TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Benocrates Archive

View 1 post and 325 comments by Benocrates on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
8

Benocrates/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:21 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

found not guilty on appeal, which means that you're innocent It means he's not guilty. Courts don't determine innocence.
/r/PussyPass25/01/16 11:30 PM
-9

Good god, do you realize that you sound like an over-dramatic puss? This whole thread is embarrassing.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 01:25 PM
-1

This one is the final straw for me. I'm out too.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 01:23 PM
-19

This is the very definition of petty.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 06:04 AM
1

Both facilities can handle an emergency shit.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 06:03 AM
1

Hardly what a professor of your stature should be doing if we believe you are serious about insisting reddit have discussions worthy of the academy Where did I say that? I was talking to you directly, not about reddit at all. Intellectual laziness anywhere is worthy of criticism. Also, you're the one who assumed I was a professor. Another example of your laziness. Anymore?
/r/MensRights15/09/12 09:40 PM
1

Otherwise you're just making an argument from authority in a fallacious way. This is the funniest thing you've said yet. Any more gems?
/r/MensRights15/09/12 09:27 PM
1

You can be a sarcastic prick all you want, but I'm probably the only one of us that reads academic articles for my work. If my students made the claims you did they would not be doing very well in my class. I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you over this. I'm just going to repeat my claim that you're wrong about social science papers and you're intellectually lazy.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 09:17 PM
0

I simply don't accept the legitimacy of discussing an article when only reading the abstract and first page. It's an intellectually lazy and obviously sloppy way of approaching any academic writing. I deal with academic articles daily and understand the distinction between an abstract and the body of a work. It's not that long, nor is it filled with overly challenging language. I don't accept that kind of laziness from someone I generally disagree with, nor can I accept it with someone I general…
/r/MensRights15/09/12 09:10 PM
3

This is a social science paper that relies on arguments to justify itself. How can you evaluate those arguments without reading the whole thing? Also, you clearly didn't have the whole picture because you didn't read it. If you are going to post the article and discuss it, you've gotta know what you are actually discussing.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 08:45 PM
2

Dude...you have to read the whole thing. That's why the whole thing was written, not just the first page.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 08:29 PM
2

Well, that's what she said, not necessarily the truth.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 08:10 PM
2

Well, looks like you made a mistake, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:59 AM
5

In the comments it says he has 2 kids.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:49 AM
11

Yet, you stayed married to her. Why didn't you move on?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:48 AM
3

Probably would depend on a few factors. Age would be a big one probably. Particularly if they are close to retirement age.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:46 AM
3

Not sure, but I can't find it on the video page. Maybe I'm just missing it or something? The comment thread is still alive either way.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 08:54 PM
3

Looks like it was removed. At least I can't find it on the list.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 07:26 PM
2

You're talking about society, they're talking about individuals.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:13 PM
6

First, the information surrounding the video indicates it's a rental property. Second, It's not in New York.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:13 PM
1

Sure, but SS is a part of war, which plays a part in the survival of a generation.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:07 PM
1

If you're talking about officers being pilots, I disagree completely. About the draft, sure, I think it's a bit much. There's just no way that draftees should be assigned as pilots.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:06 PM
2

The amount of people on the planet have nothing to do with the strength of a country. No country is willing to sacrifice a new generation because the world population is growing.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:28 PM
1

Pilots aren't drafted. They are officers and must volunteer or be selected from volunteers.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:27 PM
1

Gay marriage has nothing to do with war. Selective services are preparations for a future possible war, where many soldiers will be killed. The same is not true for the marriage hall.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:26 PM
1

Sure, but it wouldn't happen.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 11:21 PM
1

People who believe abortion is immoral are not going to trade that away in some kind of perverse negotiation.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 10:36 PM
1

It's fine that you subscribe to utilitarianism and pragmatism, but just remember that not everyone does. Utilitarianism has a very strong persuasive element, and it's a good horse to hitch yourself to. I'm just trying to advocate for the other, equally as legitimate, moral theories that exist. You're probably right in that many people who oppose abortion do so from an irrational perspective for many psychological reasons, but I'd say the same holds for the other side. There are some of us in the…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:30 PM
2

The moral theory you described is very strongly a utilitarian one. However, there are many other moral systems that exist. Philosophically, before the modern (perhaps even post-modern) era, the common moral standard was not a utilitarian. The last big quest for a non-utilitarian moral theory was probably Kant, who looked for categorically true moral statements through a strictly logical process. Consider Hegel's project and the global contenders that followed, e.g. Marx. Hell, a guy named Martin…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:12 PM
1

There are plenty of moral theories that rely on standards outside of experience. The most obvious are the myriad religiously based moral theories that utilize a concept of divine justice. Under much of that are ancient moral theories derived from the contemplation of the universal, that I suppose derive themselves from conscious experience, but I'm not sure that's true in the way you're conceiving it. I think you'll have to explain your position a bit more for me to comment adequately.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:52 PM
1

While that's probably true for the fetus and consciousness, not all theories critical of abortion rely on the consciousness of the fetus. For example, I don't think lalicat would consider consciousness in their decision on the abortion issue.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:49 PM
1

That doesn't follow for every moral theory critical of abortion. In other words, it's not simply a matter of consciousness for everyone who believes that abortion is morally reprehensible.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:47 PM
1

Not when it comes to moral questions. I wouldn't change my moral beliefs because some other group allegedly changes theirs. Would you really be that morally flexible?
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:21 PM
1

The scientific community, neuroscientists, doctors, philosophers, are mostly convinced that there is no moral case against the choice of abortion. This is entirely irrelevant to the moral question of abortion, and it is also not true. Scientific study is by definition value neutral. There can be professional organizations who make moral judgments on the acceptable conduct of its members, but they do not have any authority to make 'scientific moral judgments'.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:20 PM
1

there is no evidence they are self-conscious It depends on how you want to define self-consciousness. I don't know that we can say with complete confidence that humans are the only self-conscious animals. The most obviously problematic issue is the seemingly gradual scale of consciousness in the animal kingdom, e.g. the distinction between a gorilla and a mouse.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:18 PM
1

We force people to feed their kids. Presumably they use their body to do that task.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:09 PM
2

It's an issue of individual v social justice. It's clear that not everyone begins with the same opportunities as everyone else. The difficult question is how to identify the people with a harder time. It seems a bit broad when involving the sexes, but I disagree that social justice should be rejected because of the difficulty.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:02 PM
2

I'm exactly the same. In high-school, undergrad, and grad-school the most influential teachers in my life have been men.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:14 AM
1

Sexual assault is literally assault with a sexual component which is different from non-consensual sex. Only if you interpret it that way. The Canadian legal system does not. I still like the rape distinction: sexual assault is so vague that the charge equates a grope (or a kick in the nards) with a non-aggravated rape. There is a clear gradient of severity within the Canadian system based on common law (precedent) and three degrees of sexual assault (as I've demonstrated above). The law itself …
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:16 PM
2

It's a lot less politically sensitive that way. There are varying degrees of severity, i.e. Sexual Assault, Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, and Aggravated Sexual Assault (Aggravated sexual assault is when one commits an aggravated assault of a sexual nature and who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant). It is similar to the degrees of assault, which are: assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, aggra…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:29 PM
3

In Canada rape is not a crime, it's all sexual assault.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:08 PM
1

Tu quoque?
/r/MensRights10/08/12 08:14 PM
1

This is the most immature argument I've read on this board. Grow up, both of you.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 05:35 PM
-1

um...yah. Don't try and fight feminists by becoming one. They are hypersensitive to jokes. That doesn't mean we should be.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 03:17 PM
1

I didn't say it was malicious, just immoral. Although there is a greater story of justice miscarried, this author is defending an immoral position in regards to marital rape law.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 06:34 PM
2

I am saying that rape is rape and whether or not you are married should have nothing to do as to whether or how you get punished for it. As I just said, the term "Marital Rape" and it's legal definitions as they are applied in criminal law are just another tool used to make men accused of these crimes unable to defend themselves in a court of law. No, it's because rape couldn't exist between spouses before. Don't try and conflate rape shield laws with marital rape laws.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 06:24 PM
1

