TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Bodertz Archive

View 3 posts and 1,214 comments by Bodertz 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 1,214 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Well peta was arguing that by enabling artificial insemination we're all sexist. Whatever your definition of rape is, the way a cattle feels after being "raped" is nowhere near what a human feels being raped. Pigs have a similar level of intelligence to a three-year-old human child, or so the saying goes. Assuming this is true, is raping a pig as bad as raping a three-year-old human? All else equal, it may be more moral to rape a three-year-old human than a thirteen-year-old human if the three-y…
/r/MensRights10/05/20 08:54 PM
1

your hypothetical point about a women not socially advanced doesn't mean anything here, there isn't anybody living in mars. What I'm saying is it's totally unacceptable to equate artificial insemination to rape, by the accepted definition of rape to humans. Insemination to animals is abuse but not rape. "Your hypothetical point about a runaway trolley doesn't mean anything, there aren't any people tied to the train tracks." animals can never consent. Even in the wild. So if that qualifies as rap…
/r/MensRights10/05/20 06:58 PM
1

Lol cause the professor and peta were claiming it's sexist against females, so I was just tryna debunk their theory. Besides make cattle aren't inseminated. Rods are stuck up their ass so they ejaculate, no? Of course it's different for cows than humans. Humans are highly advanced socially. Then if a woman was not highly advanced socially, it would not be rape to fist her against her will? Animals aren't able to consent. Even in the wild, animals aren't able consent the way we do. That's what ma…
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:23 PM
2

That they're dehumanizing human femal victims, going against their own cause. Idk how you come up to that conclusion lol. Why would it dehumanize female victims but not male victims? I was just teasing, though. Nobody goes and actually physically rapes farm cows. They stick their fist up the cow's ass while she is immobilized. If it was a penis instead, would that make a difference to the cow? From the victim's perspective, does the distinction matter? Not saying that it's not wrong, sure it is,…
/r/MensRights10/05/20 09:20 AM
2

Humans are different from all other species in that we have developed a very high level of intellect, we live in a very sophisticated civilization and we're very social beings. And while I agree that things like artificial insemination is wrong, it CANNOT in any way be compared to rape. That would be extremely disrespectful to all human females. But not human males? Tsk tsk, you misandrist, you. If I rape a dog, is it disrespectful to call it rape? Why? Because the dog doesn't have a very high l…
/r/MensRights09/05/20 10:16 PM
2

Just so my tone is read correctly, this is just a friendly disagreement to me. I'm not sure that I don't come across harsher than I intend to. There's no such thing as environmentally friendly factory farming. Environmentally friendly dogfighting, then. You're not realising that I'm an ally here lol Well, sort of. We have different maps that have paths that happen to converge in some places, but your map can lead to destinations mine would not, and I suppose the reverse is true as well. I'm all …
/r/MensRights09/05/20 05:14 PM
3

I'm really into environmentalism so for me the environmental cause will always remain the major reason to turn to veganism. We gotta be practical, the environmental issue can change life as we know it and cause a lot of economic harm too. For me that's the primary reason and I believe that's what vegan activism should focus more on. I definitely disagree there. Environmentally friendly factory farming is still wrong. Animals matter. The environment only matters insofar as it harms animals.
/r/MensRights09/05/20 01:57 PM
2

I agree with you absolutely. I'm vegetarian for animals and for environmental reasons. And I'm trying to be vegan and hopefully will reach there some day. No time like the present, right? I'd focus on the animal side of it rather than the environment if I were you. "The environment" seems sort of nebulous to me. I can't grasp it. Sure, cows produce methane and methane bad, but it's a lot of extra work for me to care. The environment doesn't feel pain. Animals do. It's so much more direct to focu…
/r/MensRights09/05/20 08:37 AM
4

It would make more sense for you to say that if you were vegan. I don't know if you went vegetarian for the animals, but if you did, there's a lot of fucked up shit in the dairy and egg industries as well. I imagine we'll disagree on this, but it's easily as fucked up as PETA. Anyway, I know this comment will do fuck all, but I still always hope leaving them changes some minds. God, that would be wonderful.
/r/MensRights08/05/20 10:47 PM
1

Yeah. Adults are the ones who give meaning to the different body parts. Without that context, I don't imagine it's much different than looking in her mouth.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 09:58 PM
18

A while ago, someone opposing the ban in Germany, I think, said that it was the worst thing since the holocaust, or something like that. Maybe he was an outlier, though.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 08:54 PM
3

I do have studies that show FGM has a protective effect against HIV handy; when you advocate for genital mutilation to prevent HIV, don't forget to advocate for female! Do you feel those are accurate? If so, what makes male genital cutting different? If not, then you should know that I don't care what someone does with their own body, and if a woman feels that female genital cutting is worthwhile, then she can have at it. I assume that you are linking the studies to show that I would not support…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:28 AM
5

Do you have a link to a study or whatever that shows this. I have seen some studies (well, just the abstracts) that show an opposite effect. I am against performing circumcision on infants for the obvious reasons, but I am not so set in stone about the voluntary circumcisions that people may perform for preventative reasons. So, yeah, what makes you say it increases the rate HIV/AIDS spreads?
/r/MensRights20/03/14 01:21 AM
1

That's a reason to say something nonsensical, not an explanation of what what she said meant. Furthermore, she isn't blaming men in that sentence. In fact, it could be argued that she is saying it isn't men's fault, what with it not being explained away by discrimination and all.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 03:00 PM
4

For someone raised with less culturally-encouraged agency (::cough:: women ::cough::), one may not see it as a decision at all, but rather it would be completely natural to simply 1. find out what others are doing and then 2. do that. I don't know about women in general, but I would imagine that those who choose to become directors and the like have managed to build up their agency despite the lack of encouragement from society. It's an interesting idea nonetheless.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:23 PM
6

I have noticed four types of trolls. In my opinion, the best trolls are the ones who get upvotes while trolling. It takes a little effort to make fun of someone and have them thank you for it. A little below that are the ones that get massive downvotes. It's kind of cheating on reddit, I think, due to how easy it is to get downvotes, but it is still worthy of some respect. Far far below that are the people who make a really lazy and boring and unimaginative comment that shouts out "I am trolling…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:19 PM
2

Maybe the article paraphrased it really poorly. Otherwise I have no idea what she's talking about.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:33 PM
1

It doesn't say the victim doesn't penetrate.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:37 AM
1

You don't have to try very hard. It doesn't specify the gender of the victim.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 10:11 PM
3

Rape is not exclusively a legal term. I'm Canadian, and I'm not absolutely clueless about what the word means.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 10:10 PM
1

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. A woman can make a man's penis penetrate her vagina without the consent of the victim.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 09:18 PM
5

Rape is not exclusively a legal term. I'm Canadian, and I'm not absolutely clueless about what the word means.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 09:10 PM
0

I'm glad you agree with me.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:26 AM
1

A foreskin can cause other problems too. Easily fixed for the most part. Besides, circumcision can also cause problems. I don't think that's medically possible. And like you said, it would cause other (non-aesthetic) problems down the road. I'm thinking something along the lines of introducing drugs during pregnancy or something. What's your definition of a birth defect? Because I don't see how you consider a cleft lip to be a "physical abnormality", but not a birth defect.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 02:45 AM
3

A cleft lip can cause other problems which is why I think it is worth correcting. A vestigial tail doesn't really cause any problems, which is why I don't think surgery should be performed, although I am not set in stone about that. Interesting. I would have no problem with removal of earlobes, although I doubt it is actually practiced anywhere. How about causing a cleft lip in a child for religious reasons?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:43 AM
5

Theoretically, yes, although I think circumcision is a more important issue at this time. How about removing earlobes, if the parents consent, of course.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:46 AM
-7

Sure there are. You waste less soap, for instance. I never said the benefits were massive, or that they outweighed the negatives. Edit: If I'm getting downvotes, I might as well correct your grammar. It would be "not any benefits" or "no benefits".
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:17 AM
2

If you don't have smegma because you did something, and /u/Andythrax does have smegma, what does that mean?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:16 AM
0

A fetus is using another person's body without their permission. Do I have the right to force you to give me your blood for 9 months, or do you have the right to stop me from taking it, knowing full well I'd die of some vampire related illness?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:11 AM
3

I am curious as to how many people on this thread that are bashing circumcision are actually circumcised themselves? I would say the minority of the posters, when you factor in women. If we are talking only about the male posters, most probably come from the US, which would leave half of them circumcised, unless this subreddit attracts more of whichever group, and then the rest are probably mostly from Europe, where I don't think many are circumcised. So less than half, probably. But I don't kno…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:01 AM
6

Oh so you hit a woman and you are a woman abuser for life now! ... I'm Jewish, and trust me we will continue to abuse women whether or not its legal. Like, I only hit one woman! Why are you saying I abuse them? I mean, sure, I'll hit another one if I see one or whatever, but seriously, lay off, guys!
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:53 PM
0

I actually think the vestigial tail is a good point. Like an ear piercing, it mutilates a body, and it's even permanent. Should the infant have a choice?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:47 PM
3

Okay, at the risk of repeating myself, do you have an issue with a religious tattoo being, er, tattooed on an infant?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:44 PM
1

Okay, is it cruel to punch a baby? I'm not saying you think it's good. I'm just wondering if it meets your definition of cruel.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:42 PM
5

Is there a similar covenant for women? Or were women not worthy of God's time or something?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:38 PM
1

When you say Maybe it's because I wash my junk minimum once a day? that means that you think /u/Andythrax does not do that.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:35 PM
3

I guess, but it's a very small benefit, and it's entirely subjective. Besides, it's something like half of newborn males in America are not circumcised now, isn't it?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:30 PM
-9

Come now, you know that wasn't what was meant. Perhaps /u/howlingchief thinks that the benefits of circumcision are outweighed by other issues. Edit: Downvote me all you want, you know that's "why do you beat women" levels of misrepresentation.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:27 PM
1

Thanks to some OTHER posters, I have some interesting things to look up. You should thank them for picking up your slack, and making up for your compelte lack of knowledge on the subject. Oh, I'm much too modest.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:05 PM
2

Oh, I barely said anything.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:03 PM
2

Will do.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:03 PM
1

So all high school kids get this information. Women get it too, you are not their teacher, and women are not your students. I'm not talking about me giving out this information. No, you just bring it up as general advice, when in reality the rapes aren't happening like that. I don't ever bring it up. Does it lower the chances of one type of rape? Then why do so many of us go on and on about wanting to give women rape prevention tip? I don't know. Maybe they have other interests.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:02 PM
2

Thank you for providing reasons to vaccinate? Now do the same for circumcision?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:42 PM
1

Fucks sake, we are not a a rape prevention group and women are not retards, they can understand the buddy system as well as you do and probably use it more. They receive lots more tips that you likely ever will. Are highschoolers morons? Why do they tell them, then? If rape advocacy groups want to stop amateurs that base their tips on the least likely type of rape because they feel it hides how it usually happens they have every right to object to it. No one brings it up when someone's friend ra…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:41 PM
0

In most cases. You've gone over this with other people, though, and I doubt I have much to add.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:38 PM
3

I guess the debate is whether circumcision has enough benefit for it to be a recommended procedure. Exactly. It needs to be proven to be necessary before it should be performed. Your vaccine example is a good one. It needs to be shown to be worth it. Vaccines are slightly different, though, in that they aren't permanently disfiguring you (I don't mean any connotations with that; I just can't think of a more neutral word right now) on purpose. Vaccines may carry a risk of permanent disfigurement,…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:37 PM
1

Yeah, sorry, I guess. It's just annoying to make a point, zingy though it may be, and have it kind of ignored.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:32 PM
1

Why in the world would I need to prove anything? Because we should default to not doing something. We default to not giving vaccines to people without a reason. You need to provide a reason that we should vaccinate.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:31 PM
1

The buddy system actually increases the likelihood of being raped, because most rapes are by friends, family members or acquaintances. No more than going out for a drink with your friends. It reduces the chances that a stranger would rape you, which is the point.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:28 PM
2

You need to prove it is, is my point. We default to not locking people up. We only lock them up when there is a good reason. We don't lock everyone up and then offer reasons why they should go free.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:17 PM
0

How was that being an asshole? I gave you a reason it wasn't necessary: Because soap is a real thing that isn't imaginary. Stop being so defensive.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:15 PM
1

These people aren't objecting to the buddy system or personal safety in the first place. Who are "these people"? And yeah, you could say that using the buddy system is part of violence in the culture. Well, it's part of it in that it reduces the risk that you or your friend will be victimized. Does it perpetuate it, in your estimation?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:13 PM
6

Sorry, I thought the consent issue was implied. But I still think my point stands: Don't default to performing surgery until you are sure it's necessary. I don't think it should be on us to prove to you why it shouldn't be done.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:11 PM
1

So does soap. Zingy response aside, you should default to not cutting up children until there is good reason to. Is soap that much of an issue in the first world? If I told you that the less severe forms of female genital cutting (Fear not, for the clitoris remains intact!) also helped in those areas, would you think that to be enough reason to start cutting children's genitals?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:07 PM
1

I have seen people get upset about the buddy system, saying that it perpetuates victim blaming and rape culture. But we are having two separate discussions at this point, and I imagine it's a little weird for everyone.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:04 PM
10

So does soap. Zingy response aside, you should default to not cutting up children until there is good reason to, instead of defaulting to cutting up children until someone tells you it's a bad idea. I'm not sure if that was a zingy response too, but at least it gave you something to respond to.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 03:43 PM
1

My analogy is, or the idea of that being victim blaming? Because I know my analogy is not realistic.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 03:42 PM
1

Okay, but would it be victim blaming to tell people not to wear red socks?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 03:21 PM
9

Should it be legal to cut off a child's earlobe for religious reasons? And when you probably say that it is too visible, how about tattooing a religious symbol on their stomach? Buttocks?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:38 PM
0

Well, no. He said something close to that. But let's forget I brought it up and go back to the analogy.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:33 PM
1

What about the case that started the slutwalk? Was that blaming the victim or trying to prevent future crimes? Was that "lecturing"? And let's go back to my sock analogy: Is that preventative advice okay to repeat?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:30 PM
1

I think you are misrepresenting /u/JakeDDrake. He(?) is not going to trauma wards to tell about the dangers of driving without a seatbelt. He's going to the people about to drive to put on their seatbelt. Moving out of analogy land, there's a difference between telling rape survivors that they shouldn't have done something and trying to prevent more people from becoming rape survivors. If it is found that those who wear socks are more likely to be raped, it's not blaming the victim to discourage…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:45 AM
1

That's like a man saying, ''it's not patronizing to remind women to not get raped because they are women." Only if you think women are less mentally capable than men. Is it patronizing to tell a child to remember to brush his teeth? What about an adult? At what age does that change?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:40 AM
5

Okay, so there's this paper, right, and the front page story is about this 81 year old woman who was raped. So, Carlin sees this in the paper, and he incorporates it into a bit of his standup. Is it okay to laugh? Okay, so there's this paper, right, and the front page story is about this 81 year old woman who was raped. Unfortunately, as the rapist was leaving, he knocked down a few candles, so the 81 year old woman and her two adopted orphans died in the fire. So, Carlin sees this in the paper,…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:31 AM
1

I didn't see the post that got caught in the spam filter until now, but I need to study, so I won't respond until either Saturday or Tuesday. Maybe Friday. since women haven't been blamed here for anything they didn't do. I'm talking about women being accused of being a fake geek girl when they aren't. Your behavior speaks for itself. You aren't entitled to assume that your excuses for them will be accepted. We've had a conversation before this. You probably don't remember, but you did the same …
/r/MensRights23/01/14 07:31 PM
1

The issue is that you take offense at the idea of holding women responsible for their actions, and when you saw "men aren't responsible for this" you immediately hit it with the answer-to-do-these-pants-make-my-ass-look-fat strawman, that being taking it in the most argumentative way possible, in order to start a long, wandering, goalpost-moving argument. I don't, though. I "take offence" to women people being blamed for something they didn't do. You did that not because there was a logical, rat…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 04:38 PM
1

No. We are talking about interactions, hence my use of the term. Besides, calling it a crime exaggerates it's harm. You can be called an asshole for thinking black people should be killed; you can't be arrested for it.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 09:09 AM
0

No, he's not. He's saying that Men are not responsible as a group. He is not saying that no individual men ever do this. He is saying that men as a whole do not. She, by the way. Yeah, there was some confusion regarding the use of the term "blame". Is your confusion on this point willful? I just don't get how someone else can make an error like the one you are so obviously making. Because she literally said that "men aren't to blame" in reply to a comment saying that both men and women are at fa…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 09:06 AM
1

This is not a valid mass-criticism. Agreed. This could only be a valid criticism for the individuals wrongly accusing others of faking. Yes. I don't doubt that this happens. Yeah. It just isn't a valid reason to say that no woman should ever be criticized. Criticized for being a fake geek or criticized for calling other girls fake geeks?
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:58 AM
4

Okay, before you go, what about TyphonBlue?
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:28 AM
-1

You're ascribing to me a position in this comment which is not contained in it. You've attempted to make that position the meaning of that comment by attempting connect it to the OP instead of the comment to which it was made in reply, thereby trying to change what it refers to in order to support your focus on fake geek girls. Yes, that's what a strawman is. I'm still not clear on what position I ascribed to you that you do not hold, however. You said: In reference to the above pic, no - in thi…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:18 AM
-2

In fact, the one example you provided led to evidence that men aren't capable of perpetuating the behavior, because society doesn't tolerate them doing so. Once again, that was your example, and that person clearly did partake in that behaviour, what with that person being shat on for doing so. And once again (or maybe I didn't post this), what a journalist can get away with and what people actually think are different things. Again, bullshit - and you've had to strawman to do it, turning "this …
/r/MensRights22/01/14 07:41 AM
4

What makes you say that about Elam (That is a genuine question, by the way, as I don't pay attention to him. Do you feel the same way about JtO or GWW or other figureheads?) Seriously, if you think that feminism is the main reason men are exposed to dangerous jobs at a significantly higher rate then you might want to check your gin; it's probably been replaced with bleach. Yeah, people seem to believe that. GWW doesn't, though, if I remember right. That's before you even bore down to the fact th…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 05:17 AM
-4

Your opinion isn't an anecdote. My experience is not unique. Listen to that episode of HBR I linked above, and you'll hear other women call in to talk about the same thing I have. What's the plural of anecdote again? This goes back to proportion. If women lead the behavior, and women are the main perpetrators of it, its existence and prominence aren't attributable to men. It's not attributable to any one person, but that doesn't mean any one person isn't guilty of perpetuating it. Offense isn't …
/r/MensRights22/01/14 05:08 AM
-2

Strawmanning me in a comment in which you claim not to be strawmanning me is like inceptupidity. I can understand you getting confused once, but this is ridiculous. What is the position I am ascribing to you that you do not hold? I should ask you the same thing - you're the one who quite openly attempted to use it as such. Trying to weasel out of admitting that attempt failed doesn't look any better. ...no, seriously, why would you interpret it that way instead of as agreement? I never said the …
/r/MensRights22/01/14 04:51 AM
-3

I've seen guys complain about fake geek girls on sites like Kotaku and Reddit but I've never seen them shame said girls to their face Have you seen women shame said girls to their face? Guys complain in order to vent As do most :P they don't really have anything to gain by directly confronting fake geek girls. Okay, but I don't think the confrontation part is actually necessary. Your biases fuel your interactions. If you think all men are potential rapists, you don't have to say that to someone'…
/r/MensRights21/01/14 11:03 PM
1

Boycotting things whose actors support misandry seems rather silly to me. Actors are fucking morons. Darwin was probably racist. That sort of thing.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 10:55 PM
-4

Again, you're attempting a strawman; the above comment isn't a denial of the phenomenon, simply a statement that attributing it to men is incorrect, and claiming it or anything else in this comic as evidence that men oppress women is dishonest. Jesus, do I really have to explain this? Okay then: Image in which fake geek girls are mentioned CORRECT TITLE: Men are not solely to blame In reference to the above pic, no - in this case, men aren't to blame. It's true that the shaming depicted in this …
/r/MensRights21/01/14 10:53 PM
-6

At what point in my above comment do I mention the fake geek girl thing? Forgotten already, have we? And not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are girls who do that - step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism, computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. Then they start using damseling to gain attention for themselves and …
/r/MensRights21/01/14 07:58 PM
0

Uhhhhhh k. why people hate MR's
/r/MensRights21/01/14 07:42 PM
2

So, what did "revealing the docs" of the protesters actually help with?
/r/MensRights21/01/14 07:31 PM
-3

Oh come on. That's mature.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 07:27 PM
5

See also: male workplace death rates
/r/MensRights21/01/14 07:19 PM
-1

You've never heard of the fake geek girl thing?
/r/MensRights21/01/14 06:54 PM
1

Yeah. A lot of people don't see the MRM as helping men, so they aren't necessarily against men's rights, just Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 06:41 PM
1

Well, he probably doesn't like PUAs, so he tells who he perceives them to be not to comment.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 02:37 PM
1

I agree with you in part. Sex is seen as degrading to women. I think that means that people think of women as pure, not as lesser.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 11:11 PM
1

Well, MRAs have the perception of being those PUA types, deserved or not. He doesn't see himself as working against his own interests because he doesn't see MRAs as working for his interests.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 08:30 AM
1

I disagree with statutory rape laws for the most part. So, honestly, how is this comment related as well? I even point out the discrepancy.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 03:16 PM
1

The fact that the SPLC named AVFM as a "hate site"? SPLC the organization? Because I'm pretty sure that they aren't on the official list. Not sure though.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 07:34 AM
3

Why are you calling her a slut? But I wasn't talking about his case specifically, just statutory rape laws in general. Women are seen as precious and in need of protection.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:36 AM
3

I disagree with statutory rape laws for the most part, but I don't think that's a fair assessment. I think it is just society's perception of sex as being something acted up women, so the girl is being taken advantage of. I don't think that translates to them being the lesser sex.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:21 AM
2

