word to use to express the intended gov't body, but the gov't is not truly 'federal' because the states do not have real power internally. "Federal" …
/r/MensRights17/03/14 04:31 AM
-10

tsk tsk. You confuse finding your word choice idiotic with not knowing what the words mean.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 04:19 AM
1

Nakuru, Kenya Odds are 323 of those men were already infected, and the one left over was the magic "under 1%"
/r/MensRights17/03/14 02:32 AM
-4

capitalist federal presidential representative democracy self contradictory Word Salad
/r/MensRights17/03/14 02:04 AM
6

This is an issue which only takes away rights - the right to free speech. Western & Central Europe has no free speech and hasn't for quite awhile. This would just be yet another example of banned speech, not a new concept for those "hurtful words" types.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:37 AM
4

The impression I have got of MRAs is that you often speak as if men are oppressed by feminism and women, as if women have structural power over men or something. This is something which is even more the case with MGTOW who have even more of a tendency to portray men as the victims. Men are the victims of the legal system, and women are treated advantageously by the system and none of this requires the woman to be in charge. You said elsewhere: The whole idea that if some people do better than ot…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 08:46 PM
4

What about when I say "I'm not a feminist, because feminism is for terrible people."
/r/MensRights16/03/14 08:39 PM
7

It's telling this is German. I have contact with the local woman's DV shelters, as they're always empty and so female homeless get shuffled off in their direction. They're always empty because the "other person" always gets arrested, so they have the home to themselves with no reason to seek shelter. The only situation where a woman gets arrested on a DV call happens is when both (or "all" when more than two) involved get arrested. I don't think the claim that women are 'avoiding' the shelters i…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 08:36 PM
6

Pretty much. If I was forced at gunpoint to gender specify the word, I'd say that "bossy" is the word to use for boys (and only children) when I'd call a girl "bitchy". "Bossy" entirely brings up an image of "person who has no power" trying to act like they do, which is why I always envision bossy as referring to children. Somebody with actual power isn't bossy.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:22 PM
2

intolerance of ambiguity You say that like it's a bad thing. I'd like a shirt made "Intolerant of Ambiguity!" aversion to abstract thinking This simply isn't true, and would actually be a very "unSTEM" like viewpoint.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:19 PM
2

A Child can only be a victim of it. A child can also be a non-victim.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 12:04 PM
2

These so called parents are so involved in their battles with each other, the child, as illustrated in this case, gets discarded. This is presumptive that that is a situation created by the fraud, and not a highly likely situation regardless. The "battles" will remain with the same two people, even if they have something else to battle over. In short: Just because something exists in an environment does not mean that environment creates that something.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 02:45 AM
3

The children are not the victim of paternity fraud anymore than anybody else is a victim of their biological donators. The only victim are the fathers. Both actual ones, and the falsely declared ones.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 11:41 PM
2

Can I get some clarification on whether or not a man in the U.S. can get in trouble for hitting on someone outside the workplace? What If I accidentally offend a woman in public? Do sexual harassment laws apply in public spaces? "Hitting on"? No. Absolutely not a legal issue. "Accidentally offend" No crime. You're free to tell them they have no right to not be offended. "Sexual harassment" is still a crime in public spaces. The previous two examples you gave are not sexual harassment. The civil …
/r/MensRights14/03/14 11:11 PM
5

Mireille Miller-Young is in contention for the UN's position to combat violence against young girls. (and/or free speech, but the UN has LOTS of people for that role)
/r/MensRights14/03/14 09:48 PM
1

He has to live with the fact he killed an innocent kid That's a personal issue that neither you nor I can even guess at what level will affect him. Many people go on with the rest of their lives with no issue. Others end up taking their own life. It's impossible to guess, particularly when we don't even know the person.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:24 PM
2

"Female lies, causing another to engage in otherwise legal acts toward home defense, killing another. She gets off without being charged." Is absolutely an MRM issue.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:22 PM
1

It's Texas. Defending your family from (perceived) violent attackers is legal In California, and all around the nation, the Castle Doctrine is an absolute defense. Otherwise, I'd be in jail now. It's not actually a defense in the UK.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:19 PM
1

You don't think she may have incredible regret and misery over this? I don't think that any amount of regret and misery even approaches her fault in his death. Falsehood that leads others to engage in otherwise legal violence (self defense, castle doctrine, etc) should be punished as if it was the violence itself.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:17 PM
1

made someone else a murderer who will likely lose their freedom because of it Likely not. The man is not a murderer, and while I have no doubts some place like New York or California would work tirelessly to convict him with something, I don't think even they would succeed and in Texas they won't even try. Like it or not, from the perspective of the adult shooter, this was a legitimate castle doctrine defense and I would expect the grand jury to come to the same conclusion. The fact that the dau…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:15 PM
3

because she believes they are forced into the industry False presumption and premise leads to poor solutions. Whodathunkit?
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:28 PM
2

The Nordic Model has tons of flaws. Notably, it pretends the seller is equivalent to victim. There have been examples of laws following the model charging an underage buyer with a crime, but not the seller. Furthermore, Nordic Model is not "decriminalizing" it, except perhaps using a definition that is all but useless.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:24 PM
31

The complete nonchalance of women who simply watch Jada pick pocket is severe. Only the single man told the male "victim".
/r/MensRights14/03/14 11:52 AM
1

Where are you from? This small country of no import whatsoever, particularly in the development of the internet, known as the United States
/r/MensRights14/03/14 04:37 AM
1

Watch netflix For years I never saw a commercial, then I stopped downloading television from torrents and start watching most of it through hulu and netflix. Bang, commercials again. They're all miserable. Like KFC advertising their 1500 calorie bowl-of-death.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:50 AM
1

Frank Gallagher (Shameless) I never watched the British original, but the US version is a particularly bad example of a show for their point. The show has examples of both dirtbag men and women, as well as the people who step up to handle the problems of such dirtbags in their lives. The mother of the Gallaghers is worse than Frank.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:48 AM
1

For example. We know testosterone increases cardiac health problems and strongly affects the immune system. For example. We know that stress increases cardiac health problems and strongly affects the immune system. Working is stress. Working any job of any meaning, at least. Homewife is not stress.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:24 AM
2

Remember Shamsia Husseini? Postergirl for "girls not getting educated in afghanistan", NGO's rushed in to give her village a school. Later attacked with acid. Her village had no boys school either. Nobody cared.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:11 AM
1

Respect rights zing!
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:07 AM
1

Most of Western Europe (UK, Belgium, Spain and Portugal excepted) seem to be equal. If we trust the data presented. Central Europe is biased though. Ireland is a really nice place to live.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:06 AM
1

Title is hyberbole. Both adults are being held. The stay away order is meaningless, as they're both locked up. The man went before a judge. The woman did not. Thus, the man had an opportunity to plead not guilty, the woman did not. A judge also had the ability to add on additional penalties to the man, not the woman. (Yes, bail can be set without the individual actually being before the judge.) I'm going to go out on a limb and say the difference is probably because she's in the hospital after h…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 11:59 PM
1

Did you really go through all 349 of my posts from over a year and read every single one of them in their entirety to see if they were just me complaining about this subreddit? Because I highly doubt that. Redditgraphs.com I'm a casual redditor, not a devoted site user. A casual user - as opposed to a sock puppet - isn't likely to post exclusively to one reddit.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 04:54 PM
1

For some definitions of "looks human" with no actual connection with looking human, sure.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 02:45 PM
1

"dominate race" sigh
/r/MensRights10/03/14 08:19 AM
6

Well, a better example would be to say it is like a brain dead body that under most circumstances, given nine months, will become a human with full brain function. Future status is not relevant to rights at the point of abortion. doctors give her a %99 chance of recovery Brain death is death. It has 0% chance of recovery. Brain death is not a coma. Recovery would be a literal proof of religious higher power and intervention. The brain does not "restart". Coma patients have rights. They have brai…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 04:02 AM
6

All it takes is one SRS/AMR to control the tone of the entire reddit (until some mod above them finally notices) There are three (of nine) moderators who are SRS/AMR.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 10:58 PM
9

There's plenty of reason. Starting with it's not self supporting or has an appreciable mind. In fact, it's less self supporting than a brain dead body, which is properly termed a corpse.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 10:48 PM
14

A "joke" lacking in actual jokes.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 10:42 PM
1

And this coming from an advocate for abortion! Oh the irony. Nothing ironic about it. Humans have rights because of human minds. If we uplifted dogs, they would also have rights. AIs would also have rights. Second trimester fetuses do not have minds, and have no rights.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 10:30 PM
1

If you can just convince yourself that I'm a dumb-ass, all of my arguments aren't valid anymore, and they can be ignored No. Your arguments are not valid originally and can be ignored. Because you weave into utter irrelevancies, fight strawmen, and blather on uncontrollably, you're a dumb-ass. If you care so damned much about yourself, you'd do well to take a second look at why you believe what you do. Because I hold a consistent ethical and moral worldview that does not accept gov't force being…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:32 PM
5

A man should not be able to force a woman to get an abortion. Strawman At no point by myself or in the originally sourced comic has the claim been made that men should be able to force a woman to get an abortion.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:29 PM
1

You're not very bright. If you don't grasp the legality of abortion in the first two trimesters, then there's no reason to ever converse with you on the topic in even the most basic of manners.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:22 PM
1

It's an extremely complex system that can turn the food from your pantry into a life-sized human being. Which has no rights. Did you have a point? "Ball" is not a comment on complexity. Nobody should be able to fuck people without repercussions. All sex should by default be without repercussions. Everything has consequences. This is nothing more than a weak attempt at a truism, except it's not actually true.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:07 PM
1

Does your left pinky have rights, or do you have rights? My left pinky is not a ball of cells. I called you selfish, which you are, because you want to go out and fuck people without repercussions. Just like a woman.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:58 PM
2

The statement "ball of cells that has no rights" as I've commonly understood it, And "as you commonly understand it" is understanding it wrong. No part of a woman's body is a "ball of cells that has no rights". Thus, for something to be properly described as such, it cannot be a part of a woman's body. I read what you wrote. It's a prime example of modern, selfish misinterpretation and self-centeredness at the expense of others and society. yawn You should try a non-modern era, and find how self…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:35 PM
9

While a true data point, I'm not terribly sure what the issue is. Since 2010, HPV vaccination for males is recommended in the US, and was available in 2009. ACA covers and requires such to be paid for. Not getting vaccinated since that date is nothing more then (poor) choice. This is counterpointed with prostate tests, vasectomies, birth control, etc, which ACA does not cover.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:29 PM
5

I don't understand how people can actually think it's a part of the woman's body. Strawman. I never said it was part of the woman's body. In fact, the "ball of cells" and "has no rights" are a distinct statement of absolute separation from the woman's body. Make some attempt to read what was actually written and not what you find easier to argue against.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:16 PM
7

However, unfortunately due to biology this is one area where men and women just are not equal. No, it's because of laws that this is an area where men and women "just are not equal." Likewise, laws can be adopted to make it equal.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 07:55 PM
12

It is entirely equivalent. Nowhere in the comic does it say that the man decided not to be a father after birth instead of before. That's something you read in that doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 07:54 PM
27

Yes, the point here is the child, not the parents. First two trimesters there is no child. It has no rights. Notifying the mother that that ball of cells that has no rights will not be supported by the father should be sufficient legal notification. I'd argue for "pay for half an abortion, regardless of if the mother decides on an abortion" as fair. Nothing more.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 07:52 PM
13

Better written: If a man walks out on a woman, he is exercising a choice. If a woman gets an abortion, or doesn't get an abortion, she is exercising a choice.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 07:51 PM
-1

Yes, the "bias of this subreddit" from a poster who is obviously a sockpuppet in the first place. Only 349 posts in 13 months, 322 of which are here primarily complaining about here. Be brave enough to post on your real account. Go ahead, expose your long standing prejudice against the MRM.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 06:44 PM
6

Remember, Twitter is a breeding ground for hate groups. So this is just par for the course.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 05:41 AM
1

Of course! Because not agreeing with you means ignorance! Such a grotesquely huge ego you have there.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 04:20 AM
2

So what you are saying is that being accused is much worse than being raped? The victim who was falsely accused is much worse off, yes.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 10:54 PM
1

Or a husband? Financial head of the household? That's a presumption of power that doesn't exist. What about just being physically stronger? Use of force is certainly a crime. Unused differences is not power.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 10:53 PM
2

And oh yeah, stop pretending we're the hate group when your subreddit still links to this guy. Paul Elam is is not half the hate group you are. You, personally, and you, AMR, and you, feminists, all make the mistake of not sharing your presumption of dogma as being an expression of hate. BTW: I'd also use jury nullification in any case where I felt evidence was being blocked. That's the point of a jury. I'd use jury nullification in any gun case. Any victimless crime case, including prostitution…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 03:29 PM
2

I was a member here, before I was a member there, and I can respond instantly to you, because your peers gave me a positive score Trending rapidly downward. Don't get used to that.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 03:27 PM
1

Well, I was right about you shitting on sincerity hyperbole and false accusations. FTFY!
/r/MensRights08/03/14 03:26 PM
3

Have you ever been raped? Because a person who has been raped will experience this far more than those accused of rape in most cases. Bullshit. An actual rape is a single person violating the victim, followed by the entirety of society and gov't bearing down on the person who did it. When the perpetrator is caught, it's years of jail time. Whereas a false accusation actually is the entirety of society and gov't violating the victim at the behest of the perpetrator. When the original perpetrator …
/r/MensRights08/03/14 03:22 PM
0

Not in the US. Wealthy people should always use surrogates and always do it in foreign soil (don't know which one, I'm sure one would work)
/r/MensRights08/03/14 07:21 AM
3

I think you're spot on. It's rather counterintuitive too given that the LDS church is fairly misogynistic. Just spouting theory here, but the "omgtheydon'treallyexistbutreallytheydo" polygamous parts of LDS always need an influx of girls. So if the general market for adoption is increased, its possible that some newborn/very young girls can be adopted in pretty much without the girl ever knowing they were adopted.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 07:04 AM
14

And what do they do when the mother refuses to put the father's name on the birth certificate? The word of law, and the actual practice in reality are often quite different.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 05:20 AM
5

Don't forget the AMR link. Yes, a troll.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 03:04 AM
1

wow you got me, all those links on the amr page musn't be to or about /r/mensrights after all, silly me. Yes, I did. I recognize you're actually delusional and may have missed that about half has nothing to do with /mensrights, but they don't. So you admit you're not an egalitarian movement I admit the MRM is not more egalitarian than feminism is. You seem very hung up over the National Organisation for Women Of course. There is one primary feminist group lobbying the US gov't for laws to oppres…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 02:38 AM
2

If you go through AMR you'd see that all posts are dedicated to /r/MensRights, and nothing more. Factually untrue, as expected. It's not an attack on the Men's Rights Movement Your claim was. Then you can't call yourselves a human rights group or egalitarian then When feminism stops doing the same, I will agree. Oh but if you took just ten minutes outside your day and outside of /MR you'd see that many feminist groups do focus on a lot issues affecting men Randoms on the internet, be they crackp…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 01:36 AM
1

I could do the exact same for your "movement". The number of groups you errornously attribute to the MRM is legion, everything from TRP, to massively downvoted posts here. Do you have any objection to NOW or SRS being called feminist, because if you do it's clear you're just lying again. for every claim of malicious flippancy for issues affecting women Women are not a concern of the men's movement. Just like men are clearly not for feminists. We are concerned with men's issues, and "what about t…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 01:24 AM
1

Oops I was being facetious, better discredit everything I said while committing fallacies you simultaneously condemn. You're right, you don't only engage in strawmanning arguments and presenting fiction as facts, but also maliciously minimizing others by being flippant. So, three reasons to not respect you in the slightest. The amount of times the Men's Rights movement has strawmanned the views and ideas of feminism while complaining about AMR doing the same I can cite an example for every posit…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 01:06 AM
1

"If someone has a different view-point to me I don't care about what they say!" Not what I actually said, which is an example of why I don't care what AMR believes. Your entire existence is built around strawmanning arguments and presenting fiction as facts.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 12:47 AM
0

Thats not true for every state (not every state even has a crime called 'rape') but certainly is for the UCR. In california, teacher student sex is one of the few male victim rapes formally recognized as rape instead of assault. Im not certain of Utah law.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 12:22 AM
1

So what you're saying is, What I'm saying is, that race is not relevant to the question proposed and answered. I believe that's the definition I have no concern nor care for what any AMR poster, including yourself, believes. You know what is kind of racist, or at least ignorant? Thinking men have it worse off than black people You know what is absolutely racist? Pretending there are no black men with concerns relevant to being a man.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 12:18 AM
1

No what you're doing is ignoring the fact that maybe, just maybe, these men were executed because they were black and not because they were men. Come back when the list has no whites. So this isn't a discussion? Race is not relevant just because you want race to be relevant. Giving so much importance to race and trying to make it a central point of every conversation is racism. Grats on brigading from AMR though!
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:26 PM
2

For instance: women are more likely to die for reasons other than murder after their male partners are jailed for DV. Besides which, the law is in regards to initiators of violence on a per-incident basis. When the cops come, they should be dragging off the initiator of that period, and refusing to accept that women initiate violence just as often has absolutely consistently harmed men.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:21 PM
2

I find it hard to believe that the ONS has never bowed to political pressure or that having done so, wouldn't do so here. There's more than a few "official" sources of statistics that have modified definitions or methodologies to change the results. On this topic, and others.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:19 PM
2

Really poor title. Feminist charity demands UK Govt. statistics authority change its methodology because [the Feminist Charity] 'suggests men and women are equally affected by domestic violence." Careful of those pronouns! snicker The article makes it clear, of course, that they're really a bigoted group refusing to recognize male victims of DV.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:16 PM
1

There is nothing presented suggesting that he was forced or coerced. Force is legally presumed when one has power over the other. As in, a teacher. It's just that simple. It's how it should work for both genders. It should be yes, just like a male with power over somebody is presumed to be engaging in force, so should the female with power over somebody.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:38 PM
0

After declaring "what hell is" based on it.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:01 PM
3

