TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Beltox2pointO Archive

View 5 posts and 1,102 comments by Beltox2pointO on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,102 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

Lmao, you don't even know your own reasons for hating this. Enjoy the boot friend.
/r/MensRights10/12/22 11:16 PM
0

I'm not "guns are bad" so irrelevant attack that is nonsensical. The arms dealer that has been in prison almost a decade, has no contacts, and is less than 6years(?) From release? That one? Why does being pro or anti America matter at all to you? That's an incredibly negative way to view citizens of a country. Do you want to be like China?
/r/MensRights10/12/22 10:55 PM
0

The results are a win for America, those results?
/r/MensRights10/12/22 10:13 PM
0

He literally tried to get more, go and read for once in your damn life.
/r/MensRights10/12/22 01:02 AM
1

Not the same person, pretty sure that "asks for custody" is an extremely simple data point, which you refuse to accept, on top of the literal science driven point of primary carer. It's okay though. Stay mad at the world because you deny reality.
/r/MensRights10/12/22 01:01 AM
-1

You didn't ask a question. He did try to get more. I want to KNOW what's shameful about getting an American citizen out of a foreign country, trading them for a has-been criminal that's served most of their time. You eluding to her being un-american is useless. She is an American, that's the only part that matters.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 10:18 PM
1

All three links you posted were doubling down on the ignorance the other commentor was arguing against. So you doubled down, didn't realise you did, are now tripling down because you're still missing the extremely simple data point they tried to address. Schooling = owning, it's the same damn thing, get off your low horse.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 10:16 PM
-1

And yet, you can't explain why it's shameful?
/r/MensRights09/12/22 09:14 PM
-1

So where's the own? You just carried on and doubled down on the wrong statistics lmao.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 08:43 PM
-1

Vague again, how consistent. For what, should they ashamed of.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 08:41 PM
-4

The singular claim made in the comment....
/r/MensRights09/12/22 06:05 AM
-2

Show one instance.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 05:57 AM
-2

So you just post a random comment, and don't even attempt to debunk it. What's the point of this post.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 05:56 AM
-1

Ashamed of what, exactly.
/r/MensRights09/12/22 05:44 AM
-3

No dude, they're not. You can cherry pick people that claim to be feminists and make examples about them sure, but to even imply that being anti-femininist is anyway a positive thing is ignorant at best
/r/MensRights09/12/22 01:44 AM
-7

It's almost because... nearly every single "MRA" they've encountered is a socially dejected misogynist... The ones that aren't, don't tend to engage with feminists as they understand they're not the enemy...
/r/MensRights08/12/22 05:41 PM
-17

Tell me exactly how a law about infants is relevant to a story about not a baby.
/r/MensRights02/12/22 10:07 PM
-14

So what reason did you have to refer to it then.
/r/MensRights02/12/22 09:57 PM
-12

This does not apply in this case.
/r/MensRights02/12/22 08:47 PM
1

as well Here is when.
/r/MensRights17/11/22 10:06 AM
0

I didn't ask for your sob story, I asked if you have looked at the statistics for when men put a claim of custody forward. Not fighting is cop out.
/r/MensRights16/10/22 05:47 PM
-12

No, your claim was win custody. Winning implies there's a fight. Have you looked at the statistics for when men put a claim of custody forward?
/r/MensRights16/10/22 10:10 AM
-12

Can you provide a source for women "winning" custody?
/r/MensRights16/10/22 09:25 AM
1

Because not changing a thing isn't the same as actively supporting a thing.
/r/MensRights11/10/22 07:37 PM
5

While the policy was established before Biden took office, the Biden administration has not changed the standard. What does this have to do with Biden, exactly?
/r/MensRights11/10/22 03:27 AM
1

Kindergarten is the first "year" of school in Aus. And it starts the year the child turns 5, or if it's late in the year the next year. Pre-school is maximum 3 days a week the year before kindergarten, anyhting else is daycare, which is paid for, quite substantially.
/r/MensRights26/09/22 07:26 PM
1

That is 100% incorrect. @3 Is preschool... for 2 days a week at most, for 4-6hrs, then 3 days at 4yrs old. Kindergarten is the first year of school starting between 5 and 6, depending on where their birthday is.
/r/MensRights26/09/22 08:07 AM
1

Lmao nice rebuttal. Thanks for proving my point.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 07:12 PM
-1

Oh man, I totally forgot that once you did the laundry and washed the dishes you could just ignore the children for the entire time!
/r/MensRights25/09/22 07:08 PM
1

With 1 kids at home, sure. 2 Kids is about equal to a 40 hour office job, 3 kids 60hr trade, having 4 at home, as in 4 under school age, you'd shit your pants by 9.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 07:07 PM
0

No, they don't. Once kids are in school it get substantially easier. But that is upto 6 years... So fkn ignorant.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 07:06 PM
-7

If you unironically think sitting ina cubicle is more difficult than raising children + doing housework etc, you're legitimately brain dead. Once you pass 2/3 kids SAHP is at minimum equal to the workload of a 60+ hour trade job.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 11:36 AM
0

Yes, 100%. Find better ways to weed them out, this isn't a serious topic.
/r/MensRights08/09/22 09:26 PM
1

Same energy as men pretending they want a commitment so they can pump and dump. Get over it
/r/MensRights08/09/22 11:08 AM
0

Do you understand the difference between innocent and not guilty.
/r/MensRights06/09/22 03:23 AM
3

No they don't. Porn viewing isn't tied into a sexuality or a attraction at all. The types you watch, sure. But porn as a general thing, no.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 10:42 AM
-8

Have you got a single peice of evidence that supports your claim?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 07:24 AM
0

I provided it. Disprove it or provide counter.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 01:45 AM
0

As I said, you're unwilling or incapable of disproving the evidence or providing other evidence in opposition. Care more about being better than women than helping men, pathetic.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 11:31 PM
0

This is exactly how it works. You being unable to view the poll/ survey because you lack the ability to google yourself isn't my problem. I provided the evidence, you being unwilling to verify it mean you now have the burden of proof.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 09:38 PM
0

Again. I supported the claim. You didn't disprove it, you rejected it. That means you are now on the hook to provide eveidence in the opposing view.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 09:11 PM
-1

Yes I understand, you failed to do the bare minimum to disprove it. It doesn't agree with your bias, so you're trying to throw it out. Nope. Disprove it, or find opposing evidence. Unironically if you think this is wrong, I don't really think I want to engage with anything you have to offer. It's almost self evident that women have better emotional support networks than men do.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 08:44 PM
0

I provided evidence of which you rejected, not disproved. The ball is in your court.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 08:34 PM
-1

Then find opposing information. I won't wait.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 12:04 PM
-1

How exactly do you perform that for "happiness" lmao. It is literally all surveys and self reports. Just go and fucking search yourself, you clearly don't want to learn.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 12:00 PM
-4

https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/social-and-lifestyle/all-the-single-ladies-61-of-women-in-the-uk-are-happy-to-be-single-compared-to-49-of-men Here's one, you can do more leg work if you acutally care about this mostly meaningless thing.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 11:57 AM
0

Women have better emotional support networks and are less affected by being single.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 11:34 AM
4

Pretty much exactly this yes. Men receive most of their emotional validation through relationships, were as women get a lot more through friendships.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 11:33 AM
-15

Women are happier being single. So the mental pain caused by this affect men a lot more. The "fix" for these issues is men contribute more to the health of the relaitionship etc is the gist of the article.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 05:20 AM
1

Not sure why you got the up-vote. There's an overlapping venndiagram at play here, most choose to ignore it.
/r/MensRights04/08/22 12:10 PM
1

So you don't understand it then. There isn't a point in income taxes where you can earn more total and get less in your hand, it never crosses that barrier. So earning more, will always earn you more. No matter how much tax is paid, or what the rates of taxation are, as long as it's a progressive tax system the gap will never close due to taxes.
/r/MensRights31/07/22 07:33 PM
-1

This ain't it chief.
/r/MensRights31/07/22 07:29 PM
3

Do you understand how income tax works O.o More income = More Taxes...
/r/MensRights31/07/22 01:17 PM
-8

Pretty thin skinned lmao iirc mermaids were prone to do this, specifically to men prone to sexual assulting women. So yea probably wouldn't protest to much...
/r/MensRights29/07/22 01:29 PM
2

This is addressed in the source material.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 03:18 AM
-3

Yea not really a stat you want to bring up, try adjusting for time spent with child, single parenthood etc. It's like saying more Australians get skin cancer than English people.
/r/MensRights10/07/22 09:42 AM
2

As in, there are studies done about it...
/r/MensRights06/07/22 10:13 AM
2

Again, you're making the claim. You are required to show the evidence. Men's perception of women being less qualified and knowledgeable is a studied topic, you can simply learn yourself. As this comment shows, you are unwilling to do so. Thus, ignorance.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 09:47 AM
1

So it is your position that a man, has never in the history of people ever talked down condescendingly to a woman, because she is a woman and he assumed she wouldn't know what she's talking about. Also, it is your position that men never take up more space than is required in civil society in part at least, because of their self important assumption that they as a man deserves more space. Vampires are written as fiction, that came from myth. These terms are used by feminists to explain actions a…
/r/MensRights06/07/22 09:34 AM
2

I didn't say that, did I. You're saying these words are made up. Which means you don't believe that they convey meaning. The fact that they do, even if you disagree with the amount of use they have, or the validity of some actions falling under the label of them. Doesn't invalidate their ability to convey meaning to a behavior or action perpetrated in the real world. This makes you ignorant.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:53 AM
-4

Yea, so you don't understand them. That's fine, maybe just don't enter the conversation if you're ignorant of it.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:45 AM
-4

As in, all terms are made up? Do you flat out not understand what these words represent or what?
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:33 AM
-1

Do you actually believe this to be true?
/r/MensRights06/07/22 07:29 AM
0

Yes, it's a personality defect to be able to rationalize a difference in the objective importance of bodily autonomy rights.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 09:12 PM
0

Nah, you've been conflating their importance so you can hide behind feminist's unwillingness to support you, so you can deny women bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights02/07/22 10:31 PM
0

"It's only fair" The situational context means they're saying if women are pressured so much against being desexed and that doesn't seem to change, then it is only fair that it happens to men as well. I think you just read the comment from the wrong point of view.
/r/MensRights01/07/22 07:01 AM
1

Again, for the hard of reading. I haven't said it shouldn't be a thing. Merely that saying they are of equal importance is objectively wrong.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 10:50 PM
-1

I don't see a problem there Yea I know.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 10:54 AM
-1

You basically said the equivalent of telling black lives matter to spend resources for advocacy for poor white people. If you don't understand how ridiculous that is, there is no reason to engage with anything you have to say. Being in a mensrights sub means nothing at all. Echo chambers are bad, not having a fucking clue about reality is bad, being anti-woman rights just because you want to have a little tantrum about a less important value is bad.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:26 AM
0

Mens abortion is a financial abortion. They already leave the mother to deal with the actual responsibility. I didn't say I don't believe that men should have that choice, merely that believing they are equal in importance is ludicrous.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:22 AM
-1

What an insanely ignorant thing to say.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 01:22 AM
0

Financial abortion rights are objectively less important. I'd love to hear a single argument in opposition to that. Men are +/- 50% of the population. Trans people are <1%. The amount of people it affects matters not.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 01:21 AM
-7

Then you'd just be lying. Abortion rights solves the issue for men on those circumstances. Had these problems for decades, but clearly not prevalent enough to change any laws, vote for any legislation or anything substantial in the main stream at all.
/r/MensRights24/06/22 10:17 PM
-10

You might consider it petty, but it's a big issue for many thousands of men. A "pretty big" issue for thousands of men when abortion rights affect millions of women. It is 100% petty.
/r/MensRights24/06/22 09:27 PM
1

This and your other comment just don't comprehend anything I've said. Try again.
/r/MensRights20/06/22 06:42 AM
1

So you fundamentally don't understand the usage of the insult.
/r/MensRights20/06/22 03:25 AM
0

I'm gonna say you have to have a pretty twisted sense of the discourse if you believe incel to be a insult based on a mans ability to have sex and that being a value judgement. The insult is directed at men that blame women for their inability to have sex with them, that's predominantly how it's been used since it transformation from self identifier to insult. Like people who are actually involuntarily celibate, but don't take their anger out on women, wouldn't be called incels, you understand t…
/r/MensRights20/06/22 01:44 AM
1

Now I really have to question whether or not you read the post.
/r/MensRights20/06/22 01:22 AM
1

Feels like I'm taking crazy pills at this point, having read the post 5 fucking times.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 11:45 PM
1

Irony, I wrote out the justification for my position. You're either unable or unwilling to entertain it, but what's more is you say it's calling a blue sky orange. Well guess what, if you're in a different position on the earth, the sky is actually orange. So maybe, engage with the topic, or slither back to your mums basement.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 11:29 PM
2

That's what I thought, zero critical engagement with the topic, just a salty incel
/r/MensRights19/06/22 10:37 PM
-4

That's all you're doing when you call someone an incel. Nope. Calling someone an incel has absolutely nothing to do with placing a mans value in his ability to get sex. Calling someone an incel is calling out them being a piece of shit because THEY ARE PLACING A WOMANS VALUE ONLY IN SEX. Foreplay is quite literally reciprocating sex for most women. You're fundamentally looking at the situation incorrectly. As it stands straight sex is women : 0 /man : 1, introduce foreplay on the womans behalf a…
/r/MensRights19/06/22 09:29 PM
-1

Either you don't understand what foreplay is... or you're so inexperienced with sex that your opinions about it are invalid.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 09:17 PM
-11

Maybe read my comment, it's a lot shorter than the post you clearly didn't comprehend. Incels are bad for mensrights, stay mad.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 07:48 PM
-9

Basically you want foreplay about you and sex about you, crazy dude.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 07:46 PM
-19

This is just incel talk. A lot of women don't and never will cum from penetrative sex, it has nothing to do with them being "entitled" to forplay. It's about being a half decent lover and making sure they have as good of time as you do.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 07:21 PM
4

What actually hurts "real" victims of DV is defending Amber Heard.
/r/MensRights25/05/22 07:15 PM
1

Have you seen the drivel they post in the news? Something like this with any shred of evidence would be picked up easily.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 05:17 AM
1

Not a counter against what I said. Because you haven't said anything substantive. Not mutually incompatible. As I said, I sensed hypocrisy on you, and I was right, if it was just a random anecdote I'd not have responded to you. The only hypocrisy is you, here calling anecdote. "You don't follow your own points because I say so" You've aid the same exact whinge to an extremely easy to follow line of discussion 3 times now. I discredited and called you that on your points being made, not because o…
/r/MensRights14/05/22 05:16 AM
1

No, you went to the bottom of a thread and replied 3 comments deep. You didn't also question the posts anecdote. You specifically came to argue against the counter anecdote. Of course I'm mad, though I'd say mostly annoyed, (though informally is used as a synonym) annoyed at your attempts at loop, twisting the meaning of words and going in circles. You implying it is because of ignorance is a non-demonstrable behavioral hypothesis. This is frankly just you not being able to follow your own discu…
/r/MensRights14/05/22 04:36 AM
1

Could question it, but didn't. Nah you're definitely mad, otherwise you wouldn’t be using an ad hominem every comment. Yes this post is bait. It play into bias, it removes the situation from users lived experience, and it's outrageous enough that if true warrants response. It doesn't foster actual discussion about a tangible provable men's rights issue. It's purely a hate post.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 03:36 AM
1

My intention from the start was to question the validity of the post, and rebut anecdotes with my own. This sub has a major problem with bait posts like this one. If you're to ignorant to question them, atleast you can die mad about me doing it.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 02:36 AM
1

I'm questioning **your*** intention of denying the anecdote... fucking hell. Maybe you should read it yourself before making that comment.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 01:19 AM
1

The intention wasn't to deny the anecdote, it was to deny the anecdote, got it. Thanks for playing.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 01:12 AM
1

No, it's continuing to question the intention behind denying the anecdote. My bias lies with what evidence can provide. Their claim requires there be evidence, my claim is merely renouncing their anecdotes with my own.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 01:07 AM
1

Not moving the goal posts at all. You questioned my anecdote, but didn't the OP. That's bias from the get go.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 12:54 AM
1

So, did you question the OP
/r/MensRights14/05/22 12:44 AM
1

Which then you fall back to evidence. There is zero evidence to prove this is even mildly the cause.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 12:33 AM
2

If you discount anecdotes, then by necessity you have to discount both. Bias dictates my downvotes, not logical thought process. The quality I have on my side is there should be evidence to support their claim. I've reached out to other dads about this and found no evidence of this type of thing occurring. This is victim mentality myth, using an Australian example to throw off Americans lived experience
/r/MensRights13/05/22 10:56 PM
1

No, it just doesn't happen as stated in the post. There would be news stories, public outrage etc. I have a fuckload of personal experience as well.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 08:26 PM
3

Because it's clearly a fake post dude.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 07:57 PM
0

Somewhere else in life.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 07:48 PM
-2

Crazy there would be statistics about being mugged, just like this person would have news stories about them specifically. "I'm an MRA so I only believe anecdotes that confirm my bias and never question their validity even if the another comes along with actual experience in the exact same situation." Go be a victim somewhere else.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 07:43 PM
-2

This is not appealing to ignorance. I have been a father in Australia for almost 13 years. Take my children to the park usually at least once a fortnight, and quite literally nothing like this has happened. I've done the mums groups, I've done the kids parties, done the play groups, all of that. You are so ready to believe the victimisation of a father you'll ignore a second peice of anecdotal evidence. If this post is true, it would be in the millionth percentile of unlikely experiences.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 07:40 PM
-35

This is 100% fake. I'm also in Aus, I've done all the exact same things in backwards country towns and cities alike. Not a single time has anyone done this. Don't fall for extremely obvious bait and make yourself look like an idiot that believes this bullshit.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 01:32 PM
0

Your definition is alarming, but I guess you can just replace "feminist" with "people who call themselves feminists but actually aren't" when reading our arguments then. How exactly is it alarming. They were quite related to men's status as a "privileged group" as far as I'm concerned, and the one that literally painted women having privileges as no different from them being equal to men and them NOT having a privilege over men being painted as discrimination against women shows an example of th…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 11:08 PM
1

I'm confused. Are you saying all people who claim to be feminists but aren't for gender equality aren't real feminists, in a No True Scotsman kind of way? I'd argue actual egalitarian feminists to move on from the title. Even I dislike the title MRA because I do not wish to associate with MRA's who are actually misogynist. Similar to the NTS, it's a bad faith stance. If a "feminist" makes a misandrist claim. You simply appeal to equality and disregard their position of a feminist. They're exposi…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 10:29 PM
1

I'm not demonizing women in the slightest (and I do not associate feminism with women), and while not all men's problems are caused by feminism, so many of them are completely ignored, suppressed, and encouraged by the feminist movement. This is just patently false. The ideals of feminism start from the basis of equality, you can unilaterally ignore anything someone says that doesn't align with that. "Oh you want men to still be circumcised" oh well, guess you aren't a feminist then. move on I p…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 07:32 PM
-10

Opposite in fact. I support Men's Rights. I just don't do it in a way that demonises women or blames all of men's problems on the big scary feminism. Your comment is. You cherry picked issues that aren't men vs women in nature and are skipping huge swathes of context for affirmative action programs. Affirmative actions can be qualified as equality based policy. But you see it as unequal, because you assume that preferences are sexist. This is you, seeing equality from a point of privilege and ca…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 02:39 AM
-11

You can see it in action!
/r/MensRights10/05/22 12:20 AM
-12

Careful with that kinda of link around here, the irony will mostly be lost.
/r/MensRights09/05/22 07:48 PM
0

Seems like a perfect analogy, seeing as you gave the same answer I would. The scale and severity of reproduction rights lands at very different points for women vs men when compared to voting rights. Voting rights are within reason, identical between races and sexes.
/r/MensRights09/05/22 04:07 AM
1

It's legitimately like you can't understand this. If you have 10 starving kids, and a kkk member walks in and says to you, I'll give you food, but only for the white kids. Are you going to say no to the food.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 11:44 PM
1

Do you just blatantly not understand this premise or what. Some being able to vote is better than none. The some being a specific race is racist, but the outcome of more people voting is objectively better than no one voting.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 10:38 PM
1

There is no bigotry. You said. No one can vote, and then only whites can. Is it ideal, no. Is it racist, yes. Is it *better than no one being able to vote. YES. It's not racist to believe that more people being able to vote is better than no one being able.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 07:45 PM
-1

Aka, you don't actually have a reason.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 07:42 PM
-6

So you truly don't believe those words can be used to describe anything?
/r/MensRights08/05/22 10:46 AM
-7

... Because you've engaged with too many bad faith feminists, or your own bias can't imagine someone using the terms could be in good faith. Would be good to have an understand what it is for you that makes those words lose their meaning. If you're unable, or unwilling to accept the terms have legitimate uses, then you're probably just burnt out and need a break from MRA rhetoric.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 09:42 AM
-1

Another MRA blocked me because they can't rationalize their own opinions. People here need to harden up, jesus.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 06:09 AM
-1

You would rather no one has rights than only some people? What's wrong with you?
/r/MensRights08/05/22 12:34 AM
-2

The example is the draft can be dodged without felon charges, meanwhile becoming a felon even if you leave state yo get an abortion is a very real thing.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 12:34 AM
-1

Bite me feminazis Lmao, prove them right for banning you, well done.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 11:35 PM
-2

Well, it's literally not denying them the right to vote, as the starting point is no one can vote. Going from 0 to 1. For whites, while bad in aggregate, would be better than not doing it. But you know, no one can vote, so you can't do anything about it democratically already.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 09:33 PM
-1

That's avoiding the draft. Not making yourself unselectable. Remember the bone spurs.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 09:29 PM
1

Not a single person is pretending labor is perfect, merely stating the objective reality that they are better.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 10:50 AM
-1

If abortion is illegal, women how exercise their bodily autonomy are felons. If you exercise yours by making yourself un-selectable. You don't become a felon.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 10:39 AM
0

Nah you don't get to tell half the population you'll only fight for what is objectively correct if you get yours too.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 10:38 AM
-1

Which are they denying merely by supporting a women's right to choose.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 10:37 AM
0

Trying to get people more emotionally invested in a current problem isn't a bad thing. You coming into her statements with baggage and being mad about it isn't her problem. Even the draft isn't comparable to forced birth, to suggest it is, would be dishonest.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 03:39 AM
1

No, you're just not supposed to latch on and try to make it your own thing like a pathetic leech. Makes you sound like children screaming about not getting the lime light, when for most of the public this issue is already extremely divisive.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 03:24 AM
-2

Except that's not what is happening.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 02:52 AM
-6

Exceptions don't break the rule.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:27 AM
-7

There isn't hypocrisy in supporting prochoice. Right now, is just not the time to whataboutism the abortion issue.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:25 AM
-15

Except... all the "law makers" are men that decide to inact it. The women that believe it bible belt crazies. This sub bringing up abortion rights is just super ignorant. It can only lead to a worse view of MRAs. Support their right to choose, then continue to push for equivalency among the sexes with reproductive rights. Stop voting for conservatives or you'll get the opportunity to do neither.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 07:35 PM
6

A prenup is for.. before the marriage. So unless you have crazy amounts of wealth and then stop earning money after the marriage, they effectively do nothing for the average person.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 06:49 AM
1

Keating For you to even think this is a talking point in your favor is a Murdock talking point.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 08:54 PM
2

Saying this kinda shit makes men's lives worse. I'll take fake support for feminism over strict gender roles any day of the week.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 08:24 AM
2

"Gone feminist big time" yea dude like I said. Get off the internet. Engage with politics in real life. It's buzz words that get clipped and shipped into your brain by Murdock to make you think this way. Labor has proven its economic supremacy. There is a singular thing in Australian politics that the libs have done ; the gst. And they managed to male sure that hurt lower incomes as well. Everything else we have is because of the Labor party. With more health and education cuts coming in AN ELEC…
/r/MensRights29/04/22 07:00 PM
1

"This stuff" is insignificant. Get off the internet. The liberal party has objectively made the lives of Australians worse.
/r/MensRights29/04/22 12:09 AM
1

That isn't bigotry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/22 12:19 PM
1

perceived ARE objectionable. The rest of your comment is drivel, maximum white male victim complex in action.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/22 11:33 AM
1

This is just false. The right enforces strict masculinity roles that lead to suicide and reducing a man's value to his ability to earn money.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/22 02:13 AM
0