Tumblr feminism encompasses basically all forms of advocacy at this point, so any potential privilege is now a part of it. Most admit they have white privilige, but some (I feel) try to offset it by adding on a bunch of other labels. For instance, asexual.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:17 AM
1

Was that sarcastic sarcasm? I think you should mark that.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:10 AM
8

Well, okay, but some feminists also deserve it, and I don't see why that's really worth mentioning. We're surrounded by Assholes.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:08 AM
0

That's disingenuous and I think you know that.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:06 AM
1

If you honestly can say you don't think the power dynamics between men and women (and masculinity and femininity) are important when examining the relationships men and women have to masculinity and femininity then Wow. Good job misrepresenting what I said. A++. 11/10. well then there's not much point in continuing this conversation. Yeah, fuck you. You don't want to continue, fine. Just fuck off. Don't lay it at my feet. Don't write an entire comment saying, "You are too stupid for me". Just fu…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 04:24 AM
2

I do accept that women are shamed for not living up to their gender role...I've just acknowledged that they have a bit more wiggle room regarding gender performance. I'll rephrase: You don't accept it as evidence of the reverse. I only skimmed your blog post, but from it a gathered that you thought that the power differences between men and women are important in this case, and I don't see how they are. And society doesn't need a "reason" to do anything. Okay... But isn't this entire dialogue me…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 02:28 AM
4

What is your evidence that this is the reason? But I think my bigger issue is different: Society hates feminine traits so much, we consider it "failing" at masculinity to take feminine traits on. Yes. Men are shamed for not living up to their gender role. I see you don't accept it when women are shamed for not living up to their gender role, but whatever. Society values masculine traits so much that we consider it "transcending" gender roles for girls to take them on. Okay, so what makes a "girl…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 09:42 AM
4

I don't know if you are just pretending to not understand, but the point was that you are more likely to be a troll when you choose those usernames. You are desperate to ignore all context and assume that every person who is critical of feminism is considered a troll, which is just laughable for this sub. It's not an ad hominem attack, as you say below, but additional evidence (context, if you will) that s/he is a troll. There are a lot of antifeminists here, and there are a lot of anti-antifemi…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 01:45 PM
1

Do you have any links of those who are sexist?
/r/MensRights01/01/14 09:10 AM
1

Frankly, militant feminists aren't the target audience anyway. As someone else pointed out, they're a very small portion of the population. You said a post ago that "Feminists are often backlashing against this movement precisely because the public face is often so horrible," so that's what I addressed. And /u/SuperCow1127 was saying, I think, that that wasn't the backlash that s/he was talking about. And the fedora thing is just circlejerking; you don't need to be militant to take part in it. W…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 09:09 AM
4

Why bother posting at all, then? 'Nope' is such a snarky-ass waste of a response that it's only one level above a sassy gif.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 07:58 PM
2

Finally someone who can understand the difference between real life and fiction! Ideally neither would exist Why is that? I think it's possible for some fun stories to come out of that kind of thing. This movie, probably not, but still. For instance, I enjoyed Hard Candy (There were more than two colours!) despite me disagreeing with her actions if she did them in real life. The way things work for me is that if the main character is wronged in some way by another character, I give them a lot mo…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 07:28 PM
0

This is a movie. Let's not read more into my comments than exists.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 07:21 PM
-1

Are you offended that this exists, or that the reverse doesn't?
/r/MensRights22/12/13 06:38 AM
1

You overestimate reddit.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 06:35 AM
1

The "She'll never know what hit her" bit was the focus of the comment. You shouldn't have been downvoted that much, but now you at least know why.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 06:33 AM
2

Well, you seem fine accepting that /r/MensRights users participated in part. My concern was you having a double standard about it.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:50 PM
1

Sorry, I was tired when I linked that. I meant in regards to the evidence presented. As you can see, some one MRA there refused to believe that that was enough evidence that people on /r/MensRights contributed to that.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:39 PM
1

Would it be rape if she was over twice his age and not a teacher? Because I do think that she should be fired. I just don't think it is necessary to call it rape if the sex was "consensual", if not consensual. The one year difference between seventeen and eighteen seems incredibly arbitrary. So to be very clear to everyone who is reading more into my comments than I put there (which is partly my fault, as I've found I word things incredibly poorly when I'm tired), I am assuming that this was a c…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:17 PM
0

It is statutory rape. And no, we don't know, but it was probably "consensual".
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:00 PM
1

If I can't explain what I'm speaking of, how do you know I lack common sense?
/r/MensRights19/12/13 02:59 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1t77jt/mens_rights_activists_conspire_to_cripple_college/ What is your stance on this?
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:47 AM
1

I realize what a waste of a comment this is, but that should have gotten more upvotes than it did originally. (I say originally as anti-hivemind posts tend to spike upwards after a little while and I don't want to seem like I'm complaining over nothing)
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:37 AM
0

I was responding to the comment about drunk sex. I think it is more likely that the student enjoyed it at the time. It is statutory rape. For instance, if I am too scared to refuse having sex with you, are you raping me if I don't tell you no?
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:32 AM
-1

It doesn't you made an assumption about my view, which confused you. I made an assumption that you had a view. Do you have a view? Ah, hide behind ambiguity. Makes sense to me. Anything else you are almost, somewhat, close to maybe believing? ?? He probably enjoyed it. I've said that already, why do you want me to say it again? Criticize me on my noncommitment if you want (why you would want to, who the fuck knows), but I've been consistent and your failure to read what I said is not my fault.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:48 AM
-1

The sarcasm was lost on you. The sarcasm appears to lead to two conflicting views, is my point. wat? Man nice, has sex with woman, yay! Man bad, has sex with woman, sad! ?? But you had no problem doing that a minute ago. Glad to hear you've come around. Come around how? I said probably. That doesn't contradict anything I've said. Glad you changed your opinion of my opinion?
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:40 AM
-6

Okay, so now we can tell women who were raped/abused several times by the same guy that based on this logic we conclude you DID in fact enjoy it at one time! You are talking about regretting drunk sex. I don't consider drunk sex rape under normal circumstances. If you meant that she was abused, make that clearer. DID in fact enjoy it at one time! Statutory rape is a very different subject than forcibly raping someone. That "one time" that she enjoyed it is the time that you are saying she was ab…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:49 AM
1

Black girl would qualify too, no?
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:32 AM
-6

Okay, but seven times? He probably enjoyed it at the time, whether or not it was legal. To be clear, are you arguing against being able to that, or for it?
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:31 AM
2

As /u/theoysterismyworld said before, the issue is whether there were any victims at all. It's not "It's his fault because he obviously wanted it", but "They wanted sex and they had sex". I'm not sure how I feel about this specific case, mind, I'm just explaining what was meant.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:28 AM
1

Fair enough. Although that seems like a backwards way to think of it.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:34 AM
1

And I'm not really sure if she is a feminist. I mean, she probably is, but WRA doesn't mean feminist, and she is apparently a rather poor WRA anyway. If she calls herself a feminist, it's because she wants the good publicity, I imagine.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:54 AM
1

And sorry for calling your comment stupid. I have a fear of losing karma for opinions I don't hold, so I sometimes overcompensate and insult someone else just to get on the good side of someone I am also disagreeing with.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:00 AM
1

The issue is you are describing a particularly yellow creamsicle as a banana. This analogy isn't going anywhere, so I'll bring it back to reality: You are calling Khobragade a racist for treating her nanny poorly, despite there existing other reasons that she may have done so. In the theoretical situation that a white woman was working for her under the threat of being sent somewhere else (I dunno, a fugitive, or something), Khobragade may have treated her the same as she did her nanny in real l…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:57 AM
1

Okay.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:51 AM
1

You think it is irrelevant that it was irrelevant, is the point.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 08:58 PM
1

You didn't. It was irrelevant.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 08:51 PM
2

On second thought, you are probably right.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 08:33 PM
2

/u/p3ngwin's comment was stupid for sure, but not for the reason you are suggesting. /u/p3ngwin thinks that Khobragade is a feminist, and that her nanny isn't benefiting from her feminism because she isn't white. That's why it started by calling feminism racist. That's why it ended talking about how it only helps white women.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 07:17 PM
1

How can you call that irrelevant? I'm baffled. "This just goes to show that the tipping system is flawed..." ???
/r/MensRights15/12/13 07:13 PM
1

Sort of similar, but the phrase "nothing if not x" confuses me. It's like, you only have that one trait?
/r/MensRights15/12/13 07:08 PM
5

What? That makes no sense. How would the reverse go down here? Because, believe it or not, posting that on /feminism (can I not link it?) is not the reverse of this post on /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 04:17 AM
1

I dunno, a week? I don't know how high on the scale this is.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 08:46 AM
0

What would fit?
/r/MensRights13/12/13 11:54 PM
3

What was /u/rockytriton's reply to the Hillary thing, if you remember?
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:43 PM
1

Don't let it. Seriously. It's just not worth that much anger. At all. Just recognize it as something stupid and move on. You could even try appreciating the humour, or at least the attempt at it.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 01:51 AM
3

It might depend on if "assaults" was tied to "sexual".
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:47 PM
1

Okay. I just worry that overuse will make it less likely to inspire awe.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:46 AM
1

That's my whole point, who decides what constitutes the name of an activist group? Is it simply because they have the word "against" in the title? What happened to satire? I don't know these people and I don't care to; whether or not their posts were meant as jokes, they are a joke to me. Anybody who honestly believes that filth are ridiculous, and far beyond the help of logic and reason. =) I'm assuming they aren't satire. If they are, then disregard my comments. I find comedy everywhere I can …
/r/MensRights06/12/13 03:01 PM
2

Yeah.... the purpose the creator defines. I could go start a page right now called White Men against Asian Babies and just post rap lyrics all day. Sure, you could, but it would be weird unless that was the name of your rap group. I mean, otherwise it's just confusing. Any more strange than a facebook page for a Spongebob character who appeared in a single episode that posts unrelated memes all the time? Any body can make a fb page and have it be about what ever their heart desires. I think peop…
/r/MensRights06/12/13 01:37 AM
1

Huh. Those dots actually made the punchline come later. Spoiler tags would have worked, though (unless they are broken like in another sub).
/r/MensRights06/12/13 12:25 AM
5

Am I allowed to say that my comment didn't warrant a downvote?
/r/MensRights05/12/13 03:12 PM
2

Your experience is different than mine, for sure. I cried at everything. Everything. Just everything. Anyway, there were always a few people who tried to comfort me, although I didn't actually want it, because I knew I needed to grow up.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:19 AM
3

I don't think it's rare enough to warrant that.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:16 AM
4

I don't know if you are just pretending not to understand (and it's fine if you are) but facebook pages have an actual purpose. It would be strange for them to post cat gifs too. For instance, I'm watching Six Feet Under again. I also really enjoyed Orphan Black. You should check it out (I'm telling you as it isn't too well known yet). There's also a show called Wentworth that I am watching; it's like if you took the Orange is the New Black Season One finale and made that every second episode. T…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 06:05 AM
6

Where did rimjob come from? A more apt comparison would be "If men ate pussies half as much as they eat there own shit, there would be no more divorces in the great US of A." In this case, "eat there own shit" is meant to mean, "believe the BS they're spewing". Another one would be, "If men kept their heads in between a woman's legs half as much as the kept it up their own asses, there would be no more divorces in the great US of A." This one needs less explaining, so I won't.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 05:55 AM
8

Two out of three of those have also been in relationships, so that is a statistic I just mentioned for some reason.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 10:31 PM
-4

How do you feel about "grow up"? Does that bother you less? Edit: I wasn't trolling. Edit 2: But was I in my edit? Edit 3: But seriously, why am I being downvoted? Edit 4: So, I'm not going away... I might as well make some use of this comment: I'll edit it every day until it no longer lets me. As this is surely the beginning of something great, the next edit will not be labelled Edit 5, but rather Day 1. I will include the date in this format: [YY/MM/DD]. Day 1: [13/11/27] I am sitting in bed n…
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:16 AM
3

I've said this before, comparisons often make it worse. Instead of talking about men's issues, people will talk about all the women's issues that were left out. I haven't watched this specific video yet, so I'm just speaking generally, mind.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:15 AM
2

I get from 11:30 to 12:20, but I have a spare the extends that by 80 minutes (next semester is going to be brutal).
/r/MensRights27/11/13 02:11 AM
1

Okay, I thought we saw more of her because I was getting confused between two of the characters. It might not have been them, though.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 02:09 AM
1

So we did not see her before she died? Because that's what would change it from passing or not passing.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 02:01 AM
3

Okay, how about faux-queen. She died, no one cared, but I think she was in a few scenes, wasn't she?
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:41 AM
2

Uninteresting meaning background characters? Do the Star Wars prequels pass (the mother dies, but the film isn't really about avenging her death)?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:43 PM
1

That isn't necessarily an example of female privilege. I imagine the one that could cause more controversy got more famous, but I don't know of Farrell's test. Care to enlighten me?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:40 PM
1

Feel the same about books?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:38 PM
1

One the one hand, I agree with you, but on the other... exception that proves the rule, and all that.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 07:48 AM
1

Echo chambers aren't healthy, are they?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 07:47 AM
2

That's the kind of thing Google could tell you.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 07:44 AM
1

That's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Controversial studies have been made.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 06:14 AM
2

Well, it is data. It just may not be useful data.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 06:12 AM
1

Sorry, I thought you were defending the link, not just outlining a difference. My fault.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 04:21 AM
6

Okay, but seriously, it's a dumb word.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:44 AM
2

Probably, but this is really only tangentially related to MR.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:42 AM
10

Also, feminists build statues out of the ground up bones of kids that commit suicide.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:39 AM
3

It's also evidence that it isn't designed to oppress puppies.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:32 AM
2

This doesn't say the rape has to be real.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:31 AM
1

Yeah, I think you'd need a transcript of the trial to find out what the evidence was.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:24 AM
1

I misunderstood what you were saying. Anyway, they were in communication during the murder, so Tracey wasn't unaware of it. So they did it together, I guess. And you can triangulate cell phones, I'm pretty sure. That's how they know where she was, isn't it? Not to mention that in 2003, it isn't unlikely that it was a landline.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 11:32 PM
1

Yeah, I was just being pedantic. I hate buzzwords when they are used correctly, never mind when they're not. And the apostrophe should go before the 's'. Men is the plural form of man, not mens.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 06:42 PM
1

Tracey had an alibi however, claiming that he had ordered a pizza to his Brandon, Florida apartment at the time of the crime. This was verified by an acquaintance, Tobe White. Further investigation however, revealed that his wife of one day, Ashley Humphrey, was not at home during the crime, as cell phone records indicated that Ashley was actually in Pinellas Park, Florida when Sandee was killed.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 02:57 PM
3

Please. You would just say that she wasn't taking accountability for her actions. That she was pretending to be a delicate flower, unable to make her own choices. Tell me you wouldn't think that. Anyway, I'm not sure why it has to be an ex-lover that does the killing. That seems like an arbitrary distinction. So, while the following link does not qualify, I do feel that it falls under the larger discussion of violence by proxy, which is what the conversation should have been about the whole time…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 04:22 AM
2

Fucking tone police, trying to tell men what they're allowed to talk about. That's not what tone policing is. Apparently we aren't allowed to talk about when a guy gets murdered. Not every bad thing that happens to a man is a Men's Rights issue, in the same way that a man winning the lottery isn't proof of male privilege.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 03:55 AM
1

Are you saying that the poster isn't real, or that the Original Poster (heh) was against it?
/r/MensRights16/11/13 04:40 AM
0

Politically, asexual is less charged than atheist. In everyday conversation, atheist means more than that.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 07:30 PM
1

And if they can't conceive of something, it is useless to talk about whether they believe in it or not.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:46 AM
1

And all rocks are atheists too? Anyway, you can be a good speaker and say stupid shit.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:44 AM
0

Kinda late reply, but what is to stop a rock from being called an atheist?
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:43 AM
1

Ahh fuck, I missed this entirely!
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:39 AM
0

Oooooh, another blue car!
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:14 PM
1

I haven't really seen that happen, I don't think.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:12 PM
2

You don't need evidence not to punish somebody, you need evidence to punish somebody.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 06:52 PM
1

She's rather well known, if you're wondering why your post is kind of being ignored. Edit: I was downvoted, but seriously, two comments.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 02:47 PM
2

Yeah, well you can't speak at the movie theater and not be thought of as an asshole by me.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 02:46 PM
1

I've heard that most states in the US don't allow that. Have you ever actually experienced that?
/r/MensRights04/11/13 02:42 PM
1

I agree, actually. I don't think misogyny should be treated as synonymous with sexist. There should be hate involved. I also get annoyed with people calling things misogynist instead of misogynistic. Maybe that's a valid usage, but I'll be damned if it doesn't annoy the hell out of me.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 02:33 PM
3

Feminist != Feminism. You can believe that feminism is the cause of something without believing that every individual feminist agrees with the outcome.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 02:30 PM
8

I'll explain why he was downvoted: This is an article about genital cutting of infants. He says he is happy he was cut. In this context, it sounds like he is saying he doesn't have a problem with genital cutting of infants because he is happy with his own circumcision. Who gives a shit? People aren't against it because of how it makes /u/kittendoc feel. Should it be legal to tattoo an infant?
/r/MensRights04/11/13 02:24 PM
3

If the parents are fighting that badly over who should have the child, they could be trying to constantly turn the child against the other parent, which could be psychologically damaging. I would think that would happen either way, just with a different balance. I don't need to, that's pretty much the law. But snarky quips aside, I see your point. Most people would gladly support a violence against blacks law over one against whites because blacks have historical been subject to more racial viol…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:05 AM
1

realising that calling someone a cunt doesn't make you a misogynist any more than a woman calling a man a dick makes them a misandrist (i.e, not at all). I never said it did. I said that people might think you are. Because -- and this may shock you -- people can base their opinions of you on what you say. If I go around saying to everyone I don't like that they should have their scrotum sewed onto their forehead while their still attached testicles are slowly pressed through a cheese grater made…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:44 AM
0

I agree, the article meandered a bit too much if it was only a satire of men being intimidated by women's intelligence.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:49 PM
0

Perceiving the writer as misogynistic and using that as a reason to devalue the message is the very definition of Ad Hominem. And if I said that, you would be bang on in calling it an Ad Hominem. Alas, I didn't. There's a difference between saying something is wrong because the writer is an asshat and ignoring everything an asshat says. If a word can "make" you feel something, then you don't have control of your emotions. ...you aren't a big reader, are you? My English teacher (lovely lady, a li…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:46 PM
2

Ad Hominem doesn't mean shit. That isn't an Ad Hominem. Words cannot be offensive. If someone is so weak willed that a word can cause them outrage, perhaps they need to be checked in to a mental institution. Words can be offensive because words have meaning. Words can also make people happy because words have meaning. I don't understand why you are pretending that this is a new concept to you. I often do use them, just to weed out those who are not in control of their emotions and not waste time…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:23 PM
1

Okay, but why mention it? Nearly every TV show I like was made in the US. Soooo yeah....
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:14 PM
7

I actually think MRAs interpreted it right. "Intimidated by my intelligence"? I don't think that phrase is a male stereotype. And if it's true that the titles and articles are written by different people, "Area Man’s Intelligence Probably Just Too Intimidating For Most Women" really sounds like the stereotype of women saying that men are just intimidated by her intelligence (because men are perceived as the ones who would be intimidated by that, not women). So I don't think it is as simple as yo…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:06 PM
2

I don't know if it is misogynistic, but you must realize that when you use that language, people (even MRAs, believe it or not) will perceive the writer as misogynistic, if not the comment itself. It's like using the n-word in a comment about treating black people as agents capable of responsibility for their decisions. (Note: I'm not saying it is as bad. Comparisons can be made without thinking they are the same thing, as much as people want to pretend they can't be.) Basically, don't use needl…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:00 PM
0

I should have trusted people not to have a knee-jerk response to the M word. I don't think you should have. This subreddit is no less stupidly reactionary than anywhere else on reddit.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 08:46 PM
1

And gay people.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 12:18 AM
6

Unrelated, but I really don't like how much space those banners take up.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 07:27 PM
1

I didn't know we were still talking about these people specifically. Although, they do tend to show their underwear now :P
/r/MensRights02/11/13 05:23 PM
1

Are you considering kids in shorts fully clothed?
/r/MensRights02/11/13 08:42 AM
1

I heard that people who live where women cover their entire bodies are turned on by the napes of women's necks.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 12:44 AM
6

What makes you think this example is real?
/r/MensRights01/11/13 11:09 PM
1

Why not? If you are attracted to kids, you'd take your fantasies where you can get them.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:56 PM
2

Yeah?
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:22 PM
2

I wouldn't call it stalking (it's the internet, and it is on one website) and I wouldn't fear her (again, internet). It's not even really creepy. But I don't find it cute.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 08:54 PM
3

So you would find this cute for anyone? I mean, I can see this as cute in an anime way, but in the real world, I don't find it cute.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:36 PM
3

Do people really get sexual pleasure looking at fully clothed kids? I assume any bit of bare skin becomes much more attractive when it is a rare occurrence to see it. But I actually agree somewhat. Masturbating to a naked woman doesn't harm that woman.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:33 PM
13

Why, so you'll have matching penises? Seriously, why? You can't say something stupid and then just say "that's that". Because it doesn't have to be "that". You are making it "that". Do you think you wouldn't be happy uncircumcised? That's the only explanation I can think of. "Well I'm circumcised, and it's the best thing I ever somebody ever did! I just have no choice now. I must get my (male) children circumcised. And if they don't like it, too bad, because "that's that"." No it isn't. So actua…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 06:04 PM
102

Eh, this is probably a troll. Or maybe I have too much faith in people.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:24 PM
1

Nothing to certainty.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:13 PM
1

No, seriously. You said to call them egalitarian, and then I said I wouldn't do that and then you said to own the words they use, but they don't use egalitarian. That doesn't make any sense.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:12 PM
1