That is the definition of "She is a pedophile", right? I'm not going to bother looking up Utah law to get specifics, but no it's not. It's probably in the 11-13 range. I mean, heck, yep, she looks good, butr it is disgusting that she will prolly get off with 2 months of house arrest and community hours. I like to save my outrage at biased sentencing until sentencing actually occurs.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:35 PM
5

What you should have done is called the police at the initial threat. Instantly. Start dialing before she finishes the sentence. Threats to file false reports are an act of force, and a crime. Men need to stop waving such threats off. Get the women involved out of your life, and hopefully jailed for their criminal threats.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:15 PM
1

Getting to where any anti-feminist post anywhere on the net needs to have an image taken, all to counteract the attempts to remove uncomfortable thoughts. "How to be a Man, by Women" is still accessible. And in print, as well.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:08 PM
3

I don't believe women are the enemy any more than, as an atheist, I believe theists are "the enemy". Theists engaging in political lobbying in order to exercise the force of the gov't against atheists are the enemy. Likewise, feminists engaging in political lobbying in order to exercise the force of the gov't against men are the enemy. Thus, NOW is the enemy.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:48 PM
1

Yes, as I said, I should have know you wouldn't care about racism. My bad. Just because I'm not racist and make race a central part of every discussion does not mean I don't care about racism. Yours for example is disgusting. Ah, I see. So you're just going to ignore that one of the 3 requirements for being classified as a mentally retarded adult is having an IQ under 70 points? Ok, whatever floats your boat, brah. I'm going to accept that trained people in the field with research into the cases…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:42 PM
1

Ah, right, I should have known you wouldn't care that your example of discrimination against men is also an example of discrimination against people of color. This isn't "/AMRdiscussesracism", go have fun there. Again, just pointing out that you made an incorrect statement. No, I take the judgement of "Dr. Denis Keyes, William Edwards, Esq., & Robert Perske" over yourself. As such, I dismiss your claim, and stand by the original list.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:35 PM
0

Also, only 14 examples were white. Hmm... What relevance does that have to the question? Stop being racist, you bigoted fuck. There's 10 examples that don't actually meet the standard for mental retardation. Take it up with the list makers.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:28 PM
5

The avoidance of criminal liability does not necessarily translate to an acceptable level of support in the case of family law. Family law is not criminal liability. Please to be trying again. Children from broken relationships are known to have vulnerabilities that children from intact families don't, so it's perfectly reasonable for the law to protect them in different ways. We'll have to disagree, but in any regard it's not the responsibility of a parent to a child, it is more.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:24 PM
1

Yes, people engage in illegal acts. The question was if something was illegal, to which a reply was given "not if...." and I refuted that.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:16 PM
0

Dante's inferno is not dogma of the church. In as much as mythology and fiction are separate, Dante's is fiction, and the dogma is mythology. Actual dogma is "burns forever" "fires of hell" etc. In short: Dante's Inferno is not "canon".
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:10 PM
1

No, Wanda is not male Forty three examples then. Also, many of those cases were decided that the person was either merely borderline or not mentally retarded. Tsk tsk. None of the listed cases were after the 2002 court decision that made a distinction. Every person listed is "mentally retarded".
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:06 PM
5

It is absolutely your opinion that what a couple spends on a child to meet its basic needs is the definition of a parents responsibility toward a child. No it's not, its legislative fact. Spending no more than the bare necessities will not result in a child being removed from the care of a couple. Thus, increasing that requirement is a level above "being responsible for a child". Most legislators have disagreed with you. They don't share your opinion, Then they're just as lacking in logic and ba…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:01 PM
6

No, it's your opinion, that's all you've done is shared you opinion. It is not an opinion that what a couple spends on a child to meet its basic needs is the definition of a parents responsibility toward a child. It is not an opinion that child support is awarded in excess of that level of cost. It is not an opinion that you repeatably and erroneously refer to child support as simply providing for the responsibility of a child.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:52 PM
2

There is no appreciable difference between the ways a woman can rape a man from the ones a man can rape a woman. Think of any scenario that is rape one way, reverse the genders and its still rape. Period.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:50 PM
4

Consistent and persistent just means you say the same thing over and over, not that it makes any sense. Your inability to refute the argument does not mean it doesn't make sense. It just means you maintain an unsubstantiated and irrational position based in bitterness and immaturity. It's basic fact, as I've shown here already, that the child support award system awards far in excess of the responsibility required of a parent. The public policy is that children typically enjoy a lifestyle commen…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:41 PM
5

My point, which seems to have eluded your keen wit, is that all you've presented is your resentful opinion that you don't like being held responsible for your choices My point, which seems to have eluded your keen wit, is that being responsible for a child is far exceeded by actual child support awards. (e.g., Dave Foley) A couple is being responsible for a child by providing its basic necessities. A separated parent is also being responsible for a child by providing for its basic necessities. T…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:33 PM
5

No it isn't. There, your argument is refuted. That's not a refutation. You're welcome to try again. Public policy says that children shouldn't suffer because their parents make shitty choices and notes that most parents support children commensurate with their means. A child who's mother does not have diamond encrusted panties is not suffering (although, I imagine the mother who does, is) It's good public policy to protect kids. It's a bad public policy designed to transfer money from men to wom…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:22 PM
9

Just to clear up the peanut gallery: This is not about statutory rape. It has no issue with age of consent, although the age of consent in Utah is in fact 18 so that's a violation as well. This is a person in a position of power exercising that power against a subordinate. This is rape.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:19 PM
8

Its about fairly using noncommercial works and attributing them properly. It was used commercially. As such, financial damage was done and she's liable. This is far more than attribution.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:15 PM
6

Actually, separation does. That's the law. Your response to "the law is unjustified because..." is "that's the law" The law is wrong.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:59 PM
2

Haven't males been executed who were 14 and/or retarded? In quantity. I believe all forty four listed here are male. Nobody younger than 17 has been executed in the US since the death penalty was reinstated in the 70s, but several prior to the stoppage. Records are incomplete of the eras.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:53 PM
4

Why earth do you think form only deserve bare necessities? Because that's the only responsibility of parents who are not separated, support of the child's basic necessities. Separation doesn't create new responsibility.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:40 PM
13

All parents are legally and financially responsible for any kids they create. It's really simple. Creating a financial responsibility in another person through use of fraud is a crime.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:36 PM
7

Different children have different lifestyles based on the financial wellbeing of their parents. That's a choice of the parents - well, if they're together. Suddenly at separation, it's no longer a choice, and the separated lottery winner has to pay tens of thousands per month. Apparently for diamond encrusted clothing - worn by the mother. You're suffering cognitive dissonance. Child support is far beyond excess if it was really for what you claim. Instead, it's a second alimony. No kid costs $1…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:31 PM
7

child support is between parent and child. hahaha. If that was true, support wouldn't vary based on the parents income. Child support is "second alimony". No child costs $1364 for monthly expenses. That's 2* (since there are, after all, two parents responsible) the computed support for a single child, from the father to the mother, even when custody is 50/50 in the state of California for the median income of $60k/yr Anytime there is any transfer of income between adults with 50/50 custody it's …
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:20 PM
1

It's not all that difficult to confirm "purchased pre-used positive pregnancy test", yet still no convictions.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:11 PM
0

Taking an unconsentful video/picture of strangers in that manner isn't ok in my opinion. Uhm...too bad? Taking pictures in public is a right, actually confirmed by court with violating statutes struck down. And I don't mean the case in the OP. The law in the US is: "It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property." Your opinion on the matter holds no value or weight.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:20 AM
1

We need to end the stigma against reporting false accusers. The victim should be believed and never felt to be demeaned or contradicted for their claim. All such reports should be investigated to the full, and any failure to prosecute followed up by investigation why that prosecution did not occur.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 10:23 AM
1

In that case "No" also means yes. As does being totally unconscious, actively resisting, or held and gunpoint. At least, as far as universities think.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 10:21 AM
4

Some do, absolutely. Such as NOW and other organizations who actively use lobbying and gov't force to persecute men.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:40 AM
3

two waves Which either means he's commenting before being aware of the third wave (unlikely, as he said it in 2005), or doesn't consider it one of the "proudest achievements" Which means he isn't part of the problem of feminism. My mother is a 2nd wave feminist as well.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:37 AM
-1

Ahh, so you're not actually banned from SRS, SRSdiscussion, and feminisms? So what was the point you were trying to make? I have a positive score, even here BTW, you don't, at least not into the last 1000 messages, of which 151 were here. According to redditgraphs anyways.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:39 AM
0

See? You keep ignoring what part they claimed was an insult, and why I said it. Not ignoring, it's an insult. You're a very angry person. You also called me a liar, repeatedly, before doing your homework. No, I still call you a liar. You claimed you are banned. Because of that, that limited the relevant search area to the last week or so. Changing the criteria to "once but no longer" changes the search area as well.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:25 AM
1

Does that qualify as "abuse"? Force from the gov't to demand such hiring decisions is abuse, yes. What does this have to do with the government, specifically, if this [business] is merely choosing to practice in this way; the government, to my knowledge, has already deemed such things as impermissible. If the business is engaging in those acts while similar business cannot engage in the reverse (filling jobs only with men) it is thus a governmentaly forced penalty on men. Furthermore, irrational…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:01 AM
0

I'll explain like you're 5. Continue with your insults, it'll certainly make your case that you weren't (temporarily, and now expired) banned for being insulting, as the message deletion stated.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:47 AM
7

Most research leans towards the fact that men do seem to lie more than women No it doesn't. It's statistically equal. Men and women lie for different reasons, for minor lies generally men lie to make themselves look better, and women to build a relationship with others. For more important lies, women lie better and are thus able to keep such secrets longer.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:42 AM
1

You can't even describe why you think it wasn't a strawman Because..it wasn't. I hate the part of the MRM you represent. You don't even know "which part" I represent. Edit: Thank God there are some posters here who aren't anything like you. Some people will accept your lies as fact, that's unfortunate and should be corrected with greater alacrity.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:27 AM
3

Then why do they insist on DOMINATING the discourse about gender issues? Because the entire movement is based on the concept that women are oppressed by men. It's not trying for equality, it's trying to "reverse oppression", by oppressing men. Success will never be recognized (although, currently factual) as that would eliminate the need for the movement, which is big bucks for groups like NOW, and big feeeelzzz for people like tumblrinas.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:21 AM
1

The 14th amendment covers government acts, not private ones. There are, however, state based laws that do what you suggest in all 50 states.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:17 AM
4

Flat out, hope to see more of this.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:15 AM
0

Actually, that was calling out a strawman. No, it's not. But you are insulting. Just like the reason the message was deleted. My mistake for thinking you took any of this seriously. I take many things seriously. You are not one of them. You're a troll, with deep hatred for the MRM and come here to express it, then get upset when it's not accepted and your lies are called out.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:08 AM
7

No, it's not legal. It is, however, legal to require languages spoken and read, so posting the job opening only in Chinese would be allowed. If a white person can read it though, they have to consider them.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:06 AM
4

Affirmative Action Quotas (as opposed to "just" Affirmative Action) are illegal in the United States. No employer may create a set number required for race or sex.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:00 AM
1

I don't care either, but I'd prefer equal abuse from the gov't rather than biased abuse targeting only some. Thus: So long as it's illegal to hire only men, I'll report attempts to hire only women, both of which violate my states law. And I'd make the report on my cellphone, while in line ordering my food. It wouldn't affect me giving my business to the company.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:59 AM
1

You're not banned. As claimed. Nor was that calling out a strawman. Although it's nice you called out your own sockpuppet.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:49 AM
4

This is the lie of kickstarter. Normally when you fork over money for something that doesn't exist yet it's called an investment, and if the person you gave the money too disappears or fails to live up to the requirements (some of) that money can be recouped. With kickstarter, you're "buying" a product that doesn't exist yet. If it ever exists, all you get is the product and not an investors share. If it never exists, you're out the money with no recompense. Not to say I've never supported one. …
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:47 AM
2

Except that's tier 3, and you have no tier2 or tier3 deletion in the log posts. Ahh, I take that back...marginally. There are more in _FeMRA_'s log post, but are themselves 18 and 20 days ago. Again, those weren't as you described "calling something a strawman" but actual attacks, on the MRA itself.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:37 AM
2

I've been banned in [...] Femradebates (Because you're not allowed to call strawman when someone argues with something you didn't say. The amusing thing is that's a valid complaint about the moderation of that reddit, yet it still didn't happen. You posted there as recently as twelve hours ago, and the only logged deletion of a message from you is 20 days ago, which itself would only put you at tier 1, and your description is not an actual representation of that deletion. So not only do you repe…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:34 AM
7

So, your complaint is that we don't live on reddit. Can't really work up a huge pile of care, here.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:34 AM
2

Feminism tends to generally not be based in faith, but in confusion about facts. It takes faith to continue with false facts long after they have been proven false. In other words, Feminists generally believe there are good non-faith-based reasons for believing what they do. That...is an oxymoron. They have non factual based reasons for believing what they do, and that is termed faith.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:02 AM
2

It can be easily dismissed because you guys ignore or attack the feminists who don't fit your criminal profile. NOW are not directly criminals, although they should be. Other feminists have no power, so why should I care about them? But then, we get the warm fuzzy TSA strip search of everything we say So whines the person who in this very thread claimed a negative voted karma message is representative of the group.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:59 AM
7

Like the ones where you guys decided a skirt didn't count as clothing I know it's zero effort on your part to do so, but negative karma posts are not attributable to the group, by definition. Put some effort into it next time, if you can.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:58 AM
2

because ideology has no basis but belief There is a difference between ideology and faith. Pinker is discussing faith. Feminism is a faith, complete with a whole slew of dogma and ritual.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:55 AM
1

Except she gave a speech about not harassing her, before the bar scene? False. Her participation at the event in Dublin was a panel discussion that did not have that as its topic. Nor was there any "bar scene", as she states herself she was drinking amiably and decided to leave. The man in the elevator was not one in the bar, so even if there had been (which there wasn't) a scene, he wouldn't have known of it. Her 26th speech, 21 days after the event in question, she made that event a central pa…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:41 AM
1

She asked for a break from being hit on. He asked for her to join him in his hotel bedroom, at 3am. This is not even a factual recollection of what she claimed, which was her own fantasy to begin with. Rebecca is in a bar drinking, says she's going to bed, and heads to elevator. Completely unrelated Man and Rebecca in elevator. Man expresses interest in talking with her, invites her to hotel room for coffee. Rebecca says no. Event over. Until two weeks later it was crycrycry Rebecca hazsomuchopp…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 03:29 AM
0

Bedrooms Hotel room. The horror of her subjecting him to a public blogging. And after only one warning? What a massive mis statement of what actually happened. There was no "warning". He asked. She refused. Event over. That was June 3-5 '11 Until she made a big deal out of nothing, by bringing it up as some horrible event in June 20th '11 in a video entry. Then responded to the obvious criticisms that she's overly sensitive and the sexualization of the event was entirely a fantasy in her head by…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 03:20 AM
1

Source? You do realize NOW has always been fighting father right's groups and still today fights them? ...That's what I said.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:55 AM
1

Because I hold "corrections" to a high standard. Specifically, the correction should actually be correct.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:08 PM
1

As current law, no. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml (f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records. All that is required is a statement of "gender identity". Which can mean the dress wearing, "she" pronoun using, pervy little "coercively assigned female at…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:16 PM
1

Sigh. You're simply factually wrong. 15.6% (death after abortion) * 59.3% (complication of abortion) = 9.3% 15.6% (death after abortion) * 22.2% (murder) = 3.5%
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:08 PM
3

This persistent trope that "false accusations aren't common enough to prosecute" does nothing but turn moderates away from feminists. Keep it up!
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:45 AM
5

It's amusing, in a horrific sort of way, that women get more jailtime for conspiracy to commit murder than they do for actually killing the man themselves.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:31 AM
-1

They don't, but if they did wouldn't it behoove us to have as weak a gov't as possible?
/r/MensRights05/03/14 11:20 PM
1

That's because the correct link would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(legal_concept)
/r/MensRights05/03/14 11:19 PM
2

Adblock4lyfe.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 11:10 PM
16

A local park near me actually calls the cops on any "unattended males" (that's the literal phrase used), a fact I discovered after I was finally in a point of my PT to be able to walk reasonable distances and took to walking through the park a few times a week. I still do it. The cops come occasionally, but no crime no foul, they can't arrest me. I filed a harassment complaint against the police force, but the claim was that since each encounter was predicated on an individual call it wasn't har…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 11:07 PM
2

Flipping the genders would still be a non issue. Yet, the non issue when it happened to a woman got a CBC news article and got made into an issue. That making an issue out of a non issue for only one gender is an issue.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 11:00 PM
2

First, it's a Canadian airline, not US. Second, it's an isolated incident written to a woman because the sub-culture you describe is so very small. It's such an isolated incident that the article itself questions the notes authenticity. Thus: Non issue #91283928123 of 2014.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:52 PM
2

Uh...yeah. That is part of rehabilitation. You know...the part about making them "useful members of society?" A) Don't care. If an employer wants to refuse to hire felons, they should have that right for no reason other than that they want to not hire felons. The gov't has no right to force it upon others. Similarly, if an employer doesn't want to hire 49ers fans, that is their choice and the gov't should not force them to do so. B) I was actually factually wrong, as I accidentally misattributed…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:40 PM
-1

Rights are supported collectively by the government/people via democracy This is simply untrue, and inappropriately glorifies democracy in the process. Rights simply are. They exist without a gov't to enforce them, and they exist when the gov't violates them, and democracies violate rights just as frequently as non democracies do. As I've said elsewhere recently, I'd rather have an aristocracy that doesn't violate my rights than the (current, US, UK, EU, etc) democracy that does. traditionalists…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:16 PM
3

Which is happening. Political lesbians aside, most women are heterosexual and even more have fathers/brothers/male friends/male children/etc. It is already affecting their lives, which is why NOW has increased lobbying of politicians to block laws calling for fathers rights, etc. In the past, no such law was even attempted. It's progress, of a sort.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:12 PM
1

Under California law for workplaces, iirc, transgender individuals are required to assume their new gender in pretty much every functional way, regardless of whether or not they've had sexual reassignment surgery. The rules for school access to bathrooms make no such requirements. The law the article itself mentions the school is acting in compliance with only requires a statement of self identity. Even when that statement is in conflict with any expression of gender. dress male However, this is…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:56 PM
3