In my jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which a spouse can be charged with theft if they flee with jointly owned property.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 05:35 PM
1

I don't know what jurisdiction you're in, but you absolutely can both rape and steal from a spouse.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 05:21 PM
1

Did you read the full article? A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. There are two arguments there. One reasonable, the other unreasonable.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 05:09 PM
12

The question isn't whether one particular time they had consentual sex was rape, but rather a completely false story about rape. The author is clearly against spousal rape laws as well as rape shield laws. He has somewhat of a case for the latter, but not the former. A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine…
/r/MensRights28/07/12 03:01 PM
0

I'm sure he did at some point in their marriage, but that's not the point here. The author is clearly against spousal rape laws and rape shield laws. He's got a decent case for the latter, but it's ridiculous to say that nobody can rape their spouse. The issue of justice here is whether he did rape his wife, it shouldn't be whether he even could if he wanted to.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 02:58 PM
-2

It says so explicitly at the end. The man didn't have sex with his wife. His wife lied about rape. This author seems to think that nobody can rape their spouse.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 12:34 PM
0

Ah, well not my area. I really wouldn't doubt that it is in certain places.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 12:52 AM
0

Sometimes the reality in certain places is uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 12:43 AM
3

That's not true. The first sentence of the wiki explains it straightforwardly: A cliché or cliche (UK /ˈkliːʃeɪ/ or US /klɪˈʃeɪ/) is an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 04:10 PM
0

I'm not in sociology, so I have no idea either. I was just trying to push against your use of the cliche that correlation does not equal causation. There are many times in which correlation indicates a cause, therefore the cliche itself is a bit disingenuous. It's an easy way to dismiss something without investigating further. I hold this argument not only on this board, but everywhere.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:16 PM
-3

No, but it may indicate contribution to causation.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:07 PM
13

For this to be true, we have to believe a large percentage of men simply don't understand its inappropriate to harass or grope others, and I don't believe that's the case. I think you're underestimating the presence of social pressures involved. I'd argue that most decisions are not based on rational and individual wills, but are far more shaped by social forces. It's hard to believe it when we're sitting on reddit, but the real world is less rational and thought out. I think it's possible to cu…
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:07 PM
1

It depends on how specific the generalization is and how serious the conversation is being taken. Not all discussions require the highest level of evidence.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:03 PM
1

It's not racist, nor is it considered racist by a reasonable person, if you aren't trying to use that statistic to discriminate against individuals.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:02 PM
4

All that you are saying with this post is that generalizations are okay as long as you agree with them. I got more that generalizations are ok as long as they are defensible or demonstrable.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:01 PM
2

but a very small number for the comments, not at all what you would expect proportionally. Actually, this is right in the wheelhouse of reddit demographics. Far more people read without voting at all. Far more people who vote only vote the topic, not comments. Far more people vote than actually comment. That's how all of reddit works.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:57 PM
0

You really think that individual and group agency play no role in history?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:55 PM
3

It's honestly the funniest double standard I've ever seen on reddit. Wasn't there just a topic up laughing at the insular nature of r/feminism?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:53 PM
-1

There needs to be a new word for douche bags like you who are more concerned than so-called "concern trolls." Metaconcernd? Either way, knock it off.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:50 PM
1

Shouldn't this be addressed in a civil manner No, because they don't matter. They're the fringe and should stay there. Don't legitimize their bullshit.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:36 PM
3

Instead it's filled with petty tyrants trying to put their stamp on a movement they still don't even understand the goals of, let alone the methods. This is exactly why feminism in general is fucked up, and why so many people are turned off to the MRM movement. You don't have all the answers, believe it or not. You must let in new ideas or become a circlejerk shithole.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:53 PM
2

Convince others to stop doing it, it's really fucking easy. It's happening right now, right here, in what you describe a "concern troll" topic.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:51 PM
1

You're such a fucking dick and contribute significantly to the bullshit on this board with your bullshit. Everyone who disagrees with you is a concern troll, aren't they? You need to get over yourself before you poison this place, if you haven't already.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:49 PM
2

When did discussing the direction of a board become pointless drama? Isn't there a topic on the frontpage about how absurd r/feminism is with internal discussion? Don't be one of them.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:45 PM
6

Send Tosh to jail too, right? Fuck that.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:56 AM
0

Were you the one arguing with her about abortion? This is the dumbest thing to be posted on r/mensrights in a long time. Why does anyone upvote this bullshit?
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:55 AM
2

Unfortunately, you are cowardly. I don't know if I would be too, but I'd hope not.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 06:41 PM
8

He left his child, someone he has a moral duty to protect.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 06:40 PM
5

Some people showed their bravery, others their cowardice.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:29 AM
-3

What a load of conspiratorial bullshit. If any position can't stand up to criticism it should go.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 09:50 PM
1

Really? Who do you think is more likely to face imprisonment from not paying, a rich man or a poor man? Honestly, I'd bet that the rich care about their money more than many care about their freedom. The whole issue falls into a question of social justice more broadly, but it's obvious that kids raised without their dads around are a drain on the system in far greater ways than welfare. We can't control abortions, but we can take responsibility to be a positive role model for our children. Like …
/r/MensRights11/07/12 09:04 PM
1

I don't know if they are the vast majority for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least. I would say that rich fathers have more to lose from not paying their CS rather than the poor. The poor then require more welfare payments. Remember, I think the CS institutions can deal with a helluva lot more common sense. I just don't think that financial abortions fit that bill, both from an economic or moral perspective.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:40 PM
1

I'm not sure how that relates to my general argument. Those are all comments on the inequalities within the system. I'm talking about the question of financial abortion.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:26 PM
1

I haven't developed a solid case for the argument, but I think it's relatively common sense. There would have to be an in-depth study into figures that are out of my wheelhouse. Of course, it's not to say that the child support institutions are perfect. Far from it, but I don't think my general argument is all that controversial.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:12 PM
1

The state goes after fathers who don't pay child support because the vast majority of those mothers are low income. Either they get the cash out of the men, or they take it out of the public coffers.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 07:42 PM
0

Do you want to talk about how things should be or how they will be?
/r/MensRights10/07/12 01:23 AM
0

That logic requires the state to pay even more for kids without support. If you want to maintain that argument, you're going to have to accept that additional tax burden.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 11:27 PM
1

The state also pays far more for parents that don't support them. We all pay for them.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 11:24 PM
1

You're confusing atheists with r/atheism
/r/MensRights01/07/12 07:45 AM
1

hahaha, oh man. This gets better and better. Got anything else in your bag of incomprehensible ramblings?
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:38 PM
3

Personally, I want to make people PAY for the shit they've done. What the fuck does this even mean? This is exactly why I'm calling you out for being a dramatic cunt. You honestly sound like a dungeons and dragons wanker declaring war on your arch nemesis in the most weak-minded and feeble way possible. The more you post, the more I realize how hilarious and weak you must be. Predicting and calling for a jihad against feminists...or women in general? The anger inside of you is turning you into a…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:36 PM
1

Stop being cunty...that's what I have to offer. Take it in or not, that's your choice.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:17 PM
1

Ouuu, you are getting really intimidating now. How about capitalizing more words to be more of a cunty twat.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 05:55 PM
2

You think I'm a feminist? Don't get so angry when a fellow MRA calls you out for being a dramatic bitch.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 05:54 PM
-3

You're one of the problems this question is addressing. You're rhetoric is a cancer to this movement and is therefore a disservice to everyone we try to protect.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 11:33 PM
-4

What a ridiculous thing to say.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 11:28 PM
5

The problem is that it's on the page dedicated to rape against men.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 07:49 PM
-5

So SRS is right. Any joke about rape is contributing to rape culture? You're just as bad as they are. Grow up and take a joke. Don't be so offended by everything. You become so unbearable.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 07:41 AM
2

It's a matter of protecting a certain level of sensibilities in public. It's the reason why it's illegal to take a dump in a public place. Nobody wants to see it and it's illegal for that reason. Nudity is another matter of sensibilities that the majority want to be protected from in public. Both are natural things, but don't belong in the public view.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:20 PM
4

