TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Captain_Yid Archive

View 8 posts and 323 comments by Captain_Yid 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)
-7

You don't have to mold your behavior to cater to a minority of assholes, regardless of gender. Innocently tapping on someone's shoulder is not offensive to normal people and you can't get in trouble for it.
/r/MensRights07/12/21 03:32 AM
1

China loves you.
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:33 PM
0

Just jumping in this exchange to say you're being a jerk. jamesbwbevis is being polite and making reasonable points and you're attacking him on a personal level. Please work on being a better person.
/r/MensRights05/10/21 10:23 PM
4

Mistake. It's not uncommon for court documents to have typos. They're often written from shell documents where the grammar is incongruous with the custom language.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 08:03 PM
9

I don't support everything on this board, but I think it's fair to point out that guys generally aren't allowed to make jokes like this, even in a comedian-friend context. Your criticism of the OP is reasonable, but I don't think it's reasonable for you to act like those who disagree with you are "straight up bashing/shitposting" or for you to condemn the whole subreddit for post like this, which IMO is relevant to the double standards males deal with, including male friends and comedians.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 05:00 PM
3

IMO, where your analogy falls apart is that sometimes you want to be asked out on a date (i.e. if the person is sufficiently attractive) whereas people never want to be asked for money -- there is no potential benefit to you when someone begs for your money. Now, being asked for a date or even being catcalled, there's some potential benefit, from starting a meaningful relationship to as little as a small ego boost. Regardless, I'm panhandled for change all the time. It's a mild nuisance at worse…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 06:40 PM
-1

What do previous arrests have to do with him being a rapist? Holy shit? You serious? Ever heard of a pattern of criminal behavior? Get the fuck out of here. In regards to her sexual injuries did you see the size difference between them, do you not think that even slightly rough sex between the two of them could have caused similar injuries? You act like you're the first person to think of those questions. You think Tyson's extremely expensive, extremely experienced legal team didn't think of tha…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 02:06 AM
3

Oh yeah, innocent Mike. Dude was arrested like 30 times before he was 13. On top of that, he calls himself a violent guy (outside the boxing ring). Not to mention the victim had sexual injuries (Vaginal bruises and abrasions), had witness corroboration, and Tyson contradicted himself while testifying.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 09:50 PM
0

Women shouldn't be in the military because of biology. They're typically weaker than men. They become pregnant and their breast milk is important for their babies. Sexualizing a military environment creates a variety of problems. Also, populations can absorb large losses of men easier than women because female capacity for reproduction is far more limited than the male capacity. There are probably military jobs that are exceptions (e.g. ones where you can stay home), but that's my two cents.
/r/MensRights18/09/17 07:14 PM
1

Gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood.
/r/MensRights21/08/17 10:24 PM
1

That was my point in part B.
/r/MensRights21/08/17 02:30 PM
1

There are enough exceptions in GoT to give them plausible deniability. I'll agree with that much.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 01:37 AM
2

You don't replace dead, male warriors and rulers with their wives and daughters who seem to be miraculously irreplaceable except by other women. Particularly in a society based on medieval times. Except in a feminist fantasy. I don't see how GoT is an anti-war fantasy at all. If anything, it indulges in violence.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 01:28 AM
1

IMO, GoT has become very feminist. Women are awesome and in charge everywhere in the show (except Jon Snow). The villains and nutcases are almost overwhelmingly male. Women even dominate physical combat, which is just dumb. A preteen girl is a better leader in the North than, well, everyone. It's borderline cringey. I love the (first 3) books and enjoy the show, but the agenda is obvious.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 09:19 PM
-1

Two problems with this statement: (A) The assertion that this sentiment is almost exclusive to white supremacists. (B) The idea that you can't agree with a simple concept because a someone somewhere did something violent and that person might know someone who adopted that concept. Neither of these assertions are intellectually sound (to put it extremely mildly).
/r/MensRights16/08/17 01:33 PM
2

Yep - prominent journalists call Ben Shapiro "alt-right" even though he openly opposes the alt-right. It's all an effort to silence intellectual opposition.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 08:03 PM
0