I think the plan is completely unrealistic. It's based on the idea that identifying as a girl should let anybody in the girls bathroom, boy with boys bathroom etc. However, it misses the reality that just because trans individuals (and only some) care about about identifying to others correctly, that everybody does. Specifically: A segment of the heterosexual teenage boy population is going to willingly identifying as a girl in order to get into the girls bathroom even while actually not identif…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:53 PM
3

The false accuser never charged anybody. Neither did the justice system. No names were ever given, so no names could be known.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:08 PM
14

Well, according to the law, it actually means exactly that, because it clearly says that it isn't considered discrimination if there is a just cause. The law doesn't determine what is discrimination or not. The law determines which discrimination is illegal and which is legal. And anyway, what's the harm? If it's for a good cause. "Good cause" the the clarion call of all hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:52 PM
3

It's evidence that drama makes better stories than "Thing happened, no consequence, story over." I'll note though that the phrase "are killed" has an implication of murder which is not accurate to the claim. The 9% are those who died in television and film dramas due to complications of the abortion (which is accurately close to never) As this statistic certainly includes the wide variety of hospital or medical shows, it's hardly surprising that "oh wow, medical issue!" is wildly over-represente…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:46 PM
2

If the new definition of rape was "all sex while drunk is rape" then yes. But it's not the definition of rape.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:37 PM
10

Just because a law doesn't bar certain forms of discrimination doesn't mean it's not actually discrimination. "Against the law" is no part of the usage of the term discrimination. It just means it's legally acceptable.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:22 PM
18

It's a crappy argument when feminists try to "prove" bias with a google search, and it's a crappy argument when you do it.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:13 PM
0

It's not a universal statement, "Thanks for playing."
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:11 PM
22

So prejudicial treatment against somebody for their gender in a hiring decision isn't discrimination? It's literally the definition of discrimination.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:06 PM
-1

If you're going to make a universal statement, it is incumbent upon you to prove it for every case. This didn't happen. You're correct. I didn't make a universal statement.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:02 PM
26

A spokesperson for the Equality Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen - DO), the state's equality watchdog, told The Local that would-be employers were not breaking the law if they stated a bias for a particular gender. Nuff said. Discrimination is legal in Sweden. I'm sure a few male-only companies would solve that right quick.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:57 PM
1

Who would consciously or unconsciously not continue to sell a profitable product they paid to have built because it was designed by a women? There's always the concern of opportunity cost, which can make even a profitable enterprise an overall negative because you could be doing (or in this case, showing) something else.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:52 PM
4

I can't speak in general terms, but when my wife goes for any interviews, the thing that worries her the most is that the interviewer would be female The worst thing any female defendant can have is to find a jury stacked with women. It's a sign they should strike a deal, as the court sentencing will be worse. Contrary, men would prefer a jury full of women but male jurors generally are balanced.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:50 PM
-1

Oh, since you believe it must be true! I thought we were dealing with facts, not your beliefs. You've cited no sources yet are deploring me for doing the same? I'm done.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:47 PM
3

Think progress is leftist dogma and noise, but this is hardly a MRM issue., and it's already been posted in /bitcoin
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:35 PM
-1

That's a terrible idea. Class warfare anyone? Come to /libertarian and we can argue it. It's not suitable here.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:34 PM
1

Tiny? 323 posts in 3 months, which comprises almost 1/3rd of the entire 1000 post limit of redditgraphs. In an account over 3 years old, participating in this reddit the entire time. Tiny? Try again. It's time to recognize that you're the wrong one here, not me. Actually, it's only two months: Dec 25th to Mar 05 is two months and 11 days.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:29 PM
1

Post a post where you say the patriarchy isn't realz. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1zjdqp/elderly_white_men_afflicted_by_high_suicide_rates/cfv527m Try something difficult next time, you delusional little freak.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:27 PM
-1

More accurately, you can say it about the homeless in the area that you work. I don't believe my area is significantly different from any major metropolitan area in the US in this situation, and that's where homeless congregate. I never said it wasn't. But since the topic was not about whether or not people who are well-off beg, it's a straw man. It's not. You're referring to women you see as ipso facto homeless, without actual knowledge of that fact. Whereas, I can state with full knowledge, wo…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:21 PM
1

Your posts in mensrights are rad fem aligned. You're delusional to the extreme. No AMR would downvote a single thing you said that I've read. And this is proof. Maybe Mens rights isn't a place for you? Been here a lot longer than you, with 323 posts in the last 3 months for an average positive karma of 5.4. I'd suggest I "belong here" just fine, particularly as I exceed your average positive karma in this reddit. (Which is only 3.7) http://redditgraphs.com/?bartab&PieChart&Length&Comments
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:12 PM
1

You are tagged as a radical feminist imo. Wow. You're so delusional you must be on drugs or certifiably crazy. I have three years of posts, you're welcome to peruse them to find my positions. I'm not going to entertain you when you hold such nonsensical positions.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:01 PM
2

So let me get this straight: you have the ability to determine, "There are no homeless women," I can determine that women do not remain homeless for any appreciable period of time. At first approach to a homeless shelter they will get forwarded to permanent assistance. "No homeless women" wasn't my position. Oy vey. Is this an argument? Begging is a lucrative business.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:00 PM
1

Patriarchy doesn't exist. Just because you like to pretend (and I have you tagged as doing this before) that anybody who disagrees with you is a feminist doesn't make it so. Also, don't fucking spam me with three replies to the same message.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:38 PM
-1

You can't know that. You can't even know they're really homeless. Begging at the offramps is a regular "job" that people with homes here do. Invariably 20 something (both men and women), white, and able bodied. And with dogs, for some reason.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:35 PM
-1

Because men pay the majority of taxes. Then give the vote based on taxes paid. I'd in fact support that, but there's no reason to legislate gender differences.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:21 PM
2

What most MRAs want is Equity between the sexes I can state for an absolute fact I do not want "equity" I want equality under the law. Equity in the legal system describes judicial discretion in applying the laws effects against others and is the prime reason women are treated with lighter sentences for the same crimes. That's what I'm fighting against.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:18 PM
0

Crazy or drug addled. The occasional "purposefully homeless" type (which I largely consider crazy). As a regular volunteer at homeless shelters in the area, any woman who came to our shelter would be instantly shuffled off to the DV shelters (which are empty) and allowed to stay long term, hooked up with transition housing, etc. Men of course are out the next morning. Bright and early.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:12 PM
0

It wasn't a rhetorical question? Men have to prove they are fit to be caretakers. They prove this to society at large, and thus themselves. Women simply are caretakers, being "motherly" even when obviously failing at it.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:01 PM
5

According to reports, the false-accuser never identified his attackers.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:59 PM
2

That doesn't seem like a move you make to be popular Among the Democrats? How would it be unpopular?
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:42 AM
25

The only good thing about this situation is that nobody was named specifically as an accused, and so there was nobody actually harmed.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:56 AM
18

"We heard that students don't understand that it is illegal to have sex with someone who is drunk because they can't give consent." Largely because that is untrue. The difference between "drunk" and "too intoxicated to give consent" is vast. Notably, you can give consent long after it's illegal to drive.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:46 AM
-1

Such a question implies that boys and girls behave at the same base line, which is simply not true. So called "zero tolerance" targets even non problematic behavior that is largely a part of boy behavior. Putting a boy in public school should be considered child abuse, and punished accordingly.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:56 AM
1

To be fair, the past 2,000 years don't exactly have a stellar record for democracy. Mob rule has been around a lot longer than we've called it democracy. There certainly isn't anything to warrant treating it with reverence. Give me a good aristocracy that respects peoples rights over a "democracy" that doesn't. I'm afraid I don't understand your murderer argument. I'm using "murderer" as a stand in for any violent crime, and no I don't agree that being released is the same as ending punishment. …
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:24 AM
1

Because women are women, and men have to prove they are men. As you become infirm, this because harder or impossible.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 02:53 AM
-1

there are highly asymmetric rates of attempted[3] and completed suicide[4] between males and females This is a meaningless distinction and does nothing but prove that men are more successful. In fact, we know that while the number of people who consider (which is a very minor term) suicide are higher in women, the number who plan suicide is almost identical, and the number of those eventually successful is even closer. In short: Out of 100 men and 100 women, X men and X women will plan suicide. …
/r/MensRights05/03/14 02:52 AM
1

Ok so it's political. It's also political not to give them the vote. Perhaps, but it's a political decision to limit the perpetrator of infamous crimes from future civil participation that dates back over two thousand years. The increasing felonization of crime labels does far more than simply disenfranchise a few marijuana dealers. It also bars them from seeking governmental employment, removes their right to own a firearm, and places them under increased scrutiny for holding state-granted prof…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 02:26 AM
1

Are you having a conversation with somebody or what context? Tell them that the definition of the term "harassment" being used is not consistent with law and is doing nothing but trivializing the seriousness of actual harassment by equating it with minor issues and non-crimes. In point of fact: "unwanted" sexual advances or request for sexual favors is not a crime, and not anything anybody should be concerned with, as it's describing everything from base flirting to asking somebody out on a date…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 10:12 PM
3

In the US, "Jail" generally refers to county run operations while "Prison" refers to state or federally run. There's no such thing as "Supermax Jail" for example. The reason for "same building" confusion is because some counties don't maintain their own jail and house (and pay) for them with the State. But like I've already said, it's a cosmetic difference and entirely based in finances. Specifically, who's paying for the time. For example, if you get 30 days for assault, your county will be pay…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 09:55 PM
1

I don't think you quite understand what the difference between a felony and misdemeanor is. I understand what the original intent of the separation of crimes into a category called felony. Which was to mark out crimes as "infamous" and almost entirely consisted as acts of violence. Removing participation in "the vote" or similar civil enterprise dates as far back as Rome, and even included loss of all property. Your separation between "prison" and "jail", while accurate for 2014 is a cosmetic di…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 09:44 PM
2

8th amendment. The federal code actually refers to flogging as a "cruel or unusual punishment", although in regards to military justice. I'm absolutely certain a court would agree if it was tried on civilians.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 06:46 PM
3

You know...when a person goes to jail/prison, that is them repaying their debt to society. No it's not. It's society keeping them out of way to harm others. "repaying their debt" was entirely squashed as a concept with the widespread adoption (post sentencing) of offender lists and parole. The truth is, there was never any attempt to "pay for their crimes" and rather our system is entirely a system of punishment, and since offender lists are wildly popular with the same group that would prefer w…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 06:44 PM
14

It's entirely political, and has nothing to do with racism or sexism. Democrats know that felons, by and large, are of lower income and minorities. Minorities of lower income vote almost entirely Democratic. They want to increase their votes. The rational thing is to simply stop applying - and un-apply - the title of felony to all non violent crimes, even if we still think they should be crimes at all. There's no reason to give the vote back to murderers to accomplish it. He also wants to force …
/r/MensRights04/03/14 06:38 PM
0

There exists a natural point of time between an officer starting to detain a person and that person being on the ground with five officers sitting on him. If you abstain from resisting right there even if you feel you're in the right, you will not end up dead. You're far less likely to be killed standing in front of a judge making an argument than resisting arrest.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:09 AM
5

The links you provided not only do not back your claim but directly refute it, as I explained above.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:08 AM
1

My claim of "police seem exactly like the KKK" doesn't seem an extreme hyperbole when you actually have studied it's history instead of relying on what you've heard of it. So when do you plan to actually study history?
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:02 AM
5

The 8% is the FBI 'unfounded' classification, which is only cases referred to the FBI by local cops for one reason or another, and is a separate classification altogether from the term 'innocent', which is also a number in that set of stats (although one never quoted). That is a misstatement of what unfounded means for the UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting). Unfounded means that no crime possibly occurred and is primarily crimes that get rejected by the prosecutor before ever going to court, but not …
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:45 AM
5

The range of 2-8% is because the only serious statistical review found it to be 8%, but feminists refuse to believe it. It's also notable that false reports for other crimes top out at 2%, so even the recognized rate of false rape accusation is four times as frequent as other crimes.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:36 AM
2

Wait...if the rationale for abortion being ok is that the fetus isn't a living person Abortion is allowed because the unborn don't have rights. That they're also not "a person" is a side issue, but nobody argues it's not living. It's simply not relevant. Plenty of living things with a biological sex also have no appreciable rights. The yummy chicken I had for dinner is an example. Or the eggs available from my mothers coop, which occasionally will be eaten after fertilization.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:33 AM
9

Your claim was that it started out that way. The Woman's Auxiliary of the second wave was neither starting out nor a central part of the organization. Furthermore, they expressed a very traditionalist view of women and would be unrecognizable as feminism by anybody born since the 70s. The KKK did have a hand in supporting prohibition though.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:27 AM
8

Women slightly exceed men in "Biological and agricultural studies" and dramatically exceed men in "Social and behavioral sciences". In all other sciences, they choose to not participate. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/PGA_049131
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:17 AM
16

The KKK started out as a feminist group that would beat the shit out of men if the wife went to them. [Citation needed]
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:12 AM
1

So, after she cleaned out the joint bank accounts Idiocies of the divorce process are only tangentially connected to child custody issues. However, to blame the victim, it's somewhat your fault for having joint accounts in the first place.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 02:57 AM
1

And I'm saying 2*murder hits the maximum of the available range such that 2*murder+rape is still the same value. Like Spinal Tap, you're trying to turn the value to 11, when it only goes to 10.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 01:24 AM
5

"Best interest for the child" has been maliciously abused and twisted to mean anything but and should be stricken from the law. Custody should be 50/50 unless choice or significant circumstance exists. That significant circumstance is only those things which would lead a Child Services agent to remove the child from a home. So long as there is no such violation, anything else is just difference in parenting style and should not be interfered with by the gov't. Given that default 50/50 custody, n…
/r/MensRights27/02/14 01:19 AM
2

I could, but the attacker got http://maythefoxbewithyou.tumblr.com/ to delete.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 12:47 AM
1

Congrats! The article is not the entire story.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 12:30 AM
21

"Oberst intends to donate the proceeds of this suit to charities benefitting the victims of violence against women.” Why not victims of the violence of women?
/r/MensRights27/02/14 12:29 AM
2

Anybody suggesting rape is worse than being murdered should be given the choice.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 12:26 AM
3

It was tumblrina feminist/animalfreaks/vegan that were identified as the hate senders. Just because all you know of this event is from this article doesn't mean that that's all the information. This is just the culmination of months of abuse.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 11:44 PM
6

Author is biased from the get go and needs to be identified as nothing more than editorial.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 11:23 PM
3

You yourself pointed out that they asked the woman for ID in the video, which would have occurred after the take down.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 11:22 PM
2

Yes. After murdering two people, the attackers are not any worse for raping on top of that.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 11:01 PM
1

...? That's what happens in war zones.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:53 PM
5

"Evil" 4chan has gotten a pedophile prosecuted and identified an animal torturer. Tumblr feminists got a family pet killed.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:51 PM
2

I walk with a notable limp and have people hold the door for me all the time. Except for when they hold it when I'm so far away and feel like I have to rush inappropriately to the door, I have no problem with it. I wouldn't expect such treatment though, I actually am quite capable of opening the door.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:31 PM
5

They didn't ask the woman for ID until after the takedown and potential death. They walked up and instantly presumed the man was at fault and was the only one needing to be identified. There's an argument to be made for the idea that men are seen as more violent than women and that might have influenced that decision but you're not making that argument. That's EXACTLY my argument. They presumed the man was at fault and so treated him differently. You're saying people should be detained indiscrim…
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:27 PM
2

Because the DV shelter is empty and doesn't accept men, while the homeless shelters are full. Basically because the DV shelter lets them, and even the daftest individual recognizes it as a far better setup.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:23 PM
1

Yeah gee, rape is so bad next to that widespread murder!
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:18 PM
2

There usually aren't any incentives to claiming that you were raped by a roving band of guerrillas in a war zone. The hell there isn't. It's an express pass to NGO help and amnesty status somewhere else.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:18 PM
7

Many officers are used in restraining an individual to decrease risk I'm aware of that. For the third time: Yet they did not restrain the woman. If Mr. Rodriguez was detained for being violent The request for ID is what started it, yet they jumped on the man first.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 07:35 PM
8

I regularly volunteer at a number of shelters in the area. We never service females. 100% get forwarded to domestic violence shelters which are never full. The DV shelters are rooms, sized for double occupancy but rarely putting two non-family members in the same room. DV shelters have in and out privileges and multi-day stays. Frequently "gift bags" are presented. The homeless shelters are barracks. They're locked up overnight, with no in and out, and is better described as overnight jails. Eve…
/r/MensRights26/02/14 07:32 PM
5

ID was requested from both adults, we see the officer on video requesting it from the wife. The video starts with 4, increasing to 5, officers on top of him. So no, requesting ID from the woman later is no excuse. If they assumed the man was the person committing the crime Then they in error and created the situation in which the man died. If the situation required detaining the man, then it required detaining the woman at the same time. They asked her for ID on camera and, while not immediately…
/r/MensRights26/02/14 07:13 PM
7

Was Mr. Rodriguez targeted because he's a man? It actually does seem perfectly clear he was. Assumably security and police were called because of the fight. Yet, the father was approached and detained by default. It doesn't matter if the call was "just" "Domestic Violence" so they presumed it was the husband either. If this situation warranted walking up and detaining the man, then it warranted walking up and detaining the woman at the same time.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:50 PM
-2

Absolutely not legitimizing the police response here, but a lot of "unfortunate occurrences" with police center around people resisting because they believe themselves innocent. When a policeman decides to arrest or detain you, they will. It's as simple as that. No amount of arguing will change that, and resistance actually creates a crime and also leads to "accidents", purposeful or otherwise. Argue your case in front of a judge, sue the cop and police district later. Neither option is availabl…
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:46 PM
28

And tell the Dean that the professor was teaching the class exactly how she was expected to? If that's expectation, continue up the chain of responsibility. Which, eventually ends up in the media.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 05:30 AM
8