Why would you want to be like those you disagree with? If feminists overreact to jokes, why should MRAs do the same?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:56 PM
-2

I was primarily concerned with the actual original post, in that whether SRS highlights the misogynist comments, they do actually happen. That is a fact that is often rejected, but certainly true here.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:10 PM
-4

Agreed, but that's not what the OP said.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:42 PM
-1

Of course it isn't.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:42 PM
-2

You're reading too much into my comments. They are far worse, but that doesn't mean we can't critique this board because they're worse.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:07 PM
-2

I didn't say that you did, did I?
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:03 PM
1

If you represent this board, it's in a sad state indeed. Solid debate, keep up the good work.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:49 PM
3

That's all you've got? I used your own analogy. Not to use the "you started it" argument, but I was demonstrating how silly it is to portray each other through such a facile metaphor.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:03 PM
3

Strawman. The argument is that a few misogynist MRA's don't make the MRM misogynist, r/MR misogynist, or even detract much from the movement. What's more, what is construed as misogyny nowadays has been expanded to such ridiculous levels that being an antifeminist is enough to get you labelled one. It's a meaningless term, which has lost all potency from overuse. It's the rhetorical "boy who cried wolf". People losing their shit over this are oversensitive and immature. We're arguing past each o…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 03:34 PM
2

The fact that you label anyone who considers the fact that misogynists exist here some easily defeated fallacy is exactly what I'm talking about. Of course there's a balance between new people and old topics, but this isn't an organization, nor should it be. The concern troll label is an easy way to quash dissent and discussion from a position of smug certainty. It's dismissive and does nothing but harden those on your side and alienate new users. This board can and does serve a purpose, but som…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:49 PM
-2

There's little room for discussion here when anyone who speaks out against the status quo is labelled a concern troll. The best and the worst comes out of this place.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:11 PM
1

This board should not, and cannot, be some kind of monolithic, well-formed organization. This is reddit, where new users arrive all the time. Old horses like you make any development or progress in this particular movement to manifest. You quash new debate and assume everyone must agree on the same approach.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:09 PM
-5

People like you are why real debate is almost impossible on this board.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:06 PM
2

The person in the interview is lamenting these statistics, not the overall average. Life expectancy stopped improving or reversed for women since 1999 in 661 U.S. counties and in 166 counties for men. The declining rates appear in 84% of Oklahoma counties, 58% of Tennessee counties and 33% of Georgia counties.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 02:56 PM
1

In the full context of the argument, I read that statement as indicating a lack of consideration for men's health rather than a lament of the shrinking gap. The focus is on women and how the rise in average life expectancy is not growing as much as it was before. The whole article seems to indicate that the interview subject views the gap between men and women to be the product of biology rather than political inequality. I think the picture is probably more complicated than that, and clearly me…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 02:47 PM
1

I don't see anything in the article that indicates patriarchy as a cause of anything. It addresses only female health, but I don't see any blame being applied to men, do you?
/r/MensRights23/04/12 05:39 AM
1

I don't see anything in the article that indicates this is an inequality issue. It's an examination of female life expectancy and lamenting its lack of increase where it has increased in the past.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 05:36 AM
0

What is this, JDF's newest gambit at making themselves unthinking social cry-babies or just your personal attempt at it? This shit blows 2x and SRS out of the water for spectacular wastes of time. Keep up the silly work chappy.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 08:50 PM
-3

What a spectacular waste of time...
/r/MensRights24/03/12 04:08 AM
-2

I believe her argument is that many people do equate male circumcision to female genital mutilation. She appears to be making that case that anti-circumcision arguments are legitimate, and that equating it to FGM is an unnecessary and potentially damaging argument.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 08:28 PM
1

It's a matter of balance I think. Sometimes we can branch too far in the realm of excusing away free will with psychiatric diagnoses. Perhaps you're right in this case, but I don't think we could blanket all violent relationships that way.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:02 AM
1

I was referring to the child that is born when an abortion is not performed.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:53 PM
1

I simply disagree. One implies a particular circumstance, the other all possible circumstance.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 01:04 AM
0

You added the word 'always', thereby changing the implication to justify your criticism. It can be inferred from the original comment that within his time and environment he is against capital punishment.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:56 AM
1

The problem is how to define the exceptions. The actual wording of the law, or rationale behind the decision to execute, is the difficult issue. Likely it would be something like 'a grievous offence to human dignity', but how far should that reach?
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:54 AM
-12

The difference between an abortion and a financial abortion is the presence of a child. Nobody on this board has yet to make a reasonable argument that takes the rights of the child into consideration. The only arguments made are against child support in general. Can anyone make a good case of it? edit I deleted the other posts because they were getting downvoted to hell. Fuck this board in general. There were a few that chose to have an interesting discussion and debate. The rest were just bein…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 03:31 PM
-1

Your first point deals more with custody rulings rather than child support. There is no law determining that one parent must have sole or primary custody of a child. As far as I understand it there are fewer single-parent custody rulings now than there have ever been. Child support exists to even the balance between parents who, for one reason or another, is granted sole custody. The ways in which child welfare agencies operate is exactly the same as the child support system where I live. Nobody…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 06:00 AM
-1

I'm not sure what jurisdiction you live in but child support is not a male-only phenomenon. It is required by any parent who does not have primary custody of children. If it wasn't that way I would likely agree with you first argument. As for your second, the state can only outline the minimum requirements for childcare responsibilities. Again, I don't know where you live but where I'm from there is a state agency with the responsibility to ensure these minimums are met. There are laws in place …
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:12 AM
-2

I am sympathetic to that issue and agree the confluence of corporations and prisons are recipes for disaster. However, the issue still remains as to how we can enforce the duty to pay child support. You're right in that this is a broader issue in regards to poverty and the legal system. What can be done to enforce financial obligations on poor and well-off people?
/r/MensRights08/01/12 02:35 AM
-1

What should be done to/for parents of either sex who do not pay child support they are reasonably able to pay? Setting aside the inequality involved in legislation and rulings in regards to custody what is the option for those who reject their duty to support their children when they are financially able to do so? To make it easy, what happens when a father has sole custody of a child and the mother, who has a well-paying job, refuses to pay their court-ordered child support? This article does n…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 02:21 AM
1

Routine circumcision is not defensible as far as I understand it.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 03:06 AM
1

You talk as if the idea of rights and all the consequences of those rights are obvious and go without saying. You cannot think that the way you understand equality is absolutely and clearly correct. If the idea of rights, responsibilities, and equality cannot simply be read out of the earth. They are complicated representations of justice and morality that must be considered carefully. You simply cannot declare that equality is not contestable as it relates to human rights and responsibilities. …
/r/MensRights02/01/12 01:49 AM
1

Again, you seem to believe that the individual right to be free from responsibility should trump the rights of a parent to the financial support of their parents. You uncritically demand equality here and simply can't present a reason for it. You simply repeat how shocked you are that I don't believe that the sexes are, or should be, considered equally in every circumstance. Abortion is only acceptable because it is a lesser of two evils. I don't necessarily agree that abortion is moral or that …
/r/MensRights02/01/12 12:49 AM
2

I dont belive it is good for humanity to hold an absolute control over human nature. it dehumanises us and is full of unintended consequences. the more we consider human beings objects the easier it is to subjugate and eliminate them.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 11:24 PM
1

my only concern is with what is responsible or necessary. there is no justification here for equality. nature imposes an inequality that can only be levelled through an imposition to children. you must consider the social, as well as individual, ramifications. this controversy is the most selfish one ive read on this subreddit. men shouldnt be searching for ways to avoid being responsible to their children. we cannot control the choices women make. we can control how we act in regards to our chi…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 11:15 PM
3

sex simply cant be regarded as a risk free activity.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 11:02 PM
1

you are clearly far too obsessed with whatever you define as feminism to consider these issues rationally. your understanding of gender, sex, and rights seem to all be formed in a complimentary yet aggressive stance against the general feminist position. try taking a step back and think clearly for yourself.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 10:16 PM
2

once the baby is born it falls on the parents to support it. It is a natural duty regardless of technological intervention. to reject that responsibility is cowardly and irresponsible. a father should not punish his child only because of the mothers sin of allowing them to exist.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 09:28 PM
0

justifying equal rights in this matter is not insane. Why do you take it for granted that everything has to be equal? this is a particularly unique biological situation. it is far more complex than any other legal sex issue. you are ultimately advocating the leveling of the sexes through technology. I dont subscribe to that worldview. not everything should be controled and manipulated. A child is not an object, before or after birth.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 09:22 PM
2