I want to agree with you, but it matters because they can destroy your career or silence you by labeling you a racist, depending on your career. They can fire you from Google, they can delete your Twitter account, and they can silence or demonetize your Youtube videos.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 08:00 PM
0

Obama brought up the "wage gap" every State of the Union. The left's presidential nominee campaigned on the "vote for me because I'm a woman" strategy. To characterize anti-male mentality as a characteristic of the "extreme" left is dishonest. MRA's lean right because the left constantly vilifies men.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 07:58 PM
4

I'm sure many white supremacists also say the Earth is round. Doesn't mean the Earth is flat.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 07:54 PM
3

The only part I disagree with is his assertion that "with zero proof the entire jury just believes her." I've dealt with my fair share of juries in my life time and most of the time, they seem to take the burden of proof very seriously. If a prosecutor had the gall to take that sort of case to the jury (and most prosecutors wouldn't), it would be very difficult (albeit not impossible) to find 12 people to unanimously vote to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:34 PM
5

The film depicts a poorly constructed interplay between the confused, ‘ex-feminist’ filmmaker battling her internal demons and a series of (mostly white) men expressing their feelings, ranging from the rational to irrational. I can't help but notice that there seems to a correlation between self-described feminists and people who identify groups as "mostly white" as if there's something inherently wrong with their race.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 08:54 PM
1

I'd never heard of Ms. Magazine or Majority Feminist Organization, so her position did not carry a lot of weight for me. IMO, the professor had more authority.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 01:24 PM
1

I'm not.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 01:22 PM
6

Thanks for the suggestion. Still, why leave it out of the film itself? I've seen plenty of documentaries say "we tried to interview X, but they refused etc., etc."
/r/MensRights08/05/17 07:51 PM
3

I wouldn't say they were that high up. The most recognizable position I recall was a professor from USC and I wouldn't expect much balance from a professor at USC.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 07:47 PM
12

Thanks, I was guessing that's the case. Pretty unfortunate as Jaye seemed to be giving otherwise fair interviews. That said, assuming what you say is true, I would have liked to see her talk about that in the documentary more - i.e. The fact that feminists wouldn't cooperate with her.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 07:43 PM
19

I rented this recently. It was pretty good, but I would say I thought the MRA reps featured in the film were far more credible than the feminist reps. At one point, the film features an interview with some obnoxious protester off the street calling herself "Big Red." No other credentials and she was cast in the position of defending feminism. IMO, that was unfair to feminists; you can make any ideology look bad by interviewing the worst proponents of that ideology. That said, I don't know if man…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:27 PM
0

Have you actually looked at the studies on this issue? They refer to the same crimes. It's not just sentencing either. Men are twice as likely to be charged -- again for identical crimes. A study in the UK determined that if men were treated like women in the criminal justice system then five out of six male prisoners would not be in jail. I've looked at many studies. And I work in criminal law. There are variations within the same crimes, as I pointed out before. Researchers simply are not goin…
/r/MensRights04/05/17 02:37 AM
1

While that might be true, ever notice virtually no one makes this argument for the race gap in sentencing. That's only because of the identity politics involved. If someone suggests that maybe black people have earned their sentences, they are called racists. FWIW, I believe the same thing with the "race gap." The data simply does not account for the variables involved in sentencing.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:45 PM
0

This is the MRA version of the wage gap. No one disputes that a gap exists, but are you considering all of the factors that play into that gap before claiming sexist causation? Contrary to what OP's title suggests, sentencing is a very complex process that takes into account far more than the charged crime. For instance, one person could commit aggravated assault with a baseball bat, and another did it with a gun. There's going to be a sentencing disparity between those two individuals. And that…
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:05 PM
1

If she even got as much as a bruise from him pushing past her, he could end up in jail. With that video? No way he's going to jail unless he straight-up murdered her.
/r/MensRights02/05/17 01:58 PM
2

IMO, it's a flaw to stay composed in that situation. If a child is being abused like that right in front of you, I encourage you to fight it with a passion. Violence would have been absolutely justified to stop her. At least the guy got video and took the kid away, but staying composed in that situation is not a feat to brag about.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 10:08 PM
3