"real feminism" is just a code word used to escape out the back door while everything goes off topic. Real feminism is that feminism which is influencing laws and lives through those laws.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 04:47 AM
9

FIRE, doing what the ACLU did three generations ago and now actively works against.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 04:46 AM
95

Second day of class ... Walk out. Make a big scene doing it. Drop the class, then write the Dean.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 04:00 AM
2

Wouldn't the use of "again" imply that they had at one point stopped? I'll just repeat my statement that pre-high school classrooms should be single gender, with teaching geared for the methods best targeting each group.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 07:43 AM
3

They are born with close to zero sex drive. [Citation needed]
/r/MensRights24/02/14 11:16 PM
14

Historic abuse is no reason to dismiss striving for equality now But no, I do not believe the law would even be written in a gender neutral manner, much less enforced as such.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 11:11 AM
3

The notion that women, as a group, were oppressed compared to contemporary men, as a group, is false. So the entire premise of your question is wrong.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 11:10 AM
8

Poe's law.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 07:39 AM
71

This is a PSA to women. When you're crazy fucked up in the head, like this poster, don't expect me to care what you say. If I don't agree with you, I'll say so. If you're wrong, I'll say so. I'll do both without consideration of the fucked up fantasy scenario you have working double time in your head.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:52 AM
11

Article is about the short, of which has already been discussed here I'll summarize what I said there: Women do act in collusion, that's why the "price" of sex is as high as it is.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:31 PM
-4

While not very good, this isn't nearly as bad as the title would suggest. Only "send in a spy" is really negative. Fake sick, fake crisis, and (purposefully) forget condoms are all certainly manipulative, but not of a really significant manner. Wear heels and fake an orgasm is more along the lines of good advice.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 07:57 PM
-3

I didn't even open the thread. It's uninteresting, and not what I was responding too. I was responding to the claim that "drunk consent is legal consent in every state in the US" is somehow wrong, even though it's legal fact.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 07:19 PM
2

People are read the policy, not the riot act. Contradicting yourself in the same sentence. That's a new one.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:55 AM
-3

Like I said several messages ago: "unable to resist". Being drunk is not ipso facto unable to resist. You're not very bright, are you?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:43 AM
2

The very definition of the word Discipline demonstrates it has many meanings. At least one of which "calling into the office and read the riot act" would count as. So yes, discipline was engaged in against people anonymously named until the form got swarmed. Mission accomplished.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:41 AM
2

It is the very definition of discipline.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:22 AM
-7

Show me a source that states not responding to that question is consenting? CAL. PEN. CODE § 261
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:21 AM
-1

It's clear you're a troll, but for those listening: Universities do not get to define the law.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:20 AM
-2

First hint that that's irrelevant: Sex isn't a contract. Second hint: Civil versus criminal courts.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:52 AM
2

Unless the context is some bizarre area, it's a true statement. The exact legal criteria does vary somewhat in every state, but suffice it to say that somebody who is too drunk to drive may still legally able to consent to sex. California for example is "unable to resist". As a tangent, not verbally or physically acting in the negative is consent, so in fact "Not saying no does mean yes."
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:29 AM
1

I don't identify with a Y chromosome either. I mean, I do have one, probably. But it's not part of my identity.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:18 AM
1

I think it reinforces gender roles, as if a man is not allowed to be feminine, he must first turn into a female, and vice versa. There's a difference between a masculine woman and a trans man. Primarily, it's in the self identification, not roles.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:05 AM
2

"concerning or enforcing discipline" lrn2engrish
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:02 AM
2

You described a disciplinary process, or did that fact escape you?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:49 AM
2

People don't even know anything about their system The people disciplined for being named in an anonymous report certainly did. Of course, they stopped that when women started getting named. Mission Accomplished.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 05:10 AM
3

Reality always has exceptions and complications. Of course. So whats so different about recognizing trans men? Roughly 3% of the population is just another "exception".
/r/MensRights23/02/14 04:54 AM
6

Or perhaps the original post: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jx3gv/feminist_makes_false_sexual_assault_allegation/ Which includes a followup, which if accurate, says the woman got a year probation for what amounts to felony assault & battery.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:21 AM
14

.or refuse to hire women in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more work from women than men but pay them less, or treat women disrespectfully at work or at home. While not only are false propaganda of feminism, is still painting all men extremely - and falsely - negatively. Still an absurd claim.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:05 AM
13

Than a quote doctored to suggest that the vast majority of men are murderers and rapists? So the vast majority of men are murderers, rapists, molesters or abusers is such a nicer claim
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:48 AM
11

There is absolutely no "less extreme behaviors" that would make that statement acceptably unabsurd.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:39 AM
18

"Men threaten all women, beat and kill the women he claims to love, rape women, pet kittens, and molest his daughters." Nope, not any less absurd.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:28 AM
2

I'd like to see the innocent go to jail in all these cop/csi/lawyer shows. Right now fools think the system works perfectly because the media portrayal of the law is that it works perfectly. Except for dirty cops of course. The media portrays them as always getting off.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 09:20 PM
8

This isn't magic or a secret formula. If you reward a behavior, then that behavior will be encountered more.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 07:03 PM
20

How do you grasp that such a determination will affect the sentencing? You can't even really say she's going to prison, as zero prison time sentences are far from unheard of for female victimizers. Furthermore, why do AMR trolls like you always yell?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 06:22 AM
4

Barring some translation issues, it's standard radfem argument. Those who make them are not satirical in the slightest. Fundies Say the Darndest Things has a lot of examples. (Put "Radfem" in the board field of Search)
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:22 AM
7

history of making shit up [Citation Needed] So, you're arguing that the fact that a source has a history of making shit up is not worth knowing? That's not what you said in the prior message. You argued that because the person made previous political arguments that you disagree with in the past was "worth knowing", with an implied dismissal of the argument under discussion. Whups, your claim wasn't even that it was the same author, but rather that the author is associated with the same group as …
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:48 AM
9

So, you're arguing that an argument is dismissible entirely based on the origin of who made the argument?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:32 AM
13

Women do act in collusion, informally at least, to maintain the value of sex. Opposition to adult voluntary prostitution. Slut shaming of women. Virgin shaming of men. Presumed monogamy in marriage. They're all deep seated social aspects of keeping the value of sex high, and women as the limiting factor.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:30 AM
23

There's another important exchange in that show: New speaker arguing with lobbyist about her ability to perform. "Go out there and do it like Frank." "Oh, you mean like a man" "No, I mean like Frank" Professional Victims, women but not only them, act like anything negative about them is because they're whatever-their-approved-victim-status is, and not because they're simply at fault.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:34 AM
16

Fallacy of Origins http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/conor-oberst-files-libel-lawsuit-rape-claim-22592153 ....and any hundreds of other sites, all originating from the AP wire. Only took the time to type "conor oberst rape" into google to find. Literally the first returned site.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:30 AM
3

It's notable that she killed 22 people, only the last one with her husband. However, all the expected people have already started dismissing her agency by claiming she's the "real victim" both as a molestation survivor and as being controlled by "men" (the specific men aren't mentioned of course)
/r/MensRights20/02/14 01:27 AM
1

There's no actual standard, and in fact GLB was first. There was certainly a conscious effort to propagandize the LGBT order.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 01:20 AM
15

It isn't the risk of being accused of sexism that stops me. I just treat women equally. Which means I drive right on past, or whatever the context is.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 01:14 AM
0

Any "quota" for a position such as politicians or board members should be exactly the rate of women in the top ten dangerous work positions. (i.e., less than 1%) Of course, the reality is that women win at the rates they run. If they're 20% of candidates, they get 20% of seats. Which is roughly what's happening.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 12:45 AM
6

Clothing designers will design anything that's demanded of them. The same as any business.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 12:01 AM
9

That is until the value of sex drops to the point where they have to go out an get a real job. That is the real thinking behind feminist disapproval of prostitution. It's also why women slut shame. "Don't give the milk away for free" isn't to protect that woman, it's to protect all women from losing power.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 08:58 PM
-5

Note to feminists: Your definition of "too drunk to consent" is not the same as the laws. The law is right, you're wrong.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 06:25 PM
14

First, prostitution should be legal. Victimless crime. Consenting adults, and all that. Second, if sexual needs aren't being met in a marriage, why be married? Third, if there exists other reasons than sexual fulfillment to remain married, why is fidelity the legally required presumption?
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:58 PM
22

Excuse me while I blame the victim. She's complaining about a handbag thief and shooter. Handbags exist entirely for women. Either for the woman carrying it or for the women she's showing it off too. Get pockets. Quitcher bitchen. Welcome to equality, suck it up. He pointed out that the old code of the streets, that thieves don't hurt women and children, is no longer honored. Maybe their violence victim rates will approach that of men then.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:25 PM
10

No mother can refuse a court ordered paternity test. Some jurisdictions require mother approval for an informal test. Courts will generally refuse to order a paternity test if the father requesting the test was married to the mother at the time of birth. This is because of presumed father status, which makes the husband liable even if the mother cheated on the marriage. Any bill written to correct these biased policies is regularly lobbied against by NOW.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 03:09 PM
2

1 in 10? Studies have shown non-paternity (where the assumed biological father is not) is 30%. This is the exact reason NOW and other feminists are so rabidly against automatic paternal testing of any birth. It would end marriages left and right by making it obvious that women cheat. A lot. And even when it does, with the known non-paternity status the husband would still owe child support as the "presumed father". Another law NOW lobbies against any change.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 02:57 PM
1

To be valuable it needs to be more than "Male victims exist". Even the daftest feminist would agree What they wouldn't agree on is that women are victimizers.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 07:37 PM
0

365.25 days a year?
/r/MensRights17/02/14 09:19 PM
0

Not even close. At a strip club, you're being marketed too. At a dance club, the women are being enticed. The difference is: Who buys the drinks.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 09:17 PM
3

It would be interesting to separate out life expectancy due to health from life expectancy due to violence, suicide, or other dangers
/r/MensRights17/02/14 07:36 AM
5

This is a list of 6 male characters women don't admit to seeing, not six that don't actually exist.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 09:29 PM
8

Here's the difference: The schools extra-legal procedure found the accusations against teachers to be false. So it must be false The schools extra-legal procedure found the accusations against students to be true. So it must be true. Because nothing really gets to the bottom of a question of truth like a kangaroo court which pre-defines cases depending on who the accused is before a single argument is heard.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 07:36 PM
3

Its a small numbers problem worsened by issues with selection. You can't say anything about the general population from 80 people.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 03:48 PM
9

Yes, men are in general more competitive than women are in general. That doesn't mean women don't deserve the same equality of opportunity of men though. Its just unfortunate that choosing to exploit opportunity is a function of being competitive. And its also why feminists demand equality of results, which nobody deserves.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 03:46 PM
1

I didn't say it wouldn't be possible to pass. There are a lot of hurdles yet, and a lot of people with time to notice that it's going to cost a lot to defend the law, and it will ultimately lose. VAWA, while offensive, isn't so blatantly unconstitutional as a state law that denies due process. There's a huge difference, constitutionally, between saying "This will be illegal" and "This will occur, with no access to a proper defense or judicial process."
/r/MensRights15/02/14 02:18 PM
44

Future Article Female officers sue, declaring fitness test sexist. Court requires changes. Court is requiring that any female to be granted an 16 hours to pass any timed test, unless its a test of strength or stamina, where they will be automatically passed without testing. Such an event has precedent
/r/MensRights15/02/14 09:33 AM
2

The reddit as a whole has degenerated that way. The definition of insult used is so wide as to encompass the entire English language. Nor is it being applied widely only when targeting a person. Four messages of mine were deleted, all four were commentary about arguments, and not insulting in the least. Pointing out that an argument was a fallacious argument being declared an "insult" and deleted was the straw that broke it for me. Verdict: That reddit wasn't so bad a couple weeks ago. Moderatio…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 09:15 AM
2

While schools should hand off any criminal complaint to the police, the argument goes (as poor as it is) is that they're only handling cases that don't generate criminal convictions. Thus a double jeopardy complaint, in their eyes, isn't relevant. They presume all (whatever slanderous slur they're using this week) go free anyways. More relevant, and is incorporated, is due process which prohibits arbitrary denial of life, liberty or property. These "courts" by denying access to attorney's while …
/r/MensRights15/02/14 07:53 AM
5

Please note, this Bill hasn't even been assigned to committee. It's also pretty clearly unconstitutional for a number of reasons. I wouldn't expect it to ever get voted on.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 06:28 AM
3

Immediate and absolute equality of opportunity from the gov't, in all things with no exception. Note that the gov't is more pervasive than generally recognized. It includes practically all schools (all affected by Title IX, for instance) and any corporation receiving special treatment (e.g., Twitter)
/r/MensRights15/02/14 12:42 AM
6

Unless you're trying to claim that she took a stroll from Darthmouth to Florida to commit some breaking & entering crimes, then your comment is pointless and you should feel bad. Because you are bad.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 12:03 AM
1

In the context of "is it rape?" Only if the legal definition of rape includes experience, however none of the legal definitions I know about - and certainly none that I actually live under the regime of - do.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 10:56 PM
1

I am asking why the guys experience in the events was not included in the story. Answered at least twice. They're not relevant to the scenario, which is not the story. I am saying the lack of the mans experience is a problem. You disagree? It is utterly and absolutely not "a problem" or at all relevant to the scenario, correct. Nor is the woman's next-day experience at all relevant to the scenario.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 10:11 PM
2

we do not know how drunk the guy was because the story doesn't tell us. I think that is a problem. The scenario is "two drunk people". The story is a red herring. You're like the kid reading a word problem in math class. You have six apples. Your sister offers to trade some oranges for apples. How many apples are there? To which, you're asking: "How many apples did she trade for?"
/r/MensRights14/02/14 09:48 PM
2

(a) residential arrangements with each parent in accordance with the needs of each child. The court may specify one parent as the primary caretaker of the child and one residence as the primary residence of the child, to be used only for the purposes of determining eligibility for public assistance and shall not be used in any determination for child support, parenting time, or legal decision-making authority; Good to see this clause. Emphasis added SC's definition of "joint parenting" isn't sig…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:57 PM
-1

Have too? No, but I can't seem to work up any objection to the surgeries whatsoever. Correction of cleft palates is also done for similar reasons, i.e. "it's normal".
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:48 PM
8

And it should also have such an obligation under Title IX. It is, but as in many things in this administration what's an obligation hasn't been translating into actual enforcement. Of course, the reason the political administration is relevant is because that's where the Dear Colleague letter came from that has given people like the woman quoted such power. Instead of an obligation for fair and equitable treatment, it's being used to provide exactly the opposite. Make no mistake though, administ…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:29 PM
2

We do not know if the other male was 'black out drunk' or mildly drunk, sober, high, ect. I repeat: The term black out drunk does not define a specific state of dunkeness. Being black out drunk does not ipso facto mean any sex is rape. In fact, as the theoretical scenario as presented actually occurred with the two equally drunk people having sex, no rape would have occurred not because of mutual drunkenness but because the woman wouldn't have met the criteria of inability to consent.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:53 PM
3

Any term used by SRS you don't understand, just assume it means "normal" and you'll be right nine out of ten times. cis means you're comfortable with your birth gender, and is like 97 98% of the population.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:46 PM
-1

Modern day liberalism: Sexism over merit.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:25 AM
43

No surprise, many of the moderators and users are SRS. If that doesn't tip you off, the sidebar absolutely should. This isn't SRSsucks though.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:15 AM
13

Especially the accusation that I said anything about false accusations about race don't exist. Such an accusation against you was never made. You did however claim that this event was not based on race, by declaring the claim to be false. This absent any apparent special knowledge to make that claim. Where do you get off talking to me about unstated knowledge when you're the one suggesting he should pull the race card? The author stated the victim is black and the victimizer is white. Such is su…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:48 AM
2

I miss remembered when I made the post the friend said totally wasted. No, AVMS said wasted and it wasn't a description of her. In fact, it was not related to the quoted story, present only in the WSJ, at all. The experience of The guy who was with her is completely relevant to an accurate understanding of the story. If you want the "story as it happened", then it's simple. They all three went their separate ways and no sex occurred. The End.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:40 AM
17

Where did you get this magical insight that the false accusations do not occur because of race? Do you have some unstated knowledge that the previous false accusations were not against blacks?
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:38 AM
25

At a shitty table, you grasp at any reasonable hand you're dealt. This is a men's rights group yet people act like this is a n anti-women's group while complaining about feminists being anti-men. Punishing false accusers is a men's right issue because they are anti-men.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:19 AM
6

A female student (too drunk to properly remember the events the following day) was removed from the also drunk male student who was taking her home by one of the male students friends named Martel. The condition colloquially known as "blackout drunk" does not occur at a specific level of drunkenness and may occur with no outward appearance of being in such a condition. now what I find interesting about this story is that it established how drunk the female was "totally wasted" which The term doe…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:58 AM
5

Here's an actual analogy, can you consent to getting a tattoo when drunk? At the same level of drunkenness, yes you can. In California, the point between able to give consent and not able to give consent is "Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance" Of course, the actual law lays an even higher requirement to make it a crime: "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused." Turns out, r…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:21 AM
0

It's "as bad", yes. Because they're both zero units of bad. Nobody owes a "slut" sex, and nobody owes a "creep" sex.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:27 AM
60

As far as I see 2 things are at play here, racism and sexism. And I'm disgusted to be working here right now. Make a claim against her for racism. "Repeated accusations intended to cause a hostile work environment based on race." a few of them have said that she has a past history of doing this (accusing people of random things). This is why the accused should always be able to cross examine the accuser. Past history is relevant.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:33 AM
7

I will never be surprised by the Republican's party ability to lose an otherwise impossible to lose contest.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:15 PM
6

It's not a false definition at all. The definitions vary from location to location, and indeed court to court. Because we don't have this presumption enshrined in our law here in the UK, it's very much a moral statement, not a legal one. Therefore my definition is not at all false. Except for two things: A) You were defining shared parenting, not current laws and rights in the UK. B) We have access to the proposed law. Which, unsurprisingly agrees with my statement and not yours. “(2A) A court, …
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:26 PM
6