I'm not sure how you can actually not agree with this. The right is clearly further from the norm than the left is currently.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/22 12:58 AM
-1

In this context, louder is more abrasive, futher out from the norm, more total volume and increasingly abusive towards other specific people.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/22 11:00 PM
0

.... I literally said them being banned more was because they're louder. They're more cancelled because they're louder. Not specifically because they're right wing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/22 08:03 PM
4

Yep, the libs sure have made this place worse.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 07:00 PM
1

They subscribed directly to UAP. Arguably worse than any manosphere types. Of course they were fed that content.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 07:00 PM
-2

Then you're just mistaken. Lefties were also being "cancelled" crazy coincidence the right just have louder crazies
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/22 07:08 AM
1

It seems to be .
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/22 06:40 AM
1

I'm not sure you could substantiate that previous owners of Twitter were "the woke"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/22 08:06 PM
1

No, you're just assuming people say "oh those mras are misogynists" No, they come here and see misogyny and then rebut it. The vast majority of heavily downvoted posts in this sub, are saying accurate things that merely go against the narrative that is bred here.
/r/MensRights25/04/22 07:52 PM
-1

And that's how people become racist, they think people are racist because of logical reasoning and "hear them out" nah dude they just hate other races. I'm here, because shocker. I care about men's rights. But unlike a lot of people here, I'm not willing to lie about statistics or hate women.
/r/MensRights25/04/22 03:18 AM
-7

When you're spouting super ignorant things there's not much point to hear you out. You don't "hear out" a racist. So when a feminist comes here about 80% of the rhetoric here is already not worth being heard.
/r/MensRights24/04/22 11:32 PM
-13

Nah, this sub is just very very echo chambered in a lot of things. If you can imagine feminists looking at every problem through their idea of feminism but then turn around and do the same but with misandry. You're not engaging in an objective discussion, you're engaging in victim mentality.
/r/MensRights24/04/22 11:06 PM
1

You are almost certainly not as likely to be killed by a wealthy person as a poor one. Wealthy people can afford taxis / ubers. Usually smarter and less likely to do stupid shit. Regardless of the sheer numerical difference between rich and poor people. At best this is a "Think of the children" moral policy. But it just punishes individuals instead of actually directly helping. Imagine two kids, both their mums are dead. But one gets 1k a week because some ceo did it, vs someone that gets 20c a …
/r/MensRights22/04/22 10:53 PM
54

Seems a bit weird not to just have a standardized payout as part of the damages caused.
/r/MensRights22/04/22 01:14 PM
1

This is the biggest self own I've ever seen on this sub, lmao.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 07:24 AM
-5

The child support formula isn't based on what it actually costs to raise the child though. It is a formula based directly on your income. High-income men can easily be paying 10k+ per month in child support. Kirk Kerkorian was paying 100k/month for a kid that wasn't biologically his. Wealthier people spend more on their children + the breaking of a marriage especially in regards to higher earning men would result in much larger discrepancies for the mother of the children. In reality, most child…
/r/MensRights08/04/22 06:18 AM
-3

Child support isn't a part of "your shit" it's literally to pay for costs associated with children. Men receive custody when they ask for it.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 04:00 AM
-10

I mean who gets to lose half their shit once divorced? I mean, both people lose access to half their stuff, you framing it as only the man losing half of "their shit" is super shitty. The tweet is pretty silly, bit you saying you like to look at things from both sides, and then making this comment, no you don't.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 01:18 AM
17

It's just used badly. Like we can probably agree to someform of white privilege. But the homeless white veteran doesn't have the capacity to benefit from it. Both sex and race are dwarfed by wealth in terms of privilege to the point, as far as I'm concerned. Neither are significant.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/04/22 10:23 PM
-7

Annnnd, bullshit. You have to be out of touch with reality right wing to actually believe this drivel.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:55 AM
0

No. They won't. You're just repeating the way fourth-wave feminists have repurposed the phrase "sex-positive" to mean its exact opposite. 100% they will. Sex positivity is about breaking down the social barriers when discussing sex and making sex less of a taboo topic. Things like sexual education in regards to consent, birth control and even kinks etc are the primary concerns for actual sex positive people/ movement. You bastardising the term to fit your view is dishonest and frankly pathetic. …
/r/MensRights02/04/22 04:53 AM
0

Your analysis is super shallow. Sex positive people will be way more opposed to drunk sex than sex negative people. You actually view this completely the wrong way. Your prescription leads to more rape, if you don't understand the basis of this, then there's no point continuing the discussion.
/r/MensRights02/04/22 01:57 AM
0

The entire business model of a strip club or casino is getting their customers drunk so they make bad decisions. And I'm sure those mobile games know that a whole lot of their whales are alcoholics. This just makes me think you have no idea what you're talking about. There's not a single instance of this entire situation where the drunk person is making all the choices and claiming they were raped. It's ludicrous to imply that or even defend that as being the norm. If there's a woman bent over w…
/r/MensRights02/04/22 12:35 AM
2

Because all those examples are YOU making a bad decision. Not someone else using your intoxication to push you towards or force you to male a choice you wouldn't do. The outside factor is the problem. That's why you can't sign contracts drunk and why you can't legally consent to sex while drunk, the possibility of the other party taking advantage create an ethical mine field of which removing it would cause more harm.
/r/MensRights01/04/22 11:44 PM
1

Your prescriptions lead to plausible denialability for drunk rape. Your perception of everyone's decision making skills while drunk being based on your experience is dangerous at best. It's infinitely better to have a default of it being bad/wrong/illegal so victims have recourse to their attackers, male or female. If you're unable to not be drunk then that's on you, not on society to fix.
/r/MensRights01/04/22 10:58 PM
-5

She didn't and she wouldn't. Unless there is another article there is no mention of rape. While also assuming the "story" is true, then she was led to believe one thing and another occurred, it wouldn't be far from reality to have that feel like an alien body. It's almost like you just want to hate on these women because of the brain dead takes on masculinity (which are never rebutted btw). So instead of arguing against the narrative they promote, you just call them names and question the validi…
/r/MensRights30/03/22 10:55 AM
1

"We selected CNY because they agreed we would be able to select female embryos," As per the article they were either led to believe that it was possible, or they're lying about being told that. So the claim that they make "They were promised something and didn't receive it" Is the relevant piece of information. Whether what they were promised is possible or not, IS irrelevant if they can prove they were promised it anyway.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 10:51 AM
0

Or, perhaps, you could read the article which clearly says ​ "He’s an innocent being, he didn’t deserve any of this. The clinic messed with something so integral: our baby’s first formative years. That’s the reason I am doing this — because I love my kid so much. We think our son deserved that bond from the start," said Heather.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 10:01 AM
-1

Then it's just a wasted law suit. Again, irrelevant.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 09:59 AM
-22

Completely legitimate. If you're told one thing and receive another then it would be a breach of contract. Their reasons being dogshit are irrelevant.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 06:17 AM
0

Agree with the overall speil, but women 100% do get told things in a similar vein. "Real women want children" "Real women wouldn't be manly" Etc etc, this type of gendered stereotyping happens across the board.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 05:23 AM
1

Nope. All I'm doing is not defending people that make feminists look better.
/r/MensRights10/03/22 06:22 AM
1

Then you fundamentally don't understand why they're being irrational in the first place.
/r/MensRights10/03/22 05:59 AM
1

Because they're being irrational and if you don't mock people for irrational behaviour it becomes normalised which contributes to negative behaviour in the future.
/r/MensRights10/03/22 05:16 AM
1

Again, seeing as you seem to hard of reading. Aggressively defensive.
/r/MensRights10/03/22 04:23 AM
1

As stated in the original comment you replied to. Because they are being aggressively defensive about it. It's very different between someone that says like "wow guys that's not cool" and "Fuck you I am a man, not that gay shit wahh wahh wahh"
/r/MensRights10/03/22 03:25 AM
1

used to mock men who are upset about being misgendered Yep, as it should. or when the person using the term feels a man is being too overt in display of masculinity. This is just flat out not the case ever. Toxic masculinity, sometimes, fragility, no. What you're thinking of is when people are accused for compensating through displays that then act like a child when accused.
/r/MensRights10/03/22 02:39 AM
4

It's very difficult to "debunk" the claim of a pay gap. The figure of men's earnings vs women's earnings is about 80% before taking variables into account. So depending on which bullets they bites which variables they're willing to entertain etc, you'll have a large variance of success convincing someone it doesn't exist. The more important discussion truly lies in why it exists, what we can do to improve it or if we need to at all. A simple example I try to lead with is; It's already illegal to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/22 12:02 AM
0

If I had to guess... Male Fragility XD
/r/MensRights09/03/22 07:08 PM
-2

All this and you still don't seem to grasp that it's the reaction to masculinity being criticized, not insecurity being criticized
/r/MensRights09/03/22 10:54 AM
-6

but it need not be a tantrum or otherwise inappropriate in order to be fragile masculinity. I fundementally disagree with this take, The only time I've ever seen it used (and not laughed at itself) is when men are just being salty about it. If the man is less masculine than average, or less masculine than ideal, then they will be more likely to feel stung. That very much sounds like a them problem. Because again. It's not their masculinity being insulted and them reacting, it's the ideal of masc…
/r/MensRights09/03/22 09:33 AM
-4

No, they do all the time. Just like most men. They just don't get defensive about it. You definitely should judge people for being aggressive about their insecurities. There exists a world where having your masculinity questioned doesn't make you have a tantrum, and that world is ours. People make that choice, and it makes them look even worse...
/r/MensRights09/03/22 08:59 AM
-9

I feel like you and the OP misunderstand the term male fragility.. It's not insulting people that show weakness, it's people that are aggressively defensive when their masculinity is questioned. It would actually be a trait of toxic masculinity.
/r/MensRights09/03/22 08:18 AM
2

Never seen someone say it doesn't exist. Merely that it's a social contruct. That doesn't mean something doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights08/03/22 02:13 AM
1

Lmao no. It's just not logically consistent with the accepted definition and you refuse to learn. You very clearly do not understand consent, you have shown this multiple times and continue down this same line, that does not apply to sexual consent. This will be my last comment, if you'd like to, just read my comments again. Because they're all the same, you just can't understand a relatively simple concept.
/r/MensRights07/03/22 08:37 AM
1

Because it's not related to the sex. It's a relationship/emotional trust breakage. If they knowingly have an STI then you may have more cause. But infidelity isn't an argument that can be made. It directly shows you don't understand consent.
/r/MensRights07/03/22 07:40 AM
1

That's not a personal attack. At no point have you shown an understanding of consent, you continually push the "what if they want a relationship" and still think that being unfaithful, inside a monogamous relationship is breaking sexual consent barriers. You're either ignorant to the topic, or wilfully trying to derail it as a cover for your opposition to the premise.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 06:39 PM
0

Lmao. It doesn't fit the definition you just think it does, as you don't understand consent.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 11:31 AM
0

Do you not understand consent at all? "Don't cheat and I consent to you having sex with me" isn't about the sex, it's not even close to the same ball park. The action being post sex is an important difference though. Stealthing is an agreement to do something during sex. The agreement is before sex takes place. Nope. Stealthing is breaking an agreement made before sex. How far do you take an agreement to do something after sex? What about an agreement to get married in the future, with "future" …
/r/MensRights06/03/22 11:22 AM
1

Monogamy isn't intrinsically tied to marriage. So no actually they're not Explicit. They also are to do with relationship, not sex. The agreement was made before. Yes, the consent is conditional on that payment. As was agreed before sex was started. That isn't a "future action" the agreement happened before sex. That is all that matters in regards to this example.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 11:05 AM
2

It's not a competition.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 08:31 AM
2

Source? There's absolutely no reason to spread this type of ridiculous bullshit. This type of rhetoric is why MRAs turn into incels, and then on top of that, why people laugh at MRAs.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 04:13 AM
2

If you'd care to actually look at the definitions I'm sure there are sub contexts to rape that include it. But the surface level use of the word is a description of non consensual sexual assault or sexual intercourse. No wonder you think people are changing the meaning. You don't even understand what it means.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 01:46 AM
2

I gave you the definition before. Rape is sexual assault or intercourse without consent. Nothing to do with bodily harm.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:50 PM
2

And yet, you said, consent was established when she agreed to have sex. You can apply that same bad logic to the condom. So yes, what you are doing does encourage stealthing. So... stop that. If you can't break the condom analogy, then you saying this is theft instead of rape is unilaterally objectifying the woman and removing her agency. In this situation. No payment means no consent. Intercourse without consent is defined as rape.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:32 PM
2

You are encouraging stealthing with your logic. The continuity of the consent is created on the original promise of payment.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:58 PM
2

It's not tied to future behaviour. The agreement sex for money was before the sex happened. The assumption of monogamy isn't tangible enough for a violation of consent.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:55 PM
2

Then you have logically found that infidelity leads to rape. Or, you can rationally conclude that the assumption of monogamy isn't a consistent boundary that if broken warrants consent violation. Especially as that assumption in and if itself can be ill-defined and also fabricated. Unlike tangible material objects, like money, condoms and assholes.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:53 PM
2

Consent given was conditional upon the agreed payment. As no payment was made, consent was never established.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:49 PM
2

The consent is contingent on payment. No payment, no consent. No consent, rape.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 08:08 PM
2

Not twisting anything at all. The sex was only consented to because payment was there. Without payment, no consent was given.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 08:07 PM
1

Without the money, consent was never actually given. The timeline is quite simple. M; sex for money please. SW; yes, I will have sex with you for payment. M; excellent let's have sex SW; sex transaction complete money now. M; see ya bitch SW; raped. Material objects mean it exists, instead of your "intimacy" failure of an argument.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:51 PM
2

No, she consented to being paid for sex. Changing your mind after sex isn't breaking consent... you can't go back in time and change it. The sex worker didn't change it, it was the same from the start. Payment = sex. Without payment the entire situation was unconsensual. You're acting like a child with your examples here.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:47 PM
1

Incorrect. Money is a material object, it wasn't an expectation it was a requirement, much like the condom would be. Idgaf what other people argue, I'm not. Using someone else's argument to argue against to try and make yours look better is pathetic. I gave you a definition before. The definition hasn't changed, just the general understanding of consent. Something men, just as much as women need to fully understand.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:20 PM
2

Rape is a word to convey sexual assault or sexual intercourse that happens without consent. Breaking consent in a sexual situation = rape. You're the one putting the weight behind it and letting emotion dictate your reaction to it's usage. Then you double down and get upset that situations you most likely have been a part of can be considered rape. When talking about the technical applications of a descriptive word, there isn't a reason to be this cagey about it's use.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:12 PM
3

An expectation of intimacy is not a barrier of consent. Lying about being on birth control is also rape. Stop fighting imaginary enemies.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:08 PM
2

Knowingly having an STI and having unprotected sex with someone would probably fall under technical rape yes. Being unfaithful isn't, the difference being that it isn't directly related to tangible consent of the action, whereas both the condom and the payment of the other situation are directly related.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:06 PM
1

It is not rape! If a woman says she’ll “blow” the guy, then decides she doesn’t want to and just rides him, is she a “rapist”? Of course not! If the guy says he only wants a BJ then she proceeds to climb on, yes this is rape. This garbage is so “#metoo”. So Mary Koss. So totally lacking in any sense of proportion. The guy “cheated” the prostitute. He did not “rape” her. Are you going to claim that if a guy has sex with a girl, and she hopes that there may be a relationship then she’s a rape vict…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 12:56 PM
3

Your example doesn't align with the original premise. The sex worker agreed to have sex, with the expectation that payment would be exchanged. Payment was not exchanged, and therefore the consent was broken. Technically that would be rape. A closer example I would levy, would be a condom. A man and a woman plan to have sex, and the woman explains that she will only continue with the expectation that a condom is worn the entire time. If the man takes it off, and she doesn't realize until afterwar…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:16 AM
-26

Block people you're to scared of talking to. Great work. Incel.
/r/MensRights04/03/22 09:01 PM
2

Yep, whinge, bitch, cry wahh wahh wahh. But this is the current system. You want systematic changes that bring more equality then great, push for those. But for now, understand that the reason that the child custody is the way it is, in part is due to those things, and forcing it to be different at that point is doing more harm. The easiest way to change it is to encourage men to take a larger role in their children's lives. If you don't understand the reason for the bias existing in the first p…
/r/MensRights23/02/22 06:49 PM
0

Oh look, strawmaning already. If you care about the children, then you would seek to have the arrangement that gives them the best life, no? Just because you're salty at paying your ex-wife doesn't make their lives better if you fight it. The funny part is, if you take a more active role in your children's lives, a more favourable custody agreement would be extremely easy to get.
/r/MensRights23/02/22 01:38 AM
0

To hold this opinion you're placing the money the father makes higher than the children's well being. There's no reason the default shouldn't be to start with a continuation of the current set-up and change it as time goes on. People such as yourself not understand the basics of why men get custody less only foster a negative view of women, instead of working with them to achieve the best outcomes for children of divorce.
/r/MensRights23/02/22 01:30 AM
-5

Just because you don't understand the statement, doesn't really mean anything. If you're fighting for 50/50 which would be the ideal norm, but you've never lifted a proverbial finger until the divorce and custody hearing, then in reality you are taking the children out of their current situation and changing it dramatically. Divorce, already being hard on children. Keeping their main routines similar would be a goal for a judge to take into account.
/r/MensRights22/02/22 10:04 AM
-2

It's not dishonest at all? If children spend 90% of the time with a single parent, and the other 10% time with both of them, the goal of the custody agreement would be to continue that trend.
/r/MensRights22/02/22 09:34 AM
-5

"women are usually the primary caretakers of children" This is more important to a judge than all of that. The reason it costs so much is that it takes that much effort to fight an uphill battle taking the children away from their primary carer. Look at cases where they shared the parental load more 50/50 or they both worked etc, Custody is much more even.
/r/MensRights22/02/22 08:23 AM
3

Not to doubt your story, but I had a run of similar "exploding" condoms. I bought them new within a week of usage, and brought them myself to the occasions. That 2% does happen, and if you don't notice (or choose not to) and it's bad timing, then you get lucky. I don't think it's healthy to focus on what very much could have been a defective condom.
/r/MensRights21/02/22 07:44 AM
1

What, you don't want to cherry pick data sets and sources so you can assume plausible deniability when called out for slut shaming?
/r/MensRights20/02/22 01:20 AM
4

If only it was easy to seperate that self help, from all the other stuff he incorporates into his entire schpiel.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/22 06:45 PM
-13

Lmao, aight dude. Nice troll then. Ya got me.
/r/MensRights12/02/22 02:23 PM
-14

Lumping them together and calling Red Pillers misogynistic for highlighting women’s double standards and abuse of their privilege while playing victims is intellectually lazy and weak. No one does this. Red pillers are called misogynistic because they infantilize women and distill their "biologicals desires" into black cock hungry sluts. "Red Pillers" are actually misogynistic, to defend them otherwise is willfully ingoring pretty much their entire point of existence. Red Pillers are simply awar…
/r/MensRights12/02/22 01:36 PM
0

A quarter of people who decide against fertility treatment have a partner who would rather keep trying to conceive naturally, according to a study. How is this not a problem that should be addressed?
/r/MensRights24/01/22 09:59 AM
1

Hence "responsibilities" in my comment.
/r/MensRights23/01/22 03:04 AM
1

For that to happen, the bare minimum is that someone provides facts. So far, one single person has done this.
/r/MensRights21/01/22 07:48 AM
2

I gladly will, amazing it took so long to provide it. Pretty sad situation, the tweets don't help the case though, lmao.
/r/MensRights21/01/22 07:33 AM
1

This comment and your other show you're unable to engage with a question and are only here to whinge.
/r/MensRights21/01/22 07:28 AM
1

Why wasn't it a good idea?
/r/MensRights21/01/22 06:10 AM
23

"The Default should be to not have the baby" Umm, no? That would be infringing on the womans rights. The default could be the father gives up parental rights / responsibilities. But not to have the fetus be terminated against the mothers will.
/r/MensRights21/01/22 05:54 AM
-7

"These FDS people", does questioning an unsourced post scare you that much?
/r/MensRights21/01/22 05:49 AM
-16

Uhhh, both articles listed say something along the lines of "marital rape has been a hot topic lately" now some men are performing a marriage strike. All I want is a source or article about the marriage strike. If you can't provide that, why keep replying?
/r/MensRights21/01/22 05:12 AM
0

Actual martial rape is not the issue. Hence why providing a source to show evidence of that is important. You can't claim someone is making a mens issue into a womens issue without providing the sources to back up that it is actually a mens issue.
/r/MensRights21/01/22 04:37 AM
-19

Yes, both articles linked there used the phrase marital rape as the reasoning behind the marriage strike.
/r/MensRights21/01/22 04:35 AM
-34

Have any sources to refute their sources? As so far your post is... women don't want to be forced to have sex to their husband (raped) why are women like this?!?
/r/MensRights21/01/22 04:03 AM
1

How exactly is that a personal attack
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/22 12:28 AM
1

Where?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/22 12:01 AM
0

Lmao, nah that's not how this works. You're the one making the source claim, you have yet to provide evidence to support your claim.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/22 10:00 PM
-1

Have you not been paying attention? That's part of the reason why it is so toxic, as men we trap ourselves, and our sons into a cycle of attitudes that don't help us, and in and of itself makes it so we're unable to learn why it doesn't help, as part of the entire thing is being unable to accept help. It sounds like you either need to go and read what actual men's activists say about toxic masculinity or maybe just take a look at yourself, your surroundings etc and recognise that just because so…
/r/MensRights20/01/22 12:49 PM
-2

Sure hypergamy is a thing, but that macho "don't show you're in pain" is pressed upon men by fathers and peers way more than women. That's just a reality of growing up sadly.
/r/MensRights20/01/22 10:11 AM
0

Are you giving me an example of toxic masculinity? None of those things are required by those jobs, and "unconditional physical toughness" wtf is that?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/22 10:08 AM
-1

Physical aggression and competitive behavior are two wildly different things, You can't really express displeasure at people pointing to prone to violence as toxic masculinity and fall back to the safe area of "being competitive". Again with your second point, if you are to claim that "toxic masculinity" defeated the nazis then you have to accept that it also created the nazis? Typical things that would be considered as Toxic Masculinity would be things like Not going to the doctor "because you'…
/r/MensRights20/01/22 09:15 AM
-3

None of these three in general are used as examples of toxic masculinity, I would require you provide evidence of this, otherwise your assertion is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights20/01/22 09:07 AM
-4

Spoken like someone that has never engaged with the premises of Toxic masculinity deeper than being offended by it's use. The behavior of people can be toxic You're so close, yes a behavior can be toxic, and guess what? When that behavior is emboldened in society amongst men specifically, that doesn't make calling out the behavior misandrist. human beings that their natural identity Go and find a single aspect of Toxic masculinity that is "natural" It's quite literally all socially reinforced be…
/r/MensRights20/01/22 08:05 AM
-2

Can you name a single toxic masculine trait that is required to preform any of the roles you listed at the end of your rant?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/22 08:51 AM
1

its best to have balanced care arrangements. Source? Afaik the childs life outside of the divorce being affected the least is what is actually best for them emotionally (same house, same primary carer, etc)
/r/MensRights19/01/22 08:47 AM
1

Feminists protest against equal retirement age in Switzerland Where in that article do you gleam this headline from? No where is it mentioned at all.
/r/MensRights19/01/22 02:21 AM
4

That's precisely what acknowledging their bias is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/22 01:42 AM
5

While this is generally a good idea, you have to aware of bias from others because even if they agree with certain points, their end goals may be completely different to your own, sometimes even antithetical.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/22 01:23 AM
1

Using specifically bachelor degrees feels extremely dishonest. A trade is roughly equal to a BA in terms of earning potential, especially early on. Never seems to include those numbers though, does it.
/r/MensRights11/01/22 07:12 AM
0

Driving is zero skill, boring af. Driving with adhd without stimulation is dangerous.
/r/MensRights09/01/22 06:45 PM
2

If this sub agrees with a headline they will never accept any form of context. This stat is one of the best examples of this. So many times its been brought up and it's the same. Way down in the comments someone question's the validity. Down voted to hell, and insulted.
/r/MensRights06/01/22 07:42 PM
0

Most people don't read the article.. that's the problem.
/r/MensRights02/01/22 11:49 PM
-6

You could probably start by reading the article, and then finding zero mention of excusing her actions. Unlike the OP, who found the most tenuous example they could and weaved an entire narrative from it.
/r/MensRights02/01/22 07:27 AM
-9