To be fair, that would definitely be criminal, and very arguably sexual assault (it exceeds the scope of your consent). The problem is that it's nearly impossible to prove. Most people don't keep their used condoms, and even if they did, how do you prove someone intentionally poked a hole in it. You can't expect law enforcement to bring a case with no evidence.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 03:05 PM
20

I never hear anyone recognize that men are more interested in politics than women.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:08 PM
1

Men's need more rights in this scenario, yes. But you can't change public policy. Just be the best dad you can be. Forget the mom. Raising a child and growing to love a child and having that child return the love is one of the greatest experiences in life. It's a lot of work, yes, and may even be miserable at first, but you'll get used to it and it'll become a better part of you. If the mom is truly horrible, the kid will realize that some day if you continue pouring love into that child. You do…
/r/MensRights12/04/17 05:49 PM
2

You're the one who brought up your income...you said "If I were rich..." which is the same as saying "I'm not rich." You don't want to talk about your income? Then don't talk about it. Besides, since when is it an "insult" to say you're not rich? I would agree with you that a credit report isn't always a good reflection of your character. But it's a damn good objective indicator. In fact, I think it's the best one that I can think of. You said it wasn't relevant and that's the statement I think …
/r/MensRights12/04/17 04:02 PM
0

But seeing as how you're now stooping to insults, Easy there, fella. No one insulted you. I get it - you think credit score is unrelated to employability. I'm just informing you that you are completely and utterly wrong - no doubt about it. As a side income, I'm a landlord. I use credit scores to vet tenants and, in my experience, credit score is the best indicator of a good tenant and it goes FAR beyond paying bills. If I were insulting, I'd call you an imbecile, but I chose not to go there.
/r/MensRights12/04/17 02:09 PM
0

Lol, ever think that's why you're not rich? There are so many situations that could end with your credit being damaged that are not a reflection of who you are as a person. Exceptions to the rule. All of them.
/r/MensRights12/04/17 03:48 AM
0

Whether you pay back money shows how trustworthy you are. Like it or not - poor credit scores indicate you're kindof scummy (and probably not rich).
/r/MensRights12/04/17 02:46 AM
3

It's entirely relevant. Credit reports indicate that you uphold your end of your business transactions. And employment is a business transaction.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 08:23 PM
8

Half?
/r/MensRights06/04/17 08:50 PM
28

Comment with 1380 upvotes and 633 downvotes as I write this: Better safe than sorry 1111 upvotes and 722 downvotes: I think the staff at this hotel should be commended for checking the young girl was safe, could you imagine the uproar if this hotel had not checked and she was in danger. The father should be grateful that people are willing to be on the lookout for youngsters welfare. These attitudes are disgustingly common.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 02:42 PM
3

Still a problem, although I would say not as bad, because three black men is more specific (there are a lot less black men than white men) - so the closer she gets to singling people out, the worse IMO.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 04:06 AM
16

Yeh, it's not as bad since she didn't name someone. But, she did attempt to smear the black community. Still should be worse than a misdemeanor IMO.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 09:16 PM
2

Agreed. Let's not be hyperbolic feminists.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 02:51 PM
2

No, I'm saying individual cases are statistically insignificant for the proposition that family courts generally are biased. P.S. There's no need to be a sarcastic ass.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 02:17 PM
2

It's a wonder I still have custody of my children then... Your hyperbole is as bad as a feminist's.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 04:49 PM
1

I've sat in family court many times. Even if I had weeks of spare time at my disposal to do that some more, that's not concrete evidence.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 02:30 PM
1

Sorry about your experience, but I can't paint all addicts with one color.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 03:12 AM
23

To be fair, he wasn't underage. In Texas, age of consent is 17. The relationship is criminal because she was a teacher and he a student. Personally, I can't muster any outrage about a 17-year-old having consensual sex with an older person.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 09:07 PM
1