They are using Feminism. ...and they aren't using egalitarian. Are we even talking about the same thing? People like you, coming in here and trying to control the discussion in this manner is of no help at all. What discussion am I controlling, and how am I controlling it? It's about hijacking the context, and you know it. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I'm not sure if you are accusing me of hijacking (so it's bad) or you are saying that it would be good if we did hijack somet…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 03:23 AM
1

But if they aren't using those words...
/r/MensRights01/11/13 01:51 AM
1

I agree kind of, but I resent people putting labels on me, so I won't do it to others.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 12:47 AM
1

But isn't it pointless to say 'agnostic' then? You will never be able to disprove that the toothfairy doesn't magically replace all your teeth with identical copies when you go to sleep at night. But the idea is so absurd, it seems meaningless to call yourself an agnostic on the topic.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 11:13 PM
1

A lot of feminism is kinda shitty, but I still believe that most feminists just call themselves feminists because they believe that it is synonymous with non-sexist. So, I still believe that /r/MensRights is unnecessarily hostile to those people, downvotes notwithstanding.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 11:07 PM
1

In practice, agnostic is never used except for one thing. No-one says they are agnostic about Santa Clause. The reason I say it is a spectrum is that I know Santa doesn't exist. But I don't really. I can't know anything. I believe, very strongly, that Santa doesn't exist. But it is possible that he does. I believe, very very strongly, in gravity. I don't know gravity exists. There's a chance I've been hallucinating all this. So, in technical discussions, it might be fine to use agnostic in the w…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 10:45 PM
1

I would argue that belief and knowledge are a spectrum rather than two separate things. Certainly a more useful definition that way.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:12 PM
0

That was kind of you, but not actually necessary.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:08 PM
1

I flip a coin: is it heads or tails? Edit: Another example, less likely to invoke a bot: I've never made Kraft Dinner, true or false?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:02 PM
1

I don't let it bother me, but then again, I don't really know who those people are. It would probably be worse if I liked/respected the person. Hope he's doing okay, though.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 11:28 AM
4

Nothing annoys me more than an audience of trained seals.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:55 AM
7

More antifeminist than men's rights, but I enjoyed the video.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:01 AM
2

I think a lot of the trauma comes from people telling them they should feel traumatized. In a book a read, the author describes how a friend was raped by a priest, which her brain (she was young) described as "icky". Now, that is obviously wrong, but consensual (ignoring statutory stuff) would probably be less traumatizing as long as everyone doesn't treat you like a victim.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 07:56 AM
-2

If it was traumatizing, they may be more likely to be traumatized than girls. If it wasn't, they probably won't be.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 07:20 AM
2

Women are often treated like children, which can be considered female privilege in the sense that they are treated more leniently, but the converse (that men are more likely to be taken seriously) is also a benefit. Where women may get compliments on the street (I'll take there word for it -- I don't live in the city), men are likely to be left alone. Legally, men probably have it worse, but gender roles do exist, and they both have their upsides and downsides. I think it is silly to call it pri…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 05:51 AM
4

Ahh, I thought you were correcting what you thought /u/fukuaneveryoneuknow said.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:28 AM
1

So your issue is with the generalization rather than the specific case?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 02:55 AM
1

Nor was one ever put there?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 02:50 AM
2

There is "male privilege" and there is "female privilege".
/r/MensRights31/10/13 02:40 AM
-2

It's quite possible that he isn't.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 02:29 AM
1

Is an ideas worth contingent upon whose it was? Is a point of view invalid if presented abrasively? No, but why present it if you don't want people to listen? Not to mention, who exactly decides who is a racist or sexist? What is the threshold for judgement as such? What is the punishment for guilt? The community. I'm sure we can find some common ground. For instance, would you agree that saying, "Black people are inferior to white people" is racist? Or are you a 'feminism is a potential friend'…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 02:17 AM
1

Yeah, it's annoying. Everyone's a troll to some people. No-one ever actually disagrees, I guess. He seems to have deleted his post and a few of his comments. And he may be quitting his website now. Might have just been under stress; did you notice him calling people trolls before?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:27 AM
1

The point is, there are so many handwringers who faint over not being obsequious to women here, and a huge quantity if reedit 'mras' are so politically correct they can't even think outside that paradigm. That doesn't make them fake MRAs. That makes them MRAs who are perhaps a bit to preoccupied with offending no-one. And make no mistake, those people are the ones itching to dictate to the rest of us. I'll tell you why: Nobody likes racists, and nobody likes sexists. The distinction you are hopi…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:24 PM
1

Guess you don't like him anymore.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 10:44 PM
1

I can't recall what the film was about—I only had one scene—but I will always remember the way her eyes lit when the director told her to start; bright as the sun, they radiated such warmth that you couldn't help but smile when you saw it. I'll always miss that. If I am to go to hell, it will be for what I did to Katie Green.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:36 AM
1

To be clear on your position, at what age, in a perfect world, should a child be able to consent (and does it have to be informed consent, or just a lack of no consent)? To encourage discussion, I'll say agree with you on at least one thing: the harm a child may incur from sex with an adult (or child, I guess) is often exacerbated by other's reactions to the event, whether or not it is the sole or greatest aspect of it.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:50 AM
1

Interesting.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:44 AM
1

I had 28 minutes the first time, and two the second time, so I wasn't that quick.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:41 AM
1

I don't see anyone else here.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:36 AM
1

Did you tag him or something?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:33 AM
1

And he said that he said that and you said that you knew that he said that he said that and that he said that, but you still said that he said that as if you said something new.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:31 AM
2

Well I don't know how I missed that. Sorry for wasting your time.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:27 AM
3

But nobody should kill them unless they are absolutely sure they are paedophiles. ...and also not then...
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:46 AM
2

WTF just happened?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:44 AM
1

Okay, look: He misspoke. Maybe he forgot when he responded originally, but he has now clarified. You were right. But you are making him into a liar when there are less sinister explanations.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:43 AM
2

What evidence do you have that /u/Svarog123 is a paedophile?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:38 AM
1

Yeah, people have knee-jerk reactions to these topics. They probably assume you mean more by it than you do.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:26 AM
1

So it's just a law that people pretend doesn't exist, basically?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:20 AM
1

Interesting. Does that also apply to the Deadmou5 (or however you spell it) tickets from a while back?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:19 AM
2

I'm not going to shit myself. I actually agree under your definition. I'm just not sure how useful that definition is.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:17 AM
2

Do you believe homosexuality is a mental health disorder? If so, how do you define a mental health disorder, and if not, how is it different than being transgender?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 03:21 AM
5

/u/PerfectHair said: What I meant to say is that we need to prevent people from hijacking the movement to push racist/sexist/etc. agendas. They are free to hold these views, but they must be separate from their advocacy. You said: This place is the biggest joke of the MRM, filled with newbies with huge egos, Feminists, and people Hell bent on hijacking the mRM to suit their own agenda. These mean the same thing. You advocate drumming out 'people who 'push racist/sexist agendas'. You advocate dru…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 03:16 AM
1

Which states, my esteemed friend?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:42 AM
3

Which country is that?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:31 AM
3

Well, some bars have a "ladies drink free" day, don't they?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:24 AM
5

I think you can charge however you like in a lemonade stand. And this could easily be a joke. Something similar happened a while ago.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:08 AM
1

Cause they complain and pretend it's part of them being victimized. I can understand that being annoying. It's for and about women. Why not? I don't think it needs to be. Men get breast cancer, yada yada.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:20 PM
0

...is there a reason that it is exclusionary? If not, why is it? And why do you care that people care?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:47 PM
2

I can't actually decipher your comment in relation to mine. I didn't respond to you if you thought I did.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:36 PM
2

You are claiming something exists, so you have to prove it.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:32 PM
3

All right, regarding patriarchy: What would disprove its existence, for you? I ask because I find that people often define patriarchy to be essentially synonymous with culture, which makes me wonder why they don't just use that term, as it is not gendered. For example, do you consider the idea that pink is a girl colour and blue is a boy colour to be part of patriarchy? If so, what separates that from just being culture? If all you are saying is that men are more likely to be in power then that …
/r/MensRights21/10/13 05:57 PM
1

A link would be great.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 03:23 AM
1

I'll rephrase: for no reason, you assume they're trolls.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 03:11 AM
1

Is it impolite or just not polite, though?
/r/MensRights19/10/13 01:20 AM
-3

I think Kim Bauer deserves to be eaten by a mountain lion.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 11:38 PM
-3

You want her to email her tears? It's an apology to someone she presumably doesn't even know through email.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 11:04 PM
0

That's probably true, but it may not be. If the man was a different race, would it be a race issue? Or a shitty police issue?
/r/MensRights18/10/13 10:54 PM
3

You know the subreddit you're in, right?
/r/MensRights18/10/13 10:52 PM
0

And you assume they are trolling for no reason.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 10:52 PM
4

Why would you prefer men? Or did you just say that to piss her off/confuse her?
/r/MensRights18/10/13 10:49 PM
6

And it isn't his fault. But that has nothing to do with whether he behaved intelligently.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 10:47 PM
1

Perhaps. I don't believe that is a fair assessment, however, because, contrary to the OP, MR and Feminism aren't incompatible.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 10:41 PM
1

What was the purpose of your comment?
/r/MensRights16/10/13 05:52 PM
2

Yeah... But it isn't really harmful...
/r/MensRights16/10/13 05:49 PM
3

That is shitty, and it is probably worse for women, but I'm pretty sure a fat guy cosplaying would be made fun of too. The fake geek thing is rather toxic, though, you're right.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 05:44 PM
33

I don't understand how this is the top comment when OP is the top post.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 02:22 PM
1

Personally, I don't think you should link here. This sub has a bad reputation that shouldn't be tied to the poster. It would discourage people from looking into the topic more, I think. If they care about the issues, they will probably find this sub anyway.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:09 AM
1

I'm not downvoting you. But rape is defined as sexual intercourse without consent. So under your definition of sex (if sexual intercourse is synonymous), you can't be anally raped, so the title could have said rape anyway. This sub does have a problem with downvoting, though. I just like to imagine them as having a temper tantrum, their anime eyes quivering, desperately holding in tears, as they erratically click the mouse to make the bad post go away. But I have issues.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 10:31 PM
2

It really is. Comma is a break. Period is a stop. A decimal place is much more of a stop than a symbol used to make it easier to read large numbers is.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 10:23 PM
2

"Person" would stand out. "Fined $1[skip the period ;-)]00 USD for being raped (Norway)" would work fine.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 10:20 PM
1

How about "sexual intercourse"?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 10:13 PM
1

I go the other way; I search for tropes and find the episodes that feature them. And I've never seen a trope page for only one episode (not even for Buffy), so I think you are exaggerating.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:58 PM
1

The title is lampshaded.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:53 PM
0

SEX INFANT It would help if titles could have special formatting.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:50 PM
1

I don't think rape has nearly as many meanings as you think. Sexual assault, sure, but not rape.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:49 PM
2

It's childish to be condescending.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:48 PM
1

...harrassment?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:44 PM
2

People have called the game misogynistic, and as the title indicates, this was meant to parody that. That, in my opinion, brings the real reviews onto the table for discussion. With that said, I don't think most of the comments are offended at this, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Maybe it was different four hours ago.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 06:46 PM
1

We can therefore assume that when /u/Nomenimion said that, (he?) wasn't talking about a right to free speech.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 02:22 PM
1

It is a free speech issue, but not a First Amendment issue. You understand what that means, no?
/r/MensRights26/09/13 03:28 AM
1

They are pretty similar.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:40 AM
1

And if that's true, I would agree (or at the very least not disagree without more information). I don't know what the mutual carrying of condoms has to do with the message on them, and I am baffled still by "Males,female here", but if that is the message she (is that what she meant? Hello, subreddit of men, I am a woman?) meant, then I don't have a problem with it.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:36 AM
0

Gender neutral though they may be, it still seems like a silly message to print on them.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:13 PM
3

Males,female here. huh? What if this is just an overall message to anyone who carries condoms around? I'm a responsible adult and carry them. However, I also don't choose partners who don't carry protection. It's a mutual thing,ya know? The inclusion of the word "consent" makes me think it is about rape. I don't really see how "got consent? ask before unwrapping" translates to "does your partner have a condom? ask before unwrapping"
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:10 PM
1

Well, the person who said it wasn't there said that the creator lied about that. I don't believe she did, but I haven't decided if that part was later removed.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 05:54 PM
1

They found the cure for cancer, too. There really isn't much left to speculate about. Still, even if it was there to begin with (it probably was), that doesn't mean it is still there.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 05:52 PM
2

Has that been confirmed? Some say that that bit was removed (or was never there to begin with).
/r/MensRights21/09/13 06:51 AM
1

I honestly haven't been abused (re: number 1). Got me on the circumcision bit, though.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 06:48 AM
3

Then why do you always assume they are trolls? There is already a sub for these jokes, and, whatever you might like to believe, perception does matter if you want others to listen. But I honestly don't care either way; I just hate it when people always assume others are trolls for no reason. It is fucking annoying.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 08:02 PM
7

God damn, not everyone is a fucking troll! Does it never occur to you that perhaps people have different priorities than you? That maybe there are more important issues than this? If you want to upvote this, fine, but don't act like people mentioning how minor of an issue it is are always trolls.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 07:16 PM
2

Shut up, bitch wasn't that funny either.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 01:17 PM
1

Yeah, too bad everyone is misinterpreting it. It wasn't really that funny of a joke, though, especially when you consider its placement. She said that she agrees with me and my wife and I are going to the fair with them tomorrow. Does she post things she disagrees with often?
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:07 AM
5

I honestly don't think it's that effective to just dump a paragraph that disagrees with her ideology. I think it would be more effective to say that you hate ('don't like', may be better) feminism, but aren't against women. And if she asks, explain. It really helps to claim every sentence you write by saying, "I think" in front of it; I wouldn't like to have someone say that my view on reality is wrong, when they could just say they have a differing view. If she calls you a misogynist, you aren'…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 10:43 PM
13

Get RES and filter it out.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 04:26 PM
1

but it hurts women more than it benefits them, and benefits us more than it hurts us. How so? Has that always been the case?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 04:11 PM
1

Many people also add on to that definition those who are part of the patriarchy benefit men (often at the expense of women). A sort of 'by men, for men' kind of thing. I assume you agree?
/r/MensRights07/09/13 11:08 PM
6

Words have meaning. It is not unreasonable to expect them to be used in a way that makes sense.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 06:57 PM
3

I don't know. Someone (is it you? I can't see the reply thread at the moment) keeps coming back with, 'it was general porn too!!!!'. I don't understand what in the glorious fuck any other sort of porn has to do with anything. This is my fourth reply to you. You said: This led to outrage among the sites' many volunteer editors and administrators, who charged that Wales’ actions betrayed the essence of the open user-generated online encyclopedia. Who ARE these people? How the fuck can you be anti-…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 05:32 PM
3

If they have to throw out BDSM to throw out the kiddie porn Why would that be the case?
/r/MensRights07/09/13 05:00 PM
1

No troll. Is there meant to be a comma there? Or are you saying you aren't a troll? happygore responded with a claim that I supposedly say all feminists hold the same beliefs. And that is undoubtedly a misrepresentation. Agreed. On top of this, your argument is also stupid because it can be applied to any number of people - as few as two - thereby reducing everything to just individuals who have nothing whatsoever in common except that they call themselves feminists and that name is totally arbi…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:59 PM
6

There also are graphic photo images of male and female genitalia, men and women or groups of people involved in sexual acts, images of masturbation and other pornographic material
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:37 PM
4

Who ARE these people? How the fuck can you be anti-childporn deleting? Read it in context. That doesn't say they are against removing child porn, just that they are against removing pornography.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:30 PM
1

Isn't /s a reddit thing? Either way, this is obviously satire, and I don't only say that because she specifically mentioned she wasn't an SJW.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:22 PM
5

You folks should learn to read the 'about me' part of tumblr. Social justice warriors be warned - I disagree with you and I'm not sorry. I'm a feminist, but not your kind of feminist.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:20 PM
0

The answer can still apply... You [are] saying "they" as if all [feminists who support Men's Rights] hold the same beliefs. Remember, there are always individuals with a varying degree of beliefs within any given ideology.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:17 PM
6

Do you think there is a patriarchy, and if so, what does that entail? There seems to be a lot of definitions, so I'd like to hear one from someone who considers himself an MRA as well.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:15 PM
5

without any actual evidence that it isn't true. Come again?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 12:33 PM
1

Who tells men that they have to be pro-life?
/r/MensRights31/08/13 05:25 PM
6

Oh, so when you say 'mutual', you mean, 'the woman gets the final say'. As in, women get to decide and it isn't mutual.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 05:24 PM
3

No, this is how it should be. She's the one that would have to go through pregnancy.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:36 PM
0

The idea is that one of the choices results in another human to take care of, and the other does not. At least that's the impression I'm getting.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:34 PM
7

Are you saying a man should be able to veto a woman's decision?
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:27 PM
1

Ehh, the insult was a little more tailored than you're making it out to be. Still, I agree with you. The MRM doesn't get outraged when they agree with the insults.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:15 PM
1

What distinction is that? I thought I was following you, but now I have no idea.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 09:18 PM
1

So you are making a distinction between gender and man/woman?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 03:55 PM
1

Basically, what I am saying is that I don't think goverment documents (is there another way to say that? I feel so stupid saying that...) should list the sex (as opposed to gender), if a distinction is to be made between the two. Documents of governmental persuasion (Hah!) should list the gender, I think. Unless there is some reason that you can think of to list the sex instead? As for you first comment in reply to me, I actually do think that there is a trend to making that distinction, but I'm…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 09:17 AM
-1

I don't think she should be listed as male in a government document; there is no reason for the government to make that distinction. So she should be female according to the government, but male according to doctors, if that is necessary. I don't think that would happen very often though, as doctors will be looking at more than the patient's sex anyway.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 05:29 AM
-1

I suppose that depends how closely you link sex and gender. I would say she is male if there were some reason the distinction needed to be made (genetic predisposition of something for one sex, for example), but I don't know how often that would arise, especially with HRT. In general, I think it would be fine to refer to her as female (as trans people are probably too insignificant an amount for any serious errors to occur for statistics, etc.). Basically, there is little need to be that specifi…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 02:22 AM
1

It works when you say it. "There's something I have to tell you" vs "There's some things I have to tell you". I mentally expand it when I read it (moreso than when I hear it, I guess) so it always sounds wrong. There're is probably worse, though.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 11:25 PM
2

How do you know if you succeeded in disentangling your ADHD and personality from you sex? I also have no idea what "radiating femininity" means, but I've never been good with those abstract metaphors.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 11:20 PM
1

I would agree with (you on) that.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 11:15 PM
2

I'm not sure if feminists see the Patriarchy (or the patriarchy, as I'm sure there are different meanings) as synonymous with men. Off Topic: Can there are be written as there's?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 10:49 PM
5

I don't think I'd hate the word if I knew what everyone meant by it, but it is frequently used to explain absolutely everything at the moment.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 10:45 PM
1

Do you have an example of your experience? Not disagreeing necessarily, just don't know what the differences you mention are.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 10:30 PM
9

I don't think so. I think that the show pays all the money, though. People will probably act for the cameras as a consequence.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:22 AM
1

I suppose I've pissed you off in the past? Edit: Disregard. The use of 'you' was general.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 12:45 AM
2

There should be some script that automatically unsubscribes you and deletes your comment when you say you are unsubcribing. I think that would be cool.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 10:38 PM
4

Who's "that"?
/r/MensRights17/08/13 07:21 AM
2

I'm not implying anything. I am simply saying that you cannot claim this case as an example without evidence, even if it happens all the time. No-one has to prove a negative.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 05:15 AM
2

I agree that there should be much less WBB posts (maybe a WBB-free-Wednesday, or something), but the point, apparently, is to prove that men aren't the only people who commit heinous crimes.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:23 AM
1

You're the one making the positive claim. Prove that this is systemic misandry. No-one is under any obligation to prove that it wasn't.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:20 AM
1

Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchausen_syndrome_by_proxy
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:18 AM
2

They don't give a shit. Google doesn't have an opinion on the subject.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 10:16 PM
1

That is my interpretation as well, but I wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:47 PM
6

Your friend is not caring nor is she open minded. That is what you are defending. We know this because the comment after that started with 'But'. If you believe that is in response to something else, I'll let you have that; it means the same thing anyway. but...but..NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THAT!11 That isn't how NAFALT is meant to be used. It is a fact that not all feminists are "like that". It is only meant for when a feminist is defending feminism by saying that the feminists they know aren…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:12 PM
5

It seems clear to me it was her feminism that should get the credit for her having an isight into what was wrong with slipped out before she caught it. That either means feminism is to blame for the offensive thought getting out, or feminism is what caused her to take it back. I honestly can't tell which.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 07:57 PM
4

I think only your comments will be deleted. And I understand how it can be annoying having your posts deleted, but you must understand that it is the same post every time. It isn't an argument being deleted; it's you complaining that is being deleted. Maybe they should leave them, I don't really care, but you must realize that you are in fact being childish. If you want, you can pm /u/Everything_Is_Rape. (He?) doesn't seem to want to delete anything.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 10:03 PM
2

I'll rephrase: I just don't think the hair is to appeal exclusively or even mostly to women.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:55 AM
2

I agree. That's why I mentioned the sexy outfits. I wish people would stop reading things into my comments that aren't there and are sometimes even specifically addressed.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:51 PM
1

I think the foreskin cells are grown in a lab now, though. At least for one company.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:29 PM
6

Dave Hughes "She" I doubt it.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:23 PM
1

I agree. I just don't think the hair is to appeal to women.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:07 PM
1

I think it is probably more that men want to play a character with hair. It could be because hair attracts women, idk, but I think men just don't want to play as bald men in videogames. It's the same reason women might go for the sexy outfit in Morrowind or Skyrim.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 09:05 PM
1

Can the man also not give the child up for adoption?
/r/MensRights04/08/13 08:20 PM
1

I'm assuming she thought they were being ironic, like Brainy Betty, hahaha, that's ridiculous!
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:21 PM
1