The Democratic policy is not current law, which is why I referred to it as a party policy, and not law. So referring to current law is not relevant. That being said: 10 years is token. This is the Democratic platform in regards to student loans, which in addition to forgiving loans after 10 years also caps payment at 10% of income. Which means those not working would pay zero. Those working as baristas while ranting that their film degree auth-or-i-tay isn't being recognized would pay 10% of a b…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:19 PM
5

It's not fair to a child to drag out custody battles and leave them in an insecure placement. There is nothing "insecure" about shared parenting. Barring reason to the contrary, that would be the permanent, court ordered, arrangement. As shared parenting is the presumed permanent living situation, then the temporary arrangement prior to an assessment would also be presumed shared custody. It's much safer for the child and much better for them for the decision on custody to be quick. It is nobodi…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:07 PM
18

They don't need to call attention to the fact that women are setting themselves up. Current Democratic policy is that all loans would be forgiven after a token amount over a token time is paid. Basically, a set percentage of income over a set number of years. This creates a socialized cost in the (further) support of choosing to pursue degrees with poor career prospects. Such a socialized cost is signicantly and overtly beneficial to women.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 06:13 PM
9

It takes too long to remove custody after an issue has been identified, it's much safer and quicker to take the time to assess and find an ideal custody situation before deciding custody. You're purposfully ignoring two things. A) a parent has rights as well and B) if it can be shown in the assessment that one parent is criminally unfit to be a parent, then the presumption of shared custody would not apply. It is absolutely not acceptable to disenfranchise one parent just because its "quicker".
/r/MensRights13/02/14 05:50 PM
11

Yaayyy! Let the idiot downvote brigade begin!! Deserved for being factually wrong, and using that to express a bigoted position. No. Yours is. Shared parenting is the notion that both parents have rights and responsibilities of looking after a child after a divorce or separation. This isn't always in the best interests of the child; if the mother is a drug abusing alcoholic for example, why should she have any rights at all? She needs to get her act together first. False definition, followed up …
/r/MensRights13/02/14 05:43 PM
1

So, do they affix them with literal chains and other restraints or is the slavery more subtle?
/r/MensRights13/02/14 02:44 PM
1

Right now, women will win seats to match the amount of candidates that are women. So the only way to require a percentage of seats is to either force women to run or ignore the vote and give seats to a woman. Either option is abhorent.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 02:42 PM
14

Sigh. If companies could get away with paying women less for equal work, no man would have a job.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 11:52 PM
8

As hinted at by the age of the articles, it's been known for awhile. The actual differentiation here is "women without children OR married with children while continuing to work without interruption", it just naturally tends to apply more to younger women. Age doesn't really appear to affect matters, it just becomes a small numbers problem. Single parents of any gender are going to earn less. The Battle Of The Sexes: When Women Out-Earn Men
/r/MensRights12/02/14 09:46 PM
4

I don't think any man who's gone through a divorce think it's a joke either. Because it's not.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 08:27 PM
7

"Imputed income for thee, but not for me"
/r/MensRights12/02/14 03:20 AM
6

Since the average child support payment in America is currently $300. per month Bullshit. California Child Support Calculator $61,000 the household median income for the state, 1 child, 50/50 custody, standard deductions Child support is $691/month, since the mother should be expected to pay that same amount, that's nearly $1400 month - far too much for a child at any age.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 03:12 AM
18

No Dad should have to pay for Moms bad choices in spending money exorbitantly. The one thing I can say, with all sincerity, is that child support guidelines are fair. This statement is inherently false, for a fair child support amount would not vary depending on the recipients income. Child support is not a second alimony, so it is irrelevant how much the recipient earns. The only thing that matters is cost of the child (which itself should be a set amount and not based on income of payer) split…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 10:09 PM
2

Rapes in general don't, but I specifically said "stranger public rape", which happens exactly like muggings and killings, just less frequently.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 08:41 PM
0

If you were employed as you claim, you wouldn't be posting on Reddit at 2:43PM EST.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:43 PM
0

Lol. You're not very bright.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:38 PM
0

I don't take advice from my stalker.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:13 PM
1

Wow. Creepy stalkery. Pretending I'm not responding to you after I'm not on reddit for several hours and happened to post somewhere else first. Literally, less than a minute.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:35 PM
-1

My company manages funds in the 10 figures so, yes, we are equivalent in size to him Hahahah. He dumped 10 billion GBP. Thats 10,000,000,000 You're an order of magnitude off "honey". Do you understand how sources work? Do you understand I'm not having an argument and not working to convince you? You seem to think that just because I don't agree with you it's because I'm ignorant. Well "honey", unless you work for Soros you know nothing I don't, and if you did you wouldn't be able to tell anyone …
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:35 PM
3

It's an idiotic response due to an idiotic view. Nine of the ten things "lectured" to women about how to prevent stranger-public rape also apply to being mugged or killed, and if she dies she doesn't care about victim blaming.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:42 PM
1

I added an OP post for the link Insufficient. There's no guarantee your comment will even be seen. The only reason to complain about self posts is if you care about karma. Every post should be a self post.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:39 PM
-1

Lots of people deserve violence.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:31 PM
-1

Convicted of "Insider Trading" in France. It has had no effect upon his licensure and was a civil case only. With all due respect I'm much more knowledgeable in these matters, obviously, than you are. LOL. You say that as if I didn't know it was in France. That doesn't excuse it. Soros is a convicted insider trader. Even in the US, most insider trading cases are civil. I trade in currencies and forex, manage treasury/risk/money for Fortune 200 firms, amongst many other things. Trading in currenc…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:30 PM
4

Well lets see, a convicted inside trader who made a career exploiting others and manipulating currencies buying political (and thus, legal) protection from the democrats by shitting on every rich person who is less reprehensible than himself.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:54 AM
-5

Nah. Soros deserves lots of people kicking him. Then doing again when he's down. That's separate from the woman getting off with no punishment while doing it in the middle of a courtroom.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:44 AM
-3

I'm torn. Soros really deserves such treatment, but she should have been punished. Immediately. That's what contempt of court is after all. Instead it's used to jail people who can't pay child support.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:01 AM
1

To be fair, an accused and their lawyer wanting charges thrown out is nothing special. Get back if it happens.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 10:50 PM
3

The whole religious conservative worldview is wrapped up in men treating the women in their life like godesses and accepting any abuse. Historically, the situation would build until relatively minor violence occurred, and then it was "she pushed him too far". Kind of a shitty balance, but a balance nontheless. Horseshoe effect again: There's little to differentiate feminists from fundamentalists.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 09:07 PM
2

studies on breast or gynecological cancers Because historically all the test subjects for those cancers are men!
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:53 AM
1

The draft certainly isn't about fairness. It's about slavery. Women should be enslaved by the society that they benefit from in the same manner men are. Lots of "not the best soldier" men also got drafted, when it was used. Time for the women to get six weeks of basic, handed a gun, and go live in bunkers for six months.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:24 AM
3

Why are Universities investigating and trying crimes? The Obama administration is making them, or at least that's how schools are reading the letter. In truth, most of them wanted to act the way they are acting but knew doing so would set them up for extreme liability. Now that they can point to an administrative edict for cover, they go in full force.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:16 AM
1

That's how it is. Using any of the 53 legal definitions of rape (50 states, DC, UCMJ, or FBI's definition) try and prove she was raped. Definitions from other sources not accepted.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:12 AM
6

To be fair, a sixteen year old boy probably doesn't want the child. Particularly when it reminds him of being used and raped. As long as he's not forced to pay child support, I'm good with it.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 01:52 AM
5

Maternal grandparents were raising the child while she was in jail, so now we can assume that the mother has the child.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 09:45 PM
1

If celebrating a guilty verdict would have been fair game for celebration - and it would have been - then an acquittal is as well.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 07:45 AM
4

sign away their alimony rights Alimony isn't a right. Not a natural right and not a legal right. You can't sign away a right, it's simply not honored. Alimony is an entitlement, but not until ordered by a court. Prenups - when they hold up at all - are simply instructions to a court of previous agreement to not pursue that entitlement. Courts can, and seemingly quite frequently do, ignore that instruction.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 01:13 AM
5

Actually I think its lesbian marriage ... and divorce ... that will reform the whole system. Women paying men is still blamed on men. Probably something along the lines of "he could be earning more, so she shouldn't pay". I think it's good there's a handful of examples of women paying alimony to men just for equality under the current regime reasons. However, I'd like to see a complete removal of alimony altogether, no exceptions. I'd also like to see marriage "contracts" be limited by time - wi…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 01:03 AM
2

I would argue that anonymous reports do have some value, as they allow people to report crime without fear of backlash if they are found out. This is university level schools, in 2014, in the US. No woman is receiving backlash for reporting a sex crime. None at all. Men would, but the anonymous lines don't help them either.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:28 PM
25

I disagree. Reports from anonymous accusers can not be used to "help victims", since the victim isn't know. They can only be used to attack the accused, and since the accused cannot face their accuser - or any of the other guarantees of law - then any action is unacceptable. Thus, anonymous reporting has zero value, and is only used for political attacks. So lets use it for its intended purpose.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:50 PM
7

Fallacy of Origins
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:21 AM
7

She'll still probably get half the assets in the inevitable divorce.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:17 AM
8

Modern feminism is primarily concerned with perpetuating modern feminism. Which requires advertising women as weak, inferior, and without agency. Horseshoe effect: There's little to separate feminism from fundamentalism.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:39 AM
1

Need help advancing your careers? Play golf. Can confirm. I personally hate golf and that fact has hurt me.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 06:18 AM
3

The Feminist dream world is the fantasy of communism. Everybody gets paid the same no matter ability, education, experience, or how much they put into the job. Except the women would get a bonus.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 06:16 AM
1

Wasn't me, sweet cheeks, but pathetic attempt to insult me. Just pathetic.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:46 AM
1

"never bothers" is feminist code for "never was told about the child"
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:26 AM
1

Reality and results take place with lawyers in courtrooms This is asinine, at best. Most situations would never reach a courtroom because either the father never knew or the child is simply gone. This has gone on long enough. Question: Can a mother give up a child and remove any responsibility for child support without the fathers consent? Answer: Yes, she can.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:12 AM
1

WTH do you mean I am a bigot? It is not acceptable to investigate only the father in such a situation. Acceptance of that is bigotry, pure and simple. Also, your "personal experiences" seem to be from just sitting around bullshitting. As compared to knowing the law and actually filing cases and litigating inside courtrooms. I do know the law. This isn't about the law. Reality does not match policy, and it's clear you have no experience with reality.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:57 AM
1

Except it's not just legal abandonment. Anytime the mother does not identify the father on the birth certificate, she can adopt the child against the fathers wishes. This is fact, regardless of what piece of policy you want to point too. Reality does not follow policy. This is a regular occurrence, and occasionally written about by the mothers. Likewise, criticism of the reality of the situation, not your policy, is also available. You're nothing but willfully ignorant to continue this blatant f…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 11:49 PM
1

For Safe Haven laws, precisely how would you suggest fathers be identified to be notified? The newborn has been anonymously dropped off at a designated safe place. The State has no idea who the mother is. How the heck is the State supposed to find out who the father is? This isn't relevant to the discussion on if mothers can give up a child without the fathers approval. They clearly can, contrary to your original claim. I don't have to solve the issue to point out your error. Do you know why fat…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 09:38 PM
1

And my direct personal experience says otherwise, so I'll go with that.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 03:02 AM
3

There is no requirement, or actual fact, of fathers being notified after an abandonment You keep pointing at a piece of paper saying "This is how it is!" and I'm pointing out that real life doesn't really work that way.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 03:01 AM
2

Looks like you failed to read the part about the State putative father registries. The (potential) father files a short form with the registry while the mother is pregnant or shortly after birth. I read it. It's just that real life just doesn't work that way. In California, children get adopted away under the objection of the punitive father all the time. I've been a part of the aftermath more than once. There is however a statutory time period for legal abandonment, generally around 6 months fo…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 12:04 AM
3

I can one-up you, I got banned there for posting here!
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:56 PM
6

Feminism is a rich white girl's game Poor women know what work is.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:53 PM
0

Because that only works for religion, and religion has no place in gov't. Which feminism is certainly a part of.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:51 PM
2

It's self survival. That blog and author are are "woman's department" at their school. If women are not seen as the victim, then there is no purpose. Also more than a bit of victim complex as well. Feelz.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:49 PM
3

All States require paternal consent In practice this simply isn't true, regardless of the law. Legal newborn abandonment is rarely followed up to identify the parents, so the child simply disappears into the system. The father would have to know where and when the child was abandoned to track them down. An unmarried woman can refuse to identify the father at birth. The father then has no rights to object even if they are in the process of being formally recognized, but are not complete. Nor woul…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:51 PM
2

In regards to the ACA, I've been saying that for months. Also, prostate cancer testing isn't covered. Nor are vasectomies.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 07:15 AM
0

Women without children out earn men in the same positions and experience. This naturally tends toward younger women and thus new workers.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:15 AM
2

Wasn't that long ago that "men are brighter than women" was the standard fare. His comments followed a committee discussion about whether girls or boys found it easier to learn to read. It is true that girls read earlier than boys, but it's only a couple years. By the time you can rightfully call them women and men, there is no difference. This is one way that the school system fails boys though. It expects boys to read at the same level at the same age, and failing that pushes them into an "eas…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 04:05 PM
29

Why would they do that when they're part of the hate speech.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 03:53 PM
2

If they really stand to gain from it, then it would be a rational choice of the employer and not a force of the gov't.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 12:36 PM
-1

Yes, actually. When there is a way out, there is a choice. You're just presuming a child who does not have adult agency recognizes or is even expected to recognize that way out.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 12:35 PM
2

People should be able to take days off for what ever reasons they care. Anybody always has the option to stop working, anytime they want.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 12:18 PM
9

Then have some kids and reap the benefits along with society. So I should have to be forced into something I don't want to do just to receive equal treatment under the law? Unacceptable bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 11:09 AM
5

So we should place the employer above the child then? That's an asinine question. The employer doesn't care about the child. Which is the point.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 11:08 AM
2

But society needs an adequate birth rate in order to progress properly No. We need an adequate birth rate or immigration to support a ponzi-like scheme for "retirement". The world, and society, would be better off with a slow die down of humanity.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 11:07 AM
2

And maternity/paternity leave invariable exceeds any reasonable number of sick days.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 11:06 AM
31

Nobody should be able to take days off "for their kids" because that penalizes the employer for non work external choices of the employee. Even under the an argument that society benefits from breeding, then society itself should pay the cost, not the individual employer. It also penalizes people who choose to not breed, as both their coworkers get extra time off which invariably means the ones staying have to work harder.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 06:10 AM
8

CreepyPMs is a subsidiary of SRS We know that. The top two mods are both SRS posters, and there's an AMR weenie halfway through.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:22 PM
2

Short answer: No Long answer: No, any changes before the court are more likely to be in her favor than not.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 12:25 AM
6

This is common, and why no 21+ should ever date a 20 or less yo. It's not just alcohol either, any sort of drugs including pot will get the 21yo charged.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:10 AM
21

You can always tell the gender of a victim from a news report: Women are reported as women, men are reported as persons or victims.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 10:45 PM
5

California has similar ability for mothers to adopt out or legally abandon children without the fathers consent or knowledge. Laws to solve the issue have been presented but have been lobbied against by NOW.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:42 PM
5

Erotic asphyxiation. Not all that unheard of. Deaths are not even that rare, although mostly as masturbation.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:05 PM
2

Wow, you did it twice in two comments. What are you even talking about? Nowhere in the thread was the word "troubling" mentioned. The comic itself was pretty obviously meant to apply to all women or didn't you understand that part? Please. It's hardly referring to "all women". The above panels are specifically about calling out women for the way they dressed and their personal choices and implied that there was no right way to dress or correct personal choice. It is not calling out "all women" o…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:59 AM
1

Granted, I wouldn't give anyone in their early twenties a managerial position And now you realize why it's legal. Otherwise lawsuits would come up claiming that experience is an illegal equivalence to age. Which in many respects it is, you'll never find a 20 year old with 20 years experience, duh.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:54 AM
2

"Portrayals of character" are largely exempt from all discrimination laws. That's why movies can script a "tall black man" and exclude everybody else. It's clear, from that fact that he left, that his character wasn't terribly central to the story so claiming some sort of "being treated unfairly". That's what happens when you call your bosses "bluff" about not giving you a raise. Sometimes, it's not a bluff.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:52 AM
4

Instead, you pulled the most obvious proof that you can't read. Specifically, just because I don't view the commentary in the comic as "troubling", does not mean I personally apply it to every other woman and it is maliciously false to claim otherwise.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:19 AM
0

You're failing to recognize that "other people" I'm being an asshole to are not my friends, and I don't want them to be.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:02 AM
10

"The only winning move is not to play."
/r/MensRights22/01/14 01:04 AM
5

So I ask her if the is telling me to do it with a legal basis behind it, or if she's making a request as it would be a kind gesture. Kudos for making that question. Police violate a lot of rights simply by couching things as requests - often even clear orders are couched as requests later in court. However, the proper response to "this is only a request" is "have a nice day officer" and hang up. At least, presuming you're in the US. Other countries, even common law ones, do not afford you the sa…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 12:46 AM
-2

Blame is not equal just because you want it to be. In this case, insofar as there is any blame at all it would not be equal between the genders as women are more likely to verbally attack or "shame" a woman. The reality though is that there simply is no blame to be had. There is no wrong occurring, and thus no responsibility to assign.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 12:42 AM
2

That's simply not true. Other people were working on it. Other people could have done the same thing, certainly...but they didn't. People also submitted their own code to what was Linus' work, just like any gpl'ed project. This was the way of things until about 1996. Even after, it's a single point of guidance, and that single point is what makes Linux what it is. Look to Hurd and 386BSD for what complete cockups democratically designed kernels are.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 12:13 AM
5

one huge multi decade, continuing success you mean.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 09:03 PM
11

or else she will essentially not work on bringing women dev's on to linux work. This is not only an empty threat, but utterly meaningless to the development of Linux.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 09:01 PM
5

she thinks: "Linus curses, therefore I think he's an asshole, therefore I need to shame him into changing his behavior because I think that's what he should do". And thus giving an example of how shaming is meaningless and not, "very effective", as somebody claimed a couple days ago to me. It doesn't really accomplish anything, either upset shame-ees or a change in action, which is why the whole feminist industry turned to the force of the gov't to enforce behavior. It's the force that actually …
/r/MensRights20/01/14 08:58 PM
1