OP only griped that the court was deferring to the mother's right to have any custody over her child. He's assuming gender preference rather than the preference for parental rights, even thought the law explicitly prefers the maintenance of parental rights. Do you agree that courts shouldn't strip parents of custody of their children? I would hope so - that principle protects fathers just as much, if not more, than mothers.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 07:56 PM
0

Maybe (I'd like to see concrete evidence of that), but that's not the issue raised by OP.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 07:44 PM
1

It's odd they don't show lynchings of white males except Italians.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:24 PM
-10

Unpopular opinion alert: The standard for depriving someone of custody of their children is and should be very high. Being a drug addict alone is not a good enough reason to take custody away from someone. I don't know what you mean by "full custody," but that suggests you're taking away all parental rights from one parent and I would hope courts are loathe to do that.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:20 PM
1

I considered those - Most males are not postpubescent boys and young men who don't have sexual partners (granted, sexual partners don't prevent all self-gratification). I suspect 3/week is a generous estimate. There's a lot of 0 or 1/week out there.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 08:41 PM
3

I know it's a joke, but assuming the average male masturbates 3/week and we're fining every "incident" in the U.S., it would take 10 to 20 years. That's how massive the debt is.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 03:34 PM
1

Lol, now you want to be sensitive about "retards" after you called me a retard? Now, you're mocking me because I'm "stupid"....right? And this proves your sensitivity to the mentally challenged? You're totally "powning" me, big guy. Thanks for showing me how to treat the mentally-challenged. I tell you I tried to commit suicide and you decide to double-down on being a dick to me. What does that say about you if you truly believe suicide is a disease? EDIT: The truth is, deep-down, you know that …
/r/MensRights07/03/17 08:23 PM
-1

Uh oh, are you making fun of diseased people? That would be incredibly inconsistent of you. P.S. I tried to commit suicide as an adolescent. It was a choice.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 08:14 PM
0

Frankly, and in all serious, I think suicide should be encouraged supported for unhappy people. We have too many people in the world who want to live and barely have the means to live to keep worrying about people who don't even like being alive. If it were up to me, I would have charities that gave out suicide kits for free - it's your choice and I think it's often a very honorable choice.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 08:12 PM
-2

I don't claim to be a genius. I think even someone who is mildly retarded knows you're preaching pure idiocy. Don't get mad, b/c I can't help what I think or say. It's a disease. Help me.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 08:09 PM
-5

We can agree on that. Can't blame me for saying so since I can't control my behavior, right?
/r/MensRights07/03/17 07:49 PM
-7

If suicide isn't a choice, then my line of thought isn't a choice. Suicide is not a disease. That's retarded af.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 07:44 PM
-7

C'mon - suicide is a choice (yes, even if you have depression). Cancer is not. Not comparible.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 07:09 PM
23

Pick your battles.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:11 PM
14

Trolling serves a purpose too - it dispels the idea that we have to walk on eggshells when "women's issues" are brought up. Milo's been very successful with his approach. He deserves credit. EDIT: Besides, he's not a pure troll. He often supports his claims with real arguments backed by real data. And he's effective in the debating role as well.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 05:54 PM
5

Did your dad agree to be married and hold himself out as married? If the courts recognize her as his wife, then there is evidence that he did so. I'm sorry, but that's on your dad.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 06:55 PM
3

To be common-law married, you have to (1) Live together, (2) hold yourself out as married, AND (3) agree to be married. It's pretty easy to avoid - don't act like you're married and agree to be married and you won't be considered married.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 03:53 PM
1

This should be higher. This is injustice on a massive scale.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 04:55 PM
2

Who was disingenuous? Sounds like the guy was incredibly frank to me.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 11:01 PM
1

I wouldn't say it makes your opinion less valid. It's just that your opinion isn't reflected in public policy.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 01:15 AM
0

That's my opinion and the opinion that has existed since the advent of marriage. Moreover, that opinion reflects many of the policies regarding marriage - that's why we extend insurance and SS benefits to spouses, so that they can raise children, not so nonparent spouses can exploit those benefits.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 11:12 PM
2

