TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Capable-Mushroom99 Archive

View 6 posts and 793 comments by Capable-Mushroom99 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

It’s a garbage study. And obviously nobody committed suicide because they had to be living to complete the survey 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:59 AM
-1

Sure, and I bet it was wimmin that took your job.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:37 AM
0

Yes, you are paranoid. No one has been drafted for 50 years
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:35 AM
5

In my state if the ex is living with someone then alimony ends. I’m assuming you dont want to go diving in their trash for the evidence so the only choice is to get a private investigator that your lawyer recommends. I guess you can theoretically collect evidence yourself but the PI will know how to do it all legally, show they live in the same house they both get bills there etc.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:32 AM
0

There is no law allowing a draft. If you don’t want one then vote for people that won’t pass such a law. Damn you clowns just give in to your raging anxiety and imagine every bad thing that might ever happen. Cheer up and enjoy life.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:23 AM
-1

So you’re saying you have no idea if it actually affected whether you got the job. You don’t in fact have to produce any documentation and they don’t check. Things like a drivers license you just have to check a box on your application in certain states but it’s just a reminder to sign up if you haven’t ; yet idiots claim that is being “denied” a drivers license. Student loans used to be the same but now that check box is removed by law so there’s not even an implication that you have to sign up…
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:20 AM
0

You really have no idea. No, the rules haven’t been the same “every” time there’s been a draft, they’ve been different every time. The ages have varied from 17-44 and have even included women in some occupations. Men as old as 64 have been required to register.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 07:13 AM
1

Obviously you never lived in a mining town.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 05:06 PM
-4

What a clown 😂😂😂. A draft requires a specific bill to be passed by Congress ; the last such bill expired over 50 years ago. The fact that you are supposed to sign up for selective service is irrelevant; it’s a meaningless list because Congress can draft anyone, any age, any sex. And no, you don’t have to sign up for selective service to get a drivers license (issued by state, not federal govt), or get federal aid, a passport or anything else. This is a lie repeated by idiots. Try to find even on…
/r/MensRights02/12/24 05:05 PM
-21

Seriously? Talk about deluded.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 01:41 PM
-2

I don’t really see the problem with womens universities as long as it was possible to also have men only universities (not that I think many men in Korea actually would choose this). It’s very different from the US because you already have separate classes for boys and girls, then when you go to university you have this strange dynamic where most of the men are older because they have to do 2 years military service. So 18 yo women arrive having attended girl only classes and now they are mixed i…
/r/MensRights02/12/24 09:45 AM
-20

This is irrelevant. The fact that something is constitutional doesn’t make it mandatory or even legal. For anyone to be drafted that would require Congress to pass a new law and the president to sign it. The law could specify whoever they want as eligible, men only, women only, blond haired people under 5 feet tall.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 08:29 AM
-28

There is no draft/ conscription it hasn’t been legal since 1973. Selective service also expired in 1973 but was revived by Jimmy Carter in 1980 by presidential order; I would think that it can similarly be ended by presidential order.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 08:21 AM
0

Now if she called it his solar sex panel that would be harassment.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 02:39 AM
2

Sinead O’Connor says hi ( from her grave).
/r/MensRights02/12/24 02:35 AM
-7

This must be somewhere that everyone gets paid in cash because it just can’t work like that in most of the world. Back in the days when people were paid in cash men would just go spend money before they went home on pay day, and the wife got what was left over.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 02:29 AM
9

Tbh I would forget my birthday if people didn’t remind me. I don’t really like presents or people being nice to me for no particular reason. But I still get calls, people visit, it’s what you do in a family. Every place I worked someone had a list of the birthdays and we would take turns making a cake. At the holidays one of the senior people would always have a dinner party for the employees that couldn’t be with family. It was just part of the culture.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 08:43 PM
3

The POSCO act specifically states that it is gender neutral and the accused can be a man or woman even if the act is penetrative sex. This has been confirmed in the highest courts. It’s difficult to know what the deal is with this judge without some details of the discussion. The only part of the act that is at all ambiguous in the case of a male victim is the presumption of guilt; if there is physical evidence from the victim that penetration took place then the accused is actually presumed gui…
/r/MensRights29/11/24 08:26 PM
1

I do know there are a lot of whiny child men.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 06:51 PM
4

Pets are abused in the cycle of family violence? wtf … this sounds like somebody played a prank on the government and they were too stupid to realize. “Crikey mate, I left me gator in the dunny and he just bit the missus. Devo.”
/r/MensRights29/11/24 05:37 PM
6

Just another waste of money like the various women's initiatives. Grifters get paid to talk nonsense and make plans that have no scientific basis. The fact that they listed testicular cancer (a 100% curable disease in which screening is proven harmful) shows a total ignorance of medicine. Take all the money that would be spent and put it towards running randomized trials of some of the many useless health initiatives that already got implemented with no evidence they work.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 03:35 PM
1

You are just making up a fiction that never happened. You sound like some sicko woman hater that thinks this woman deserved to die.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 02:58 PM
1

Where is this “if”? 🤡🤡🤡 OP is mad because the police arrest someone acting suspicious when there’s a dead woman.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 02:57 PM
1

That is ridiculous. If everyone was “innocent” then no one would ever be tried and found guilty. Someone who is a murderer is guilty from the moment they kill; they are not entitled to be treated as if they are innocent except in a very limited legal sense.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 02:55 PM
-1

No, I never suggested anything other than you shouldn’t be angry that the police investigate.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 01:41 AM
168

Teacher never showed cartoons of prophet Mohammed.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 01:18 AM
-7

No it doesn’t. According to OP “his crime was being in a relationship”. If you agree then you are supporting the idea that the police shouldn’t even be investigating. You also don’t understand the difference between giving someone legal protections before they are convicted with actually being innocent. If he did the murder he is never innocent at any part of the process.
/r/MensRights29/11/24 12:11 AM
-20

Is every murderer innocent then? Do we just let them go before even putting them on trial, because of course they’re “innocent”. That seems to be what you want. He lied to police and deleted texts, he’s been accused by family members, of course they are going to investigate.
/r/MensRights28/11/24 10:54 PM
-20

Dude, he was accused, he was there, he was angry because she passed the pilot exam and he failed, he lied about why he delayed before calling the police, he deleted all of his texts. It’s completely possible it was murder or suicide until the police investigate.
/r/MensRights28/11/24 10:48 PM
-6

Amazing how you know he is not guilty even before the police investigate. The actual accusation is that he murdered her and made it look like a suicide.
/r/MensRights28/11/24 06:00 PM
0

This is just a fantasy and the incident mentioned at the start didn’t even involve a woman that needed CPR, she had only fainted. In Korea more young people are learning CPR than ever before (especially after the crushing incident a couple of Halloweens ago). If you have a CPR certificate you face no legal risk unless you do something truly outrageous, and the chance that you will ever need to do CPR on a young woman is very low. If it ever happens you simply call over another bystander and talk…
/r/MensRights28/11/24 05:08 PM
2

Factually you are wrong. He was acquitted because the charges were not proven, not because the charges were falsified. This is not a legal basis for a criminal action against her. There is only a single witness who in fact did not hear everything. So everything you say is exaggerated. You also seem unaware that she did return for the final hearing and currently lives in India. Do I think she lied? Yes. Can that be proved beyond doubt? No.
/r/MensRights28/11/24 02:57 PM
6

France has some very extreme privacy regulations, including others that can make simple searches on the internet illegal. I have experience trying to get the main privacy organization (CNIL) to ease restrictions for scientific research (done with informed consent) but they are quite irrational. So the law around DNA testing is part of this privacy fear where everyone is assumed to refuse consent for their own good and regardless of their own actions. In practice the law concerning paternity test…
/r/MensRights28/11/24 02:43 PM
9

So there’s a few hundred nutcases. Considering the stupid conspiracy theories we’ve had in the US in the last decade this seems like a very minor and ignorable one. Plus we all know the internet died in 2016 and all this stuff is being posted by government controlled bots to manipulate us 😉
/r/MensRights28/11/24 07:13 AM
-3

Singh is able to bring a defamation case if he wants. The reason the court won’t authorize criminal charges against her is that would require that she be found to have lied in the previous case. But in fact he was found not guilty because the balance of evidence against him was insufficient for conviction, not because the judge found him to be innocent.
/r/MensRights28/11/24 07:04 AM
212

I guess that’s one way to get female privilege.
/r/MensRights28/11/24 02:27 AM
2

Ok so you are clear of any responsibility right now. Of course as long as you have the citizenship the rules can be changed to make you draft eligible, but that’s no different than in the US.
/r/MensRights27/11/24 11:29 PM
1

In terms of the law, as a US citizen you must leave and re-enter the country on your US passport. You have no reason to show a Croatian passport at all. Even if the Croatian government discovered you are a citizen you are too old for military service anyway (the limit is 27 or 28). The other potential issue is that if you are mid 30s or older you may have dodged military service in the past (up to 2008). I don’t know if that is punished at all but you might want to check; it seems unlikely since…
/r/MensRights27/11/24 11:00 PM
-4

I don’t watch that kind of show so Ill have to take your word for it. But if as you say it’s written by women for women then they are hardly going to write the lead characters as evil women cheating on their nice husbands/bf. Would men watch the popular action movies if the “heroes” were wife beaters that were killing innocent people? It would be pretty sad if women actually thought those movies represented real life, but then it could be a lot worse if men thought they could shoot hundreds of c…
/r/MensRights27/11/24 10:30 PM
-2

You know what you did. And no the report didn’t change, you quoted exact figures from the report just not the correct ones because they didn’t make the story you wanted to tell.
/r/MensRights26/11/24 07:47 AM
0

Here is the same report on the CDC web site. Your descriptions of some of the data are wrong and obviously cherry picked. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/46305/cdc_46305_DS1.pdf?download-document-submit=Download rates that you say are for the previous 12 months are not. They are normalized to an annual rate but not for any particular time relative to the survey. you quote rates for only a subset of IPV (p118 and 122). The correct overall rates from those same pages are: against women 6.6% per ye…
/r/MensRights26/11/24 01:59 AM
1

Reality says it works out on average. But some people can’t stop themselves from complaining. What tools do you think women have that men don’t? Don’t want a child and your partner does … persuade them, don’t have sex, deceive them or get divorced . Want a child and your partner doesn’t? Persuade them, deceive them or if you’re really twisted force them. Anything there that women can do but men can’t? No.
/r/MensRights25/11/24 06:29 PM
0

I’m going to assume you understand how sex works and that both men and women have options to ensure that the woman doesn’t get pregnant. I also linked an article (one of many) showing that before they start families both men and women want to have a similar number of children. Is it a surprise then two adults can work things out between themselves?
/r/MensRights25/11/24 07:07 AM
-16

No, the terms have nothing to do with each other. If someone is an incel that has nothing to do with mens rights, it has to do with being angry at women because you can’t get sex. Feminazis by definition support an extreme version of feminism but presumably have no problem getting sex since they want to abort as many babies as possible.
/r/MensRights25/11/24 06:54 AM
-1

You are quoting what OP claims the paper says. It doesn’t, but if you want to know why he says this then ask him.
/r/MensRights25/11/24 06:33 AM
-2

The first article you linked said nothing specific to women. The second happens to be a study of women to which you add your own bizzaro interpretation. There is no claim that only women determine how many children they have and the paper even discusses policies that would benefit men in having the number of children they want. It’s one of many studies and there are plenty of studies of both men and women (example provided). Numerous studies show that men and women want an almost identical numbe…
/r/MensRights25/11/24 05:48 AM
0

Economics isn’t STEM; it is the most rigorous of the social sciences and there are some very good mathematicians in the field. The are also plenty of hand wavy types.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 04:19 PM
1

It’s sort of like asking why are the porn subs full of horny men.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 04:00 PM
3

Average salary 32k. Being interested is not the same as actually taking a job that pays half what you could make doing an unskilled job that doesn’t require a degree, and a third of what you should make with science degree.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 04:50 AM
2

She’s a porn actress so it’s probably made up, but since they were both minors it’s only rape when the guy says it is.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 04:37 AM
2

Lol this is about as serious as when women say it (not at all).
/r/MensRights24/11/24 04:18 AM
-8

No, a few soft sciences where it’s 50/50 doesn’t cancel out all the fields where it’s 2,3,5-1 men.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 07:31 PM
-2

Is nursing really STEM? It’s like saying the guy that changes your oil is a mechanical engineer.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 07:26 PM
2

Over 6000 dowry deaths per year sounds pretty unsafe to me. 60000 kidnappings or abductions. 40% of men (and women) thinks it’s ok to beat your wife if she cooks a bad meal or doesn’t keep the house clean. There are probably countries where women are less safe from strangers but in terms of the domestic situation it’s pretty bad. All government data btw, talked about by Modi and other politicians that I wouldn’t describe as bleeding heart feminists.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 07:23 PM
-1

We’ll see what happens next year. The faculty just found out that a quarter of applicants are getting preferences based on athletics and they were not happy. Seems like there will be a big cutback in the athletic teams and I suspect that there will be quite a few white women (especially legacies) that will struggle to get in without the preference.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 09:00 AM
-16

That just isn’t true. It’s at least 2:1 men and far higher than that in math, physics or any kind of engineering involving hands on work. And that’s with the womens numbers being pulled up a lot by the kids of Asian immigrants. I hire a lot of PhDs in my field and of the women there was exactly 1 born in the US and not Asian.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 08:51 AM
1

That doesn’t really make sense. Any type of “truth drug” would only be useful if the answer was objectively verifiable. Otherwise you have no idea if the answer they give is actually true or just a delusion.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 08:15 AM
-11

The answer to deception and lies is not to invent your own lies. The fact that you don’t think a post about acknowledging the truth is genuine suggests it’s you that is acting in bad faith. You are like a little kid caught doing something wrong and trying to excuse it by saying how bad someone else is.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 07:58 AM
-8

You’re just deflecting by talking about the past and then repeating the usual lie about the definition not being clear. Neither is relevant to the fact that data from the last 10 years uses a gender neutral definition and there is no reason to deceive people about that.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 07:52 AM
1

No, both are rape. Has such a thing even happened; I don’t think children are going to have access to scheduled drugs.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 07:48 AM
11

Absolutely. In hard science and engineering women usually get paid a premium because there are so few qualified women and companies are desperate to seem like they aren’t discriminating.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 05:28 AM
9

Either they mean 26% less or the author is an idiot.
/r/MensRights23/11/24 05:25 AM
5

Some of the people getting these bailouts are doctors and other people making a big pile of money who don’t need it. Also if you are crazy enough to borrow 200k to get a degree in some useless subject where you get a job paying 50k you are too stupid to deserve other people paying your debt. I’m not sure I would borrow that much for med school unless I was so good I knew I could selected into the highest paying specialties like dermatology or plastic surgery. With 200k in debt a family practitio…
/r/MensRights23/11/24 05:23 AM
25

Sowell never denied that wage discrimination (sex, race or other factors) occurs, he just made the point that it’s so irrational from an economic perspective that no company could sustain it. Imagine if your company could replace you with a woman that was just as good at your job but would work for 15% less. Do you think they wouldn’t do that in a second?
/r/MensRights22/11/24 05:04 PM
10

No, not really. I remember in 2016 after the election we had lots of people claiming that Gay men were being threatened and attacked by MAGA types. That was bs as well. There are ignorant people that are misandrists or homophobes or whatever, but they don’t need elections to reveal themselves.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 04:55 PM
0

I’m the reality check for you weirdos that just make shit up.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 04:47 PM
1

Yes, it is. I linked a paper where they show that men and women compliment equally when they have a particular goal in mind ( dating, obtaining some benefit), but when just interacting socially without any particular purpose women are much more likely to compliment each other on appearance. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216611001330?via%3Dihub
/r/MensRights22/11/24 04:46 PM
0

RULES of soccer (football): a goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the posts and under the crossbar YOU: it doesn’t count when you put the ball into your own goal ME: 🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights22/11/24 04:24 PM
3

You have to be careful with research like that. Just as with studies of women and DV or rape, the definitions are often exaggerated to include things that no rational person would call abuse. If they show non-reporting of incidents where the man had to be treated in a hospital, yes I’ll believe. If it could be something like harsh words were said, then I can’t take it seriously.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:20 PM
1

Yes women compete with other women; that doesn’t change the fact that there is a social convention that they act in a performative way to pretend they don’t.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:11 PM
0

You make a bizarre interpretation of words with no evidence and claim it is correct. So lying.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:07 PM
0

No, once they ignore the Texas order it goes to the US Supreme Court and certain victory. California know perfectly well their law is not constitutional, which is why they wrote that part of the law as severable from the rest of the bill. They know they will get slapped down eventually and just want to virtue signal to their idiot constituents for a while.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 04:54 AM
0

50% of marriages don’t end in divorce. That’s a misleading statistic based on statistically invalid estimates and outright guesswork. Even 20 years ago the actual rate was about 1 in 3 and divorce rates have dropped steadily since then. If you are an educated person and get married this year you are much more likely to stay married for life than get divorced. Other factors also reduce your chance of divorce. Being a man; 30% less chance of getting a divorce. Yes, it’s true, women getting divorce…
/r/MensRights22/11/24 04:42 AM
7

I think this is right. Also I wouldn’t blame the judge because prosecutors in that county are the kind that are so woke that everyone except white men have an excuse for breaking the law. It’s very difficult for a judge to go against the prosecutors recommendation; my guess is the 30 year suspended sentence was his way of signaling he would have liked a much more severe sentence but was forced to accept the jail time offered by the prosecutor.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:47 AM
-8

I mostly agree with you, but my comments were about the reality of the current legal situation. Some people have to be protected, for example if they are a child or mentally handicapped, but otherwise they need to take personal responsibility. That means if you are conscious and physically in control of your body then you have to accept the choices you made even if you regret them later.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:30 AM
0

And the Texas Supreme Court said, come back if they do that and we’ll stop them. Instead he flipped out because they refused to act on a crime that hadn’t occurred and now it has happened he has lost his mind and won’t go back to court.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:23 AM
1

No, you are still wrong. But please try to convince me with an FBI document that explicitly states that made to penetrate is not included. I’m willing to change my opinion, are you?
/r/MensRights22/11/24 03:16 AM
16

Not sure what point you are trying to make. You do realize that men would also rate other men lower than women? It has nothing to do with any objective evaluation of attractiveness, it’s just a social convention where women exaggerate praise of other women to show friendliness and that they aren’t competing, but men do the opposite when evaluating other men because they are signaling to both men and women that they aren’t gay. There’s also a question of whether men and women are even judging the…
/r/MensRights21/11/24 07:47 PM
-122

Sorry but this is factually wrong. A man also cannot consent while drunk. If you want to argue that the law is often not applied correctly when both are drunk that would be a fair statement, but I guarantee that if she says she was sober and consented and you say you were drunk she will get prosecuted (in the US).
/r/MensRights21/11/24 07:25 PM
0

YOU: “In the wiki article, it shows that he showed he made those payments” Wiki article: “ on August 3, 2021, Brown awarded full custody of the twins to Georgulas, as Younger had "failed to timely make the payments of child support, medical support and interest as ordered".[13]” That’s L as in LEARN TO READ
/r/MensRights21/11/24 03:00 AM
1

Whatever. You want to turn down equal rights because the title upsets you? 🙄. OP was still wrong.
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:53 AM
0

Repeating the same lie about the FBI definition; it does include “made to penetrate”. As stated when the definition was changed: “ Effectively, the revised definition expands rape to include both male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape” https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/resource-pages/rape-addendum I don’t know why people think they can make their own interpretation to fit their agenda. If pe…
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:50 AM
1

It means paying his agreed share of health insurance. The child wasn’t receiving anything to trans him and hadn’t even started to go through puberty.
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:16 AM
-1

Look, you can believe whatever crazy things feed your hatred of women. But if mens rights was full of people like you nothing would ever be achieved because 95% of the population can see that you are irrational and believe obviously false things. Sorry that you don’t like it but people like me have to tell the truth; not every man is right every time and being able to tell what is true is the only way to make progress.
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:14 AM
0

Dude you’ve been smoking too much. You’re quoting my words as evidence against what I wrote in my previous post and both of which paraphrase the wiki article.
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:09 AM
1

False. As explained in the article “ It forbids anyone from accessing facilities on federal property that do not correspond with their biological sex, and it provides precise definitions of what it means to be female or male.” Text from the bill is shown in the article. So OP has just jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on the name of the bill.
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:03 AM
-4

You didn’t even bother to know the facts did you. Your assumptions are false because since 2022 when he went no contact he had a Texas court order allowing unsupervised contact. The supervision order is from California and only just was issued (according to him; we actually have no evidence and he definitely made other false statements). I also explained why your assumptions about what California can legally do are false. Your ignorance and irrational arguments don’t help anyone. This father cou…
/r/MensRights20/11/24 03:16 PM
-6

He freely chose not to see the kids, despite judges in the case telling him he was making a mistake. The guy is unbalanced.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 03:00 PM
-21

I know this will get downvoted by the mentally unbalanced, but I also was able to check with the Dallas papers that the father in this case has been refusing to see his kids since 2022 despite his claim that it is the recent California ruling that prevents him. Also the Texas Supreme Court has already stated that they consider the mothers agreement not to transition the kid to be binding and that they would intervene if she attempted to do this in California. So, either he is just lying, or he h…
/r/MensRights20/11/24 08:16 AM
2

Since no one actually explained what happened in the Gaetz case here is a summary: The investigation started when a former Florida politician Joel Greenberg said that Gaetz had sex with two women at a party, one of them underage (17). The two women supported this story Greenberg admits to bringing both women to the party, and that he was paying the 17 yo for sex Greenberg is one of the most corrupt politicians in Florida history and is currently in prison on an 11 year sentence Apart from corrup…
/r/MensRights20/11/24 07:37 AM
-6

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Younger–Anne_Georgulas_custody_battle
/r/MensRights20/11/24 07:14 AM
1

Weird, just fucking weird. You are not a celebrity, no one is going to be hounding you out of a job. But you’re mental health is obviously so bad at this point that I guess you just imagine everyone is against you.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 07:13 AM
-1

Really? It doesn’t say On January 29, 2020, Dallas District Court Judge Mary Brown reaffirmed that joint custody would remain in place.[7] However, on August 3, 2021, Brown awarded full custody of the twins to Georgulas, as Younger had "failed to timely make the payments of child support, medical support and interest as ordered -According to the ruling, both parents still had to consent to any future hormone therapy, puberty blockers or gender-affirming surgery for their child So, exactly what I…
/r/MensRights20/11/24 07:11 AM
-10

Of course he did. He should have posted the original tweet, not somebody else commenting on it. I happen to know who he is and recognize him, but 99.9% of people would think that’s the husband and wife in the divorce case.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 06:56 AM
-23

There’s a Wikipedia article that covers everything except the most recent developments.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 03:24 AM
1

The state you get married in is irrelevant. If neither of you is a resident of Colorado then that state has no jurisdiction. If you both live in IL and decide to get divorced then the divorce will be in IL. So no, you have nothing to worry about. Of course you should not take advice from random people on the internet so if this stuff really is bothering you make an appt with a lawyer. While you’re there talk to him about how to manage finances once you are married because your plan doesn’t make …
/r/MensRights20/11/24 03:19 AM
-19

Anything beyond 10 years is going to seem creepy. Shouldn’t be a problem at your age.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 02:53 AM
-48

Not sure why OP is linking so an image of 2 people unrelated to the case is on the post. This is a clear case of the father fucking himself by not paying child support that he could easily afford. If he just behaved rationally he’d still have shared custody, full veto power over medical decisions and his ex would even have to pay for the kids travel to stay with him.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 02:49 AM
22

Well if it’s pedo stuff, or uses images based on an actual person, I can see how that would be harmful. Likewise representing other things that would be illegal irl.
/r/MensRights19/11/24 10:07 PM
1

Absolutely false.
/r/MensRights19/11/24 10:01 PM
2

You’re confusing too different things. Legally he was never charged with anything (even though he actually did break the law by making a video of the 16 yo). How you will get treated in society is a different matter as people (both men and women) will make judgments that have nothing to do with the law.
/r/MensRights19/11/24 10:00 PM
5

The assumption is that the adult knows. If you are shown an Id, have messages where the person says they are legal age or met in a place where there is an expectation that everyone is legal age, then that is a pretty solid defense. But if your defense is “she told me” then you’d be screwed.
/r/MensRights19/11/24 07:26 PM
1

Yes, I did. It’s the exact same paper referenced in the quote used as the title of this post: (Mitchison, D., et al., Psychological Medicine, Vol. 50, No. 6, 2019) . I guess you read nothing but the headline though. As I explicitly said in what I wrote this is a paper about boys NOT men, and the figure of one third is not in reference to eating disorders. Anyone knowledgable about the subject would know that a condition like bulimia has always been about 25% men except during a short period of t…
/r/MensRights18/11/24 08:15 PM
15

This is a garbage paper that doesn’t even quote the source of their information correctly. The source they reference is a survey of children not adults. They also exaggerate the rate of eating disorders by quoting data that includes other (non-eating) disorders.* Finally these are not people diagnosed with eating disorders, they are survey respondents that may, based on their responses, have an eating disorder and many of which may not require any treatment. the correct figure is about a quarter
/r/MensRights17/11/24 02:27 AM
1

Yes, of course. If you are out in the country it might be difficult to find but in any big city you can find one. There are also gyms that are mixed but have men only hours. If you have some Muslim friends ask where they go.
/r/MensRights16/11/24 05:53 PM
-1

Thanks to all the downvoters for showing your irrational following of your preferred narrative and inability to consider the inconsistencies in the reported facts.
/r/MensRights15/11/24 06:49 AM
1

Completely appropriate punishment. I would certainly try to explain it in a way that the kid wouldn’t have a tantrum and could understand that he can actually end up looking good to his classmates by apologizing. But some kids just don’t get it.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 04:36 PM
2

It would be silly to blame the woman. How many of the wealthiest actors are below average looking or even ugly? Does acting talent have some genetic correlation with physical attractiveness; of course not. Men and women both use what they’ve got to get ahead. If you are attractive, intelligent and outgoing then you have a massive advantage in life. It’s up to the people who offer opportunities to best use them and not be influenced by factors that are irrelevant.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 04:24 PM
-5

I’m sure it wouldn’t actually work like in Japan (I.e. the carriage is at the most inconvenient spot, the end of the train, and there’s no punishment for men using it ).
/r/MensRights14/11/24 03:45 PM
-23

idk the kid obviously already had mental health problems before he went to that school. And that kind of bullying doesn’t sound like anything I ever saw in team sports; it was the opposite really, you had a connection to some of the toughest kids in school and the bullies knew to leave you alone.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 03:35 PM
0