Nothing, not even your cherry picked stretch of an example goes even close to excusing her of her actions. Wanting the "clients" of a woman like this to be brought to justice is the more important thing to focus on.
/r/MensRights02/01/22 04:39 AM
4

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rt7tel/z/hqs52h3
/r/MensRights01/01/22 12:12 PM
-3

Aka, you can't prove it. You're choosing feelings. Observable reality is biased by your inability to see women as equals.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 12:06 PM
-4

Prove a single thing you said.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 09:26 AM
-8

This is some major incel type BS, this being positive votes is a disappointment to MRAs and indicative of the grievances reddit has with this sub.
/r/MensRights01/01/22 09:11 AM
-28

You can't argue against strawmen with actual evidence, gees you'll scare the MRAs
/r/MensRights30/12/21 11:08 AM
1

As in "in the view of the state", which is why fathers losing their rights in that regard is an issue.
/r/MensRights25/12/21 10:30 AM
1

Yea, actually you should. Abandonment without fathers consent is a pretty big issue for menrights. In reality though, a woman abandoning a child is actually both parents giving up rights to the child and handing it to the state. Neither parent can just do that and expect not to pay child support to the other.
/r/MensRights25/12/21 10:08 AM
1

After its born leaving is bad, yes. Male "abortion" rights are different to leaving a child.
/r/MensRights25/12/21 09:45 AM
1

I know the stats about your claims. They're weak at best, and things are irrelevant because they're not related to the discussion, you're just filling the void with useless information.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 10:14 PM
1

Nope. Not a single time did I do that.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 10:13 PM
1

Ooh Sexism alert there. If women are regarded as primary caregivers...they shouldn't be out there shouting feminism. They're not regarded as primary care givers, they literally are, in the majority of cases... Do you also believe women should have shorter or no sentences cus they are primary caregivers? Irrelevant? Men are more than capable and infact do a much better job of taking care of their children and the statistics show that. Much better job is a bit rich, pat yourself on the back much..…
/r/MensRights24/12/21 01:50 PM
1

This is after the baby is born, not before. Try and keep up.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 01:45 PM
1

Lmao so mad.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 01:44 PM
-2

Holy shit this is a terrible take again. No, dude. That's not how it works. Child support is there, for the child. It's irrelevant how much the mother earns. The father pays it, because the mother is generally the one that cares for the children more often and custody courts take that into heavy consideration when giving custody. Both parents wanted the children, otherwise they should have avoided having them, there are plenty of choices there. Being trapped is shitty, of course, bit it's not an…
/r/MensRights24/12/21 01:27 PM
0

Youre defending hom abandoning his kids?!?!
/r/MensRights24/12/21 01:24 PM
-1

Pretty sure the dog shit you step in each day can form a better opinion than "why should fathers alone pay child support" As if they and they alone do, as if there shouldn't be a responsibility to parents, both men and women, as if men don't roll over and don't take a parental role after divorce. You're actually brain dead if you question why child support exists.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 12:36 PM
0

https://justicefamilylawyers.com.au/family-law/child-custody/can-i-stop-my-ex-taking-my-child-abroad/ Then he's just a moron then.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 12:34 PM
1

You mean... before they broke up? lmao.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 11:47 AM
0

Wow that's a bad take.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 11:46 AM
-18

What?
/r/MensRights24/12/21 11:05 AM
-24

Like wise it's ridiculous you'd be fine with someone leaving a country to avoid paying child support....
/r/MensRights24/12/21 10:52 AM
-31

Sounds like he wants to leave and skimp child support, fair enough law?
/r/MensRights24/12/21 08:51 AM
1

If this isn't an elaborate troll, then I dunno wtf is going on in this world. Week old account, "24M", very obviously misogynistic, while completely oblivious to it. Constantly combatative to neutral advice, ignoring good advice while playing on the looks card... This has to be a 40yr old dude larping about what incel lefties would be like.
/r/MensRights23/12/21 06:34 AM
0

That's not what an Ad hominem is.
/r/MensRights07/12/21 06:24 AM
-3

Just don't touch women people.
/r/MensRights07/12/21 03:14 AM
0

Would have the exact same response if you did this to me, don't touch other people. Stop playing a victim.
/r/MensRights07/12/21 03:12 AM
3

Except, they literally do make those lists... "Top ten celebs that aren't beach body ready" etc etc.
/r/MensRights02/12/21 10:53 AM
1

No, the implication is that they're not going to make more than 1 spy movie this cycle. But again you seem to already agree that it's about money. So yea dude. It's about money.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 11:41 PM
0

No, it would be the exact same movie. They're making a female led spy movie, then putting the bond name behind it. If they choose not to do that, they would make the same movie with a different title. In no situation is this movie either in addition to a regular bond movie.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 11:17 PM
0

Thinking that is irrational, it would be the same movie, no matter what. The studio bank's against name recognition and people like you to drive analytics. It's not sexist at all, it's about money.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 07:07 PM
-1

If you actually think this, you need to get a dose of reality.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 09:53 AM
1

Exactly.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 08:16 AM
2

So you don't really have a grasp on it. That's cool.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 07:54 AM
2

Can't imagine why they'd be uncomfortable with your "banter".
/r/MensRights18/11/21 06:39 AM
-2

No one needs anything, it's an entertainment medium based around profits. They're making it because the consumers will pay to see it. The backlash about it is the sexist part, the movie makers don't give a shit.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 06:29 AM
2

So did you intend to say banter in your original comment? Because if you did, it undermines your point, quite heavily. Women are totally fine with banter.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 05:11 AM
1

Are you unable to determine the difference in bullying and banter?
/r/MensRights18/11/21 04:47 AM
-3

Because banking the success from an already successful franchise is much easier than making the same movie with a different title. If the problem isn't the main character being a woman then you'd understand this line of reasoning. Situation A : Bond is female, movie is good or not. Situation B : There is no bond movie, but there another spy movie no one sees because it doesn't have name recognition. In both circumstances it's literally the same movie. Like, not hyperbolically, just 100% the same…
/r/MensRights18/11/21 04:40 AM
0

Hey, if you've never worked in an overly masculine workplace, all you had to say was that.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 04:27 AM
1

I feel sorry for the people in your life if you think bullying is the best part of "male culture" Bullying is exclusionary and practically drowning in insecurities. It is not a positive influence on people.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 02:06 AM
-8

Look, I understand this mind set. But if you think about it a little more, it's really a very poor excuse. "Men treat other men like garbage, if women were treated that way they'd be appalled" Maybe, just maybe... we shouldn't treat other men like that either and it's just an example of unironic toxic masculinity to participate in that behaviour and defend it's existence.
/r/MensRights17/11/21 10:59 PM
7

And then everyone clapped.
/r/MensRights07/11/21 07:07 PM
1

MGTOW is a farce, Men aren't opting out of marriage because they're "not playing the game". The economy of working adults is in shambles and weddings are expensive as fuck, houses are worse. Houses are more important.
/r/MensRights04/11/21 10:58 PM
27

Men on the other hand don't need society to push them to obtain what they want. They just do. Are you saying this with a straight face? Society pretty much orients mens entire lives around their monetary value.
/r/MensRights04/11/21 11:57 AM
1

It's a no because of their inability to be reasoned with once they've taken a stance like that. The same is mostly true for incels.
/r/MensRights02/11/21 07:28 PM
0

It's always a no. People that believe the earth is flat, have already rejected the empirical data to reach their position. You can't win against a mental block like that. Your inability to see what the question was intended to expose is what speaks volumes here.
/r/MensRights02/11/21 12:17 PM
1

I never said it's not a thing. But, does it matter, at all. If you're ugly you probably know. If you aren't autistic you will also probably realise the effect you're having on someone you try to flirt with. If you push through it, it's harassment. Just because an attractive person doing the same thing would garner a different response. Means absolutely nothing at all.
/r/MensRights01/11/21 08:30 PM
0

Can you win an argument with a flat earther, yes or no?
/r/MensRights01/11/21 08:29 PM
1

Harassment occurs between two individuals (or in groups) not "on a population level" and even then, is still subjective. Lopez in Brazil would probably be rated higher than Scar Jo, then America the opposite... Just because you can achieve a relative scale across millions of people doesn't make something not subjective. I have already stated that regardless if this happens or not. The MINDSET that it's the reason for harassment is 100% an incel mind set to have. There's no discussion to be had, …
/r/MensRights01/11/21 07:08 PM
1

This is just understanding of context. And in this context, attractiveness is being used. Which is entirely subjective. So in this context, using attractiveness it is an incel mindset to have.
/r/MensRights01/11/21 06:44 PM
-1

It really doesn't dude. Sometimes you just say some honest to dumb as a brick stuff, and people are unable to form an argument against nonsense. Want examples, - anti vaxxers and flat earthers. You can show the science and make well rounded arguments. Bit they won't listen. So call them a fucking idiot and move on with life. That's not losing an argument.
/r/MensRights01/11/21 06:42 PM
-3

Look. They said, you sound like an incel. This is an attempt at making you see where the logic of your statement leads to. "It's only harassment if you're ugly" 100% is an incel type mind set. It doesn't even matter if true or empirically provable. The mentality surrounding it does nothing to add to the discussion of harassment or help people understand it.
/r/MensRights01/11/21 12:16 PM
0

Rarely does this response mean this.
/r/MensRights01/11/21 12:13 PM
-1

Very good customers. Actually go to the doctor when they need too. Also, things like childbirth are "women using healthcare". I wouldn't be surprised if contraception was also listed under healthcare, and thus contributed to that number.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/21 09:38 AM
-2

The Australian government needs to reflect on its values and its role to libertarian principles of small government. Bahahaha... Oh you're serious? LET ME LAUGH EVEN HARDER. Had some decent things in there before this line, The number one thing that a country needs to shift away from "draconian" debt collection is a stronger safety net. The second would be 50/50 split automatically. Signed, but fuck dude. Rights are a progressive ball game, not a libertarian one.
/r/MensRights18/10/21 10:01 AM
1

Now this, this is irony.
/r/MensRights03/10/21 07:24 PM
1

No, I brought up a differently phrased "hypocrisy" of support, of which threw you into an emotional spiral. Anyone that spends as many paragraphs as you do, on completely irrelevant ranting, 100% has a personal issue. The compounding it by attempting to throw away humble brag, lmao. It's so transparent. Stick to the original topic, or just stop.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 01:17 PM
1

Hypocritical? I’m sorry mate, I’m not American. I couldn’t have voted for Trump even if I’d wanted to. Completely irrelevant to the question I asked. The rest of this comment is a rant, find someone else to complain about your problems to.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 12:12 PM
1

What are you on about? Trump doesn’t (or at least has never said) that “African Americans” are oppressors who are responsible for the ills of the world. Hitler certainly said that about Jews, and feminism makes those claims about men (which includes “African Americans” btw). Why bring Trump into it anyway? Oh to show how hypocritical you are in logical thinking. Most people ARE “heterosexual”, including most women who self identify as feminists. And, as I’ve pointed out, there are plenty of gay …
/r/MensRights30/09/21 09:25 AM
0

Enjoy life Dunning.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 07:05 AM
0

Ignorance isn't very masculine of you dude.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 06:49 AM
0

Yea sure dude. Keep telling yourself that.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 06:43 AM
0

I haven't expressed any views. Lmao.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 06:37 AM
0

All the while, not understanding the basics of what you're implying. While thinking a trait exhibited by both men and women somehow changes. You have an out dated view of masculinity which causes direct social harm to men.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 06:33 AM
-1

I'm not against masculinity. I'm against enforcing a standard at which a man is a man. You calling a man weak for holding a belief you don't agree with (or frankly understand at the basic level) does not make them less of a man, you saying and/or implying that it does is anti man. Also contributing to the social issues men face. You can move the goal posts all you like. The discussion is clearly above your level of understanding.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 06:28 AM
-1

No, that's what learning those things do. Enforcing masculinity, like you're doing. Harms men. "You need to be strong" highest suicide rates "You need to provide" highest workplace deaths What you're doing is excluding men from "being men" if they aren't holding up the standard of masculinity. This is bad for men. What you're doing is contributing to the harm of men. Stop it.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 04:28 AM
0

Lmao. Talk about white knight fallacy. Nah dude, your outlook is toxic af. You're effectively tying these traits to "being a man" which the actual reading of that, is those that do not express those traits aren't men. Which is misandry, well done. We got their in the end.
/r/MensRights30/09/21 02:55 AM
1

I'll just reply to all 3 of your comments in one. A place being heteronormative only matters when you're making prescriptive claims about society, being the case here isn't an issue, I was merely pointing it out. You claim it as weakness, because your making the judgement call about feminism as a whole, the vast majority of male feminist I've interacted with were ignorant, not weak. Just because you're exaggerating feminism to suit your narrative, does not mean others interact with it the same w…
/r/MensRights29/09/21 08:27 PM
1

None of those things are male centered. I didn't say you said they can't have them, you have yet to say they count as masculinity if women exhibit them.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 11:34 AM
1

Again, you're contributing things to masculinity, but refusing that women who exhibit those things are displaying masculinity. So you're wrongly naming them masculine traits. You have to be consistent.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 11:14 AM
1

No, you appealed to masculinity as the be all and end all of male self help. Then failed to provide a reason that self responsibility is exclusively male.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 09:11 AM
1

All I'm doing is asking you to engage with your original answer with a shred of critical thought.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 08:34 AM
1

So to start out you cite a specific example, then when it breaks you seek to build a huge list of things that you imply fall under "enforcing masculinity" not a single one of which is exclusive to men, nor even all positive things. You didn't move the goal posts, you grabbed the ball, cut it in half, screamed about breaking the rules and stormed off the field in a huff.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 08:01 AM
1

There's nothing wrong with using a woman for sex, provided you're up front about your intentions. Seeing as you like intent so much. Thinking a woman isn't as smart, based purely on their sex isn't weakness? It's just ignorance. Both of these things are explained in other listed issues. I know being called ignorant triggers the absolute fucking shit out of MRAs, but ignorance is lack of knowledge, not weakness. The original claim is men are weak for saying they believe in feminism, this claim is…
/r/MensRights29/09/21 07:13 AM
1

If a woman starts improving herself through confidence and taking care of the hard stuff that most ppl wouldnt, is she being masculine?
/r/MensRights29/09/21 06:47 AM
0

That's a lot of words to say nothing at all. "Think it'll get them laid" & "Think they know better" Which of these is weakness, exactly? With less pointless drivel this time, for both our sakes.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 06:44 AM
1

What a ridiculous assertion. When a women takes on self responsibility, is she being masculine?
/r/MensRights29/09/21 06:34 AM
0

Nah dude, I'm just immune to the dog shit theories of the "red pilled" if you can take an activity and apply it to women as well, then it ain't got shit to do with masculinity. It's just a human trait that can be improved.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 06:04 AM
1

That has nothing to do with masculinity dude. What are you smoking. Men and women both get benefits from doing it. Masculinity does not in anyway teach you to be personally responsible. That is a fallacy you've concocted in your mind.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 05:58 AM
3

Wife of a Republican representative isn't gonna be pushing for equality dude...
/r/MensRights29/09/21 05:54 AM
1

Self responsibility =/= masculinity. You're conflating positive responsibility with masculinity, but refusing that personal responsibility isn't the only thing that matters.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 05:50 AM
1

That's... not what enforcing masculinity does. At all.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 05:28 AM
1

Yea, so this is anti-man. Masculinity isn't a purity test. And those that think it is, would be wise not to make it so.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 05:24 AM
1

Explain the logic.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 04:24 AM
0

Calling a man weak because they call themselves a feminist is the misandrist action. The question posed is why do some men call themselves feminists. So the comment is in response to the question. The question has started in a negative light, the comment reinforces the negative. "Oh if you do this, then you're weak" The implication being that being weak makes you less of a man, this is misandrist. There are plenty of weak men, plenty of strong ones . Simping in hopes of getting laid is barely an…
/r/MensRights29/09/21 02:34 AM
-2

An extreme snowflake, that's a weird one. You are very obviously claiming those behaviours are unmanly. It's not difficult to see that, your responses show how fragile you are when it comes to soft critique.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 12:05 AM
-11

Yes, you calling men weak is misandry. You vilifying men for "being feminine" is misandry. Like wtf are you even doing here if you don't care about men?
/r/MensRights28/09/21 11:03 PM
-12

So, you don't even have a spine to defend the claims you're making. Nice to see another weak man in the sub!
/r/MensRights28/09/21 10:58 PM
-1

This sub Is mainly heteronormative in their descriptions of the world.
/r/MensRights28/09/21 10:15 PM
-21

Misandry, nice. Thought you had 5 but didn't? This is actually misogyny women "need" protection, irony but funny nonetheless. Oooh nice more Misandry. Confused, eh. I'd say ignorant. Plenty of "feminist men" just use the term in a throw away manner, they hear feminism is for equality, they like the aesthetic of equality, they say sure, I'll label myself a feminist. Have you heard of findom? It's real. Kink shaming? Damn dude, you just hate men expressing themselves the way they want to
/r/MensRights28/09/21 10:12 PM
1

WOW! Did not expect this to blow the way it has! Thank you for all the upvotes and awards as well as all the comments pointing out my grammatical errors, you're the real MVPs. To answer some common questions: • The 'unsavory' men in question were all very white (as I am) and it was the way they glared at us as we drove past that worried me • I've heard a lot of women on here complain about being offer a lift and feeling obligated to accept, hence why "I quickly walked it back a bit..." • I'm war…
/r/MensRights27/09/21 08:34 PM
1

Abortion not being murder was actually what I was eluding to. I have not once ever seen a child killer hand waved as stressed. That's a ridiculous assertion.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 02:49 AM
4

I think you'll find people that kill children are highly stigmatized.
/r/MensRights21/09/21 09:47 PM
1

Being sexually abused is not, and never will be at all comparable to not getting laid.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:13 AM
-2

8 per 100000 of infants. 2.5 per 100000 of toddlers. 1.5 per 100000 of pre-teens. They are three seperate groups of population not a singular. Where as the rape number is an overall per 100,000 number for all population. So yea dude, it seems math is hard.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 09:44 PM
1

We're not talking about men. We're taking about incels. So to defend them being incels through the use of "mental illness" then you are using mental illness to excuse them being cunts. Because self described incels and cunts have a Venn diagram that resembles a circle.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 09:41 PM
1

Claiming mental illness is an excuse to be a cunt, is a cop out. Yes. That's a lot of irrelevant ranting, you okay my dude?
/r/MensRights17/09/21 08:20 PM
1

I've made no prescriptive statements here. Only that the incel community is by literal definition not incel.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 08:18 PM
-33

12 per 300,000 is half as much as 27.3 per 100,000?
/r/MensRights17/09/21 01:04 PM
-36

America Rape - 2010. 27.3 rape per 100,000 America Child murder - 2007 8infants/2.5toddlers/1.5pre-teens Per 100,000. It's not in the same ballpark of equivalence. But go on spout off.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 12:42 PM
1

Well yea, cos I actually want to help these young guys, not lead them down the path of being an incel loser.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:44 AM
1

Yes, you can learn how to be more socially adept. All of this and you still think getting fucked is your entitlement. Go away sad little incel.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:32 AM
-1

Lmao salty incel.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 09:29 AM
-1

So many people bent out of shape about this. You can pay to fuck someone. You're not INvoluntarily celibate.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 07:46 AM
1

You wanna have another go, or just leave the comment there that makes you look like an idiot.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 05:12 AM
1

Yes because I didn't realize how stupid the American legal system would be to ban something that happens literally everywhere, with zero repercussions. Spend 5 minutes on tinder and you can pay to fuck a girl. It's STILL not involuntary.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 04:59 AM
1

Incels are a tragically American centered failure. Lmao, America is completely fucked.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 04:27 AM
1

Nope. Show me a state that has all forms of prostitution illegal. Also, then your position must change to "only states where there is no legal way to obtain sexual relations can an incel truly reside." There is also a huge difference between insurance fraud and the oldest profession.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 03:53 AM
1

That is explaining why you were wrong. Nah man. You don't get to cop out to a different definition of an established word and use that as an argument. That's not how it works. Not if you have no money you can't, or no access to prostitutes and cannot travel. What are you worrying about sex for if you don't have the basics of life? Or mentally ill, or on the spectrum, or deformed, or has Down's, or an extremely low IQ, or otherwise negatively affected by something that prevents them being able to…
/r/MensRights16/09/21 10:05 PM
-1

And you were wrong when you did. No, you refused the definition, then changed the goal posts of what it means. I already explained why this was a fallacy. Not everywhere has state sponsored prostitution like they do in the Netherlands. It's not a fallacy, even in the most strict states you can find a girl to pay for sex. Your ignorance is not an arguement. And if you don't have the means or ability to do this, that makes you an incel. So not a single person that's not debilitatingly disability i…
/r/MensRights16/09/21 09:46 PM
-5

I have already covered this. If you claim to be incel. You're lying to yourself. You can pay to not be celibate. So point one, they are at very least dishonest with the state of being. Suggesting that such individuals lack self-responsibility is showing how little you understand the issue. Bullshit. You saying this means you have no idea about this at all. Attracting a mate is self responsibility in a nut shell. You want to attract someone else, you need to show you have value, whether that be n…
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:43 PM
3

Involuntary is a lie they tell themselves to shift the blame. Nazis were socialists too, right?
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:37 PM
-4

Nah dude, it's this sub and people like you that are misinformed and spreading that to others. Being an "incel" is automatically a red flag. It shows a distinct lack of self responsibility. The irony that the young guys are so desperately seeking to be part of a group, they would self depreciate so disturbingly that they create their own mental space that continues the cycle of loneliness. That's the sadest part here.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:16 PM
1

Fear =/= involuntarily. The places that prostitution is illegal outright, and the places where a large number of "incels" exist would he functionally different places.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:13 PM
3

Yep, they are. But then they're not incels. Can't have it both ways.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:10 PM
1

Massive cop out. If it's so important you'd think they'd learn right? Or maybe instead of blaming themselves for something they can probably change, they'd rather blame others.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:10 PM
-4

Already covered this. You can either make incel mean involuntarily celibate, or you can't get intimacy. These are different things, don't you see that? Someone calling themselves an incel is straight away a huge red flag. 100% of the time.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:08 PM
-3

Still a choice. Changing goal posts.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:05 PM
1

Cop out.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 08:05 PM
-40

Prostitution exists. Your rebuttal is invalid.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 12:33 PM
-15

Nah, if people want to take things literally when it suits them, then stretch the meaning when it doesn't fuck that. People are quite literally never involuntarily celibate unless there is a physical disability involved. If you label yourself an incel there is already something wrong with your outlook on the world. This whole misogyny thing is because the vast majority of self described incels subscribe to the idea that it's women being too picky is why they can't get laid.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 12:25 PM
-45

It is 100% a choice to be an incel and stay in the incel mind set. Pay a hooker, shock horror not celibate anymore. Crawling into a dark hole and blaming the world for your own personal failings is a dangerous thing to do. Men should be open and talk about them. But whining about not being laid is a problem that already has a solution.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 12:18 PM
1

That changes anything, how exactly.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 02:08 AM
1

Except it's quite literally is a step in that direction. Removal of bodily autonomy in one specific sex, is pretty telling of their attitudes.
/r/MensRights15/09/21 09:20 PM
1

How much can I blame the police for simply following a model given to them by feminists? Of course they are at fault but they are not the root of the problem. If I say to remove a person from the situation and then you bash the guy, who is at fault. But still I'm not going to defend the Duluth model, as it's not based in reality. But I've never seen a decent study performed if it actually does what it intends to do. And just because a country is fucked doesn't make sexism any less of an issue. W…
/r/MensRights15/09/21 08:10 PM
1

but more often than not, with the examples I gave you, it does. Yes, obviously hand picked examples can show anything you'd like them to show. You can show me a million examples, but if there's a trillion occurrences overall. It means nothing. And the actions of the police is exactly what I'm talking about. Then they are the ones that should be criticized for the mistreatment of men. Duluth model says nothing about police brutality, does it? As for the Indian misandry, it's not just one case but…
/r/MensRights15/09/21 11:57 AM
1

I'm not going to argue about Indian misandry. There is way more issues in those countries than the small amount of misandry that happens. There is 1.3 billion people you can literally find any story to bolster any narrative. Your implication that protecting women must come at the expense of men is unbased. The assumption of guilt, isn't a legal framework, merely a removal from the situation. The Duluth model does not extend into legal practices, only the actions of police. You seem to be complet…
/r/MensRights15/09/21 12:59 AM
1