It is a totally unreasonable conclusion that that is what happens.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 03:58 AM
1

Men being forcibly drafted is an unrelated evil. Its entirely related, actually. Everybody should have a say in the government under which they are ruled. That's an opinion. Personally I'm not so enamored with democracy (or a republic). An intrusive gov't voted into office is worse than an unintrusive enforced from an authoritarian will.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 11:39 PM
0

The fight against the oversexaulization of women is in no way comparable to the fight for slavery. There is no such thing as oversexualization.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 11:36 PM
2

Same thing it would be in euro-land. Libertarians don't want to tax everybody.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 11:37 AM
10

The difference between a male feminist and an MRA is 20 years life experience and/or an ounce of critical thinking. Reminds me of Churchill: "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”
/r/MensRights19/01/14 06:01 AM
1

If the vast majority of people were not deeply affected by social approval, society could not cohere and civilisation could not exist. [Citation needed]
/r/MensRights19/01/14 05:57 AM
0

Nor is that what I'm saying.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 05:57 AM
-8

Unless you're non-human, you have exactly the same significant problems. False dichotomy.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 12:05 PM
1

I'm sure some woman was, after somehow accidentally making it that far in the process.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 12:02 PM
-8

Unless you're a robot, you have exactly the very same significant problems. False dichotomy.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:58 AM
-13

If not being part of a specific social group causes you pain, you have very significant problems.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:52 AM
-8

which is one of the biggest primal fears in humans If you're only able to react to your primal fears, then you belong in a zoo. That's why shaming is used, because it's very effective. It's effective only when you let it be.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:30 AM
-10

"Shaming" is such a recockulous concept. Without force, it's meaningless, and with force it's no longer simply shaming. Have people tried to shame me for sexual interests? Yes. Have any succeeded? Not a one.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:09 AM
0

blocksite .... ad dollars Blocked ads generate no revenue.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 04:30 AM
0

No thank you, I'll leave such repasts to the Pigmen.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 12:48 AM
1

Has the USG ever tried to "intervene"? Australia has a similar situation, and the government stepped in and banned alcohol and porn in some communities. Native Americans have all the same rights as anybody else and any attempt to ban alcohol and porn would violate those rights. Porn due to free speech (and thus, consumption of that speech) and alcohol due to the 21st.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 08:32 PM
-4

How could you get a term than is more shaming than socialist? Really, if somebody called me that I'd have to sit down and figure out if I actually fell to such a disgusting level.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 08:28 PM
1

Again, of course, all of this is moot with a presumption of equal child custody. In such a case zero money would be paid parent to parent, except as gifts. This fiction persists because it's convenient to the argument, not with any connection to reality. We have a history of gay men marrying and siring, men performing duties as wingman, etc all to prove that sexual performance exists even without attraction. I don't want to sound patronizing/emasculating but want to make sure I'm also not forcin…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 07:19 AM
5

Hallett of Mobile Electrical Distributors currently has work on the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project. She said without the DBE certification, she wouldn’t be participating on the mega-project. She couldn't state "I can not compete on merit" any clearer
/r/MensRights17/01/14 01:51 AM
0

Ask Bush and GM that
/r/MensRights17/01/14 01:43 AM
1

The tldr is simply that the same number of women try as men. You can actually just read the bolded parts. Why hasn't this been addressed on a public health level? Because its men.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 01:38 AM
21

This is a lies, damn lies, and statistics issue. The line "women are more likely to attempt" is wrong, it's just statistically wrong. Short version: The percentage of men and women who ever attempt suicide is the same. Men are more successful in less attempts. If you count "number of total attempts", women have more. If you count "total number of people who ever attempt", it is equal but with more successes for men. Of course, "number of total attempts" is utterly without value, for the very rea…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 08:31 PM
0

particularly sites dedicated to speech Europe already lacks free speech, no change there.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 04:19 PM
-3

Paternity leave is only an issue insofar as maternity leave exists. Equality is available with neither as well as it is with both. In fact, I support a gov't that never requires either.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 04:15 PM
7

NOMAS is, and always has been, a second wave feminist false flag operation. It's just changed names a couple times.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 04:11 PM
1

Despite the possible consequences of not signing, you chose to sign and nobody will let you out of the deal. The funny thing about this line is that 'somebody' lets people out of the negative consequences of a mortgage all the time.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:25 PM
1

Feminism always acted against men. Once, their "at least as good as men, but better is better" stance could be hidden under a veil of equality but that was reached long ago. There is nothing to agree on. Nobody who continues to identify as a feminist is an egalitarian. The MRM will succeed and disband when it fully dismantles feminism for an egalitarian system. If it doesn't disband, then it will just swing the pendulum back again and start the process over. Note that this equality can be reache…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 05:58 PM
3

But I'm an educator first and foremost. And thus a good example of how men and boys are silently crushed beneath feminist heel, beginning and an early age.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 11:03 PM
10

I'm pretty sure not a lot of fathers are making more than $150k/year. That just means that the cap is too high. Child support should keep a kid in clothes and food, and half of that from each. Basic clothing and basic food. Anything beyond that would be a gift of the parent. Nothing requires a married couple who won the lottery to buy diamond encrusted pants for their kids, and nothing should require a divorced parent to do it.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 09:59 PM
4

Puleese. If you didn't let a noblewoman cut in front of your peasant ass, somebody would kill you. Once again, it's power based, not gender.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 04:03 AM
2

We've gone from men are 100% first When was this? A queue is a queue, and no point in US history has men pushing to the head of the queue been generally acceptable.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 03:21 AM
2

If they are not currently 2 years old, then what shape they were at 2 years old isn't relevant. No rational person would ascribe blame to a 2 year old of course.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 09:07 PM
1

I'll call anybody fat I choose too. Generally it will even be accurate. Those people I do call fat, regardless of its it accurate or simple antagonism, I will do so as a function of not caring about them, and largely as a purposeful attempt to to aggressively annoy, torment, or shame. Let's not pretend everybody cares about everybody else's feelings. I certainly do not. Furthermore, let's not pretend that just because your feelings are hurt that I have to adjust my behavior.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 09:03 PM
2

we don't want to lower Mary's Place standards to the mens but raise the mens to Mary's Place Yes, actually, Mary's Place has absurdly high standards for a homeless shelter. I would not only refuse to donate to a shelter that provided such absurdity, but would work to terminate any gov't funding as well. 3 hots and a cot is a perfectly fine standard. We have name-brand clothing, name-brand make up, gourmet coffee, delicious breakfasts and lunches daily, we get to watch brand new movies. The shelt…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 09:37 PM
6

I'll have to research the bill again, it was some time ago But note that interference in this manner by NOW is on their political strategy page: Call for the appropriate authority to investigate organizations that use federal funding to help fathers litigate custody away from mothers, in order to determine whether their activities are within the purview of the funds-granting agency, and are within the law. Lobby against bad legislation by following "fathers' rights groups" websites and email lis…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 08:14 AM
2

It's not strikingly different from a California bill that failed due to NOW lobbying. There it was also claimed that "no other state" had such a policy as well.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 06:42 AM
8

It's acknowledgement that lawyers profit by a combative drawn out process. The Anti-DV opposition isn't obvious, as just because there is a presumption of equal time doesn't mean that an actual guilty DV aggressor would get equal time. The likely real reason for their opposition is general "money for da wymin" policies.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 06:41 AM
22

They have reserved seating at the front for the disabled and elderly, too. Because it's difficult for such people to stand. Are women so weak as to be unable to stand in a crowded bus anymore?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:58 AM
1

but I also wonder how many women are truly on board with the feminist agenda. Which one? The one where they were told "feminism is about equality"? Or the NOW agenda, which is decidedly unequal? Or the radfem agenda, which doesn't even pretend?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:06 AM
1

Barbie has all sorts of jobs though. President Barbie. Astronaut Barbie, etc. To claim that because there isn't a TV show about her is missing the point. In popular media, men who look like He-Man have only a few roles, all of them physical and most mentally lacking. Women who look like Barbie still have the wide availability of all roles, both mental and physical.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:45 AM
12

The dad only gets imprisoned for the same amount of time as the victim?! Excuse me? A cruel ice cream seller and his wife kept a vulnerable worker as a slave for nine weeks, battering and beating him and forcing him to scavenge in bins for food.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 08:38 PM
5

Engage a civil lawyer. While criminal charges are subject to prosecutorial oversight, your right to gain redress of damages are not. In some areas, you can also appeal such a decision by the prosecutors office - a local lawyer would be able to help you.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 08:13 PM
4

The article as a whole is positing a "what if". if the Fair Housing Act does apply to roommate situations, even if it would be unconstitutional for the government to punish someone for his choice of roommate, it is not unconstitutional for the government to prohibit someone from advertising discriminatory preferences. However, the Fair Housing Act does not apply to roommate situations, for all the reasons given in the article, the article that this article is a response too, and the court opinio…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 07:56 PM
3

If we actually took the 80% as described on faith, how is that not a clear admittance of significant power in our society?
/r/MensRights06/01/14 06:09 PM
1

That just means the debt existing prior to marriage does not become the responsibility of both. At divorce, they will need to assign the debt but until then as a debt spent during marriage, its the responsibility of the marriage - which is to say, both people. Either the debt will be paid as part of community property or it will be a negative part of the settlement. Either way the end effect is the same.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 05:20 PM
4

and told me via text to fire the live-in nurse to stop "Wasting her money." "her money" I presume there was a significant inheritance? I'd say your wife was planning this for some time, and chose the moment where she became eligible for half the inheritance to actually pull the trigger. Such planning can (and often does) include alienation of the children. Also, since you're in California and have been married over 10 years you will find that the eventual alimony is of infinite duration, and app…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:08 PM
1

Play it cool for now, get your credit cards changed where they are off the cards and the account numbers changed. This won't really work. The wife can get her own cards, and as a married couple he is subject to any charges on those cards - as well as a credit score drop. She'll certainly destroy her own credit at the same time, but that's probably not a concern of hers. Forced financial mingling is a fundamental problem of marriage and not avoidable.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:06 PM
2

Some jurisdictions will allow you to contest it with a paternity test. That's determination if you are the father, not a right presented to fathers. And yes, men can be forced to pay child support even over factual testing that he is not.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:59 PM
7

He has no legal options except to pay child support when demanded.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:49 PM
6

But "mothers never convince their children to tell lies about daddy!"
/r/MensRights02/01/14 07:04 AM
2

Do Indian men somehow have an aversion to mirrors? Because that ad/whatever does nothing for me
/r/MensRights31/12/13 12:31 AM
2

If the prosecution are claiming that a female would never engage in certain kinds of risky sexual behavior And which prosecutor is using such a defense? A movie from the 50s?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 01:57 PM
4

It is certainly not valid when it prevents you from point out that a woman has accused other people of rape before. That's not what the rules of evidence says. Nothing stops you from submitting evidence of previous history of accusations.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:07 AM
2

This has overwhelmed its aim - equality of men and women - which seems ridiculous not to align oneself with. That is not and has never been the goal of feminism. The most generous description would be "women at least as equal as men"...with the implied (and actual) acceptance of women benefiting from superior positions being ok.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:02 AM
3

That night Roy Ruiz Loredo, a diagnosed serial rapist and sexual sadist, followed her home and sexually assaulted her. The victim later said a female investigator told her, "If we find out that you're lying, this will be a felony charge." Lol. No it wouldn't be. Women have stated flat out on the stand that they had previously gave perjurious testimony and no charges were ever filed.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 06:22 AM
4

UA Emery Bay Stadium 10 in Emeryville, Jan 10th. Five showings. http://divorcecorp.com/ You can buy tickets on Fandango.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:38 AM
2

Nothing increases media exposure of something quite like a boycott does.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:37 AM
1

It's pretty shocking, as a woman's sexual history is extremely relevant in defending these kinds of cases. Note that "sexual history" is partially accepted. If a prior encounter can be linked to evidence of semen, or injury, being claimed as part of the assault then that encounter is admissible. Also, a sexual history between the accused and the accuser is also admissible - if you wake up your gf every Saturday with morning sex, but then after a few Saturdays suddenly she cries rape then the pri…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:33 AM
2

That's a California rule based on Federal rule 414 However, rule 414 is limited to child molestation cases and the California interpretation is not. There's only been one test of rule 1108, Renella v. Adams, which was a child molestation case and was upheld. AFAIK, no use of the rule has been challenged in adult sexual assault or rape cases, which may mean that it's not used - the court still can reject the evidence - or maybe just that nobody bothered to challenge.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:28 AM
1

marriage IS a contract It is not a contract like a business contract. A contract doesn't modify whenever the legislature decides to change things, nor is anything not expressly in the contract held to the participants. nor how it should work. Actually everything I've said is how it should work.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 12:30 AM
0

in extreme enough cases alimony for the rest of your life is actually apropiate. Not as part of a general procedure applied to all. she has been a stay at home wife/mom for this entire time Then, realizing that marriage is not forever, she should have negotiated for some benefit before agreeing to that situation. simply put because divorce doesn't mean you can simply ignore the choices and arangements made during marriage. That's the point. No arrangement was made.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 04:57 PM
2

That's your religion, and religion has no place in the law. The law has a process of terminating marriage, thus it is not 'forever'.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 11:29 AM
2

What are your arguments against alimony? It serves no purpose in a society where everybody is equal. Want money? Go get a job. Demanding it to be eliminated completely is ridiculous and would never get accepted in a courtroom. Court has nothing to do with eliminating alimony. The legislature does.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 10:36 AM
3

Divorce is a reality. Marriage is not forever. People need to plan accordingly, and not by having the State forcibly take.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:09 AM
-2

people who agree with equality, no matter what movement they are from, MR, egalitarian, feminist, etc. Their is no feminist that believes in actual equality. Just "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" equality.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 12:50 AM
3

Black women have the highest rate of incarceration among women 1:18, which is slightly lower then white men 1:17, which is nothing compared to black men 1:3. and white woman have an incarceration rate of 1:111. 1:3 is to 1:18 as 1:17 is to 1:102, not 111 For a population of 300 million, that's 24 thousand missing white female prisoners. Not quite 10% of the total.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 12:45 AM
2

I'm sure that she's seriously of the belief that men should have no rights, but her article wasn't written for that site. The site as a whole smacks of something for the crazies to point at and say "you should be like this!"
/r/MensRights29/12/13 12:25 AM
5

In some situations it is appropriate. Think about the stay at home dad here. He deserves no alimony either.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 12:21 AM
4

Your thinking would make it so no one could enter into that agreement with any certainty in the first place though. Good! Marriage is not forever.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 12:21 AM
3

To clarify: Men who where married and where stay at home dads should receive 0 compensation when there is a divorce. Is what you are saying right? Of course that's what I'm saying. The entire process of alimony needs to be eliminated.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 12:20 AM
3

Well it is the other person's problem if, for example, one has decided to give up their career to raise a family as part of their agreement within the relationship. "I go to work, you stay at home" When that relationship ends, so does the agreement. I fail to see why one person should pay for another.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:55 PM
16

I can certainly see how it would be of benefit for a spell Of course it's a benefit...to the person receiving it. That is not sufficient reason to not eliminate it. A lot of people out of work for a long time can't just walk into a decent job. How is that the other persons problem?
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:44 PM
33

but apparently a mother in the same situation can still be a good mom. Not just a "good mom", but rather the "best possible mom", getting preferential treatment from the courts. Which is yet another reason why alimony should be eliminated altogether and child support curtailed to half the actual cost of the child. Otherwise it actually creates the situation of at-home mom.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:22 PM
8

This site is clearly a false flag operation so SRS/AMR can point to it and say "you are not a real MRA!" Be warned – avoid father’s rights groups like the plague. According to the pro-feminist men’s group The National Organization For Men Against Sexism (NOMAS), “male supremacist groups (“Father’s Rights”) have caused unspeakable harm to our country and to our children by encouraging abusive fathers, often with little past involvement with their children, to seek custody as a tactic to pressure …
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:20 PM
2

However, it is enough to make a rule that says "beyond a reasonable doubt". Clearly not, as there is no way a 7 year old claim relying entirely on word vs word is ever beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:05 PM
5

If there was solid proof that he did rape her, he'd deserve prison time. There is no evidence of any value collected 7 years later. If it had been collected and sat in a box, that would be one thing. With no reporting, there's no collecting evidence, and thus there is no evidence, ever
/r/MensRights28/12/13 04:05 AM
21

Another reason the ridiculous exclusion of statute of limitations shouldn't be allowed. There is no way that there was a shred of physical evidence, not just because it didn't actually happen but because it was purported to have happened seven years earlier. It was entirely word vs word.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 12:38 AM
2

But financial status is the significant delimiter, and when people like Scalzi start in on their comparisons they're invariably comparing middle class or rich "straight white male" to poor anything else.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 02:29 PM
1

That's the point, the analogy is so bad it actually communicates something totally disconnected from reality.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 04:06 AM
21

Not even 1 in 5 women are rape victims, so not only must every rapist rape only once, but they must be doubling down on victims.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 03:53 AM
0

Life isn't a game. There is no difficulty setting. Other 'straight white men' do not receive bonuses to their 'play' just because George Soros has a $20 billion worth. I'd rather be a gay man of any color who is poor than a straight white man who is poor. (Of course, I'd rather be a poor female than a poor male...)
/r/MensRights27/12/13 03:50 AM
3

If you want to marry... You're clearly suffering from decreased cognitive function.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 03:39 AM
1

You would think "egalitarian" would be preferred specifically because of its neutrality. Not when neutrality isn't the goal
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:54 PM
2

Pure nutcase madhattery.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:00 PM
6

"Hi, I wanted equality now give me all that 'free' money reserved for me."
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:53 PM
15

I am seriously saying that intruding on service of a bunch of people just to get media time is worse than spamming an anonymous service that isn't a rape report, as its neither official nor able to actually help anyone. I am really saying that.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 11:54 PM
8