It’s still not advertising for any particular applicant. Personally I would avoid any company who wrote such bs just on principle because they must have lots of woke aholes getting paid for nothing. But I wouldn’t understand it to be intended to discourage me from applying; the opposite in fact, they think it’s going to make me apply because the company sounds so great.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 03:24 PM
1

Trafficking in wealthy countries is mostly a problem of (illegal) immigration from poor countries. Punishing buyers of sex will have no impact because there are hundreds of buyers for every seller; it’s like trying to get rid of a wasps nest by only killing the ones that sting you. Morally I have no issue with punishing these men, they’re probably spreading disease and developing unhealthy views about women, but it wont stop prostitution or trafficking.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 03:15 PM
1

This. Some of the better ones are coded to try to correct the bias on a superficial level, but it’s still there if you probe a bit.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 02:59 PM
1

It’s Iran, a country where women can get beaten to death for not wearing a head covering. A man wearing short sleeves is considered sexually suggestive and you can be arrested. Whatever the study says the relationship between men and women there is bound to be fucked up. Relevance to the civilized world: zero.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 02:51 PM
-3

That isn’t a job advert though, it’s just a generic piece of woke bs saying how great the company is.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 02:35 PM
1

She’s got severe mental problems and often says ridiculous things. I wouldn’t take anything she says as either true or intended to be taken as true.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 06:48 AM
5

Where exactly is this, because there are no such positions in the US and it would be illegal to post such an ad. The same is true in most of Europe.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 06:41 AM
34

Those kind of incompetent types are the bane of all technically knowledgeable workers, women and men. Yes, more of them are probably white men right now but don’t worry there are plenty of up and coming incompetents who are more “diverse”.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 04:18 PM
10

Not sure how this works considering men bring in more of the money, work longer hours and commute longer distances. The only way it would be possible is if unmarried couples living together weren’t sharing costs. Otherwise what are we talking about, the “emotional cost” of having a bf you see a few hours a week? If that’s your biggest problem you must have a pretty good life.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 04:11 PM
5

Yes, the US military does have different fitness standards for women, which are ridiculous if you allow women in combat. Men can fail at a rating that gives a woman the maximum possible score.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 03:27 PM
10

I don’t know any civilian airline that has a height requirement. In the military, yes, but there is both a minimum and maximum height because you literally might not fit in the cockpit. There can also be requirements on sitting height and reach. In the US military the limits are the same for men and women and the Air Force has completely dropped limits since they now have more aircraft with flexible cockpits. Practically though if you are 4 feet or 7 feet it’s just not going to work.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 02:49 PM
1

Some men genuinely think they are female and feel distressed at not being perceived that way. This includes men that cannot accept their own homosexuality. For the rest it’s autogynephilia, essentially a kink, and they get a sexual thrill out of being perceived as women. This is easy to detect when you see people mention how excited they get at entering a womens bathroom or at the idea they are menstruating, things that are not at all the normal reactions of a woman.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 02:32 PM
8

This is not the reason at all, in fact it’s downright crazy to think that way.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 08:29 AM
3

The assumption underlying the research that is done is that women are good judges of what is rape. But that is obviously not the case. In most rapes the rapist is known to the woman and easily available to the police. There is no great conspiracy of police and prosecutors to ignore these cases, if anything they are under heavy pressure to get convictions. The fact that so few reported cases end in conviction can only be because there is no convincing evidence that any rape occurred. Compare this…
/r/MensRights13/11/24 08:22 AM
-5

We’ve known since the early 70s that if you provide too many unconditional benefits to men they will drop out of the work force because they are satisfied with a low income meeting basic needs. It has nothing to do with mumbo jumbo about a “new economy”. Recent studies of guaranteed income confirmed the same thing. It’s not men that need to adapt; there are plenty of well paid traditional skilled jobs out there, we just need for the govt to stop spending our money to demotivate the young men tha…
/r/MensRights13/11/24 07:33 AM
3

They probably do because they are more likely to have narcissistic personality traits. But so what? In societies we don’t value selfish behaviors over altruistic behaviors.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 07:18 AM
3

No, this is silly. Feminists certainly didn’t support Nixon and he was the one that fought with Congress to end the draft. You could possibly say that the economist Milton Friedman helped end the draft as he persuaded Nixon. If anything Nixon did it to undermine the anti war movement and certainly the Democrats that the feminists favored did nothing to help even though they had control of Congress. Also remember that it was another feminist favorite, Jimmy Carter, that reinstated the selective s…
/r/MensRights13/11/24 06:54 AM
12

Yes, but all the new stuff is crap anyway. At that age it’s better to read adult books written in the 50s to 80s when stories could just be fun and exciting with no need to have some dark message designed to cause depression.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 06:37 AM
7

If that’s what you want then you can also have all the incompetent doctors, police, firemen, mechanics, accountants and be hired in some low paid job that you are bad at. I’ll take the people that are good at their jobs, rely on my own job skills, and take my risk with the military. Let’s see who has the longer and better life.
/r/MensRights12/11/24 02:06 AM
1

I’m not sure that these women are intelligent enough to understand that aqua Tofana is just a fairy tale and any actual poison they might use is both easily detectable and easy to trace. Even though it’s mostly performative it wouldn’t hurt to send the local FBI out to talk to the ones that are getting views to let them know they can be prosecuted and posting a video saying it was just a bad joke might help them avoid any further action.
/r/MensRights12/11/24 01:52 AM
3

This is one one of those questions where you’ll get answers at both extremes but the truth is in the middle. Those dates are when federal law insisted that women be allowed to have those roles, but most states allowed women well before this. So technically the way it’s written the claims are false, but it is true that in some parts of the US women were denied those roles until the dates given.
/r/MensRights12/11/24 12:29 AM
4

Only slightly correct. Historically married women couldn’t have individual bank accounts. Federal court decisions in the 1960s guaranteed the right to all women to have individual accounts, and a 1974 law put this into written law. So there certainly were some women being refused bank accounts up to at least the 1960s, but only in parts of the US. There were also many women who did have bank accounts long before that.
/r/MensRights12/11/24 12:24 AM
4

You can get any number you want by framing the issue in different ways, so I don’t think there is any right answer. At a subjective level I think if the accused is someone the woman knows it’s probably something like one third false accusations with some level of malice, one third the guy did something he shouldn’t have, and one third just a difference in perception but neither side really did anything wrong. Obviously when the accused is a stranger it’s less likely (but not impossible) that it’…
/r/MensRights11/11/24 07:17 PM
0

I suggest to find a woman who’s Dad was in the military. Whatever her politics there’s a much lower chance of batshit crazy.
/r/MensRights11/11/24 07:06 PM
6

No, sentenced to 10 years and still under home detention. In the UK it’s normal to get parole after only one third of the sentence, and the last 6 months of that can be home detention. She could have been out in as little as 3 years 4 months, and hundreds of men have been released that early. A stupid parole system that deceives the public into thinking sentences are longer than they really are: yes. Female privilege: no, just business as usual.
/r/MensRights11/11/24 02:16 PM
1

I’m not sure why you would post something in German if you think I can’t read it, but I guess that is your intellectual level. As it happens I worked in Germany and can read it ok. I can also read a newspaper so I know you left out the inconvenient part for your argument; that only those expressing interest in joining the military will be invited for a physical. It is completely voluntary.
/r/MensRights11/11/24 07:10 AM
-7

Your argument is completely illogical. Men poison women and other men and get caught. You don’t like the numbers so you make up an excuse that somehow the deaths don’t get investigated when women do it? How does this happen, does the woman put a post-it on the victims forehead saying “don’t bother investigating, it definitely wasn’t poison”?
/r/MensRights11/11/24 07:01 AM
9

That Act expired in 1973. The only reason we have selective service today is that Jimmy Carter reinstated it by executive order in 1980 and no president since has cancelled the executive order.
/r/MensRights11/11/24 06:42 AM
2

No, all legal residents have to sign up even if they are citizens of another country.
/r/MensRights11/11/24 06:25 AM
0

There are men only gyms. The main reason there aren’t more is that not enough men are interested. The one nearest me was a franchise but the whole franchise went belly up.
/r/MensRights11/11/24 06:22 AM
-63

Don’t believe the silly answers about this. Men are much more likely to poison themselves than be poisoned by someone else. Also men are poisoned more often by other men than by women. The rest is games with percentages to try to convince you otherwise. If 100% of men killed by snakes in NYC are killed by poison, and 1% of men killed by other men are killed by poison, you are still more likely to be poisoned by a man than a snake.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 05:23 PM
3

Correct. This is just nonsense, people saying they will do things that will only harm themselves and achieve nothing. Apart from a few people that are mentally ill, the rest of the 4B women are just play acting for media attention.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 05:17 PM
-1

You’re not going to have much success arguing the point here given the number of fanatics that think that things like letting girls go to school and allowing circumcision are somehow feminist plots. There are still large parts of the world where women are treated unfairly because of religious or social customs. The main issue with feminism is in wealthy countries where having achieved equality there is a group of people with political and/or financial incentives to maintain a grievance culture b…
/r/MensRights10/11/24 05:12 PM
2

I don’t think the female student did anything that hasn’t always happened. It seems to me the real issue is the reaction of his male friends who have been indoctrinated to believe that her version of reality is the only one that can be true and that he must be treated like a leper. And based on his reaction he was probably similarly indoctrinated. Wokeism is a mind virus that damages the mental health of the weak.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 07:15 AM
1

False. All of the stem cell lines going back 25 years to the earliest days are still in existence. We have cell lines almost 75 years old.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 07:00 AM
1

No, he just has to work a normal amount because everyone else is lazy af . But yes, the really top tier universities will be anti-racist racists so maybe you have to settle for Duke instead of Harvard. You’ll still do better at life than the lazy undeserving diversity students at Ivy Leagues.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 06:55 AM
1

Because 50 years ago the govt didn’t track your whole life + it’s the govt, nothing ever ends even if it no longer has a purpose except to provide jobs to govt union workers.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 06:46 AM
3

If you want to look at the actual study it’s here. https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-05/Meier%2C%20U.S.%20child%20custody%20outcomes%20in%20cases%20involving%20parental%20alienation%20and%20abuse%20allegations%202020.pdf My opinion is that it’s nonsense. What was really being studied was mostly cases in which mothers lost custody in a court case and then appealed the case. Of course they were likely to lose the appeal because *most appeals fail *. It’s like saying the court syst…
/r/MensRights10/11/24 06:36 AM
-5

Reminder: there is no law allowing anyone in the United States to be drafted. No adult under the age of 70 has ever faced any possibility of being drafted. How can this be a relevant mens rights issue, it’s like saying yellow fever is a current medical issue in the US. Some people just want you to share there mental health problems.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 06:15 AM
1

The increase in divorce had nothing to do with title IVD, it was in response to the introduction of no fault divorce by the states. It’s very easy to show this because the increase occurred at different times in each state, and not all at the same time. Title IVD is a response to this increase because you had more men refusing to pay child support and the states often had little incentive to pursue these men, especially if the child lived in a different state, because the state was not the one h…
/r/MensRights09/11/24 05:48 AM
4

It’s fictional data anyway. These UN people are just useful idiots being led around by Hamas to selected incidents and pretending that is representative of reality.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 04:48 AM
7

This is really only relevant if the donor is foolish enough to do it on his own without the legal protection provided by the companies that handle donations as a business.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 04:42 AM
1

Sure, he just happened to pick someone from the group that is less than one percent of the size of the other group. 😉
/r/MensRights09/11/24 04:37 AM
1

I’m sure Goebels would be proud, but it’s a propaganda film about what women imagined not the reality of the legal or medical situation.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 04:33 AM
-3

The cost is trivial, you either just sign acknowledging paternity which costs nothing, or if the mother denies you are the father you make one court filing and a paternity test that will cost a couple of hundred dollars max. The reason men don’t do it is because they care much more about not paying child support.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 04:22 AM
1

Do you think people that want to force you into the military are going to do it by asking if you are interested? Get a life and stop worrying about imaginary threats.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 03:58 AM
-2

So 10% of kids where the father doesn’t care enough to even put his name on the birth certificate means nothing? 🙄
/r/MensRights09/11/24 03:55 AM
1

So I was correct and you grossly misunderstand the need for any new source of cells. These cell lines last for decades and you could make every product for the next ten years without anyone “buying” a single foreskin.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 03:54 AM
0

Are you really that naive? Do you not have a job, pay taxes, drive a car, vote, have a bank account, own or rent a place to live? Do you never visit a doctor?
/r/MensRights09/11/24 03:48 AM
46

Better academic performance, higher income, better health (physical and mental), less likely to have a dysfunctional family. Count your blessings.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 03:45 AM
1

Also wrong on all of the others except Georgia, both men and women can commit rape. It’s the person that causes the penetration who commits the rape, not the person with the penis. Even in Georgia a woman can still be guilty of statutory rape as that is defined differently, and obviously it’s still a crime if a woman (or man) does what we would call raping a man, it’s just not called rape. Also of note Atlanta classifies acts by women as rape regardless of the state definition.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 03:30 AM
0

It’s mostly a waste of time, but it is important to protect yourself by knowing the rules on reporting harassment involving other people. I know several cases where people faced serious consequences after they were told “in confidence” about incidents and didn’t report it properly. Idk if OP is in the US, but here we have multiple legally required trainings like that every year on financial topics that are just as stupid. It’s hours of boring material that’s supposed to teach you that bribery, k…
/r/MensRights08/11/24 02:50 AM
1

How exactly does answering a survey equate to conscription? If you don’t want conscription then it’s got to be a good thing that they ask people if they’re interested in joining the military.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 02:36 AM
1

Nonsense. There are absolutely zero examples of that, only fake stories that involve either incompetence by doctors, or women making bad decisions because they are misinformed.
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:59 PM
-2

And yet you’re in the small minority. People like you and OP refuse to believe reality. There is literally no one saying that no fathers care about their children, but there are also millions of fathers that really don’t care.
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:56 PM
1

Not sure what that has to do with my comment. You are just deliberately misinterpreting what was written as “no men are affected” .
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:51 PM
-11

No idea who he is but if he has a problem with circumcision why doesn’t he go after Muslims instead of Jews? Yeah let’s pick on the much smaller and more persecuted group (and the ones that won’t try to kill him).
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:47 PM
-10

None of those products contain anything that has ever been part of a human being. They are cells grown in a lab. Why anyone would want to buy such quack products idk but no one is making piles of money selling foreskins.
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:41 PM
0

I mean it’s true even if stupid. It doesn’t say black men aren’t affected by racism, it says some men (presumably white) aren’t affected by racism. It’s no different than saying some men aren’t affected by homophobia (because they’re straight).
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:51 AM
-5

20 million kids with absent fathers, compared to 2.5 million kids with absent mothers. 10% of children with no father listed on their birth certificate. This suggests it’s not a “conspiracy theory”.
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:43 AM
8

Despite my dislike for Hillary in 2016 she was preferable to Trump. But Harris is plain lazy, low IQ, and the only way she can speak coherently is with a script that someone else wrote. I don’t think that she lost because of any particular policy, she really didn’t have any, she was just a disastrously bad candidate. But I guess that can happen when you lie and hide that your candidate is senile, stab him in the back when the truth emerges anyway, and then decide it would be racist and sexist no…
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:18 AM
-11

“There is no draft” is correct. No draft can happen until Congress passes a new law authorizing it. The fact that there is a list with peoples names on it is irrelevant, it’s a relic of history. The government already knows who you are and where you are, they don’t need some list of info about where you were at 18. So I suggest you stop worrying about something completely irrelevant like selective service and focus on electing politicians that won’t get in wars with powerful nations. Because if …
/r/MensRights07/11/24 05:00 AM
2

The ads are still creepy; it’s not the kind of thing normal parents worry about, only manic depressives.
/r/MensRights07/11/24 04:32 AM
1

Your statements are contradictory though because you propose a system where nothing is done to hold the actual fathers responsible. That’s why it’s biased. In order to free the men who aren’t the fathers from responsibility you have to at the same time hold the actual fathers responsible, otherwise you are both punishing the child and putting the burden on taxpayers who aren’t involved in the situation at all. If you get robbed walking down the street the only way you are getting that money back…
/r/MensRights07/11/24 04:29 AM
1

In my state if you have any amount of custody she needs court permission to move away. She will have to file a new custody plan, so unless she makes her proposal very favorable to you then you file your own plan. Strategically pick on the parts of her proposal that are most unreasonable and give an alternative favorable to you but not so extreme. Unless she has a good lawyer to rein her in you may get some big wins by getting the judge to see you as the calm, rational parent.
/r/MensRights06/11/24 06:42 PM
14

The ads with this message were downright creepy. Old guys talking about their daughters not being able to get abortions. Maybe you should have been spending more time educating your daughter about contraception and STDs. Bet the grandkids will be proud when they see it 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights06/11/24 06:25 PM
0

No, I’m just not a hypocrite like you.
/r/MensRights06/11/24 05:20 PM
2

Think about it this way; if a man cheats on his wife and gets someone else pregnant then it is the mothers choice to expose him, force him to pay, or not. The legal system doesn’t force her to reveal the father even if she claims support from the state. If you want a consistent policy testing all babies then it will not be just the cheating women that get exposed, but also the cheating men. It will not be just that deceived men have the option to avoid child support, but also that men who impreg…
/r/MensRights06/11/24 05:14 PM
2

We wouldn’t be in the current position in the US if politicians had done their job. Instead of reaching a compromise like almost all other developed countries they allowed activist judges to make a ridiculous ruling and then sat on their hands. In just about every other country laws were passed and abortions were legalized up to somewhere between 12 and 20 weeks, matching what the majority of the people find acceptable, and in a few years all but a few hardcore fanatics gave up the issue. But in…
/r/MensRights06/11/24 04:25 PM
0

Bullshit. You are like the homophobe who complains that there is one romance book where the main character is a man falling in love with another man when there are 100 books where the main character is a woman.
/r/MensRights05/11/24 02:36 PM
1

The truth is boys do better in single sex schools too. Parents should have the choice.
/r/MensRights05/11/24 02:30 PM
1

Like there aren’t 100 books about men killing bad men, which are all bought by men. You need to find something better to do with your time than get angry about a fiction story.
/r/MensRights05/11/24 02:26 PM
3

Yes, not sure why those clowns are saying she looks good, she is wasted.
/r/MensRights05/11/24 02:23 PM
2

Woman-child is a thing, it’s just not as popular as princess or Karen. Are you going to complain because saying a man is a prince is a compliment but saying a woman is a princess is an insult? Or you could go with the traditional answer to your question: because women are children all their life
/r/MensRights05/11/24 06:12 AM
1

Reality rejects your “obvious” and replaces with “clueless”
/r/MensRights04/11/24 07:11 PM
4

It was in the US, or at least the one I saw was. Researchers from UND (North Dakota).
/r/MensRights04/11/24 07:09 PM
48

I think this has been around for almost 10 years. It’s based on a silly game with words where they equate trying to persuade a woman to have sex with rape. Here’s a news story based on the study https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/men-dont-know-meaning-rape The paper itself is paywalled so you can’t see the actual survey questions but I’ll put the link in case some of you may have access through your university. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio
/r/MensRights04/11/24 07:06 PM
0

Which you read from the synopsis, but you didn’t read the fucking paper did you 🤡
/r/MensRights04/11/24 03:14 AM
-2

I did. If you can’t figure out how to find the credits on IMDb then that’s your problem. Jesus, some of you pervs see imaginary pedos everywhere.
/r/MensRights04/11/24 03:11 AM
2

Sorry , you can’t just reject reality. They are all actors, they’re in a union, and you can look up the credits for the video and check their age.
/r/MensRights04/11/24 03:07 AM
1

Clearly you don’t know that anyone with a couple of brain cells can look up the names of actors in a music video and check their dob.
/r/MensRights04/11/24 03:05 AM
7

And the Clooney ad is equally reprehensible. None of these elite hypocrites would ever suggest to people they care about that lying to your spouse is a good strategy; but they think it’s just fine for manipulating the plebs.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 05:55 PM
3

No, you misread the papers. You also linked a paper that has nothing to do with personal aggression and what it shows is that conservatives are less likely to want to appease terrorists, not that they are more aggressive to family members.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 05:52 PM
2

Obviously you didn’t read the paper or you would realize you are wrong. Probably above your comprehension level though.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 05:47 PM
9

He lists the video on his IMDb; that picture is a meme and got him his first major role on tv . But deflect all you want from your own pervy imagination.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 05:44 PM
12

When you try to win a political argument by suggesting your wife should lie to you so you don’t beat her up. 💀💀💀
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:44 PM
4

Really? They aren’t Trump hating Harris supporters?
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:07 PM
9

Obviously you’ve never been in a relationship.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:06 PM
7

😂😂😂 the issue isn’t who they vote for, it’s saying they have to lie to their husband. Do you think Julia Roberts lies to her husband when they disagree about something? But she thinks other women should.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:05 PM
8

Sure. 18% higher in this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30898004/ More generally, the more to the left people are politically the more likely to commit crimes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309845639_Political_ideology_predicts_involvement_in_crime#:~:text=Our%20results%20show%20that%20self,political%20ideology%20to%20individual%20conduct. And just common sense. The places with the highest murder rates are all Democrat hellholes. You think they murder people but wouldn’t stoop …
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:00 PM
12

Didn’t realize telling the truth based on the actors ages was “gaslighting”.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 02:35 PM
20

You might want to check that advice with your therapist.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 02:34 PM
6

What a clown you are. If men were told to lie to their wives you would get exactly the same reaction. Because it’s fucking stupid. The “ backlash” is because a bunch of rich hypocrites are telling people to do something stupid that they would never personally do.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 02:33 PM
6

Right, all those hundreds of BLM riots and billions in arson damage. were MAGA. And Antifa, that’s a violent MAGA organization. And all those MAGAs trying to shoot Democrat politicians 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights03/11/24 02:29 PM
9

You think he’s lying on his IMDB?
/r/MensRights03/11/24 02:22 PM
27

Because rates of domestic violence are higher for men (and women) with more leftist views.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 06:33 AM
-1

I’ll fix that for you: why do I hate cowards that want all the benefits of being a citizen without the responsibility? Because they’re parasites.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 06:27 AM
54

The arrogance is that the people who make these ads would never think it was a good idea to hide how they voted from their partner, but they look down on us regular men as brutal scum that will beat women if they do the slightest thing we don’t agree with.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 05:08 AM
2

All you really need to say is that the economist who demonstrated this with years of detailed research is Claudia Goldin, 2023 Nobel prize winner.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 04:58 AM
72

The boy in that picture is 15 or 16, one of the girls is a bit younger than him and the other is a bit older. They were all child actors in LA and it’s easy enough to find their IMDB. So maybe the problem is not with the video but with peoples imagination.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 04:25 AM
1

You seem mixed up since I am explicitly saying women should fight. You seem to want to avoid fighting either way, which is only a choice if you convince everyone in your country to be a slave to invaders. Willingly being a slave; yeah, you should be ashamed.
/r/MensRights02/11/24 11:02 PM
0

Maybe you want to be a slave, but most of us don’t so your choice is you accept to fight if women also fight or you get forced to fight.
/r/MensRights02/11/24 10:59 PM
2

That may be true, but the solution to one parent being able to abuse societies generosity isn’t to make both parents able to abuse it.
/r/MensRights02/11/24 10:56 PM
1

Just a reminder that they say they care about mens health yet their advice is proven harmful. Specifically, they advocate for: screening for testicular cancer, USPSTF rated grade D more harmful than beneficial. Get your nut cut off unnecessarily, no benefit in survival or QOL. PSA screening for prostate cancer, USPSTF rated grade C or D, only after discussion with doctor about harms, more harmful than beneficial when older. Incontinence, erectile dysfunction, no benefit to survival or QOL when u…
/r/MensRights02/11/24 05:03 PM
-14

The problem with this argument is that the woman won’t be able to pay to raise the baby and so every taxpayer has to pay. These taxpayers also didn’t want the woman to have a baby they would have to pay for. I can’t see why the father should be able to escape paying, but taxpayers can’t. Your argument relies on some magical world where the government is like a god, raining free money at no cost to anyone.
/r/MensRights02/11/24 01:07 AM
0

That’s not what the data shows. People (men especially) don’t think they will ever get divorced if they are currently happy in their marriage.
/r/MensRights01/11/24 12:11 AM
-6

So you are in favor of a draft then as long as women get drafted, your country is invaded, and the invaders promise to enslave you. You just showed what a hypocrite you are. You don’t want equal rights, you just want other people to fight in your place.
/r/MensRights01/11/24 12:08 AM
-9

Not a mens rights issue. If you want to argue women should be drafted go ahead. Otherwise you are trying to argue countries should just allow themselves to be invaded and be pacifists. You either accept slavery or you acknowledge you may have to fight for your freedom.
/r/MensRights31/10/24 11:47 PM
-3

Sure, it’s stupid to think patients need to be given an unknown dose of an unproven medication, with unknown contaminants, and maybe even take it by breathing in carcinogens. Did you ever think that if THC was a useful drug someone would make a reliable dosage form, test it against legal drugs, and get it approved by the FDA? You know, using actual science not quackery.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 05:18 PM
2

Sports is for fun unless you’re a professional. Only the psychos care about who won once the games over.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 05:14 PM
0

I have 3 brothers. None of us ever shopped for clothes as children. Somehow we had clothes that fit. Normal healthy men don’t whine about women having more variety of clothes because we don’t care, we never cared as children, and if men or boys did care then manufacturers would make more.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 05:10 PM
8

The number of women doing this is trivial, so the answer is no. If you want the real explanation there are plenty of studies of the topic. In wealthy countries it’s mostly a choice (by women) to prioritize career, and an economic choice (men and women naturally have less children when their future old age is secure) . If governments actually cared they would use tax policy to encourage people to have more children rather than using the far more expensive option of importing unskilled immigrants.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 01:50 PM
2

I’m not sure it’s anything. Does anyone really believe every man is superior to every woman at any particular thing? If I’m at the gym I can pick out the strongest guy and be pretty sure he can lift more than any woman in the gym. But if I pick out the weakest guy there he’s probably rational enough to know some of the women are stronger than him. That’s just common sense.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 07:51 AM
14

Join a sports team, something where the whole objective is work together to succeed and the worst thing that can happen is you get some healthy exercise.
/r/MensRights29/10/24 12:13 AM
-1