If they're having children, fine. But that's a major hurdle for a gay couple - stats show only about 20 percent have children. Out of the 594,000 same-sex couple households, 115,000 reported having children https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf And that's ignoring statistics on the number of children (IMO, it's a safe assumption that gay couples don't have as many as straight couples).
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:59 PM
3

The assumption that marriage is for the purpose of raising children together seems to be fairly consistent across eras and cultures. Tell that to the gay marriage crowd. I don't think today's generation understands that marriage is (or should be) about having children.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:04 PM
1

Sounds like extra acting opportunities. Let them have their fantasy. I'll take the reality of making bank.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:08 PM
–

I'm a criminal lawyer in Texas. It's possible but far from typical. And it can happen in any state - it's long been accepted that a conviction can be based on a single witness as long as the jury unanimously believes that witness beyond a reasonable doubt. In reality, it's almost never a single witness and, when there is, they have very convincing testimony which the defense cannot rebut.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 10:43 PM
0

Circumcision is done with the parent's consent. Just like all medical procedures on children. It's a dumb comparison.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 10:35 PM
1

To be fair, they are portraying the wife as someone looking to hire a stranger to murder her husband and it's a man who recognizes the absurdity of the request. IMO, the wife is the asshole in this ad, so I would say it's more bigoted toward women than men.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 03:40 PM
12

She is now asking for child support “proportionate with [Ozer’s] vast wealth and income.” This is the part that's fucked. Child support wouldn't be* so ridiculous if it didn't become a way for gouging wealthy men. Child support should provide basics and that's it. And it should be proportionate to visitation (i.e. there should be no child support if custody is 50/50).
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:13 PM
2

Just because you can't explain the 1.6 percent doesn't mean sexism is the cause. There's probably other factors the studies can't account for, for example, men may demonstrate better morale at work - or something equally difficult to measure but employers are willing to pay extra for.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 03:33 PM
2

Slapdown? That was weak. At least the intent is laudable.
/r/MensRights08/12/16 04:21 PM
13

Hmm, I thought by commentators, you meant paid commentators. These are just internet trolls.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 05:35 PM
2

This petition has a whole two 23 signatures. It's virtually a straw(wo)man.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 02:29 PM
1

It was interesting that the first reason given for not banning it was the fact that the filmmaker was female. And that's from the woman that was against the ban.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 02:28 PM
3

Every single state of the union. Fuck him.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 06:22 PM
5

Probably that the government is spending all of this money on credit and we already have a huge deficit.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 06:21 PM
11

Agreed. This is just a tiny fraction of anti-male discrimination happening today.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 03:27 PM
1

I stand corrected. That said, sole physical custody still entails him seeing his kids on a very limited basis. And the fact that it's common makes it even more relevant.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 02:10 PM
1

Reach, reach, reach.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 02:19 AM
11

(A) It's not gossip. It's in black and white in court papers. (B) Brad Pitt appears to be a poster child for one of MRA's top grievances - that is, society's proclivity for taking children away from their dads.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 01:37 AM
2

Even assuming you're right, that it's "standard procedure" or "common practice" to sue for sole custody in these circumstances, and Brad Pitt is just an oddball, you're only highlighting why this is a systemic problem. Furthermore, I would suggest the Brangelina divorce highlights the reality of custodial battles -- men are more willing to compromise with joint custody and women want sole custody.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 10:06 PM
22

BS. Brad isn't suing for sole custody. He says he'd be happy with joint custody. Sole legal custody orders are rare and not favored by our laws unless the noncustodial parent has committed certain acts of misconduct or has otherwise abandoned the child to such an extent that he or she should not be involved in important decision-making concerning the child. http://farzadlaw.com/california-child-custody-laws-guide/#Custody
/r/MensRights21/09/16 09:50 PM
12

Well, to be fair, she's not seeking child support.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 07:37 PM
71

She complains that he smokes marijuana and drinks, therefore she should be awarded sole custody . . . And I'm sure Angelina would never partake in such despicable behavior. If Brad Pitt isn't good enough for his kids, it makes you wonder how many of us are.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 06:15 PM
1