How am I trolling? Just curious.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 06:31 PM
3

Don't worry about it; I've been losing karma pretty much consistently all day.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 03:45 AM
8

heh. "Oh, sorry officer, that was from when I was punching her feet."
/r/MensRights03/08/13 03:32 AM
1

And what do you feel is the solution, if not legal paternal surrender?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 03:27 AM
5

Do you think women are oppressed? Are men?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 03:23 AM
3

Does that also apply in other countries that are stereotypically seen as anti-woman? I realize the men have difficulties too, but are the difficulties equal or does one side have it tougher?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 02:34 AM
3

Why not? Egalitarianism is equality for all. It seems easy to have a subset of 'all'.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 02:30 AM
2

Why would you put your PSA here?
/r/MensRights02/08/13 08:02 PM
1

Evidently, God damn...
/r/MensRights02/08/13 07:10 PM
-3

I think calling it misleading can be misleading. 'Unclear' would be a better word.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 01:53 PM
1

Eh, maybe it's something new so it's all taboo and exciting, but I still feel like it is more offensive. It's like calling men "wallets" or something. It reduces them to one purpose. I'm probably being crazy, though. I really should get to sleep.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 01:45 PM
-8

I think a difference is that vagina is very, very rarely used as an insult (I dare say this is the first time ever) so its use is much more offensive than it otherwise would have been. Calling someone a bitch is less offensive than calling them a vagina, I think. One means an unpleasant woman (or submissive man, but that isn't relevant in this case), and the other means woman. EDIT: When I last looked, this comment was doing well :P Seriously, though. Where did I fall out of the hivemind?
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:01 AM
6

Wow. That was literally just a woman on the phone. And she appears to be wearing a suit. Truly disempowering to women.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 04:11 AM
3

Follow step one (ie. go here)
/r/MensRights02/08/13 04:06 AM
1

Ignore it. Don't engage unless you want to be called a faggot pussy coward who won't debate in a live forum yada yada. Not sure about the obsession of it being live, but whatever.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 01:17 AM
1

Do you find it difficult to piss people off in real life as well? Does it hurt that a comment you thought funny enough to share with a flatmate failed to garner the uproar you hoped for? Have my comments helped ease your pain? Am I a noble saint, helping those who would not ask for it? Am I The Messiah?
/r/MensRights01/08/13 09:27 PM
1

I'm not pissed off. I'm not even piesed off. I'm just baffled that you thought it was clever enough to post, and even more baffled that you think it pissed anyone off. No-one else replied to you. The only response that you got was a few people downvoting you. Now, if you were new to reddit, I could understand you thinking that means you pissed someone off, but that that is not the case, and I assure you that you did not. Your comment was probably below the whine of a mosquito in how much it piss…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 09:07 PM
1

No, I agree it proves nothing. I just couldn't find a variation that had enough to make a graph most of the time.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 05:11 AM
2

Which searches did you make? Because the ones I made had the control my wife's below the control my husband's most of the time. And pretty much all the variations I tried didn't have "enough search volume" to show me the graph.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 04:29 AM
7

Why did you post that? I mean, you took the effort to write out a comment and post it, and I don't really understand why. If it were an original comment, I'd understand; it would be a paragon of wit and you couldn't pass up on the opportunity to post it. I get that. But this? It wasn't original. It wasn't even all that funny. Maybe the problem is that I never really understood memes, but at least with memes, you could feel like you were a part of something when you posted them. You were 'in the …
/r/MensRights01/08/13 04:06 AM
3

Is there a mirror for the video? It doesn't seem to work where I live.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 10:26 PM
0

I sincerely doubt that.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 10:24 PM
1

Will Blade live forever?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 07:47 PM
1

How is he part vampire? Was one parent a vampire and the other a human? Will he live forever, barring any external forces? Will he continue to age? If he will not age, how did he become to be the age he is now? Was aging accelerated until that point, so emotionally he is a five-year-old? If not, why does he need to be tied up, whereas Bill can control himself?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 04:14 AM
5

Seriously, that was a weird point to bring up.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:00 PM
2

An essay, you say?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:52 PM
1

Is there a reason he is tied up? I haven't watched the show since season 2 and flashplayer is crapping out so I didn't finish the video, but it seems weird that he is tied up.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:50 PM
1

Yeah, that kind of feedback loop is dangerous.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:45 PM
5

We're much more womanly, obvs.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 03:58 AM
2

I was describing what OP meant. I thought it was obvious what with the '*rolleyes*', '*snigger*', and, most telling, 'etc.'
/r/MensRights29/07/13 02:40 AM
3

I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm. You know, as if you'd save your fucking chattel instead of your own life *rolleyes*, *snigger*, etc.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:23 PM
7

Jesus. I just realized five comments in a row ended in a smiley. They're freaking me out, man.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 08:22 PM
13

Eh, wasn't that the point?
/r/MensRights27/07/13 08:19 PM
10

You shouldn't get worked up over morons on the internet. Just ignore them and move on. Unless you're having fun, in which case, have at it :)
/r/MensRights27/07/13 08:17 PM
1

At the risk of catching whatever downvote disease you have, I offer a video I found on Youtube that was sort of interesting to watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHZrhl1hN8
/r/MensRights27/07/13 07:23 PM
2

I've heard that the money is made up by tourism (that I guess would be limited if the monarchy wasn't there to look at). Still, though. Fuck the monarchy. It's the principle of it.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 06:22 PM
1

I heard that riddle but it was about hair dressers. Fake edit: I just wanted you to know that.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 04:55 AM
5

While that's a fascinating rhetorical question I'm sure, that wasn't anything more than tangentially related to what /u/BananaTissue asked.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 04:51 AM
1

Yeah, (he?) hasn't been really responding to points other people make.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:32 AM
1

My issue with it is mostly because the default is 0 cylinders, so you should for lucky for having any at all.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:39 PM
2

Do those ear things count as mutilation? You know, where your earlobe is stretched around an often hollow ring?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:37 PM
1

Would you mind explaining how that response was in any way relevant? I'm honestly baffled. Was it even meant to be? If not, why would you respond in the first place, and if it was, what was going through your head when you thought that made sense? I realize you probably won't respond, but I am genuinely interested in your answer. If you respond, I will tone down my asshattery and will adjust according to your responses. Thanks for reading.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:26 PM
1

Ah, I see you edited it after I responded. I agree that it can get annoying having the same thing happening over and over (the big thing for me is women who come here and start their post by saying, "Hi, I'm a girl and I'm not sure if that is allowed, but I was wondering..." followed by an occasionally useful post, but I just know that twenty people will respond with the same answer about how everyone is welcome here, etc. I don't know why, but that bothers the hell out of me). I usually just st…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 07:48 AM
2

It's three hours, man! I don't think OP will respond, but I don't go and advertise that after three hours. Sheesh.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:54 AM
1

Are males pro-circumcision more often than females?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:16 AM
6

Well, aren't you feeling cynical!
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:11 AM
1

Do you mind linking it? I'm on A Mobile Device, so I can't be arsed to look for it if I can get it by asking you.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:27 AM
1

So, yes.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:47 AM
15

Inspired by /u/C0CKPUNCHER?
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:45 AM
2

He's a comedian. Silence is a scary thing. Add them together and you get laughter.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:43 PM
3

Jesus Christ. That's the stuff of nightmares.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:42 PM
1

Did you un-upvote yourself?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:39 PM
1

Xbox or PS3?
/r/MensRights15/07/13 04:03 PM
6

I am not /u/Landarchist Are you only going to 'count' a suicide if it's successful? How else would you count it? Why do you say "males aren't lying"? I think that failed suicide attempts of men/boys are reported less than those of women/girls, simply because of the directness of men/boys approach. Taking a bottle of aspirin to try to kill yourself is much more removed than shooting yourself in the head. Because of this, I think that men who don't want to die who attempt suicide will not be repor…
/r/MensRights15/07/13 03:19 AM
1

I imagine the reasoning is that the police officer did not want to charge her because she was a woman. /u/ENTP is extrapolating (interpolating?) that the reason is because people feel the need to protect women (and neoteny helps with that).
/r/MensRights14/07/13 04:12 PM
1

Alright, I put line-breaks in semi-random places. A few months ago, we had a patient at the hospital I work for throw a tantrum because we would not give her narcotics. She was demanding percocet, dilaudid, and fentaynl. We of course gave her none of these, because our purpose as a hospital is not to give narcotics to opiate addicts. She became threatening and was making statements that she was going to assault myself and my coworker. We kept our distance while setting firm limits, as we are tra…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 01:36 PM
1

I don't know about that. Or what it means.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:55 PM
1

The CVG article: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/413881/new-mirrors-edge-more-action-adventure-than-original-says-ea-exec/
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:27 AM
1

I know.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:00 AM
1

Thanks.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:56 AM
1

Wow. She couldn't figure out the controls? Maybe it is different on the consoles, but on the PC is was rather straightforward. It's really sexist to think that women can't figure out the controls. I really can't imagine how it could be simpler given the premise of the game-play. I however remain hopeful that EA is not actually stupid enough to force developers to use Anita's ideas, at least until I find a better source than destructoid.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:55 AM
1

Yeah, I know he's talking about the sequel. The teaser didn't say Mirrors Edge 2, though, so I don't know what to actually call it.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:35 AM
1

Oh, please no. Do you have a link to EA saying that? I was really hoping Mirrors Edge (2? I haven't seen a number at the end...) would be good.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:20 AM
1

Is Borderlands 2 especially different than Borderlands the first? I always hear it separately, so I'm curious.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:18 AM
0

I'm not sure why you bring that up. The only meaning I can take out of that is that women are not capable of being better than men because their culture murders female infants, which I can't imagine being what you intended.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:13 AM
2

I go back and forth on that (as with most things, it seems), but do you extend that courtesy the other way? If a woman is in some way victimized by men, do you feel she is justified in hating or otherwise disliking men?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:08 AM
2

Yeah, probably not.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:44 AM
1

You understand what 'deprecated' means, yes? You hold an opinion that is 'outdated', according to the rest of society's opinion (and if not now, I assume you accept that it will be in the future). Do you hold views that are similarly deemed 'outdated'? No, because my viewpoints are not time- or era-bound. Are yours? If you were born in ancient Rome, your opinions on homosexuality would be different.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 06:05 AM
1

Do you have any other 'outdated' viewpoints that warrant a similar 'phobic' response? Do you have a rational reason why your values line up the way that they do? If not, can you pinpoint why they are as they are? Do you believe people should have the right to marry the same gender?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 01:01 AM
1

Do you hate them? Is it disgust? Is it limited to one gender? Do you have a similar phobia of 'girly' men?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:06 PM
13

If the court determines you were abusive to your ex, all the above is invalidated and you will pay child support with no visitation rights if the judge so determines. And here I thought it was all about the children.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 05:48 PM
5

The 'safeword' is "$Name, I'm serious, stop." or "Get off me!" "No," *kiss*, "we shouldn't" *kiss*, isn't rape. If you are saying no while continuing to have sex, it is not unreasonable to assume you want to continue, especially when the "hard to get" roleplay isn't uncommon (or so I am led to believe). You mentioned that it was "clear, verbal non-consent" but it wasn't clear; there were two conflicting messages. It is exceedingly easy to make it clear that you don't want to have sex, and an amb…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 05:33 PM
2

As a woman, I know full well how many of my 'friends' reported rapes that didn't happen, because they were that mad at some guy. As in more than one? How is that even possible?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 04:49 PM
0

Har har. But seriously. What does being a homophobe entail? Are you frightened of gay people? Do you hate them? Is it disgust? Is it limited to one gender? Do you also have a similar phobia with interracial couples? Does it also apply to transgender people? If no, who do pair a transgender man with to avoid the phobia?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 04:44 PM
2

Why are you a homophobe?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:53 PM
2

Are all MRAs in the MRM?
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:29 AM
1

No, I was saying that I wasn't mixing your opinion up with anyone elses. It was just a joke. I wasn't saying you were confused. Or saying you were saying you were confused. I never even argued I just shared my unpopular opinion and expanded on it. I just don't really see how your views on marriage is an expansion of your views on abortion, which is why I didn't get why you brought it up. 'tis all.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 12:15 AM
1

I wasn't confusing it for anyone elses :P I just don't think marriage contradicts the point I tried to make, so I didn't get why you made that comment. I have no problem with you abstaining from sex (and expecting your partner to do the same) until marriage; it probably makes sex more special. Except for the hymen thing. Urgh. I just don't think the law should enforce that (and I don't think you do either). It's the same thing with abortion. I accept that it is a more complicated issue, and I ca…
/r/MensRights07/07/13 11:45 PM
2

I don't think having sex while married can be considered consent to being a parent. Sex is fun, etc.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 09:52 PM
3

I don't think having sex can be considered consent to being a parent. Sex is fun, or so I hear. Besides, I see no good coming from forcing a child on people who don't want one.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:43 PM
3

That was a strange comment to make your response to. It in no way claims that he will be traumatized for life, and even suggests that it isn't harmful at all. I agree with you that this is entirely harmless, but people get really weird when it comes to children and many disagree. That's just the way it is at the moment and reversing the genders in a photo to highlight a potential bias that may exist can be helpful, despite the fact that I often don't share in the outrage.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 10:47 AM
1

Technically, being an atheist doesn't preclude one from believing in an afterlife.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 11:10 AM
1

Well, I definitely learned the alphabet and its sounds first, so I guess I did the phonics one. With the other method would you be unable to sound out words you don't know? Because that's insane, if true.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 04:57 AM
2

Could you explain what the "contemporary" method is? I'm Canadian, so I'm not sure which method was popular here, but I don't remember having difficulty learning to read. I remember the first student that learned to read was a boy.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 04:27 AM
1

Are the Hunger Games books really as bad as Twilight? That surprised me because everyone seemed to think they were great... I hope I won't be disappointed...
/r/MensRights02/07/13 04:21 AM
1

Christ, I don't get why you are being downvoted.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 03:55 AM
1

Okay then. I just don't think she should be charged with attempted murder if she didn't attempt to murder anyone.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 03:07 AM
1

I don't think she was actually trying to kill him, though. Or does "attempted murder" just mean "deliberate actions that, while not ultimately fatal, carried a high risk of them being fatal"?
/r/MensRights01/07/13 02:57 AM
2

I think you should save that comment for something a little more dehumanizing than the state of bathrooms on trains...
/r/MensRights01/07/13 02:49 AM
2

Since no on has mentioned it so far in the comments, I will. Someone did here. And as far as I can tell, this post was more of a See?! It's real! thing than anything else.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 02:46 AM
1

The whole point is that it is statutory. Society has decided that people at that age cannot consent to sex. I disagree (as do you), but it is rape under the law.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 02:44 AM
6

I think a good troll has to get responses. Downvotes are incredibly easy to achieve on reddit.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 08:12 PM
3

That is certainly possible. But I don't think you realize how bad /r/MensRights' PR is. It is very easy to think that /r/MensRights subscribers are traditionalists, or want to get rid of women's right to vote, or whatever else, when everyone keeps telling you that that is the case. It is also true that /r/MensRights subscribers sometimes wallow in their own victim-hood. That's human nature, but if (as she likely believes) women are the winners of the victim war, it can come across as whining, an…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 09:33 PM
1

Or that I enjoy hunting down bugs in my house and squishing them with my bare hands. It takes skill, okay. Please contain your jealousy.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 09:20 PM
0

That's possible. I honestly don't think the people here are as bad as she (or you?) thinks they are, but whatever. I don't think that is too likely, though; people who feel the need to mention this sub (and not /r/niggers, or whatever else) probably are making an emotional decision rather than a well-informed one. I haven't been to /r/theredpill, so I can't comment.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 09:18 PM
1

Jesus. I should learn not to comment when I'm so tired. No clue how I missed that.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:32 AM
1

Sure, if you want to. She isn't a distant minority, though.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:29 AM
9

Yeah, but everyone has that problem. All I know of SRS is from SRSsucks, but I still think SRS sucks, despite the selection bias.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 11:14 PM
-2

I'm sorry for wasting space with a response, but I don't understand what you mean. If MRs fail to change people's opinions, it's because CannotFind thinks people who take pride in pointlessly killing certain animals are bad people. I would agree that that is his position. Gotcha. CantFind, you're apparently ruining existence. You are personally responsible for male-only conscription. Cut that out. ...and now I'm lost. Maybe there is some history I don't know about that explains this conscription…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:53 PM
7

I think you misunderstood. I thought /u/cannotfindWMD was saying that (he?) escorts all insects out, whereas she kills them for fun (with her bare hands, oh my!). Silly comment either way, but much less offensive under my interpretation.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:49 PM
10

That's a little disingenuous. She probably heard rumours about /r/MensRights and isn't actually against men having rights. I'm sure you realize that and are just making a joke, but you won't correct her misconceptions by being an ass about it. If you going to waste energy engaging with her, you might as well make an effort so there is a chance of a relationship. Makes sense to me, anyway.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:46 PM
2

Welp, that's a comment that got upvotes.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:19 PM
1

Umm, I think you agree with me and don't realize it. Please reread what I said.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:43 PM
3

I agree the picture is wrong, but only because he is clearly enjoying it, not because she's hot. I still don't really get what you mean.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:29 AM
12

Why? So people could say, "Was she hot?" and miss the entire point?
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:04 AM
2

I don't really get what you mean. Do women not have low self-esteem?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:59 PM
3

That's a bit of a stretch. Polygamy becoming legal won't make the average woman suddenly polygamous. Besides, if a man wants to support multiple wives, he can have at it. It's not like he's oblivious about what he's getting in to.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:56 PM
1

Fair enough. Just making sure we know that men can be feminists.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:48 PM
2

It's in the original post. The edit was pretty seamless, so you may have missed it.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 04:38 AM
1

Why not female enablers?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 04:33 AM
10

...yes? Because it's a joke? Because they aren't serious? Since when are we anti-joke?
/r/MensRights19/06/13 09:40 PM
0

Oh, that joking thing I was talking about? The one I explained here? Was that into "wretched little shit" territory? Was that "[behaving] like a retard"? I'm sorry I hurt your (oh so very delicate) feelings, but you were the larger ass in this situation. I mean, holy shit! How the hell can you get so offended over a fucking comment?! Anyway, 'Fuck off' is a pretty poor catchphrase. You should work on that.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:43 PM
0

Again, I urge you to reread the conversation. Because You started it!,etc.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:28 PM
0

Hey, it's not like you're up for adult of the year.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:20 PM
0

Reread this conversation and look who acts like a retard. I know you are, but what am I?,etc.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:14 PM
0

What the hell happened? We were having a jocular conversation, and then suddenly you go off. Anyway, if we are going to act immature all of a sudden, I have this to say: I'm rubber and you're glue!, etc.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:01 PM
1

I'm not sure when you got so angry. I was honestly just joking around...
/r/MensRights19/06/13 02:24 PM
2

I wasn't really serious. And I don't think you can cite urban Dictionary as evidence that it is an established term...
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:16 AM
1

You could do ETR to explain that you removed something. Like: Nathan is not fat! ETR: my mistake
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:23 AM
2

Ahh. I just say Edit:...
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:17 AM
7

That does not follow. Don't be an ass.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:16 AM
3

Would you kindly explain what ETA means? I only ever learned Estimated Time of Arrival, and that makes little sense in this case.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:10 AM
49

Too and also? This is serious!
/r/MensRights19/06/13 03:39 AM
15

Well. No ambiguity there, then.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 12:33 AM
11

Were they portrayed differently in the series? I got stuck in the middle of season 2 (so many orgies...), so I haven't seen how they were portrayed.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:09 PM
8

What do you mean by that? I don't think 24, for instance was targeted to women. Does Hollywood mean more than I think it does?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:05 PM
6

Why is that a choice quote? What does it prove to you?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:26 PM
4

They grow up so fast...
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:24 PM
1

He is the one doing the kissing.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 06:17 PM
2

What makes it wrong? The girl would be the one doing the kissing if we echo the OP. She wouldn't be traumatized (and if she becomes traumatized, it's only because people convince her that she should be) and she'd go home and that would be the end of it.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 06:16 PM
6

I really doubt anyone would care that much.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 06:11 PM
2

I'm not sure why you're shocked.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:58 PM
1

I'm nearly certain that these posters are edited (I think I remember them being posted here as a correction to the originals). Some people seem to think these are the originals, so...
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:14 PM
1

It's below this post?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:10 PM
1

there is nothing good about single fathers ... isn't the same thing as ... It’s no badge of honor to be a single father.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 08:16 AM
3

I don't think you can call a single picture like this racist. If there is a series of pictures, you can make a judgement.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 08:08 AM
1

I don't understand why you said 'but' in the first place if your dislike of Cosmo included this joke. i don't see what the big deal is of a joke over cheaters being shitty. Well, it's suspected cheaters, but the joke is pretty unfunny. Also, I'd love to hear an answer to /u/woundedstork's questions.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 07:58 AM
12

I'm curious if you find it funny? And would you find it funny if it was reversed?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:06 AM
1

While it is an unpopular view, I think it is safe to say that provocative dress may increase the chance of rape in some situations. Fair enough. I'm not entirely sure why they are talking about date rape, distinct from other types of rape. For the first one, it mentions number of different lifetime sexual partners, which seems sort of strange. Are they including the person who victimized them in that list? They all appear to be behind a paywall (or I can't find them), so I can't really say much …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:37 AM
1

How many times do police forces have to say "these men are targeting young girls wearing skimpy outfits" before people stop going all kneejerk and actually consider whether it could be true? Does this happen? I haven't heard it. In any case, what is more likely: Rapist targeting people in skimpy clothes, or rapist targeted people who just came came out of a nightclub alone? I didn't reduce my hypothetical solely down to clothes; you did that all by yourself. I was painting the whole scene, with …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:17 AM
1

It seems premature to offer suggestions on the topic, then.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 10:17 PM
1

Is there any evidence that the clothes you wear influence the likelihood of you being raped?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 09:50 PM
19