Welcome to the future where we have a thing called the internet to buy clothes, more than you could ever imagine in your antiquated shops. And don’t try to give me any bs about trying on clothes in the shop; I was 19 or 20 before I ever did that. And do you know where I went … a mens shop, a place where they only sell mens and boys clothes. Amazing huh, you must have been walking past them your whole life without knowing.
/r/MensRights29/10/24 12:09 AM
1

Or you could just get a prenup, which in most states will protect you about as much as a prayer in a whorehouse.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 11:58 PM
-4

I’m sorry I didn’t realize that the losers getting high in their parents basement, instead of improving their life, were going to be hired by elderly patients.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 11:55 PM
-1

Am I bad because I give my seat to an old person or a person who is blind or has one leg, but not to everyone? So not all , right? 😉
/r/MensRights28/10/24 09:51 PM
-2

I have no idea what your point is or why you think it’s relevant. No one said all double standards are good, but someone was trying to falsely argue that all double standards are bad.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 09:45 PM
-16

The title is obviously true. Does society treat everyone equally? No. Is it bad that we give more money or help to those that are poor, weak or old? I don’t think so. So clearly there are some double standards that are good.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 10:24 AM
-7

No it’s an issue for losers.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 10:06 AM
2

FAFO dude. You’re a fool if you don’t understand that what was described is a crime and that the only thing judges hate worse than crime is someone who tries to fool them. Get caught and he’s going to give more than half to other party, make you pay their legal fees, and anything else the other side wants.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 10:03 AM
2

Yeah, lol, try that and the judge is going to ream you. Unless you are rich enough to hire expensive lawyers that can hide assets outside the country you will still end up paying half of the money and the judge will now give your wife whatever alimony, child support and custody she asks for.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 01:41 AM
0

Nice try clown, there was not a single abuse of a girl that did not involve a woman staff member. So what I said was true; men abuse girls, women abuse boys, and more than 9 out of every 10 prisoners are boys.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 01:20 AM
22

Taking care of young children can be a lot of work but just the cleaning, cooking etc, 8-10 hours per week tops. For comparison I’ve had jobs where I spent that much time commuting.
/r/MensRights27/10/24 02:35 PM
0

Table 11, female victim, committed by female staff, 0%. 🤡 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/723250-sexual-victimization-in-juvenile-facilities-2008#document/p13
/r/MensRights27/10/24 02:15 PM
0

No, you are the one who read it incorrectly. You didn’t even link the same report as OP but one from a different time period. But even your link says 91% of the youth in those facilities are male. Again using your data, 100% of staff abuse of girls involved male staff. 98% of staff abuse of boys involved female staff. Men abuse girls, women abuse boys, so if 90% of the prisoners are boys the result is obvious and not because the male staff are somehow better behaved than the female staff.
/r/MensRights27/10/24 02:09 PM
-2

I agree with you that women often abuse boys. That was the topic of the link I posted. What I don’t agree with was the implication in the first post that women are responsible for most abuse; what you stated is no more evidence than if I tell you that more than 90% of sexual abuse in womens prisons is committed by male guards, or that in mens prisons most abuse is by other (male) prisoners not guards of either sex.
/r/MensRights26/10/24 04:31 PM
1

The harassment issue was just a deflection. If she had been black there would have been racist comments, if she was gay, had mental health problems, a physical disability there would be offensive comments about those things. On the internet there are always people who will write whatever they think is most hurtful. Those things are wrong, but it doesn’t change that she wasn’t a target because of who she was, but what she did.
/r/MensRights26/10/24 03:20 PM
21

Don’t you need to know what proportion of the “youth” are male? Since OP didn’t mention it these are children in prisons for children, 95% of them are male. So the numbers themselves don’t show anything about whether boys or girls are more likely to be abused. This doesn’t mean that female predators aren’t a problem and you can find more discussion of the problem here: https://www.propublica.org/article/boys-in-custody-and-the-women-who-abuse-them
/r/MensRights26/10/24 02:06 PM
1

This just shows you didn’t read enough to understand what the paper is about. They are not trying to measure some bs feminist measure of equality, it’s just about family structure and the relation between parents and children, husbands and wives. “ Our notion of patriarchy departs from the often value-laden, monolithic and ideologically determined discourse of Western feminism. Instead, we treat the concept simply as a useful descriptive tool for discussing social patterns in a comparative persp…
/r/MensRights25/10/24 03:57 PM
4

OP you are not really understanding what this paper is about. First it’s historical (17, 1800s) and second it’s not about patriarchy in the way modern feminists use the word. It doesn’t make a value judgment about whether patriarchy is good or bad and has nothing to do with “social inequality”. So yes, in most of Europe during that time families were headed by men, preferred sons, and married off daughters for strategic reasons. How is this even relevant today and why would anyone think it was w…
/r/MensRights25/10/24 03:49 PM
1

I very clearly said in the US. You may be ignorant of the fact but since 2011 boys in the US are vaccinated (free). Even for the 5 years when it wasn’t yet recommended for boys you could still pay for it if you wanted. Personally I waited to get my son vaccinated because I wanted to see data and I was sure he wasn’t at risk yet.
/r/MensRights24/10/24 06:12 PM
0

What a clown. Here are the real facts: Women are 10x more likely to get hpv related cancer Newly diagnosed hpv related cancers per year worldwide, 570,000 women, 60,000 men (source: IARC) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5520228/ In the US hpv related cancers in men have increased but they are still more common in women hpv related cancers diagnosed per year in US, women 21800, men 16000 (source: CDC) https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/cases.html vaccines were tested in women first because c…
/r/MensRights24/10/24 06:03 PM
-12

Man convicted of revenge porn not blackmail Woman convicted of blackmail Not the same. Do … you … speakee … English 🙄🙄🙄
/r/MensRights23/10/24 01:09 PM
-11

You are literally describing your own mistake 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights23/10/24 12:41 PM
-9

That’s nonsense. One case is blackmail for £450, the other case is publishing naked photos with intent to cause harm. They are completely different crimes. In the US blackmailing someone for any amount less than $1000 is only a misdemeanor so is unlikely to ever lead to a prison sentence.
/r/MensRights23/10/24 12:24 PM
4

I swear every time I see this post (every couple of months) it’s always referring to Asians. It’s like the posters don’t know what it’s like in an actual Asian family. I have a Chinese friend who was honestly considering one of his daughters not very successful because she “only” had a Masters degree from Duke (also btw played a sport at high level and went to US trials). His expectation is PhD from an Ivy League school. So yes, many Asian women learn that attitude from their parents and expect …
/r/MensRights23/10/24 02:41 AM
-1

How is the emphasis on protecting females when the policy in the US has been gender neutral since 2011, a time when the majority of HPV related cancers were in women? Are you aware that worldwide 10x as many women die from HPV related cancers?
/r/MensRights23/10/24 02:19 AM
1

I’m not defending what any other country did, just saying it was done properly in the US, which was the topic of the original post. The situation is very different in some countries; worldwide there are 10x more hpv related cancers in women than men, so in poorer countries it may seem like a better strategy to vaccinate only women and aim for 90% coverage to protect men indirectly.
/r/MensRights23/10/24 02:06 AM
0

You mean the status quo where we don’t give harmful drugs to people until we know there’s a benefit? My position is based on actually caring rather than gambling with peoples health.
/r/MensRights23/10/24 01:21 AM
-4

Of course it’s possible. Girls who were 16 or 17 also didn’t get vaccinated right at the start because the initial recommendation was 12-15. No one starts giving experimental vaccines to wide groups of people who may actually be harmed. You start narrow and if it’s beneficial you work out from there, which can take many years. It’s not like there’s any marker to say this person will get oral cancer years in the future.
/r/MensRights22/10/24 07:12 PM
0

Good job you don’t work in medicine then. What we “know” and what has been proven are two different things. Millions of young people have peanut allergies today because idiots like you “knew” that avoiding peanuts during infancy would reduce allergies and that testing this strategy in a randomized trial wasn’t necessary. Other idiots “knew” that testing PSA levels would reduce deaths from prostate cancer and more millions of men became impotent or incontinent for no benefit.
/r/MensRights22/10/24 07:01 PM
-4

Do you think people should get vaccines that haven’t been tested? Should we assume that because they work for a disease men can’t get they work for other diseases? And yes it was a help because they were protected by the vaccination of women.
/r/MensRights22/10/24 06:42 PM
-10

There was at most 5 years when boys weren’t vaccinated. Why? Because there was no evidence that the vaccine protected against oral cancers. Given the crazy anti-vaxxers that were already resisting vaccination for girls, and mass hysteria events during school vaccinations, waiting until the vaccine was proved safe and effective was appropriate. Most boys were still at school at the end of that 5 years and still offered free vaccination; also they had protection from any vaccinated girl they slept…
/r/MensRights22/10/24 06:24 PM
2

It should be to your advantage since the judge will just accept what your petition has proposed for custody, support, etc. My understanding is the judge will still approve a parenting plan that you can use to enforce your rights. The only issue with the parenting plan is that if she lawyers up she can probably ask the judge to revisit it.
/r/MensRights22/10/24 03:46 PM
-6

The US already has a gender neutral program and has had since 2011. If you want to avoid oral cancers don’t smoke or chew tobacco, get vaccinated, and choose a partner that got vaccinated before she was sexually active.
/r/MensRights22/10/24 03:20 PM
9

She’s a pathological liar who will say anything to get elected but then do the opposite. The only men she values are the ones that can help her career. Look at what she thinks of Black men ; only qualified to sell pot using free government money. When you make Trump look and sound like the smart candidate you’re lost.
/r/MensRights22/10/24 06:16 AM
1

As I said politicians are pandering to women. Most men don’t really expect to be given free stuff so from a political perspective there’s not much to be gained. Is that “fair”? Depends how you define fair; somebody always pays so being fair to the people that pay (which is either taxpayers or those who buy insurance) could mean favoring the most cost effective method. I’d certainly prefer “fair” to be judged on the costs (including non financial costs like side effects) rather than politics. Jus…
/r/MensRights20/10/24 09:09 PM
2

Obviously he is ignorant then. Insurance companies have to cover all approved methods of contraception. The zero copay for women was political pandering and tbh doesn’t benefit anyone except insurance companies and the benefits management companies they are partnered with. It allows them to inflate the price of what are mostly very cheap generic drugs without any pressure from consumers. As for condoms only women can get them free. It’s a very strange situation in which normally insurance doesn’…
/r/MensRights20/10/24 08:12 PM
3

I don’t listen to Rogan often but he seems more like an old fashioned left wing libertarian. It’s the authoritarians on the left and right that are the fascists. As for therapy, it sounds more like she wants men to go to good old fashioned Maoist re-education camps. Talk therapy helps people deal with specific mental health problems; it has no proven benefit and possible harms for normal healthy people.
/r/MensRights20/10/24 06:26 PM
1

You are confusing not covered with covered with a co-pay. Vasectomy is covered by all ACA compliant plans; you will pay between $0 and $300 depending on what state you live in and the plan. Condoms are technically covered with no co-pay but in practice not really. A woman can get a doctor to prescribe condoms as a contraceptive and the insurance company has to pay; but the insurance company can limit what condoms are covered and how many, not pay when another contraceptive method is being used, …
/r/MensRights20/10/24 06:16 PM
5

Why do you think it’s dropping? It’s just increasing at a slower rate than female enrollment. Probably because more men realize that it’s a huge waste of money if you get a useless arts degree and it’s better to learn a trade.
/r/MensRights19/10/24 03:20 AM
13

Yes, it can be used that way to show that someone is saying the bf was assaulted. OP wants to jump to the conclusion that it’s a scare quote, showing that the writer doubts the truth of the statement. But this is very unlikely, even low quality outlets like the Daily Mail don’t outright state that someone committed a crime before they’re convicted because they’d get sued. So the quotes are almost certainly just an alternative to adding “allegedly”.
/r/MensRights19/10/24 03:15 AM
3

I see a lot of references to musicians but she seems to be talking about painters and sculptors. Personally I have no opinion in general, but for anyone not familiar with her or the man she compares herself to, Damien Hirst, google their work. Her work is crap, his is mostly excellent which is probably why he is incredibly wealthy. Maybe he did peak in his 40s but I suspect that if he lives to be 100 he will still be producing work that’s better than anything she’s ever done.
/r/MensRights16/10/24 07:07 PM
7

55% is only the rate of conviction of those cases that go to trial. But more than 2/3 of cases never go to trial, so it is more like 15-20% of accused that get convicted. Now I don’t think that means 80% of accusations are false because there will some real cases impossible to prove, as well as some cases with ambiguous interpretation where the woman honestly believes it was a crime even though legally it wasn’t. Looking at the breakdown of why cases get dropped I think that very roughly somethi…
/r/MensRights16/10/24 06:47 PM
-10

Who exactly are these people posting false claims about other people doing CPR? Can you find even one example? No, you can’t. You might find a few cases of the person giving CPR telling funny/strange things that happened, but there is no one publicly shaming anyone who was giving lifesaving treatment.
/r/MensRights16/10/24 06:29 PM
-9

Why are you exaggerating a story where a husband/boyfriend freaked out when he didn’t understand what was happening, but the man using the AED was only asked a few questions by police, charged with nothing, and given a commendation for saving the woman. Anyone with training knows to call out the steps so bystanders can hear; this includes saying that you have to remove clothing. There are still going to be people who misinterpret the situation so what do you want them to do, just ignore an uncon…
/r/MensRights16/10/24 06:24 PM
-13

This is just the people doing the survey trolling for attention by asking random people most of whom don’t even know how to do CPR. Anyone who has done a CPR certification understands they are protected from legal liability.
/r/MensRights16/10/24 06:02 PM
2

It was removed because it’s unnecessary and doesn’t improve survival. I always carried a mouth guard that was designed to act as a barrier but it isn’t really much help if the person vomits; it was mostly a placebo for people worried about HIV.
/r/MensRights16/10/24 05:49 PM
1

He’s probably out of luck with the club because of the way his contract is written. It’s not like a union job where they would have to keep paying him until he was convicted. He would have more chance sueing the women or the prosecutors.
/r/MensRights15/10/24 04:22 PM
-9

There’s some really sick people in this sub.
/r/MensRights15/10/24 04:04 PM
7

I have no problem with the idea of groups like this but anyone with a realistic perspective on dating has to know that they will be abused. For every real cheater they might expose there are going to be multiple revenge posts against innocent men. You could reverse it and the same thing would happen. Human nature makes the groups useless because the true predators are hidden in a mass of false accusations.
/r/MensRights14/10/24 04:05 PM
20

You’re worrying about a thing that doesn’t exist. Some media nonsense nearly 20 years ago but not a single one ever produced for sale.
/r/MensRights13/10/24 02:44 PM
3

I don’t find it helpful to focus an argument on word definitions. It really makes no difference if you call something x when a man does it to a woman and y when a woman does it to a man. The real issue is whether those crimes are treated by the legal system in a way that punishes crimes of equivalent severity in an unbiased way. Changing laws to call what a woman does to a man rape won’t get rid of the bias as we see in many Western countries.
/r/MensRights11/10/24 06:26 PM
1

This doesn’t really prove anything beyond the fact that children of wealthier more intelligent parents are more likely to be indoctrinated into the “correct” (I.e. woke) worldview of the ruling elite.
/r/MensRights11/10/24 04:06 PM
8

Well because it’s girls they know they’re supposed to care, but the real explanation is not one that can be considered so they have to find an excuse. In Asian countries there’s essentially no gap in math. Why? Because they have good teachers and social pressure on girls to focus on education not boys. In the US we have lots of crap teachers that barely understand the material and girls have much more freedom to choose for themselves so they underperform. The gap in reading/language is universal…
/r/MensRights10/10/24 03:16 PM
1

The main “offense” is that the husband is the white one. In advertising you’ll almost always see a black man with a white woman, not the other way around. If the couple are both black the woman will have lighter skin than the man. How it was decided that is the “proper” way to show you are not racist I don’t know.
/r/MensRights10/10/24 01:39 AM
-2

There’s some hypocrisy involved here because in the reverse situation it would be assumed that the man had a sexual motive. But the guy is also being naive ; if your wife goes on vacation to a beach resort with her female friends they are going to be encouraging each other to do some things that they wouldn’t normally do. I don’t mean jumping in bed with some rando, but they’ll be happy to get compliments from some buff younger guy and be a bit flirty back. So in this case the time to have a dis…
/r/MensRights10/10/24 01:11 AM
3

Usually it’s worded as sexual assault rather than rape as rape has a more specific definition, but the article below gives examples of how these exaggerated statistics are obtained (e.g. if a woman has sex when she’s sad about anything that’s a “sexual assault”). Other real life incidents included a college punishing a male student because he resembled the man that assaulted a female student even though the actual criminal had been caught, and a 10 year old girl that was put on a predator watch …
/r/MensRights09/10/24 10:02 PM
15

Usually it’s worded as sexual assault rather than rape as rape has a more specific definition, but the article below gives examples of how these exaggerated statistics are obtained (e.g. if a woman has sex when she’s sad about anything that’s a “sexual assault”). Other real life incidents included a college punishing a male student because he looked like the man that assaulted a female student, and a 10 year old girl that was put on a predator watch list because she pantsed a boy. https://www.fo…
/r/MensRights09/10/24 10:02 PM
-1

Correcting false statements isn’t “disagreeing”, it’s telling the truth. Maybe I just think that making up lies and sounding like a nut job is harmful to mens rights.
/r/MensRights08/10/24 03:57 AM
-4

How does one case make you think women are killing more people? Are they killing proportionally more, or is it that both men and women are both killing more? Hint: The number of murders in Canada decreased from 2022 to 2023; in both years the proportion of murders committed by women was 13%.
/r/MensRights07/10/24 07:13 AM
8

You should probably read the article if you don’t understand how social security works. Anyone has the choice to either claim an amount based on their own income history, or 50% of the amount based on their spouses history. On the death of your spouse this increases to 100% of their amount. If you were married for at least 10 years but are divorced and not remarried the same applies. This *does not change how much the spouse receives * , you don’t take any of their money.
/r/MensRights07/10/24 06:34 AM
12

Wasn’t the joke that all the art in this room was fake? Like “Picassos “ that were actually painted by this woman. So women got to be in this special room with some fake art 🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights07/10/24 06:15 AM
1

Probably half the popular subs do the same thing. Some of the mods control a big proportion of Reddit and all they really care about is banning anyone that disagrees with them from as much of Reddit as they can. They don’t even care if you went on a sub to argue against the dominant pov on the sub, still banned. Go on a sub where the mods don’t instaban people for having the “wrong” opinions; banned. There are even some of the location subs where you will get an automatic ban for posting on subs…
/r/MensRights06/10/24 04:51 AM
3

Do you know what the register is or are you assuming it’s something similar to the US? It’s not a public database it’s only accessed by police and the person has to notify local police whenever they move. The requirement is usually for a limited amount of time and it’s very difficult to keep anyone on the list for more than 15 years due to past rulings that found it a violation of human rights (stupid, but that’s courts in Europe for you). A 6 month duration probably means she was not imprisoned…
/r/MensRights04/10/24 03:46 PM
0

In my state, as in most, 50/50 is the default. I’m not sure what people are taking about ‘mandatory’ 50/50, it doesn’t even make sense. If you move a thousand miles away you can’t expect to get equal physical custody even if you have equal legal custody. If you live near enough to get the kids to school, they don’t hate you, and you aren’t a derelict you’ll get week on, week off.
/r/MensRights04/10/24 06:02 AM
0

If you’re in college why are you buying drinks where the cost is an issue? My friends and I would just buy a keg if we arranged the party and no one else was expected to pay. It’s a party not some members only club.
/r/MensRights04/10/24 05:48 AM
1

You literally wrote that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to raise a draft. Congress has to pass a bill to do so and has not since the previous one expired more than 50 years ago. It’s not that complicated. Any draft is not legal until they do, and any argument about who is or isn’t drafted is irrelevant until then because regardless of any registration process it is entirely up to Congress to decide who gets drafted. As I said the current registration process was created by Jimmy Ca…
/r/MensRights04/10/24 05:32 AM
6

And tall handsome men also get privilege from other men. As do attractive women. So?
/r/MensRights03/10/24 10:19 PM
2

You seem a bit confused; Congress hasn’t authorized a draft so it isn’t legal and hasn’t been since 1973.
/r/MensRights03/10/24 09:50 PM
0

You can’t deny that men really do make up the majority of murderers so you just deflect by arguing women are being let off for less serious crimes. Even if that was true (it isn’t) how would it even be possible that men selectively commit fatal crimes but somehow don’t commit non-fatal crimes? Your argument amounts to exactly the stupid propositions that I described. Everyone knows the reality; men murder, rape and rob strangers. Women typically don’t do this, which is why they commit these crim…
/r/MensRights03/10/24 04:56 PM
1

Not biased just stupid. They literally say in the article when you ask the same question you still get the same answer, but somehow the author thinks that asking a different question and getting a different answer means attitudes have changed. Also they mix up the answer to a theoretical question about a future baby and make it sound like this reflects an actual preference of a real son or daughter. When you look at actual data about what people do there is really no change; the sex ratio varies…
/r/MensRights03/10/24 04:43 PM
0

So what’s your argument? Men really are murdering maniacs but no more likely than women to cause non fatal injuries? Or is it that women want to kill more people but they’re just incompetent so they settle for beating up their spouse instead of murdering strangers?
/r/MensRights03/10/24 04:06 PM
-1

Sure it would make sense to get rid of it but is any president going to do it given that the other party is guaranteed to use it against them? And do you think it really matters? Registration is just one bit of data about you when you were 18 that wasn’t even that useful 50 years ago. In the modern world if the govt ever wants to find you and make you fight they have far better ways to do it; every transaction you make is in a database, your phone calls, emails, your license plate is tracked as …
/r/MensRights03/10/24 02:59 PM
0

Right, women gang members are out there on the street gunning down people right and left and then having the charges dropped. 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights03/10/24 02:45 PM
1

Why do people post such trolling nonsense. Having sex with people outside the marriage is mostly a male thing; that’s why it happens in about 50% of gay marriages. In lesbian and straight marriages it’s about 5%.
/r/MensRights03/10/24 02:37 PM
-2

It’s been over 50 years since the US could legally draft anyone so it seems like a silly thing to get upset about. The requirement to register expired at that time but was reinstated in 1980 by Jimmy Carter in a presidential order; any president can make it go away, no action from Congress required.
/r/MensRights03/10/24 02:22 PM
13

It’s a university venue at the start of the year so hardly unusual people would show up on their own. The Guardian had an article about this where a woman basically argued that women and minorities get treated like this all the time so men need to learn what it’s like. I don’t know what shows she goes to but I’ve been to see some bands where the fans are 99% men and every woman will get treated great because the hardcore fans really want them to have a good time. Guys that would push and shove o…
/r/MensRights01/10/24 03:36 AM
1

Married men have a net wealth 3x more; not earnings, wealth. And that is their share of the wealth meaning only half of the wealth shared with their spouse. They could divorce and still have 3x more than a man who never married. But why would they because their expenses would immediately increase by 50% and they wouldn’t get to share the 6x wealth they could have with their spouse. You’d really have to hate women to be that stupid. But go ahead and enjoy your miserable existence and die poor and…
/r/MensRights01/10/24 02:56 AM
1

You mean the money that you’d have more of if you were married? Marriage increase wealth, improves health, longevity and quality of life. An average college educated man aged 51-60 has a net wealth more than 3x higher if he’s in an intact marriage compared to a man that never married. It’s more like 6x if he doesn’t have a college degree.
/r/MensRights30/09/24 05:20 PM
1

Not really, it’s more like not paying your taxes, getting a fine and then ignoring the fine. Netflix is a private business and like most businesses doesn’t think it’s a good idea to prosecute their potential customers. BBC is the government and thinks letting someone steal even a penny off them needs to be punished so it doesn’t encourage others to not pay.
/r/MensRights29/09/24 04:38 PM
8

The politicians are being deceptive because you don’t get sent to jail for not paying the license fee, you get a fine. You go to jail for not paying the fine, just like you would for any other crime. There’s also no targeting going on; they just mail letters to anyone without a license and with no regard to sex. You pretty much only get fined if you confess to stealing the programming. Are women more likely to confess and less likely to pay the fine? Maybe, but I don’t see that as a bias. There’…
/r/MensRights29/09/24 04:34 PM
5

It didn’t go anywhere. The majority of women still want you to be a real man not some indecisive wimp. Just don’t act like a cartoon version of the role.
/r/MensRights27/09/24 11:39 AM
1

If you don’t have a partner to share life with you are sacrificing a large economic and health benefit. It’s easy to say you don’t need anyone when you’re young, but get a bit of experience taking care of an elderly parent/relative and you will soon realize how much harder life is for someone on their own.
/r/MensRights27/09/24 11:28 AM
1

This is only a subset of deaths reported through child protective services, mostly young children. I’m not even sure it’s the type of death that OP was asking about since 80% of the fatalities are non-violent. It certainly can be homicide if a baby dies through neglect but when I read “murder” in OPs title that to me means deliberate planned killing through violence, poison etc, not some drug-addled mother failing to feed the baby or leaving it in a hot car.
/r/MensRights27/09/24 11:19 AM
2

Are you talking about young children? The pattern is very different for infants (mostly murder by parents) vs adolescents (lots of gang murders usually by a man/boy outside the family). A good overall review is https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/1/1/e000112.full.pdf Among murders by parents the mother is the murderer 44% of the time in wealthy countries and 55% of the time worldwide. Among step parents it’s only about 12% women. This study in South Africa is interesting because it shows …
/r/MensRights27/09/24 10:44 AM
27

This is deliberately misleading and no the wife is not asking for 75% of the assets. It’s about him having to put 75% of his assets in a trust so that his ability to blow through the money and ruin the family business is limited. It’s very common in India to have this type of financial structure in wealthy families.
/r/MensRights26/09/24 02:05 PM
1

Remember the Indian school hoax in Canada where they never actually found a single grave but the govt convinced everyone thousands of kids must have died. I would be highly sceptical; the politicians will make up some sensational number then cry their crocodile tears and say how terrible people were in the past. Then nothing will happen but the voters will agree to whatever nonsense cash giveaway the govt wants because they have to show they aren’t evil like their ancestors.
/r/MensRights06/09/24 07:02 AM
3

Ireland is a separate country that is specifically a Catholic state. The UK has nothing to do with Irish law and is mostly Protestant.
/r/MensRights06/09/24 06:48 AM
1

Completely wrong. HIV in most countries is spread by men having sex with men where the risk to the bottom can be over 1%. Women are the collateral damage when they have sex (especially anal) with a man who also has sex with men.
/r/MensRights06/09/24 06:40 AM
3