Call me a backwards hick or evil Christian conservative (FTR, I'm an atheist), but I would complain about this guy too. Even if I ignore the complaint about sharing private information like you, sex education and An Inconvenient Truth are, at best, tangentially-related to biology class. Dude's not doing his job, which is teaching biology (read: NOT proselytizing kids). For your education, One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court …
/r/MensRights21/09/16 02:39 PM
1

Everything else being equal, I would think saying one race is faster than another race would insinuate superiority by one race, which, by your definition, constitutes racism. But, by your logic, saying white people are smarter is not racism, correct?
/r/MensRights20/09/16 04:50 PM
1

Like saying black people run faster?
/r/MensRights20/09/16 03:17 PM
1

Either you've got another source of information or you're just making up facts. Regardless, you're ignoring two of the three grievances made in the complaint.
/r/MensRights20/09/16 02:31 PM
4

They also complained he shared private student information, taught sex education and birth control, and promoted “political candidates” on school property by showing “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s documentary on climate change. Buried in the article are the real grounds for complaint. The main one being sharing "private student information." That could be a real problem by anyone's standards. Secondarily, showing "An Inconvenient Truth" in school is pretty controversial since the film featur…
/r/MensRights19/09/16 08:15 PM
1

I'm sorry it took you so long to come around, but I'm glad you did. Moore's a propagandist. Always has been. The tragic part is that Hollywood and young people lap his propaganda up like it's ice cream.
/r/MensRights12/09/16 08:37 PM
19

I like how the article suggests that Democrats have the better platform (in a marginally-relevant paragraph), even though it's obvious that Democrats are spurring the current due process problems. Classic New Yorker-style journalism.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 06:30 PM
1

They're more like punching bags for people who hate their clients.
/r/MensRights17/08/16 06:16 PM
5

Nice. When I aspire to be full-time douche, I'll start taking your advice.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 03:21 PM
8

Well, if you're upvoted, then you must be right! Or it's possible most people didn't notice the date....
/r/MensRights11/08/16 03:08 PM
12

Old news is a shitty source for commentary on your contemporaries. That's my point. You're the one employing troll tactics.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 02:51 PM
11

From 2012? Weak.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 02:35 PM
5

This clip feels like a terrible internet argument where someone seems to deliberately misconstrue your position in an effort to demonize you. In other words, the anchor is as dense as a typical troll on the internet.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 07:04 PM
8

It's not about "women getting their rights", it's a lot more about a general culture of misandry and how women just do not value non-traditional men. FTFY. If there is any imbalance, I would say traditional men are valued even less.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 03:35 PM
0

Yes, they changed the headline on the website.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 05:42 PM
9

Thought this sub might appreciate how messed up this story is. Interestingly, when I saw the story on local news on TV - the story was headline "Woman pours boiling water on child," the guy wasn't even mentioned until the latter part of the story.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 03:30 PM
1

Eh. It's a he said, she said. And I tend to believe her because he said he never contacted her, but her toe was bleeding. Doubt it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think this is a poster child we want.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 04:17 AM
3

Equating height to weight is unfair. There is a lot of choice that leads to obesity. Height is almost completely out of your control.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 09:33 PM
1

It may help you afford heathcare under rare conditions, true. It can also prevent you from affording healthcare, such as when they deny coverage, or create a bureaucratic barrier to your reception of healthcare.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 07:48 PM
2

If he was nothing but a douche, I might agree. But he's also one of the foremost men's rights advocates, for instance. He's an important political voice, regardless of how you feel about his character.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 03:58 PM
2

I'm not saying he's a sweetheart (Not everything has to be one extreme or the other! Jesus!), but receives at least as much push-back as he gives. And he certainly isn't "threatening" anyone. The true bully in this scenario is Twitter.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 03:38 PM
2

"Bully" is a stretch and "threaten" is purely fabricated. Here's Milo bullying and threatening people. Oh wait, that's him enduring people bullying and threatening him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawEMxTroBk
/r/MensRights20/07/16 02:47 PM
8