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1to9mc/what_a_mature_take_on_things/ce9vluf
/r/MensRights25/12/13 08:41 PM
43

Let's stop pretending archaic barbarian societies are representative of either the speaker or the intended listener. It neither weighs nor uplifts people in the US, UK, EU, etc to point at some other countries societal barbarism and say "SEEEE!!!!"
/r/MensRights25/12/13 08:28 PM
5

OBLIGATION TO NOT FOLLOW [UN]LAWFUL ORDERS. There are plenty of laws that I find objectionable, but objecting to a law is not the same thing has it being unconstitutional or otherwise "unlawful". If all the "good cops" refused to enforce such laws they would be fired, and then the police force would really be all bad cops. That would not be an improvement. That's not to say there aren't laws that really would separate the moral cops from the immoral ones, but this isn't an example of one. Change…
/r/MensRights25/12/13 09:12 AM
3

That's Unemployment "Insurance" here, and while for the last couple years it's been extended, that extension is about to run out. The duration will change to between 20 and 26 weeks, depending on the state. The award for UI is also based on the previous income, and is a percentage of that income. So it always represents a decrease in income. Furthermore, finding a job - even one that pays less than the prior job - eliminates the insurance. Welfare, on the other hand, is not dependent on working,…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 04:20 AM
36

I don't know if I want to prosecute her You do. If you don't, she will and then you can't. At 18 months, the statute of limitations is probably not expired, but do it even if it was.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 12:59 AM
6

The prosecution and the judge disregarded any mitigating factors (as they always do for men). There are none for solicitation of child pornography. Unfortunately a plea bargain (taken on the advice of counsel) for 10 years was taken, voiding the right to appeal. He did the crime. It's impossible to know if it was an "extreme" sentence without knowing the locale he was charged under, but 10 years does not sound extreme. US Federal sentencing is from several decades to life for similar cases.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 12:43 AM
2

That dog needs a diet.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 11:17 PM
7

Marcotte sees sexism in the light changing from walk to don't walk on the street corner.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 11:16 PM
9

It's the Swedish or Nordic model. It's based in the belief that women have no agency, and would only enter into prostitution if forced too. As it back handedly denigrates women, it's a favorite of feminists and christians alike. Sweden itself has had underage boys arrested for visiting adult prostitutes.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 10:46 PM
10

When Feminists and conservative Christians team up for something, you know it's going to be a massive intrusion on liberties and freedom.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 10:40 PM
1

wtf with the video focusing on the prominent beer bellies? I'd be disgusted by the dance performance too. Not because they're men, or black, showing skin or in makeup. But because they've got fatties verging on obese.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 10:19 PM
2

Because if a boy gets an erection during sexual abuse it means they enjoyed it? This is a presumptive claim on your part. In general, juries do not have to explain their reasoning for voting on acquittal. Accept that the jury felt the case did not meet whatever legal requirement is in place for Australia and don't try to detail it, because you'll only ever be guessing. Note: You provide no news source, and while I did find one source before the case went to trial, there is nothing reporting on t…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 03:10 PM
1

The Dangerous Book for Boys
/r/MensRights21/12/13 02:10 PM
10

Imagine it had been categorically proven that hundreds of false rape accusations had been made by feminists. It has, of course they make the accusations to the police. How would it reflect on feminism itself, individual feminists and their credibility on the issue? False comparison. This event did not happen in a bubble, and rides along with the prior history of thousands of false accusations made by women.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 07:01 AM
13

have less ways of getting help. Bullshit. If it was truly anonymous, then there would be no way to get them help.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 06:59 AM
5

firstammendment lolz. Seriously.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 01:45 AM
5

You would have a point if he was complaining about not being promoted. Except, he's not.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 11:04 PM
5

This is not higher levels. This is a job he was performing for 16 years with a specified number of sports in his contract.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:34 PM
2

It stems from the demands of the Obama administration in regards to their interpretation of Title IX An interpretation they've been forced to back away from
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:22 PM
4

Author is a MediaMatters shill, it isn't satire, just stupidity.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:13 PM
2

This is because TheIdesofLight has far too much free time, and uses it to harass men to the limit of her authority - which includes offmychest. Your use of the reddit as intended, and not breaking any rule with your post, is irrelevant to Ides.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:20 AM
25

There is no alleged. TheIdesofLight has free reign, and treats it like it was a SRS sub...so it is. Consider it SRS Adjacent on reddit.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 09:15 AM
10

In the vast majority of cases the amount a man is charged with paying doesn't even come close to supporting a child. This case included. Bullshit. $1524/month is absurd for a single child. Since the mother has half the burden, she has to cover half, but I'll guarantee no child is getting that much spent on them every month.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:51 AM
1

If the step father didn't feed the kids, would he be liable? If they were in his care, yes. Just like if they are in the care of a grandparent and they don't feed them. But over the long term, it's not the step fathers responsibility. Why is household income taken into account for alimony but not child support? Because alimony is to support the wife, and child support is to support the child. A re-married woman is being supported by somebody else. Note the legal presumption that women are incapa…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 09:42 PM
1

That's impersonating another, specific, person that the person knows, not lying about being on birth control.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 07:06 PM
1

It's still not a crime if she lies.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 06:27 PM
2

There is no species being aborted. Individual, biologically unsupported blobs of matter which lacks the prime characteristics of being human beings are. I also support the requirement of termination of the brain dead.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:48 PM
1

The human species isn't what is being aborted.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:44 PM
-1

It is human. It lacks the characteristics of human beings, that being, a mind.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:38 PM
-1

It would be crazy to consider a legal abortion a human life, yes.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:27 PM
1

But it's not a crime to claim to be on contraceptive when they're not.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:27 PM
2

My understanding was that the BMJ 'satire' studies were real studies, just with limited actual value.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:32 PM
15

Christian-anarchist feminist radicals...stealing from low income self employed women!
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:42 PM
2

Just don't buy any ring at all. Get them later, as a shared expense. Any woman who gets upset at that is probably a gold digger at heart.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:21 PM
2

Fallacy of small numbers.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:07 PM
8

Prove they're MRM. I mean, we know Solanas is a feminist murderer.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:31 PM
1

No, when it's anonymous there is no accuser to cross examine, which is a violation of the accused rights. That doesn't mean that there is no punishment.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:26 PM
-1

We don't have people trying to criminalize speech against feminists.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:24 PM
2

Count on any such charge to be laid against any man when the woman gets pregnant when using a condom. Nevermind the 2% laboratory and 15% real life failure rate. The law is condom specific, criminalizing external contraception (i.e., condoms) or not pulling out (which has a huge failure rate anyways) That the proposed law doesn't criminalize lying about taking the pill. So in effect, this is a "get pregnant, get child support, he's a criminal so is barred from the kid" method.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:22 PM
-5

If she's anti abortion Then she's broken from the start
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:19 PM
12

Should tampering with someone's birth control to get her pregnant against her will Presumptive.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:56 AM
2

If only you had a document setting out rights available to all...
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:12 AM
3

You realize that if somebody called up and said "I was assaulted but want to remain anonymous" nothing would be done, right? Those phonelines are used as leads, not all the evidence needed. Except here, something is done. With no ability to confront the accuser.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:52 AM
7

SRS proper actually, and I know. Although the vote brigading is fun to watch.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:48 AM
3

You seem to be misinformed about the legal concept of 'standing'. It's not an excuse, it's hard fact.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:37 AM
2

An accusation is only an accusation when made to an officer of the law in accordance with the law. In any case, only the named accused could file suit.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:33 AM
4

It's not a strawman that nobody has to justify themselves to you. It's a statement of fact.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:05 AM
4

Nobody on the planet has to justify themselves to is an SRSter like you.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:53 AM
1

Lol. Memes. You're not worth the effort.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:14 AM
0

He's entitled to be represented by an attorney because it's a case in federal court and removed from the university No, he's entitled to be represented in any proceedings required by contract, presuming the other parties also has representation. Since we can assume that a lawyer works for the school somewhere, that's satisfied. Title IX is constitutional, yes. In some circumstance. This is not sports. However you get from Title IX is held to constitutional principles and that somehow means that …
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:56 AM
0

It even states not a violation of his constitutional rights, but rather they breached their contract with him. Proving my point, thanks. Next! Representation by an attorney is part of contract law. Next! Xiaolu Yu & Brian Harris -- Actually relevant to your, but completely missing my point. Title IX is not constitutional, it is a piece of legislation that was passed by Congress which states: This is a recockulous statement. Title IX is held to constitutional principles, and the school acts due t…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:26 AM
-11

all over the internet Lol. No. SRS and SRS adjacent reddits are not "all over the internet"
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:06 AM
-1

Guess we'll just have to wait for the courts to decide... Dez Wells, Brian Harris, Peter Xu I know which way I'm betting.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 12:41 AM
0

Just to point out, those statements are not the same. The link is F||¬E in an absurd binary relationship. The quote isn't even binary, you can oppose men's rights, support it, or be totally neutral. The closest to binary it gets is ¬M->¬E
/r/MensRights18/12/13 12:26 AM
2

I'll cop to my regular and frequent mocking of all otherkin.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 12:04 AM
6

Defamation per se. Yes, they should be sued. Every. Single. Time.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 12:02 AM
5

This article is the worst of the worst. In China and France men have the option of hormone treatments rendering them temporarily infertile. I can't even guess to what he is referring too, unless the "In China" refers to Gossypium. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664382/ In India, RISUG ( Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance) has been used successfully as a long term, reversible method of fertility control for nearly twenty years. In India, RISUG has been tested on about 350…
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:59 PM
0

A right to an attorney at a college hearing does not exist. It does, as a function of contract law. Your attendance at a college is a contract. Anything that can modify or terminate that contract is subject to attorney representation. TheFIRE.org does this a lot, but if you google "college hearing attorney" you will find many lawyers selling their services for these hearings.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:24 PM
-2

Your rights are basically void if it is a private university. If they receive absolutely no federal funds, which all private universities do.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:10 PM
2

Mocking "pan otherkin transpolyqueer", actually.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:05 PM
6

Actually, the article you linked makes no reference to race. Somebody would have to click through to the second article. As it turns out, the teacher is also black. Is she also racist?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:48 PM
-2

This could be fun. AMR thinks we're pissy because the student was punished. Now they're going to point to this topic and say we're racist because we didn't support him.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:42 PM
1

Probably. People who own pocket knives who live where it is legal to carry it, tend to carry them all the time. I certainly did when I lived in another state.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:25 PM
2

In your leftist whining about carrying weapons, you seem to have completely missed the point of 'legal'. If somebody wants to carry a legal knife all the time, that's their right. Millions of people do exactly that.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:24 PM
19

Why aren't they providing starter kits for men in academic positions in female dominated areas (less than 25 percent men) Oh right, because "gender equality" really means "Support women until they are in the dominant position"
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:19 PM
1

He should have been sentenced. He went to his victim's place of residence with a weapon. Nothing about a pocketknife says "I'm here to kill you". These are folding knives, which according to this are legal in that state. He probably carries it all the time.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:05 PM
10

If it's rape for me to be in a bar and tell a woman I'm a rock star It's not, and I didnt' say it was.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:11 AM
4

That's not a misrepresentation, you repeated what I said.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:10 AM
9

(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:49 AM
18

Wrong kind of deception. It's impersonation of somebody else, not having fake tits.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:46 AM
8

Rape by deception is against the law. If you intentionally give the impression that you are one person when you're not, then it's rape if you have sex. As for the article, I'm not convinced we'll ever see that here.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:05 AM
1

Gov't exists to be awful and incompetent
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:58 AM
7

'trans men' not transmen, its an adjective. "white man" "blind man" "trans man" not whiteman blindman transman Trans men are men, so why wouldn't they be?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:17 AM
1

I'm just that much better. eyeroll
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:26 AM
30

Why do people care about "under the age of 18 apart from the more hardened adult inmates" but the second they turn 18, nobody gives a shit.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:25 AM
1

You don't need to get them on the ground to handcuff them if you're actually good at what you do. When they resist, you better believe you have to.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:22 AM
1

No. Not hardly. You can evict somebody by pulling their arm back and pushing them out the door. A cop has to handcuff them, generally on the ground, while resisting. If anybody acted like this when a bouncer asked, or started to force, her to leave then that bouncer is going to call the police. There's no way any bouncer is going to get her out at that point.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:16 AM
2

You're not restraining them. You're removing them from the premise, a far easier task.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 01:27 AM
1

it's hard enough to disable someone resisting using violent techniques. Even two trained people are going to have trouble restraining an Average Jane using kiddy gloves without someone getting hurt. Something to remind all the idiots saying that a man "can easily hold down any woman" and should be jailed for acting in self defense where she gets hurt.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 01:26 AM
1

That is a legally irrelevant question. Title IX is a strict computation.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 01:20 AM
2

So the raw percentage doesn't exactly give you the full picture, just a starting point. Which is why claims are not made (legitimately at least) based on small numbers. It's an actual fallacy. The linked FBI article is based on 95,769 incidents, and doesn't have the same problem. Also, the way a claim is classified as "false" plays a huge part. The FBI defines unfounded as "False or baseless", where false is a provable untruth. "Crimes with no suspects" are not unfounded. Reports with perjury or…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 12:56 AM
2

Demmian banned me from Feminism and AskFeminists because I pointed out here that he'd been deleting the Argentina riot videos. I'll point out, I've never posted in either one.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 11:35 PM
5

The first part "compile, supply, sell, or use" does not need to be done by an employer. Anybody doing the act is violating the law. Intent must be present to present it as a blacklist though... Which means, if somebody made a list of "Feminist programmers" and published it with the intent to get them to stand out positively and have better success getting jobs, that's perfectly acceptable. If a company used that list as a blacklist, it would be against the law. However, this person in question i…
/r/MensRights15/12/13 11:25 PM
2

So concise, yet...so accurate.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 11:13 PM
10

I more wonder if they realize that it's against the law. At least in the US. In 2009 regulations were made as part of the Employment Relations Act of 1999 (yes, took em 10 years) to make blacklisting illegal. It is against the law to "compile, supply, sell or use a 'prohibited list'" It is also against the law to refuse to hire, dismiss an employee, or subject them to any penalty for a reason related to being on a 'prohibited list' In effect, proving somebody used a list is hard, proving somebod…
/r/MensRights15/12/13 11:06 PM
9

This is not her first attempt: http://ashedryden.com/blog/weve-all-got-a-list On a terrifyingly regular basis, incidents of bad behavior surface in the open source community. This can range from dismissiveness toward someone in a marginalized group [...] The idea here being that a public blacklist would serve multiple purposes at once.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 10:54 PM
0

Marriage isn't a right. Nothing stops the gov't from refusing to recognize any and all marriages. It would, in fact, be the ideal. Equal protection under the law is a right, and if that had been the angle used 20 years ago then it would have happened 20 years ago.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 10:50 PM
2

FIRE in 2013 is the ACLU in 1978, at least in regards to free speech.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 06:42 AM
1

It's clothing nimrod. Get over it.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 06:40 AM
3

The problem is that 'the other side' doesn't accept it as humor when they are the target i.e., AMR, SRS But of course, everything they do is 'satire'
/r/MensRights15/12/13 03:21 AM
10

she's disingenuously trying to argue that because unattractive women can't approach guys way, way out of their league and always expect to get easy sex--that some guys have minimal standards- I've always said: Men can get sex if they just pick reasonable women, and try try try a lot. Women can get sex if they just pick reasonable men, and ask just once.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 02:36 AM
3

Start: lawyer Nothing else can be said really. Her recent history will be helpful to your case.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 01:41 AM
2

This is straight up, flat out, gov't intervention. Insurance companies do not want to cover testing procedures for anybody, and in a free market they wouldn't. That's legitimately not what an insurance company does, which is why your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes and your house insurance doesn't cover mold inspection. Gov't forces them to cover the various female diseases, and some states require prostate testing. Nobody has made a push for testicular testing. Note that the ACA doesn't…
/r/MensRights15/12/13 01:38 AM
8

Seems their complaints would be solved by decriminalization of prostitution.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 07:07 PM
4

The stigma never ends with just because of no evidence, or even an acquittal, which is why perjury needs to be followed up with charges, 100% of the time.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 07:06 PM
1

He can use his strength to restrain her until he can get her under control. Not only presumptive, but wrong. Trained men, police, with equipment regularly have difficulty restraining a woman one on one without resorting to tasing or mace. This is why they don't try, when one on one.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 07:00 PM
1

Perhaps this one will soothe your political sensibilities: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/ex-brooklyn-judge-seeks-reversal-of-his-verdict-in-1999-murder-case.html
/r/MensRights14/12/13 06:37 PM
28

DV ipso facto is female as victim. She clearly hit him with a broom, giving him two black eyes and bruising all over his body as a form of self defense. Source: Duluth Model. Also note that the primary supporter also admits to violence against her bf (which again, is clearly his fault)
/r/MensRights14/12/13 10:33 AM
2

3. The first line is "every bigot shutup", which is an ad hominem attack. Something the original song didn't even do.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 10:27 AM
9

Inspired by the ground-breaking feminist research of Arielle Schlesinger.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:41 AM
3

Maybe this burgeoning doxxing campaign had something to do with github's decision to suspend the repo, No. Reddit is practically unique in it's doxxing ban. The reason it was removed is github is not a social site.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:36 AM
3

My last gf who used the pill, used it without the sugar-pill week and didn't have a menstruation for a year. Perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable, with doctor's permission.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:33 AM
9

I'm jealous as fuck that it's non hormonal for men, and probably won't have the side effects. It also a) is already 40 years later, b) doesn't exist yet and c) thus may never exist.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:30 AM
1

Testosterone increases hair loss. As well as that cancer thing.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:22 AM
4

There's never any doubt about who the mother is. Except for very recent surrogate tech.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:22 AM
2

Used to be on quantcast.com, but thats now hidden for some reason. I don't know if you noticed, but /b/ has a lot of selfie porn. Of chicks. It is heavily white though, but so is the internet as a whole.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:21 AM
3

Maybe you're trans! They were just being sensitive...
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:14 AM
3

Bingo. A better reason couldn't be found right there.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 10:59 PM
-1