His figures are correct. Africa is a completely different situation with spread being through female sex workers, frequently having anal sex with men who have had many partners. https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html#:~:text=A%20meta%2Danalysis%20of%2010,sex%20was%20published%20in%202009.&text=It%20is%20estimated%20the%20risk,1%20transmission%20per%201%2C250%20exposures).
/r/MensRights06/09/24 06:28 AM
-4

Not true, it’s quite difficult for a woman to infect a man. It takes on average over 2500 exposures for 1 HIV infection. His highest risk would be if he had anal sex with her and was uncircumcised when it might be 1 in 200.
/r/MensRights06/09/24 06:11 AM
1

And this is related to my comment how? I literally only corrected two massive factual errors ; if I correct someone for saying Stalin was a German Nazi am I somehow supporting Stalin or Nazis?
/r/MensRights06/09/24 06:01 AM
1

Try improving your reading comprehension. OP said the doctor was allowed to continue practicing medicine when the article specifically said he had lost his license before the incident, so obviously he wasn’t. The commenter referred to male lives being disposable when the people who died were all women. Both obvious errors. Now you claim I think it’s ok because women died “as well” when I said nothing like that and there is no “as well”; no boys or men died. Are all of you actually feminists tryi…
/r/MensRights06/09/24 05:54 AM
-2

🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights05/09/24 11:27 PM
-8

Obviously neither you or OP actually read the article since he was an OB/gyn, the patients that died were women, and he lost his medical license. The most recent incident (the only one involving a “chopped off” penis) happened after he lost his medical license and the family was awarded $100 million by a court.
/r/MensRights05/09/24 05:02 PM
1

I’m pretty sure it’s always been more common that homosexual abuse. But I also believe that teen boys didn’t perceive it as abuse and saw no reason to report it. They might have told one or two friends but it was never likely to come out. On the other hand if it was a girl or boy with an adult man then that was perceived as abuse by almost everyone so it was more likely to get reported. Social media is definitely a factor in allowing information to spread. The stuff with dogs is pretty much wome…
/r/MensRights05/09/24 04:49 PM
29

That’s really not what it is or ever was. Originally it was used when a man explained something that a woman already understood, usually something female related like pregnancy, periods, etc. There it made some sense, although there would still be cases where the man might have more knowledge (for example a doctor who has treated thousands of women vs a woman who has only her own experience). Later on women started using it even when the man was actually more knowledgable on the subject, just ou…
/r/MensRights05/09/24 04:29 PM
2

How am I not getting it, when you don’t even have the right facts? You overstate how much child support is being paid by a lot. The woman works and her salary is more than what he pays in child support. Yet you are describing some cartoon gold digger whore that is irrelevant to the case.
/r/MensRights03/09/24 03:02 PM
2

It does cap for most people, and at a very much middle class level. Most states have a table where you can look it up. Not sure why you want to take up for some super rich guy who’s just mad he has to pay for his kid. Btw he pays no alimony and less than a quarter of what you claim in child support.
/r/MensRights03/09/24 09:11 AM
2

By your logic the child of a billionaire should only receive the same child support as the child of someone that makes 30k per year. And is the child going to want to live in some roach infested slum when they can live with the billionaire and have anything they want? So no, it’s not absurd, women are just hypocrites when it’s the woman who is the rich one.
/r/MensRights02/09/24 04:52 PM
1

Why would it be taxable? The tax is already paid on that income. You could make it deductible to the person paying support and taxable to the spouse, and then adjust the payment, which would be more logical. But the govt isn’t going to allow that because they will be the one losing money.
/r/MensRights02/09/24 04:41 PM
1

What a fucking weirdo you are. Teachers in the US have garbage training; I knew more math in high school than they do when the finish a degree. And no, I’m a man and I know plenty of teachers in US and Europe to judge. In Europe my teacher friends have real degrees and write text books; in the US they are mostly ignorant of their subject above the level they teach and unions use protectionist schemes to keep out the people with real degrees. In my state if I wanted to teach math in a public scho…
/r/MensRights23/08/24 09:41 PM
-5

Please tell me who was able to vote first, Women or Black men? Who was able to get a credit card in their name first, Women or Black men? Attend an Ivy League university? Serve in the military? Serve on a jury? Get a clue dude.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 07:47 AM
-3

They always sound so definitive, but the fact is they would lie to save him even if they knew he was guilty. It’s not the Innocence Project, it’s the Probably Guilty but 20 Years Later Can You be Sure Project.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 07:38 AM
-8

Really? Is there not a long history of men discriminating against women? Do you think people will just forget about that?
/r/MensRights21/08/24 07:31 AM
-8

Of course you brought it up. Are you so blind that when you compare to BLM you think men are the equivalent of the discriminated race? Do I need to remind you that long after black men could vote, women couldn’t? That long after black men could have credit cards and bank accounts women couldn’t? People have no reason to feel that there is some historical injustice done against men, so they will not ignore the hypocrisy they will call it out and use it as ammunition against men.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 07:29 AM
2

I think you are using the wrong word (alimony) and mean child support. The principle is that the child is not the criminal and deserves support. The child support is not a reward for the mother, and is separate from any criminal punishment she gets for her crime. It’s easy to say that she should pay all the money to raise the child as part of her punishment, but in reality she will hardly ever make enough money to do this. My main concern is that the father should also have the right to 50% cust…
/r/MensRights21/08/24 07:17 AM
1

First, you are the one who generalized DV to all violence which is why I gave statistics for both. Second, the ratio in DV is still nearly 2:1, and playing games where you round up to 40% and then say that’s almost 50% doesn’t make that reality. I also clearly explained how feminists mislead to exaggerate the difference. But apparently you think that I am attacking men if I don’t reject reality and believe your nonsense.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 06:49 AM
-10

You don’t seem to realize you are proposing the equivalent of White Lives Matter.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 06:27 AM
-1

🫣🫣🫣
/r/MensRights21/08/24 06:22 AM
-5

Does being a hypocrite and ignoring a legitimate issue make anyone more favorable to mens rights? No.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 06:10 AM
-10

I gave you facts, you respond with irrational hatred. Also if you paid attention in primary school math you would know that 66/34=1.94 and 63/37=1.7, so as I said about 2 to 1 men.
/r/MensRights19/08/24 11:43 PM
-12

You cherry picked a number for the US , ignoring the much higher ratios in 3 other English speaking countries. You make a claim about women “getting away” with murder that is not supported. Then you apply this data to make a general statement about violence, despite the fact that a very large percentage of non- domestic murders are committed by men. Let’s have a look at some unbiased data. most murder victims are men (82% US, 79% Worldwide), although a few countries with very low murder rates, s…
/r/MensRights19/08/24 09:45 PM
-2

The discussion is about military combat. If you want to be anti conscription for anyone that’s a separate issue.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 07:13 PM
1

Statistician (esp in pharma industry), actuary, financial analyst, cryptography. Obviously if you get a MS or PhD you’ll start higher, and the best thing is you won’t wind up with a lot of debt because any legit graduate program will come with funding to cover the costs and probably even set you up with an intern program to get you on the job experience.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 02:35 AM
1

In the US math is pretty much guaranteed 6 figure starting income unless you become a teacher.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 01:48 AM
4

Not sure what your issue is. He was specifically talking about mothers, not women in general; and he was specifically referring to a combat role, not military service as a whole. Given normal age limitations this would refer to women with minor children. If you honestly think that the mother should be sent into combat instead of the father, well , all I can say is you don’t ever have to worry about it .
/r/MensRights18/08/24 01:31 AM
1

Math and hard sciences are pretty much guaranteed big money. Most of the people you are competing with at entry level don’t even have work status because they come from China or India, so companies have to hire you first. Arts and social sciences are mostly worthless. Of course if you are intelligent you will succeed by proving your ability, but the degree itself has no value because there are so many low intelligence people who have the same degree.
/r/MensRights17/08/24 07:13 PM
1

And you keep assuming something for which there is no evidence.
/r/MensRights17/08/24 06:43 PM
1

And let’s be idiots and spend money on health care that has no proven benefit, money that is then not available to pay for treatments that actually improve the length and quality of life. So we’ll actually harm people so you don’t get upset. 💀💀💀
/r/MensRights16/08/24 10:40 PM
-2

It’s more than 50 years old and originally written in German. How many translated German non-fiction books that old, but still under copyright, are getting republished or turned into English audio books? There’s no conspiracy, the original print version is rare and sells for a lot of money, and there’s not enough interest to pay for a reprint or a reader to record an English audiobook. You can easily find an ebook version although most are probably copyright violations. It’s not that interesting…
/r/MensRights16/08/24 05:51 PM
2

There’s no real gap. If women choose lower paying jobs and get degrees in subjects that are less valuable then that’s on them; or maybe they want a man to be in charge of making better choices for them? That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some individual cases of women being underpaid, but overall those cancel out with cases where they’re overpaid because employers are trying to increase the number of women in some job rather than choose the best employee.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 05:26 PM
-1

Bad example. You want everyone to pay stupid tax to the govt so they can provide free vaccine to people for whom there is no proven benefit. Do you want free mammograms for men too? Save the money to spend on treatments that actually work, that’s how you live longer.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 09:27 AM
1

It’s probably true, but both sides can play with numbers and how you define things. The woman will be worse off because she’s likely to be the one with the lower income if she stopped working due to kids or other reasons her future earnings are further reduced she’s less likely to remarry and regain the efficiency of two people living together Of course if she is the one initiating the divorce then it’s her choosing the financial loss so it’s not clear why this should be something she complains …
/r/MensRights16/08/24 08:53 AM
1

This is an old case, the rapist got his retrial and was convicted again. Got an even longer sentence than the first time. There was never any doubt he was guilty, the victims friends put her to bed. She woke up and he was in the bed with her, which he didn’t deny. If you read the details the guy was a complete idiot and could have walked away from it without involving the police but he refused to apologize.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 08:14 AM
2

Put on some boots with big heels and you can be 6’4”; borrow your gf highest heels and you might be 6’8”. You might not want to get caught taking the photo though.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 07:26 AM
2

Title is pretty misleading. No one ever said 90% of scholarships are for women. There are well over 1 million college scholarships available in the US and almost all of them are available regardless of sex. The 90% comes from a small subset of scholarships that are limited to one sex.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 07:14 AM
3

Maybe he should at least have had a warning she doesn’t take her birth control reliably. Imagine the reaction if a guy was using condoms that he knew had holes in them.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 06:56 AM
6

You repeated a lot of false information and the truth is much simpler. She actually can break dance the competitive scene in Australia is so bad that she really does win competitions, including being the “best” female breaker in Oceania the competitions she won met the standard set by the AOC to go to Paris She did a deliberately stupid performance because she knew she would lose anyway and convinced herself that people would appreciate her artistic “genius” The real question to ask is how such …
/r/MensRights14/08/24 02:17 PM
2

Why would I change my view on any of those things based on who supported it? I base my view on what’s right and wrong.
/r/MensRights14/08/24 01:32 AM
1

If you aren’t really taking care of your son 50% of the time that’s why your child support is increased. The cost is assumed to be proportional to the amount of time you have care of him. So either you pay more or you have to have him at your house/apt more.
/r/MensRights13/08/24 02:22 PM
2

When I had one the nurse did seem to enjoy telling me that it’s the closest a man gets to feeling what it’s like to give birth.
/r/MensRights13/08/24 02:09 PM
23

Correlation not causation.
/r/MensRights13/08/24 02:06 PM
1

Try not to show your ignorance. The numbers are based on a statistically accurate approach and you don’t get to substitute your psychic prediction for what a 20 year old might do at an age they haven’t lived yet. You are the one playing games counting people who’s partners have died as “not married”, and for that matter someone who is divorced now but spent the majority of their adult life married is not the same as a loser like you that wants to drag others into your misery.
/r/MensRights13/08/24 02:11 AM
2

It sounds like a fake video. I’ve been to many countries and never encountered a bathroom like that, although some were certainly primitive. As for filming, if there’s another person in the bathroom and you’re in the US, it’s definitely illegal. You have a first amendment right to record in public places, but other people have a first amendment right to privacy in a public bathroom and the latter prevails in most cases. Of course there is always a balance so the details matter. If someone was fi…
/r/MensRights13/08/24 02:02 AM
1

Did you get notified about the restraining order before it was issued? Usually you can’t enforce an out of state order in PA unless the person had a chance to respond in the other state. The best way to respond isn’t to get your own restraining order but to go after her for perjury; you probably can’t get them to actually prosecute her (and maybe you don’t want to) but it should stop her from trying the same thing again.
/r/MensRights13/08/24 01:16 AM
1

A teaching degree is like taking an intro course to a lot of subjects with no depth in anything. The fact that you don’t understand this suggests you never even attended college. My Dad is dead btw, but he got to see all of his sons complete advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering, so 🖕
/r/MensRights13/08/24 12:56 AM
1

The headline is definitely inaccurate. When you get this procedure you are consenting to a full circumcision if the surgeon considers it necessary, and no surgeon is going to start the procedure without having that signed by the patient. In the consult before the procedure you will be asked if you want them to do a standard circumcision or to leave some foreskin if possible, but there is no guarantee. Once the infected tissue is removed the surgeon has to assess what is left and he can’t just le…
/r/MensRights13/08/24 12:49 AM
0

I want teachers that actually understand the subject and aren’t just reading words out of a book. The idiots I’ve seen teaching math and the sciences in the US couldn’t even qualify to start a science degree in Europe never mind complete it. They’re like monkeys that can push the right buttons on a calculator but have no idea wgy that’s the right answer or what it means in the real world.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 11:14 PM
4

This is a balanced review of Title IX, something that was never even intended to apply to sports. https://reason.com/2022/06/23/title-ix-didnt-make-college-sports-equal-it-made-them-contentious/ btw the govt already said the same 50/50 split will apply to the sponsorship money that college athletes are now allowed to receive while in college. So if some male player is getting a big pile of money because soon he will be making 10s of millions in the NBA or NFL and companies want to get the inside…
/r/MensRights11/08/24 10:49 PM
20

In the US you have the exact reverse. Because a few mens college sports are very popular with fans and donors they generate a lot of money. The government then forces the colleges to spend half the money on money losing womens sports. You then get the ridiculous situation of low quality womens programs spending money on scholarships and charter flights across the country just to be able to use up the budget. Comparable level mens programs have no scholarships and play games locally because the m…
/r/MensRights11/08/24 07:47 PM
2

Obviously triggered by the Olympics. It’s not like women have this romantic idea about being proposed to in Paris 😉. And apparently male competitors didn’t think they were giving up “their day” when they proposed. And the women competitors, strangely they all seemed … happy? I guess they must have all been faking it.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 03:43 PM
1

He doesn’t even state what he said, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it’s a bad idea to have a discussion when you’re drunk.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 03:01 PM
1

Yes, climate change is making Pakistani men beat their wives. (Also please ignore that 50 years ago hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis were dying in floods every year so that we can pretend climate actually is worse).
/r/MensRights11/08/24 02:54 PM
1

Did you even try, or you just used one paragraph? Anyone should be able to recognize paragraphs like the one below because it’s blatant and doesn’t even make sense (and yes it shows as AI written in the tool you suggested) “ Many men attest to being pressured to meet specific physical criteria, such as being over six feet tall and possessing a well-defined physique with prominent muscles. These criteria suggest engagement in physical exercises, maintenance of a youthful appearance, and the fulfi…
/r/MensRights11/08/24 01:59 PM
2

No one noticed this is a crap AI written article that provides a list of opinions off the internet, not actual evidence? Here is real data showing the opposite. https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey
/r/MensRights11/08/24 07:11 AM
1

Teaching degrees are useless, they’re just an excuse for setting low standards. Teachers should have a proper degree in the subject they teach to ensure they actually know more than their students, plus a one year teaching certificate.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 03:54 AM
1

The quote was about marrying and the comment tried to flip it to “prefer”. That’s like saying millions of women would prefer to marry George Clooney, but that’s not who they actually marry. You need to check your statistics because 80% of Americans marry by the time they are 40 and another 10% have a long term partner.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 03:50 AM
3

Merkel did when trying to justify her immigrant policy against the reality of huge increases in crime against women.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 03:34 AM
2

Teachers, yes if the decrease in qualifications is not too large (I presume paying male teachers more than female to attract equal quality is impossible in modern society). HR people are all morons so idgaf. The rest it’s fine if mostly women want those jobs.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 11:39 PM
-17

You’re the one mixing up preference with who women actually marry. What the quote is explaining is that it’s impossible for women to all ‘marry up’; for every woman actually marrying up there has to be another woman marrying down. The real world is most men and women choosing someone at about the same level as themselves. Then a group at the bottom that would rather have no relationship than one with someone at their level. And finally a group at or near the top that think they can always do bet…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 11:31 PM
2

I have no problem with women who want to do it of their own free will. The crazy part is trying to argue it’s got nothing to do with sex and that the bf has no reason to think about that.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 05:25 AM
62

What a head case. Stripping so men can get their jollies is the same as a flight attendant smiling at a customer? Most strip clubs probably have at least one girl outright hooking and plenty of the younger girls will “party” with rich customers if they get offered enough, including getting hands on. Suggest something to a flight attendant and the odds are you’ll have a police escort off the plane.
/r/MensRights09/08/24 06:56 PM
7

You let yourself get bated into this situation; never show anger. All you can do is get a lawyer to handle this case and start sorting out how you get your stuff back from her, including the house. You probably need to go through a formal eviction process; in civilized states she is probably treated as a month to month renter and you give 30 days notice, but some places it can be a nightmare. Also get advice on what financial support and custody arrangements you should make for your daughters. Y…
/r/MensRights09/08/24 02:53 PM
-3

The UK has refused to extradite plenty of men to the US because of stupid excuses about the law in the US. UK won’t even extradite terrorists because they might get the punishment they deserve. So no, I don’t feel bad that the US won’t send this woman to the UK; at least she can honestly say it wasn’t intentional unlike the people the UK protects.
/r/MensRights09/08/24 02:23 PM
10

Hopefully you rated the note as not needed. btw Elon Musk was clearly suggesting he felt the same.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 08:18 PM
1

In the US I know male doctors with long hair. Earrings are a hygiene issue so anything other than studs is out for men or women. The pilots I know are all ex-military guys so they wouldn’t be caught dead with either.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 05:00 AM
5

If a man didn’t want sex he could just get a roommate to share living costs. And a female roommate would assume he wanted sex anyway, complain if he asked her to share the chores and complain that he didn’t do things the way she wanted. So of course he gets a male roommate.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 04:46 AM
8

You seem confused. You’re mad because some guys prefer to have their wives focus on taking care of the kids and the home, and leave earning the money to them? If you make 250k per year why the fuck would you even want your wife to work full time for 30k of which the govt is going to take half? That would be stupidly inefficient. Nobody said you have to live that way.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 04:34 AM
1

Sure and when you have no father and your mother is a drug addled prostitute who exactly will be organizing your participation? The school and social workers that already failed to help you?
/r/MensRights08/08/24 04:25 AM
0

Stop your performative nonsense. You know perfectly well there are laws that spell everything out and anyone capable of legally getting married is also capable of understanding what they are agreeing to.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 04:20 AM
1

By your logic it would be a sexual assault to put sunscreen on a boys chest. Something that is clearly inappropriate when touching a female is completely normal when touching a male. Every man knows that so stop your silly performance.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 04:17 AM
0

Is this a bad translation from another language? Because in English that’s an expression that’s only ever used about trafficking. It comes from the UN and originated 20+ years ago when only about10% of people trafficked were men. Men are still the minority, but it has increased to nearly a quarter.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 08:37 AM
-2

But you said it was so easy. 🤡
/r/MensRights07/08/24 08:18 AM
5

No, he’s a fucking idiot. England has invaded almost every country in the whole world and almost nobody is cut there. Worst mass murderers in history? Communist Russia: not cut. Nazi Germany: nope. Maos China: nope. Pol Pots Cambodia: nope. Genghis Khan: nope. Ivan the Terrible: nope. Tojo’s Japan: nope. Leopold of Belgium : nope. Pasha of Turkey; hey, finally got one. Kim Il Sung: nope. Mengistu: ok, well down the list but Ethiopians tend to be cut.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 08:16 AM
-1

Sure, make it happen. Tell me the name of your organization and I’ll check it out.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 07:51 AM
1

I think you just made most of these up, and all of your “sources” are bad links . Mens grooming products cost more 😂😂😂. The woman’s stuff costs much more, come on dude how do you not notice every time you buy blades? Clothes? You actually went there on clothes? 😂😂😂 Fitness? The cost of subscription is literally the same for men and women. Sporting equipment? Wtf are you even comparing. Golf clubs are the same price for men and women if it’s the same club design. Can I go to the store and actuall…
/r/MensRights07/08/24 07:48 AM
-5

Really? It’s so easy that the government can’t manage it with trillions spent a year but you solved it just like that. 🙄
/r/MensRights07/08/24 07:17 AM
-1

That makes no sense. Did someone hold a gun to their heads when they signed the contract saying this woman is now your legal partner with everything split down the middle? Don’t like the terms, don’t sign.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 07:14 AM
-6

Really? “Society” is going to send someone right over to teach you all the things your family didn’t, stop you goofing off school, drinking and taking drugs? They’re going to have someone teach you to manage money responsibly, to buy a car that’s not a money pit, how to shop around for a loan? 😂😂😂 Stop making ignorant assumptions. I’m not making some political statement, I’m just telling you that here are two guys that were capable of being outstanding students at the most elite colleges in the …
/r/MensRights07/08/24 07:07 AM
7

You probably shouldn’t believe what the Guardian says about conservatives; it’s about as reliable what Trump says about people on the left. Maybe you should read Vance’s book, or Rob Henderson’s book Troubled. They’re both examples of kids from highly dysfunctional families that were on a path to a wasted life and early death, but were saved by some time in the military. They explain exactly why that helped them and it had nothing to do with fighting and killing people. It’s more about having a …
/r/MensRights07/08/24 02:51 AM
-45

Because that would be sexual. Do I need to explain the difference between a man and a woman?
/r/MensRights07/08/24 02:21 AM
5

There’s no question that short men are discriminated against more than any other group. I think it must be one of those in built prejudices from thousands of years ago when short probably meant poor nutrition as a child, which resulted in poor health, lower strength and intelligence. Other prejudices are more learned from your social group rather than instinctual.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 02:17 AM
-56

Touching a man’s chest is sexual? So if I give someone a bro hug that’s assault, or do I get a pass because I’m straight? Somebody needs to get out more
/r/MensRights07/08/24 01:55 AM
-4

This is like saying you entered into a business in which you legally agreed that you and the other partner each owned 50% of the business. Then after 15 years you decide to end the business and you’re surprised that your partner gets 50%? 😂😂😂 Wherever you live the rules are clearly spelled out in advance. In some places it’s strictly 50/50 in others the one earning more will get a larger proportion especially if the marriage was short and/or both kept working.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 01:43 AM
0

Try to weasel your way out of it; your argument was you wanted to force an abortion so you could get out of paying. It’s your baby, you have to pay not force the woman to abort, and not make some other men pay for you.
/r/MensRights06/08/24 01:23 AM
1

Completely unenforceable because the child is still the victim. You might as well say all men earning less than 30k per year have to get sterilized. You chose to stick your dick in; that’s the choice you get.
/r/MensRights06/08/24 01:21 AM
2

The article is full of misinformation where she wrongly speculates that her ex could have gotten something that was unfair (but didn’t). The only part that is true is that her mother made a gift of money towards the house down payment and it became joint property to be shared equally. But of course this is the case; the house was jointly owned, what else would anyone expect. Does she want to take back any Christmas presents her family gave the ex? And who the f would agree to a prenup that said …
/r/MensRights05/08/24 06:48 AM
0

I realize you just want to murder babies as some perverted revenge on women, but child support is proportional to each parents income. So maybe keep your dick in your pants if she has no income. As for Bill Gates the government could take everything he’s got and it still wouldn’t cover the payments for one year. The people who have to pay are the regular people that take care of their own kids and don’t need more people like you leeching off them.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 05:37 AM
1

I don’t disagree with that but Finland is a good example because they insisted teachers have to be very good and were prepared to pay a lot but still they got mostly women. They did a lot of research and even made lower standards for men to qualify. For comparison Finnish teachers are all in the top 10% of undergraduate students and have degrees in the subjects they teach. In the US most teachers are not even in the top third and have low quality degrees where they barely learn their subject bey…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 10:08 PM
1

And I already explained that people don’t accept that because you are victimizing the child who did nothing wrong. You want payback on the women but your way of doing it hurts innocent children and is therefore immoral and unacceptable to any normal person.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 09:59 PM
2

No, they don’t. Their analysis is wrong but they are in fact concluding that patriarchy causes women to murder.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 09:56 PM
2

You should read the research done in Finland, where they pay quite well and easily recruit women in the top 10% of undergraduates. They can’t hire men because most men in the top 10% make a lot more in other jobs. Pay is definitely messed up in Canada. In the US or UK teachers get paid much less but make it up with benefits.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:07 PM
0

It’s how everything works. You don’t even understand that child support is for the child . You don’t get to punish the child or push the costs off to other people just because you hate the mother. She could be a serial killer who chopped off your dick; you still owe child support to the child.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 01:48 PM
2

I didn’t say teachers get paid poorly. In most countries they get paid market rate, which for a well educated man will be a lot less than he can earn in a private sector job. Sounds like Canadian teachers are overpaid unless they are selecting from the top 10% of college graduates (I know this isn’t the case, Finland is the only country where that happens).
/r/MensRights04/08/24 01:40 PM
-2

Someone somewhere got away with murder. By your logic everyone is now free to murder in the interest of symmetry. If you can’t understand that only an insane person thinks that way then you are doomed to life in your parents basement.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 11:15 AM
2

Not going to happen. The only way you get more men is to pay much higher wages, and that means you’ll have to overpay all the women teachers too. Women become teachers because it’s a guaranteed job for life, you don’t have to compete or take risks for success, and you get lots of time off. Those privileges have to come at a cost of lower wages, and men would rather take the risk and work harder to get more money.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 11:09 AM
-12

What does that have to do with anything? Just because someone else does something fucked up doesn’t mean I have to pay your rent. I didn’t kill anybody and I’m already paying for enough lazy bastards.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 10:59 AM
10

I don’t think you understand what these articles actually say. They are saying that men being privileged makes men more likely to kill AND women more likely to kill. Women being more privileged makes everybody kill less. The whole thing is nonsense. Also have a look at their measure of “inequality”; having children at a younger age makes women in that state more unequal? Last I checked birth control is easily available and usually free in all 50 states. Also why is it that the highest murder rat…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 10:51 AM
-9