Milo is at the same time by far the funniest and most intelligent conservative around. Was gonna upvote but had to hold back after this part. I like Milo but calling him both the funniest and the most intelligent conservative by far is ridiculous. For instance, Trey Parker (co-creator of South Park) is libertarian and one of the funniest people on the planet IMO. As for intellect, there are a countless conservatives more intelligent than Milo.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 02:43 PM
1

insurance =/ healthcare I'm not sure when people started making this assumption, but it's one of the worst common assumptions I know of.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 02:26 PM
24

The worst part is that gender discrimination with regard to healthcare is illegal in the U.S. Obamacare made that the law when people complained that women would have to pay more for insurance.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 10:14 PM
4

C'mon now. Do you think men or women are the ones fighting police? And which do you think poses more of a danger when they do fight? This is a stupid point that undermines true Mens Rights issues, like the drugging of young boys and the false wage gap narrative that we have to hear from our sycophant POTUS every damn State of the Union. You may now downvote me. EDIT: spelling
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:09 AM
2

Obamacare. http://obamacarefacts.com/no-discrimination/ If insurance costs men more, we ignore it. If it costs women more, we make discrimination illegal.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 08:36 PM
9

Bingo. I don't mind people griping about the double standard, but this lady doesn't belong in prison. Taken out of her teaching position, yes. But she's not a fucking threat to society! Jesus.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 03:44 AM
-2

No shit. Bunchof manginas in this thread.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 03:42 AM
1

This. I'll take the downvotes with you, but at 16 years old, you know what you're doing. Calling that rape would be retarded.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 12:19 AM
3

Yes, I'm surprised given the number of people on the editorial staff. Maybe that makes me naive, but I appreciate the info.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 04:40 PM
9

Downvoted because I hate this sort of response - excusing bad behavior because bad behavior exists somewhere else. I found OP's post fascinating. To have zero of your 20 or so editors be male at a major news organization is absurd enough to create a presumption of sexism. The fact that there are no blacks is a statistical possibility since blacks are only ~ 10 percent of the population and relatively undereducated. It's not even comparable.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 04:00 PM
3

Obviously (I'd hope).
/r/MensRights09/05/16 04:25 PM
2

If you go home with a stranger from a bar, then you've consented to sex? Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous. You're allowed to withdraw your consent. If you get to the stranger's house and he/she starts acting like a jerk or you discover they have horrible hygiene or find out they're married or what-the-fuck-ever, you have every right to not have sex with them. Isn't that obvious? You can withdraw your consent at any time. That's what the law is and what it should be. Why is this stupid bit…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 03:44 PM
2

Yeah, it makes you a little sympathetic with people who off their spouses.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 04:59 AM
5

IMO, five years is way too long to find your feet.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 08:30 PM
1

Recantations don't have a lot of value in court (at least not nearly as much as you would think), because victims commonly recant against abusers (even in cases where the abuse has been proven through other evidence). The public is generally unaware of this glum fact of prosecution, so it places more value on recantations than it should.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 07:05 PM
9

Any alimony over two or three years is evil.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 07:03 PM
1

You tell yourself that. Feel free to look up the law yourself (it varies slightly by jurisdiction of course, but I promise you OP's video is not sexual assault in any jurisdiction).
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:48 PM
1

It would have been sexual assault (or attempted sexual assault) if she tried to force his hand down her pants, but she dropped his hand as soon as he resisted. You're nuts if you think this is sexual assault.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:18 PM
-2

Grabbing his hand is, at worst, simple assault. The fact that she masturbated immediately before doesn't change that. You guys are acting like feminists. Please stop.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 09:20 PM
1

Fuckface? So unnecessary. If you think a sexual assault conviction could come out of that regardless of gender, you're an idiot.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 09:17 PM
-2

Weird, but that's not sexual assault. Maybe disorderly conduct or some sort of lewdness crime.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 07:45 PM
2

Awful crime, but OP is misleading. 15 years is the minimum sentence for murder in that state. That doesn't mean she's only going to do 15 years.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 09:56 PM
1

Apart from maybe being out of the country, the only way to prove no rape occurred is if you had clear evidence on video of you and her never being in the same room. To be fair, any alibi evidence would fit the bill. See the Duke LaCross case for example. At least one of those kids PROVED their innocence. (IIRC, the kid was at the bank with video and receipt evidence at the time of the alleged assault). That said, your point stands that people should be presumed innocent.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 03:26 PM
1