Again, I don't see how your desire for pure equality in this matter has been justified. Because of the biological distinctions there will not be, nor necessarily should be, a parity in terms of rights. Also, what you consider a penalty I consider a responsibility. You have glossed over the fact that a woman who decides to give up the rearing rights over a child with a present father is responsible for support payments. Both parents are responsible in this regard. There have been allowances for m…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 05:12 PM
2

I'm temporarily separating the pragmatic arguments from the principled arguments. I don't think it has by your arguments, or can be by any argument I've heard, be justified as anything but killing. In regards to the pragmatic arguments I return to my arguments concerning the 'male abortion' issue. Perhaps it is somewhat reasonable to adopt the lesser of two evils argument in regards to allowing abortion. However, that must go along with the provisions to avoid them them no pressures to encouragi…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 05:08 PM
3

Why is that particular limit meaningful? As for the example of a coma patient, you've argued that because they have lived a life it is a different situation. I would argue that the reason it is immoral to kill someone is because of the restrictions you place on their future life. In other words, because the person has the potential for more life experiences it would be wrong to impose on that future. By this logic it would also be immoral to prevent the future life of the fetus that is in the pr…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:59 PM
1

Yet again, you don't consider the welfare of the new human being once the woman has made the choice to keep the child. You have stated that the condition should be equal without providing any justification for why it must be so in this case. You have also not provided for the welfare of the child. If a woman doesn't want the responsibility to raise a child post-birth they are as responsible to it as the father is if he is available. In other words, if the woman gives up the child to the father s…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:55 PM
2

At what point does the fetus become more than a jellyfish? I don't see anywhere to reasonably place that line that holds any meaning.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:52 PM
2

You have seriously never heard this argument before? How do you justify a fetus as not fully human while an adult in a coma as one?
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:43 PM
2

I believe abortion is as immoral as killing someone in a coma because they are unwanted. I don't see how any argument applied to the fetus could not be applied to a mature person with a potentially temporary state of unconsciousness or helplessness. I don't think convenience should trump human dignity and inherent value.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:34 PM
2

I believe that would introduce an unjust pressure to abort. I think it's only possible to justify abortion on the lesser of two evils argument, i.e. it is better to allow abortions for a whole list of reasons, though it is immoral, than to ban them. I don't think the 'fetus is not a person' argument is a morally sound or rationally consistent one. It seems to me that there is a whole minefield of moral and logical issues you would have to navigate to maintain your position.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:18 PM
2

You're getting confused by not acknowledging the change in status of the fetus at birth (or sometime between conception and birth). Ownership becomes shared at the personhood point.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:11 PM
1

I notice in your arguments you have not once mentioned the welfare of the newborn child. How should they be considered in the equation. It seems like you're advocating for the absolute option for every father to disown any newborn.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:06 PM
2

If a child is born it now exists and has financial needs. How can you justify a father not paying for the child he contributed to?
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:02 PM
4

What nobody seems to be mentioning here is that once a child is born there is a new person in the world who must be raised. The laws are the way they are because there is a balance that must be maintained between the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. If a father is awarded sole custody, regardless of their sex, the other must pay child support. This isn't to impose a penalty but to ensure the financial support of the child.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 03:59 PM
2

Of course it's not that simple but it is an essential part of the question. If a fetus is a human being then arguing that society would be better off if we allowed the killing of them is quite ghastly. If we used strong eugenics policies we could also improve the efficiency and economic stability of society. That doesn't make it a defensible or moral position.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 07:31 PM
3

The justification for personhood is not simply a legal matter. There are implicit moral issues at play. Nevertheless, I am primarily concerned with what gives a human being inherent value. Does an infant inherently have value as an individual? If so, does that begin at birth or some time before? I'm not yet interested in the pragmatic argument, but I don't think those stand up either.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 07:14 PM
2

This is a moral or ethical, not a legal, discussion. I think you're just trolling now or don't know how to make an argument.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 06:52 PM
2

Setting aside your strange theory on the religious position, your argument is still lacking. I assume you consider the fetus part of the woman rather than a person. If so, how do you defend that?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 06:39 PM
0

You can't be serious that you think that's an adequate defence of your position. You're going to have to try harder or just give it up.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 06:25 PM
3

I don't see any way you could rationally defend that position.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 06:03 PM
2

I agree with him that abortion, as a legal issue, is a matter for all of us to consider. To say it is only a female issue begs the question that a fetus is not a human being. I believe it can't be successfully argued that a fetus is not a human with inherent rights. I don't rely on superstition or irrationality to defend my position.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 05:43 PM
5

What kind of facts are you looking for? He's making a sociological or moral argument, not a scientific claim.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 05:33 PM
2

The legalization of abortion is a major step in the modern domination of human and non-human nature. All of the technical and pragmatic arguments aside the legal sanctioning of abortion is our society placing a use value, rather than an inherent meaning, on the lives of unborn children. That is not to say that abortions are a novel thing. The way in which it is performed now is a step along the unfolding of technological modernity.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 05:31 PM
3

I'm generally agree with you here. However, I'm not sure how strong the viability argument is. It seems like the logic always takes it back to conception.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 05:28 PM
1

That's not the way in which I intend the term sexual assault. It would have to be accompanied by grades of severity as non-sexual assault. It would admittedly be difficult to change the legal definitions for institutions that already use the term rape but changing the common usage of the term is a necessary precursor.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 08:30 PM
1

This movement really needs to work towards removing the term rape from our vocabulary. Sexual assault is a far better and more inclusive term for unwanted sexual touching of any kind. That's how my country approaches it and it works here.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 03:05 PM
1

Sometimes this subreddit is a powerful and ethical force for good in the service of gender equality. That is when this board really fulfills its purpose and mandate. Sometimes it engages in easy attacks on idiots and radicals. That is when this board becomes its own antithesis and negatively affects its public image. I'm still a member here because the former is so important that even though the latter exists it is worth enduring the latter.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 04:27 AM
1

The addition of an intent to harm is needlessly complicated. The category of assault covers all unwanted touching (or touching without consent). The category of sexual covers any unwanted touching in a sexual nature. All that is required is to have degrees of severity for the assault.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 03:21 PM
1

It works in my country.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 03:18 PM
3

My point is that the use the term rape needlessly complicates the issue. Sexual assault means the unwanted touching in a sexual nature. It doesn't address sex or gender and covers any assault from penetration to groping and everything in between. The term rape is antiquated and should be replaced in criminal law. It already is in my country.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 01:47 AM
8

No, it simply eliminates the potential debate over the term.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 01:45 AM
12

Sexual assault is a better term than rape to describe the crime of unwanted touching of a sexual nature to any degree.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 09:43 PM
1

This is about creating a (potentially) international registry.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:15 AM
1

Your assessment of the costs are well outside realistic. I brought up my country's long gun registry as an experiment in a seemingly straightforward and simple registration process that ballooned right out of the gate. If you really think you'd need one person to maintain this list you're simply delusional. If may be interesting to imagine a perfect scenario, but you have to admit that it's little more than a pipe dream.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:27 PM
1

It's a matter of cost not motivation that I'm questioning. Who would pay for the introduction and maintenance of this registry?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:13 PM
1

In my country there has been a near-decade long battle over the cost of a long gun registry. Do you believe that establishing a this kind of registry is a practical proposal?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:53 PM
1

How do you feel about the debate surrounding male abortion?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:35 PM
1