Some people have the brains of a cabbage; and they wonder why no woman is interested in them 😂
/r/MensRights04/08/24 10:03 AM
0

You’re talking about a made up story that gets reposted in social media over and over. There is no such event that ever took place.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 09:59 AM
-13

How is it fair that you pass the cost on to me? You fucked her, you pay. Stop pretending that the government has some magic money fountain that can take away peoples responsibility.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 09:50 AM
1

This is a common situation in the US where responsibilities and funding are divided between the state and federal governments. The federal government never considers whether they are creating perverse incentives for the states. For example in mental health federal funding for institutional care is less than for out patient care. Therefore the states kick people out of institutional care because it saves them money. This results in worse care for patients, more expense for taxpayers (because the …
/r/MensRights03/08/24 09:08 PM
1

The only specific thing you mention about your wife is that she cuts her hair in a way you don’t like. Ok, maybe just tell her what you like and try to reach a compromise that sometimes she’s going to let it grow out more the way you like it. She can even wear wigs or hair extensions if you’re going out somewhere; plenty of women do that. As for the money stuff, why be jealous of other people getting easy money? They aren’t taking it from you, and women (and men) with no talent have always been …
/r/MensRights03/08/24 08:23 PM
0

Having the superficial appearance of a vagina does nothing to change the fact he has testes and male advantage, the very thing the category for women is designed to exclude. I also think you have no idea of the physical reality of what the genitalia looks like for people with DSDs because you imagine some fantasy where it’s a woman’s body with a face like a man. No, it’s a man’s body with genitalia not looking like a man or a woman.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:53 AM
7

Yet men are more than twice as likely to be murdered, 1.5x more likely to be the victims of violent crime, have less healthy and shorter lives. Therefore, by the same logic we need to focus on men as victims in priority to women victims. Or here’s an idea, we could just focus on preventing harm to everyone in accordance to its seriousness.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 01:38 AM
4

Are women free to vote for the political candidates they choose? Yes Do womens votes count equally to mens? Yes Are women free to choose how they live their lives, their jobs, their education? Yes. Would it be both criminal and economically stupid to favor a worse performing man over a better performing woman? Yes Conclusion: NOT a Patriarchy
/r/MensRights03/08/24 01:26 AM
2

Let them have their silly word games. ffs look at the people who say that and the things they do, talk about projection.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 01:16 AM
16

That’s like me saying I’ve never regretted not playing for Barcelona, and I heard Ibra say he hated it there and left as soon as he could. Of course I don’t regret it because there was never any chance it was going to happen .
/r/MensRights03/08/24 01:11 AM
-3

He’s not trans, he’s a man with a DSD, and no he can’t have a fully developed vagina because he has no uterus? And what would that have to do with being a male homosexual, since he’s very likely to be attracted to men. Depending on the DSD there’s a good chance he even has functional sperm and can have children. You can pretend all you want but it isn’t hate to not want people with male advantage to compete against women, and in fighting sports it’s the very opposite of hate. The question is why…
/r/MensRights02/08/24 11:47 PM
-2

You didn’t notice that she clearly referred to the rights claimed by trans women, I.e. men. 20 years ago people would think you were insane if you said it was a man’s right to make people treat him as a woman. Hence “new mens right movement”.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 07:28 PM
0

How do I know? Because unlike you I understand DSDs and the physical and biochemical differences.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 07:23 PM
0

No, it’s not. If you’re XY you’re male. The example you give isn’t one relevant to sports but a person with that condition has testes, and doesn’t produce eggs. The examples relevant to sports are 1) impaired ability to produce DHT leading to underdevelopment of external genitalia. These people undergo all other aspects of puberty as with other males and have full male advantage. 2) impaired ability to use testosterone; depending on the level of impairment they have less than full male advantage…
/r/MensRights02/08/24 07:21 PM
1

DNA
/r/MensRights02/08/24 07:04 PM
1

“ Al Gore couldn't handle such hypocrisy anymore and divorced her in 2010” Pretty sure she just got fed up of him screwing around. He also got women to massage him frequently. More important, didn’t he literally “choose the bear”.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:45 PM
-14

XY, he has them whatever you say. Learn about DSDs.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:25 PM
1

What details? If the woman committed some fraud sure, send her to jail, humiliate her publicly, fine her, whatever you want. But in the end it’s still going to come back to the baby did nothing wrong and has to be supported , so the father is on the hook .
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:22 PM
0

It means you have a male “spirit” and a female “spirit”. Some idiot read a book about Native American religious beliefs and decided it was a real thing,
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:17 PM
-28

Khelif is a biologic man with testes and the male sporting advantage that confers.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:14 PM
1

She’s blaming men because it’s men in the IOC making the decisions, and those men are in fact misogynists who put the rights of men with DSDs ahead of those of women even though it is obvious to any observer that they do have an advantage due to their XY chromosomes.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:08 PM
5

They had DNA tests. Only the IOC refuses to do this and have chosen to apply their own standards, which are basically that to avoid mentally “harming” such people by insisting they compete as men they are quite prepared to physically harm biological women.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:03 PM
0

False. Such a person does not have a vagina, only superficial appearance of one. They also have testes not a uterus and have the male sporting advantage.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:00 PM
0

If you’ve got testes (and they do) you’re a male with male advantage in sports. And yes, she’s referring to the right groups; T isn’t the only letter in 2SLGBTQIA+ .
/r/MensRights02/08/24 03:54 PM
-13

Way to misunderstand the post. It’s about the misogynists in the LGBTABCDs groups not traditional mens rights.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 03:48 PM
1

If you get some woman pregnant it’s not a pragmatic solution to say other people should pay because you don’t want to. If you get disabled I support you with my money because that’s what people do in a civilized society; if you stick your dick in a woman and she gets pregnant that’s on you and her and you don’t get to pass the cost on to me. Mens Rights doesn’t mean you don’t have responsibilities and it doesn’t mean other people have to fix your personal disputes with women in a way that you pr…
/r/MensRights02/08/24 03:41 PM
0

Just idiots that don’t understand failing to register won’t stop you getting drafted since everyone is already tracked by their social security number. It also can hurt you; fail to do it before you’re 26 and you’ll never get a government job, loans from the govt, and if you’re an immigrant you can be denied citizenship.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:44 AM
0

Those two reasons have nothing to do with being signed up for the draft. You think that not signing up will prevent them drafting you? The fact that they can do it automatically already shows they know who you are and where you are. You want to be able to commit a pointless felony and still get drafted. That makes a lot of sense 🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:32 AM
1

No, because that’s even less acceptable. “Social security” isn’t some magic money generator, it’s people paying for somebody else’s child. If you want to pay to support other peoples kids go ahead and donate the money, but most people prefer to pay for their own kids.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 04:22 AM
0

There are assholes in any workplace, some are women. Why do you care if they’re women or men? If they groped you or made comments about body parts then just get them fired, it’s not difficult. If you don’t like how they talk to you, well just suck it up. You don’t need to copy the whining of women who are probably bad at their job and just want a bunch of man-haters and beta males to tell them how unfair life is.
/r/MensRights01/08/24 03:17 AM
-31

Repost. Also what’s the issue, it already happens automatically in some states and why would you want somebody to accidentally commit a felony if they didn’t realize they had to register? Don’t say something stupid like the draft is unconstitutional, or it’s not fair because women don’t have to do it. Those are completely separate issues that have nothing to do with saving people some paperwork.
/r/MensRights01/08/24 02:54 AM
1

Ever hear of the Karpman drama triangle? You interfere thinking he’s the victim, she’s the persecutor and you’re the hero. As soon as you do she’s now the victim, you’re the persecutor and the bf will be the hero.
/r/MensRights31/07/24 11:38 PM
-6

I don’t see the issue with this. Anyone that’s ever booked a ticket online can see that it’s not going to work anyway and the people using this will just be paying more and giving up the chance of better seats. Think about it; you can’t book early because no seats are filled. When they do fill nobody is selecting the middle seat in an empty row, so realistically you have to wait until two women have already chosen seats with an empty space in between. So you’ve now waited, therefore higher ticke…
/r/MensRights31/07/24 04:47 PM
1

It’s a twisted version of reality. In recent years more women have been going into the funeral industry (morgues is just a small niche as most people go straight to a funeral home not a public morgue). This is because it’s become financially lucrative with affordable training, and women are now less likely to be scared away by the unpleasant aspects. Since most nurses are women there was really no reason that the person being dead suddenly made it a man’s job.
/r/MensRights31/07/24 03:50 PM
1

You’ll always lose that argument because once the baby is born it’s no longer relevant what the parents did or didn’t do. The baby has their own rights and that requires that both parents provide financial support. As long as the baby is not considered to have rights until born we are trapped in a situation where the woman will always be in control.
/r/MensRights31/07/24 03:38 PM
5

And 70% of people tried for murder are found guilty. Does this mean 70% of all people are murderers? Of course not, the percentage of all people that are murderers is 0.01% (0.02% if you want to count suicides.
/r/MensRights30/07/24 05:32 PM
2

Crazy cat lady.
/r/MensRights30/07/24 04:06 AM
1

You’ve done it! We don’t need vaccines any more either!!! 🙄
/r/MensRights30/07/24 12:34 AM
1

Because having a foreskin makes you more susceptible to HIV infection. If you want all the details about elevated cytokine levels and increased density of HIV susceptible T cells on the inner foreskin you can look it up yourself. Making silly comments about how it’s impossible doesn’t cancel out objective evidence from a good quality randomized study. I’m not even advocating getting circumcised, only pointing out there is a valid reason for an adult to choose to do it if he is putting himself at…
/r/MensRights28/07/24 08:37 PM
1

Boris Becker says hi.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 05:36 PM
0

Less chance. Mostly relevant for someone having sex with a lot of partners, and in US at least for men having sex with men.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 05:33 PM
0

🤡🤡🤡 You keep changing your arguments but you are still the one ignorant of basic facts about the human body. Honey 🤮
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:38 PM
-1

There are multiple randomized controlled trials showing that circumcising adult men reduced the rate of HIV infection. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60312-2/abstract https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:33 PM
1

No, your obsession with believing that women prison officers frequently grope men is pervy.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:27 PM
-1

The only proven benefit is in reducing HIV infections. So there is plenty of time for your son to decide for himself if he will be at risk.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 07:57 AM
-3

With you on this. No need to pretend to be outraged just to “get even”.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 07:46 AM
26

Just idiots playing silly games. I propose a new bill; since women get free birth control and men don’t, all women who don’t get pregnant can be sued by their ex partners and forced to pay for the cost of condoms.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 07:41 AM
0

Youre just embarrassing yourself when you ignore all the cases where the sex was reversed. There is no pattern of ruling one way for men and the other for women. You’re also still mixing up who did the searches vs who was in a position to have observed. I don’t know why you want to believe this pervy fantasy about women prison officers being able to grope men with great frequency.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 07:35 AM
3

Stop showing your ignorance. The mouth has a pH around 7 ; the vagina has a pH around 4. That means the vagina is 1000x more acidic than the mouth. The stomach has a pH of 2.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 07:11 AM
10

Wrong. If you take sperm from anywhere in or on the body and put it in the vagina it can cause a pregnancy. If it’s dried out and crusty then the sperm is dead, but if it’s still liquid the sperm is alive unless it goes into the stomach and gets destroyed by acid,
/r/MensRights28/07/24 01:04 AM
2

Any AI trained on internet data is going to be biased just based on the source material. It has no way to properly evaluate truth and so it mostly resorts to a popularity contest. The programmers can make it worse by applying rules that conflict with objective reality but fundamentally AI is like a little child believing the predominant view that it hears. Even if you trained it only on scientific papers it would still be biased in favor of the currently fashionable opinions which themselves are…
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:45 PM
1

Obviously you didn’t actually read since it proves my point. Also it is completely gender neutral; unlike your claim men lose cases for exactly the same reasons as women. You also make the ridiculous claim that “it is not uncommon” that women search men; this would require that there be hundreds of such cases every year.
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:18 PM
3

This is not an accurate description of the situation in the US. Searches by a member of the opposite sex are just not permitted. Where there have been legal cases the issue has been that the search was done in a place where members of the opposite sex were present or could observe from a distance. The case law is entirely sex neutral; the prisoner has constitutional rights to privacy and religious freedom and the presence of officers of the opposite sex is only permitted in unusual circumstances…
/r/MensRights27/07/24 01:36 AM
-5

His career was done regardless; he was screwing someone that worked for him, that was never in dispute and why he was fired right away.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 04:25 PM
16

To be clear the case wasn’t about legal abortion where men have never had any say. Abortion after 12 weeks is illegal in Switzerland except in emergency, and is punishable by up to 3 years in prison. But in reality the woman is never prosecuted and only rarely the person performing the abortion is convicted. This case was about whether the father had any right to sue the woman for the crime she committed.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 04:10 PM
-1

It’s nearly a thousand pages. I guarantee you haven’t read even 1% of it, you just read some lies in a twitter post.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 04:48 AM
6

I can’t say what your political alignment should be but I think you are better off to be aligned with gay organizations that keep separate from the trans community. When I was growing up having sex with another man was illegal in my country. As things changed for the better a bunch of pedo groups tried to latch on to the gay community (to try to get legalization for what they wanted). Some in the gay community wanted to ally with them as both being “victims”. I feel like today the trans and othe…
/r/MensRights25/07/24 03:55 AM
1

Out of all the family and friends I can think of one where the wife is bossy and clearly controls things. A couple more where the wife is more subtle but I can tell she gets what she wants in a lot of big decisions. Every other family it’s clearly the man deciding the major stuff, most of the time. This is across white American/ European, Indian, Chinese, Arab, West African.
/r/MensRights25/07/24 03:33 AM
5

I’m not sure why reading romance novels of no literary value or Prince Harry’s biography for titillating stories about his private parts should be considered a better use of time than any other source of vacuous entertainment. I looked at the top 25 bestsellers from last year and it’s all trash apart from the books for little kids (two of which are very old). Where are the comparable stories about how little women follow the news (either newspapers or cable) compared to men. As biased and bad as…
/r/MensRights25/07/24 03:17 AM
0

Was that a category in the analysis they did (your kind never bothers with facts so I’ll tell you the answer ; no). Is someone who raped 10 women at gunpoint after breaking into their houses going to get the same sentence as someone who had sex with a longtime partner who was drunk, and after she says he was too rough. Of course not. If you can’t understand that crimes charged under the same law can be very different in nature then you don’t have an opinion worth considering.
/r/MensRights24/07/24 04:56 PM
-4

I already pay for my children; why should I pay for other mens children just because they don’t want to?
/r/MensRights24/07/24 01:40 PM
8

You’re wrong about genetics. Females of all mammals live longer than males. Humans are able to reduce that gap with healthcare, but not eliminate it.
/r/MensRights24/07/24 01:31 PM
-18

You must have some strange experiences if you think women are always in charge of the family. In the US I would say it’s 1 in 10, maybe 1 in 20, of two parent families (and some of those the wife is actually the higher earner).
/r/MensRights24/07/24 01:25 PM
2

It’s because if the father doesn’t pay child support then the government will have to pay benefits. They don’t care about alimony because it usually doesn’t cost them more if it isn’t paid.
/r/MensRights24/07/24 01:18 PM
12

I remember when I came to the US I had to swear that I had never been a member of various organizations including the Nazi party. If I lied I would be chucked out of the country. Being married to a US citizen doesn’t get you a pass from that stuff. WTF happened? Normal people have to promise they weren’t part of an organization that didn’t even exist in their lifetime, but you can be a member of ISIS and just say you quit and 24hrs later they wave you through immigration?
/r/MensRights24/07/24 01:11 PM
3

Considering that he’s got 10 children with 5 different women I doubt he cares as long as she gives him what he wants.
/r/MensRights23/07/24 07:32 PM
-4

You can’t really trust reports like that because they use only very crude measures of the crimes actually committed. This means that they assume that crime X committed by one demographic group is no different than crime X committed by another demographic group. They never make any attempt to test this assumption. So let’s say it’s a murder; if you murder a child you will undoubtedly get a longer sentence than murdering an adult. Who is the most likely to murder a child? The most likely situation…
/r/MensRights23/07/24 01:48 AM
0

You’re wrong about income too. Men out-earn women; you don’t have to lie about it because there are perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with bias. Men take more risks, work more hours, choose jobs requiring skill sets that are rarer/more valuable, are more willing to sacrifice personal time to gain career advancement. It’s probably true that some women are overpaid compared to their actual value just because of biased policies, but overall men still earn substantially more.
/r/MensRights22/07/24 05:27 PM
-1

You can’t convince people like that. I agree with what you wrote, it’s really not in question for anyone that reads the relevant literature.
/r/MensRights22/07/24 05:09 PM
2

Willie Brown, speaker of the California state assembly and mayor of SF during the relevant period.
/r/MensRights22/07/24 04:12 PM
5

Stepping on toes? 😂. There’s a different expression that fits. Let me give you a clue, her nickname is “Heels Up” Harris.
/r/MensRights22/07/24 01:10 PM
1

What … a … fucking … moron. If abortion isn’t a crime then it isn’t murder. You just destroyed your own argument . 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights22/07/24 03:48 AM
28

The gap was 24% in 2016, 25% in 2020. It’s single women that drive the gap; married women vote about the same as men.
/r/MensRights22/07/24 01:08 AM
107

Well, she got where she is the old fashioned way. Got power by sleeping with a married man more than twice her age. Got money by marrying a man that made 10x what she made. Mother got full custody when she was 6, father had minimal contact after losing a nasty custody battle (politically she’s “black” when convenient but she doesn’t have a relationship with him).
/r/MensRights22/07/24 12:50 AM
1

You seem certain that she thinks of it in sexual terms, but maybe that’s just how you think. I not naive, there are plenty of guys with that mentality, but they can easily find hotter women on OF or for free. It seems more likely that she thinks of it as men being interested in her life and admiring a little cheesecake to go with it. There’s a reason why men and women in movies are usually very good looking, but that doesn’t mean every movie is a porno. In the end if it’s just what a kid would s…
/r/MensRights21/07/24 04:44 PM
-17

It’s a superhero cartoon written by men, produced by men. Wouldn’t be my first choice for understanding women.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 04:24 PM
0

No, let’s say he puts gas in her car once every 2 weeks and in return she irons his shirts because he doesn’t like to do that. Maybe he comes home from work and she’s made his favorite dinner, or she meets him at the door naked and drops to her knees. Who knows? Maybe he’s a masochist and he gets his jollies from being treated bad. It can only be weaponized if his view of it is negative.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 04:26 AM
1

So you want to kill someone, and you plan with another person to do the killing. Guess what, you’re guilty even if you don’t pull the trigger. It’s the law. It what any moral person would conclude.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 04:11 AM
-1

It all depends what he’s getting out of it. Incompetence, yes. But it’s not weaponized if proper appreciation is shown.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 03:06 AM
0

What are you calling pornagraphic; as I said I have no idea what she posts, so I think some people assume OF means explicit stuff. I don’t think a regular bikini counts as sexual; it’s just what most in shape women wear at the beach. And yes I do think some perv sending messages about doing sexual stuff to your Mom is rather more disturbing than going to the beach with her.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 02:48 AM
1

There are studies from 20+ years ago where they showed that mens communication skills were unimpaired when interaction between the left and right brain was blocked. However, womens communication skills were significantly impaired under the same conditions.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 02:16 AM
1

An important point in this case is that he was convicted by a 10-2 vote of the jury. Unlike the US, decisions don’t have to be unanimous. I couldn’t find data on which specific crimes have the largest proportion of non-unanimous verdicts but I think we can guess given that rape has a low conviction rate compared to other crimes. btw there is an ongoing review of rape cases to look for similar wrongful convictions. I’m sure you will be glad to know that this is being done by … interns. (Not a sur…
/r/MensRights21/07/24 01:45 AM
1

What kind of content are we talking about? It’s still a bit weird if it’s bikini shots but that’s not the same as nudes. I’d be more concerned about the kid seeing the kind of degenerate messages some people will send. Also if actors or actresses appear nude in mainstream movies I imagine they have to be pretty open with their kids once they’re teenagers since someone at school is bound to make comments.
/r/MensRights21/07/24 01:05 AM
2

So you plagiarized a stupid argument and that excuses you for then lying and claiming you didn’t say it? You are just a pathetic woman hater that can’t understand the difference between a mens rights issue and just assuming that everyone is against men all of the time.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 04:36 PM
4

Apparently she thinks that a “knowledge-rich curriculum” is bad. So I guess we’ll just teach feelings and students will be convinced that the right answer doesn’t require facts and understanding.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 02:16 AM
1

Most insurance does cover them and the coverage is increasing now that the two most popular drugs are generics and therefore cheap. A better issue to complain about is that FDA still won’t approve them as over the counter. The main reason men don’t get these drugs is just the embarrassment factor of discussing with their doctor (which btw you shouldnt be; your doctor has seen more weird shit than you can imagine and a viagra prescription is an every day event. Better doctors will even be giving …
/r/MensRights20/07/24 02:04 AM
0

You’re deluding yourself if you think more than a few percent of men oppose their partner getting an abortion. You don’t get absolved of responsibility just because the woman has the final decision.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 01:49 AM
0

Sorry, I looked away when you got buried in that tractor load of cow shit. 🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights20/07/24 01:42 AM
0

Play all the silly word games you want, here is what you wrote: “ Women are more likely than men to visit a doctor for a general physical exam when they are feeling well “ We have a name for this dont we …oh yes, an annual checkup. Has the increase in survival from breast cancer been greater than the increase for prostate: no. Because a lot of the extra research money doesn’t go to people with brilliant ideas, it’s just a toy that govt officials play with; they don’t fund projects based on what …
/r/MensRights20/07/24 01:37 AM
3

Maybe I’m lucky, my mother and grandmothers are/were very traditional, I have no sisters or aunts, and my daughter and nieces are respectful to elders even if they don’t agree. Sisters in law can be more difficult but apart from one cheating b*tch that is long divorced, we are pretty friendly and just avoid political subjects where we know we disagree.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 11:48 PM
-4

The turd was OPs Q-anon level conspiracy theory. But if you want to believe DC pedophiles and their alien overlords have a vendetta against men, go right ahead as long as you are paying your own bills for the asylum.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 11:26 PM
-21

The solution to women making false and stupid arguments isn’t for men to do the same.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 11:21 PM
-17

You are correct that money is spent inefficiently on research, especially for cancer. Where youre wrong is that this is doesn’t help women at all; it just wastes money and makes no difference in actual outcomes. It happens because our government is corrupted by rent seekers and it harms both men and women. The rest of your points are nonsense. You even try to argue that getting an annual check up is bad because women do it more often than men. Everyone should do this; if men don’t it’s because t…
/r/MensRights19/07/24 11:18 PM
-1

This is a pretty lame argument. Do you have any evidence on what proportion of abortions were opposed by the father? Is there really no moral difference between killing another adult because of greed or some kind of sick enjoyment, and killing a fetus that the majority of society tells you is acceptable? We all know the correct answer to those questions for a sane person.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 11:12 PM
-47

“ Being male is now the single largest demographic factor for early death.” I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is so false it’s ridiculous. If a man dies from lung cancer it’s because he chose to smoke not because he’s a man. If a man dies from an overdose it’s because he’s an addict. If a man dies in road accident it’s either bad driving or bad luck, and men take more risks than women. Has the chance of survival from any of the major causes of death increased less for men than wom…
/r/MensRights19/07/24 06:14 PM
2

So who exactly are you saying has this view of Japanese men? Japanese women? Western men? Western women? Having worked with a lot of colleagues in Japan I never heard anything like this from anyone. Is it people who’ve never actually met someone from Japan? There are definitely some things in Japanese culture that will confuse people in the West. If they hear that the age of consent is 13 then that seems very inappropriate. But what they probably don’t understand is that an adult having sex with…
/r/MensRights19/07/24 05:55 PM
-1

😂😂😂 I didn’t realize that the alternative to moral apathy was hero.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 03:40 AM
-2

And still your obsession is the women. You excuse doing nothing because women. 🙄
/r/MensRights18/07/24 04:03 PM
-12

It’s fiction.
/r/MensRights18/07/24 05:25 AM
-13

It’s a pretty fucked up society when no one will help anyone who is not their relative. Let’s face it this isn’t about women it’s about being a coward and thinking you can leave things to somebody else. Next time when the person getting r*ped or beaten is your mom, sister, daughter or wife you better damn well hope that one of the men there has more guts.
/r/MensRights18/07/24 05:21 AM
0

You did notice that was a question right? And that I acknowledged that other men might feel differently? I didn’t belittle anyone. I just honestly don’t understand a man getting upset about it enough to involve police. It seems performative to try to get some strange revenge on society because of how it would be viewed if a man was the groper. I didn’t really want security goons at concerts and sports events crotch checking me, or various doctors. But it happens, and one extra time by a drunk wo…
/r/MensRights17/07/24 05:43 AM
0

Really? You’d go to the police and ruin a woman’s life over something she did while drunk? Is it because you think she’d do the same to you? I’m honestly asking because to me it was just nothing. I’d feel worse if a married woman was flirting with me in front of other people.
/r/MensRights17/07/24 05:29 AM
1

Reality is most women don’t want to date anyone more than 10 years older. Men on the other hand, however old, prefer to date women in their early 20s. That’s why it’s normal for women to see it as creepy; you have a large number of older men perving on younger women that aren’t interested. The fact that 1 woman in a thousand might be ok with that doesn’t change that it exists in a vast sea of unwanted attention. Nice try though.
/r/MensRights17/07/24 04:46 AM
5

It’s funny that nobody actually read the article, which makes clear that support obligations are not involuntary servitude, they are in fact the duty of citizens. The only exception under the law is that you cannot be forced to take a particular job for a particular employer. However, you don’t have any right to deliberately choose to work for less (or no) wages if the only purpose is to reduce child support payments. Now I’m going to get the predictable downvotes just for telling you what the l…
/r/MensRights17/07/24 04:34 AM
7

The consensus view is that polygamy will always be limited by the “monogamy threshold”. Once you have too many females mating with one male a lot of males end up with no mate and at that point monogamy is preferable for the remaining males (to ensure that children are actually theirs) and the less desirable females (to ensure the male is fully invested in raising those children). In terms of human society this means the majority will support laws against polygamy, and situations like the one you…
/r/MensRights17/07/24 04:25 AM
1

Since I’m not circumcised that sort of spoils your idiot theory.
/r/MensRights16/07/24 04:37 PM
-1