It's a little weird to use 'men' and 'females' within the same sentence...
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:50 PM
1

I don't think you proved them wrong, from what I've read. There is no reason to believe you about you working where you say you do or what the binders say. I'm not saying you're lying, just that your anecdote does not prove much. This is assuming that is all you posted in the comment to them, though.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 03:03 AM
1

Sheesh, you can hold a grudge :P Must I quote what you said? Okay then... Manipulate? Nope. Insult? Yup. Evil is a real MRA...but he's weakening these days. You? You're no one I've ever heard of. So you fuck off instead, mmmkay princess? English Lesson Time!!! We will take this part of your comment: You? You're no one I've ever heard of. So you fuck off instead, mmmkay princess? Let's analyse this. You? From this, we can gather that the next sentence is about who you are talking to (ie. /u/Heral…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:20 AM
3

Is this only for when you confirm your email address or whatever that achievement is called?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:29 PM
5

Thanks!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:03 AM
11

It isn't a 92.4% male victim result, though. It's a 92.4% female perpetrator (not necessarily exclusive) result.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 01:26 AM
1

Cacao!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 01:05 AM
38

What I'm curious about is the ratio of male to female staff member. Because 92.4% is surprisingly high.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 12:59 AM
3

**Bold** *Italics* ***Bold Italics*** You can find out a bit more by clicking 'formatting help' when you are typing a comment.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 12:51 AM
0

Why did you put 'alleged' in quotes? Are they scare quotes, or just really strange formatting?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 12:43 AM
1

Maybe. But would you agree that the person who started the petition wasn't serious?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:14 PM
2

It is. It's satire. They are saying, "Look, this dress code thing is ridiculous. The logical extension of this is that straight men can't drive." Tell me, why would they even mention the dress code at the beginning if that was not their intent? This is so obvious to me that I may have overlooked an easier way to explain it. So here goes: I've been hearing recently that a woman has no responsibility to be safe out in public and that it's blaming the victim to suggest not walking alone in alleyway…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:20 PM
1

Jesus Christ. Just read what I wrote again. The joke is that women should stay in the kitchen. That's is the satire. The "men should die" part is what your joke would protest. I don't hate straight men. If we can get that out of the way, maybe you will learn to read.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:26 PM
1

That might be the case, but saying that this petition is actually to stop straight men from driving is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:48 PM
0

That is an actual bill. This is a petition. That would be like us joking about taking away your right to vote because you're so fucking stupid you belong barefoot in a kitchen. Is that your only point? If so, it's a bad joke and not satire. However, if you only said that because the President said that men are too stupid to stay at home and will be forced to go to war, then you would be protesting that, not offering rescinding the voting rights of women as an actual solution. GOSH IT'S JUST A JO…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:47 PM
1

Again, I obviously misinterpreted you, so it seems pointless to ask me what I meant when this conversation should be about what you meant. I gave you the sort of definition I was using, and if you gave me yours I might be able to better understand what you don't understand about mine.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:26 PM
0

No shit it has nothing to do with public safety. It's about school dress code policy.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:22 PM
2

Did you read it? There is no way that someone is suggesting that banning straight men and gay women from driving is the way to go. If they were serious, they would argue for the removal of sexually suggestive advertising. If they were serious, they would not mention school dress codes. I honestly don't see how anyone could take this seriously.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 07:30 AM
3

So you downvote to disagree. Do you know why people downvote comments that say, "I disagree"? It's because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Do you know what happens when enough people say, "I disagree"? Nothing. Do you know what happens when people say, "I disagree" through the use of the downvote button? It lowers the content or it hides it. Downvote things that aren't on topic. Downvoting things that you disagree with is a form of censorship, indirect though it may be. The downvote b…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:54 AM
1

You think anyone takes this seriously? You think the President will read this and think, "Well gosh, I guess they really don't want men to be driving. I'll ignore the actual intent of the petition and just pass this law! Tell me you can see the chasm of a difference between signing a petition that will never go anywhere for the purpose of making a point and voting to make abortions illegal. I am honestly astonished that that analogy was upvoted.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:45 AM
1

Causing or tending to cause disagreement or dissension But why go down this path if you know I misinterpreted you? What did you mean?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:41 AM
0

Why do you downvote?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 11:03 PM
3

I go back and forth on that. For instance, I (male) did not enjoy any of the class activities we did in Elementary school. I also disliked any competitions that we had on days where there was nothing to do (first to find a country on the map, etc). I guess you can't please everyone, though.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:50 PM
26

Is it also a typical conservative response?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:41 PM
-1

...but they aren't serious... How can you not see this?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:49 PM
1

Well, could you explain what you meant by it?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:07 PM
6

The description makes it clear what the intent is. It takes effort to sign one of those petitions, and I doubt someone so dense that they could misinterpret the petition would be able to figure out how to sign one.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:14 PM
-4

This could be the worst example you could ever bring up on why it's acceptable to hate straight men. This is quite obviously a criticism of the dress code, not a serious safety concern. You could argue that the dress code is there for reasons other than the potential distraction of boys, but don't use a joke petition as an example of people hating straight men.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:12 PM
1

It's seriously directed by the author? I might have to watch it then...
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:04 PM
1

You said 'He'. Does that mean the environment would be worse for girls? If they don't have to exercise as frequently to learn, it may slow them down or something.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:03 PM
2

Is it okay to gender other things? Is saying, "Men are raped" divisive to women?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:49 PM
8

I think by gender-ing it in this case, it makes it more likely to be less gendered in the future. You can't have a genderless discussion when people believe only one gender is affected.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:32 PM
4

It seems strange that people try to raise awareness so indirectly. At least this one is somewhat clever.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:32 AM
5

Does he look confused to you? At thirteen, would you have not understood?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:12 AM
6

?? I recognize that it is sarcasm (that's why I mentioned that it was sarcasm, you see) but this sub, as a rule, doesn't. I was poking fun at that fact. Do calm down.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:10 AM
1

Sarcasm without the '/s'? Foolish human.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:59 AM
3

It seems to go through cycles on this topic. Last time I remember it being brought up, people were clear that they were against the double-standard and not the act. And I don't mind people having different opinions; it's just this "Downvote everything that hurts your feels!" thing that I loathe.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:56 AM
3

At what age is it no longer disgusting?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:50 AM
1

Yeah, I guess.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 05:47 PM
1

That people think worse of single mothers than single fathers. They aren't saying that it should be illegal. They just think it's a shitty opinion that they believe people have.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 02:42 AM
0

Thinking over it now, I don't even think it is irony. Heckler wanted him to stop making rape jokes, he responded, "Wouldn't it be funny if she was raped right now?". I thought that the irony was someone talking about how bad rape jokes are being raped, but I don't think it is now. Irony is irony if it is the opposite of what you expect. A diabetic being killed by a truck carrying insulin is ironic, because what should have saved him killed him. If the truck contained sugar, that wouldn't be iron…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:03 PM
4

That's umm... That's one way to misinterpret it.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:40 PM
1

It shouldn't be the highest post, though.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:38 PM
1

It might be the whole husband and wives angle.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:24 PM
1

What kind of power do you think women think they have? I mean, I think many honestly believe the reason behind the wage gap is women being payed less for the same job, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that they don't understand privileges they have. Do you think that men had more privilege (due to being men) in the past than now? How about for women.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:20 PM
-1

If you're talking about the Tosh.0 thing, I think the joke was about the irony. Not sure of you were though.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:21 PM
3

How old is she? Because I imagine or could be like the whole cooties thing.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:16 PM
23

Well that would explain the strange cover.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 01:43 AM
4

I'm sure she'd love to hear that :P
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:26 AM
3

I imagine facebook just doesn't review much when something is claimed to be offensive. YouTube has the same problem.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:15 AM
2

Yeah, I can sort of understand when they make the distinction if the men are more likely to be soldiers, but if they were all civilians, then that is pretty inexcusable.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:09 AM
3

Is that really all that bad, though? I don't know what they did that put them in your bad books, but shouldn't they be encouraged to try to be in your good...books.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 11:59 PM
4

The little girl at the bottom is what confuses me the most.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 11:53 PM
1

That's a normal part of development. I'm the adult in your life telling you there are limits. Seriously, though. I'm actually trying to have a conversation. You act like it is physically painful to hear different opinions, and that's concerning. I realize you won't respond to any of my points, but I am interested in how long you will respond with insults. I want to find every teacher you've ever had and either punch them in the throat or share a good cry. So, Nurture comes out on top of Nature, …
/r/MensRights05/06/13 10:33 PM
0

I'm merging our threads here. It's annoying responding twice. Actually, it's just annoying. Actually, you're just annoying. Adult indeed. And I thought we were having fun. Yes, more or less, given a certain cultural context. But that's an entirely different discussion. I don't see the relevance. I'll call it religionist. Can an atheist be religionist? Can a Jewish person be religionsit against Christians? Jesus Christ. Can you fucking read? I didn't say it was or it was not. I said that I do not…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 09:03 PM
1

I honestly don't know what you're even getting at here. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Here, I'll try this: Do you believe it is possible to be something-ist against religions: Islam, Judaism, etc.? Also, I didn't say Japanese people could say it. I said i was not familiar enough with the workings of Japanese culture to have an informed opinion on the matter. Which just seems strange to me. Could you explain to me if it is bigoted for a Japanese person to say it, if it isn't racist?
/r/MensRights05/06/13 08:37 PM
1

I assure you, it's not me making it taboo. If everyone used it, it wouldn't be taboo. Imagine you are approached by a middle aged black man who tells you that you have no business using any variation of that word. Now imagine that same middle-aged black men telling that to a black teen. Would he really tell him to his face that he is wrong?
/r/MensRights05/06/13 08:34 PM
1

They aren't always hurtful. Japanese people can say it. And even if they were, that doesn't make you racist. And so you respond: So, Japanese people aren't allowed to be against Christianity? They can't make fun of the cross, or Jesus?
/r/MensRights05/06/13 06:08 PM
1

The word doesn't have the sting it used to anymore. The word doesn't have the same meaning anymore. Everyone will hate you if you say "nigger". Society is no longer behind the use of the term. Black people use it, so why not me? I mean, Japanese people can... Language is the same for everyone. ...if we're speaking the same language........? Stop trying to prolong the offensiveness of a word by making it taboo.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 06:05 PM
1

Why is it strange to accept that not everything is about me? You said you were personally offended. Words have history. This history is tied to culture. Negro is a perfectly acceptable word in Spanish, and c-slur is far less inappropriate in England than it is here. Alternatively, in the USA a person can say "bloody hell" and be thought cute - but that's a rather big deal on the other side of the pond. Words do have history. Some of these words are being used differently. I'm not at all familiar…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 05:58 PM
1

Words have evolved. It's basically used as a handshake at this point. You can object to that, but it is strange to get offended when a teenager (decidedly younger than 50) uses it in the "hello, friend!" sense if you're fine with rappers using the word.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 05:34 PM
1

Yes, yes I am. Does this surprise you? When you call someone a subhuman because of the way they look, I am enraged. Aren't you? Not at all. But you stop being offended when black people say it. That's strange. Well, that's a different subject. A Japanese person living in the states who's been here a while? No, for the same reasons a white person could not. A person living in Japan or a recent immigrant? I have no idea. But in the case of the recent immigrant, I'd tell them that we should really …
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:22 PM
1

You are giving certain people the right and not others.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:16 PM
-1

Aww, nobody likes your post now... I feel all guilty...
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:25 AM
1

Yeah, well I find pepperoni to be too spicy (it destroys every other flavour on the pizza...), so I think I'm long past enjoying these endorphins you speak of.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:19 AM
1

Sure it can. I accept that there can be different meanings to words. For instance, though you say you would be uncivil to a feminist if one called you 'dude', if one of your friends (who is a feminist) calls you dude, you won't mind, because there is an understanding about the intent. I'm not saying that all usages of the word should be acceptable, but the ones that are deemed acceptable should be acceptable regardless of who says it. Now, it's possible that one meaning of the word is overrepres…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:16 AM
1

What I'm wondering is whether or not you use Yelp.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 10:20 PM
2

I wouldn't fight to the death. This is a debate. Nay, this is reddit. Despite this being reddit, I think we can have an interesting conversation if you'd only allow it.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:59 PM
2

Alright, are you personally offended by the term? Are you only offended when it is spoken by a white person? Can Japanese people say the word, due to their separation from the historical baggage? Or is it only okay when black people say it? I'm guessing you'll go for the latter answer, so are you offended when Eminem says "nigger"? You are racist if you say, "Yes," and I mean that devoid of any bad intent on your part; you're just racist by definition, and want to explain why. But really, we're …
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:53 PM
3

I don't use the slurs. But you shouldn't be selectively bothered based on the colour of someone's skin. That's my position. Your's, as I understand it, is that white people should not be allowed to use it , but black people should. Am I incorrect?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:29 PM
-1

Offensive Word! I'm going to use this word, but you can't because it's an Offensive Word! I suppose I could not use this Offensive Word and the word can still be offensive, but no, I'm going to be "reclaim it" except not really, because it's still an Offensive Word. Sure, there can be different intents behind this Offensive Word, but I'm not suggesting that all intents be treated the same. But if you use an Offensive Word in the same way that the people in the Offensive Word Whitelist do, you sh…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:18 PM
3

Feminism is not all feminists. But as you can see, the bad actions of a few negatively impact the perception of the whole. You don't need to be nice. Just don't use intentionally inflammatory language all willy-nilly. I'm not against peppering with some swears to add flavour. But spicy food, as a rule, is fucking awful. Why do people torture themselves that way, I just don't get it. Same with hot food: If you have to burn your tongue to numbness in order to enjoy a piece of food, the food isn't …
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:14 PM
4

People don't change their minds. Now you're just being absurd. Well, fuck, I'm a freak of nature! They say that science advances one funeral at a time for a reason. And that's why scientific debates involve a lot of name-calling. Oh, wait. Never mind. Most people dislike feminists. Feminism is more unpopular now than at any time in the last twenty years. Great! Let's not piss them off by calling people 'bitch' and 'cunt'. Reddit is not a reflection of broader society. This place is much, much, m…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:09 PM
5

And politician is now synonymous with liar. But you know what? They don't call the other side "bitch", because that doesn't help.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:06 PM
4

Okay, how about you? Would you be more likely to change your mind if a person was calling someone a bitch or a rape-apologist for disagreeing with them or would you be more likely to change your mind if they did not?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 11:52 AM
9

Which is silly. Use it or don't use it, don't get all half-assed and half-offended half of the time. People give words too much power sometimes...
/r/MensRights04/06/13 07:33 AM
5

But for the people who you aren't arguing with -- the onlookers -- it pays to appear more reasonable.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 07:30 AM
1

Yeah, but you can make a guess. I mean, either someone wrote a cheery song about raping someone, or they wrote a cheery song about two people who love each other having a little banter.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 07:27 AM
3

I think it would be easy to answer that: "Society isn't a single entity and it's impossibly to answer this completely truthfully. I will say this, though: Their are certain aspects of society that are very misogynistic, and their are others that feminism has nearly completely turned around. There is still a lot of work to do, but I'm confident that we can fix this in our life-times." It doesn't give the ratio of misogynist to non-misogynist aspects of society so it can appeal to both her support…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:38 AM
1

He's not even really talking her into staying, either. He's just providing excuses for her to stay.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:27 AM
1

Okay, but do you accept that the song isn't really about that? Because to me it's obviously the adult equivalent of a schoolgirl pushing you in mud because she likes you. You can say that it promotes violence against men (and some have) by I'd disagree with you; it's just a, "I don't want to be near you (of-course I want to be near you)" kind of thing. I'm fine if you hear it as a date-rape song, but I think it's silly to believe that was the intended message.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:20 AM
1

And I assume on second look you realized it wasn't? I'm actually surprised at how many here think it is. I mean, even with the "what's in this drink?" part. When you see that line, you should think, "Okay. Either this song is about drugging someone and raping them, or I'm misinterpreting it. My first thought isn't, "Oh my God! He drugged her!". She is clearly looking for excuses so she doesn't seem too easy, and saying, "How did I get so drunk?" is a way of saying, "I'm normally never like this,…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:20 AM
2

I put the 'again' there for a reason.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:02 AM
1

No, I dismissed the argument because it is a bullshit argument. I then dismissed the person since they were obviously new to this movement. And I didn't even look at the age of the reddit account, since to me, any less than 5 years in this movement and you don't know a thing. And you did this by posting : Manipulate? Nope. Insult? Yup. Evil is a real MRA...but he's weakening these days. You? You're no one I've ever heard of. So you fuck off instead, mmmkay princess? And, even if I did, I would S…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:04 AM
1

Ah. I mistyped before. I didn't realize I said charged. I meant convicted. And I really don't hold grudges. I don't have much of an opinion of you at this point, anyway.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 01:42 AM
1

That's what trials are for. And concepts like 'enough evidence to take this to trial'. What's so difficult to understand? Someone being in a different country has nothing to do with whether someone was lying or not. It has to be proven that she deliberately lied, and saying, "He was out of the country!" doesn't do that. Love you too. <3
/r/MensRights03/06/13 12:52 AM
0

Well, one would think if Herald was an oldtimer, he/she would have said something, instead of having you put on your armor. ?? Anyway, perhaps s/he assesses arguments based on their merits and not who made them. And to be clear, I don't think it's a new account of an old user; that wasn't the point. The point was that you dismissed the argument because of the age of the account when your account is only 4 months old (and you didn't say otherwise until I made my comment). Which is all beside the …
/r/MensRights03/06/13 12:48 AM
0

What's the difference between your new usernames and this theoretical new username that is HeraldofRevolution? Is yours instantly "recognizable"?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 11:01 PM
7

If the message said: "Hi! Would you like to have sex again?" it is reasonable evidence for cheating.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:12 PM
2

Woman throwing away loving, supportive, loyal guy in the hopes of a fat wallet around the corner. And they wonder why men are avoiding relationships. Someone does care. I am responding to that.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:05 PM
2

government is enabling white criminality I didn't mention the government. It was for a reason, too. Please answer what I asked please? The government enables women to be able to make unilateral demands on the property and labor of men via child support and alimony. It also enables them to make false accusations with relative impunity by punishing false accusations very rarely. WTF does that have to do with this woman? She isn't saying he raped her, children aren't mentioned, why are you bringing…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:25 AM
9

This appears to be conjecture as the number of men was not qualified. You are putting words into his mouth. Uh-huh. He meant And they wonder why a few men avoid relationships, did he? If it was an insignificant number, he wouldn't say it, because it would be insignificant. Tell me you can see the implication of what he said. Does his comment even make sense if he believes an insignificant portion of men avoid relationships? Who's wondering if there aren't a lot of men? However, I will do some qu…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:19 AM
-2

This doesn't make any sense. Being in a gang grants you safety in the gang's zone; at least from the gang you are part of. If you aren't in that gang, you are not immune in that area. All I meant. I think she warrants not having her behaviour enabled by government. That's all. Okay, could you explain this? I don't see how the government has anything to do with this...
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:41 AM
-1

Say you're in a place with high gang activity. Say most are black. Now we have a neighborhood which has empowered gang members. Is it racist to avoid black people because of their higher likely-hood to be empowered? Because what you're avoiding isn't the person, it's the government entitlement that is very explicitly connected to gender. Okay...do you think that what this woman did warrants a fine or jail-time, etc?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:17 AM
1

It gets tricky there; what if she was just mistaken? He looked sort of like the rapist, so she said it was him, but she was wrong. She shouldn't be charged for that.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:12 AM
-4

It's more like Russian Roulette where one party gets a doctor; if you get shot, you have a chance at recovering (ie. rapist arrested), but you still have a little trouble speaking, your head is spinning, and they cut your hair that you were trying to grow out (ie you were still raped). If my analogy-making skills aren't as great as I'd like to believe, I'll clarify: Some people do bad things. An example of someone doing a bad thing isn't necessarily representative of the entire group. At that po…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 12:27 AM
-3

I suppose that is a difference, though I don't think it's relevant to this topic? If hypergamy were illegal, would my point not make sense? This is a single instance (of a woman breaking the law through hypergamy). It isn't necessarily representative of reality. It's basically Schrodinger's Rapist: "And they wonder why women are afraid of men." Schrodinger's Rapist, as I understand it, is that some men rape, we don't know who, so it's too risky to be near men. Even though it isn't socially accep…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:58 PM
1

You should read the sidebar. Not everyone there is an MRA, but you should try to get past the labels anyway. Don't defend MRAs for saying something sexist just because they call themselves MRAs, for instance. If the point is just to show the MRM isn't a hate group, then I wouldn't bother unless she gives you examples.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:57 PM
5

In this case, there is a woman who is "throwing away" her boyfriend, and a man who is not "throwing away" his girlfriend. This man is not avoiding a relationship. Therefore, we can assume that this woman is being used as an example of why other men are avoiding relationships. For that to be true, a non-insignificant portion of the female population must be like this woman, and some portion of the male population avoid relationships because of it. I never claimed that OuiCrudites said that all me…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:42 PM
63

This is a single instance. It isn't necessarily representative of reality. It's basically Schrodinger's Rapist: "And they wonder why women are scared of men."
/r/MensRights01/06/13 06:53 PM
1

Is this including other acts of violence? Like throwing chairs, lamps, cans of Dokupe :P ? And you haven't answered about anime...
/r/MensRights01/06/13 06:48 PM
6

you don't want to discourage victims from coming forward. Indeed. Victims of false accusations shouldn't be discouraged from coming forward. Honestly though, I don't see how you can believe that there should be a law, but it shouldn't be enforced. And I don't see how it would discourage victims from coming forward any more than before. I think criminalizing purposefully making a false accusation against someone would help in the long run, for both rape victims, and those falsely accused.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:53 AM
1