That still wouldn't prove the miscarriage was caused by the mother's illicit action. This law sounds nice but it is a minefield on closer inspection.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:19 PM
1

The difficulty in writing the law still remains. It sounds nice when you don't get too close and see how complicated it is.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:18 PM
4

How would you write the law for criminalizing mistreatment of a fetus in the womb?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:15 PM
1

This isn't about arbitrary information or expression of ideas. It's about the possession of a very particular kind of information.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 12:52 PM
25

There is a school of thought that argues men and women are essentially equal and are only perceived differently because of social and institutional pressures.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 03:19 AM
3

I don't get the sense that you were dangerous from how you described it, and I believe she may invent previous incidents to incriminate you. However, you really painted yourself into a wall by you're behaviour. If that's how you described it here it was most likely more aggressive or unsettling from her perspective. Ultimately, do what you can to get out of this without trying to explain why you were justified. It just doesn't help your case very much. Good luck.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:11 PM
3

You're coming off worse and worse the more you explain things. You do know that someone can break up with you for any reason, right? Even if you can make a logical case that it doesn't make sense to you.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 01:43 PM
3

The argument for criminalizing the possession of child pornography is that it is an indirect involvement in the abuse of the children involved. This case is probably not like that at all, but I don't think criminalizing child porn possession is anything near a crime against humanity.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 01:34 PM
1

That's where this type of behavior comes from. This is where I don't think you're making sense. How is this gendered violence, not sexed violence? It seems like you're interpreting this solely through a gendered perspective. This is the kind of criticism levelled against so-called feminist MRAs. It's indulging in an understanding of social and moral reality interpreted only, or solely, through gender. The dangers of scrotal violence is real, but how do you translate that into a lack of gender so…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:51 PM
1

The appropriation of feminist terminology is probably the most unsettling element to this whole issue. Recasting terms like rape-culture and victim-shaming are counterproductive and corrupting.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:58 PM
1

We will NEVER be able to fight misandry and societal bias against males if males treat each other like this. Everything that we do to fight feminism and women harming men will do nothing if males continue to harm each other in gendered ways. All these males who did this to their teammates have no solidarity with their fellow males, because if they did, they wouldn't inflict harm on one of their fellows' genitals. These are the future white knights and self-styled alpha males who will run over ot…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:42 PM
6

Does that make the poster in question a bigot?
/r/MensRights28/10/11 01:07 PM
3

I'm sure it does, but I'm sure there are plenty women with the same story but with the genders reversed. We have to rely on objective studies, not emotional stories.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 10:38 AM
5

That really doesn't say much outside of your family.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 10:27 AM
2

It doesn't seem adequate to combine data from this study with wikipedia data, does it?
/r/MensRights26/10/11 10:26 AM
5

Are you referencing that chart or some other data? I'm not sure the OP's chart justifies your statement.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 10:20 AM
-5

Oh great, a whole month of douche staches again.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:56 PM
2

My point is that you say there should be some kind of provision, but have no idea what it would look like. It's not like you have to be an expert in ethics to understand what's ethical. If you believe it is a good or ethically sound thing to do you should be able to give reasons. You don't have to write the law.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 11:28 AM
5

Men should also have some sort of a right to medically aborting their children, but I do not begin to have the legal or ethical knowledge to know what this might be. Those two sentences don't go together.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:06 AM
2

Basketball is one of those grey area sports in terms of contact where it may become an issue, but not for most full contact sports. Both in football and rugby, where contact is aggressive, I've never seen that kind of thing happen. I don't know of any girl who would step on the gridiron without the expectation of being tackled.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:12 PM
2

In full contact sports I've never seen what you've described happen. I used to play football in a predominantly male league and females would make the team from time to time. It simply wasn't an issue in the way you describe it.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:43 PM
2

They're all about it in Japan, though I don't think it's a feminist issue.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:06 AM
1

Your interpretation of his statement is not shared by most of us who commented on it.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:53 PM
3

special rules the school is putting in place to protect the girl while on the field. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:37 PM
2

I've played male dominated football with females occasionally making the team and your third contention isn't true in my experience. For the most part it's an indistinguishable difference in full helmet and pads. Either way I haven't ever heard of someone being literally or figuratively run out of town for injuring a female in a male dominated sport that she wilfully entered. I don't think it's an impossibility. I just haven't seen it.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:22 PM
2

That's not an answer to that question.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:20 PM
1

You are aware that's not happening in this case. The most aggravating thing about radical feminists is their insistence on refusing to look at the particular and instead focus on a grand social narrative. That is what you're doing here.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:18 PM
1

What do you believe the best course of action is to dissolve this artificial distinction between males and females? I think this particular case is interesting in that allowing the female to play is breaking down the barrier separating males and females in terms of physical contact. It appears that the team who refused to play is enforcing that hard distinction that implicitly allows women to be free from physical confrontation whether they instigate it or not. In other words, if you were the co…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:16 PM
2

I didn't read this situation as an equal opportunity situation. It said she had something like 4 sacks under her belt.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:08 PM
3

What are the special rules?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:04 PM
7

I'm not sure I understand why they refused to play a female.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:10 AM
3

My clocks are right every time of the day.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 02:37 AM
3

It's Sun news, our version of Fox news. It's unfortunate that these issues are so seemingly counter-culture that they need to be brought up in the right-wing culture. I posted this segment on the r/Canada board with an essential apology for the trans stuff. It is really unfortunate we are in effect lumped in with that garbage, but at least our core message is being broadcast.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 01:32 AM
3

Sun news is the antithesis of Canadian culture. However, this segment was on the fucking money.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 01:29 AM
2

r/2x or whatever they are don't dictate news programming. If they did this board would be a constant feature.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 01:25 AM
11

This is the kind of activism this board should be engaging in. Flame wars with radical feminist discussion boards are nothing but a distraction.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 05:43 PM
1

Ultimately I believe it's tied up with the abortion question and the difficulty of the simultaneous existence and non-existence of the child as a fetus. We may well ultimately disagree, but either way it was a good discussion. I have a tenuous relationship with this board and this was the best discussion I've had here by far. Too often redditors here get crazy with a strange anti-feminist ideological furor, as if I'm some kind of feminist storm trooper. I understand that fear to an extent, but i…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 01:33 PM
1

Since adoption and "safe harbor" measure are widespread in Western countries (my country, France, allows women to deliver "sous X" - anonymously), your assumption of an asymetrical power structure is misleading. Women without the ressources to raise a child, but opposed to abortion for whatever reason, could still safely and legally choose adoption at no further financial cost to themselves. I'm not sure what safe harbour laws you're referring to, but my argument isn't purely about the birth but…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 01:28 PM
1

In terms of coercion I'm implying an indirect level. The ability for the father to drop their duty to support a child implies an asymmetrical power structure. This would apply both before the birth in a pressure to abort because the prospect of raising a child without financial support is daunting, as well as after the birth if the father could drop their duty at any time thereafter. In terms of the pre-birth coercion I'm relying on my argument that women should have the right to carry through a…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 01:39 AM
1

Concerning the mother having the ability to give the child up for adoption, there clearly should be an attempt to locate the father and ensure there is no deception on the mother's part. Now, concerning the abortion issue. The way I've understood the problem is reconciling the fact that both the father and mother are integral to the conception process and that the legality of abortion requires the personhood of child at some point thereafter. The problem is that between the person point and the …
/r/MensRights03/10/11 12:43 AM
1

It would seem that the legal ability for women to ignore their natural duty completely is when the father is also not willing or able to care for the child. If he is, then the mother is liable for child support in the same way as the father would be in the reverse. If a man were the sole parent of a child due to the mother dying in birth, for example, the father would have the equal opportunity to relinquish the child to adoption as the mother would if the father had died. The interesting questi…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 11:29 PM
1

I think the most essential position I would offer is that equality should not be applied blindly. Whether the moral arguments I've sketched out are good or not, I don't think the goal should ever be the application of legal rights irrespective of considerations concerning natural or moral rights and responsibilities. This argument surrounds the tension between the American and Western European models. In other words, I believe the consideration of the rights of children and the rights of parents…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 10:03 PM
1