Yes, maximum protection for female victims and abusers, at the expense of male victims. That is the outcome. Not the intent. The intent is to protect women from domestic violence. As we both know "women are more likely to commit DV" Even that being the case women are more likely to die to DV. The risk is higher. Afaik, there isn't anywhere that actually endorses the deluth model anymore, aside from the creators and a few hold out states. By being against what I stated above? Usually by just actu…
/r/MensRights14/09/21 08:18 PM
1

Since you're not paying attention. I'm not saying the MRM is bad. I'm saying the people within it are contributing to it's misogynistic image. Do you understand the intent behind the deluth model, or do you just throw it around to try and make points. I hope you're a staunch believer in systematic racism.
/r/MensRights14/09/21 02:06 AM
1

Lmao. How's your back, must be sore from leaping so much. You know who the biggest "propagandist" section is, your fellow man. Telling you to "man up" or "don't be a pussy" And that last paragraph dude, you've be there saying that being against mensrights is misandrist, but all of a sudden being anti feminism isn't misogyny? Talk about mixing metaphor gdamn.
/r/MensRights14/09/21 01:24 AM
1

Because, I don't know, that's the whole purpose of the sub? So I should show up, preach to the choir take my upvotes and feel good about doing nothing at all? That's pathetic. Gynocentrism and propaganda. Hot damn you need to get out of here and quick. This is worst take I've seen you spout. It's because there seems to be more woman haters than men's rights activists. And guess who the loudest always are. It's very apparent if you close this subreddit and spend time in menslib, or just in the ge…
/r/MensRights14/09/21 12:41 AM
1

Why would I advocate for men's rights, in a mensrights subreddit? That's why everyone is here... I try to fight back against people that are here to derail the subreddit towards hating women and fighting feminism, without good reason. Don't you ever wonder why this sub and by extension MRAs are unilaterally hated across most online spaces?
/r/MensRights14/09/21 12:21 AM
1

You have not shown that, at all. If their theory is that men are placed above women, then wanting equality would require resources etc to be funnelled to women. That wouldn't constitute misandry. Also, ignorance to an issue isn't misandry either. Anytime you expend a breath fighting feminism is a wasted opportunity to fight for men's issues.
/r/MensRights14/09/21 12:06 AM
1

As opposed to you being biased? Saying male disposability is just sexism towards women? Not once did I claim this. I'm looking at the situation objectively through the time it was in. Well, if by some stretch of the imagination the first one isn't misandrist, the second ones have sealed the deal. Here you are stretching the limits again. The question isn't "Are some feminists misandrists" The question is feminism inherently misandrist and/or do people that espouse the idea that feminism is fight…
/r/MensRights13/09/21 10:19 PM
1

Yea.. because you have a bias view. Just like the other discussion we had. Your bias prevents you from decent discourse. Right now, in this day and age sending young men to war to die for a country is barbaric, back then? not so much, this was before women had voting rights, voting rights were tied to land ownership or military service. There is a much different dynamic than just "we sent men to die". So did you read past the first one on the list, or did you stop there?
/r/MensRights13/09/21 09:09 PM
1

Unless that came about because society enforced the belief that women were unable to do such a thing and were weak and needed protection from the "strong".
/r/MensRights13/09/21 08:07 PM
1

Not when only men are expected to go to war.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 11:05 AM
1

Says.... You? Perhaps you just don't understand it. Not every word is intended to be thrown around like pizze dough.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 10:06 AM
1

If that was the case, would it not be pertinent that academic would clarify the position, so that the social adopters wouldn't give them a bad name? Or, in reality. The academics do what they do, regardless of what else is happening. Their research either proves or disproves their hypothesis. And public funding is decided the usual way, opposed to this apparent pandering you are claiming.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 09:54 AM
1

Having a word fit a description doesn't really do anything in that regard. If you say patriarchy means unicorns exist, that doesn't make it so. One of the biggest critiques is that they use patriarchy to often to explain systematic issues that have little to do with a male dominated society. I really don't think you have a realistic view of what funding they receive and what it's for.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 08:49 AM
1

But in no way, what you said ties those things together. How would misusing a word, as you say it. Lead to those outcomes.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 08:25 AM
1

What does that have to do with... anything at all?
/r/MensRights13/09/21 08:20 AM
1

Can you rationalise that argument in any form.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 08:10 AM
1

You answer your own question. People that claim to be "feminists" can be anyone, the movement claimed a lot of social notoriety from having people identify with feminism as a form of solidarity to the plight of women. If they're not academically engaged with something they claim to be, why would they be familiar with men's issues.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 08:01 AM
1

Fundamentally it would require them to. As forcing gender roles is harmful for both men and women.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 07:52 AM
1

In that example, yes that would he the case. To claim this as misandry from feminism opposed to the individuals you'd also basically be conceding the patriarchy exists.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 07:45 AM
1

Change it, why exactly? Their broad definition suits their narrative.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 07:39 AM
1

Oh it's literal Larry. That's not the interpretation at all. But you keep on believing it.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 07:31 AM
0

Well, I asked you about a feminist that claims feminism is for men's issues too, like I said she's talking about the patriarchy in that statement, not about feminism being inclusive of men's issues. Merely alluding to men being negatively affected by the patriarchy and thus "fighting the same thing" is hardly the same. I find her use bad faith even for someone here. Her rhetoric is very clearly not part of the discourse in feminist spaces. Imagine I pull out Stephen molyeaux and claim he's the f…
/r/MensRights13/09/21 06:27 AM
0

I can easily say, that she's a nutter :) Oh and for clarification, she appears to be talking about the patriarchy here, not feminism itself. More like a "this is even good for you, so sit down and shut up". Like I said, nutter.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 06:03 AM
0

If you can find me a single feminist that has both said that feminism is also for men, and also advocates for something does harm to men, instead of just basing your assumptions from 100 different people, none of which speak in totality for feminism. That would be a good start. The irony being that men's liberation movement, did quite literally stem from feminism. As allies with a seperate focus. Is lost on so many "MRAs"
/r/MensRights13/09/21 05:42 AM
1

It's not a point. It's a perspective of why they act in a certain way.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 01:03 AM
1

Misandry and misogyny share equal, bit opposite definitions, yes? Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys in general. Would you agree with this definition? Copy/pasted from Google for transparency. So under which of these three, would you attribute shaming men. To me, that one is an outright example of hypocritical thinking. As shaming men for being cowardly would be a patriarchal structure put into action. I would classify those individuals actions as misandris…
/r/MensRights13/09/21 01:02 AM
1

lmao, don't act like you've ever done a shred of research. Have you even looked any of these links or just assumed they agreed with you? I've been through half a dozen link and a few of the "pictures from randoms" Haven't come across an actual misandrists one yet.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 12:29 AM
-1

Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Just more work than you've ever put in.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 12:19 AM
-3

Oh it's you again. Here to hate on feminists without backing up any claims again?
/r/MensRights13/09/21 12:12 AM
0

I'm talking about laws and affirmative action Like I said... Dependong on the metrics you use lmao. No True Scotsman No true Argument. Calling out fallacies isn't making a point, more likely just means you don't have one. Fringe examples like the NOW? Fringe examples like the Canadian and Spanish government? Fringe examples like Indian and Israel feminists? Yes.
/r/MensRights13/09/21 12:12 AM
-13

There are very few countries nowadays where that is the case Depending on what metric you're using. It's still the case in every country. Just like depending what metric you use, you can paint an equally (pun intended) damning case for discrimination against men. 'Misguided' my ass. They know what they're doing. They just don't care. They will continue to discriminate against men regardless of anything else Sure dude, some fringe feminists out there are misandrists. That's not the vast majority …
/r/MensRights13/09/21 12:01 AM
-35

Nah dude, feminism calling saying they want equality is starting from a position of women being lesser, so caring about equality to them IS focusing on womens issues. This is not a diffcult concept to grasp. It may be misguided in some areas, but it's far from hypocritical. The irony of the previous comment is that "equalism is the way to go" posted here, in this extremely one-sided vocal space.
/r/MensRights12/09/21 10:29 PM
-49

Quoffs the comment in mensrights subreddit lmao.
/r/MensRights12/09/21 08:12 PM
5

Women are people too? Careful with that extremists rhetoric around here..
/r/MensRights09/09/21 09:57 PM
-3

You got downvotes because you explained your argument poorly. And it was 10 down votes, boo hoo, I'll get more on this comment.
/r/MensRights08/09/21 04:00 AM
1

It was hilarious, you had to be there.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 10:27 PM
1

Double down on not getting jokes I see, lmao.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 10:19 PM
1

calling someone an incel Fact. I'm anti feminist Example. Do you not get jokes, fucking hell. You picked this comment chain up from like a week ago and still have no new points to bring forward.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 09:59 PM
1

But I thought you changed your position when presented with facts and examples?
/r/MensRights07/09/21 09:17 PM
1

That's not how it works dude. If you're going in, assuming ignorance. Any push back, any questioning of your motives, sources etc will instantly result in you blaming them for being ignorant.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 03:26 AM
1

But how would you know if you think they're being ignorant.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 03:04 AM
1

They probably do.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 02:23 AM
1

They're not low. They're negative. If you expect negative behaviour, any push back against anything will be viewed as negative, thus reinforcing your own ignorance.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 02:17 AM
1

Then you're poisoning the well before engagement and will take good faith critique as attacks, and never be able to get your point across. What a terrible way to communicate.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 02:06 AM
1

If you keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different result, after it's been explained to you why that approach doesn't work. Yes. Nothing changes if you can't.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 02:02 AM
2

This is purely "cost to raise a child" has no tie in with child support at all. Only aesthetically. and hence the shortage of marriageable men that don't make enough to be a cash cow... 125k is 4 times the median income of americans.
/r/MensRights05/09/21 09:30 PM
5

For reference If we give a rough estimate between 13k and 30k a year. (6.5 - 15k "his half") The average Child support payment across the US is $5760. So at 54k you're paying the bottom end of the cost to raise a child (6.5k) Not until 125k would you be paying more than the top end of "cost to raise a child" Assuming zero custody agreements that should reduce any and all Child support garnished. But probably won't. "On the basic rate, if you're paying for: one child, you'll pay 12% of your gross…
/r/MensRights05/09/21 09:06 PM
1

Evidently not.
/r/MensRights04/09/21 06:01 AM
1

If you actually thought that, you would have never in a million years made the first comment you did. Don't try to save face after I pointed out the most obvious thing in the world. It's pathetic.
/r/MensRights04/09/21 05:05 AM
1

You don't have any science on your side, even junk science... The VERY first thing that comes to mind when someone says "women abuse more children than men" is - No shit, they spend more time with them etc. That is a provable fact. You arguing against it is moronic at best.
/r/MensRights04/09/21 04:16 AM
0

Lmao dude, stop. Seriously. It's legit pathetic.
/r/MensRights04/09/21 02:42 AM
-2

Blah blah blah word salad, completely false accusations, oh and some complete and utter bullshit sprinkled on top. No dude. Stop it. You just outed yourself as a fucking idiot. Re-evaluate your mind set. This is why people hate MRA, nothing you just said has any value at all.
/r/MensRights04/09/21 02:30 AM
1

Basic math also covers the situations in which this occurs... you know like women being the sole carer of children more often than men being the sole carer. The percentage here attempts to quantify this disparity by showing that the occurrence at a similar rate. Following the numbers provided. If women are the primary carer in any more than 65% of cases then men are more likely to abuse children. Something this sub harps on is custody disparity. Do you actually think this is a point in your favo…
/r/MensRights04/09/21 02:08 AM
1

The total number doesn't matter. It's like saying that more men get testicular cancer than women. Sure it's true, but has absolutely no merit as a statement. If you can't apply a singular control to a number without pretty much removing all validity about it, then it's not worth bringing up. Defending this narrative is akin to claiming there is a wage gap and then saying that hours worked don't count.
/r/MensRights03/09/21 09:57 PM
-1

Oh a response without reading the study.
/r/MensRights03/09/21 09:54 PM
-11

Here's the link for anyone else curious. https://childprotectionresource.online/mothers-are-more-likely-to-abuse-children-than-fathers-fact/ You should really read studies before you use them as evidence. If the other person was acting in good faith, and trying to debate you. This would have been an easy point to them. They even hit the nail on the head in their response. Here is one quote from it. "1,704 were killed by a mother acting alone. That represents only 0.12% of the1,452,099 children w…
/r/MensRights03/09/21 12:38 PM
1

It's full removal of all rights and responsibilities within the same time frame as abortion rights (wiggle room for being told late). Just opting out of child support isn't a hard enough line.
/r/MensRights03/09/21 12:31 PM
2

Yet, a man cannot force a woman to get an abortion if he doesn't want to keep the baby nor can he make her stop an abortion if he doesn't want the baby. Yea... because it's not his body... Sure they should be able to financially abort, but in no way should they be able to decide what the woman does.
/r/MensRights02/09/21 10:43 PM
1

They aren't ignorant to the plights of men. They just won't ever listen to you.
/r/MensRights02/09/21 04:54 AM
1

Because it ruins any ability you have to be taken seriously. If all you do is shit on feminism, why would anyone listen when you try to critique the treatment of men?
/r/MensRights02/09/21 04:41 AM
1

I am not advocating people become feminists. Self evaluation of your actions does not a feminist make, if you think that then, by God does that explains a lot.
/r/MensRights02/09/21 03:42 AM
1

Yes, in-fact. I'm preaching helping individuals, I attempt to help individuals... Besides you dismissing all the arguements you can't critically evaluate, I'd rather you become a more thoughtful person at the end of the day. Part of that is breaking the mind-set of fighting agaist feminism, part of it is to self reflect on how you're being rhetorically misogynistic.
/r/MensRights02/09/21 01:53 AM
1

... that's what I'm doing
/r/MensRights02/09/21 01:09 AM
1

It should, but 99/100 feminists aren't misandrist lmao. What you just said, is in and of itself, bat shit crazy. Do you understand this at all? "Being anti-feminism is common sense" There is nothing at all common sense about that, you have to point out a specific example to male your point, you quote literally proved it's not common sense because you had to validate the statement. A singular instance of a feminist doing a bad thing, does not invalidate the identity movement... which is again you…
/r/MensRights02/09/21 12:38 AM
1

If 99 people with a particular identifier are misogynistic, and the 100th person starts a conversation, you're gonna tell them to eat a bag of dicks. The very real fact remains that the response to this sub is sadly based in reality of the horrid members that are the most vocal. If you dislike feminism because people are rude to you, that's a you problem, not a feminism problem.
/r/MensRights01/09/21 10:25 PM
1

There would be evidence of this if it was on reddit. And the context... being you post here, thus not being in response to the issue you put forward, but the accurate most of the time reputation of this sub. Again. Another reason why the discourse should be about.... you know... mensrights
/r/MensRights01/09/21 08:17 PM
1

It isn't actually a common problem at all. You make it a problem because your idea of bringing it up is yelling at people that are talking about women's problems. Basically what this entire sub does, "look at woman doing bad thing, that means feminism is bad, amirite guys?" There is a few good posters that actually post about mensrights. Their talents are wasted.
/r/MensRights01/09/21 08:01 AM
0

Yes telling someone feminism is bad, when they more than likely are the ones in the wrong. Is radicalisation. Think of women hitting men. They're told men aren't allowed to hit them, so in a "equitable" situation she hits him, then he hits back he's "in the wrong". If you coddle her and reinforce that incorrect belief, she'll just go straight back to doing the wrong thing. Telling OP is not his fault his mother is broken because feminism is the the same as telling a woman its not her fault a man…
/r/MensRights01/09/21 04:00 AM
1

I'm not getting mad. I want to help people not be radicalised from this subreddit. This sub is a pipeline to alt right groups, stopping that should be very important to people that actually care about men's rights.
/r/MensRights01/09/21 03:43 AM
1

You're just digging your own grave here.. their own mother thinks this of them. My assumption based on purely the post is that he says "brought up discrimination" when in reality it was rebuttal to another point and / or in response to something else. For example. Men rape women, this is an objective reality. Men also rape Men, this is also an objective reality. (Women rape too, I'm not ignoring that) But, if you're talking about women being raped, and your response is that men also get raped, y…
/r/MensRights01/09/21 03:11 AM
1

Fault is a strong word with implications of intent. Usually, how others perceive us is based on how we act. So another person's perception of OP can shine a light on how they act. Sometimes critique is unfounded, sometimes it's a matter of difference of understanding. Most of the time, especially when someone is close to you it is an accurate depiction of your actions.
/r/MensRights01/09/21 02:27 AM
1

Lmao, exactly dude. Holy shit. How do you not understand this. OPs comment in and of itself isn't enough to warrant being called a sexist, that's why they need to self reflect on what could have brought their mother to that point. Seriously dude, you're the mother in this discussion, in one ear and out the other.
/r/MensRights01/09/21 02:12 AM
1

How do you figure? You're making the assumption that a singular comment about domestic violence being reacted to with calling them a sexist is because the mother is a sexist. I'm making the assumption that a person that cares enough to post here, read here and is bringing up talking points about men's rights would more likely talked it about it more, and that being called a sexist is more than likely a accumulation of many statements made opposed to this singular one. Being called a sexist becau…
/r/MensRights01/09/21 02:07 AM
1

How did you make that leap, calling someone else sexist makes them a sexist? You always hear one side of a story and instantly make up your mind? Is that how your brain works?
/r/MensRights01/09/21 12:53 AM
-6

Reasons men are avoiding marriage - Money. Alright, thanks for coming to my ted talk. Marriage takes two people to engage in it. It costs a fucking lot of money, The rhetoric around marriage has been negative for the last few decades. This isn't a mens issue.
/r/MensRights01/09/21 12:20 AM
1

No, I'm trying to stop someone from becoming radicalised by this sub for something that is more than likely their own fault, which can be easily fixed.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 08:06 PM
0

It has no relevance dude, this is honestly, 100% tin foil hat level bullshit.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 09:17 AM
0

Do you not understand what quantify means, or are you falling back to being a troll because you can't effectively argue your point of view.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 04:12 AM
0

Yep it sure is, now you have to quantify why you would critique me like that. I self reflected over the context of our discussions and haven't found any racial bias. So what have I done that would make you call me a racist.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 02:36 AM
0

This one is actually hilarious though. This is top teir selfawarewolves stuff. Not that you read a single one you posted.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 09:52 PM
0

Being called a sexist is a criticism. Whether it is appropriate or not is brought about by self reflection and also some explanation on the accusers behalf. I constantly advocate for men's issues in real life, I just don't do it in spite of women's issues. The only time I've been called out for it was online, and it was only because I posted in this sub, not from what I was saying. "Just ranting" about women being abrasive against the speaking oit of men's issues is detailing this entire subredd…
/r/MensRights30/08/21 09:49 PM
0

Not a single source you sent has any relevance at all to what you have claimed.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 09:44 PM
0

Holy shit dude, one source, give me ONE source for any of the bullshit you just said. JUST ONE.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 10:26 AM
0

This includes cultural, but anyway. https://datausa.io/profile/cip/cultural-gender-studies. 180000 people. Out of 205 million. Hundreds of thousands of misandrists is the opposite of "insignificant". False equivalence. You have not demonstrated in anyway that a degree in gender studies (which literally includes the study of men's issues as well) makes some a misandrist. Again. Your claim is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 08:28 AM
0

Thousands. In a country with over 300 million people? Insignificant. Colleges and Universities offer degree programs in "Gender studies" and or "Feminist studies". And? Neither of these are common degrees, nor are people getting them radical man hating feminists.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 08:09 AM
0

Influenced or taught by radical feminists. How many radical feminists do you think exist? How many are in teaching positions that would make your sentence make sense? It's just devoid of reality to think this is the case.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 07:42 AM
0

General human interaction, perhaps you should try it. If crying about an offhanded comment and being unable to accept criticism is the conversation it needs to be derailed.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 07:15 AM
0

If your SO is doing this it's because when you're explaining something you're being condescending, quite literally the meaning of mansplaining. Perhaps you should be working on communication instead of this petty bullshit.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 04:50 AM
2

This has little to nothing to do with consent..
/r/MensRights30/08/21 04:48 AM
0

Because people don't get labelled sexist for a standard comment dude, and people posting here have this habit of making everything about men being the victim. So a constant stream of that from someone while also probably dismissing women's issues would garner that response. Like 100% seriously can you think about real life for more than 2 seconds or does leaving this echo chamber damage your ego that badly.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 04:40 AM
1

Says the person that brought an anecdote with zero basis in reality to a discussion? I'm responding to your comments, my original comment was responding to the OP. Why pile on with anecdotes instead of helping this guy sort out his real issues.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 04:09 AM
1

Soo... you want me to take you at your word, with zero context, nor evidence, that someone called you an incel out of no where, when you only stated an empirical claim about domestic violence. I'm gonna pass on that narrative.
/r/MensRights30/08/21 03:12 AM
0

Proof and Context
/r/MensRights29/08/21 11:18 PM
0

No dude, those two things do not go hand in hand. Proof and context, go on then.
/r/MensRights29/08/21 09:02 PM
-1

No they didn't. Jesus the victim mentality in this sub is pathetic.
/r/MensRights29/08/21 08:04 PM
-15

No, no it is not. That is the most ridiculous assertion in this entire thread.
/r/MensRights29/08/21 07:39 AM
-30

"one time I was talking to her about how men are discriminated against in the justice system" This is not in anyway indicative of being a sexist. Your mother is saying this because of other actions you have taken, or things you have said. The assumption if you're still at home and quite young, you're being excessively "both sides" of any greivance that is aired about women in the house. Your example is obviously one-sided to garner support. But you need to look at your own actions and truthfully…
/r/MensRights29/08/21 06:01 AM
-14

Babies first in-group. Read a lot more and expose yourself to very diametrically opposed view points and people before making these shallow posts.
/r/MensRights26/08/21 01:33 PM
-16

"If men are stronger than women, why can't you beat Ronda Rousey in the octogon?"
/r/MensRights26/08/21 01:06 PM
8

But... that's what the meme is about. "I'm attracted to femininity" > "I'm not attracted to that" = "That's not femininity" Just because as a straight man you're attracted to women (*some women) doesn't mean you being unattracted to a woman, removes the femininity disclaimer from them.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 09:38 AM
4

By listing the number of women and children, the "rest" are men. They're not pointing them out especially, there's 3 groups of numbers they list the two smaller ones.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 09:09 PM
1

Because they're literally pointing out the hypocrisy of the post and the people commenting on it. I'd wager "your dick is too small" comment is made 90% of the time because the guy does fuck all else to accomadate for it. But instead of looking at what they can do better, they blame their dick size and the shame the woman brought to it.
/r/MensRights17/08/21 02:18 AM
0

Never think that in an echo chamber. It will destroy any semblance of objective reality you have left.
/r/MensRights16/08/21 01:30 PM
1

Do you think the nazi party were socialists?
/r/MensRights08/08/21 06:05 AM
1

That's pretty funny.. You commented an example of the subreddit directly to their subreddit, makes it pretty easy for them.
/r/MensRights05/08/21 08:58 AM
1

Lmao, you should probably check my history from even 4years ago, let alone 7... No, I'm saying that usually feminist doctrine is very sex positive and focused on consent, this would always lead down the path of men being able to be raped. That's just a logical step. (You didn't send a video, just a picture from insta.) There is bad faith actors with each idealogy, I'd have to know more context surrounding that exact situation to make a judgement on it. But it doesn't really sound like feminism h…
/r/MensRights28/07/21 08:14 PM
1

How does that even track...
/r/MensRights28/07/21 08:08 PM
1

Okay, so I will take you at your word there. In westernised frameworks, not believing a man can be raped would be a patriachal structure. The assumption that men must always want it, they're the ones with power etc. The belief that mean can't be raped, has absolutly nothing to do with feminism? That's just completly illogical and antithetical to their core tenants.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 12:24 PM
1

I mean once you bring forward something that isn't easily explained by them, I'll have to find different ones, won't I.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 11:22 AM
1

Perhaps try focusing a little more, and replying in singular comments.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 11:21 AM
1

So, what does any of that have to do with Feminism. Was it different before feminism? No?
/r/MensRights28/07/21 11:21 AM
1

Yea, I knew you couldn't.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:48 AM
1

Doesn't really make any difference at all? Again just irrelevant ranting lmao
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:47 AM
0

Supporting Menslib =/= evidence. You'll have to do atleast a little more effort than that. and if you don't support menslib, you are quite literally anti-MRA
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:28 AM
0