Let’s face it a man dating a woman half his age is creepy, but there are still millions of young women who would willingly date George Clooney. As for groping men, would you really want to make a big deal out of it? It only happened to me once, she was drunk. No I didn’t “enjoy” it but it was really just nothing. I didn’t consider for a second that I had been assaulted. I don’t say every man has to feel the same way about it, but to me it’s not the same as when a man gropes a woman.
/r/MensRights16/07/24 04:32 PM
5

Should have just dropped the water gun on the floor and stepped on it. If they complain you just say you dropped it because you were trying defend yourself without hitting them back. No idea who stepped on it because they were attacking. In the cafe you just answer “ask your brother he was the one that told me”, and keep saying ask your brother. Never hit back except against a man. Otherwise just forget about it; it’s more embarrassing for them that they acted like idiots.
/r/MensRights16/07/24 04:09 PM
-9

I think you’re taking it a bit too seriously. My grandmothers standard for being a “gentleman” was having a short haircut, wearing a jacket/blazer , and speaking politely to ladies. Any rules about dying are certainly made up by men.
/r/MensRights16/07/24 06:14 AM
1

You ignored that the outcome is better when done at an early age. It’s not a cosmetic procedure and you’re either an idiot or trying to win an argument by lying. Your ignorance of actual modern locker rooms seems even greater. Unless you are one of the weird kids that never took off their underwear and went home without showering people see your junk. Especially if you are on the swim team. Normal kids don’t try to look and don’t say anything but there’s always one or two jerks. Boys will tease …
/r/MensRights15/07/24 07:20 PM
1

It’s a bit of slapstick comedy in a Japanese game. It’s only viewed as funny because the person is clearly not seriously hurt.
/r/MensRights15/07/24 07:04 PM
1

To some extent lower birth rates are a natural result of increasing health and wealth. If your children don’t die young you need less children to support you in old age; likewise if you have plenty of money you pay for other people to help you (or rely on other members of society to pay for you). I do agree that governments should adjust tax policy so that people who want children aren’t prevented by costs. We do need to maintain an adequate working population to support pensions and health care…
/r/MensRights15/07/24 06:35 PM
1

Of course there’s a benefit to doing the surgery early. Going through puberty without correcting it can inhibit normal development, lead to more severe curvature, reduced length, pain, never mind the mental health effects because kids in a locker room can be brutal. Of course there are risks of general anesthesia, probably a bit higher than if they are a young adult. But are parents supposed to prevent their kids from ever riding bikes, swimming, rollerblading? All things that have equal or high…
/r/MensRights15/07/24 06:23 PM
-1

Did you even link the right web site? It’s just an organization of all states tracking current legislation, they aren’t advocating that legislation . Sure you can look up in each state current legislation under debate, if it was passed or not. Is that supposed to be bad? Maybe you want to know what your state is doing so you can support or lobby against it. I looked through 10+ years of their press releases; nothing at all to do with child support. Also I don’t think you even understand that chi…
/r/MensRights15/07/24 06:04 PM
-7

Very simple. You didn’t argue women should be conscripted, you argued men shouldn’t be.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 11:30 PM
3

It absolutely can’t fix itself. The reason to wait is that the amount of curvature won’t be certain until he goes through puberty. Some men have a satisfactory sex life with quite a bit of curvature others don’t. But it’s not like your son can find that out any easy way. I hope this doesn’t sound weird but have a look at some drawings of what 30 or 40 degree downward curve looks like in an adult with an erection and think about it. It’s a tough decision because any surgery under general anesthet…
/r/MensRights13/07/24 09:56 PM
-11

So another who just doesn’t want to fight. What’s the plan then, become Russian slaves? Have American men fight instead of Ukrainian cowards? If you really thought it was a mens rights issue you’d argue why women could fight just as effectively. Instead you just want cowards rights.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 09:19 PM
-13

😂😂😂 Change your post to remove the video and write about why women should be conscripted if you mean what you say. But of course you don’t. Do you just want to surrender and then Putin can conscript Ukrainians to fight in some other country; that will really help men.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 09:13 PM
3

I would ask the urologist what he would recommend if it was his nephew, and why. Ask him if you delay what would be the decision point, puberty? My understanding is outcomes are better if it’s done early, but your doctor may have a different view. If you delay the risk is the penis won’t develop fully and then he ends up short and with a big curve. It’s not something that is just going to go away with time. Circumcision is a separate issue; some of the foreskin may be needed to make the correcti…
/r/MensRights13/07/24 07:56 PM
4

He gave a younger woman money for sex. He’s surprised she doesn’t keep a verbal agreement when he breaks up with her. Because everyone knows strippers are trustworthy 😂. If he was an old man that got ripped off by some internet scammer I’d feel bad for him. This was a man in his 50s getting it on with a LV stripper, he knew better but let his small head do the thinking.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 04:53 PM
7

There are some uk studies I looked at a few years ago that break down the disposition of all cases of rape that were reported. Most never even made it to trial because the accusation was withdrawn, the police didn’t believe the accusation, or there was no evidence at all. And despite heavy pressure on prosecutors and judges the conviction rate is only about 50-60% of those that go to trial. So at least by the standard of our legal system most of the accused are innocent. One thing that wasn’t br…
/r/MensRights13/07/24 04:17 PM
1

If you suggested killing people you deserve a ban, I would have reported you too. People like you make everyone else look bad.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 03:50 PM
-28

You just sound like a whiny coward. It’s not a mens rights issue, you just don’t like conscription.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 03:40 PM
-21

Just type it in search and hit the playlist button
/r/MensRights13/07/24 02:01 AM
-29

Been around for years. Spotify has lots of programs to promote independent music creators. Most of the creators are men. I doubt this one has much value because it’s not focused on any genre and you’re unlikely to ever see it unless you deliberately search. You’re more likely to notice general playlists like “women of pop” which are created by Spotify, but then they get trolled because users will create dozens of “men of pop” playlists that are more popular.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 01:52 AM
-4

If you’re arguing about the past then you’re just deluded; men ran things in most societies. It just makes you look foolish to argue that point and it’s irrelevant to the modern world. If you want to talk about today then the real question to ask feminists is why do men, or especially women, choose male leaders if there are better female candidates? Are they all acting against their own self interest just to satisfy some irrational sexist ideas? Or is it more reasonable to think that there are j…
/r/MensRights12/07/24 08:57 PM
3

That post just sounds like a troll, especially with the updates. She wants him to go out drinking 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights12/07/24 02:37 PM
8

Was already posted yesterday. The man still got 85% of the assets; I guarantee he would get a lot less than that in a Western country.
/r/MensRights12/07/24 04:17 AM
1

No, I just see a lot of misuse of the term moral panic. It’s often used to deflect from real and politically inconvenient problems; I see knife crime described as a moral panic now despite very real (and ongoing) increases. People in most of the country don’t go around in fear of being stabbed on the high street by young men; people in the bad parts of large cities do. This is a rational response; a moral panic requires people to have irrational fears. Regarding mens issues I don’t see any parti…
/r/MensRights12/07/24 04:13 AM
9

They pretty much gave up on enforcing rules except when they want to. You only have to look at the amount of people advocating for killing people who don’t even get a suspension. And I don’t mean some weak brain exaggerating something and claiming it’s “genocide”. I mean outright saying kill person x. Now it’s only enforced selectively if the person belongs to a protected group.
/r/MensRights12/07/24 03:10 AM
1

Based on them advertising. Google is your friend. First one listed: “ How to approach me the correct way as a sub: Send $30 tribute or more to DM via throne here: https://throne.com/thesilentrouge Introduce yourself and your intent for speaking with me. I will decide if we are compatible as we speak. P.S: Sending the initial tribute does not automatically makes you my sub. But it will grant you a response from me. To be my personal sub, we need to be compatible and you need to spend the bare min…
/r/MensRights10/07/24 10:16 PM
-1

Those women are literally doms that get paid by men to act that way. 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights10/07/24 09:51 PM
0

I know the law and in the US and Western Europe everything earned during the marriage is going to be equally divided . It has nothing to do with my personal opinion of what’s right or wrong that’s just what the law is. A prenup can’t change the law; getting married is you making a legal agreement to share what you earn.
/r/MensRights10/07/24 09:47 PM
1

What do you mean slides? He’s been on the Prison Reform Trust board for a long time, including as chairman. He supports more “diversions” for women ; in other words they get community service working in a charity shop or the like instead of prison. And it’s not a neutral policy, it’s special favors for women. https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Why-women-2022-briefing.pdf
/r/MensRights10/07/24 09:42 PM
-1

Not really convinced. He’s just another of the crowd that thinks the solution is to let criminals off, give them benefits, and they won’t re-offend. Even if this worked for individuals it just encourages more people to commit crime because they get rewarded. If it’s his money he’s rewarding them with, fine. But most law abiding people don’t want their taxes going to pay others not to commit crimes. And of course he’s on board with the lesser punishments for women … because it’s not their fault o…
/r/MensRights10/07/24 04:31 PM
1

It’s inaccurate to describe the bias as favoring womens “safety” or that the source of the bias is public data. What the linked article actually says is that programmers of the AI create unintended consequences by the clumsy way they try to avoid stereotypes and prevent the AI from endorsing negative behaviors. So, the AI understands that violence against men or women is equally bad if asked directly, but thinks it is not a moral choice for a man to hit a woman to stop a nuclear explosion. Simil…
/r/MensRights10/07/24 12:27 PM
-1

You do realize this is a kink and there are men that are into it? Yes, it’s weird but the women are just playing along with what their men want.
/r/MensRights10/07/24 11:42 AM
-2

Unless you’re already rich, or you expect to inherit a lot of money, they’re worthless most of the time. Even in those cases the woman often benefits the most from a prenup by guaranteeing a portion of the husbands preexisting assets. OP seems to imagine they can just bully the woman into a ridiculously one sided agreement, and can somehow shield earnings during the marriage (not true in the US).
/r/MensRights10/07/24 11:27 AM
7

In the US it’s considered good practice for the doctor to request a counseling meeting that includes the wife. You don’t have to agree but the doctor can also refuse to do the procedure if he thinks you may be involving him in a deception. I think that it’s a reasonable expectation. But then I also think a husband should expect his wife to tell him if she will get an abortion, even if she will not consider his opinion.
/r/MensRights10/07/24 02:07 AM
0

Sorry but stoicism is not being a whiny complainer who is always making excuses for failure. Does that sound familiar? 😂
/r/MensRights09/07/24 09:45 PM
0

The DNA testing is meaningless because it doesn’t make any comparison to men, birth control prevents most cheating from ending in pregnancy, and it gives a grossly exaggerated rate since it’s coming from court ordered tests where there is already substantial doubt about paternity. The best quality estimates of rates of false paternity in North America and Western Europe are in the range 1-3%, the lower number representing married couples. If your question is about married couples in the US I don…
/r/MensRights09/07/24 09:41 PM
0

For the first part, no, just look at the statistics. Young women/ girls are not carrying guns and shooting people because they belong to a different gang or said something rude at recess. You’re living in la-la land if you don’t understand that outside of family groups almost all violence comes from young men. The rest you’re just throwing around names that are irrelevant to what I wrote and deliberately ignoring the plain and literal meaning of the word stoic for a secondary meaning that you al…
/r/MensRights09/07/24 05:37 PM
1

No, they choose jobs that pay more money out of free will. It’s part of mens nature to take more risk than women so don’t pretend it’s because of discrimination. The video has nothing to do with what you posted about originally and if you thought about it even for a second you would understand what’s actually going on and why it has little bearing on reality.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 08:29 PM
-12

I don’t have an issue with the phrase itself, it’s the way it’s applied. Being stoic, self reliant, showing politeness by opening doors, giving up your seat. These are not toxic behaviors they are how you show respect to yourself and others. Real toxic masculinity is getting in pointless fights, joining gangs and shooting people you don’t even know; yet these things are excused as being a product of the environment. Prosecutors in big cities let repeat offenders off with robbery, assault, yet mo…
/r/MensRights08/07/24 08:11 PM
11

Your examples are a few jobs in some mostly minor countries, none of which are the UK which is the source of the OP, and you think this explains the difference? Men are free to choose the more dangerous jobs, and get the higher pay that goes with it. The problem is when women use that as evidence they are underpaid.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 04:31 PM
1

You have no source since you seem to have misunderstood one of the figures and multiplied by 10 a number that was not a yearly rate. But as your crap source does correctly say “ which found that while couples married in the late 1960s and 1970s were more likely to divorce if the woman earned more, *this was no longer true for such couples who married in the 1990s. *” This comes from serious academics and the paper is this one https://www.rsfjournal.org/content/rsfjss/2/4/218.full.pdf Your crap s…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 02:48 AM
2

Dude, you are a clown who knows nothing about statistics. Not only are you just using made up numbers you can’t even compound those numbers correctly over 2 years. -If the rate actually was 5% then after n years the proportion divorced would be 1-0.95n, so 40.1% after 10 years not 50%. Any kid in junior high should know this. 5% per year is far too high, even in the peak years for divorce There isn’t a single constant rate of divorce; it varies with age and length of marriage divorce rates are d…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 02:16 AM
1

No, they aren’t. Lifetime divorce rates are below 30% for people with a college education, in the high 30s for those with a HS education, and even in the groups with the highest divorce rates are still below 50%. 80% in 10 years is simply impossible.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 12:58 AM
2

The 80% divorce rate isn’t in the link and is frankly impossible even if the rate is supposed to be for an entire lifetime. There’s an element of truth; women are more likely to divorce a low income spouse. But this is almost entirely explained by high divorce rates in some minority groups where men neither work nor care for children. There is little or no difference in divorce rates when the man works full time, just at a low income job, or works part time combined with providing child care.
/r/MensRights06/07/24 09:32 PM
1

I’m just pointing out why you should believe the Fed data, which is in line with what you believe and not with the media narrative, and explaining the legal reasons for it not being easy to get good quality data.
/r/MensRights06/07/24 05:24 PM
1

I think the difference has more to do with the woman in the second case being a popular media person and therefore a special protected class (actually just an airhead whose main qualification is physical appearance).
/r/MensRights05/07/24 03:38 AM
6

Somehow I think the federal reserve may have better data than LendingTree, especially because there are a lot of legal restrictions about storing sex in credit databases. It’s most likely LendingTree did some tiny household survey with terrible precision.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 03:08 AM
2

50/50 custody is the best you’re going to get in the US unless your wife is a violent criminal, a drug addict or gives up custody voluntarily. As far as assets you should only have to divide what was earned during the marriage, not what you had before. A good lawyer can help you get the best deal possible .
/r/MensRights05/07/24 01:50 AM
4

If you live in a Muslim country then probably yes. Some other countries like China, pretty close. In North America and Western Europe, of course not.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 01:35 AM
8

You obviously misread something. Women have worse credit scores and owe more money.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 11:41 PM
3

“And it is almost 150 years after Marx death.“ Inconvenient for Marxists since the revolution was supposed to happen more than a century ago. Also if you’re going to lie to try win an internet argument you should at least do it on a fresh account. 🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights04/07/24 11:34 PM
13

I suppose a few of them may be true in poor countries but not in the US and Western Europe. The reality: Men are vastly more likely to die in car accidents. The only car safety feature ever demonstrated to have harmed women was air bag deployment speed in the US. This was not due to any deliberate discrimination against women, but due to discrimination against intelligent people. The speeds were set (by law) based on occupants not wearing seat belts. This was quickly reversed once it became a wo…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 05:22 PM
14

No he was completely wrong, his economic theories were laughably wrong and his predictions long proven false. btw if you own a house, a car, have a pension or retirement savings you are part of the bourgeoisie not the proletariat.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 03:52 PM
7

Don’t worry, when she gets out she’ll still be able to demand child support from the kid she raped.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 03:46 PM
-2

No, that’s the point of the research. It’s consistent across thousands of species with very different behaviors. Some mammals have aggression between males , but many do not. Female mammals always have the disadvantage of pregnancy, live birth, and in most cases are slower and less able to evade predators. Yet consistently females live longer. Genetics is the dominant factor, not behavior.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 01:13 PM
2

Probably true, but it’s not really a solvable problem. Men are the heterogametic sex (XY rather than XX) and in almost all species this leads to shorter lives. I won’t go into the details but if you understand some basic genetics you can see that having a duplicate for every chromosome (as women do ) can protect against harmful mutations. In mammals males always have shorter lives for this reason. In birds the reverse is true because females are the heterogametic sex.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 03:55 AM
5

It’s really only bringing the law into alignment with the way it is in most wealthy countries. Nothing like the loons in Scotland where they think it’s wrong that juries won’t convict men in a “he said, she said” situation with no possibility to know who is telling the truth. Men will really be fucked when a judge can decide that he spends years in jail because they think there’s a 51% chance the woman was telling the truth. If anyone is interested in understanding how bad people are at detectin…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 03:28 AM
11

No, sorry, one of the joys of the EU. A jury of your peers is not a human right in the EU, and devolution gave the Scots parliament the ability to ignore UK law.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 03:06 AM
-4

And yet the man who failed to protect the woman’s honor isn’t the one who gets murdered is he? No, it’s the woman. The idea that somehow men are the oppressed ones is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 02:25 AM
3

It’s not realistic to think men want a relationship with every woman they have sex with. You can have sex with someone you just met so how could you possibly know if they are someone you want to be in a relationship with. Of course women do the same thing, so the stereotype is probably just caused by how men and women deal with rejection. A man would be more likely to think too bad she wasn’t into me but I enjoyed the sex while it lasted. A woman is more likely to have the attitude that the man …
/r/MensRights04/07/24 02:10 AM
3

I guess we shouldn’t expect anything else from advocacy groups that get money by drawing attention to their particular “victim” group. But many of the stories in this and similar articles are just nonsense. Why haven’t we got a cure for this or that female disease; because it’s f*ing hard that’s why. Look at the shitload of money spent on Parkinsons research since Michael J Fox was diagnosed. Has treatment improve? No, not really because it’s very difficult. Would that money have been better spe…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 12:57 AM
12

“ Addressing alimony and child custody practices would be a better approach to addressing divorce inequities than removing no-fault divorces.” Which is actually what Florida has done. I do find it amusing that when no-fault divorces were first introduced the consensus was that men would use them to dump their wives and marry younger women. Now it turns out that they are actually initiated more often by women and the narrative is that men want to “trap” their wives in unhappy marriages. As is oft…
/r/MensRights03/07/24 03:22 PM
36

This post is very misleading. Florida still has no-fault divorce. There are two main changes to divorce laws: 1) Changes to alimony as described by OP. In general these are just taking rules that were already in place following various court decisions about the old law and putting them into a new law. Alimony payments are not going to suddenly change dramatically because the type of permanent alimony with no consideration of things like retirement had already been found to be invalid in court ch…
/r/MensRights03/07/24 03:09 PM
1

But you are advocating forced knowledge (which is not the same thing as right to know). If your parent has Huntington’s disease and you have a 50% chance of dying a horrible early death are you forced to get tested and know if you have it? No. It’s not ethical.
/r/MensRights03/07/24 12:38 PM
-1

Which is understandable. But as a policy choice if you knew it actually was going to harm more men than it benefited it wouldn’t be right.
/r/MensRights03/07/24 12:28 PM
-20

Will it? No, never. Should it? It’s impossible to say because there are potential benefits and harms for all the partys involved. You can’t really say without doing a massive randomized study over several decades whether anyone will be better off. Logically you should only make the testing mandatory if that policy does more good than harm. In a one night stand type situation you can already get a test in any paternity dispute, so what you’re really talking about is in a marriage/ LTR. You have n…
/r/MensRights03/07/24 03:23 AM
6

“ Significant numbers of women charged” Misleading at best. 95% of the victims are women; the only reason that more than a few percent of those charged are women is that it’s female on female crime or the person charged is trans. When women are more likely to be charged for coercive control of other women than of men I think it’s safe to say the law is not applied equally.
/r/MensRights02/07/24 07:34 PM
1

A comparison of restaurant chefs doesn’t really mean anything. It’s the kind of job that most women don’t like (physical, stressful, low paid) so it’s largely a pool of men competing for the jobs. The most successful chefs are usually risk takers who put all of their money on the line in a business where most fail. Again this is something that women are much less likely to do. In terms of the general population there definitely used to be an attitude among men that cooking was womens work. It al…
/r/MensRights02/07/24 01:34 PM
-2

Why bring up an irrelevant issue ? Does the man in OPs story have a sister? It’s pretty sad when the idiots just automatically assume a man must be right … just like the people they complain about who assume the woman is always right. There are always facts, and in this case the guy is whining about a problem he created by not doing something earlier.
/r/MensRights02/07/24 05:00 AM
-19

I’ll just point out that the draft has many exceptions for people caring for older or younger family members. The author has also had a year to get the necessary paperwork. I’m sure it’s not easy but the problem is the corrupt bureaucracy not the draft rules.
/r/MensRights01/07/24 06:24 PM
0

Sorry for bothering you with the truth, but someone replacing a link from a 2011 report to a 2014 report 10 years after the fact is not much of a conspiracy theory. Especially when you can get a copy of either report from the authors just by sending them an email. In the actual science world we do friendly stuff like that. Now I need to get off to my secret meeting on how the CDC can make all the Covid fuckups go away. Boy did we screw the pooch on that one. But don’t worry, 10 years from now af…
/r/MensRights01/07/24 04:19 AM
2

Are you talking about stuff from 7 years ago? He did something people working with him didn’t like, he apologized, his employer didn’t want him to work there any more, as is their right. But he didn’t commit any crime and isn’t “guilty” of anything. I think the actual pedos/ child molesters working at the same company might be a more important issue.
/r/MensRights01/07/24 04:07 AM
1

Definitely don’t start taking testosterone just because of a number. If you’re losing muscle, have breast enlargement, or very low sperm count, those are signs that you may have hypogonadism and TRT might be needed. If you don’t have symptoms a low testosterone level means nothing and 300 is not some magic number; many men, even young men, are below this level and perfectly healthy. The actual lower limit of normal even for a man in his early 20s is around 180-190. If you’re below 180 then there…
/r/MensRights30/06/24 04:46 PM
-73

Dude, you need a bs detector. That’s a Dear Abby column, probably fictional, and no the guy wasn’t charged with anything.
/r/MensRights29/06/24 06:40 AM
1

What a great theory. They wrote a second report 10 years ago to hide this data, but just last year were still referring to data to the original report, because whoops they forgot they had this second fake report until 2024? 🤡🤡🤡 If you actually cared you’d write to the lead author of the 2014 report and ask them politely what the difference in the two reports is and why some numbers changed. I’m sure he’s a very nice guy and will send you an answer as long as you don’t come off like a complete nu…
/r/MensRights29/06/24 06:32 AM
1

You’re comparing 2 different reports. Just look at the second page of each document. The titles are different, the list of authors is different, and one was written in 2011 and the other in 2014. There can be more than one document written by CDC authors about the data from the year 2010.
/r/MensRights29/06/24 06:15 AM
1

Yes, they are. You only have to look at the title pages Citation:Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T.,Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and SexualViolence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Centerfor Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Breiding, M.J., Chen J., & Black, M.C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States — 2010. Atlanta, GA: National …
/r/MensRights29/06/24 06:00 AM
27

So she’ll be out in 2 years despite threatening the mother and firing a shot. Meanwhile in NY a black software engineer with no criminal history just got 10 years because his hobby during the pandemic was being a gunsmith. He bought the parts completely legally, his guns are entirely legal under federal law, he never fired them or took them outside his house. But because NY made what he did illegal after he built the guns he’ll still be in jail waiting for his conviction to get reversed when she…
/r/MensRights29/06/24 05:54 AM
1

No, the reports don’t have the same title and one was written in 2011, the other in 2014. They also have different authors ; the 2014 report is written by a subset of 3 authors from the original 8 and has a different lead author. If anything changed it was done 10 years ago and because the authors made new calculations.
/r/MensRights29/06/24 05:16 AM
2

To be accurate they didn’t change the GCSE. There was always a computer science GCSE and it was always mostly boys that took it. What happened was they got rid of the separate GCSE that was more about using productivity software ; basically the modern version of typing classes. Back when only a few rich kids had computers at home it was a relevant skill to teach 15 and 16 year olds; if you joined the working world and showed up the first day to find a computer on your desk and didn’t know how to…
/r/MensRights29/06/24 05:10 AM
1

They are two different reports written 3 years apart. The numbers can change because they are only estimates made from subjective interpretation of survey questions, not actual reports of crimes. From the kind of garbage we’ve seen by researchers in this field any number could be off by +/- 5x. More “crimes” = more govt $$$ and more media attention
/r/MensRights29/06/24 04:44 AM
-3

2023 ruling by Supreme Court. Specifically, DNA testing is allowed when there is sufficient evidence that it may change the presumption under section 112. When paternity is disputed the court must consider evidence from both sides and if sufficient uncertainty remains it may order a DNA test. I would add that this is considerably more favorable than in the US and Europe where the mere act of carrying out the role of father for a couple of years will make you the father legally and financially, r…
/r/MensRights26/06/24 05:36 PM
0

He was trying to use the useless test as evidence to justify getting a proper test. It isn’t evidence since it’s trash. How hard is that to understand? The High Court is an appeals court; their only job is to say if the lower court made a legal mistake based on the evidence they were presented. They correctly said there was no mistake and if the husband has more evidence he needs to go back to the lower court.
/r/MensRights26/06/24 05:18 PM
2

I agree for the most part. There might be some exceptions where one person somehow had power over the other and was encouraging them to drink to excess, or if one person did something so extreme during sex that it was unlikely the other person ever would consent when sober. Most of the time though under current law both people are drinking and strictly both probably assaulted each other, but it’s much more likely the man is the one held responsible.
/r/MensRights26/06/24 03:49 PM
-5

No, that’s not what the ruling was. An invalid test proves nothing. If your wife took a blood sample from a male prostitute, sent it to a lab claiming it was your blood, would that prove you are a disease ridden adulterer?
/r/MensRights26/06/24 03:40 PM
-5

What do you mean “easy as you make it appear”. I just said what the Supreme Court ruling is; that’s the only one that matters. If you have no evidence you can only get a DNA test if the mother agrees. If you have some evidence that a court agrees with then the court will order the test. In the case they decided they even specifically said that the husband could present the phone recordings he claimed to have as evidence and that the lower court could order the DNA test if these called into quest…
/r/MensRights26/06/24 03:34 PM
2