The majority social argument would be that incidents of fraudulent insemination and rape are exceptions to the general right of a woman to carry through a pregnancy without the threat of the father emancipating himself from the child. The rights of women to not endure an abortion, particularly in light of legitimate reasonable and moral objections, and carry child are placed above the man's right to refuse his natural duty. These arguments seem to found the general jurisprudence on child care la…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 09:11 PM
2

Most definitely not. Child support laws ride a balance between concern for the parents and children. I have never heard of anyone arguing for a man's right to absolve themselves of the responsibilities of being a parent except on this board. The logic seems to be that it would create an equality between men and women in regards to parentage responsibilities. At the bottom of the argument is that men don't want to be responsible for a child's welfare because they don't have the equivalent ability…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 03:23 PM
2

This, along with the petty and useless subreddit flame war, is the biggest obstacle to this subreddit engaging in a meaningful dialogue about the status of men in our societies. I think everyone here knows that radical or entrenched feminists are pernicious side-effects from the mid-century social revolution. What many of us don't realize is that the reasonable response to that is not to emulate their methods or logic with male replacing female. It's corruption being addressed through equally da…
/r/MensRights01/10/11 10:39 PM
2

Nobody said the opposition had to be moral.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 11:14 PM
0

Sometimes a circumcision is just a circumcision.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 10:04 AM
1

I am not ignorant of the facts, both from research and being circumcised myself. I simply do not believe that routine male circumcision in North America is as severe as the majority of FGM. People here need to realize that there can be a multiplicity of ideas and approaches to accomplishing a goal. I hope eventually both forms of gm will end in my lifetime. I don't believe that will happen quickly or at all when the two main varieties are conflated.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 05:30 PM
-3

The results are also different, both technically and functionally. The obviously share similarities but are significantly dissimilar.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 05:14 PM
0

A meaningful analogy would be the removal of the penile head or the glans just underneath it. The sexual implications if each procedure are different regardless of the number of nerves.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 05:07 PM
-1

You're making a lot of assumptions concerning what I believe. I'm not convinced that the two practices are equal. I don't think that a victim of FGM should be taken as an authority on circumcision. She related a personal event with one she witnessed and made an emotional connection between the two. I'm a circumcised man and I resent the implication that either my parents/doctor wanted or actually did "carve off my sexuality." It is simply not the case in my situation, nor the vast majority of we…
/r/MensRights20/09/11 05:01 PM
2

I am aware of these things. I simply disagree with you.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 02:18 PM
0

I am aware of the history and current controversy and I don't support routine circumcision. However, I think it's disingenuous to our cause to compare the two types as equivalent or even very similar. The purpose of the male type to reduce sexual sensitivity may have been a factor historically, but I completely disagree that it factors into the equation in modern day. I know that point is debated in this issue, but I am not convinced it is as you believe. I recognize your attempts to tie the two…
/r/MensRights20/09/11 02:11 PM
-5

Not that I agree with male circumcision, but the two practices are very different. Parents who circumcise their male children aren't doing it for the reasons that parents who circumcise their female children.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:35 PM
0

So are you critical of the incident itself or the article that reported it? It sounds like you're making up scenarios to get upset about, e.g., if they did x there would be outrage.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 03:50 PM
2

It wasn't implied by omission at all. What was presented was a question from a boy concerning the clitoris. If it were from a girl saying they discovered their boyfriends testicles I'm sure the response would have been the same.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:58 PM
5

That sounds like a very reasonable attitude to me. Hopefully this will be a profitable step in making this forum even better than it is.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:53 PM
19

I don't have the links because it's far back in my history, but what I'm describing happened during the Sharon Osborne firestorm. I argued against the boycott movement in a rational manner and was essentially railroaded as a sockpuppet and concern troll. It can happen very easily with heated topics that get the whole subreddit fired up. I also tend to rail against confrontation with our so-called enemies in other subreddits and am frequently accused of being some kind of double agent or some oth…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:45 PM
21

I'd just want to say that it should be applied judiciously by the mods in terms of antagonistic redditers and obvious trolls. We don't want the reddit style hivemind phenomenon to get even more pronounced because nobody wants to risk challenging the status quo.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:33 PM
4

Although a small recommendation, not all people would necessarily be as open as me to this, so perhaps think about writing “Dear” at the start of all emails and I wouldn’t recommend accusing people of dishonesty; it is likely to irritate some, especially if it could simply be as a result of a misunderstanding with terminology, as was the case here!" This is probably the most important part of their response. Imagine yourself as the prof and you recived an email from a student that accused you of…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:22 PM
3

US law varies from state to state as well. Also, there is a large Canadian component to this board.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 01:48 AM
7

You are aware that laws differ across many regions in the world, right?
/r/MensRights16/09/11 01:45 AM
0

According to what law?
/r/MensRights16/09/11 01:33 AM
7

Remember, I didn't say I agreed. I've just been around gender studies academics for a while and this is a standard argument. You caricatured it with your Jewish comment, but I agree it's off the mark in general.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 07:30 PM
5

I agree that her interpretation of the theory is full of holes. That's pretty much the case with any militant theorist in most controversial theories.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 07:09 PM
-1

These are internet discussion groups on reddit, not an accurate reflection of the broad community of feminists, anarchists, or legal professionals. That's my point here. The subreddit flame war is a meaningless distraction.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 07:06 PM
4

She likely thinks that the feeling of being in the wrong body doesn't really exist. It seems like trans people are just trapped in some kind of social game that results in unnecessary operations. Her ideal world seems to be some kind of gender neutral existence of absolute freedom where everyone can define themselves how they wish.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 06:47 PM
-8

Just look at what is going on with r/feminisms, even r/anarchism removed them from the sidebar for transphobia, and r/anarchism was like totally in bed with r/feminisms. Seriously? Why do you care what those redditors think or do?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 06:24 PM
-4

She's got a good argument if you feel that gender roles are completely invented. Really, it's an argument that some feminists and some of us here also subscribe to. It's a relatively common theory about gender and sex, but definitely not ascribable to all feminists or MRM activists. I believe that it's somewhere in between, with natural elements as well as constructed ones. Overall, this woman is not too unusual in this discourse and has less to do with bigotry and more to do with theoretical ne…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 06:23 PM
4

I'd say about one quarter of this subreddit is devoted to getting fired up over something meaningless.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:29 PM
5

It's the mother who is saying this. Sounds like the default reaction of any mother of a thirteen year old when they find out they are in a gang.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:25 PM
2

Yah, I know. That's what I wrote. Also, her being the mother isn't disputed here.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 09:06 PM
6

They definitely seemed to be in on it together, but the fact remains that she performed the act. As for her getting a lighter sentence, I highly doubt that in this case. She's already charged on more than 3 counts whereas he's not even charged yet. He'll likely get some kind of conspiracy charge and possession of child porn, but not the sexual assault itself. Either way, she'll most definitely get more time. As for the general case of males getting harsher sentences than women, I agree that it h…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 08:44 PM
5

I read through a great deal of them, and most are the classic death penalty rhetoric and shocked responses. There are of course a few idiot women posting bullshit like this topic is about, but there aren't really that many of them. There are idiots in every group out there. The cases you're talking about here are idiot women. There are idiot men, idiot academics, idiot teachers, idiot blond haired people, etc. You're imputing a cultural sickness onto us as a whole without there being one present…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:48 PM
16

I think that's more about her being an idiot, not a feminist.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:09 PM
16

Yah, I get that. I was asking why you think that. Sounds like generalized bias on your part.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:57 PM
0

That's your line of thinking, not the usual. Maybe #2 is common, but #3...come on. That shows more about your mind than anyone else.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:56 PM
2

I don't think that's necessarily true.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:54 PM
8

The article says they were trading porn with each other and he asked her to do it. She did and then sent it to him. It was found by his ex girlfriend.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:41 PM
15

Average woman?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:38 PM
5

The point is to not say things like "it's an indication of how women perceive these issues." That's the mistake most of the members of this subreddit are making. They think that if they win flame battles against 2x they are somehow making progress for the cause. In reality they are fighting with a particular group about petty points of disagreement.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 03:56 PM
14