Incomplete list: TV Show/Movie Episode Timestamp Emotions Notes The Goodwife S01E01 - Pilot 2:28 Anger Wife slaps cheating husband for shaming her in public Angel S01E19 - Sanctuary 25:40 Anger Angel hits back, though this is shown as much more shocking. Music swells, Buffy holds shocked expression, etc. Later on (27:25), Buffy and Angel discuss it, with Angel pointing out that she hit first. Angel gives a lovely rant at the end of the episode, and Buffy leaves looking childish. Eternal Sunshine…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:42 AM
3

So a crime we shouldn't enforce?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:12 AM
1

Okay, if you think it's worth it.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:11 AM
8

See the Brian Banks case: She admitted to lying about it. That's the sort of evidence you'd need to convict someone of that. If she really was raped, and she was just wrong about who, she should not be punished for that; it's the people who deliberately lie to harm someone that should be punished by the law.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:56 AM
1

Uhhh...alright.... Here's one: The Goodwife S01E01: 2:28 [Angry] And here's some you can use if you want. Why do you want a list anyway? Pretty tables here! Feel free to add onto it in your own comment (Click the 'source' button if you have RES)
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:50 AM
7

Do you believe it should be a crime to falsely accuse someone of rape? Because we aren't talking about all rape claims that go unproven; we're talking about proven deliberate false rape claims.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:30 AM
5

Fancy yourself famous, do you?
/r/MensRights31/05/13 06:08 AM
1

Yeah, I don't know anything about that case, so I can't really say much. With him, he wasn't convicted, so those people probably think he is innocent. I don't know how someone could possibly believe the same with Chris Brown.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 05:57 AM
0

Huh. Still, saying that anti-racists hold that position as a rule is premature.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 01:30 AM
3

I haven't really seen any people defend Chris Brown for that reason.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:32 PM
2

Ehh...What are you talking about?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:06 PM
1

Ahh, when you say 'technically', it makes it sound like a situation where you believe someone hasn't given consent to sex, but the sex isn't rape. To call "tipsy" sex rape is kinda silly. As for being blackout drunk, that would be rape.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:43 PM
1

Is she someone I'm likely to know, or does she just have one of those names?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:45 AM
2

So, illegal, unless medically necessary, or legal in all cases? And it is difficult to change, though it already is. I don't imagine it will be illegal any time soon, but less people are circumcising their babies than the past. At least in America. I don't imagine the UK would have changed much, but I haven't checked.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:44 AM
4

Which is strange, when you think about it. It's not like the internet made up that connection. She really should have been able to tell the difference between flirting and 'thanks ;)", though. I can't imagine a situation where flirting is the intended message if you say "thanks ;)", but maybe there is one. Regardless, I am not sure that it could be considered sexual harassment, especially if she didn't even tell him to stop (she doesn't indicate that she did...)
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:39 AM
2

Absolutely. I've voiced my disagreement with the poster here and am honestly surprised at how well it is being received so far. And I should clarify something: I'm not arguing with anything you have said so much as I am arguing with what what you have said so far aligns with. I get annoyed when others do it to me, so I might as well let you explain you actual beliefs. Do you believe that circumcision's religious significance is a good reason to keep it legal?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 03:25 AM
2

And you could tattoo a funny birthmark on your child without it growing up with PTSD. Doesn't mean you should be allowed to. And post-5yearsold-dome, some people do get depressed about their circumcision. PS: 5-10 minutes? Why do you mention that?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 03:10 AM
3

Fifty years old? Eeewww!!! But seriously, can she really think that that is sexual harassment?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 03:04 AM
3

I am to understand some studies have been done that show that the development of a baby's brain changes after circumcision, but to say that a quarter of Americans have PTSD is rather silly, I agree. As for your first sentence, I fail to see how circumcision being done for religious reasons is relevant in any way. "My religion says it's okay, so there!" isn't much of an argument. You can use your imagination as to what would be acceptable under those terms.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:58 AM
2

If you meant to show how ridiculous some definitions of rape are (which ones, btw?) then the poster is not clear, and if it wasn't, then I don't know what to say other than you should not complicate the issue of circumcision by adding rape to the equation.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:50 PM
-3

Can I get a downvote too?
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:39 PM
2

Well look at that.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 04:49 AM
9

Double quotes have a specific meaning. They aren't used for paraphrasing. And someone else showed another video where that quote didn't even come up, so I'm not entirely sure if he even said it. They both cut away to show Jodi Arias, so both are probably inaccurate.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 04:43 AM
0

Juries aren't meant to decide on laws. They're meant to decide if one has been broken. If you don't believe in the law that someone has broken, you shouldn't be on the jury; you'd say someone was innocent just because you think the law is stupid.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 04:27 AM
1

Okay, I disagree that that should be considered manipulation. But I am yet to understand why that makes her a bitch, or how he is trapped by her submissiveness. Perhaps I am manipulating you by responding to your comment, because, though I may not enjoy this conversation, I am starved of human contact and am much more frightened about losing you than telling you to stop. You may be be trapped, though you don't notice.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:26 AM
29

...What? Why is he trapped, all of a sudden? Maybe she's insecure and wants a relationship so she won't say no to sex. He didn't rape her, but she didn't entrap him in a relationship he didn't want to be in either. Seriously, I can't follow your train of thought. I can understand withholding sex so he does more work (in the relationship) to be manipulative, but even that I don't see as entrapment. I have no idea how you consider not saying no to sex to be entrapment.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:28 PM
14

First time in a while that I saw that reference without wanting to punch the screen.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:20 PM
1

I agree with that. But do you want to be wrong but equal, or unequal but right? Because until we get over our fear of younger people having sex, men will be punished for it.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 05:17 AM
1

I dunno. If women really do only talk about men in movies, then that would get annoying. I know I'd be annoyed if men in the average movie would only talk about women. I mean, action movies cater to men, so if the ones that cater to both are off-balanced that way, I think it's a valid complaint. No idea if that really is the case, though... ^^^^^^<sup></sup> ^^<sup>so</sup> ^^<sup>please</sup> ^^<sup>don't</sup> ^^<sup>downvote</sup> ^^<sup>me...</sup>
/r/MensRights24/05/13 05:12 AM
2

Well that would explain the déjà vu
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:40 AM
3

Huh. She must visit reddit.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:29 AM
-2

Most people are.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:26 AM
2

No, I agree. The argument against that is that the law should be equal and society isn't likely to legalize the reverse. So, I don't know.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:25 AM
1

Her makeup is consistantly thicker. Guess they were taken on the some day. Or it's a new style, who knows.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:20 AM
2

Okay, so anal rape is worse than vaginal rape? Should we tell women who were vaginally raped to just quite down because they weren't anally raped? Just what are you implying?
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:10 PM
5

But it isn't! Why do we keep saying stuff like that? Say most feminists think that or something, but not all feminists...
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:08 PM
6

Sexual assault. They didn't rape him.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:49 PM
2

I'm curious how you actually feel. If you ran the world (and the law was applied evenly among the sexes) how would you deal with them?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:49 PM
1

I only ask because I was watching a SkepticalHeretic video and he mentioned that a study a race realist was using to show that IQ was hereditary was flawed because some of the twins were in contact during the experiment.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:50 AM
1

Two individuals, genetically identical, or nearly so, grow up thousands of miles apart, and end up looking, acting, talking, etc in an eerily similar manner. Are they in contact with each other? Because that would ruin the entire experiment. Which experiment are you talking about?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:53 AM
0

Could you clarify what you mean by "expendable position of head of the household"?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:58 PM
0

That's the thing, though. I'm not convinced that being a traditionalist is in conflict with advocating for the rights of men. I suppose I should ask what definition you are using that excludes them?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:05 PM
1

Sure, jail time for lying about an STD. But I don't think consenting to sex under false pretenses should be considered rape.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:59 PM
-1

Admittedly I haven't had much experience with either. I just know I had a ~2 day conversation in againstmensrights but was banned and my comment deleted in some SRS daughter sub. Didn't even tell me. But I actually disagree with you about her "basically committing rape". If I consent to have sex with you because you tell me you are <insert celebrity here>, you didn't rape me just because you lied. You were just an asshole. Same if you {poked holes in the condom,stopped taking birth control}.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:59 AM
2

If a feminist came around and said "I'm a feminist but I don't believe that women should have the vote." Would you take her at her word? I wouldn't. But if she said that women shouldn't be allowed to work in porn, or be a stripper, or be a prostitute, I can still believe that she is a feminist, removing rights for women or no. The three of them are traditionalists and they believe that the traditional role of men is all the rights men need. And I assume they believe that men are denied some of t…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:48 AM
-5

That may be, but that isn't what the name means, which was my point. I have had very little experience with them. They aren't as ban-happy as SRS, so plus one for that, I guess.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:37 AM
4

Whose to say your definition is the definitive definition of an MRA? I'm not familiar with the two you mentioned, but if they call themselves MRAs, then I don't think you can say they aren't. And I'm going to assume that JerimiahMRA considers himself an MRA.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:31 AM
2

Yeah, I have to assume the people who upvoted that just skim any comment with more than a paragraph. Sixty-three, though. Goddamn.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:26 AM
-8

Look, it's a horrible name, but they are talking about /r/MensRights, not the rights of men.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:08 AM
1

And piss off his fans by cancelling? It obviously isn't a big concern to him, and it doesn't need to be. Not everyone has the same priorities.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 04:50 AM
1

You're going to be my slightly more coherent SuicideBanana. Your name even fits, kind of: Suicide --> Death --> Cross Banana --> Shape --> Hook
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:38 AM
14

That was an invitation to provide a source. You don't have to, but the response you did make was entirely useless.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:27 AM
3

I can't understand this person's thought process. I was going to write out some of it, but then I realized I didn't care enough, so nevermind. Look at image seven, though. Really confusing.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 08:07 AM
0

In a legal dictionary, sure, but in this case, the meaning does not have to be so precise.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:30 AM
10

Dictionaries are descriptive. Use the word differently and the dictionaries will follow.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:51 PM
6

Things are less likely to be trolls than people think.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 11:26 PM
4

I think it's been decided that that one was satire by virtue of it making no fucking sense otherwise.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:05 PM
5

Her thought process is: Rape culture exists. This manifests in women being harassed on the street. Unrealistic beauty standards exist. This manifests in girls and women feeling badly about their body. I feel left out because I am in the minority of women who don't get street harassed. I feel like street harassers don't deem me worthy to harass. The feeling of worthlessness is part of unrealistic beauty standards. Feminism works toward ending street harassment (and rape culture). Feminism works t…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:04 PM
11

Satire, more likely.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:48 PM
2

Hey, now! Humour is relative!
/r/MensRights10/05/13 10:35 PM
1

Along the same vein, is it possible for a weak person to rape a stronger person?
/r/MensRights10/05/13 10:15 PM
2

So, no other female on male rape is possible?
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:13 AM
3

It's 'bear' for future reference.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:11 AM
3

If you are interested in A+theism, you might like to watch some of noelplum99's videos about it. This is a good one to start with, I think.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 09:09 PM
2

Nearly everyone agrees with you. No-one cares if you unsub.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:59 PM
0

No, you just said that you turn the tv off when it becomes misandrist, but you can only tell if it is misandrist by watching more than one show.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:32 PM
1

So, you shut off the television whenever a man is perpetrator of some crime against a woman? Because you can only call it "misandrist" in aggregate. A single example of a series showing a man in a bad light doesn't really count as misandry, in my opinion. The more serial shows fare better as far as misandry goes, I think.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 06:52 AM
2

"Break the cycle of abuse." The full picture is in the OP over here.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 03:07 AM
1

If you say so.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 10:23 PM
1

Which is why I ended my post with: They were still being ridiculous. That someone else was ridiculous before them doesn't zero the scale.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:55 PM
1

It's been happening frequently. I don't know if reddit broke this feature?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:38 PM
1

On a memorial radio show? I was still referring to Esmay's article. The chain of events was: "Fuck you feminists!" --> "We didn't kill him, MRAs!" --> "[People] murdered him" This didn't happen. That was exaggeration. They may not all be feminists. But Biden made the list.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:37 PM
2

Do you have an example of what you mean by 'openly misandrist'? For me, though I haven't stopped watching, I find Angela to be the worst character on Bones. In more ways than one: An artist is now a computer expert with dozens of patents in facial reconstruction? Seriously?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:52 PM
1

They set up a situation that lead to his despair, sure. People were blaming them for his death. Someone said they shouldn't, because it wasn't their fault. That might be a ridiculous escalation, but latching on to it and accusing every feminist under the sun as a murderer didn't help things. They were still being ridiculous. That someone else was ridiculous before them doesn't zero the scale.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:48 PM
2

I don't know why anyone reads books. It's exactly like the internet, but without any of the good parts. But seriously, what are you talking about? They're two very different forms of entertainment.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:40 PM
1

He blamed them, at least in part, no? I'm not misreading that? All I was saying was that feminists were being blamed (partially, at least) for his death, and someone responded by saying, "We didn't kill him."
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:31 PM
1

This was written before the Salon article. In it, Esmay calls out multiple people, including everyone on /r/feminism. Maybe she read it, maybe she didn't, but it wasn't out of nowhere. AvFM (or at least Dean Esmay) was blaming feminists before. It is an exaggeration to say they murdered him. You can't get around that. The implication that white men weren't for the black men's best interests was true, but even if it wasn't, "I am a man", was true. Even if he wouldn't have killed himself if femini…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 06:08 PM
1

This is a repost.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:28 PM
1

I suppose I will, but I honestly find much of the anger to be misplaced. People in a different country who didn't know of his existence are not the best people to accuse of his murder.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:58 PM
1

It kind of is. Murder takes forethought. They had none. Many didn't even know he existed. Did you donate money to him? If not, did you murder him? Was Amanda Todd murdered?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:49 PM
1

Joe Biden would have murdered him? Why do you think that? He was about as far removed from him as you can get, but you think he purposefully backed him into a corner. That is ridiculous, sorry. Use his death to fund help for men, by all means. Using his death to put everybody you don't like on the naughty list is a little sickening.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:46 PM
1

And now I want to watch Memento again...
/r/MensRights03/05/13 06:12 AM
2

That would be the aforementioned "ridiculous exaggeration".
/r/MensRights03/05/13 06:09 AM
1

Very indirectly. Saying that rape victims are sluts online, fudging facts to support that, not giving money to a person they haven't heard of, etc. is not murder. He chose to kill himself. Joe Biden didn't personally refuse money to him.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 04:00 AM
2

This doesn't make them immune from criticism. Their benefit is not intrinsic.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:55 AM
1

I haven't really seen a conservative slant... Socially or fiscally?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:51 AM
3

'I am a man' is true. 'Earl Silverman was murdered by feminists' is not.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:49 AM
4

Huh. You'd think she would notice something was off.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:44 AM
2

How exactly does that work? Like, were you blacked out during the sex?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:51 AM
3

Edit: didn't think the /s was needed. You have no idea how awful this sub is at detecting sarcasm. Maybe if you dress your post up with italics it would get the point across without a '/s' tag.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 07:01 AM
1

Ah. I went there once and clicked on the 'Are you offended?' thing and it opened a shitload of popups and shouted, "YOU'RE WATCHING GAY PORNO!" over and over. My parents were in the room, so I quickly closed firefox. Relieved, I started firefox but it was set to restore tabs on startup, so I had to hold down the power button until the computer reset. That wasn't fun.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 04:55 AM
1

Sorry, what does ED mean?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 04:09 AM
1

That seems fair. But if someone is 18 and has sex with a 16-17 year old, would the 18 year old be out on a sex offenders registry, or serve jail time, or what? Consensual is in quotation marks, because the ability for an individual to fully comprehend their actions depends on a very large number of factors. This brings up an interesting point. Is it possible for a mentally disabled person to have sex legally?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 02:40 AM
1

Do you have a source for that?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:58 PM
1

Right, so what would the law do, given that we can't look at their specific case? Would the 16 year old be arrested, or what?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:56 PM
1

Abstinence-only sex-ed is not really that common now, is it? Wasn't anal sex outlawed? Change in which direction? If a woman is thrown in jail for having sex with a minor, we haven't fixed anything, imo. But I get your point. I just think we should try to help men rather than hurting women. If the activism came with a (Goddammit, there was a word for this that I can't remember) that said that we should either bring women down or bring men up, I'd be okay with it.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:53 PM
1

So you believe it should be illegal, I assume?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 02:12 PM
1

A 16 year old and a 13 year old have sex. Are you okay with this?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:50 AM
1

So, older than ~12-13?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:38 AM
1

I'm not sure. Society has been getting less and less freaked out by sex (more so in the UK, I'm to understand) and the age of consent will probably be lowered, if nothing else. I realize that it is fairer to hold both men and women to the same unreasonable standards, but I'm not going to get outraged when someone is treated the way I feel they should be.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:36 AM
1

There is a certain age where no matter what you biologically know you are not able to fully comprehend the consequences and meanings of those actions; therefore, you are unable to consent. Where do you suppose that age is? Because at eighteen the brain isn't done developing, so is there a reason to think that that is the age where you can suddenly consent? I mean, I understand that not everything is clear, but there should be a reason we're throwing the line somewhere.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:21 AM
1

I realize that. That's why I'm saying we should advocate for men not to be sent to prison for it, not that women should. I do disagree with the government on this. At the very least, they shouldn't use the word rape. Call it sexual assault if you must, but rape is much too loaded a term, imo.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:25 AM
1

I realize I'm late to the party, but I honestly don't see this as a big deal. Unless he was drugged, he chose to have sex. At fifteen, you're capable of understanding what you are doing. You may not be smart, and you may make stupid decisions, but three more years won't magically fix that. It is really easy to not have sex with a teacher. If you go ahead and do it, you wanted to. And I feel the same way about fifteen-year-old girls and their teachers, before you ask. Maybe you're just pointing o…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 03:35 AM
1

So, did a doctor regulate the hormones or did you do it yourself? Did you see a therapist?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 11:13 PM
1

Whose to say you don't? It's your body. But ignoring that, people are questioning if they are 'fake-trans' because they don't fit the stereotype of always wanting to be the other gender/sex throughout all of their childhood. And what do you mean by 'trying it out'? I'd imagine you could go to a bar in women's clothing without being found out, so you could see if it's a thing you like that way. Also, unrelated, but are there more trans-women than trans-men, to your knowledge? I was watching an ol…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:46 PM
1

Exaggeration for the purpose of making a point.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:27 PM
1

It just strikes me as harmful to say that if you didn't want to kill yourself when you were eight because of gender dysphoria, then you aren't trans. There are some threads that come up from time to time (this one, for example), where people don't know if they are trans because they only thought about it recently.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:50 PM
9

Seriously.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:22 PM
1

So do you consider those who could not verify it in words trans?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:20 PM
1

A cis man would find this level of testosterone brutal to his mood. A trans woman doesn't. How so? Does it have different effects, or do cis-men and trans-women react differently to the same effects? How does testosterone (or the lack thereof) affect a person's mood?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:55 AM
1

I'm curious: does facial hair still grow? Does body hair slow its growth? Also, did your libido change?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:32 AM
1

I'm not sure how someone would dox you by knowing some countries you've visited, but okay.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:22 AM
1

Yes, "dating or otherwise" would definitely be better, except to me it suggests that the majority of women I have dated have behaved in the "eerily similar fashion", which (as I indicated earlier) is not true. So then I am back to the same problem of trading one bit of ambiguity for another. Right. Forgot about that. And it's different in other countries?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:49 AM
1

The vast majority of women I have known (dating or otherwise) behaved in an eerily similar fashion, albeit not quite so far off into cloud-cookoo-land. I think that would work better, then. Just say it outright. But I am curious as to how close to 'cloud-cookoo-land' these women are. And what's your experience with men?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:27 AM
1

For future reference, you should say, "the vast majority of women I have known." Saying that it is in any context makes it sound like any subset of women you know also follows that pattern. Neither is perfect, though. So feel free to ignore everything I've said.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:10 AM
1

That's rather early.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 08:20 PM
2

Well, yeah, but pregnant women don't take testosterone pills when they want boys. The testosterone is just a side effect of being male. Testosterone doesn't change an entire chromosome, does it? It was XY to begin with, right?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 08:13 PM
1

So are you having ...eh...anti-testosterone injections? Or you could remove your testicles, right? Or replace them with prosthetic ones.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 05:12 PM
2

The process my mind went through. Topological. Hmm, that doesn't make sense. 'Top' is part of the word, though, so maybe he meant something relating to that? Top is like surface, and he's talking about trans people so maybe he means they are only [their gender] on the surface.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 05:08 PM
-7

Yeah, I don't know what your problem with him is, but I kind of agree with you here. Instead of it being an article paying tribute, it seemed like a political move to put some names on an enemy list. Big Red? Everybody at /r/feminism? Direct your anger, seriously.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 05:05 PM
2

Thunderf00t has done some videos on him. integralmath has done a few. noelplum has done some great ones on atheism+, which pz meyers supports. This thunderf00t video is probably a good start.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:59 PM
1

May I ask why you don't want surgery? Is it that you just don't care enough to pay the money, or you just don't like the results?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:41 PM
1

In what sense are you using the word "topological"? Ehh, you knew what he meant. Topological --> Top --> Surface. Not saying I agree because I haven't read it in context, but the intended meaning seems clear enough.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:39 PM
1

Grandmother on your mother's side? Because that's interesting.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:32 PM
2

Also, if anyone wants to get technical, our bodies all start out female in the womb. I'm not sure if that's true. Your sex is decided at conception, no? An X doesn't morph into a Y, does it? It's true that you don't have a penis, but I don't think you have a vagina either. That said, I know nothing of the topic, so you might be right.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:27 PM
3

Word would get around if this sub was banned. I don't think it's that big of an issue
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:29 AM
4

I don't know what that means.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:28 AM
5

I suck at paragraphs and even I know to press enter after every odd sentence. Seriously, someone should create a userscript that does just that. Just add a 'paragraphify' button next to permalink.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:09 AM
3

I can understand when bars do this -- they need women that men can buy drinks for -- but why would they do this in a restaurant where kids are common enough to warrant a special deal on certain days? That's just sexism for the sake of sexism, unless they've found that women flock there on Wednesdays or something.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:39 AM
1