The first point clearly referred to both men and women so I have no idea why you commented. I only pointed out that just drinking some alcohol isn’t the same thing as being unable to consent. The second point, you again seem to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote. I clearly said that this is how it is judged by the legal system but it’s not a fair or equal standard. Do you disagree that’s how it works in practice? There’s no legal limit for consent, you can’t say 0.1 BAL = no consent possible…
/r/MensRights26/06/24 03:18 PM
2

The meaning of which is that false accusations about paternity are harmful to the child. Therefore the child cannot be compelled to provide a DNA sample unless the husband has at least some objective basis for the accusation.
/r/MensRights26/06/24 03:02 PM
-9

I don’t think this is true. The court rulings in this area are completely up to date with modern DNA testing, including at the Supreme Court level. The issue in this case seems to be that the husband had an invalid test done and this particular court is saying that having ruled it is not valid he needs to apply in a different court proceeding to get a proper test. In that court, because it is more than two years after the birth of the child, he needs to justify why the test should be done accord…
/r/MensRights26/06/24 02:57 PM
3

The short answer is yes. To avoid word games about the meaning of rape it’s better to use the term sexual assault. Also we have to be talking about being drunk enough to be incapable to consent. This isn’t the same thing as just having a couple of drinks. But under the law if the man was incapable of consent then the woman is guilty of sexual assault. The reality though is that the standards applied will be different for men and women. Firstly, a man is much less likely to make a complaint. Even…
/r/MensRights26/06/24 02:17 PM
-1

You’re just making up fiction about how men and women spend money. Women actually save a higher percentage of income in retirement accounts. The number one savings goal for men in a recent survey was saving for a vacation. For women it was paying off debt (and yes the men had debt too). Men spent more than women overall and on cars, food and alcohol specifically. Women spent more on healthcare, personal care and clothing, but by a much smaller margin. So directly contrary to your made up story. …
/r/MensRights26/06/24 06:08 AM
-1

The best thing you can do is forget about the resentment. Do something you’re good at, do it well, save some money. Behave like you’re confident even if you aren’t (I don’t mean do crazy dangerous stuff that you don’t know how to do). Be the guy that’s always ready to help out other people, even strangers. Pretty soon you’ll feel more confident and other people will like and respect you.
/r/MensRights26/06/24 02:23 AM
1

No, what that actually shows is a lot of young unmarried women with children having low net worth (since the govt punishes them for having income or assets with an effective tax rate that can be over 100%). Assuming you would avoid those women the net worth is comparable. But be a miserable woman hater if you want; that really has nothing to do with mens rights and you’re only punishing yourself.
/r/MensRights26/06/24 01:16 AM
1

Not according to the Census Bureau https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/us-net-worth-wealth-data-married-vs-single The distribution of net worth is the same for single men and women
/r/MensRights25/06/24 11:36 PM
1

Says it all https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GgfvlsSkqFo
/r/MensRights25/06/24 06:56 PM
3

I don’t think that’s what “most people” say. The main reason for cheating is that it’s a natural result of evolution; your genes are preferentially selected to encourage that behavior. Modern contraception has probably muted that effect but it will take thousands of years to disappear.
/r/MensRights25/06/24 06:46 PM
0

You seem very confused. Apparently your theory is that all the good women choose all the good men, so in fact the entire pool of single men and women are losers who will ruin each other lives? Because that’s the only other possibility that fits the facts.
/r/MensRights25/06/24 06:28 PM
0

“ I also don't buy the claim that single men and women are similar in finances. ” As I said the comparison is on net worth, not income.
/r/MensRights25/06/24 04:55 PM
-1

So every man that’s married made a favorable mate selection (even if they got married early), and there are no good women left? Is that your argument? 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights25/06/24 04:45 PM
-5

It’s easy to say you can get many of the financial benefits by living together without getting married, the catch is you’re much more likely to stay together if you’re married, you’re much more likely to increase savings, own a house, etc if you’re married. Also the idea that the woman is usually the leech is false; household net worth of single men and women is very similar. So in fact there’s a very large financial benefit to being married. Even if you divorce and lose half of the net worth yo…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 02:36 AM
5

Abigail Shrier’s book Bad Therapy is along the same lines. It’s particularly damning on the subject of poorly qualified school councilors applying techniques of psychotherapy, designed for severely traumatized or mentally ill patients, to healthy kids. It amounts to using toxic chemotherapy on people who don’t have cancer and then claiming that you’re helping them.
/r/MensRights25/06/24 01:38 AM
-6

No, the cost is $200-400. If it’s done in the hospital at the time of birth then you can see all kinds of numbers on the EOB but they have nothing to do with what is actually being paid; the people posting that stuff are being deliberately deceptive because on the same document you can see what is actually paid. $2k would be a typical charge for an adult because it’s more involved and there is more follow up needed. And no, nobody is making money off foreskins. That’s like claiming the money a f…
/r/MensRights24/06/24 06:02 PM
0

No. The idea that you had to be a taxpayer to vote made some sense, but today that wouldn’t work because almost everyone pays one tax or another. There are probably around 20% of the population who “pay” some tax but actually receive more in benefits than what they pay in tax. They’re the voters that have the perverse incentive to support policies regardless of cost.
/r/MensRights20/06/24 05:12 PM
0

Yes, stupid but typical. Considering almost all the sacrifices were captured slaves, I’m not sure the alternative of living as a slave and being constantly raped would be preferable.
/r/MensRights20/06/24 05:00 PM
-3

Fair is inviting someone and then asking them to pay? Why are you even inviting someone if you value their company so little?
/r/MensRights20/06/24 04:51 PM
0

I’m sorry, how many names do you need? 100? 500? You made a sweeping statement in total ignorance of the actual situation. I thought you might feel better to know actual research exists, but instead you want to wallow in your ignorant misery.
/r/MensRights20/06/24 03:59 AM
23

This is an example of a widespread phenomenon where as a problem is gradually solved the remaining part of the problem becomes exaggerated and the language used in media becomes more and more hysterical. The result is the creation of a false narrative that things have become much worse when objective facts show the opposite.
/r/MensRights20/06/24 03:46 AM
-3

It’s fair enough to criticize particular therapists that are ignorant but you’re just wrong about the field as a whole. There’s a lot of research, books and articles published, research projects. Richard Gartner, Denise Hines; just a couple of names you can look up, but there are many others.
/r/MensRights20/06/24 03:40 AM
-17

Who invited whom? If you invite you assume you will pay the whole bill unless the other person specifically asks to share the bill. It’s just manners; you wouldnt invite someone to your house for dinner then ask them to pay for some of the food.
/r/MensRights20/06/24 03:23 AM
18

😂😂😂 Not even a reasonable explanation of why women live longer than men. One important reason is that being the heterogametic sex (XY in humans) has disadvantages to survival. In birds females are the heterogametic sex (ZW) and typically males live longer. So unless you have a way of transforming the chromosomes of men and literally turning them into women you won’t make them live as long.
/r/MensRights19/06/24 06:20 PM
12

I’ve seen postings on there saying things like White only . Pretty sure someone got fired over that. Of course I don’t rule out it’s a fake posted by some ex employee trying to create trouble.
/r/MensRights19/06/24 06:07 PM
-1

Like I said … irrational. Sorry dude, but the rest of the world doesn’t think anything is “debunked” so your going to have to create your own religious cult.
/r/MensRights19/06/24 05:49 PM
-2

Well your first answer just shows you’re a fanatic out of line with most people in modern society. Your questions are just silly straw man positions because as you well know the actual practices on men (trivial removal of skin) and women (cutting off parts of the clitoris and/or partial closure of the vaginal opening) are of dramatically different nature. So if you want an answer, I am opposed to the Mayan practice of piercing the penis and running a cord through it to form a chain of men before…
/r/MensRights19/06/24 03:15 PM
-4

You’re just repeating what I wrote, so why are you trying to argue with me.
/r/MensRights19/06/24 03:04 PM
-3

I was explaining why it’s considered morally acceptable. I also made clear I thought it had no benefit at this point in time and wouldn’t (havent) chosen to do it. But I also don’t choose to describe the majority as “mutilating” their children because I’m not a fanatic who thinks that morals can be decided for the majority by a few “chosen” people.
/r/MensRights19/06/24 03:03 PM
-2

That’s why I said you can’t have a rational discussion here. If you can’t understand that removing a piece of skin is different than cutting off testicles …. btw are you also opposed to piercing the ears and other body parts of children, boob jobs on under 18s, tattoos. All things that can legally be done with parental consent and that are considered morally acceptable by modern society.
/r/MensRights19/06/24 02:58 PM
-13

Unfortunately you can’t be rational on that subject here. Circumcision at least has a plausible health benefit and there’s enough evidence regarding disease transmission to think that in past centuries with worse hygiene it was probably beneficial. I personally don’t believe it has any benefit in a modern developed society, but it also has little potential for harm. Nothing would suggest this is outside the bounds of what parents may ethically decide for their child. FGM has no remotely plausibl…
/r/MensRights19/06/24 01:38 AM
2

If we’re talking illegal drugs then there’s nothing wrong with what the teacher said. Men predominantly are the ones who end up addicted and the main reason for starting is thrill seeking behavior. Men are much more likely to be thrill seekers; women are much more risk averse. It’s not like the teacher was saying women don’t get addicted, only that men have to be particularly careful of a certain way they can be tempted into taking drugs. If you want to be balanced you could also say that women …
/r/MensRights18/06/24 04:21 AM
-5

This is a gross misreading of the article, the point of which is that related boys (possibly twins) were sacrificed to one particular God. It does not suggest that all sacrifices were boys, in fact we know that isn’t true.
/r/MensRights17/06/24 10:03 PM
2

It’s just an overall view so huge database but plenty of potential flaws. I think it’s conclusive that men are using a strategy where they apply despite not meeting all criteria and women apply only when they meet all criteria. But since they aren’t controlling for the types of jobs there certainly could be different success rates between men and women that are actually caused by the fact they apply for very different jobs with varying pools of qualified people. Just from my own experience with …
/r/MensRights16/06/24 08:21 PM
4

If he has investments that pay dividends, capital gains etc that is considered part of income. But it can get really complicated if there are retirement accounts involved. A lawyer or financial expert can help advice the best way to shelter money under the particular state rules. It might at least be worthwhile to spend a few thousand and get an assessment of how likely it is a judge could award more than what he currently pays.
/r/MensRights16/06/24 07:01 PM
2

The number are in the OPs link. But in any case he didn’t understand the numbers. Men were actually slightly more likely to get a job, and the only real conclusion you can draw is that men and women use a different job seeking strategy with women focusing on less applications to higher probability of success jobs. Overall both strategies had similar effectiveness.
/r/MensRights16/06/24 04:28 PM
2

You didnt really understand the article; men also applied to more jobs, so the net result is that men were slightly more likely to get a job than women. If that’s too hard to understand suppose I apply to 1000 jobs, some of those jobs I’m not qualified for at all; suppose a woman applies to only one job, the one she’s best qualified for. My chance of getting a particular one of those jobs is lowered because I have no chance of getting some of them. The woman has maximized her chance of getting t…
/r/MensRights16/06/24 03:23 PM
12

You really need a lawyer that specializes in this area. Strictly, yes child support could be ordered indefinitely for a “special needs” child, but schizophrenia seems implausible as a reason for a child to remain completely dependent on parents. It seems more likely this is a benefits scam where the ex wants the payment unofficial to avoid benefits such as SSI being cut if the state knew about the extra income.
/r/MensRights16/06/24 11:09 AM
1

I mostly agree, but parts of Philadelphia are ridiculous. You have to park in fenced, guarded parking lots or your car will be broken into. A friend of mine made house calls and would never refuse even the worst locations; but he also had stuff stolen from his car repeatedly (plus the repair cost). This was medical equipment, totally useless to anyone else, no resale value.
/r/MensRights12/06/24 11:12 PM
0

Should I get mad because my primary doctor is a woman? I like her because she’s smart, explains her recommendations, and when I bring up a topic that I’m knowledgable about she is familiar with the data and willing to discuss. Yeah it can be a bit embarrassing but anyone that can’t get over that has bigger problems.
/r/MensRights12/06/24 04:42 PM
5

😂😂😂 I just imagine your idea of a “family man” being Steve Martin in that movie where he dreams that his son is sniping people from a tower and he’s cheering him on telling him “good shot, son”
/r/MensRights12/06/24 02:19 AM
-8

Just false, no actual evidence just people making comparisons to old numbers with different methods. No different to the nonsense the media repeated for years about endocrine disrupters and frogs, turned out to be natural parasites infecting during metamorphosis.
/r/MensRights12/06/24 12:57 AM
-15

No, it’s nonsense. Whatever you read about plastics, cycling, tight underwear, Mountain Dew, Covid vaccines it’s all crap. I’m sure the eco-freaks who want to population control the world wish it was true, but it isn’t.
/r/MensRights11/06/24 10:59 PM
1

Do you imagine all mentally ill people are homeless, or even that all homeless people are mentally ill? I’ll give you a clue; one of these things is 20-100x more common.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 08:25 PM
1

Sometimes they do, but they immediately get filled up and you get another court ruling that prisoners civil rights are being violated (which I don’t really dispute). Anyway, I was just trying to explain why this woman wouldn’t get any meaningful punishment.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 08:15 PM
1

Ok, can’t argue with stupid.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 08:06 PM
14

That isn’t how it works in my state, or as far as I know most others. In most cases the court isn’t involved at all, you just have a mutual agreement to pay a certain amount. Even if you end up in court because you disagree the amount of support payment via the court system is only an option if the judge thinks you won’t pay.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 07:53 PM
5

Also PTSD Awareness, National Migraine & Headache Awareness, plus more. And regular non-gendered Mental Health Awareness was last month. All a bit silly really
/r/MensRights10/06/24 06:28 PM
5

It’s just like karma farming on Reddit. People just say a bunch of bullshit they don’t believe but that gets approval from the betas and cucks.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 06:22 PM
0

That’s a different point though. Women aren’t effective in combat situations. Mind you, poorly trained and unwilling men are also useless fodder.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 06:18 PM
29

Why did you have to pay through the state; this is not normal? You are doing what I would expect, so if this is just your ex spouse claiming not to receive payment you only need to show the proof (keep all receipts, cancelled checks or whatever proof to show she got the money). Even if you have some history of not paying what typically happens is your employer is told to send the money directly from your paycheck. The only reason I can think the money would have to go to the state is if it’s chi…
/r/MensRights10/06/24 06:14 PM
0

Are we in court, your honor? The original consent decrees go back to the seventies. The big one was 1986 in Harris vs Philadelphia. That included a limit above which prisoners had to be released regardless of any remaining sentence, and another limit above which newly convicted people couldn’t even be sent to jail. The only exceptions were murderers, rapists and the like. There are still new civil rights cases demanding more as of 2024. I don’t live there any more but I know plenty of people who…
/r/MensRights10/06/24 05:56 PM
-1

Are you denying reality, claiming governments all over the western world lie about health statistics, or asking a serious question?
/r/MensRights10/06/24 05:38 PM
6

You should check out the reality. Women don’t get deployed to combat. There might be a few that by accident end up in a combat situation. Let’s say a tank crew that patrols the border and somebody starts firing rockets at them. Maybe a combat medic. But zero of the IDF going into Gaza are women. It’s “separate but equal” for the sexes. And it’s completely voluntary what role the women apply for; try that as a man.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 05:35 PM
4

The automation part makes sense. As an immigrant I can tell you that it’s crazy that you can come here, nobody says a word about selective service, and then later it can be a reason to deny citizenship. Fortunately I had someone to tell me, but I never would have imagined it. Most countries you get your equivalent of a social security number and you’re automatically registered.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 05:13 PM
2

I’m just saying the reality about what people in Egypt think, it’s not me you have to convince.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 01:11 PM
-5

😂😂😂 it’s been that way since the 80s. Occupancy is capped unless they build more prisons, which they don’t want to do. It’s not unique, some places in other states have the same thing.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 01:09 PM
-7

No, just not true. The most common mental health diagnoses are in order Anxiety disorders (women) Mood disorders (women) Psychotic disorders (similar, although types differ) Dementia (women, although mainly due to longer lifespan) Eating disorders (women)
/r/MensRights10/06/24 01:03 PM
0

Clueless. You can spend the exact same amount of money, but do it efficiently. It’s not efficient to divide the money 50/50 for every disease when they affect one sex more than the other, and it’s not efficient to run two tests of the same unproven mechanism at the same time when you can test two different mechanisms.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 12:55 PM
-1

In Philly the jails are all full, and there’s a ruling that means every person you give a jail sentence you’re going to have to release someone else before their sentence is up. And please, how do you not know that judges adjust the fines according to peoples income; most of them believe they should be able to fine rich people based on a percentage of their income. You can argue if that’s right or not, or even constitutional, but they do use the permitted range of the fine.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 12:50 PM
-5

Stress, mental health, coping, it’s mentioned in at least 2 of the items for men anyway. But I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. People don’t start abusing drugs because they’re anxious or depressed they mostly do it as a thrill seeking behavior and the mental problems come later. The article just reflected the very clear and well accepted fact that many more women are depressed, anxious, or have traumatic stress.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 04:08 AM
-35

Well, obviously a possibility, but be real. Women are much more likely to have mental health problems ( and men more likely to have substance abuse problems).
/r/MensRights10/06/24 03:39 AM
3

Obviously I can’t say about any individual case, but picking a male above about 14 is going to be a problem. Egypt has enough terrorists of their own and they just assume any young Palestinian man is already radicalized. Also I’m not sure bribery is the way to go; my Egyptian friends (in the US) all say the fundamental problem there is the corruption of most public officials.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 03:28 AM
1

In the US that’s not even outside the guideline. If you say it’s affecting you and don’t admit to having unprotected sex with 100 different people most docs aren’t going to argue about it.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 03:19 AM
124

She has been charged, but mostly lying to the police is a misdemeanor with a small fine and the judge won’t even give the maximum unless she’s rich. She did actually fabricate some physical evidence which is felony, but it’s the Philadelphia area where 9/10 they’ll let her plead it down to a misdemeanor just to save the court time.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 03:16 AM
1

If you’re willing to pay then get it. But there are loads of things that will deliver more benefit for the money, including just keeping your money and being wealthier.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 02:58 AM
-2

Is it really bias? He expects better of men . Old fashioned, but women probably think that’s an insult to them. I don’t have any problem with the idea that it’s my responsibility to manage the situation.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 02:53 AM
1

So eat more fruits and vegetables. That will do more than anything else you can possibly do.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 02:45 AM
1

You’re just way off on this. You test first in the population that’s at highest risk and the easiest to test; this makes the trials shorter and less expensive. In both cases this is women. You’re argument is the same as saying we should develop breast cancer drugs in men without waiting to find out if they even work in women. This would end up making breast cancer treatment worse for both sexes.
/r/MensRights10/06/24 02:44 AM
-1

Keep on going. You’ll get another account banned. 😂😂😂
/r/MensRights08/06/24 12:07 PM
1

Not just that. Vaccines have harms; you don’t give them unless there’s enough benefit.
/r/MensRights08/06/24 12:04 PM
2

I wouldn’t worry about it then. The risk compared to every other thing that can kill you is tiny, so just put in your mind to do something else to make yourself healthier.
/r/MensRights08/06/24 03:16 AM
1

Whatever you read it’s not the opinion of experts anywhere in the world. But if you feel the need to harm yourself for no reason go ahead, fill your boots.
/r/MensRights08/06/24 03:12 AM
5

Yes, that was a good article. Looking back at that time the argument was that a lot of research was focused on heart disease and somehow that was a “man’s” disease. But the reason for that focus was because in the 80s we learned a lot about the causes of heart disease and suddenly had a lot of good targets for treatments that were likely to be effective. That was much more productive than stumbling around treating cancers with a crude approach of let’s find something that kills cancer cells and …
/r/MensRights07/06/24 11:20 PM
9

That’s roughly correct. There are some biases, like much more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer despite prostate cancer resulting in more deaths. But mostly spending on health research is illogical for political reasons rather than any specific bias towards sexes. The way it ought to be should be based on how many potential lives can be saved or improved. But often a lot of money gets spent for small benefit. If you don’t even understand the underlying causes properly there’s little…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 09:48 PM
1

Not even sure what this means, but no.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 09:41 PM
1

So, got the same sentence you’d get for posting a rude tweet. Probably just end up “working” in a charity shop drinking tea and chatting with the other staff all day.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 09:40 PM
1

No, it’s in the current US guideline. Many insurances also won’t cover above 26 or require prior authorization. Anyone 26 and under insurance cannot refuse coverage.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 07:39 PM
1

Have a look what the CDC guideline actually tells you. They tell you that you don’t need to discuss vaccination with most patients over 26. My point is it’s a bit silly to say that when you can hardly know which patients will benefit without first knowing a detailed sexual history. And if you start asking those kind of questions some people just won’t come back, losing you the chance to talk to them about vaccines they do need.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 07:35 PM
2

It’s the US guidelines, so go ahead tell CDC, American Cancer Society and various other academic societies they are wrong. And most countries are more restrictive than the US.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 07:13 PM
1

Unproven, but yes in the US doctors are encouraged to discuss with older pts in unusual circumstances. It’s a bit of a joke because the guideline expects the doctor to know about the patients sex life but doesn’t want you asking invasive questions to every unvaccinated person. So let’s say you have an unmarried woman in her thirties that comes in and wants birth control for the first time and asks questions that show she’s sexually inexperienced, then you might bring up vaccination. Maybe some o…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 07:07 PM
1

Correct
/r/MensRights07/06/24 06:53 PM
2

Correct.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 06:53 PM
0

It’s not a myth. If you have ever been infected before the vaccine is not effective ; you can’t get the same strain of hpv again. If you have some very unusual circumstances where you are different from the norm (very sexually active in late teens and 20s, declining after that) you could get some benefit after that, hence the recommendation to discuss with patients up to 45. Later would pointless since these are cancers that develop over decades. The chance that you could somehow avoid infection…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 06:45 PM
3

One is awarded by politicians, the other by scientists.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 06:25 PM
2

Aluminum “neurotoxin” is a fantasy. Circumcision is a fairly harmless body disfigurement that I don’t personally care to participate in.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 06:24 PM
0

Take it up with your local politicians then, because the FDA/EMEA/MHRA etc can’t legally approve something that’s not effective, and insurance companies would be insane if they paid for things that didn’t work. Having worked with ALS patients I know the kind of shit desperate people will take to have a chance at life, and the sick perverts that sell them false hope belong in hell.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 12:46 PM
-4

If you are sexually active its usually not of any benefit after your mid 20s. In the US the limit is normally 26, but if you are not sexually active doctors are recommended to discuss with you and potentially give the vaccine up to age 45. Personally I don’t think there’s any significant risk with getting the vaccine (for sure a lot safer than the Covid vaccine for a man in their 20s), but if you already settled down and are only having sex with one partner it’s not going to have much benefit. M…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 12:39 PM
9

Claudia Goldin.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 12:16 PM
4

🤡🤡🤡 one is a political prize awarded by Norwegian politicians, the other is a science prize awarded by Swedish scientists.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 12:15 PM
1

I already explained why it is harder to study in men than women. Uterine cancer has a clear early warning detectable by Pap smear. The rate of cancer is also higher in women than men meaning it takes less time to find the effect of the vaccine. If you said an example of bias was more money spent on breast cancer prevention than prostate cancer prevention then you’d be right, because they have roughly similar risks. But your argument is more like saying we should give mammograms to men because we…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 12:11 PM
2

If that’s what he said then yes, he is an idiot. But what he probably told you is they don’t work in someone who is 28; the vaccine is only recommended up to age 26. And definitely your insurance will not pay. If you told him you never even kissed a woman (man) then maybe he would give you the vaccine anyway, but it’s going to cost you $1000+. At that age you’re assumed to be infected already so he’d just be exposing you to the side effects with no possible benefit.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 12:02 PM
3

Did you even finish high school? The original approvals were for reduction in uterine cancer; men don’t even have a uterus. Did they just approve Covid vaccines in children because they “knew” they would work based on adults … no, they did studies.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 11:55 AM
99

Just pointing out that the (female) economist best known for studying this and explaining what actually causes pay differences won the Nobel last year.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 05:06 AM
-18

Are you suggesting that they should have just assumed it works in men because it works in women? Because that’s not science and they aren’t even the same cancers. Immunology of the throat and cervix are different, the mechanism of infection is different. I agree that the UK policy was stupid but the reason behind it was money. They decided it was cheaper to go for herd immunity vaccinating only girls and that would then protect boys. Two problems with that; they’ve never got the vaccination rate…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 04:51 AM
53

The main message of this is that more men and women need to get the vaccine, preferably before they have sex with anyone. Currently the rate is a shitty 40%. Cancers are increasing in men because most hpv cancers in men are in the throat and any benefit of the vaccine gets overwhelmed by the huge increase in oral sex given by men. For women the main risk is uterine cancers caused by piv and so their underlying risk over time has not changed much (especially with condoms providing more protection…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 04:27 AM
8

The side effects were mostly hysteria. One girl gets faint at the sight of a needle and next thing you know half the class is convincing themselves that they need to go to the hospital.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 04:02 AM
-10

What countries are denying this vaccine for men? Not in the US. It was natural for a few years delay between approving in females and males because of the time it takes to show a benefit. In males you have no good marker like abnormal cervical cells in women. You have only genital warts (which are mostly the non cancerous types of HPV) or the actual cancers that can take many years to develop. So the evidence that the vaccine worked for males was only available around 2014/5. So “decades” is cer…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 03:58 AM
-1

Is your question disadvantages in general or those that result from discrimination (by which I mean an illogical prejudice)? There are many disadvantages (and advantages) for women based on their physical and mental characteristics being different to men. But most of these are not the result of any discrimination only the logical consequences of biology.
/r/MensRights06/06/24 09:02 PM
8

What a moron. So he’s saying one in fifteen is four million … apparently he believes the entire population are adult males. The male population is 29 million, and that includes about 5 million boys under 14 and 2 million senile geezers barely capable of standing without a walker. So if the 4 million number is right he apparently believes nearly 20% of English men are going around beating or raping women. All of course based on an unpublished report that we plebs can’t see to know what stupidity …
/r/MensRights05/06/24 07:05 PM
1

🤡 were they fighting for Israel? No. Crawl back in your nazi survival bunker.
/r/MensRights05/06/24 06:48 PM
2

The problem with this is that women don’t actually want to date men more than about 10 years younger. So is she suggesting men approach women who have no interest in them? Weird look. Also her previous articles: how she only agreed to get married if her husband got a vasectomy how she gets paid to look at dick pics how she doesn’t believe in monogamy, it’s a misogynist idea (well at least if she gets pregnant her husband will know it isn’t his) America is the most violent country in the history …
/r/MensRights05/06/24 06:42 PM
7