No, it's an indication of how that particular group perceive these issues. Reddit does not accurately reflect the global population.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 01:56 PM
24

TwoX is not our enemy. Just wanted to repeat this line in case anyone missed it.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:52 PM
3

Why does it matter for our cause either way?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:50 PM
2

I'm talking about how the author of this article is a bit of an idiot. The issue he agonizes over is all in his head. The social code has become relatively simple. In an ethical world, seats are given based on need. Most all of us know this. He's bringing up a non-issue.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 02:58 PM
2

This really is about a human thing, not male/female.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 02:47 PM
6

That's also how I read this article. I know a lot of 50 year olds who really need a seat more than I do as a 24 year old. It's not an issue of gender, but physical ability.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 02:44 PM
1

In terms of Canadian law, this is true.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 09:12 PM
3

The mention of her intelligence has nothing to do on the bearing of the idea. If she were patently stupid the paragraph could stand on its own merit. Get it? LOL!
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:28 AM
3

There's a difference between ambiguity and lies. Rapes are sexual assaults. Really, the article says "sexual assaults/rapes." That's a pretty easy addition to a title that would prevent a falsehood.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:03 AM
3

It really wasn't. It was a stereotypical "Mad Men" generalization about what real men are.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 04:35 AM
2

bald-faced
/r/MensRights24/08/11 03:23 AM
6

Why should the value of an idea depend on the intelligence of the speaker?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 03:00 AM
10

Doesn't the 50% deal with sexual assault, not rape?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 02:54 AM
2

So, it's just cool to make that generalization because she's done it before?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 12:28 AM
2

But it is clear you are troll. FTFY
/r/MensRights21/08/11 03:01 AM
0

You are getting trolled so hard right now. Can't you see that?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:58 AM
11

Some people on this subreddit are more into flame wars with feminist subreddits than discussing MR issues.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:47 AM
-1

false flag operation Do you realize how absurd this flame was has become?
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:40 PM
1

Again :)
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:59 PM
1

This is how I feel concerning the continuing war.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:06 PM
5

This bullshit is part of the problem on both sides. Don't you realize how silly this subreddit war is? Just stop it.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 01:48 PM
1

Thanks for making this non-sensational and reasonable argument. Even though it's an explicit response to feminists (which has become the real bane of this subreddit), it had some really valuable content.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 01:46 PM
-1

I hope you realize I meant that my penis is three feet from your face and vice-versa. I'm doing a handstand directly behind you.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 04:07 PM
1

We've all tried, I'm sure of it.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 04:05 PM
3

Your vagina and my penis are approximately three feet from our faces. Just adding to the orifice talk.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:54 PM
5

I don't think anyone has yet to argue why the war against the feminism sub-reddits is useful to the MR cause. wabi-sabi's post is the perfect example of what I've read so far: "Because they're hypocrites and it's bullshit." Who the fuck cares what goes on over there? There are so many legitimate MR issues that take second place to this petty, insignificant, and damaging war.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:50 PM
3

donwilson's first comment was unnecessarily cunty. From then on it just got unnecessarily into the whole gender topic.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 01:22 PM
2

This is why the whole subreddit war is absurd. We need to focus on our own issues and ignore them.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 04:58 PM
1

I think I might disagree if I'm interpreting you correctly. I agree that some occasions need the tit-for-tat escalation. There are many cases where your status is being deflated by an aggressive opponent and to maintain your position it takes that kind of aggression. Having said that, the reddit karma system and the culture of MensRights makes it a challenging and potentially damaging technique. Also, it is also true that an escalating tit-for-tat can lead to a pissing contest that does nothing …
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:03 PM
1

And by what criteria do you distinguish between concern trolling and concern? It sounds like an easy way to dismiss an argument or position you don't want to deal with.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:33 AM
2

But that seems to fall under the whole 'two wrongs' cliche. I don't necessarily think a group of men ought to be fired for an analogous situation, but I do recognize they likely would. Imus and O&A are decent examples of this, and I'm sure there are plenty more. I don't think they should have been fired. But that doesn't mean I think one unjust firing deserves another.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:17 AM
2

Your analysis here seems predominantly correct, but I would like to make a few clarifications. In terms of my personality, you're half right. I poses a deep sense of empathy that can most definitely manifest itself as a weakness. I am too sensitive for my own good, and I often let shitty comments get to me. I was surprised at how much the pms calling me a fuck face, sockpuppet, troll, etc., got to me. Just being dismissed as a troll is so infuriating and demoralizing. It's easy to say that I sho…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:14 AM
2

I've been arguing against the proposition that censorship is the best way to achieve that end.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 02:24 AM
1

I think that's what it comes down to. Was she trying to be funny or preach a philosophy or opinion. I tend to think it was comedic. I didn't find it funny, but I think that's what it was intended to be. You don't need to be labelled as a comedian to say things with a comedic intent. It's definitely up for interpretation, and I understand your position.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 01:19 AM
1

I got confused with your use of satire and slander. I think it was a bit convoluted to follow through.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 07:32 PM
1

That's not what I wrote or meant, at all. I was addressing the reasons for outrage and the tactics of protesting it. I've had a pretty good dialogue with people here, and have had an open mind throughout. Posts like you've just made do nothing for the dialogue.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 05:17 PM
3

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I didn't really think of the audience for the show. You're right in that regard. There is a difference between a podcast/satallite radio and terrestrial radio/broadcast TV. Particularly because they are seen as role models or examples for young women. I fully think that if the show was an expressly adult audience, I would disagree. But you very well might be right. Thanks for not calling me an asshole.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 05:07 PM
1

Thanks for the awesome reply. I think you really understand what I was trying to say with all this, particularly in terms of a boycott. In regards to the Imus topic, I agree that there is most definitely a double-standard issue. But I also agree that Imus shouldn't have been fired and O&A's joke about Rice was by no means worth a suspension. I was more oppsed to adoping the tactics of the anti-Imus or anti-O&A crowd. I mean, I think Imus is a wanker but love O&A. I have this separation not becau…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 05:01 PM
1

I totally agree with that in general. Particularly on the issue of rape, and even more so with prison rape. I had a cousin who went to jail (or prison, not sure the difference in the US) in Maryland. From the little he told me I was horrified. But I still make male rape jokes. Maybe that's a mistake, and maybe I'm the one hurting the movement. That's mainly why I made this post, to see the debate in an open format. I appreciate your reply here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:37 PM
2

I totally agree with that in general. Particularly on the issue of rape, and even more so with prison rape. I had a cousin who went to jail (or prison, not sure the difference in the US) in Maryland. From the little he told me I was horrified. But I still make male rape jokes. Maybe that's a mistake, and maybe I'm the one hurting the movement. That's mainly why I made this post, to see the debate in an open format. I appreciate your reply here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:37 PM
-1

I acknowledge your point, and even that you might be right. Maybe I don't understand the burgoning movement enough. Maybe I'm right, and it's not helping it. I allow for both those to be true to some extent. Which is more right? It seems the most people here agree with you. That's totally cool and I appreciate the input. I would have hoped to see someone else come out with my argument, but maybe I'm so out in left field I should more closely examine my own views. I don't know...we'll see if anyo…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:34 PM
1

I think we might just disagree then. I hope you know I'm not trying to attack your views or anyone else here. I simply don't find the issue significant enough to be this upset about it. I mainly responded to this because the first half of the front page was dominated by it this morning. It's clear that I'm in the minority with this view, but I'm glad I could have some honest and open discussion about it. If anything I agree with this subreddit is the hatred for censorship when it comes to discus…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:16 PM
-2

I honestly think a joke ought to be judged upon the humour in it. I totally accept that some people on here didn't find it funny, nor would they find any joke concerning violence funny. I am not one of them, and I didn't think there were that many. I fully recognize the implication of what they said. I'm not denying that element was there, but I'm denying that it was significant enough to warrant this response. Perhaps from men who work with victimized men would find it abhorrent. That makes sen…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:14 PM
1