Well you very much sound exactly like one, as you're assuming misandry when there is no evidence of it. What issue did I deny, please elaborate.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:24 AM
1

I can tell you're very mad, and dualing accounts doesn't hide it well. Insulting people means your losing + mad. Hence why it's fun to watch you attempt to insult me, especially when you have to reach into homophobia for it.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:23 AM
1

No, I laughed at you suggesting it, as the entire premise is ridiculous. If you can come up with a singular good faith example, we can discuss the specifics. But I doubt you will .
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:21 AM
0

And yet I have neither displayed a hatred of men, nor discriminated against them in anyway. You sound a lot like one of those "punch a nazi" people that assume anyone right of Karl is a nazi.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:19 AM
1

This doesn't even attempt to make sense in context, seriously.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:10 AM
1

Oh you "have a black friend" that's nice. I don't actually, not in the extent it portrayed. I'm not here to recruit anyone, merely point out things that are objectively correct, and making people mad is an added bonus. (It's really easy here)
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:10 AM
1

So you don't have an internal difference from the dictionary, fair. I don't actually, as I can't be bothered trawling through your comment history.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 10:07 AM
0

So when was the last time you did that, and what is your definition of misandrist.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:58 AM
1

I'm 100% convinced you don't have a basic understanding of words.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:55 AM
1

Oh yea I like that comment was an interesting thought experiment based on the post. Never got an answer though. Do you hate gay people, is that why you default back to homophobic insults? I don't hate men's rights, just the people that infeast the subreddit purely to hate on women. Far too many.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:54 AM
1

Such a weird statement to make, you realise this is projection, right?
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:48 AM
0

So what are your interests
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:47 AM
1

Mocking your own statements, bold play.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:45 AM
0

Okay :)
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:44 AM
1

I hope you're being paid, because this surely can't be worth your sanity.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:43 AM
0

Nah, I can feel you getting bored, so I'll just keep replying, it's been fun.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:36 AM
1

Do you actually believe anything you say or are you paid by someone, quite literally nothing you've said so far is in anyway contextual or frankly makes rational sense. Just spewing hate.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:28 AM
0

Bahaha, oh dude, it's too much. I feel bad laughing so much without paying for a stand up show
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:24 AM
1

Ooo nice some homphobia that'll show me how right you are!
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:23 AM
1

Someone mad as hell lmao, did mummy not give you any tendies today.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:17 AM
0

Nothing your therapist hasn't told you already, fair enough.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:11 AM
1

Two accounts it it, how sad.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:10 AM
1

Two accounts or just equally as retarded? "The men hurt by feminism" that's a new one, I'll give you that, bahaha
/r/MensRights28/07/21 09:05 AM
0

It wasn't a battle you lost, it's okay. You'll figure it out when you grow up.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 08:53 AM
0

The irony of thinking that lmao. You keep using all these words and have no idea, it's hilarious. Imagine being so triggered you can't even attempt to argue an actual point just call people names that have no affect. You lost, from your first comment, you showed your hand and lost.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 08:25 AM
0

If only there was a single MRA here. Unfortunatly, just people like you. Unable to form a rational statement, let alone an arguement.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 07:48 AM
0

If only there was some sexism to be mad at, then you could attempt to validate your irrationality. But alas.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 07:32 AM
0

Lmao, you're super mad. No wonder you like it here.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 07:26 AM
1

Nice projection, but you truly have to know that your opinion is worth less than nothing.
/r/MensRights28/07/21 07:22 AM
0

On the same vein, no amount of internet screeching will solve any of those issues either. This sub revolves around being an echo chamber for hurt feelings way more than it does actually fighting back against policies and practices that harm men. There is a small number of people here that would be better utilised in a more civility focused arena, but most people subbed here are here for the venting and hatred.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 11:41 PM
-1

Also your "selfaware" comment, it's simply me using the same arguments feminists use and reversing the genders, and no surprise, they hate it when people do that. No it was almost entierly in reference to your comment about actions instead of perceptions. As this place is a dumpster fire for misogyny etc, quite literally why MRs has bad PR, because a lot of the "actions" of this sub revolves around shitting on the bad things women do, opposed to bringing light to and talking about mensrights. Li…
/r/MensRights27/07/21 10:51 PM
-9

"Didn't read the article" Except the article says exactly what the title of this post says and even includes an extra sentence at the end explicitly stating men are worse than women in this topic. Listing factual circumstances =/= hatred. Instantly created a negative response to the article, when it's merely making light of the situation. This is compounded by the article in which is specifically says "despite the fact that men only spend 2% more on goods in total than women do." Thus eliminatin…
/r/MensRights27/07/21 09:57 PM
-13

This is some top teir self aware wolves stuff dude, you need help.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 09:29 PM
-11

Menslib origininated through Feminism. You know how those grump people here claim that feminism doesn't care about men? Well.. they literally have a section for mens issues. The overlap is probably people that actually care about mens issues. As there is way more contructive discussions there. Opposed to this thread where the majority of comments didn't read the article, and are just voicing their hatred or wataboutism.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 08:44 PM
0

You didn't prove your point dude... It is plain to see that it's a response, it's literally right there in the picture. Removing context from your assumption, doesn't prove your point.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 08:31 PM
0

Lmao. Yes, which. In context, responding to another tweet is building from the other tweet. You provided the context within the post, the context removes the stereotype from it. As they're responding about a specific group. They don't reject the original premise ( that you claim is thruthful) they're adding another layer to it. Like 100% seriously you have to jump through so many hoops to get offended by this tweet.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 08:12 PM
0

Yes I understand how you misread the tweet. The tweet you're talking about, is in response to another tweet. It is talking about specific men mistreating trans women. You can easily infer that from looking at the picture. I never made any such claim. I said YOU took offence to the tweet and got your panties in a bunch, which you very clearly did.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 02:16 PM
0

Fallacy of the majority. This post exists within an echo chamber. The other comments on this post mean nothing at all. I have read your comments to me, and a breif skim of your last week posts. They scream atttention seeking behaviour and victim mentality. If you'd like to even attempt at proving this post falls under stereotyping, which is quite literally impossible I'd be happy to educate you, or just tell you to get your head straight. You have made many claims in these thread, and have faile…
/r/MensRights22/07/21 11:03 AM
0

Oh man.. you just keep going... this is dunning kruger in full swing. Please, please evaluate your position. If you'd like to rationally discuss a topic, I'm open to it. So far you have shown zero ability or willingness to take an objective look at a situation.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 08:26 AM
0

Oof, more irony. When you have substance you can comment again.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 06:34 AM
0

lmao. Misandry has a pretty specific meaning.. are you actually serious right now, or is this 100% trolling. Because I feel like I'm getting trolled with how bad faith you are.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 10:46 PM
0

There is not a drop of Misandry in my comment, do you even know what it means? Like 100% Seriously. Do you have a basic understanding of these words, or are you purely chasing internet validation?
/r/MensRights21/07/21 10:12 PM
0

The funniest part is you think you're right here, it's very obviously not stereotyping. You calling it such is just fragile ego, or internalised bigotry towards trans people. It is actually hilarious how badly you fail to self critique.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 10:03 PM
0

Oh boi the irony..
/r/MensRights21/07/21 09:54 PM
0

The context is it's in reply to another comment, where it says if A GUY doesn't respect trans women.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 08:10 PM
0

It is very clearly talking about specifically men that treat trans women badly. I actually can't believe you are this brain dead.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 12:52 PM
0

Holy fuck you people are dense. There is nothing in the tweet that implies that it is ALL MEN. It is MEN SPECIFICIALLY THE ONEs THAT TREAT TRANS WOMEN POORLY. Seriously do you need something to be butt hurt about that badly you will willfully misinterperate every single fucking tweet.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 12:12 PM
1

Because it's targeting specifically the men that mistreat trans women. That is not a stereotype. That is targeting a minority of all men, and pointing out a flaw with their personality, then linking it back to those specific men's views on women. If you feel targeted by this tweet, perhaps you should look into why you have a problem with transwomen or why you think how you treat them would be considered negative.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 03:45 AM
0

That's not how this was written at all. Can you read it again, slowly this time?
/r/MensRights21/07/21 03:24 AM
0

I just don't understand how someone could take the original post as stereotyping men? Right? Like it's a little obtuse to assume people ignorant of trans people or unwilling to be accepting of them will be negative to women. But it's probably not that far from the truth.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 01:28 AM
-8

This isn't stereotyping men. This is calling out specific men that treat Trans women poorly.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 12:52 AM
1

I'll make this easier for you to understand. No, I actually did not. I do not believe any theoretical way of looking at issues involving any racial lens does anything but cause more problems. You need to elaborate on this statement. I believe that no matter what your skin color is, if you work hard to succeed you will. No matter what your skin color is, if you sit around crying about how unfair things are, you will not succeed. I believe the only race problems that still exist are the ones being…
/r/MensRights15/07/21 07:22 AM
1

You don't agree with theoretical way to look at issues? You just said you did. How do you expect to make policy or even social decisions when you don't know what factors are in play?
/r/MensRights15/07/21 06:21 AM
1

No, I asked you to provide something to further the discussion. But here you are again going on a rant, who are you trying to convince? Then you agree with CRT then. Congrats.
/r/MensRights15/07/21 04:41 AM
1

Why would I give anecdotal evidence when it's not relevant. I gave you a soft definition (read;easy to understand/surface level) Then provided an example of how it would be used, then asked for you to clarify why you think it's incorrect. Then you had a tantrum about anecdotes and you not oweing me anything. Do you see yourself as acting in good faith here?
/r/MensRights15/07/21 03:46 AM
1

I didn't ignore it. It's not relevant. For starters you haven't brought up any points to base your anecdotal evidence against, and on top of that, it still anecdotal evidence. The existence of rich minority race doesn't invalidate the overall trend of society, you believing it does makes you the fool.
/r/MensRights15/07/21 03:24 AM
1

Nope, I don't have to give a reason. Then you aren't in a position to talk against a thought tool. I owe you nothing. Asking you to contribute to a discussion you're voluntarily taking part in isn't the assumption of being owed. Congrats on making the best of shit life? What do you want me to say? Like people have shit lives and succeed still all the time, but exceptions don't break the rule. But just to piss you off, sounds a lot like appearing white helped you out a lot.
/r/MensRights15/07/21 01:41 AM
1

Well, I guess if you have seen no examples of it, it must not be taught. You have seen no examples. OK, I agree it isn't being taught. So making a law, against teaching it really won't hurt anything. This is where I'm going to have to disagree. Yes, technically this is the case. But the basis of this discussion is that what people are calling CRT, isn't actually CRT, so banning the teaching of CRT is in reality a way of banning wrong think people incorrectly ascribe to CRT. Akin to banning teach…
/r/MensRights15/07/21 12:47 AM
1

Also, are you saying CRT isn't being taught and used in any schools? I am asking for an actual example of it. Firstly to see if it's applicable, as a vast majoirty of it that i've seen is not, and secondly to see if you base your assumptions around valid examples. Even the saying, "America used to own slaves". America never owned anything. No, America as a country legalized the owning of slaves, benefited from the owning of slaves. Then just wiped it hands of it, and then told it's children they…
/r/MensRights15/07/21 12:12 AM
1

The biggest problem with CRT is the fact that even those who have studied it the longest and support it to the point of informing people, can't fully define it or even agree on the belief system of what it was meant to represent. I will outright reject this claim. The people who "study" it etc can define it exactly, it isn't meant to represent a belief system. It is a Descriptive tool to use. Not a prescriptive one. The easiest and most obvious example is the confederacy. It is implied, and ofte…
/r/MensRights14/07/21 11:25 PM
1

Can you link me your explanation? I'm asking because over the last 3-6months CRT has been a rather hot topic and it is constantly brought out as a strawman for when schools teach something people (conservatives) don't agree with. Most of the time it's argued against its done so in bad faith, being ignorant of the actual theory and on top of that laced with racially biased undertones.
/r/MensRights14/07/21 10:09 PM
1

Are you... Ok?
/r/MensRights14/07/21 08:07 PM
1

It is quite literally the most clearly outlined principle of the source, that you linked. You did not define it. You went on a rant about things you think it includes, while opening the rant with "it's a BS idealogy" CRT is merely an expansion on critical theory, using race as a lense to view an issue through. It is descriptive, not prescriptive in its effective use. People making prescriptive statement's and using CRT as their basis of thought isn't a damnation of the theory at its core. But he…
/r/MensRights13/07/21 11:48 PM
1

Do you not understand how reddit operates? I started my own discussion chain based around the source material provided. If you go to a post, read the article listed in the post, then start a discussion around that article in the post, somehow that's wrong? How many bridges woud you like to buy.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 10:35 PM
1

Yes you attacking me, and not providing evidence to your claim is clearly working for you... If I ask "Can a single person here define CRT." That is quite clearly asking you, and the other previous commentors the question. I did not say "can anyone on this forum define it" I'm sure there are some that can in good faith define CRT, you are not one of them. So back to the original point, can you actually define CRT or are you hiding behind your personal attacks.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 10:33 PM
0

The article is IN THE POST, it is the central point of the discussion.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 10:17 PM
1

Oh look evasion. You just typed out 5 paragraphs in response to my question and yet, failed to have even the smallest grasp on the topic you posted an article about. Do you understand the premise of CRT, or do hate the buzz word supplied by the media you absorb, can you even tell the difference?
/r/MensRights13/07/21 10:08 PM
0

How exactly can you write this comment out and press send, that honestly makes zero sense. The article listed mentions the topic I put forward TWENTY ONE TIMES and your rebuttal is that it doesn't mention feminism, so let's whinge about feminism???
/r/MensRights13/07/21 10:06 PM
0

The Article says "Critical Race Theory" 21 times including the title. Is, perhaps what actually happened you didn't even open the article before making up your mind about it?
/r/MensRights13/07/21 09:08 PM
-1

So, that's another no then.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 08:17 PM
0

So, that's a no then.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 08:16 PM
1

It's in the first paragraph of the article.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 08:15 PM
2

Can a single person here define CRT.
/r/MensRights13/07/21 10:47 AM
-2

It's not condescendion, it's a criticism of your ability to argue a topic. Is this how you react to thing you don't want to hear?
/r/MensRights01/07/21 01:23 AM
-9

You don't need permission, but having a grasp of a topic, is usually a good first step in creating arguments against it. That's something you should do for yourself, not others.
/r/MensRights30/06/21 10:14 PM
-9

Probably banned because you post here, and I'd say inactivism too. But you need to clean up your world view of socialism if you want to argue against it.
/r/MensRights30/06/21 08:52 PM
1

If people only read titles, imagine what they think of this subreddit... Haha, imagine missing the point so hard you think it's about dictating emotions of men... They're explaining that it's a red flag when men outwardly exclaim They're the victim of a false accusation. If you haven't realised by now, the whole "If this were a women people would he outraged" thing is a massive cope, and shows how fragile the ego is.
/r/MensRights25/05/21 08:52 PM
-4

Plus did you read the thousands of comments with thousands of upvotes saying that if it was a false accusation they don't talk about it and if they do that means it's obviously untrue and men are the ones who are lying. You mean the one I literally talked about in the comment that was NOT saying that at all, instead saying it's a red flag to be brought up in the way that the men did. But the only purpose these kinds of posts serve is to prompt knee jerk reactions like this one. There is nuance i…
/r/MensRights25/05/21 08:47 AM
-20

This is probably the worst false equivalency I've seen from this sub. Being Falsely accused =/= Being Raped. There is no possible way they're the same thing. To even suggest it is fucking insane. If you care to read it, they actually clarify the position, to that of a man that offers that information in a way to brag, or get ahead of the horse, share their experiences with circumstances and build from that, explain rightfully that being accused is a traumatic experience and that sharing that inf…
/r/MensRights25/05/21 05:12 AM
0

His life ruined? He's a supreme court judge you fuck stick.
/r/MensRights11/05/21 01:28 PM
-1

Didn't make the original comment. Don't give a fuck about whether the credible allegations were true or not. I was directly replying to the simp.
/r/MensRights11/05/21 01:20 PM
-2

No, I called him a simp because he rushed to slurp the sloppy seconds from his dick at the mere mention of a negative story, and wrote a novel about it. If you care to read about him, even if he didn't assault someone, he is a massive cunt, and waste of oxygen. So why defend him so fervently ? Because he's a simp.
/r/MensRights11/05/21 01:16 PM
-2

I started by calling him a simp for a PoS. Then he responded with quite possibly the most deluded spaghetti word vomit ever concocted on this website. The claim that he simping is right there, in the multiple paragraphs responding to an offhanded comment. The claimed that Brett is a PoS is in his entire life. You can go ahead and trying to prove he isn't simping here, but I don't really care at all. Brett is a plague on American and human life, this dumb cunt spent his day and probably a good po…
/r/MensRights11/05/21 07:37 AM
-8

No, he was using big words to deflect from being called a simp. There is no "upping" the game. He put that much effort into defending the dude, no one fucking cares about anymore. It's extremely clear he has vested interests in the subject at hand. So he's probably a piece of shit too. Birds of a feather and all that.
/r/MensRights11/05/21 04:17 AM
-16

/r/iamverysmart
/r/MensRights11/05/21 03:38 AM
-28

Imagine simping this hard for a Pos like Kavenaugh, lmao.
/r/MensRights11/05/21 03:15 AM
3

The venndiagram of the community is practically a circle. On top of that, if you hear the same talking points from incels as you do MRA's it's hard to determine if they're an activists focusing their efforts on things they find close to them, or a pathetic incel justifying their world view.
/r/MensRights19/04/21 03:04 AM
1

Never said you can't look at it. But you are specifically looking at it with a heavy bias, and it's affecting your ability to rationalise the evidence.
/r/MensRights18/04/21 08:54 PM
0

You're the equivalent of a Facebook Karen, you understand this right? Make things up, and confirm them with bias studies.. like seriously have a critical look at anything, On top of thinking one extra step of "if true what then" You gonna force people to stay together you? You going to make peoples live harder by removing "incentives" to be a single parent? What you are doing is spreading a victim mindset, that isn't beneficial for any of the groups you pretend to care about. isnt that irrelevan…
/r/MensRights18/04/21 07:44 AM
0

If men tend to make more money, why shouldn’t that count? Because that is a problem socially between men and women. Nothing about being a man inherently means you earn more. . Boys are more restless and aggressive and have a higher risk preference. Fathers are better at handling that - READ THE ARTICLE. Also, boys look to their fathers more for how to behave (doesn’t make fathers better than mothers at parenting, it just is). AND the evidence suggests that boys are better off with their fathers.…
/r/MensRights18/04/21 02:55 AM
0

I will leave you with this tiny thought experiment. I assume you agree that custody outcomes are heavily bias towards women, yes? So to break that common place outcome, the circumstances are usually outside the normal. Ie mother is especially bad, or father is exceptionally good. (Or just throws money at it) Given this singular point of difference the outcomes from with the single father children and the single mother children will differ substantially. You saying "men just earn more that's part…
/r/MensRights18/04/21 01:45 AM
0

It amazes me you can look at that article. And determine that men are better parents. Notice how no where mentions gay parents etc? Wonder why that is.. hmm You have a bias towards men. Think your way out of it, or stay mad.
/r/MensRights18/04/21 01:33 AM
0

men make for better positive male role models than women No shit? and boys need positive male role models more than girls do Another stupid thing to try and prove. Positive male role models to girls could be just as important to them as it is to boys. You have a lot of things you think to be true, that have no way of actually proving. Would be nice for yourself to take a heavy step back, and think about why you believe these things, does it really matter if these things are true or not and why y…
/r/MensRights17/04/21 10:05 PM
1

Again, another theory that's impossible to prove. Even if you could somehow quantify that statement, I could just as easily turn around and say that men also parent and teach boys the bad shit also. There's no way to prove it, nor does attempting to bring any positives to a discussion. There is a large difference between saying boys (and girls) need positive male role models throughout their growth and learning life experiences, and saying that men are better for it.
/r/MensRights17/04/21 05:08 AM
1

Because if you don't remove it, it could be concluded that it has nothing to do with the man, and all to do with the money in the household. Which is a largely legitimate point to establish. You think men are the better parents, if you don't control for all factors excluding being a man, you can never prove (or disprove) you theory.
/r/MensRights17/04/21 01:42 AM
0

So using an extremely slanted metric and then not removing one of, if not the most important factor. Yep totally dude.
/r/MensRights16/04/21 09:37 PM
22

This is laughably impossible to prove.
/r/MensRights16/04/21 05:24 AM
-18

In what possible universe are these two articles hypocritical.
/r/MensRights14/04/21 10:10 AM
5

Wouldn't charges have to be pressed by the victim for something to happen?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/21 09:05 AM
-3

Lost all validity at "democrats are against private schools cos unions" What a fucking moron.
/r/MensRights02/04/21 10:10 AM
-4

Yes, and? Where in my comment do I say the original is 100% perfect or accurate? I literally say the OP is fighting against a study, that clearly you read more than they did, with opinion peices and articles.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 08:33 PM
-7

It's not sad to see at all. None of those articles had any actual studies linked, one of them even had viruses in the hyperlinked address. At the very least the original post that OP is critisiting has studies linked to them. OP quite literally argued against a study with opinion peices.. People wonder why no one takes this sub seriously, it's shit like this.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 07:47 PM
23

Victim blaming are we! /s
/r/MensRights13/03/21 11:42 AM
-4

It's almost as if a reddit community isn't made up out of a hivemind. Unless you can find specific people that both made the call, and each post had similar exposure on top of both being on the top of the day/ week posts. This is nothing more than anecdotal witch hunting.
/r/MensRights11/03/21 11:52 PM
-2

If you can't even put down the feminist hating for two seconds to recognise when a word can be utilised to assist men, your opinion isn't valid.
/r/MensRights16/02/21 11:32 PM
-2

Or, you could just accept that parts of masculinity are toxic, especially towards men. And shape the defintion of the word by using in the "correct" way. Instead of trying to stop others from using it, causing it's entire definition to be shaped by those that will mis-use it.
/r/MensRights16/02/21 08:06 PM
-5

Yea OP is out of his mind thinking this is discrimination towards men in any way.
/r/MensRights14/02/21 03:21 AM
0

Replied to the wrong comment?
/r/MensRights29/01/21 09:59 PM
-1

Not All Men Are Like That / All Women Are Like That. I find it's a hypocrisy this sub falls into a lot. On one hand they will speak out against (rightly so) feminists that claim that all men are rapists. But then the sub up votes posts like this one, that is trying to make the assertion that all women "need positive reinforcement".
/r/MensRights29/01/21 01:26 PM
0

Where exactly is the expectation? Reads more like a colleague / friend complaining about the differences between a new vs and old one, for them specifically. Why is it this sub seems to 180 degree rotate between NAMALT, and straight into AWALT.
/r/MensRights29/01/21 08:05 AM
1

If anything, that is MORE of a reason to have only all gendered bathrooms, not a reason to exclude women from toilet space. "Yea we have 10 toilets, 5 are just sitting there not being used, but you can't use them cos you have a cunt" Nah, all toilet should be all gendered. It's a toilet, we all shit and piss, get over it.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 07:28 PM
-17

There's zero reason to have a male only bathroom. So unless they're like 50/50 female only, all gendered, then that's a bit stupid. All public, busni etc toilets should be all gender, single occupants only anyway.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 12:22 PM
1

Enjoy bliss.
/r/MensRights03/12/20 10:23 PM
0

So blatantly refusing to acknowledge the childish behaviour of the senator then. Got it.
/r/MensRights03/12/20 12:35 AM
-5

So you didn't watch the video then? He talks for 3-4min abouts nothing, hand waving etc etc, interrupts her when she tries to interject. He finishes speaking and she asks him to clarify what exactly is meant, as you say, she's playing political, in which he interrupts her, forcefully, hand waves again, makes the assumption the question she's about to ask is frivolous, then when called out for this exact behaviour, instead of defending his position, attacks the insult that was used. As I already …
/r/MensRights02/12/20 11:25 PM
-21

This coming from Cringe is perfect, because that was 100% cringe. This is 100% NOT how you handle being called out for manplainsing, anyone paying attention just watched a grown man being butt hurt about being called out, go on and on about the term itself, any not the context of what was said. If you think this is a good way to respond to a childish accusation, then you're just like this guy, acting like a child. This is a text book example of Ad hominem, Attacking the character behind the argu…
/r/MensRights02/12/20 11:56 AM
12

made =/= invented, maybe?
/r/MensRights30/11/20 09:34 AM
2

Doesn't matter, even if it was 99-1 like some think it is, statistics and individual victims are totally seperate things.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:49 AM
3