I prefer to think of it as an odd way to say that you’re just part of the normal healthy variation in personality but you don’t have an actual neurologic disorder. Being ‘neurodivergent’ sounds a lot better than saying you’re a bit of an introvert, but perfectly capable of functioning in society.
/r/MensRights05/06/24 06:30 PM
34

State government employee working in child care despite having a criminal record both before and during employment. “Randomly” walked past the victims then turned and followed them out of the store to stab them with a knife she had just bought next door. Edit: police now say she had two knives and that she stole them from the shop next door
/r/MensRights05/06/24 06:19 PM
5

I don’t think all feminists are Marxists but I get your point that one popular view of feminism is essentially Marxism with social class switched with sex. Men are the bourgeoisie and women are the proletariat. As such it’s essentially a joke as economic/social theory that no one should take seriously.
/r/MensRights05/06/24 05:51 PM
0

1) You didn’t even google who he is or what his life was like, did you? 2) Zero Americans have died for Israel so you just sound like a typical anti-Semite 3) The chance of being killed in combat is very low, lower than just living in certain parts of the US as a young male 4). You do know there are non combat branches of the military?
/r/MensRights05/06/24 11:47 AM
0

I suggest you read Rob Henderson’s book, Troubled or just look up a video of him talking about the book. Sometimes a few years in the military can change your life for the better
/r/MensRights05/06/24 02:38 AM
13

This sounds like some fantasy based on the 1950s. I did once ask my wife to write down specific instructions for washing some of her clothes so I didn’t make a mistake. But then I also taught her to cook and I write out a detailed recipe for everything I make.
/r/MensRights05/06/24 02:25 AM
1

You say state, but really that means all the tax payers in the state. I’m not too thrilled that I have to pay to bring up other mens kids as well as my own. Ok, if their parents die or something like that then it’s a moral responsibility to help them. But both parents need to be working their asses off and putting every penny they can towards supporting their kids before it’s anybody else’s business. As far as abortion choices, yes it’s hypocrisy to say that a woman can blackmail a man to stay w…
/r/MensRights04/06/24 08:45 PM
4

So, goes and drinking and gets caught cheating on her bf; made up lies. The MDMA makes no sense, probably just traces from the last time she was partying. And my guess is the tip-off she got about the video came from the very same guy that “assaulted” her, and once the police leaned on him a bit he gave her up.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 08:06 PM
2

I’m well aware of that product and using the word ‘synergy’ is incorrect. That would require that the effect of the combination AB is more than the sum of the effects of A plus B (AB>A+B). But all they proved was that AB>A and AB>B. The rationale for approval was that it is more convenient for the patient to take one pill instead of two, but the manufacturer never had to prove this was true it was just accepted without proof. What was completely ignored is that a) The individual drugs are availa…
/r/MensRights04/06/24 01:03 PM
1

There’s also the chance that your equipment will shrivel up to the size of a peanut, although to be fair you’d have to take a lot of testosterone before that happens.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 01:39 AM
1

That is absolutely false. If you ever bought such a product you were participating in a marketing scam where you were overcharged by 10-100x. Just take a higher dose of either one, or alternate the regular doses; you will get better pain relief for much less cost. btw I spent years doing exactly this kind of research on over the counter analgesics.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 01:33 AM
1

I find this hard to believe. Gay men are having by far the most different partners even when married. Now maybe it’s because both partners accept this and so it’s not “infidelity”? And the domestic violence part I would like to see a source. I did have an interesting chat-gpt session in which it kept trying to mislead me about murders by intimate partners but because I was familiar with the data it was using I eventually got it to admit than 1.5 men are killed by intimate partners for each 1 wom…
/r/MensRights03/06/24 11:39 AM
1

Probably true, but men will also game the system by bringing in a woman purely for show but with no contribution to strategy. Either way I think the market will sort things out as long as this is only happening in private companies. But govt. can absolutely not be allowed to fund or promote this stuff as they will just piss away the money forever .
/r/MensRights03/06/24 10:39 AM
2

If you look at the real data behind this argument you find that it is being presented in a misleading way. When both partners work, men work more hours than women. Commuting time is ignored (men on average have longer commutes). Housework/ child care is assumed to take up 100% of the work day. So in my view there is not a systematic difference, only individual cases. Some men can get lazy and stop doing all housework tasks; that’s why it’s good to agree a plan for housework that takes account of…
/r/MensRights03/06/24 10:10 AM
1

😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫 should I take aspirin, Tylenol and ibuprofen for my headaches too, because 3 medicines has to be better than one?
/r/MensRights03/06/24 05:36 AM
3

Wtf are you talking about.? Effective means it prevents pregnancy … there was no data on pregnancy. Safety for a drug given to healthy people requires testing on tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, not a few hundred. And the authors of the study never said “ safe and effective” … these were the words of an editor at NBC.
/r/MensRights03/06/24 05:12 AM
17

The drug that suppresses the sperm count also reduces testosterone so they have to give you testosterone supplement to get the level back up. The study has already been going 6 years with years more still needed to get pregnancy data so I think it’s just a scam to leech money off the government and private donors. I don’t even see how it would get approved since testosterone supplements definitely cause cancers and you would need hundreds of thousands of men in randomized trials to find out if t…
/r/MensRights02/06/24 09:57 PM
-1

This is a non-issue. The UN just accepts numbers provided by Hamas (probably false anyway) and since Hamas refuses to say how many of the men were soldiers/terrorists the UN reports women and children as a surrogate for civilians (probably also false since plenty of 16-17 yo boys are armed and trying to kill IDF).
/r/MensRights02/06/24 09:42 PM
98

The title from NBC is just fiction written by the editor. The study showed neither safety or effectiveness and the people running it didn’t claim that. You have a drug that takes 12 weeks to reduce sperm count (never going to be acceptable compared to existing options), still only reduced sperm count by the target amount in 86% of men (worse than any existing product), and the target sperm count wasnt really low enough to reach what I would consider an acceptable risk level. No data on pregnancy…
/r/MensRights02/06/24 09:25 PM
1

It’s a garbage study that tries to deny real differences between men and women by redefining what depression means. Basically they argue that actions like aggression, substance abuse and danger seeking are “depression”. It’s nonsense that mixes up completely different aspects of personality. There’s no medical reason to do this; some mental disorders are more common in men, others in women. Obviously in terms of overall health men have shorter lives than women so if you want to frame things in t…
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:41 PM
1

Probably deserved, just for the stupidity of writing it down.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 06:10 PM
-5

1) The castration is not performed until the rapist is about to be released. It is an option requested by the rapist, who admits his guilt in raping children. It’s not something that can be used without the consent of the accused person. By any standard that provides as much protection as possible against false accusations. 2) Considering that it is a procedure that we allow adults to choose for themselves, even if they are mentally ill, it can hardly be ‘cruel and unusual’. If the rapist thinks…
/r/MensRights28/04/24 03:14 PM
8

For reference the draft age is 25, not 18 (just changed from 27).
/r/MensRights25/04/24 09:19 PM
4

First of all the “orgasm gap” is a nonsense interpretation of the data. The research in this area refers to the proportion of sexual encounters leading to orgasm as the ‘frequency’ of orgasm, but the media then runs with this as if frequency was being used in the sense of the total number of orgasms over time. But there are differences between gay, lesbian and hetero couples in how often they have sex. So who decides which is better; having sex once a month and always having an orgasm, or having…
/r/MensRights25/04/24 05:33 PM
1

Maybe you earn enough to have a comfortable middle age (I’m guessing not) but you’re still condemning yourself to a miserable old age with no one to help you.
/r/MensRights25/04/24 04:25 PM
0

Sorry but this is a lame effort by OP. They both received 25 year sentences. In France everyone is entitled to a retrial and in the second trial her sentence was reduced to 20 years, which is 10 years with parole, and subtracting time served before conviction ends up at 9. The brother chose not to have a retrial and probably get the same reduction; he will still be out on parole after 11 years.
/r/MensRights25/04/24 04:20 PM
1

That seemed to come at random and I think he was mixing up different types of abuse. Most of the article was about statutory rape, where it certainly isn’t true that 80% of the abusers are men; there are probably just as many women abusers and have been for some time (the majority of teachers are women, so it’s not just a function of which individual person is more likely to be an abuser). I think his 80% must involve crimes against little kids where men are much more likely to be the abuser (ag…
/r/MensRights24/04/24 04:24 PM
-12

No, the judge had nothing to do with it. There were plenty of witnesses and the only evidence that the woman said anything was that she muttered something under her breath like ‘typical man’, but too quiet for most people to hear clearly. No one heard any of the other things he claimed.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 04:05 PM
-22

If you read the article you would find out that the ‘rant’ was actually a story made up by the man and never happened.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 02:46 PM
2

He needs to get a lawyer not talk to the police himself. But no, given what you describe it makes no sense to use that information to do anything other than clear himself of the original charges. Being embarrassed isn’t the same as being assaulted; if he had said something indicating he didn’t want sex and she refused to stop then that would be different.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 02:36 PM
1

It’s ibuprofen; you can buy it from this shitty company for 75 cents a tablet or just buy the generic for 5 cents. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYSzueUrj0
/r/MensRights13/04/24 07:10 AM
-1

Sorry, I thought you wanted factual knowledge, but your bigoted porn-based fantasy world shows that you just want to hate women. You probably also think that men don’t commit most murders. So crawl back in your hole and don’t pretend to be an actual man.
/r/MensRights13/04/24 03:50 AM
2

There are plenty of women 23, 24, no kids. If you’re 39 that would seem a bit weird to me, but maybe I’m the odd one because I’d be thinking about the future and having someone that much younger to look after a senile incontinent old geezer. And hey, if you’ve got a house, some money, and a nice car I’m sure there’s a 21 yo for you if that’s what you really want.
/r/MensRights12/04/24 08:22 AM
-1

Because there are not enough gay men, and the straight guys don’t want to dance with other men. Let’s be real here, women get charged more for lots of products … just go to a supermarket, pharmacy or clothing store. So if you don’t want to pay extra for the Skrillex ticket just go to the store, pick up some laxatives and have the satisfaction of seeing how much more is being charged for that pink box of “womens” laxative , and when the shit is running out of you like water you’ll feel just as if…
/r/MensRights12/04/24 08:08 AM
-1

I don’t know what world you live in, but in the real world men want to have sex far more than women. That’s why gay men have the most sex, and lesbian women the least. And yes, of course pedophiles have a preferred target based on their sexual orientation. There are some pedophiles attracted to children prior to puberty but for most it’s a sex based attraction to children post puberty . Women are typically not even interested in dating adult men that are more than about 10 years younger. Straigh…
/r/MensRights12/04/24 07:32 AM
0

“ Erection is a physiological response” Try to tell this to all the guys that have ED from non-physical causes. You cannot get an erection without your brain processing physical stimulation in a way that signals the need to engage in sexual activity. If you were totally repelled by the contact you just wouldn’t be able to get an erection (excluding someone trained to perverse responses through systematic abuse). This is a completely separate concept from consent.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 11:07 PM
10

Considering that when Maravich played you were limited to 3 years max, no 3 point shot, and about 30% less games per season, it’s ridiculous to compare. Even playing against weaker opponents and with a smaller ball enabling greater shot accuracy, Clark would still have to increase her points per game by 50% to be in Maravich territory.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 06:10 PM
8

Look up the President of France and his wife, and how they met.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 05:46 PM
1

The really scary thing is that those tests are sometimes used to determine fetal abnormalities and lead to an abortion of a healthy baby. They’re only supposed to be used as a screening test ; let’s say the woman is scared to have amniocentesis because there is a risk to the baby. Then you do the screening test and if it’s positive then there is justification to take the risk and use amnio to confirm. If you’re unfortunate enough to live in a state that accepts these non invasive prenatal tests …
/r/MensRights10/04/24 05:42 PM
0

If we’re realistic, name any sexual activity and men will be more likely to be interested in it than women. It’s nature and evolution. Every study of sexual desire shows this. For the same reason boys are easier targets for pedos (either straight women or gay men) because they are more likely to cooperate (even though they can’t consent). Because most men are straight, the majority of targets for pedos are still girls so it’s understandable that this gets the most attention. But that doesn’t mea…
/r/MensRights10/04/24 05:05 PM
3

Shouldn’t the ex be paying half on the kids activities? I assume that he pays child support and that goes into the general pool of money to pay for food, housing, clothes. But unless he is a deadbeat he should also pay part of costs for non essentials as long as he agrees it’s something the child would benefit from. They are married so I don’t really get the idea that one or the other is paying; all new income belongs to both. Add up all monthly income, subtract all required expenses, taxes and …
/r/MensRights10/04/24 04:38 PM
2

In the US there’s essentially no punishment for this. Women in certain industries have been sharing info like this about male colleagues for many years using private social media groups. Peoples careers get ruined by outright lies but the people sharing the lies are not held responsible even when the man finds out about it and takes it to court.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 02:34 PM
2

How is this abuse? It’s trashy that’s all. And it would be the same if the sexes were reversed. Don’t join in the media games that pretend this would be abuse if a man did it.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 02:27 PM
3

Sorry, but if he was choking her and she died from strangulation then he killed her. She certainly didn’t consent to being killed and being impaired on illegal drugs isn’t an excuse for any crime. As for the supposed counter example, the woman in that case was charged with murder and faced a life sentence. The jury found her not guilty of murder, but guilty of a lesser charge. I don’t agree with that verdict, but the man in the current case will also get his chance in front of a jury. (In the Ca…
/r/MensRights10/04/24 02:14 PM
0

I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of the situation. There’s almost no one that wants to ignore the pedo stuff and the issue is more about judges giving light sentences to women (which is just part of the larger problem that the legal system now treats certain groups more leniently and others very harshly depending on what race, sex or who you like to have sex with, rather than individual facts). When it comes to adult victims, I agree that there’s a double standard and that men …
/r/MensRights10/04/24 01:50 PM
0

But maybe he should be trying to persuade her to be logical and get an IUD instead of complaining but doing nothing. Plus I presume they have a car so her actual risk of not being able to get an abortion is zero. His wife sounds like a miserable person just looking to be depressed and angry.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 01:16 PM
1

I’m not against porn, let’s face it most guys are masturbating to porn even when in a relationship. But some people are going too far and damaging their relationships. Save it for times when your partner is away or not in the mood.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 11:20 PM
0

Really? I want drug addicts and mentally ill people to be in a treatment facility where they can be helped, and I’m a bigot? You on the other hand want them in a shelter where they get kicked out at 8am, wander the streets harassing people and stealing stuff to get more drugs and then lay passed out until they’re sober enough to crawl back the shelter at night. 🤡
/r/MensRights26/03/24 11:12 PM
3

By definition a single parent means lower income, less stability, less support in times of difficulty. Sure, there will be some super rich single parent that would be better than having two parents that are drug addicts and never work. But it will still be true that if that single parent had a partner then that would be an advantage for the child.
/r/MensRights25/03/24 04:35 AM
-72

This is way off base. This is a homeless shelter in a big city, which means lots of violent drug addicts and mentally ill. Nothing like a womens shelter that is for victims of domestic violence and where the residents rarely if ever present a risk to the public.
/r/MensRights25/03/24 04:06 AM
1

Not sure what the outrage is about. This woman looks like she’s in her 50s and men of that age would agree with her opinion. It’s safe to say she has an equally low opinion of young women (older men on the other hand don’t really care how lazy young women are as long as they expose lots of skin and they can dream of …. well, you know).
/r/MensRights25/03/24 03:57 AM
3

In that situation it would have been wise to start with an acknowledgment that of course there is sexism against women and you do not want to minimize it, but since it was being covered by other students you thought it would be interesting to consider whether sexism also exists against men. Unfortunately media tends to teach people that there is only two sides to everything, so to be ‘for’ mens rights must mean you are ‘against’ womens rights. Try to explain with some other example that they wil…
/r/MensRights25/03/24 03:29 AM
1

This kind of study is just nonsense. It’s like claiming that smoking doesn’t cause cancer because just looking at a cigarette didn’t instantly produce a 5cm tumor in your lung. The same people claim there’s no such thing as porn addiction. If you are whacking off 3x per day to porn and then can’t get it up with your wife then porn is the cause. If you can’t get motivated enough to stop by your failure with a wife/partner then that’s an addiction.
/r/MensRights25/03/24 02:59 AM
1

It’s been recommended not to do it for about 15 years. There’s no benefit in reducing deaths from breast cancer and it just leads to a lot of unnecessary biopsies and mental distress. This doesn’t mean that you should ignore changes you notice, just that systematically checking is only adding noise and not finding any signal. ​ https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/09/18/breast-self-exam-cancer-risk/#:\~:text=In%20both%20studies%2C%20there%20was,breast%20biopsies%20for%20benign%20lesions.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 08:05 AM
2

Self exams have been repeatedly shown to have no benefit; they shouldn’t be taught to anyone.
/r/MensRights15/03/24 12:53 PM
0

The majority of women have a height preference but it’s not that extreme. In part it’s related to the woman’s own height; women are less likely to want a man that’s shorter than she is. It’s not like men don’t have their own preference (for shorter women). I looked at one study done of college students and the number of sex partners for the shortest guys was about 8, increased up to about 12 for guys who were around 5’10” and didn’t increase any more for taller men. There was about the same vari…
/r/MensRights30/10/23 08:01 PM
1

Tbf only about 10% are in prison for drug offenses and a lot of those pled down from more serious crimes. 25% are waiting for trial. Out of the rest who are you going to let go; half of them are in for violent crimes, and the next biggest categories are burglary, car and other property theft, weapons crimes, other public order crimes (drunk driving etc).
/r/MensRights20/10/23 01:30 AM
0

He had his chance to present the reasons in court, the judges didn’t accept his reasons. My main point was that it was presented as a situation where the man had no chance to avoid paternity because he didn’t know until too late; that actually is the case in parts of the US, but it’s not true in Finland. Nobody was defending the women; the laws are designed to protect children and it seems reasonable to me that if a man finds out he’s not the father he shouldn’t be able to hold that over the chi…
/r/MensRights20/10/23 01:11 AM
2

This is not really accurate. Actually the man has one year to challenge paternity after he discovers he is not the father. In this case the man says he was “traumatized” and did not apply during the one year. btw the law in Finland is less strict than in some US states where you either have no possibility to avoid paying or else you have only one year after a divorce, even if you don’t find out until later. I dont necessarily recommend this, but I have a family member who secretly did a dna test…
/r/MensRights19/10/23 03:29 AM
7

Considering she’s batshit crazy he got lucky.
/r/MensRights19/10/23 03:06 AM
36

In the US there is no capacity to have trials for all accused people. This is great for criminals since they are happy to plead guilty to a less serious charge. Very bad for innocent people as they have a choice to sit in jail for a long time waiting for trial or to to admit to doing something they didn’t do.
/r/MensRights19/10/23 02:56 AM
1

They probably deleted it because of idiots like you. It was a financial question and had nothing to do with what led to the divorce, who wanted it, or whether there was any disagreement. You were just trying to stir up other trolls because you didn’t like that the woman got anything. For all you know the husband got tired of her, was screwing other women (and men) on the side, and happily paid her off.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 01:36 PM
3

I think it’s mostly the Dads; they can’t admit that it was done to them for no reason. The mothers just go along with whatever the father decides. The AAP guidelines are probably a factor but the organization is a joke; they make recommendations without any good quality data and it’s led to disasters like with peanut allergies and SIDS.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 01:10 AM
1

Why do I need to provide evidence when OP is the one assuming things he doesn’t know? Also you don’t seem to understand consent; you consent to sharing things when you get married, if you don’t like those rules you get a pre-nup. Consenting isn’t making up new rules after the fact.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 12:39 AM
1

The same pattern is seen in women as men. However, that doesn’t mean the effect in men or women is really due only to height. Just as with other demographic differences it is most likely that other factors explain most of the difference. The ”wage gap” between men and women is almost entirely explained by different choices about careers not discrimination; this doesn’t mean there is no discrimination, it just has little impact for most people. Similarly with height, it’s a marker of growing up w…
/r/MensRights17/10/23 04:02 PM
-19

It is OK because that’s what both of them agreed to when they got married. For all OP knows the ex husband agrees with the settlement, and the woman is not complaining so wtf point is OP making? If there was a pre-nup and some activist judge decided to break it that is a different matter. Otherwise you make a free choice; you choose who to marry and whether to have a pre-nup. If you’re just desperate for sex then stop thinking with the small brain and don’t get married.
/r/MensRights17/10/23 03:39 PM
1

Absolutely. Treatment with antifungals are always covered. There are some treatments not covered (like using lasers) but this is because they are unproven and no insurance is going to pay thousands for a treatment that has no good data. I can believe that more women pay for such treatments but insurance companies can’t legally choose to pay for one sex and not the other. The only thing I have seen even vaguely like this is in an emergency department where they were more likely to call in a speci…
/r/MensRights16/10/23 05:26 PM
-13

The post is quite confused, but her main point is that he wants her to give back the property she legally owns. I don’t see any reason why she should; he gave it to her as an alternative to marrying her which might have cost him more in the long run. As for her whining about not getting half of everything, she wouldn’t get that even if they were married. He obviously owned multiple properties before she was with him and so she wouldn’t be entitled to any part of those. Also an Islamic marriage i…
/r/MensRights16/10/23 04:54 PM
1

It doesn’t matter what sex the person is, as joint tenants you each own the property and have rights over the entire property. To protect yourself you need to either have one name on the deed, or to own it as “tenants in common”, which allows you to own the property in unequal shares. I would at least get a lawyer to look at any legal documents from the annulment to see if your ex-wife maybe did agree to give up her rights to the property.
/r/MensRights14/10/23 01:31 PM
0

Now go read what I actually wrote: ”Men are far more likely to be the victims of violence” ”Married women are by far the group that is least likely to be the victims of violence” So is that portraying “women most affected “ or are you just a 🤡🤡🤡
/r/MensRights14/10/23 06:47 AM
-3

Before you throw accusations around you might want to read the paper not just the summary. You might also want to consider that men commit 93% of all murders and that shooting someone to death is not equivalent to grabbing someone’s arm. It doesn’t help men to make arguments so ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/10/23 06:43 AM
3

The UK was specifically running a public campaign trying to use that argument. In the real world when someone actually puts themselves at risk to stop a violent incident what percentage of the time is it a man vs a woman? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%? So what do you care about, some meaningless words or someone helping you when shit gets real.
/r/MensRights14/10/23 05:40 AM
-2

Sure it exists, but male on female violence is much more common. If you want to make the case against the narrative of women always being the victims then the best argument is that men are far more likely to be the victims of violence … mostly from other men. Married women are by far the group that is least likely to be victims of violence.
/r/MensRights14/10/23 05:35 AM
1

Since you bought the car and house jointly you’re pretty much screwed. For property owned before the marriage the annulment sets things back to how they were, but unless it was dealt with during the settlement joint property acquired during the marriage still belongs equally to both of you. If it’s a significant amount you should check with a lawyer to see if there is some way to weasel out of it (like maybe the assets have depreciated so what they are worth is less than what you paid). But I th…
/r/MensRights14/10/23 05:22 AM
5

It’s written by a person that is not an academic and has no training in psychiatry, or any other medical discipline. Yet she is arrogant enough to call the concept of parental alienation “pseudo science”. Needless to say, no expert society anywhere in the world agrees. She mainly seems angry that men are allowed to present evidence of expert witnesses in court and that judges actually believe those witnesses sometimes. Since one of her qualifications is in law you would think that she might at l…
/r/MensRights14/10/23 04:41 AM
1

This is the group that recommended stomach sleeping and peanut avoidance for babies. Two disastrous decisions that led to substantial harm and death; they don’t understand the difference between a plausible theory and actual good quality evidence. I wouldn’t trust any recommendation they made.
/r/MensRights13/10/23 05:01 PM
-1

Honestly it’s wrong on its face because it would imply that literally thousands of men would be getting exonerated every year and released from prison, which obviously doesn’t happen. No thinking person could believe such a claim. But here is the specific information: - There are exactly 28 wrongful convictions described in the report. This is referred to in many places and each case is detailed in section 4, starting p33. There are zero references to this number as a percentage of all convictio…
/r/MensRights13/10/23 04:30 PM
-5

You are mixing up two completely different things; the source of the number you are quoting is from FBI statistics on all sex crimes where they were asked to do DNA testing on the primary suspect. Primary suspect does not mean the person has been charged, let alone convicted. It also does not even mean the person is accused by the victim. They are a subset of cases where identity is question (specifically not cases about consent ). 25% is still disturbingly high, but you have greatly misundersto…
/r/MensRights13/10/23 01:50 PM
1

There’s are some drugs that affect sperm motility but they’ve only been tested in animals so far.
/r/MensRights22/04/23 09:41 PM
1

That isn’t correct; around 10-15 ejaculations could remove all of the sperm if a drug was immediately effective. That won’t be 3 months for most men. There are also other approaches like impairing sperm motility that can be effective in hours. And 3 months was the minimum; imagine having to get tested for 6 months before you get the go ahead. The main issue though is the testosterone; without long term safety trials that seems much too risky.
/r/MensRights22/04/23 04:38 PM
4

The down side they don’t mention is that it takes at least 3 months (maybe 6) before it’s effective. Also, since it kills your libido you have to take testosterone and that has a lot of potential risks.
/r/MensRights22/04/23 12:58 PM
1

The treasury department spends almost 3x what the defense department does. Health and Human Services also has a bigger budget. So maybe he should ask them. I mean Treasury got scammed out of at least 500 billion in unemployment payments, maybe a trillion.
/r/MensRights22/04/23 12:09 PM
4

Don’t waste your time on such an obvious troll.
/r/MensRights12/03/23 03:54 AM
-2

Not true. The legal penalties are the same. Do judges give the same penalties; no, but that’s a double standard of the judges, not the law itself.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 06:51 PM
-12

Yes, but it’s still a crime with the same penalty as rape. It seems rather deceptive to imply that its not a crime. That was true 30 years ago but now the only difference is the name of the crime.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 05:40 AM
1

Seems like she got screwed. In most countries she would be entitled to half of what was earned during the marriage.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 05:24 AM
50

Recent case in the US was a 36yo woman with a 13 yo boy. She got pregnant by him. No jail time. Just imagine the reaction if the sexes were reversed and a judge gave probation.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 04:53 AM
1

It’s a bunch of actors so the comments are kind of silly. Irl I do think a man should offer his seat to a woman or an older man, but I would also expect the offer to be refused in such a situation.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 04:48 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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