Heh. Thanks.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:14 AM
1

Huh.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 09:27 PM
4

Well, I hope you're right. I'm unconvinced it serves a valuable purpose, and even if it does, it doesn't seem worth the bad things that go along with it. At least make it gender-neutral, Goddamn...
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:47 PM
3

Why do you say that? Going through your posting history, you are mostly critical of this sub (which is fine; there are things to be criticized), so I don't know if you have any reason to believe that, or it's just a feeling you have due to your biases.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 08:47 PM
4

We're talking about the same thing, then?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 08:57 AM
15

I didn't think it was offensive, if that is what you are implying. But it wasn't funny, no.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:35 AM
5

Okay, that didn't help with my confusion. We're talking about Osbourne, yes? What does she have to do with wrestling? Off to wikipedia, I guess.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:06 AM
3

I'm sure I could find out if I tried hard enough, but what are WWE and WWF
/r/MensRights18/04/13 06:30 AM
-1

Maybe not, but I thought /u/EvilPundit was trying to make a point to them.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:55 AM
1

I suppose it will get some attention. In the end it's just a comment on an article on the internet, so it won't do much anyway.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:09 AM
5

I don't think that is very clear. I imagine someone would just say you supported rape and be none the wiser as to why you said that.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:58 AM
1

I'm unsure exactly what he meant. Is a landlord renting out rooms, or is someone asking for a roommate?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:50 AM
1

And if that were the case, I would not care about it. I would still think it is a service with no customers, but at least it would remove its sexist nature.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:07 AM
1

She is. Or at least she has a boyfriend. I think he even made an appearance in one of her cat videos.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:09 PM
1

And that is absolutely a reason to criticize it. I was just concerned that it was being misinterpreted.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 09:25 PM
4

Why women only? It really does make it look like it's Men vs Women and you are blind if you can't see that.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:44 PM
3

Who said anything about logic? The point is, RH does something that has little value, but it tarnishes AVfM's image somewhat. As for visiting the site, I had to go to school.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:42 PM
5

There's a difference between reporting news and compiling a list of people women on a website. I haven't visited RH, so I have no opinion on the site, but it does create a bad image for little gain, imo.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:24 PM
1

*snort* :P
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:07 PM
2

Yeah. Supposedly restoring the forskin (which doesn't restore the nerves) does have some benefits, though. It keeps the 'head' moist, and it can slide around in the foreskin. *shrug*
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:20 AM
5

I don't have facebook, or friends, so I haven't seen the poster in a while. I don't doubt that some will have missed the point, though. Maybe this poster will be circulated by people who don't get it; wouldn't that be fun?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:14 AM
2

Nerve endings? No, sorry. You get some functionality back, but it takes years.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:11 AM
3

What do you mean by 'horrible orgasms'? It may not be as good, but it isn't agonizing, or anything. If want, you could try reading about 'tugging'. It would take a lot of time and effort and it may or may not be worth it. Here's a forum about it and here's a general resource about the topic (does contain pictures, so you know). I won't give any advice on talking to your parents or not talking to your parents because I'm shit for that, but I'm sure that others will help. You could also crosspost …
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:10 AM
1

Minor Criticism but probably personal taste: I think the 'FACT:' part should go. It makes it seem like the poster is on the offensive when it should be more, "Here's some information; do with it what you will." I also think the 'FACT:' thing works if it is part of a series of posters. More on topic, why are boxers (err, the people boxing) on the infographic?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:53 AM
2

I've taken the liberty of X-Posting to /r/MensRants. Link is here.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:44 AM
2

I guess it's a balance. I think that people are even putting up signs about the topic is a good thing. Public awareness, and all. I don't think the M(H)RM would attract the types to be taken in by a feminist logo on a sign anyway.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:38 AM
1

While I enjoy these posts, they are better suited for /r/antisrs, /r/SRSsucks, /r/WorstOfSRS, or any other SRS related boards that have popped up due to the previous ones purportedly sucking. This post has more to do with feminism than men's rights (There may be overlap, but there is little in this case), but for future posts of this nature (FB posts, tumblr posts, twitter posts, etc.), you should x-post to /r/MensRants or post there exclusively if you don't think any interesting discussion coul…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:34 AM
40

That poster isn't exactly serious (I've heard). It is meant as a response to the "them sluts were asking for it, wearing those clothes..." arguments. It tries to show how ridiculous that is by saying, "Do you need to be reminded not to rape when you see a woman in certain clothes?" A valid criticism could be that it conflates rapists with all men, but the poster isn't to be taken literally. The OP is a parody of a satire.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:22 AM
1

No. You want to know something. I fucking admit I lose the argument and you rub it in? Fuck you sir. Low class fuck. That was a very sarcastic defeat. One where you didn't change your position in the slightest. I didn't think you were being serious. Sorry. I assumed you were trying to take my position so you could show its flaws, not that you actually wanted to stop this conversation. Seriously, if you want to stop, just say that. Free will exists you piece of shit. Christ, Man! Bad day? OH HEY …
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:21 AM
23

I also love how it says MAN with gun on the picture. Also? I thought that was what we were talking about...
/r/MensRights16/04/13 10:01 PM
1

It's good to know everything has already been decided. Every rape of a woman pre-determined and thus no individual is responsible. The rape was inevitable. We can still put a rapist in jail because it is shown that that reduces the amount of rapes. But this is the second time you tried to use an emotional appeal to prove your point. Reality doesn't give a shit about your feelings. Please tell every rape victim ever now. "hey, that rape. Nothing could be done. Everything happens because of previo…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 11:11 PM
2

Does it serve the same purpose as /r/MRRef?
/r/MensRights15/04/13 09:41 PM
1

Laws of the universe are a products of the universe choosing to exist. Prove the universe chose to exist. How could it choose without existing previously? Thus consciousness exists outside the universe where time/space does not apply to them. Fascinating. In this universe, there are laws. The universe 'chooses' to do the only thing it can do due to these laws. We can't go against what the universe 'chooses'. All decisions and choices were made outside this, are the initial "cause". ...Okay, so n…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 09:38 PM
1

And yet, without an initial effect there would be no cause to follow and thus no existence. I can't account for before the big bang, but in the universe as we know it, dominos push other dominos down. The universe doesn't 'choose' to do that (or if it does, it never makes a choice we can't predict with enough information). It has strict rules. We cannot break the universe's rules. Rocks are not part of an individual consciousness but rather the collective of the universe. I was talking about fre…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 09:06 PM
1

Let us assume that we exist as matter that exists within the universe as part of it. Sure. Let us also assume that the initial choice of the universe was to exist. I doubt the universe chose to exist. It isn't conscious. It doesn't do things for a reason (a greater purpose). A rock doesn't have freewill either. In the same way that cells belong to the body, they can exert free will, but not contrary to the free will of the universe of which they are a part. Cells don't have freewill. They are 'p…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 05:56 PM
1

Okay, let me try: I'm going to cause the save button to be pressed, but I'm going to choose the effect of it not saving. Or I'm going to walk out of my window and walk to the sun, because I control the effect of every cause. Or do I misunderstand you?
/r/MensRights15/04/13 05:24 PM
1

And we call this cause God?
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:08 PM
224

I didn't give a stuff.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 03:33 AM
1

What are you responding to if not a comment I made in the past? As for the Big Bang thing, I am only saying that under the current laws, things cause other things to happen. This does not mean that this applies when the universe did not exist. Bananas can't rot, because rotting requires time and there is no time according to you.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:24 PM
1

How old are you, son? I mean, "do people start shit at nightclubs durrr I didn't know that oh shit" types are kinda the ones who are very immature. Is that a thing people do? Yes, if you go out some times, you would see that people visit nightclubs. I felt it made my comment more amusing. Sorry you disagree. Obviously I know that people do that; I was just showing how stupid that is by acting like, "Noooo! You're kidding! People actually do that!?". It further distances myself from what you desc…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 10:05 PM
1

Does everything happen for a reason? Everything since the Big Bang. But ultimately it does not change the fact that the past does not exist. Nor does the future. And yet we seem to be able to communicate. And I grow older. And that green banana will turn yellow (barring any time travel shenanigans). We can record the present, and in the future, we can see what the past looked like. We can predict that two people fucking will result in a baby and can confirm that the DNA is from the parents. We c…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:11 PM
1

That is amusingly inaccurate. Seriously, a nightclub? Why the fuck would I be at a nightclub? Is that a thing people do? Go to nightclubs and start shit with random people? The point is that you flagged a video for no reason other than you didn't like it. You claimed (perhaps in jest) that you did it to feel like you had 'the power for a second there'. Hilarious. If you'd prefer me to believe you had no reason to do it, so be it. But you went out of your way to flag a video because you didn't li…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 08:53 PM
2

?? So, you flag a comparatively non-offensive video, but you enjoy South Park, and don't feel the need to confirm your power by protesting it's existence? Seriously, how do you rationalize flagging a video of a joke you don't like when you can watch South Park without calling for it to be banned? And, South Park? I love it, but not every scene is a grand statement about life.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:57 PM
4

But it was a joke... God help you if you ever find South Park.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:41 PM
6

You...flagged somebody for that?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:31 PM
1

These shows have been going on a lot longer than 4 years. Nostalgia is blinding you.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:01 PM
2

You could get arrested if you jerk off to the real thing.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:59 PM
1

So, in your world, does everything happen for absolutely no reason? If you shoot someone with a gun, should you be arrested for murder if they die, or would you say, "Past is an illusion! For all you know, that person was always dead!"? Because that is silly. As for time being an illusion, tell that to the GPS satelites that have to take into account time dilation in order to keep up with the clocks on earth. And speaking of clocks, do they never tick? Is it possible for a slow clock to exist wh…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:17 PM
1

No, the past is an objective reality. Our recollection of it doesn't matter. The present was caused by the past, and the future will be caused by the present.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:37 AM
1

You know, I always thought those quotes only happened in movies. It's fun to imagine the thought process that happened when your boss decided to say that. Was it a spur of the moment thing, or was it planned. Was it saved for the right occasion? Was there any planning of the conversation that would follow? It's just fascinating. As for me, I think I would get tired of the irresponsible behaviour, whereas the boring person would kind of fade to the background and not affect my life much.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:04 AM
1

When you are typing a response, you can click 'formatting help' at the bottom right of the typing area. This can tell you how to: quote bold italicize and other fun stuff. About the quoting, though: Don't put a '>' on every line. One is enough for a block of text, where a block is text without any blank lines.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:36 AM
1

So you do believe that women are portrayed negatively? And it depends on the context for who I'd prefer to be around. I would murder Gilligan, for instance.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:29 AM
2

Go back to the Google search. Click 'View original image' Copy Url. Go to imgur.com Click on 'Web' under 'Upload images' on the right. Paste Url. Click 'Start Upload'. Go back to reddit. Type your comment, changing 'Or....' to a hyperlink to the image Walking wallet? Once they have your bank details then the wallet won't be necessary. Set up an automatic transfer and you are good to go. [Or....](http://imgur.com/CjIIOb0) Click 'save'. Result: Walking wallet? Once they have your bank details then…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:24 AM
1

Do you think sitcoms portray women negatively? You call them 'anchors' and 'wet blankets', so you might think that. Personally, I do believe they portray men as irresponsible, but good-hearted and women as responsible and stuck with a difficult husband (who they love). This is only in a husband/wife dynamic, mind.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:04 AM
1

Gender is not the same thing as sex. If you prefer to be female but you are male, you can't change your sex by cutting off and inverting your penis. But your gender is more of a social thing. It is for interactions between people and I believe that if gender roles were not enforced, less people would be transgender. HRT and the rest is just body modification, as are piercings and tattoos. As you appear to be sarcastic (I'm a detective in training), I will say that I don't get your aversion to tr…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:24 AM
0

She is in two videos. Search 'Cry me a river' or 'Shut the fuck up' in /r/MensRights to find them.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 11:12 PM
1

I haven't seen your video (link?) but Homer, for example, is legitimately dumb. I don't care, and TV would be boring if everyone is perfect, but they do play up stereotypes.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 10:57 PM
2

Re Nancy Botwin: They do call her on her shit in the show. Those are some of the best scenes. I don't think we're supposed to really like her all the time. The show doesn't make her out to be perfect and she is hardly a feminist icon. She likes controlling men (that is, men that are controlling) which already makes her the opposite of what a 'modern feminist' would look like on tv. I'm really getting tired of how some people on /r/MensRights want to make every example of a woman doing something …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 10:52 PM
2

Well, your mind isn't some nebulous force that can bend matter to its will; it is just your brain, which follows physical laws. So when your brain makes a decision, do the laws of the universe not apply so that the chemicals and reactions in the brain behave differently from what the universe dictates? Does your 'mind' control matter? If freewill exists, you have to also believe that the laws of the universe cease at your brain.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:57 AM
1

I'm not sure how. If you believe that the universe follows physical laws, freewill can't exist.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:30 AM
0

Really? For which culture? The Inuit, for example, aren't an example of that.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 03:48 AM
2

Okay, what do you mean by 'will'?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 03:34 AM
3

And all of that is in the brain, which is a physical entity and as such obeys physical laws. Unless you believe in mind over matter, you can't change how the chemicals in your brain react.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 03:19 AM
2

The idea is that quantum mechanics is "random", so the universe is not deterministic. It has little to do with the existence of freewill. And I sort of doubt that it is actually random. It is likely governed by laws like everything else and would have behaved that way no matter what, but I'm obviously not qualified to really say anything on the topic
/r/MensRights13/04/13 02:53 AM
3

But a person is simply the result of chemical reactions which were caused by chemical reactions which were caused by even more chemical reactions. A person has no more freewill than anything else. Furthermore, If this documentary is to be believed, your brain "decides" before you are told that you decided, negating your freewill even ignoring that your brain didn't "decide" it.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 02:50 AM
2

You should stop surrounding yourself with creepy people. Seriously, all the time? :P
/r/MensRights12/04/13 08:25 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:55 PM
1

Wow. I had forgotten how much youtube looks like facebook now.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:17 AM
7

...but sarcastically.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:55 PM
1

How do you have a bad facebook page? Aren't they all the same?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:24 PM
2

Well, I'm not really familiar with those circumstances, but I don't know if this should qualify.. I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable, but I don't think prison is the best solution: The father may be forced to raise a child he doesn't want to(?), or the child would have to go to Child Services or whatever. Really, though, some context would be nice: What is this an "alternative scenario" to?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:07 PM
-4

I don't think lying should get you a prison sentence.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:42 PM
3

I understand how 'perverted' is pretty much synonymous with 'kinky' when applied to women, but I don't see that with 'creepy'. How is 'creepy' different when applied to women?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:40 PM
1

Well, if it is, I would also criticise it for claiming that it addresses things that it does not. If feminism wants to be about women, so be it; just stop pretending you want to deal with anyone else and let others in on the conversation. But I don't even know what a masculinist is or why you'd call yourself one.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 06:04 PM
1

That seems like a good compromise.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:55 PM
1

People have been making the point that keeping the accused anonymous may increase the likelihood of an unjust trial, it not being in the public eye and all. Do you think that is a concern?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:20 PM
3

Legally, I think it is, but whatever organization that does the surveys doesn't use the FBI's definition, or interpret it differently. There was a post about a response someone got from them. I'll try to find it when it isn't 2 am on school day... Edit: What do you know? Time moves forward. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1btu0n/cdcs_response_to_whether_they_will_categorize/
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:55 AM
4

I thought the FBI reworded or something so that it was gender neutral, just badly worded.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:57 AM
2

If you punched a girl in the chest and happened to hit her breast, I highly doubt that could be considered sexual assault. I wouldn't put it past someone.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:55 AM
1

I can agree with you there. At least with the titles. Do you have a link to the actual news articles?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:53 AM
1

The news stories don't reference each other. I agree there is a double standard there, but the news story in question is about how one man reacted to his wife divorcing him. If everyone reacted to divorce by putting signs up, it would cease to be newsworthy. That was all I meant.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:46 AM
1

Ehh, I dunno... People don't stay focused for long...
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:01 AM
7

Now, I realize that some people really like labels. I don't get why, but whatever. But it seems to me that the point of a label is to be desriptive, and when you label yourself as a feminist, you aren't being abundantly clear. I don't see why you'd use a big label that can mean you are anti-porn or pro-porn, anti-prostitution or pro-prostitution, if you accept that men can be raped (by women) or if you don't, etc. So I have to ask: What is attractive about the feminist label to you?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 09:37 PM
1

No shit he'd find it funny. The location of the joke doesn't change how funny it is. It does change how appropriate it is, but he did not mention that.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:57 PM
5

Okay, how about a Jew joke?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:52 AM
12

And if that gay joke was displayed proudly at the front of a classroom?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 12:03 AM
2

I'd expect you'd have to do an anonymous survey and compare the answers on that to the amount reported to the police. Not sure if they did that, though.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:45 AM
2

Well, if they don't have enough evidence to convict someone, that person shouldn't go to jail.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:06 PM
2

Nobody here seemed offended. The top comment called it 'silly'.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 08:53 PM
1

If his evilness had nothing to do with the pregnancy, I don't think that is really relevant.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 08:48 PM
1

Apologies, the news sources I read called him white, but I read now he is Hispanic. Yeah, a lot of them did. I guess it seems more racist if he was white or something. But that doesn't change the fact that Martin was killed effectively for being black. Well, I don't know enough about the case to judge that (and neither do you, really) but I imagine that's a little simplistic. He killed him because he was 'suspicious' not because he was black (though he may find black people inherently more suspi…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:16 AM
1

So do I! It's very useful in its pipefulness, but it feels useless when it used there because it is always compared to >. If you really loved it, you would let it go instead of forcing it into such a humiliating position.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:37 AM
3

The only problem is that there are a lot of groups that are all crazy asshole. See the pretty red dot ;-)
/r/MensRights08/04/13 01:20 AM
1

You read too fast. Zimmerman wasn't white. But I am interested if race is mentioned when a white person kills a black person (for other reasons). I imagine the media would like to make it seem more interesting like that (as they did with Zimmerman).
/r/MensRights08/04/13 01:18 AM
1

Yeah. You just got to stay away from children and your golden.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:58 AM
1

Sometimes. That Zimmerman case from a while back made a point out of his whiteness (even though he wasn't white).
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:54 AM
1

Off Topic: Use '>' to quote someone. <--See how pretty this is? | <--See how pretty this isn't?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:49 AM
7

OP has been posted here before. But I hadn't seen this link so thanks for that.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:09 PM
1

Okay, I've changed my position somewhat. My problem is him portraying himself as the saviour of womankind that they didn't ask for. It is okay to point out problems, even if they don't affect you, but acting like someone is incapable of saving themselves from a problem so you have to save them is annoying. My problem is, "Think of the children!"
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:09 PM
1

In one, he is portraying himself as a woman who notices a problem and goes to fix it. In another, he is portraying himself as a man saving a woman who didn't ask to be saved.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:56 PM
0

Who cares how the joke is interpreted. Maybe it really would be a joke.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:49 PM
1

Yes, but it is something that affects her. She is defending herself.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:43 PM
1

Because black-hat guy is Randal's mouth-piece. He is portraying himself as a 'white-knight' in the comic.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:31 PM
-1

I don't really know. It might be a joke and I don't know if it should be removed if it is. I'm not really even sure what hate speech is.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:29 PM
1

The victim is all women. If a women defended all women, she would be defending herself (as she is a part of all women). Because the mouthpiece is a man, he is not all women. All women did not ask him to defend her. It's black-hat guy against bad men saving all women without them asking him to do so.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:23 PM
1

I agree that 'white-knight' is an overused term. I liked the women's porn comic, but heard some call it white-knighting. I think that is a little silly. A man should be able to make a point even if it doesn't affect his gender. This comic, though, has a woman who we never meet being defended by a noble man (Randal's mouth-piece) who tells off the bad man (ie society). If Ms. irc had defended herself, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but she was only mentioned in passing.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:17 PM
1

So would you be okay with someone criticizing Randal for using a character in a comic as his mouth-piece to defend a nameless woman who may or may not have been offended by a comment on irc? I don't know, I just really dislike self-righteous people acting like they just saved someone when they didn't. See Adria Richards.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:04 PM
9

AFAIK, the Canadian legal system doesn't acknowledge rape at all.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:53 PM
1

I kind of think that he is using black-hat guy as his voice piece. Do you disagree?
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:51 PM
3

Do you agree that Randal is portraying black-hat guy in the right?
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:48 PM
3

Absolutely, 'pics plz' guy was inappropriate. But if the joke was that black hat guy was too nosy, that wasn't how anyone else interpreted it. The punchline was 'Dude, she's hot. Is she single?'. If irc girl was the one saving herself from pics plz, then it wouldn't be 'white-knighting', but she wasn't even in the comic. It was just black hat guy saving her. For example, I don't feel the same way about this one.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:20 PM
5

Who kicked down the door? Was it the irc girl? No. Who went into a self-rightious rant? Was it the irc girl? No. Who banned him from the internet? Was it the irc girl? No. The nameless, faceless irc girl wasn't even in the comic. She didn't ask black hat guy to save her from some guy on the internet, but he did it in her name.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:49 PM
1

I can't tell how serious he is in that. Later on he talks about how he gets angry(?) about how women don't listen (With a smirk and camera zoom). Obviously joking there at least.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:34 PM
3

Look for superfluous adverbs. Also if it's the opposite of what was said originally.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:28 PM
1

It's youtube. Of coarse the video is for attention. So was thunderf00t's. I see no reason to believe that she will ask for donations, and I don't see how her being female has anything to do with it.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:54 PM
3

*than
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:51 PM
3

...k?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:49 PM
3

/u/Protege1027 is referring to this. Apparently it is read verbatim from a Jezebel article. You probably agree with the article and I think it is kind of silly to blame someone for liking an article on a website, because it doesn't mean you agree with the rest of the website. It does prove that the website is popular enough to get read, though, so idk.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:46 PM
6