...and yet, you can count on the vast majority of advancements in medicine to come from India or China for the next few decades.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:50 PM
5

4chan, and /b/ in particular is 1/4th female, and anecdotally they are the cruelest trollers. This game designer apparently shoved a stick in their nest.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:46 PM
2

There's no "1 in 100,000 patients will develop x kind of cancer" type of data. India started performing wide spread vasectomies in the 50's. I don't know when they were widely available in the US, but it was at or before the 70's The cancer risk wasn't found until 1993. Without knowing the health effects in detail, no drug or device will pass Stage III trials and be approved That's completely untrue. The data you're wanting is going to be decades in the making, and that would put every single dr…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:31 PM
4

Increases testosterone in the blood (not just rarely, it happens 100% of the time), a known risk. Also releases sperm into tissues not built for it, which can cause swelling. Another known risk. There's also a risk of a different type, allergic reaction if the sperm gets in the blood stream.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:26 PM
2

You just said that they know of a risk, so you would too.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:03 PM
6

Yes, but it's a case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. The prostate cancer risk rises 60% with a vasectomy. OMG RIGHT! How can nobody ever tell us this????? Which means instead of 7 per 1000 men per year, it's 11 per 1000 men per year. The relevance is that the RISUG results are no worse.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:02 PM
5

I've totally given up on trying to compare sentences in foreign countries, as they're idiotically short in all circumstance. However, here, the hiring of a hit man is generally a more significant crime with a longer penalty than attempted murder. In most states at least. (Maryland) This woman is doing life. (Michigan) This one is doing 6-20 (minimum six before coming up for parole) even after the husband begged for leniency. (Texas) Of course, at the same time, this woman serves no jail time at …
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:58 PM
11

Mostly you're describing the uselessness of the gov't, and not anything specific. I call there and get told they will not release any info to me as I'm not the mother Since the gov't hasn't processed the forms, you're not the legal father. Again, uselessness of gov't in general.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:43 PM
0

It is true today, read the link. The link gives no date and cites no study, just because the article was published in 2010 does not make the data recent. However I recognize the claim as one from the 80s.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:38 PM
1

That's true, but the survey is from the 80's and the primary reason they're healthier is that married men watch their health better. And it's changing both because of increasing divorces causing even worse health results, and single men watching their health better and having a social network.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:36 PM
8

Not every man is becomes an "indentured servant" Rate of a controllable negative does not invalidate the existence of that negative.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:25 PM
3

Alternate title: Birth Control will never be over the counter, because then insurance won't pay for it. Meanwhile, vasectomies are not covered.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:24 PM
13

Note that forensic DNA testing has been available since the 80's. He was convicted in 1997.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:20 PM
5

Gates is full bore far social leftist. He could do a disgusting amount of good if he wasn't so caught up in a worldview defined by identity politics.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:15 PM
3

possible cancer risk.vs.known cancer risk from vasectomy.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:13 PM
7

An unwanted child does not de facto lead to being happy about it, nor does it invalidate the inherent problem when some people are.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:06 PM
2

So how complicated would it be to go to India in two years and get this injection? Theoretically you could get accepted to the testing and go right now to have it done. Would there be weird coming-back-to-the-country sorts of problems, or does Customs care about minor...(I'm going to call it surgery) surgery done abroad? It's not surgery, and no there wouldn't be a problem. People go to other countries to buy organ transplants, which would be illegal in the US and require continuous medical supe…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:04 PM
10

FDA. Same reason you can't get some known to work cancer treatments, actually.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:00 PM
10

i really doubt it's 100% effective. No and yes. It's only had a few hundred test subjects, but there's only been one failure and that was caused by improper placement of the plugging material. The process was adapted so that will not happen. So, there isn't a significant enough subject count to generate meaningful statistics, but at the same time the failure rate is quite low. Besides which, you do know the scientific perfect failure rate for condoms that humans will never manage is 2% right? Th…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:00 PM
3

Actually I thought the FBI finally changed it last year Nope1. The prior FBI definition was clearly wrong, in that it defined it as "forcible intercourse". Prior to the FBI updating their definition, Mary Koss, a staunch feminist academic, worked with the CDC to define rape as male on female only. When the FBI wanted to modernize their definition, they started with the CDC definition. Through rational thinking, the "female on male is rape with penetration by finger or object" was added, but forc…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 06:19 PM
6

No, it's a bad point because it's wrong.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:41 AM
15

Marriage: Negative impact to male life expectancy.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:39 AM
0

the accused cannot be put through a process of character testing in court, but the witnesses (and therefore accuser) can That's how it works here for every crime but sexual ones. For sex crimes, the accused cannot be questioned about history, and even evidence of prior false accusations are generally barred from the jury.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:03 AM
1

Anonymity is a weak shield. Right now, while public court filings do not disclose the rape accuser, it's trivial for local media to find it and there is no law possible to stop them from printing it when they do. (Not one that would withstand 1st amendment scrutiny) The media has willingly chosen to not print the names, and it would be a laughable claim to say they would willingly do the same for the accused. The solution is open air, just like every other crime. Name everybody. This idea that a…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:01 AM
12

He's hoping she remembers after 2 years locked up and comes around to give him the sex he earned for white knighting.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 05:22 AM
2

I'd have to request an explanation for the connection, that's for sure.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 05:19 AM
2

38 years is the statutory minimum for 9 charges of lascivious contact with a minor. So, we can draw from that that she did not get a higher charge due to race. There was no way to give her less of one. Nor, I argue, did she get treated like a man as I don't believe a man would have been sentenced to the statutory minimum.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 04:38 AM
4

unrelated incidents There is nothing unrelated about bringing up Occupy in a discussion about self entitled violent prats.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 04:27 AM
21

even people accusing him of being the aggressor. Men are always the cause of any DV. It's literally the Duluth Model. Even when women are the aggressor, they're defending themselves from something that happened long before. Even when women are the only aggressor, ever, that just means the man was never reported.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 03:10 AM
6

Men are more disposable than women. There is no solution to this issue at today's technological state. Period. Bullshit. We've already fixed the original cause. We no longer need large families.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 02:00 AM
2

All in all, I just don't think social justice causes are the right source of male camaraderie. Me either, that's part of the reason I'm not interested in social justice. Equality under the law is what matters.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 10:35 PM
23

Did it escape the speakers attention that one of the cops is a "girl"? Seriously though, this whole "if I fight enough the cops will have to let me go" exposes a massive feeling of entitlement. Not just with women, but we see more of it because people are bothered more by the response to that entitlement. Every whiny Occupy riot has the same thing, from both sexes. If you actually believe the arrest is illegitimate, convince a judge. If you resist, you make the arrest legitimate.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 10:30 PM
0

If the Executive cannot be blamed for executive decisions of the gov't, then whoever thinks that is an idiot.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 10:21 PM
2

You're trying to say that unless a man is held down, it's not rape. Had you said that about a woman, you'd already have the harpies down on you. Force is a minor part of the issue, and besides, in any circumstance the one with a weapon has the capability of more force.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 09:59 PM
-4

tr.v. shamed, sham·ing, shames 1. To cause to feel shame; put to shame. 2. To bring dishonor or disgrace on. 3. To disgrace by surpassing. 4. To force by making ashamed: He was shamed into making an apology. Doubt it.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 09:10 PM
1

When banned people try to vote on a post, I have been led to believe that Reddit will add both an up vote and a down vote as a way to obfuscate the banned user knowing whether they had an effect. My testing from a year ago with 20 accounts and a reddit made for the purpose found that not to be the case. I have no idea if its changed. There are fuzzying effects caused by accounts who do nothing but downvote in a reddit, as well as the shadowbanned. However, there is no fuzzy effect for comments.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:56 PM
0

Constantly. Every day in fact. Never seen a man "slut shame". Not once.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 07:00 PM
2

justice and the promotion of ethical treatment for everyone That's opinion overload, and no two people much less a group will ever agree. Inequality under the law is a testable position.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 06:58 PM
1

You are a bad person and should feel bad. I'm sure somebody will claim I'm victim blaming, but frankly I don't believe you and even if its true, you still hold a fantastically stupid opinion.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 09:04 AM
3

"Withholding sex as a punishment" is emotional abuse, and in some jurisdictions emotional abuse is DV It's not inherently gender specific, and honestly I don't think it would stand up before a judge for either gender. On the other hand, withholding sex can be used as grounds for divorce, under the term "Desertion"
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:59 AM
2

Initially read that as "feminisms least relevant & valuable contribution". Upon re-reading, it's a good substitution. Can you imagine programming for feelz?
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:42 AM
11

and just as illegal for women to pay for it In realistic terms, women customers are a fraction of the almost never. The reason behind the law is to help those that in one way or another have been forced into prostitution, Which it actually fails to do, as detailed in the link.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:39 AM
15

Did a self post, so can't blame you for not finding a dupe, but it's there heh Felt the article was far too long to get meaningful content for this reddit without quoting it specifically. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1so9o5/feminists_supporting_the_infantilizing_of_women/
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:37 AM
1

As I pointed out above, her sentence is the statutory minimum for guilty of 9 charges. As in: The judge couldn't have given her any less of a charge.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:22 AM
2

135 years? really? Nine charges of lewd and lascivious contact with a minor. Each has a statutory range of 4.25 to 15 years. 9*15 = 135 Actual sentence: 38 years. 4.22 per charge. She literally got the minimum.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:19 AM
2

FL CODE § 800.04 is not a "sub-category of statutory rape", lewd and lascivious conduct is the phrase used for what most people think of as "statutory rape". There is no statutory rape charge in the Florida statutes. In fact, there is no Florida rape charge. It's called sexual battery FL CODE § 794.011 “Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery …
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:15 AM
2

we aren't out to 'even the score' or even ensure 'equal but terrible treatment'. "we"? My interest is equality before under the force of the State. That's it. If they they gave every molester, male or female, permanent exile to New York island after branding an M on their forehead, I'm good.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 07:52 AM
19

What you're describing is ribbing. It doesn't define a relationship between two people negatively like shaming would.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 06:15 AM
4

Nor is the damage caused by this remarkably bad legislation limited to dangerous precedent; despite unsupported claims by the Swedish government to the contrary, the law has been demonstrated to increase both violence and stigma against sex workers, to make it more difficult for public health workers to contact them, to subject them to increased police harassment and surveillance, to shut them out of the country’s much-vaunted social welfare system, and to dramatically decrease the number of cli…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 05:34 AM
12

This is grade a quality bullshit on the level of anti-vaxxers Warts. Cancer of the "penis, anus and oropharynx"
/r/MensRights12/12/13 03:57 AM
1

Army of Darkness quote. Somebody has a sense of humor. Although when I try this I only get four entries. They are the same top four as yours. If you actually search (from an incognito browser) "are all men" (no quotes) in google, you get the wiki entry for the movie "Are All Men Pedophiles" as the top and right bar entry. Are All Men Pedophiles? is a 2012 award-winning documentary film about pedophilia and hebephilia directed by Dutch media producer Jan-Willem Breure and presented by model Savan…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 03:17 AM
86

Men are shamed about being virgins, by women. Women are shamed about not being virgins, by women. Seriously, when will they figure out that men as a group don't bother to shame people. If you're not liked, it won't be anything as subtle as "shame"
/r/MensRights12/12/13 03:08 AM
1

More like a foot stuck in the door, while exiting.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 02:53 AM
8

Because that's how the law is written. It can change anytime Congress wants it too, but because the "supposed supporters" don't really want it to change combined with conservatives who are forthright about not wanting it to change, it won't change. Now that the ban has been lifted on women in combat positions, it's potentially a 14th amendment question for the courts.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 02:51 AM
8

I care that it's acceptable when women do it but not the reverse.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 02:29 AM
14

Why does a school care about something that happened totally off its property "at the grounds of Bronte Public School"
/r/MensRights12/12/13 02:27 AM
3

Lot of pissy gits in that thread.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 02:21 AM
0

Marital property. End result is, no such thing as "hers" "his" and "theirs", it's all "theirs". The ease in which access to accounts is granted may very well vary by state.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 02:12 AM
-4

If your spouse has a personal account, and you go to the bank marriage license in hand, they have to give you access. So that's how.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:47 PM
3

Most couples have a joint account. Note that a personal accounts is not a legal separation of money. It's a separation of convenience. There is no legal way to keep money from your spouse. Thus, "consent" in this context is not only presumed, but irrevocable.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:45 PM
8

There's no reason to get married, but that isn't why.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 09:33 PM
2

Aww gee, I notice that post only has 39 downvotes. Let me fix that. It's also amusing that the AMR troll who replied to the same comment has a positive score.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 09:06 PM
19

Use of this product in its intended fashion is home invasion. Expect lethal force to be used against you.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:54 PM
1

With rare exceptions, I objectify everybody, everybody does. It's how our slow biological computers manages to simplify data into a processable amount. Let's just start with this one: If I don't know your name, your real name, then I am going to objectify you 100% of the time. I give no processing time to your feelings, or how miserable your life is. In an objective manner, I simply don't care. That's not going to change by crying about it.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:48 PM
2

It's Slate, the article and author are going to make wide steps around anything possibly describing feminists as reactionary. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them, of course.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:38 PM
16

Society Tells Men That Friendship Is Girly This has absolutely never happened to me I think the situation is is that men tend to have friends, and women tend to have acquaintances that they call friends.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 07:40 PM
7

Anita Sarkeesian was ravaged by 4chan. I mean the entire harassment was orchestrated on /b/ https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Feminist_Frequency In the game you play a princess, who has been kidnapped, but instead of being rescued by the great male hero, she actually escapes herself, puts on armor, and realizes that her kingdom queendom has been taken over by the evil villain, Pat Ree Archy. The game will be an action RPG with a leveling-up system, except that you can't fight any baddies, because…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:11 PM
6

Everybody uses the roads too, so why is it being credited as "targeting men"? High traffic areas are high traffic areas and have no gender. Low traffic areas also have no gender. Paths to a single business are by definition going to be low traffic.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:13 PM
3

And yet another woman stampedes to give Pantene free advertising. Hint: The ad breaks none of that down.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:08 PM
21

So my question would be: how does she know it's MRAs contacting her? Remember, any male doing something bad is a MRA. Any positive thing being done by a male is "you can't prove he's an MRA!" The reverse is true for females and feminism.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:44 PM
8

This was a decision by the ob/gyn board that they later reversed. This article was probably written before the reversal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/health/gynecologists-may-treat-men-board-says-in-switch.html Note that that link is the same paper as OPs link, same subsection even. They should have at least rewritten the article to say something like "while his appointment was canceled, the board reversed its ruling and he will be allowed to be treated" As for your question, they had their…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:37 PM
12

Meh. It's probably true that one or two crazies sent her some. It's also true that you'll get death threats if you malign the wrong pokemon on twitter. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/30/twitter_death_threats_are_meaningless_you_should_ignore_them.html
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:16 PM
30

The actual charges are "lewd and lascivious molestation", nine of them. Media doesn't make the definitions, and would be potentially facing a defamation case if they claimed it was rape. In fact, from what I see of Florida statute, oral sex isn't ever defined as rape. Just like it's not in California. (5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION.— (a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a pers…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:00 PM
1

Pantene has hit on the magic formula to get years of free advertising... Seriously, it's a hair products commercial. The only label they want you to ignore is "supermarket product"
/r/MensRights11/12/13 12:48 PM
1

NZ sentencing is a joke. A bad one. If you ever get an urge to engage in some felonies, that's the place to do it. I went and looked up the florida statute for lewd or lascivious molestation. The victim was 12, so it was second degree molestation, giving a penalty of between 4.25 and 15 years each charge.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 12:42 PM
0

That's laughable. I mean that literally, it caused me to laugh.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 07:29 AM
-8

... ... you people are sick.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:01 AM
0

Control of the definitions is the effective control of the conversation.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:00 AM
10

And then she gave her three years and nine months in prison so not so much "just as serious"
/r/MensRights11/12/13 05:43 AM
15

If this is what passes for Law up in Canada I have to admit I'm glad I live in the U.S. She found 29 of 91 cases were acquitted, and finds that to be an insufficient amount. Battered women are morally entitled to kill their abusive partners, This is the problem. She's spouting a personal moral position, and is being reported on because of her legal authority. Her whole book is a moral one, arguing against the law as it stands from a position of "should" and "injustice". This woman literally has …
/r/MensRights11/12/13 05:32 AM
9

Once you get in it's hard to get out. What you really mean is "Once you get in, you realize how damn profitable those jobs are, and no other job really compares." You know who benefits most from this stigma against strippers? Strippers. It keeps the market from being flooded by providers.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 04:22 AM
6

Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. 2005 Contact CSA was reported by 16% of males and 25% of females Men reported female perpetration of CSA nearly 40% of the time, and women reported female perpetration of CSA 6% of the time 6.4% of boys are molested by women. (about half of those were doubly molested by both genders) There's no reason to believe female priests would be any less or more likely to molest.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 04:16 AM
0

Placing your child in the US public school system is child abuse.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 04:00 AM
2

"The property part is obviously wrong" Claims without source can be dismissed without source. Even the linked file just says "research says" and is not a source. http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/ "These countries produce something like 50% of the world's GDP" GDP for the world is: $84.97 trillion (2012 est.) This is how I shall define "First world", as there is no official definition: " In contemporary society, th…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 03:40 AM
5

chicks try to get discounts with their tits And more power too them. The problem is when they use the discretion of men in control of State force to get out of something, or earn a benefit. Then it's no longer a (potential) transaction between two people, but a society affecting injustice. And by that, I mean: Judges, prosecutors, policemen, etc. all have some discretion on dismissing/not charging/not writing up minor crimes. Along with politicians exchanging favors, literally.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:53 AM
2

Do men 'make use and derive benefit' from models dressing up and taking pictures? I'm sure somebody in the supply chain earning a profit is a man, of course, the model herself is also deriving benefit. Exploit is a null claim, stop being so sensitive. Just because they want something to be an insult doesn't make it so. Ad after ad is telling men to buy things for women, do things for you girl. Because the ad agency is exploiting you. Refer to above about how much that matters.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:42 AM
1

This post would be an excellent study of vote brigading from AMR. Here's a snapshot
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:04 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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