One of my main arguments here is this tactic is doing more harm than good to out cause. That's why I highlighted the real issues in my OP. I simply don't think bombing facebook pages and the like with vitriol is going to help any cause. It's going to paint a picture of men like us, who are deeply concerned with the real problems, as whiny, over sensitive, and therefore legitimatize dismissed. We need to have our views understood and respected, not dismissed out of hand by people who think we're …
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:06 PM
1

Ultimately I agree that the joke was in bad taste and wasn't funny to me. But I also understand that I often find jokes in terrible taste, that others find disgusting, hilarious. I'm just objecting to the shock and horror that has bubbled up because of this. I think there's a big difference in legitimately defending this woman based on some kind of bull-shit misogynist agenda. But honestly, I don't think that's what happened here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:02 PM
0

Ultimately I agree that the joke was in bad taste and wasn't funny to me. But I also understand that I often find jokes in terrible taste, that others find disgusting, hilarious. I'm just objecting to the shock and horror that has bubbled up because of this. I think there's a big difference in legitimately defending this woman based on some kind of bull-shit misogynist agenda. But honestly, I don't think that's what happened here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:02 PM
-2

Concerning your first point, that's why I made that post and the related topic. I absolutely make this argument when women have this reaction. That's my whole point here. We're doing exactly what we revile. Concerning your article, I think you're being far too sensitive and reactionary. I think the biggest problem in a vast portion of the feminist community is the hypersensitivity that ultimately hurts their cause. I think we're going down that path here and I am trying to show an opposing voice…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:59 PM
-4

Although I disagree with your reversal analogy, I think the tactics being used here are ineffective and somewhat absurd. I think instead of dealing with the real problems that are difficult and subtle, we are jumping on an easy point and becoming what I see is the typical feminist, or religious-right, or "family first" type organizations method.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:52 PM
0

Not watch the show. My argument is that this joke did not constitute an attack on men in the way it's being portrayed here. I think it's indicative of a particularly offensive attitude these women likely have, but I don't think the current tactics are doing anything for our cause other than harming it.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:50 PM
-5

I honestly feel that most people who are making the claim you just did don't feel that way in the majority of situations. In other words, when remembering the Bobbit incident, the jokes came from everywhere as soon as it hit the news. But of course it is possible that you don't find them funny. You may have found the Bobbit joke disgusting, jokes about the Duke Lacrosse team, and maybe you would have fired Imus if you were the station director after he said nappy headed hoes. That's totally poss…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:44 PM
-2

I would argue that jokes directed toward women are absolutely acceptable to a certain audience. The people who ostracize those who make them are most often self-righteous, indignant women/feminists who feel that a joke of that kind is some kind of persecution against them as a gender. I find that ridiculous when it comes from them, and when if comes from us as well.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:41 PM
4

The self-righteous indignation about how horrible and disgusting the joke was. Saying we need to 'take action' on this and organize boycotts and all that. How abhorrent these women are and how they should be sued for defamation and fired and fined, etc. I know not everyone is advocating all of these tactics, but they're all popular right now and I can't understand why.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:39 PM
1

I have two main points here. The first is concerning humour based on suffering. Remember the Lorena Bobbit incident? Everyone was making jokes about that, e.g. Leno, Letterman, all of those types. It was such a public joke that John Bobbit did a porn after his recovery. Also, jokes dealing with suffering can absolutely be hilarious. Consider Sara Silverman on the holocauset. Second, it's the way we're going about it. This is the style of protest that hypersensitive feminists take when they get o…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:36 PM
-4

I've brought this up in past topics, but is this the precedent we want to set? They told a joke...and it got laughs. If I was with my friends and this story came up I would probably tell my own joke. It would be from a male perspective and would probably piss off some hypersensitive women. Have we become a community of hypersensitive men? Think about comedians like Louis CK. One of my all time favourites, but also one of the most "offensive". Think about Tom Segura, Jim Jeffries, Ari Shaffir, Ji…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:08 PM
1

With respect, I have no idea what you said there.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:59 PM
1

douche reply, man.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:51 AM
3

Do we intend to create a new warning topic every day or week? I don't think they're going to change, do you?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:50 AM
2

What do you mean by 'exposed to information there'? Would it not be clear upon the first deleted post what kind of culture exists there? I agree that editing posts is an issue, but deleting posts they don't agree with seems within their purview.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:35 AM
1

But again, my question is why should anyone care about moderator accountability on a subreddit they don't post in? It can't represent a fundamental corruption in the system because the subreddits are completely separated from each other. Moderators can't cross-moderate. If there is another subreddit for reasonable cross-subreddit discussion in r/feminism and r/feminisms is moderated by unreasonable users, why not just forget about that place?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:27 AM
2

I'll just have to disagree with you entirely here. Finding a joke involving someone's suffering funny says nothing about the moral virtue of a person. Nothing is off bounds in humour if the intent is virtuous. Maybe the intent here wasn't, but that says nothing about the proper bounds for humour. *edit - Here are some examples humour dealing with suffering: Most of what this guy says Sarah Silverman on the Holocaust
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:23 AM
1

It seems that beyond altering posts, moderators have carte blanche authority in their subreddit. I still don't understand why r/mensrights is so concerned beyond a sense of rivalry and equality. I agree that the mods at r/feminism have ridiculous and vindictive moderating policies, both formal and informal. What I don't agree with or understand is why r/mensrights is so invested in r/feminism's problem.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:59 AM
11

Do we really want that kind of precedent to be set for jokes?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:55 AM
1

Shouldn't making that policy clear be an issue for the posters of r/feminism? I don't understand why MensRights feels they have to try and influence that subreddit.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:38 AM
1

I think we need to remember that r/feminism is one particular feminist community. Also, the r/feminism moderators are an even smaller group.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:33 AM
1

Can anyone on MensRights, other than brand new users, really claim to not know about r/feminism's moderation culture?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:31 AM
3

Altering a post is different from removing a post, right? I agree that altering posts should be immediately dealt with, but deletions seem to be up to the moderators' discretion.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:28 AM
5

Is it possible for us at MensRights to simply acknowledge and agree that r/feminism is hypocritical then not go there anymore? Why does their subreddit affect us? None of this censorship business is a secret to anyone, is it? If people post there it's because they approve of the culture. Why wage war on their society when they don't affect ours?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:26 AM
1

I think we have a responsibility for our own sperm and should be potentially held accountable for any egg it fertilizes. If a women steals sperm or is impregnated under false pretenses it's a different situation.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 03:01 AM
0

I've been reading the comments and this is the first time I disagree with you enough to post. I don't necessarily disagree with your comments on male privileged, but it would be reasonable for you to participate in discovering them. I understand you feel worried about getting pounced on, but fuck those posters. There are reasonable people here would would enjoy engaging in your view. Obviously you have some kind of intuition about them because you brought it up.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:38 PM
2

Choosing your words better is far more effective than mass deletion. You obviously care for your reputation, as most all of us do, but this kind of deletion is far worse for that. Without the original content I can only assume what you posted was radically offensive or absurd. I doubt it was, but the imagination is led to play with that [deleted] sign.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 11:44 PM
2

I think we've all deleted a post or two if we wrote something stupid in a quick moment, but I agree with you that this level of deletion is ridiculous. I was interested in hearing another perspective in this topic, because everyone else (including me) seem to have a similar view on this.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 11:41 PM
15

Louis C.K.?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 01:02 AM
2

hmm...I think I do get it now. I'm most definitely an advocate of men's rights, particularly with paternity and rape issues. I'm a great lover of the subreddit devoted to it too. But I would think that the statement: "The reason men are so down-trodden" is quite a bit of an exagguration. I can't argue with the second point "and ignored today" but only in particular areas of law and society. But to paint men as somehow disadvantaged, at least in the main, is not quite accurate as far as I can see…
/r/MensRights05/04/11 08:16 PM
5

Sorry, but I have no clue what you're arguing for here. You seem to have left out an important word in the title.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 05:41 PM
1

I still don't understand this new flurry of egalitarianism. Aren't gender-equal issues just called issues?
/r/MensRights05/04/11 04:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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