Yes, because the expectation of a title is masculine. It is a stupid thing to say, but so is assuming a doctor / comedian will be male.
/r/MensRights25/11/20 12:14 AM
0

I'm not here arguing whether the laws shouldn't be gender neutral, just your shitty take of why.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 08:35 AM
-1

Cost.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 07:45 AM
1

Most Americans get their insurance through their employer, and the insurance company and plan could change yearly. My insurance changed last year because I changed jobs. My insurance will change next year because my employer is switching providers. I have little choice. Yea the world gets it, American Healthcare is fucking horrid. ... for women Yes, the one that have more to lose from an unwanted pregnancy.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 07:44 AM
-4

Free, specifically to women covered under ACA. Which, if this very simple fact has escaped your grasp, means the men can't get the women pregnant, on top of the multitude of other health related reasons a woman would choose to take birth control. You are very welcome to decide on a different insurer that does cover men's contraceptives. But federally ensuring that women are covered, the obviously more affected by pregnancy and other medical issues related to birth control. By any and all medical…
/r/MensRights22/11/20 06:01 AM
-8

You're making giant leaps. That link is purely stating what must be included. Not saying vasectomy etc, Can't be included.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 05:44 AM
0

Or just when there is a male BC pill, it's also free. Birth control and Vacestomy are totally different things, that happen to cross uses in one specific area.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 05:28 AM
0

I'm not sure how much time you spend in this sub, but a lot of posts have a heavy right leaning bias spin towards them. Recognising bias and adjusting your views of how a subject is presented is a great way to limit the draw of fringe beliefs. Unfortunately the people you have to ignore here over the years have become way more than a minority. Pointing out male discrimination and non-equality based decisions across the board are great, women doing things = women bad, drags this sub down. It's be…
/r/MensRights31/10/20 10:11 PM
1

Bias is the action of choosing one side no matter the evidence against, 1. a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: 2.unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice: You are mistaken in your view of bias. This sub is by very definition of the name bias. Both of the actual defintions fit perfectly for most posts on this sub. It's not always a bad thing, but you really need to recognise your own bi…
/r/MensRights31/10/20 09:17 PM
3

You missed the part from the comment above saying it's changing, didn't you.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/10/20 07:57 AM
15

Hence why it will go away. If men win custody, then the women will be legally obligated to pay child support / alimony. Then, finally it will be treated for exactly what it is, an unfair payment and be removed.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/10/20 05:59 AM
47

Men getting alimony will make alimony be a thing of the past too.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/10/20 01:56 AM
1

This is peak cringe + nice guy material. Pathetic.
/r/MensRights07/09/20 10:37 PM
1

I already made it clear my line of reasoning wouldn't have been different if you reversed the genders. Except you literally were, as you're aruging against throwing a phone and turning a console off being bad comparisons. You already pre gendered it before you jumped into the argument. Because that's your way of seeing things. No, the original commentor Gendered it, I was arguing that it's a bad comparison. You think it's an apt comparison. Ie, you're arging with the original gendered comparison…
/r/MensRights25/05/20 09:58 AM
1

Because comparing non violence when a woman does it and saying it's the same as violence when a man does it is gendering the issue. For fuck sake you really can't see that obvious??? You are the one who came here saying its a men's sub and you know their way of thinking and went on to call me misogynistic. Yes because saying emotional abuse when a woman does it and emotional and physical abuse is the same thing is fucking ignorant. And indicative of this subs inability to think critically about …
/r/MensRights25/05/20 08:57 AM
1

This is not a gender issue idiot. Then why are you making it a gendered issue. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY IT'S A BAD COMPARISON. To compare a woman turning off a console with a man throwing a phone and say they're the same is fucking retarded. I am consistent. You wouldn't have argued the same if OP talked about throwing a lipstick or any other cheap object. Because they're unlikely to break or cause damage to something else. And by stating there are levels of abuse you have illustrated how toxic your …
/r/MensRights25/05/20 08:18 AM
1

So you have no arguemnt and admit you're wrong thanks. I never said it was about the monetary value. I said it was about THE VIOLENCE. It's also why I said it was a bad comparison in the first place. because one involves violence and the other does not. When comparing abusive situations you have to objectivey value the abuse. That doesn't means it's not abusive. But there is certainly different levels. Continue being misognyistic though, really helping your cause.
/r/MensRights25/05/20 07:31 AM
1

Because your argument doesn't apply to mine. Again your'e arguing against something I never said. My argument is that turning off a console and throwing a phone are not comparable situations. Your argument boils down to " but he puts value on the time he spent " No? Has nothing to do with the action that was performed. He could be literally years into an unsaved game that his entire life and career depends on. Turning off a console is not a violent action. Throwing a phone is.. Now are you ready…
/r/MensRights25/05/20 06:29 AM
0

Then bring something relevant to the table. For once.
/r/MensRights25/05/20 05:57 AM
1

Which is totally irrevelant. Because throwing a phone is a violent outburst on top of being emotional abusive switching of a game is in no way violent. And you can't argue against it, because it quite literally isn't violent. Outlay your counter argument or kindly get fucked. The irony of calling on the Dunning Kruger, fucking hell.
/r/MensRights25/05/20 05:55 AM
1

Totally incorrect. I'm looking at abusive non violent action and saying it shouldn't be compared to an abusive violent action. It's very very simple. But please, keep making an absolute fool of yourself. I'm sure this sub won't even notice.
/r/MensRights25/05/20 05:21 AM
0

Defending what exactly? Where?
/r/MensRights25/05/20 05:20 AM
0

It's relevant to the specific comment I replied to. Which is exactly what I have said from the start.. It's like talking to an ignorant brick wall.
/r/MensRights25/05/20 01:27 AM
0

They are two seperate issues. Seperate them, and it's not comparable. Done.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 10:14 PM
0

Thinking turning off a game and throwing a phone is comparable is the irrational thought process here. They are two very different reactions. Throwing the ps4 or hitting it violently would be comparable to throwing a phone. But not simply switching it off.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 10:04 PM
0

Unlike this sub, I can think objectively clearly. The base problem "Whinge bitch complain, you don't spend time with me you spend all the time playing/on your phone" The reaction in one hand, "Switched off game" Pretty tame, childish and definitely classed as abusive. While the original comment tried to compare that to THROWING A PHONE. That is a drastic upscale in reaction. So therefore not comparable. Like what I've said a million times.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 09:06 PM
1

They are completly relevant when making a comparsion to show opposite affect. "She switched off a game" vs "He threw my phone" Are two VERY different reactions. Both of which would have gendered comparisons that are more equal. But they aren't comparable too each other. But hey, way to miss my point entirely.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 09:03 PM
1

What I'm saying is directly replying to the comment I replied to, with relevance to not over state the action that was displayed here. Outside of the abusive nature of the action, the comparison between switching off a game and THROWING A PHONE hold no comparable traits. No wonder this sub is the butt of jokes, you literally can't think rationally if it includes a woman.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 09:01 PM
-1

That is the overall reason for the action, not the action it self. The two reactions aren't comparable in realistic scale.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 12:57 PM
-4

More like 200 or 300$ phone. How long has it been since you've bought a phone... A few hours yeah maybe 5h or so you dont know. Name a single game on the ps4(?) That doesn't have a save point for more than 30minutes. Of course of course it is not comparable. Then imagine if the sex were reversed. The man would have been called an asshole and so...no one to defend him The exact same situation... would literally be the perfect comparison. Comparing turning off a game and throwing a phone is two va…
/r/MensRights24/05/20 12:49 PM
-21

$1000 phone or at most a few hours in a game... hmmmmmm. It's not comparable at all. To act like it is, is purely so you can blame the woman for an over reaction.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 12:39 PM
-31

Yep, cool. Totally irrelevant.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 11:42 AM
-30

Potentially destroying property and simply turning off a game isn't really comparable. Perhaps if he walked over and unscrolled insta or something, making her have to re-do a similar amount of work, sure. But throwing her phone is completly different.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 11:24 AM
-1

Which is also never legitimately stated either?
/r/MensRights21/05/20 01:07 AM
-1

Or don't do that.kids before 30, all the way.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/05/20 12:44 PM
0

Now you're getting it.
/r/MensRights18/05/20 01:27 AM
0

.. yea dude that's kinda the point.
/r/MensRights18/05/20 01:13 AM
1

Incorrect, I said you choose the candidate what has objectively better policies. A lot of trump supporters would benefit a lot more under Democratic leadership, that's just objective reality. Then I went on to press you specifically what ideals line up with trump, you sourced then, and continued to back track on your support of his policies. The fact of the matter is it's you that only care about sexual assault allegations when they're against political opponents, otherwise you'd stop bringing i…
/r/MensRights18/05/20 12:57 AM
1

Yes, they have increased debt . They have not cut spending. But Democratic spending would be higher. They proudly proclaim this every chance they get. No country in the history of the world has ever taxed itself into economic prosperity. And a corresponding increase in taxes for new Government spending would slow the economy. You grow the economy by spending. Democratic spending would be higher Yes, exactly. Because they want to grow the economy, higher or lower has no relevance though, it's wha…
/r/MensRights18/05/20 12:30 AM
1

Define legitimate. Government is there to protect your rights. Redistribution "schemes" are you call them, can be very legitimate.even s far as necessary to protect your rights. Have you got an example, or you just gonna talk in round about buzz words.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 11:51 PM
1

Republican governments have always increased debt. And raised cost of living while suppressing wages. You not agreeing with something doesnt make it objectively bad. Just means you're ignorant to it's benefits, or willfully not wanting the benefits. Name one, and I'll see if i can figure out which it is. Yes, having power over someone changes the dynamics of consent. That is a well known subject. That has nothing to do with Biden.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 11:43 PM
1

Yes, I agree with the tax cuts and deregulation. I also know that I want small government. I am not an "ignorant libertarian". I'm just a regular, middle class person who wants to live my life without being taxed to death or have policies forced upon me that I disagree with. I want the freedom to be left alone to live my life and support my family without half of it taxed away for frivolous crap. So just so we're both clear, you agree with increasing the national debt so you can pay slightly les…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 11:24 PM
1

Oh no, whatever shall I do, someone misunderstood a simple use of irony and thinks I look stupid 20comments deep on an irrelevant minority subreddit! Oh nòooo. Seriously dude, no one else cares.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:59 PM
1

Typical. Dismiss any sources, provide none of your own, ignore anything that doesn't line up with your narrative. Then insult. Repeat. I didn't dismiss it, I linked a quote directly from the source you listed and questioned whether you agreed with the outcomes of your god emperors decision making. Then walk away because "I'm tired". Yes, talking to ignorant people is tiring. Especially ones that constantly bring up the same thing over and over again without taking feedback and absorbing it. Tax …
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:49 PM
1

Yes I understand the phrase, I was using it ironically to get under your skin, worked pretty well.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:40 PM
1

There's nothing to refute. I say trump has done bad things, you say nahuh Biden has done bad things. It's fucking stupidity. You vote for who has the objectively better policies. So far you put through 3 of trumps policies, one a gigantic failure for 90% of Americans, the other two are puff peices of what he "wants" to do, but aren't laid out as actual policies and one of them ecen shits on his incompetence. From your source. Again and again you are trying to push the narrative that "so what if …
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:27 PM
1

That is unknown to a 3rd party, not what you described. Unknown to a participant is always no consent, the default position is no. That is obvious. Hence why it doesn't beg the question. You pay someone bevause you're unfaithful, does that mean you weren't unfaithful? Same thing. Doesn't change the action. Sure changes the outcome. But doesn't change the original action. You're either playing devils advocate or, like the other guy have very limited understanding on consent. Can't consent = no co…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:16 PM
1

You claimed that you should vote on standards when both are shitty but then claim its ignorant to do that when it's Trump. LOL, thousands now. Still not a simple article supporting the "hundreds". Tax Cuts The Act is based on tax reform advocated by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration.[7] The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that under the Act individuals and pass-through entities like partnerships and S corporations would receive about $1,125 billion in …
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:01 PM
1

Here is three- Low taxes. Smaller government. Less regulations. None of these are polices, and none of this has happened. "if both presidential candidates are shitty people, you vote on policy (like you always should)." Biden has plenty of dirt in his past. If you actually take the time to look. My previous post.This is just what is public and doesn't take into account the potential corruption with Hunter, Ukraine, and China. You mean the corruption that trump admitted to cooking up with Biden's…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 09:27 PM
3

Remember though, that this is why people voted for Donald Trump. We know he gives shitty speeches and posts dumb shit on twitter. The actual policies he has put into place are ones I agree with. Name one. As with Kavanaugh and Biden, I question the accusations against Trump. I don't know if any of them are true. The dismissal of the accusations against Biden and Clinton show that the left in this country has no qualms about using rape allegations as a political tool against their opponents. That…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 08:35 PM
1

That's begging the question. It's really not. If a man has sex with a woman with an unknown level of consent, then pays her to not talk about their sex, we cannot say whether that was rape or not. "Unknown level of consent" if it's unknown by literal definition there has been no consent given. If you have to pay someone to not talk about a thing you did, does that not instantly make it bad? Who pays people to not talk about legimate things happen.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 08:28 PM
7

As an Australian, no. I'd vote independent if it meant anything, but overall, if both presidential candidates are shitty people, you vote on policy (like you always should).
/r/MensRights17/05/20 03:13 PM
-4

It's a simple question within the same frame of consent. Consent is what's in question here, an exaggerated example so you can see how ignorant you're being is the point of the question. The fact you call It a strawman to dismiss it, shows your lack of awareness of the subject. Nice chat, seeya.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 02:54 PM
1

Is that the only defence you have? My rapist is just as bad as your rapist How about, don't vote for rapists?
/r/MensRights17/05/20 02:22 PM
-4

If you rape someone then pay them to say it wasn't rape, is it still rape?
/r/MensRights17/05/20 02:17 PM
-2

BoTh SiDeS Yea what he didn't wasn't good either.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 02:16 PM
-11

Do you not understand power dynamics and their affect on consent? or are you just being edgy.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 11:58 AM
3

Just have unisex bathrooms for every single bathroom. This shit is ridiculous to complain about.
/r/MensRights22/03/20 11:37 PM
-1

Go on, throw some evidence out there, your Bias is showing.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/03/20 04:53 AM
-4

Because one is making fun of hypocrites that happen to be white, while other was making fun of Jewish people that went against the thought train of the sub. Yea the posters and lots of posts in FMR are garbage, but the intent behind it is to poke fun at people that are hypocrits that happen to be white, not racially discriminate because, ironically you're butt hurt about a subreddit calling you fragile.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/03/20 01:53 AM
1

Oh you just don't understand what middle class represent. Great. Middle class doesn't mean middle income. Never has, never will. Middle class combines many things, wealth, education, lifestyle etc. Earning 50k as an adult man, almost definitely excludes you from being middle class in todays America. Could you support a nuclear family in the suburbs of a place that allows you to earn 50k? That's like middle class 101.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 12:19 AM
1

It's a meme because it is a meme, not because i brought it up. Basically ignorant assholes gatekeeping enjoyment because of a perceprion if wasting income. https://www.financialsamurai.com/definitions-of-a-middle-class-income-do-you-consider-yourself-middle-class/ Here you go, i stand corrected. You are literally just inside middle class in some places. Grats on being the lowest of the middle. Based on the financial estimation, based from median income of state/ area you reside. Which honestly i…
/r/MensRights30/01/20 11:46 PM
0

Everywhere in the US 50k a year is not middle class. Not buying coffee is a meme, great job on perpetuating it. Cool you know people, great anecdotal ecidence of the 300+ million people that live in America.
/r/MensRights30/01/20 10:47 PM
1

You're the one that keeps coming back for more. And you're opinions are worse the horrid, their moronic. Someone has to point out how fucked in the head you are. No dude, your views are the bad ones here, fuck people that make bad choices because of some pre-conceived notion of arbitrary right and wrong? Anyone that says that personal responsibility is a bullshit argument is lacking in the critical thinking skills that an adult should have. Not only did you completely miss the point, you made a …
/r/MensRights30/01/20 07:08 PM
2

Yea your opinions do need to change, because they're fucking horrid. Personal responsibility is a bullshit argument. People can and do make it work on almost nothing, then life changes. You can know someone for decades and still find out new things about them. When you grow up you might realise this, but before then. Go away.
/r/MensRights30/01/20 06:44 PM
-1

This is possibly the most ignorant thing I've read. You are projecting the worst minority of poor people onto all of them. "Just don't have coffee each morning" Absolutely fucking pathetic. 50k a year is not middle class.
/r/MensRights30/01/20 01:09 AM
-1

Yet people used to have 5k a year wages, single incomes, 4 kids and a middle class life. Inflation not account for the difference. At 50k a year you should be middle class, you may think you are, but you definitely aren't. You realise that if everyone that earned as much as you or less, then about half of america couldn't have kids. Stop gatekeeping having a child and recognize that it takes a village, and the village in the modern world is the economy.
/r/MensRights29/01/20 11:23 PM
1

Are you 10? People change, life changes. You want women to work more and men to work less, if men are working full time now, what is less than full time??? So right now, because of ignorant people like you, the economic situation of most people requires both parents to be working to even get out of poverty. And you want 50/50 custody to be default and for that to work. How fucking dense are you? If you want anyone that splits a marriage or relationship with children to just on a whim completely …
/r/MensRights29/01/20 09:50 PM
-3

In reality that just means you have two poor broken families instead of one. If you say this and don't support higher minimum wages, and a much much stronger safety net ala welfare, you're nothing but a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights29/01/20 08:35 PM
1

Feminist issue, because only having chamge tables in the female toilets is pushing the stereotype that only women would a reason to need a change table. All toilets should be ungendered single occupancy. It's all bullshit anyway.
/r/MensRights21/01/20 11:52 PM
2

Scomo isn't masculine at all, so case debunked there.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 04:40 AM
1

A saying and an exaggeration aren't the same. "Sleeps with everyone they meet" is an exaggeration. A saying and an exaggeration aren't the same thing, but they can be the same thing. Multiple can mean 2 or 3. Nobody cares about such an insignificant number since with women it's almost always the case.Multiple i'm using here is 10+ per month minimum. And sleeping with one person a year, you'll eventually get to high numbers, but no one is slut shaming the lat imaginary person are they? The entire…
/r/MensRights14/11/19 03:23 AM
2

If you sleep with everything that moves you should be called out on that regardless of gender. An exaggeration that is highly subjective, it's most common usage... read: sleeps with people but not me. People that do sleep with "everything that moves" in this case multiple partners have been seen to exhibit those behaviours often bordering on addiction. Have shown where? Also you're moving the goal posts, now instead of just multiple people, it's people that have an addiction to it. They're not t…
/r/MensRights14/11/19 02:39 AM
-2

You thinking that having sex with multiple people proves those things are lacking is what makes it circular logic.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 01:57 AM
5

That is just circular logic, you view it as bad, so therefore choosing to do it, is a bad choice. That's not the case.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 12:58 AM
5

And safe sex does that. Which by your own logic right now, removes the reasoning to shame someone for having multiple partners. Cos you can have unprotected sex with one person and it be a bad choice. So think to yourself, what's worse in your head? If you're still shaming the person that sleeps with lots of people even if they're being safe. Then you have to look at why you think that.
/r/MensRights13/11/19 09:06 PM
8

It's not obtuse, it's a metaphor for your shitty logic. Sex = aids so sex bad amirite? There is a way to almost entirely eliminate that risk, which removes your reasoning. Driving may be considered a necessity, but the danger isn't from driving itself, it's from collisions at speed, should we lower the speed limits to 40kph or less? No, we take the risk and reward from the activity, be it required or recreation and mitigate the risks to suit our needs. Some people speed without wearing their sea…
/r/MensRights13/11/19 08:52 PM
0

You didn't make any point worth going deeper with. Did you know driving a car increase your risk of having a car accident, should you stop driving cars?
/r/MensRights13/11/19 08:44 PM
-5

Women as a demographic shame men for sleeping with ‘too many women’. r/GenderCritical and TwoX are proof positive of that. But it’s only wrong to shame women? Twox isn't a representative of Reddit, let alone all women. Tit for tat isn't a valid reason to do something. There isn't a reason for it, just because others do it means nothing. On top of the ‘equality and fairness’ it’s just good for public and personal health. Can’t get AIDS or spend 18 years paying for an unwanted kid you had with an …
/r/MensRights13/11/19 08:39 PM
-5

Why? It's their life / body / choice. It has zero impact on you or others. Can you give a single non bigoted reason to shame someone for enjoying sex with different people?
/r/MensRights13/11/19 08:24 PM
6

Usually it's not a literal loose, but a figurative one. Aka they're slut shaming. Also not right, but you know..
/r/MensRights13/11/19 07:52 PM
0

I think this is pretty telling of changing realities. Then you should re-evaluate your critical thought processes. Reddit is mostly male. That alone is enough to bring up a difference.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 01:09 PM
50

The same people that want to ban abortion, also don't want to fund education. So yea, public education is important.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 05:10 AM
1

Just like a black president that ended racism, right?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/05/19 03:09 AM
1

AA.
/r/MensRights15/05/19 09:13 AM
3

She is the female equivalent of tyler1.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/04/19 10:15 AM
-7

Any proof of your claims or are you just making stuff up? *edit, that's definitely making stuff up then, good to know.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 09:15 AM
3

This is very clearly hyperbole. Get upset about something real.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 07:49 AM
1

Google thing was a non-story.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 10:33 AM
-3

I didn't cherry pick any data, I simply expanded the logical thought a single step outwards. If you actually looked at any data around this point it would probably prove way more than again, showing averages of working hours.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 03:03 AM
4

It's the same as there is more fridge deaths than shark deaths, you're around your fridge everyday, you're only around sharks a tiny percentage of the time. If you're not around children you don't have the ability to do bad things.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 03:00 AM
-24

Now do another one that displays how much time each parents spends with their child. Cherry picking data to make women look bad, makes you look bad.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 01:43 AM
1

And i dismissed it which caused you to start insulting me and dismissing my comments based on superficial reasons. No, you misunderstood what I said, then strawmaned the argument. what is that, the 7th vauge claim you cannot support? It's easy to support, you've shown time and time again you have no grasp of what I said. r/all is not a think for you? christ how new are you to reddit? Also the concept of specfically going to a sub is "unthinkable" to you, really? Firstly, /r/all isn't a subreddit…
/r/MensRights22/12/18 07:42 AM
1

I made my point in my original comment. You failing to understand an extremely simple concept is your problem, not mine. People don't "come" from subs, unless it was linked somewhere. This hasn't (afaik) been linked to any subs I follow besides menrights. It means if your delusions that only people that are brigading could possibly display a difference of opinion were even close to being true, why would someone waste their time replying to a useless comment chain as opposed to a top one?
/r/MensRights22/12/18 06:39 AM
1

You still have no fucking idea what I'm saying, this is embarrassing. Bridaging would mean I'm from another sub, linked here and came here to argue the point. But I went 3/4 of the way through a thread and tried to make a against the jerk comment about social situations. Even though I have many comments in this sub.
/r/MensRights22/12/18 02:25 AM
1

Dude, just give it up. You think I'm brigading? From where exactly. Check my entire post history you spastic. uhhh, you literally said You realise what you quoted makes you look like an idiot that doesn't understand context or the word literally, right? The situation being the same would be a man that is viewed by a large portion of women to be of high value. It is a subjective circumstance, the crime is an objective one. The attractiveness of the woman shouldn't affect the outcome of legal acti…
/r/MensRights21/12/18 11:45 PM
1

That comes down to the way (hetero) men and women view each other. An attractive woman may be simply given privilege purely from that one thing. Whereas a man needs to be both attractive and have some semblance of power or wealth.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 11:06 PM
1

I could say it's ok for a grown man to pee on and record a 14 year old girl because, if I recall correctly R Kelly did it, but we all know that's not ok and not how it would play out if someone not famous did so. You couldn't say this, That's not what I said at all. It has nothing to do with the objective nature of the act. It's the way people react is the point of contention here. Again, it's not about consequences of actions, it's about social reaction to them. If being a famous man is what it…
/r/MensRights21/12/18 09:22 PM
1

Except that's not even close to what I said. I said the situation would be similar if the circumstances were similar. An attractive woman is attractive to 9/10 of men, a similarly attractive man needs to be that way for 9/10 of women, it's a lot less likely to happen.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:26 PM
1