You should save your questions for the AMA :P But more on point, do you have a link to the video/article/comment that you are talking about? He seems to have changed his mind anyway, so I don't know why you don't like him (I have no opinion on him as I've never seen his videos. Maybe you have a reason.)
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:06 PM
1

I think he was also payed to place it there. I don't really know how reddit works, though.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 12:04 PM
1

Ummm...Did you read what I said? what is it that you are referring to? I don't see anything that meets its definition in this thread. What is this treatise you speak of?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:27 AM
1

I think we have a 24 hour delay before we are allowed to link a thread on a smaller subreddit. That may only be for the OP, though.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:25 AM
1

Have mercy! I am but a student and know not of these words! But seriously, what is it that you are referring to? This is the first time I've seen 'treatise' used in a sentence, but I don't see anything that meets its definition in this thread.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:08 AM
2

Yeah, it's a little ridiculous. I do think I remember a rule that said you couldn't question the effectiveness of feminism or something.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:35 AM
2

Isn't that a sidebar rule?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:12 AM
1

Why broaden the term to encompass everything? That is what people want to do with the word 'rape'. Forming it into a huge umbrella term. Why not? Is it worse if bigotry is caused by fear? I sincerely doubt that /u/geigerwasright was just being pedantic; he was trying to say it wasn't a phobia, so it was okay. What ever happened to saying "Tranny is considered offensive to people who are Transgender, as well as others." and leave it at that? Why call an action transphobic? There is no fear. Phobi…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:59 AM
1

Pet peeve: it's 'loses' On topic: how did a feminist lose money?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:22 AM
2

In other news, Santa is a paedophile, 'cause he loves children. Language evolves, and I see no reason to make a distinction between bigotry due to fear and bigotry due to anything else. Especially when you bring it up to say, "See? Not a problem; there was no fear."
/r/MensRights06/04/13 02:59 AM
6

You could just not ride the bike in the first place. Why do you want people to practice riding bikes with ass-biting seats?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 10:04 PM
17

It bites you in the ass if you don't.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 09:53 PM
1

Do you know her? Why do you think she's a feminist?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 02:00 PM
2

I don't think it's that nefarious. /u/qgyh2 mods a fuckload of subreddits.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:22 AM
1

That's the point of the imgur link, but not the two news stories.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:00 AM
3

I don't think most men would react by putting up a sign for the world to see. It wouldn't be news if it was that frequent.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:18 PM
1

I think it's a fair point. I can easily imagine someone saying that the man was named to be shamed, but the woman wasn't named in order to respect her privacy.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:16 PM
4

You could always reply with , "I disagree." That said, they make no secret that you're meant to agree with feminism. It's in the sidebar (for top level comments).
/r/MensRights02/04/13 10:44 PM
3

Womban is my favourite.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:58 PM
1

Obviously, but that has nothing to do with what you said.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 07:50 PM
1

??? You shouldn't leave a baby alone with a man because the same thing that would happen had you not left him alone with a baby would happen to the baby?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 03:01 AM
1

I'm not actually sure what it is I'm meant to buy, though.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:41 AM
1

I thought that was the point. Facebook posts are nothing.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:39 AM
4

And preventing gay marriage will help?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:59 PM
13

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if you aren't... Seriously? If the headline read: Man Mutilates Breasts of His Cheating Girlfriend would you say that? She was cheating, there you go. It shines a different light on violent crimes when we're told about the moral failings of the victim. It certainly makes me feel different about it. It makes you feel different about it? Just how atrocious do you think cheating to be that it affects your opinion even slightly? Jesus. She cut him with a …
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:44 PM
1

Seriously, These are pictures of what appear to be a Sado-Masochistic relationship, or modeling shots for a kink site. In fact, if anything this mocks male victims. I'm thinking that's the point.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:15 AM
0

I'm not sure that I agree with her when she says that videogames weren't marketed to boys more than girls. I wasn't playing videogames then, though, so she may be right. As an aside, she really reminds me of Alyson Hannigan.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 10:33 PM
-1

ect? The abbreviation is etc. I remember being really shocked by that in Grade 4. Same with February. Just like how scientifically African Americans are different biologically from Caucasian individuals, and the development of certain features in the brain are different in African Americans than most Caucasians. Yet if you mention this scientific fact, or bring it up, you're a racist? Could you expand on what you believe those differences to be?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:46 AM
0

Ohhhh. That makes sense.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 08:01 AM
9

I can't really believe you until you post what website this is. This would be easy to fake.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 04:17 AM
2

They don't. At least not in this case.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:49 PM
5

I think that was the therefore.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:41 PM
1

Okay, could you link the comment where you quoted me saying that all hetero male rapists will rape men?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:37 PM
-1

Then it should be easy for you to quote me. Please do so.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:25 PM
0

If some hetero male rapists would rape other men, it does not follow that all hetero male rapists would rape other men. You're making a hasty generalization. Do you have any evidence to back it up with? I don't think I said that. Could you quote what you are basing this on? It really does come across as though you're trying to make women the real victims even if it's a man who got raped. And I don't see how you see it that way. If a man gets raped, he is a victim. If a woman gets raped, she is a…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:12 PM
0

How many darts do you have? That's the number of rapists. Yes. Which board are you throwing the dart's at - the male board or the female board? That's the rapist's sexual preference. The population board. I don't know if sexual preference is that large a concern in the rapist's mind. I don't think that only gay men rape men.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:34 PM
-1

Again, even more erasing of male rape victims, making them a secondary substitute for female victims. Evidence? I don't think I am. If I throw a few darts at the board, the percentage of women present will affect how many women I hit. You are making men magnetic to the dart so that the amount of women does not matter.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:58 PM
1

I said 'might'. But could you please answer my edit? I'd probably understand you better.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:56 PM
5

No, I get that. I think my issue lies with the word 'too'. It makes it about women and staples men onto it.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:55 PM
1

Sorry to be a bother, but do you have a link or the name of the survey?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:53 PM
1

Even a more general source (Men report being victimized significantly less) would be good. I'm not sure if we should blame wikipedia or the fewer number of studies on men.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:48 PM
2

It just makes men seem like an afterthought. Like, "Oh yeah, and this happens to men too..."
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:44 PM
12

The reason, I assume, is because it was talking about contraception and condoms are the only one that the woman and men can be sure is being used. It shouldn't be there, though.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 10:46 AM
3

And so enthusiastically!
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:30 AM
-1

I'm afraid I can't follow you. But what if it's the same amount of rapists raping the same amount of people no matter what? Why should we believe this? You could double the female population and it'd still be 56% male. I suppose... The only ways I can conceive of the female victim count going up with additional women is if the number of lesbian rapists goes up along with it. Some rapists might prefer raping women but have to make do with raping men. Of course, I'm not working under the premise t…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:42 AM
4

Do you have a source on this? (I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense; I'd just like some more evidence than 'common sense')
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:35 AM
3

I really hate the whole 'men are victims too' thing. It's annoying how it has to be related back to women like that. I'm sure it also happens the other way, but it's still grating.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:34 AM
3

Evidently, some are desperate to stop you.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:26 AM
11

Okay, so I'm not known for my fashion sense, but what's wrong with briefs from a plastic pack at Target?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:25 AM
1

We all know what should be changed?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:50 AM
0

Okay, fine. The MRM is perfect and agrees on everything. My original comment was benign to the point of meaninglessness and your continued attempts to defend yourself against a position I did not voice (indeed, I even agreed with you) has left me with little reason to continue this discussion. So, goodbye.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:43 AM
1

I assume /u/FERFALATOR was saying the linked article was chickenshit. The article agrees with you.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:34 PM
1

Hair colour? Speech at conference or video recorded at home?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:39 PM
3

What's wrong with it?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:36 PM
1

Link to the post and discussion in which a significant portion of the group has discussed this? It was on Youtube. I don't have a link. It might have been a MWM video. The attack I'm seeing is the assertion that MRAs want to remove voting rights. I asserted that some did. Don't go all 'no true Scotsman' on me. There are traditionalists in the MRM. This was your comment. You are contradicting yourself. That is what they said. I didn't say it was a common view among MRAs. I don't know how well tha…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:14 PM
1

So is your description of it. Then I'm not talking about you? Because it was explicitly said that women's right to vote should be rescinded. MRAs have pointed out that men's voting rights have had to be won and repeatedly defended using the practical application of male disposability. Women have made no equal effort, nor equal sacrifice for our voting privilege. Women demanded it, and got it acknowledged as a right by various nations' leaderships - something which would not have happened if men …
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:39 AM
-3

Wait, what? I don't see how these two things are at all connected. What kinds of rights should women have less of? Voting, I think. Their reasoning was that when men are in power, it's 'fair' for everyone, but when women are in power, men are disadvantaged, and that it was therefore required for women to lose the right to vote in order for there to be a fair society. All bullshit, of course. Also, what is MHRM? Google only says that it stands for "Master of Human Resources Management," which see…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:31 AM
4

I don't know about that. I've heard some people say that male disposability is too ingrained in our biology to be addressed and therefore women should be given less rights. I don't know how well that view was received, or how common it is, but I'm not sure if you can call it a monolith. I mean, now there is a MHRM and an MRM.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 02:00 AM
4

If you wouldn't mind, could you link to some things you found on /r/Feminism? Assuming you downvoted it, it should be in /u/OztinL/disliked.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:50 AM
2

...and done.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:37 AM
0

YOU SEE THAT ASTERISK!?! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!?!?!? Seriously though, even the way he wrote it sounds like he edited it later.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 08:33 AM
0

wow
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:09 AM
2

Are you being serious?
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:22 AM
16

Maybe, I can't really tell. The lesbian thing was weird, though.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 04:59 AM
6

I don't know what they were trying to say with that... Is it, "Anyone can be a victim," or, "Jesus, dude! she's 110 pounds!"
/r/MensRights09/03/13 04:54 AM
16

You should probably x-post them until /r/MensRants is large enough to be known by anyone. Assuming that it isn't poor form to x-post other peoples' posts.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 04:48 AM
4

Did you mean tvtropes.org? I look forward to reading your critique.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 02:20 AM
1

It's even just that. Obviously biology is a factor when it comes to physical differences but, I mean, the concept of "woman saving a man" is in of itself something that the majority of consumers would consider unrelatable or impossible. We live in a culture of male disposable and "alpha through assertiveness". Realistically, most women wouldn't go to the lengths to save a man that men are taught to go to to save a woman(statistically, if a man was to get kidnapped and it was up to his wife to "r…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 01:40 AM
1

See title.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:53 AM
1

...which means they have reason to go after people who are drunk. If you are dressed slutty and not drunk...
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:51 PM
1

Every book is about how the actions of the plot affect the protagonist. In this case, the actions of the plot are centered around how the community reacts to the rape trial.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:10 PM
2

You may be failing to sum up what Farrell says, but what does that have to do with the type of clothing?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:27 AM
4

Oh, I understand the fancy watch thing. If someone demonstrates they have money, it is more efficient for you, as a criminal, to target them. On the other hand, if you are a rapist, there is little reason to go after someone who is dressed slutty as opposed to anyone else. That said, if certain actions increase your risk, it shouldn't be taboo to make people aware of it; I just don't think that is the case here.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 05:48 AM
2

Don't know why you were downvoted. However, I am pretty sure that all that was the main focus of the plot. If not, what was?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 04:35 AM
16

Do you have a study that shows that people that dress a certain way are more likely to be victimized? I don't have a problem with telling people not to get blackout drunk because that makes you more vulnerable, but I don't think that the comparatively rare rapes by a stranger are that affected by the clothes the victim wears.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 04:19 AM
3

In this case, I agree.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:22 AM
3

The other 50% isn't innocent in this, you know. Try not to place all the blame on only half of the population.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:51 AM
2

In this case, I agree. However, it is not uncommon for women to post here and apologize on behalf of women. The difference is the focus: I'm sorry means I wish that didn't happen to you; I apologize means I feel guilty over what happened to you. You shouldn't feel guilty over what those of similar genitalia do, which is why /r/MensRights 'bitches' at them.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:47 AM
1

Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with it or anything. It's just amusing, is all.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 11:54 PM
2

You sound sarcastic?
/r/MensRights05/03/13 10:46 PM
1

A little ironic to be written for Double X Science, though...
/r/MensRights05/03/13 10:44 PM
1

I can't take your word for it; I don't know you.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:02 PM
2

You should have humored him and prove that racism still exists.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:01 PM
2

It was implied. The dash followed chrome, tying the two ideas together.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 06:43 PM
2

That isn't chrome specific. Actually, every browser I've used can do it
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:15 PM
16

That's a very simplistic view of feminism. Feminism goal isn't 'fighting for equality'; it's fighting against the patriarchy, etc. Feminism is an ideology (hence the -ism). This is why there is 'feminist theory', etc. I agree that /r/MensRights sometimes fails to make the distinction between feminism and sexism, but the actions of many feminists are sexist.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:10 AM
3

Not sure if trolling (your other posts don't seem it), but why do you think that?
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:20 AM
3

It is a comic...
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:17 AM
44

Technically, all you can say is that she was a sexist counselor. There may be overlap between sexism and feminism, but not all sexists are feminists.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:13 AM
1

An interesting though experiment I'm sure, but I don't see that in the OP? The OP seems to be more, "Let's have sex...just not that" than "hehehe...we shouldn't...".
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:09 AM
2

The OP did say no.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:06 AM
3

I read 'aroused' as 'had an erection'. It's possible to be aroused and want to have sex, just not with dildos in your ass. You are right, though. Thinking about it more, not enough information is present to make a judgement.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 12:36 AM
3

That's not how reductio ad absurdum works. It doesn't need to be absurd. Do you think saying, "I want a handjob." means "I would also have no problem with having you shove a baseball up my I ass.". Because it is absurd if you think that is the case.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 12:32 AM
1

Are you seeing a different image than I am? Because that made no sense for the one I saw.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:57 PM
5

Does that mean she consents to having a baseball shoved up her ass? I agree that you don't need consent for absolutely everything, but consent for everything isn't implied by consent for one thing. Especially if you single out one thing as something you haven't given consent to.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:56 PM
7

"[...] wants to do something you're not comfortable with so you say no over and over. But [she] does it anyway." This seems to state it outright. Do you disagree?
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:51 PM
2

Are you saying that the OP is clearly not rape, or that the OP is not clearly rape?
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:42 PM
2

You should x-post this to /r/MRMemes.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 11:20 AM
1

Ahh, okay. Really, you should know immediately; it is on AVfM.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:50 PM
0

Do men handle breakups well?
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:09 AM
1

Alas, I am not a subscriber to Journal of Interpersonal Violence, nor am I in the position to pay the $25.00 required to purchase it, so I will refrain from commenting on it. However, I assume the reason she supposedly thinks that is because the victim is not penetrated. I find it amusing how important penetration is to them (penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth). What? It doesn't count until they get their tongue past your anus? Unrelated, but I don't really know if 'rape' should be …
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:30 AM
-4

I am confused both by this post and the reactions to it.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:08 PM
5

Holy shit, you weren't kidding. Maybe it's all a secret plan to reinforce the patriarchy through uncomfortable staring.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:59 PM
3

[...]or someone, male or female, penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth. I can't begin to understand their reasoning for not including 'penis' when they include 'vagina'.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:47 PM
1

Do you have a time-frame to look at? It's kind of a long video...
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:21 AM
2

I don't know much about the case, but I have no idea how the husband or children could be unaware of eight(!) births and burials/being hidden in the garage. I mean, she isn't thin, but God damn. I would like to believe that I would notice at least once if my wife/mother was pregnant that many times.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:11 PM
29

Mostly it feels like it was written by two people and the editor had to add a sentence to ease the transition between the two. I just don't know how a single person could start writing a paragraph with so little cohesion.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:04 PM
60

It was weird.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:28 PM
-2

Well, I've read too much manga. That makes little sense backwards.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 04:56 AM
2

How about kilts?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 10:46 PM
1

If you had not had it done as a child, would you have had it done as an adult?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:40 AM
1

You didn't decide that though. Retroactively you are saying that you would have decided to, but you didn't decide because you couldn't decide. It was decided for you. You saying that you were glad that someone did something to you without your prior consent can seem like you support it happening to others without their prior consent; they would rather it now than 18 years later, right? I'm not saying that you are saying that, just saying that it could appear that way.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:30 PM
1

I see what your saying, but when you say that you would have rather been circumcised as a child, it can sound like that is an argument for infant circumcision.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:29 PM
1

The thing is, you weren't aware as a child, so you couldn't make that choice. It is not unreasonable to assume you support others being circumcised against their will when you would support your own.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 06:32 AM
2

Young Turks. *sigh*
/r/MensRights19/02/13 06:17 AM
4

May I ask why you identify with the label? I mean, I get that you identify with problems that feminism tries to fix, but why not just support those efforts rather than giving yourself a label, implying you support all others?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 01:05 AM
8

'Likewise' should be replaced with 'Conversely', though.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:59 AM
5

"Should women be shamed for wearing dresses as men are?" I don't assume anyone's first thought is, "Yes. Equality FTW!" It's, "No. And neither should men."
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:43 AM
20

Do you agree with child support (or some other system to pay for children) if both parents wish to be part of the child's life, but one would otherwise bear most of the child-bearing responsibilities? Assuming visitation rights are enforced, etc)
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:17 AM
2

Yeah, this is a pretty pointless argument. Him being a hypothetical racist rancher, though, does allow us to prescribe what he advocates. Really, it was a weird analogy, I'll admit.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:42 AM
1

It doesn't say that? Where are you reading '7-10 days at most'?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:25 PM
2

I would be interested to see this medical advice that states that it takes a week (and never any longer) to heal. Do you seriously believe that healing times are that predictable?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:15 PM
1

That's set in stone is it?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:37 AM
1

Every random person on the internet I've seen gave a week at least. I've had scrapes that last for more than a week. Why would slicing of skin be healed instantly?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:02 AM
5

I'm not commenting on reality; I'm commenting on the poster. The poster does not say Women who see DV as children are more likely to abuse. It only talks about men. It isn't a stretch to assume the abuse this child sees is going to be husband on wife when we are told that he will grow up to beat his wife, and his son will see.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:43 AM
2

Boy. Not an assumption. I think we agree? Boy grow up. Not unreasonable to assume. Man See above. Man beat wife. "When I grow up, I will beat my wife." Boy "Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives."
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:35 AM
2

How are the differences much greater, if you don't mind my asking? The intentions behind it are the only thing I can think of now.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:41 AM
6

Not really. We have a poster about boys who see DV being more likely to commit it as men. And it talks about breaking the cycle. What cycle did you think they were talking about?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:33 AM
9

Boy. Boy grow up. Man. Man beat wife. Boy.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:31 AM
1

Rancher hates black people. Does not advocate killing them. Has not killed them Girl hates men. Advocates killing them. Has not killed them. You can't say the rancher is worse as he hasn't actually killed anyone.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:06 AM
1

What do you feel he should have done to avoid the stalking?
/r/MensRights11/02/13 06:50 PM
2

Why?
/r/MensRights10/02/13 08:07 AM
-1

It was a good word though.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 04:18 AM
6

Do you believe that emotional abuse justifies murder in some cases? I haven't been following the case, so I am interested as to why you think that he was emotionally abusing her. I tend to think that expecting someone to convert to your religion, to be a little...sick, so are you talking about that? *EDIT: Oh, he was seeing two women at the same time. He seems to have been using her a bit. Reading the timeline posted below, she seems to have been emotionally abusing him as well.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 01:33 AM
2

We can compare its legality, though. No type of female infant genital cutting is legal in the US (Except maybe for health reasons, I don't know), even types that are objectively better than circumcision. It is unfair to bring up genital cutting of female infants as if it is always worse than infant male genital cutting; the only reason is to downplay circumcision. The worst types of FGM may be worse than the worst types of MGM, but it is not especially relevant in the First World. I would also b…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 07:09 PM
0

Was Jessa portrayed as the villain in this instance? I would kind of expect a show called Girls to be filled with entitled women acting bitchy. I haven't watched the show, though; maybe it's great.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:32 PM
12

A. You might be the worst Googler of all time. B. Do you have a rebuttal?
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:34 AM
-1

When it says 'you', it makes it seem like they are talking about the reader. I don't know how to fix that. Maybe adding a title would help.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 06:51 PM
1

Oh FFS, people exaggerate. Was your comment really worth the effort it took to copy and paste a quote just to reply 'LOL.'?
/r/MensRights28/01/13 08:09 PM
2

She didn't cut off his balls. She convinced him to kill himself with the lie that she would hide the evidence of his paedophilia. She just pretended to cut his balls off.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 07:57 PM
3

Wow. That's just embarrassing.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:59 PM
0

Well, Bayonetta... But ignoring that, her focus has shifted to videogames. Otherwise it would be misogyny in movies.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:25 PM
2

Have you played it? Because I've heard alternately that the game was just bad and that it was just impossible to live up to the hype. Is it worse than, say, Call of Duty?
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:23 PM
2

Yeah, the video game is much more likely what she is talking about. She did have a kickstarter for them.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:18 PM
0

nooooooo not my Ellen Page :( I have enough problems being a fan of Whedon without this!
/r/MensRights28/01/13 04:00 AM
10

I read the transcript before, but the video brings out a lot more nuance than can be seen in text. For instance, the rights of the child is now burned in my mind.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 03:58 AM
2

Is there a point to doing that?
/r/MensRights27/01/13 06:27 PM
4

There seems to be no objective to all the resources, time, and money spent on this device other than torturing men for the sake of "compassion."
/r/MensRights27/01/13 06:10 PM
2

Or loose for lose. Eurgh.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 06:22 AM
1

I don't believe they were assaulted legally or otherwise. I'm not saying it is okay to send those emails, but unless the sender was threatening to do something, it isn't a threat. or would you prefer to focus instead on the meaning and looking for ways to forge solutions... We are discussing the meaning? And it seems to me that to find solutions, the problem must be defined. Honestly, though, we disagree on the importance of using the correct words to describe a situation, and we probably won't …
/r/MensRights26/01/13 11:56 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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