Do you fucking people not read read comments and just reply out of spite or what? I never said it was the same all the time. Merely that if the man accused was as attractive as this woman is, which is a subjective matter then the comment would be similar. And reality does back me up there, it's just the calibre of attractive enough to joke about statutory rape and paedophilia is a lot lower when you realise that men view a much higher proportion of women as fuck able.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:24 PM
1

Has nothing to do with people getting away with it. I already said it was objectively bad. It's the social response that is being complained about.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 11:10 AM
-3

Just like Elvis?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 10:33 AM
-24

Honestly if you flipped the genders and it was a man that was as attractive as this woman is, the comments would more than likely be the same. Yes it's objectively hypocritical, but subjectively it's a lot more likely that a woman is found attractive than a man.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:48 AM
2

Government programs don't disappear..
/r/MensRights17/12/18 08:09 PM
6

Orrrr, how about fuck that. What a gigantic waste of public money on something that already costs a fuck tonne to manage.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 07:40 PM
0

Why make an exaggerated claim? There's no way a man would get life for this. Stop with the petty bullshit.
/r/MensRights09/12/18 09:13 PM
-11

Cherry Picking data to support your side is exactly what Feminists do, Don't be like that.
/r/MensRights30/11/18 10:17 AM
0

No, I'm calling out obvious racism you turd. You just pigeon-holed an entire race into your twisted view. That is text book racism.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 07:48 PM
1

You literally said the blacks you ignorant cunt.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 11:41 AM
98

Disproportionately lower, yes.
/r/MensRights20/11/18 07:43 AM
5

Choir teacher though, so the presumption of position of power could very well be argued here.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 01:32 AM
1

Why not just pay their employees the same?
/r/MensRights11/11/18 12:06 PM
1

Again, that comes down to them firstly wanting to be associated with that, and second learning more than surface level "feminism means equality" trope.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 06:12 AM
1

So under your definition most "feminists" aren't even feminists, gotcha.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 03:59 AM
1

But fails to account for all the other reasons they're not similar at all? What do you account going to church in feminism is?
/r/MensRights07/11/18 01:50 AM
1

So you want me to reply to an analogy that has no comparison to the topic at hand...
/r/MensRights07/11/18 01:36 AM
1

Then why are you arguing at all then. Oh because you didn't read what I said in the first place. Congratulations.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 12:18 AM
0

Oh you're actually retarded I get it. At no point have I defended feminism at all. Merely pointing out that celebrating that this sub has more members than /r/feminism is a pointless endeavour. But continue to lick windows at your own pleasure.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 11:56 PM
1

You don't need to. This isn't about feminism and mensrightsactivists This is about /r/feminism & /r/mensrights They aren't representations of the general population. So it means nothing. It's like celebrating that /r/gaming has more subscribers than /r/nfl. It's a pointless metric.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 11:34 PM
1

Which has absolutely nothing to do with feminism? Does the mere fact I celebrate Christmas make me a Christian? Millions across the world celebrate Christmas and Easter and are in no way affiliated with the church. You're clutching at straws to feel good about having more members in an online community with a heavily biased user base. It's pathetic.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 07:54 PM
1

That's exactly the point...
/r/MensRights06/11/18 07:51 PM
-5

Accepting something at face value and taking part in something actively, are two very different things.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 04:52 AM
-4

No they're not, where did you get that ridiculous assumption from..
/r/MensRights06/11/18 03:49 AM
-13

Reddit is majority male. This means less than nothing.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 02:39 AM
4

"Not proof of a false accusation"
/r/MensRights03/11/18 09:11 AM
8

So... not a false accusation?
/r/MensRights03/11/18 08:21 AM
1

And if they can't get their needs met they are dead, obviously these people manage to hunt or fish and make huts to survive. They have no economy, so this point is pointless where true. They earn nothing. Do stay at home parents earn anything? What about children? Explain. Only the US govt can get away with this, for now anyway, School tuition, credit card debt, in bad circumstances car loans and home loans. You owe more than you have, that means you're in the red. Most what? Most wealth, obviou…
/r/MensRights03/11/18 03:33 AM
1

A whole bunch of people earn literally nothing. Another whole bunch of people have negative. Then there's western society that has most. If. You're complaining about wealth inequality then you're part of the problem. Standard of living matters more than income.
/r/MensRights02/11/18 02:04 AM
0

No one said China and India are in the top 1%. 7billion+ people in the world the "top 1%" is 76 million people. It's also not like you can't be "tied" so to speak. Top 1% in regards to income is like $35,000 a year.
/r/MensRights01/11/18 11:30 PM
0

So where are the other 99% hiding? The outback in Australia? Actually with Australian welfare, even the poorest you can be is still pretty much the top 1-2% of the world. And yes that includes homeless people. The majority of the world lives in China and India.
/r/MensRights01/11/18 09:38 PM
1

It's clearly not acceptable, as whenever you see it. The very first comment is always, always bringing up the double standard.
/r/MensRights26/10/18 11:05 PM
9

This is ludicrous hyperbole.
/r/MensRights23/10/18 10:41 AM
2

A feminist with what I can tell a history of talking points and discussion, not complaining about manspreading. There is no possible way that any feminist would think this would help their cause. Even if they're stupid enough to think manspreading is an issue.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 07:42 PM
6

They have plenty of sources in the article. If you're that far gone, prove they're lying.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 11:49 AM
2

One of the men who appeared in the video also told St. Petersburg-based online magazine Bumaga that it was staged, and the victims were paid actors. It's fake, who cares what she is.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 06:49 AM
5

The sub is being used as a right leaning echo chamber. Which paints MRAs in a negative light even further in the leftist eyes. We shouldn't be making enemies of lefties.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 04:17 AM
1

I mean... That is pretty much how an immature person writes, random capitalisation, insults, deflection.. You're not making a good case.
/r/MensRights15/09/18 12:34 AM
1

Oh I guess you're 12 I see.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 12:43 PM
0

Fair enough...
/r/MensRights14/09/18 09:21 AM
0

Who hurt you.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 09:16 AM
2

Chill out fucker, I was making light of the fact we have a communist party and how ridiculous it is. Bloody tool.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 11:45 PM
7

Australia has a communist party, lmao.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 11:03 PM
3

To add onto that, the 40-80 bracket was round about when women weren't working at all, so career growth trajectory was a lot worse.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 03:30 AM
104

Being attractive and/or wealthy brings a lot more privilege to someone's life than having a penis ever could.
/r/MensRights06/09/18 03:42 AM
1

Gees you're touchy. Bad shit happens, but if someone lies about something you did you have recourse. Celebrity media doesn't have anything to do with false accusations, you're just being a tool.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 10:19 PM
1

It's not a transparent issue, you're conflating celebrity gossip media with actual legal proceedings. It's not being celebrated, he obviously didn't press any real charges.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 10:15 PM
1

I would love that! I've always wanted to sue for slander/libel. That would be great fun. Still not a problem that matters. Headlines get sales.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 09:49 PM
0

Why would celebrity outrage media decide law cases exactly? What kind of logic is that...
/r/MensRights16/08/18 09:03 PM
2

Umm, yea that's the point.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 08:39 PM
2

Couldn't give two shits about media bias. Legal bias is what matters.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 02:14 AM
2

"You're not a political candidate so I have no intention of debating you" Pretty easy, I guess.
/r/MensRights13/08/18 05:10 AM
1

Her defence is basically "They Started It." Another Left opinion writer that can dish it out, but cries in a corner when they get it back.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 12:40 AM
2

It's amazing though, if you were going to. Why wouldn't you after the divorce? The mother doesn't need the money to make that choice.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 09:23 AM
2

Don't judge government assistance as the standard rate for child raising.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 09:23 AM
1

Again. Idiotic. Okay you have no history. That will be $10,000 for the first year please. And God fucking help you if you crash.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:47 AM
1

Of which there are plenty of banks and plenty of insurers.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:46 AM
1

Which is totally ridiculous for a business model. Charge a base rate, lose money on someone, they never insure with you again. They go and pay a premium somewhere else.. For every 20 year old guy that pays too much and never crashes there's another that crashes three time in his first year. Their goal is to make money, not to be fair.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:31 AM
-2

It is now.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:29 AM
2

Why? People with higher risk factors should pay more. Other everyone pays more.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:01 AM
-44

Well no, health insurance the main difference besides that women are more likely to see a doctor for ails they may have, is child birth. Which, who would have guessed! Is a two person game. So instead of making single women uninsurable, they choose to put a premium on men's insurance. This is nothing more than a good business decision. I don't agree with government enforcement of that policy, but for the most part was unaffected by legalities.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 09:28 PM
14

Except that's the entire reason they're charged more... All insurance should be like that.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 08:45 PM
4

What could economists have to learn from feminism, seriously? What they do should be totally separate from the lens of genders etc.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 09:26 AM
1

Definitely.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 11:36 PM
2

Women and minorities vote at the highest rates.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 07:37 AM
6

Easy work around for companies honestly, just name a female director and pay her less than her "co-director" having a title doesn't make you entitled to the same wage.
/r/MensRights08/07/18 12:46 PM
2

Not a bad idea (no prison for non-violent crimes).
/r/MensRights05/07/18 11:42 PM
0

Then they need to prove it, there is a steady curve towards the centre over the last decade. The very first year of imaginary graph it does a 180 and sharply increases. This is not science, this is propaganda.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 09:08 PM
2

So the trends are getting closer until speculation hits and they spread rapidly apart again? What kind of bullshit is this. Who believes this crap, seriously.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 07:07 AM
59

It's to the point now where large swathes of men should simply change their gender identity, then continue living. Cheaper insurance,early pension. Lack of draft. What's to lose?
/r/MensRights26/06/18 12:06 PM
-4

This is one of those, no shit sherlock moments. The sheer amount of mothers that care for children more than fathers, or that have sole custody would make it almost impossible for fathers to be more abusive. This is propaganda pushing you further to the fringe.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 09:41 PM
1

$200 a week is cheaper than just about anywhere. Add in rental assistance (up to $150 a fortnight) Add in she's probably getting more than 500, because she's old and (was working?) What you get is she's still not living on $7 a day, because rent is a part of living...
/r/MensRights25/06/18 12:14 PM
4

At 50, Jane Matts was living on $7 a day. After leaving a domestic violence situation and trying to start again, she was unable to afford rent in Sydney. Minimum welfare in Australia is roughly $500 a fortnight. This number is literally impossible.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 10:51 PM
0

Ah so you're just a moron then. Because I don't want 1:1 punishment for a false accusation it must mean I think the current is okay. Absolute fucking tool you are.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 02:15 AM
1

It's literally less punishment. But better lock up the girl who passed out and got raped, just because she accidentally thought it was you and not some other guy!, fuck that bitch! It's like talking to a child.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 01:20 AM
1

Except every single person that gets raped, is raped. People that are accused of rape are in no possible way all fucked by the justice system. So again, it's ludicrous to say that false accusations should be met with the same punishment as the crime.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 12:31 AM
0

Yes one person out of a thousand, unlucky you. Still can't be un-raped. Even if you're one in a thousand. Rape is always rape. A false accusations is either one tiny headline and then nothing, or your extreme strawman. And everything in between. You're arguing so blindly about feelings, yet totally dismiss the reality of the other side. It's sad. Menrights should have more critical thinking skills.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:59 PM
0

And both times that's happened I'd agree with you. But being a fucking moron about it doesn't help anyone.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 06:07 AM
0

That's really fucked up.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 04:26 AM
-3

And that outlier would be just that, an outlier. Because at the end of the day you know you were falsely accused, you can't be un-raped.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:36 AM
-6

Are you kidding? One is actually being fucking raped. The other is accused of rape. They're not even in the same city let alone the same ball park. This is fucking ridiculous.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 01:44 AM
24

Because it's about individualism, not collectivism.. Which are becoming synonymous with the left and right these days.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 11:44 PM
5

Wheres the rape charges?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/18 11:21 AM
7

Mate. You were told not to say anything about that.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 02:38 AM
20

Almost exactly the same as men! who would have thought! oh right, anyone who actually thinks about it.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:04 PM
-2

This is exactly right, private institutions should be totally able to discriminate as much as they want. Freedom of association is still a thing.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 12:43 PM
2

Adoption is a thing. I'm so sorry the 99.9% effective BC didn't work. That's quite unfortunate. Doesn't give you supreme power to kill another person.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 03:51 AM
3

I would deny them public cover.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 03:49 AM
1

I'm in the Newcastle / Hunter Valley and never see pc culture..
/r/MensRights05/04/18 09:20 PM
-2

Where are you that gives you this impression?
/r/MensRights05/04/18 09:45 AM
5

Surely they could just swap these out to Victims of Domestic abuse and perpetrators of domestic abuse and save all the hassle of gendering at all...
/r/MensRights04/04/18 10:06 PM
1

This is totally incorrect, they have not proved unable to think. Don't be ridiculous. They have been taught the wrong thing. They can be re-educated.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 10:56 PM
2

Or you simply say "Sexism is the act of discriminating based on someones sex" Nothing else. just leave it at that. If they argue, then you laugh.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 10:01 AM
72

Don't make it personal, leave feelings out of it and present the facts on the issues and leave it at that.
/r/MensRights26/03/18 10:09 AM
1

Pension is the word used for state retirement funds.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 10:37 PM
1

It's actually detrimental to everyone. Men, especially ones like the OP 20-25 years of age, make up a staggering proportion of write off's and vehicle accident deaths. Not to minor shit either, negligent driving specifically. To make it so women and men's premiums are the same, they'd have to increase women's premiums, and more than likely those of men's until 30-35,so we'd all be paying higher premiums and for much longer than usual all because the greedy little cunt of an op doesn't understand…
/r/MensRights21/03/18 02:14 PM
1

Pensions are state funded, insurance is private.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 02:10 PM
0

And when you have an accident you'll get nothing congrats you played yourself. There's no way in hell I'm paying even 1k for yearly insurance! You're already losing.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 07:23 AM
-2

Mate, you lied because you're crying about paying additional insurance costs for a valid reason.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 06:49 AM
2

In which the total costs are greater.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 06:49 AM
-4

You'd lose. You're not being discriminated against. You're in a higher risk population and lied to save money. Even trans women should / would be charged more.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 06:14 AM
-4

This has nothing to do with /r/mensrights you don't have a right to equal insurance premiums. Men are statistically involved in more car accidents and cost insurance companies more. What you have done could very likely get any insurance claim denied and possibly sued for fraud.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 04:44 AM
3

If custody laws are heavily bias towards women, that would infer that the much larger portion of children are being looked after by a woman, leading to women having a higher chance at being responsible for abuse and/or death of a child. This is not an argument in favor of custody laws, you're just pointing out how easy it is to present statistics to highlight your narrative.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 10:47 PM
3

At the end of the day without Men and Women, almost nothing would be around.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 04:06 AM
60

It's probably already been done... Unfortunately unironically.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:04 PM
22

Or, here's a controversial one... Don't draft anyone.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 04:41 AM
-3

Okay, so now I get it. There's presumably a large communal shower, correct? And then only three single occupancy bathrooms, two of which are unisex and one which is women only, right? Going from this information, and after you saying it's mostly a male gym, you can pretty much conclude the the entire communal shower becomes almost exclusively a male shower room. So I don't see a problem with having at least one private bathroom only for women.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 03:09 AM
12

I don't understand, do the unisex bathrooms not lock? Or door close? Why is your privacy being invaded purely by unisex, single occupant bathrooms?
/r/MensRights12/01/18 12:00 AM
-4

Proof that this radical feminist doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty. Ftfy.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 10:32 AM
38

This is the basis behind those "all sex is rape" type feminists, they believe that we live in a patriarchal society and that sex with someone in a position of power is statutory rape... So men having societal power = all sex is rape.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 08:55 AM
6

Black communities have higher rate of crime, is there something wrong with black people? Racism. Men have higher rates of crime, is there something wrong with men? Yes. The cognitive dissonance about this level of thinking is just too much to comprehend..
/r/MensRights11/11/17 11:15 PM
-3

Except there was no push, BSA has been in decline for decades, they made a business decision to double their customers. And can be rebranded as scouts, just like pretty much every other scouting organisation in the world. More than anything it makes sense.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 10:09 PM
3

That doesn't change what I said.. If society changes it's values then it would be a problem for those people. It's not like business would change to pay less qualified / efficient people more money.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 12:11 PM
-7

Not an issue if society continues to value families. If it heads down a collective individualist approach it could be very difficult for many people on the wrong side of the gap, even if it is caused by their own choices.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 11:44 AM
1

How isn't it? Please tell me... You haven't been patient at all, personal attacks, general butt hurtness.. You been condescending and rude as hell. And still haven't even defended the entire premise of this woeful discussion.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 10:52 PM
1

How am I lying, I've quoted exactly what you said multiple times now. That is precisely what you implied.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 10:42 PM
1

Actually I'm nothing like that. You're the one that claimed you're incorrectly called a sexist, after making an entirely sexist claim. Obviously men and women choose different careers, but once choosen, to claim their inability to perform in a specific section because of their gender is actually a sexist thing to say. Especially when the owner (a woman) is clearly able to work as hard and make the tough decisions after she learns a thing or two about diversity hiring.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 10:16 PM
1

You're totally ignorant to my point anyway, kinda pointless. Maybe you are sexist? I don't know you. But you still have to realise you were wrong.. Eventually
/r/MensRights28/08/17 09:55 PM
1

"you people" haha, trying to put me in box. Some sentences can be sexist without it making you a sexist person to the core.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 09:38 PM
1

I didnt even say you are sexist, holy shit.. Hit a sore spot or something did I? There is a big difference between being sexist and saying something that is. But again, the reason they failed isn't because they are women. To imply it is, is actually being sexist. If you don't get that, keep doing you idgaf.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 09:33 PM
1

lol it makes perfect sense that these women wouldn't be productive she's hiring, because in reality, they don't want to be there and are just not interested in the industry they're working in but oh no apparently I'm sexist for pointing that out. No not at all.. Seriously read what you fucking wrote. You are point blank implying that they aren't going to be productive because they don't even want to be in the industry they chose.. And the only descriptive feature you use is women. This will be t…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 02:06 PM
1

I quoted exactly what you said, called you out on how you worded it and you immediately went on the defensive instead of clarifying what you meant. Overall women aren't as interested in this field, within the field of women that have already studied it and applied themselves there will be a wide range of devotion to productivity. Just like the men that did the same. Saying they aren't productive because they're women is sexist. Because there would be plenty of men that couldn't cope with that wo…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 01:52 PM
1

You have little understanding then. Productivity =/= Interest. Some people just want to do their 9-5 and go home. No matter what career they chose. Saying it is because they're women is the sexist part and the exact part I quoted in my first comment.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 12:43 PM
1

No I didn't. I said motivated people are rare. So if 5% of people are the type to work their guts out for a start-up, then the amount of applicable women is going to be 5% of the the 2% that applied. If 500 people applied that would make 10 women. It's not outside the realm of possibility that not a single one of those women were ones motivated enough for a start-up. I also think the biggest point you're missing is that the employer is a woman. Who is running a start up. To clarify, you saying t…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 12:16 PM
1

lol it makes perfect sense that these women wouldn't be productive she's hiring, because in reality, they don't want to be they're and are just not interested in the industry She's not hiring unqualified people. The ones she picked have education in the field and are interested, so to say they aren't because of their gender is actually sexist. People motivated enough for start-up are rare to find already, so to try to pull highly motivated women from an already small pool is going to be extremel…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 12:02 PM
1

And you've posted nothing but shitty bait videos and constantly cry out Oh no I won the argument, you won literally nothing. You continually move the goal posts so that you think you win. You're the one stuck in their own little safe space. Get out and meet people you ignorant swine.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 04:46 AM
1

It has nothing to do with where rights come from, again you're perverting the discussion away from your horrid views. This discussion is over, you clearly have no intention of admitting that you're a foul human being, I'm not wasting my time of someone who will continue to drag down Menrights, with useless woman hating.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 03:20 AM
1

In other words, you're trying to push to conversation away from your bigoted views so you can claim you won. It's pathetic.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 09:34 PM
0

Mate, you aren't in "touch with reality" The cognitive dissonance is heavy. Men may fight, but they fight for their mothers/ daughters/ wives AS WELL as themselves, but it's okay if you've never felt empathy. You'll get there eventually.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 05:00 AM
0

And somehow you get from that thought to, men deserve the vote more, because they're more willing to die for it? That's completely ridiculous. A vote signifies their participation in society, not some barbaric form of control. It actually boggles my mind how you could truly believe something like that in this time.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:21 AM
0

And women suffrage was women revolting because they didn't "have a vote" are you really that dense that you think only men are capable of feeling oppressed?
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:07 AM
1

You're trying to say that men are more deserving of a vote because they fought in a revolution, but no man alive today fought in a western revolution. Just because they have the ability to in the future doesn't even strengthen your point. Because not all men can even fight, just like not all women can, but some women would. A minority of a sex doesn't speak for everyone nor does it embolden your total lack of argument as to why men should get to vote over women.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 10:05 PM
0

Oh there's people alive that fought in the revolution is there? No? then again, your point is moot.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 09:59 PM
-1

No one in a western country has fought a revolution, your point is moot.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 09:45 PM
1

To be fair, womens vote was coming anyway, they took credit for 100% of it obviously. But it would have happened.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 09:44 PM
-1

Again, don't understand that at all. I couldn't give a single fuck what someone else's wife thinks. Maybe that's just me.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 09:41 PM
1

You mean that woman that takes my bodily fluids in her orifices? Or the one that I shower with and piss in front of? That woman would be grossed out from nose clipping! Well I never... If you live with someone for more than a couple of months you're going to see all the gross shit that happens. Shop talk I can somewhat get behind, but again I don't think it needs to be the barbers rule, just have the men that are insecure go alone or tell their wives to go shopping.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 09:18 PM
-2

Yea but why would that be up to the business? Why can't individual men tell their wives /gfs to leave or just go their alone.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 09:14 PM
14

I'm not sure I totally understand the "no women inside" thing, why would anyone care who is waiting in the shop? That said, I totally understand men only clients. I love going to barbers because they know how to give a really nice shave and always feel great afterwards. More and more, most hairdressers don't have any male barber or even offer a straight edge shave. So to have a niche barber like this is a great business.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 12:28 PM
47

"Now in Italy with her mother" I think this is more leaning towards wealth privilege not so much female.
/r/MensRights16/05/17 10:11 PM
1

How does abstinence lead to more unwanted babies? If a couple are abstinent they will not produce a baby, so I have no idea what you mean. The practice of abstinence yes, teaching abstinence, no not at all. Young people are going to have sex, there's very little you can do to stop this. So you control the risk not the act.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 10:47 PM
0

100% draft! Everyone has to have 2 years of military service instead of year 11/12. Let's go!
/r/MensRights06/05/17 05:09 AM
1

Abstinence is never the solution, if anything leads to more unwanted babies. Being responsible was exactly my point, both parents have equal in-put, but at the moment only one has final say. So to me, if you want the final say over both parties then you have to deal with the circumstances if the other party didn't want it in the first place. We aren't talking about planned babies here, we're talking about unplanned "I'm on the pill" "I pulled out, i think" " 0.01%" babies.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 12:06 AM
1

Well no, because it takes two to make the baby, I would argue that it takes two to raise the baby aswell. But the right to an abortion shouldn't be solely a woman's choice, as it takes both sexes to make the baby and also care for it once it is born. This means in cases such as rape / incest / mother is at genuine risk. Then yes 100% woman's choice. Aborting a healthy baby in terms of morality should be a discussion for humanity.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 09:08 AM
1

Human life is like taking a shit, congratz on your way way way to far view on pro-choice.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 06:42 AM
6

Two sides of the same coin my friend. If they want all of the choice, they need to take all of the responsibility.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 05:39 AM
0

In a round about way, they are.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 04:18 AM
8

The difference being, law makers aren't making laws that decide what women can do with their genitals. Abortion is a peoples issue, not a womens issue.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 04:17 AM
9

They definitely wouldn't be shying from run ins with these types of groups. Hopefully it doesn't escalate much further or there is going to be deaths.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/17 02:13 PM
16

Sounds like both your parents are cunts.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/03/17 09:13 PM
1

You're absolutely bonkers mate. When the comments are right there, you can read them. Context matters, It was to counter a point about when speaking out about supposed unjust laws is illegal, which isn't a problem in the western world. You can't just flip flop the subject then pull an out of context quote to rebut someones argument.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:21 AM
1

None of my comments are negative? And the rest are barely voted on besides probably you. As if Reddit would be anywhere close to a non-bias group. The pure fact you using it to try to prove your argument is laughable.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 04:56 AM
1

Okay it's very apparent you aren't reading what I'm writing. And you are so fucked in the head you think smoking weed is akin to civil rights. People change laws by protesting against them and using examples of civil disobedience make or prove their point. Then challenge the establishment legally. If you hold libertarian views good on you. Doesn't mean you're exempt from societies rules.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 03:54 AM
0

Educate yourself, nice rebuttal. Actually rarely ever see anything relating to police brutality on reddit. New sits report mostly bad shit, so yea there's gonna be police shootings on the news, maybe people should stop breaking the law or being in situation where they need to be shot to stop them from doing whatever it is they're doing. Every single story I have seen where it turns out the victim was innocent there has been community backlash and punishments for the involved officer.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 11:04 PM
1

Oh no let's use 2-5 instances of it working! shit it's not like there's 300 million people in the country or anything. Just because the government is corrupt as hell doesn't mean you make up your own fantasy world.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 10:52 PM
0

No, the original premise was that prison should be for rehabilitation instead of punishment, you butted in saying. Yea but what if you're sent to gaol over something I personally find shouldn't be illegal, then it's not okay. All I'm saying and have from the start is if you break the law wherever you may be, whatever you may be doing and expect not to go to gaol because of it, then you are an idiot. If you are willfully in-gauging in civil disobedience to further a cause it's a different matter,…
/r/MensRights20/03/17 10:50 PM
1

Where are all these police that get away with it? If they don't follow protocol they're suspended/fired /arrested / charged. If they do, then they are doing their job which is protecting society from people that seek to disrupt it. To say the police are"always" killing people is just plain wrong. Spreading propaganda about something will lead to it being hated by a certain number of people.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 09:52 PM
0

Holy fuck you are dense. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS WRONG. I'm saying again and again that if you take getting high as above the law you're a fucking idiot. If you don't expect punishment for BREAKING the law then you're an idiot. Every single person that fought for equal rights and the like knew full well what they were doing, the knew they would be or could be arrested for their civil disobedience, if you want to break the law in a society you live with the consequences. If you want to speak out and…
/r/MensRights20/03/17 09:19 PM
1

I think they should be prepared to go if a judge deems it. Now you're using the medical versus recreational side of the argument. Even using a little kid to illicit emotional response to a society wide issue. I would call into question the parents ability to care for the child though... how far down the road is "let's give a child weed see if that helps"
/r/MensRights20/03/17 08:52 PM
1

No I'm trying to make you see that there is a huge difference with injustice about laws. Protest for civil rights and smoking weed are two entirely different things. Not smoking weed doesn't impede on your everyday life. It is a recreational drug, the laws will come. But trying to say wilfully breaking the law is just by smoking a reefer... Is just pathetic.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 08:28 PM
1

Has it said that publicly? Was trump position during campaign to put the onus back on states so people stop blaming federal laws?
/r/MensRights20/03/17 08:24 PM
0

That was very much an anti-police comment.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 08:22 PM
1

Waiting periods and counselling is a good thing. Having am abortion shouldn't be taken lightly and it also helps prevent women from being forced to have one. It's quite hard to really pin down for me. For one I don't think it should be covered by insurance (unless life threatening) but inverse to that if it did cost money then It would affect poorer people more.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 01:54 PM
1

Where is the USA is abortion illegal?
/r/MensRights20/03/17 01:16 PM
1

I guess that's why it's available....
/r/MensRights20/03/17 01:03 PM
1

Abortion is and always will be a touchy subject. While it isn't a black and white subject, I think more black and white laws surrounding it would only improve it's standing in society. Ideally everyone wants zero abortions ( I hope).
/r/MensRights20/03/17 12:43 PM
1

Look, at the end of the day, it is illegal, if you want to do it, THEN complain about being arrested then you are in the wrong.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 08:40 AM
1

Again comparing willful protest FOR CIVIL RIGHTS to getting high. Getting high isn't some right of the people.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 07:59 AM
1

Yea totally sick bruh just like my 12 yr old girlfriend , love has no age limit man. It's totally fine that I'm 35 and also her "guardian" it's love. So totally stupid exaggeration obviously, but this is pretty much how I think about people that break the law and then say that it's the government that's wrong.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 07:33 AM
5

No they don't, stop spreading police hatred.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 06:30 AM
2

but if you think it's okay to break a law just to get high... then I think you're point is too close to center.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 06:26 AM
4

Actually no, the states have states right, the entire point of the constitution is to stop the government impeding the rights of the states and the people legalization is a states issue. Much like many many things
/r/MensRights20/03/17 05:30 AM
-2

Then it's time for a revolution, we're not talking about backwards ass countries.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 05:28 AM
5

Well yes I would hold those same views. But there would be other ways to find and gather support for something. I think if you're comparing smoking weed cos fuck the rules and speaking out against actual police violence and living in a totalitarian nation, I got good news, Western society isn't like that :)
/r/MensRights20/03/17 04:49 AM
20

Sorry, this is where we differ. If you live in a society that has laws regarding, (I assume you mean weed) Then if you find them unjust, you speak up against them. You don't willfully break them and expect no consequence. At the risk of exposing my argument to the slippery slope fallacy, breaking the law because of personal difference of opinion is a road to anarchy.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 04:39 AM
69

That entire statement is what is wrong with The American prison system, you shouldn't be scared to break the law, you should uphold the law, because it is the law and it is the bedrock to our society. Prison should be about taking away the freedoms and privileges that society gives to people and to rehabilitate them to re-enter a better person than they were.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 03:19 AM
207

Legally speaking would someone be able to sue a prison for not keeping them safe from other inmates? Does the prison not have duty of care over the individuals serving there.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 11:42 PM
20

reveal so much about what? Tinder is a hook-up app based on pictures, no shit someone attractive is going to get more matches. What a waste of resources to find out women like attractive men.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 03:57 AM
1

making out in my car Saw nobody else mention this, but maybe in your car isn't the best place to escalate that much on a first date, hell you go her in there, you were making out. Clear signs that's attracted. But getting banged in the back off a car on a first date? There's a limit mate, calm down.
/r/askTRP25/02/17 05:51 AM
3

My point is more that someone with the power to bring bills into question, is pulling this childish shit.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 05:49 AM
3

But she still made it, what if the joke goes too far and is implemented, what then?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 04:23 AM
1

Okay, the government won't interfere with abortion rights. But then they also won't foot the bill. One way or the other.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 04:22 AM
1

Or we could recognize that in that scenario the woman used her share of time wasting the family units money so if she thinks it unfair, let's be honest her, she is probably going to be the one to end it. That the reason a 50/50 isn't enough money because she wasted it all siting at home.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 08:50 PM
3

I supplied a theory on how to change things, how is that support for the current system?
/r/MensRights14/02/17 12:32 PM
9

Alimony should be abolished. No reason in this day and age to have it.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 09:24 AM
16

The problem with punishing the initiator of divorce is you will create marriage chicken with people making the other person life hell so they're the ones that call for it. Or in domestic violence cases the victim will be even more punished. I believe the best thing to do would be split every single thing 50/50 house, kids, cars and put legislation into effect that wouldn't make that career or financial suicide for either party.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 02:18 AM
1

More like all that tuition money (which is used to evade taxes) could just be paid in tax and free education provided for all net positive courses.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/17 08:27 AM
1

Yea I agree, helping other people really does go against capitalism.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/17 12:52 AM
118

That's not the american way! Greed and self preservation is what makes america great!
/r/PussyPassDenied11/02/17 10:39 PM
4

I know this to point out the inaccuracies of the search function, but is this statistic true? And if so what percentage of total murders does this equate to?
/r/MensRights25/01/17 05:43 AM
2

I am doing a course this year, luckily I'm only 27 so there's still "plenty of time" to change careers.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/17 09:03 PM
2

Also Electrician. Fucking hate it.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/17 06:12 AM
5

I assume it's similar to /r/offmychest that bans you from the sub for purely commenting on TRP.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:48 AM
11

There was, but in reality it wasn't they were offered less, it's they agreed to less after both having the same starter offer.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:47 AM
4

I mean I don't consider myself much of a MRA, but I agree with socialist aspects, I just didn't understand how they interacted.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:41 AM
1

(#)takemeback Is basically what you're describing
/r/seduction03/12/16 12:58 PM
8

Need to take drastic measures to reduce corruption... Hmm maybe pay them a decent wage??
/r/MensRights26/11/16 08:47 AM
1

Besides from failsafes, and electroinic radar etc... "oh they launched there's we're fucked. Better launch ours now"
/r/MensRights26/11/16 05:28 AM
2

I mean america bombed two civilian cities, do you think if it gets that far again the world do something different?
/r/MensRights26/11/16 04:26 AM
2

Somewhat prepared for nuclear winter of like minus 200degrees? Or permanent radiation clouds that kill all vegetation and wildlife? Cos I really don't see all out nuclear war having any safe spaces left on the earth.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 03:48 AM
4

Same as the zombie apocalypse, people think they're gonna be the hero. Nah you're probably gonna be part of the 95% of the population that is a zombie.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 12:14 AM
6

That was hard to watch... 30 and wants to be Miami girl, give it up woman.
/r/TheRedPill08/11/16 09:45 PM
12

For the custody percentages is there any statistics when both parents want custody? Just because I think it may be skewed as some men may want custody but having to work full time to support their fanily means continuation of that role so they can't feasibly have custody.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 09:13 PM
16

It wouldn't be that higher. 75%+ divorces are initiated by the woman. So at best half of those would be cheater, so I'd give it 2 : 5 odds
/r/PussyPassDenied11/05/16 01:55 PM
22

What do you recommend I do? Get half.
/r/askTRP13/04/16 07:15 AM
1

Well it's not an "option" You can't go to a doctor and ask for a prescription that will end your life. You can't go to a suicide booth and throw in a coin. You can take actions that will end your life, yes. In the same way you can end another life it is against the law. You and I have a difference of opinions on whether abortions are murder. If you're pro-choice there needs to be a point where you accept that it is okay. I feel before 3 months there isn't enough of a life to consider it murder.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 05:59 AM
2

and if an adult fetus wants to self-abort, that's always an option It's actually not an option. So you'd rather people who don't want to be parents be forced to have children instead of a baby losing an inch of skin? You'd rather increase tax burden on the country, and lump someone with 18 years of something they don't want instead of perform a procedure that's been happening with minor consequence for centuries? I'm not saying circumcision is good, but they aren't even comparable. They are comp…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:35 AM
-1

I'd rather babies lose their foreskins than people lose the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Separately, I'd rather circumcision be reserved for aesthetics or medical reasons and everyone have the choice to abort. That's why I stated that I think it's not a good thing to link the two.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 02:48 AM
5

That's not what I meant, A choice for the person it affects.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 12:55 AM
-9

This is a horrible statement to make, it comes off as oh we can't abort so no circumcision. Where abortion should be a choice JUST like circumcision.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 11:54 PM
1

It is the only systematic oppression, the rest is localised racism or sexism / homophobia
/r/MensRights01/04/16 09:26 AM
3

If you're gonna try and use fancy words, At least make your grammar correct. At the end of the day, the people that are a part of these programs (hopefully) go through Psych evals to make sure they're not going to harm the children in anyway. Did you ever think men might not be so undamaged by abuse? Did it ever cross your mind why male suicide is so much higher than female suicide? Is suicide not the ultimate form of mental damage? To sum up, you come to this sub with opposing views, complain a…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 08:30 AM
4

It took you an entire paragraph to say " I don't agree with you"
/r/MensRights09/03/16 07:28 AM
2

You'll find that black kids behave just like white kids. They mimic their parents attitudes and manureisms
/r/MensRights09/03/16 07:25 AM
3

/r/iamverysmart
/r/MensRights09/03/16 07:23 AM
10

So.... she doesn't need the big brother program Becuase she has you? Isn't it for kids that have no parents?
/r/MensRights09/03/16 04:40 AM
26

Let's just hope it's a primarily black school and move on with our lives, yea?
/r/MensRights09/03/16 04:38 AM
0

So take the high road and don't be opposition. If they want to oppose equal rights then, shame on them and everyone will see their side eventually.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 01:02 AM
2

The point is, we shouldn't be the opposition. We should be fighting our own fight next to them and helping each other realize the inequality each of us face.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 10:29 PM
3

Financial abortion. Or another less confronting name, basically up to 3months saying that he will not be financially responsible for the child. So if she chooses to keep it, she does it 100% alone. Would also have to be complete surrender of all visitation and parental rights of course.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 09:44 PM
31

Does it count if I'm afraid because she might try to take my son?
/r/MensRights08/01/16 10:19 AM
125

"I hope they don't serve oatmeal again, I'm sick of that shit"
/r/MensRights05/01/16 08:34 AM
5

Apparently in your basic understanding of history you missed that the current height changes are mostly a return to paleolithic standards. I would debate the definition of significant physiological change (there is a reason that people living in the neolithic are referred to as Anatomically modern humans) but since you don't appear to understand the basics of the theory of evolution its probably a lost cause. Loose translation : nuh-uh you're too stupid to understand. Natural selection isn't the…
/r/MensRights31/10/15 03:04 AM
2

They should be jailed for aslong they continue to lie about what happened.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/15 07:15 AM
8

Morality and legality are two different things.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 09:32 PM
1

I dunno about outlier, considering basically all jobs work in the same manner.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:59 AM
4

Another societal convention, is that guys aren't serious about sluts. They'll fuck a slut. They're not going to keep one around. Only thing that's relevant and is flat out 100% the cause. If a guy knows you're a slut even betas aren't gonna stick around.
/r/TheRedPill04/09/15 10:35 PM
32

Been a single working (for the most part) father for 6months to a year. Easiest thing in the world. All the house work gets down in 30min a day or less, house is tidy, son is well behaved. Definitely not hard. I'd say having more than one child would make it exponentially more difficult though.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/15 03:10 AM
11

She'd be let off, as fleeing the scene of her "rape" while still intoxicated would probably strengthen her claim. "I know it's wrong to drink and drive but in my intoxicated state and fearing what had just happened I felt as though I had no other choice" Even if the accusation didn't stick, she'd still probably worm her way out of it.
/r/TheRedPill11/07/15 03:10 PM
32

Provided you pay above the minimum award for the job, you can pay anyone any amount. Especially with individual contracts for workers. There is plenty of Australian jobs that already pay women (on average) more per hour for the same job. iirc pharmacists is one of those jobs. Wage should be directly related to experience in the industry or level of education within the industry, never on sex/race/age.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 04:36 AM
0

Solar power isn't the issue. Coal power stations that can't be just for on demand night time useage is what is holding the energy sector back. Storing solar is very expensive compared to coal even now
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:09 AM
-3

I dunno if it's TRP with the trolling comments. But, just stop that is so pathetic my god, the cringe.
/r/TheRedPill23/12/14 09:52 AM
1

Oh I fully understand, and given the same situation you bet I'd be up for it. But duty of care and statutory rape are things that need to keep black and white.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:48 AM
3

16 is the age of consent in Australia anyway. It still breaks laws in terms of dury of care, but not child molestation. Also only if it happened at school would this come under duty of care.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 02:28 AM
2

I haven't read the report, so how old was the boy? Other than that, have you realised how they report the attractive teachers that do this a lot more than the ugly ones. A glimpse of "nice" crossed my mind. Then I sorta snapped back and realized this is a minor that is being coeirced into a sex act.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 09:46 PM
1

While sober, while I don't consider it rape as such. I personally wouldn't do it. But if I'm high as fuck and so is she, and it progresses that way... who wouldn't? Shouldn't be considered rape though.
/r/askTRP29/09/14 12:43 PM
15

A scapegoat for another bout of anti domestic violence feminism. A box that encourages unhealthy eating habits (ads) and provides a mean in which you can lose gains while simultaneously lowering your IQ.
/r/TheRedPill12/09/14 09:34 AM
1

I got 2 great references from teenage jobs helped me land my apprenticeship. Seemed to make a lot of difference here in aus.
/r/askTRP23/08/14 10:10 PM
0

Teens are when you should be building your reputation with references and also gaining a strong work ethic. Once you start having fun at work or not taking it seriously it has detrimental effects on your ability to be re-hired.
/r/askTRP23/08/14 10:47 AM
5

Don't shit where you eat. Treat them like equals until they prove they don't deserve it. As a teenager that won't take long.
/r/askTRP23/08/14 05:07 AM
1

Continue lurking, as well as being an old song. it doesn't really provide any additional insight.
/r/TheRedPill21/08/14 05:55 AM
3

If you're truly a spectacular woman, not just a woman with alpha male qualities. Then your personal best bet would be to have more than 1 beta bucks in tail, and seek to find the best male to provide offspring. That, or lock down the best alpha you can and give him your youth for commitment and life partnership.
/r/askTRP21/08/14 04:29 AM
1

In the wise words of mata. TA NOT TA.
/r/askTRP20/08/14 11:25 PM
0

Her story was he held her down and had sex with her after she said no. If that doesn't count as rape then you have serious issues.
/r/TheRedPill19/08/14 09:57 PM
0

That seems extremely unlikely. Have a source? Otherwise people would be selling the rights to their childs foreskin. Even that sentence drains my hopes for this world :(
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:15 PM
5

More like, LMR so she had way to spin it afterwards. She wouldn't have went INTO his house if she didn't want his dick.
/r/TheRedPill19/08/14 07:17 AM
-4

If her account is factual then it is rape. More likely is that she is telling half thruths to try and get away with it. Which will only lead to it happening again.
/r/TheRedPill19/08/14 06:05 AM
1

Personal preference. I myself don't cross that line. But if she's the instigator for anything lude it's on her. Sounds more like she wanted an orbiter though. So better to next her and save yourself the time.
/r/askTRP19/08/14 02:33 AM
6

Or as they say birds of a feather, flock together.
/r/askTRP13/08/14 11:12 PM
1

I agree. Although, it did help a lot when I was only an apprentice when my son was born.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 07:51 AM
1

Mothers still receive practically 100% single parent welfare even with child support coming in. In Australia for reference.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 03:52 AM
16

He's two hours away. Hard to be the most alpha guy in the room to her, when you're not even in the same house. Figuratively and literally. I make it a general rule not to exclusively date if the girl isn't a local.
/r/askTRP10/08/14 09:45 AM
1

Being a slut is viewed as bad, because we as men can't guarantee that she would bear our children, without risk of others. Reduces the appeal of a slut for LTR.
/r/TheRedPill09/08/14 02:08 AM
20

The comments are filled with examples of pre and post wall thinking, when confronted with a purely comedic song.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/14 02:36 PM
74

You think, How funny it is that they enforce the very objectification they demonise so readily. It was never about your faces, ladies.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/14 05:39 AM
-2

"girls night out" I associate with clubs / dancing / heavy drinking.
/r/askTRP24/07/14 11:21 AM
17

If she puts more effort into looking good for those nights than she does for you or for yours and her date nights. Then I'm sure you can gather why she is going out. Work collegue drinks and single friend girls nights are two very different things. It also depends on age. If she's 30+ and still doing stuff like that it would be strange but if she's in her 20's although higher risk of branch swinging or just fishing for orbiters, she may not know a better way to socialize.
/r/askTRP24/07/14 06:19 AM
0

I view most of it in the way that it's a ranting process from newer members. People that have accepted it sort of move onto self progression or activism. Spreading the hate isn't time efficient nor does it really get anywhere.
/r/TheRedPill14/07/14 04:21 AM
0

Doesn't mean I want to read a hundred articles about it everyday. I like reading actual content on either mensrights or redpill. Instead of just femi hate
/r/TheRedPill13/07/14 09:27 PM
2

Oh man the first 10 or so posts are mainly just feminist bashing. get enough of that here and MRs
/r/TheRedPill13/07/14 10:26 AM
1

Missed the deep. Serves me right for redditing at 6am.
/r/TheRedPill23/06/14 12:32 AM
-4

You make 10,000 a year? You must have all the cool gadgets.
/r/TheRedPill22/06/14 09:16 PM
1

It looks as though it's meant to be craft.
/r/TheRedPill17/06/14 12:00 PM
0

Wouldn't a single mum describe someone that is single? That's always made sense to me.
/r/TheRedPill16/06/14 03:57 AM
4

I have this feeling like he found a plate and took her back to raise the kids and clean the house. But she'd never admit that part.
/r/TheRedPill09/06/14 07:30 AM
1

Not really the advancement of men just to bring light the certain areas that men are discriminated against.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:52 PM
1

Yes, it is. but their ideology etc still places women below men (their own doing in their minds) So their focus is and most likely will always be the benefit and advancement of women.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 01:26 PM
2

To be fair. It is feminism, a sub devoted to women's issues. And there's just no need to concern troll. It's a waste of time and energy.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 09:48 PM
1

More retoric in the face of mental illness. Not even real problems stand in the way of their agenda.
/r/TheRedPill03/06/14 09:53 PM
1

Dude, if you're in a good spot with your dad get him to sign over any assets HE wants to you. Then the divorce doesn't concern them. He can also just play it off as a gift to his son from him and her. Now this probably wouldn't work with houses but cars bikes jet skies.
/r/TheRedPill02/06/14 08:51 AM
1

We were not discussing health. Only weight loss. Which is purely dependant on food intake vs energy outtake. People who can't lose even with low claorie intake are a neglible statistic.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 05:12 AM
2

Yea, losing weight is just eating less. Not starving yourself. Just less. If you wanna be super healthy and lose weight then it's going to be a little tougher to achieve. But whats alreasy been said 99% of overweight people could easily lose weight by not even changing their diet by jusd eating less of the same food.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:34 PM
11

No it's literally about eating less and that's it. You can eat Mcdonalds everyday and lose weight providing you eat under your daily calorie requirement.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:04 PM
8

The article he linked was one that actually portrayed abusive men as weak beta types that are too scared of losing the woman. Basically the opposite of what TRP preaches.
/r/TheRedPill31/05/14 12:08 AM
1

The age of consent is 16. So 17yrold and 15yrold would be statutory rape still. From a legal stand point
/r/MensRights30/05/14 06:57 AM
1

rpkarma It's like you're the opposite to him.
/r/TheRedPill26/05/14 09:22 PM
7

He asked for a source I provided information for how he could find the source himself. I assume he had an interest in the information so the rest of the information included there would also be of interest
/r/TheRedPill26/05/14 09:50 AM
6

If you head over to /r/mensrights there is many sources in their sidebar.
/r/TheRedPill26/05/14 08:50 AM
0

I find it funny that league is last. Kinda rounds out the list well.
/r/TheRedPill21/05/14 09:09 PM
2

Sorry but we're in TRP. Where a man only marries for children. So the children which have been raised for him. Are of equal share.
/r/TheRedPill05/05/14 06:08 AM
2

I'd be more inclined to go with 2 years that's plenty of time to reestablish a job and life.
/r/TheRedPill05/05/14 03:45 AM
2

As the other person said I too was diagnosed. All ilmy parents did was enroll me in soccer and little athletics and I smoother out. It is over diagnosed in children these days. Much like depresssion is in adults and teenagers.
/r/TheRedPill05/05/14 02:52 AM
1

Medicate as follows. Go Outside. Oh look just solved 90% of ADHD cases.
/r/TheRedPill05/05/14 02:01 AM
0

This is why automatic prenups should be a thing. On the flip side though. A woman attaining half of assest through a divorce makes sense in some ways. For example if she was a house keeper / cleaner and sacrificed her career to care and raise the children. Then while he is working she is "missing out" on employment opportunities. So taking half the stuff and in some ways alimony is payment because if they both leave the marriage with equal assets the man has a much higher earning potential than …
/r/TheRedPill05/05/14 01:58 AM
1

Newb question about "The Dark Side". If you only do one cycle, how much muscle do you lose afterwards and is it easier or harder to naturally stay strong after the single cycle. I'd like to try it but I don't want to ever rely on it for how I look.
/r/TheRedPill28/04/14 07:29 AM
6

Which was covered in higher conviction rates for men over women. But also is attributed to social pressures on men providing and being the one to risk their freedom and life for safety.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 12:07 AM
1

Just watch Anger Management, Charlie Sheens new show, It's basically all the same stuff sleeping around with multiple women a lot of Redpill antics. Still has some humour behind it. Even tho it has token gay guy, old guy, dumb slut, and dumb guy in his therapy group.
/r/TheRedPill19/04/14 11:40 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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