Usually, no one. There's no point in making an innocence determination if the law presumes you to be innocent. On a personal level, you can judge people however you like. The government doesn't tell you how you're supposed to feel on a personal level. You're welcome to your opinion. For myself, I've been exposed to criminals long enough that I know a "not guilty" result is a far cry from an innocence finding. In my experience, innocent people rarely are tried because, to be tried, a prosecutor h…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 08:05 PM
2

Why is this ignorant garbage upvoted and the correct person downvoted? "It does not mean he is innocent." http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:27 PM
2

The man was by law innocent when the trial started Another one of you. Please stop misstating the law. He is, by law, presumed innocent. That's not the same as innocent. Probably guilty people are still presumed innocent under the law. Ex) Casey Anthony is presumed innocent, but she probably killed her kid. EDIT: http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:22 PM
1

They are presumed innocent if not proven guilty. That is not the same as "they are innocent if not proven guilty." Probably guilty people are still supposed to be found "not guilty." EDIT: http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:18 PM
25

Are we seriously praising him? He didn't claim one in five women are sexually assaulted, but he may as well have, as if college is some sort of rape factory.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 04:40 AM
1

Exactly. Even if you ignore the biological limitations of female soldiers, we would effectively be suffering additional casualties through reduced birth rates.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 05:52 PM
1

Considering they don't make good soldiers, it is pretty stupid.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 04:34 PM
1

I'd be pissed if they cut it in some crazy way. But their hair looked fine to me. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think dad's cutting their son's hair is a tradition in African-American culture.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 05:26 AM
2

Yep, this video has all of it. And you forgot the part where she encourages the kids to scratch his car and accuses him of abandoning his children in front of the kids. It's amazing how she starts calling for help as soon as she instigates contact. You can only imagine what this lady is like when she doesn't know she's on video. This lady is living proof of a number of issues all wrapped up in one woman. The flippancy of false criminal allegations, the alienation of a dad from his kids, the enti…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 09:44 PM
1

Criminal courts operate on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Universities do not (and should not).
/r/MensRights26/01/16 06:59 PM
1

I'm going to be fucking pissed if she gets to continue her medical career. Calm down. She acted like a spoiled brat and assaulted someone in a drunken rage. She didn't pull out a gun and start shooting people.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 09:25 AM
2

No. "Starting" fights to prevent further bullying is. Disagree with me if you like. But speaking as a fairly short guy, I think there is constant pressure to either submit or fight.* Big guys don't have to deal with that because bullies prefer easier targets. That pressure may dissipate as you get older, but don't think that doesn't have a lasting impact on your temperament. That's my hypothesis, at least. Ask yourself, which makes more sense - that or this idiotic suggestion that short guys hav…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 01:33 AM
3

They have the biggest ego's in the world for some reason. Big dudes are usually chill and don't give a fuck. It's a survival mechanism. Big guys love to walk all over little guys. So little guys have to learn to stand up for themselves without hesitation or their life will be dominated by that shit.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 10:11 PM
4

Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:56 PM
3

The political blowback of not pursuing two sexual assault allegations against one person. But yeah, it shouldn't have made it that far, at least for the rape charge.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:49 PM
2

To be fair, they concluded that she makes a "compelling argument." They're challenging her (trying, at least), but they're also respecting her argument.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 04:40 PM
1

Eh. I was thrilled he wasn't just a pretty boy, like Annakin (sp?) in the last movies...
/r/MensRights07/01/16 04:32 PM
1

I'm not equating the two. The point is that a renowned geneticist advocated for eugenics just in the last decade (just one of numerous examples), so you're assertion that eugenics "died with WW2" is false.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 08:52 PM
1

Yes but the very idea of eugenics like imperialism died with WW2. No. It didn't. John Sulston, 2002 Nobel Prize winner in genetics, stated (in 2004) "I don’t think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world." He's modern a British scientist, not anything remotely resembling a Nazi. And that's just one of hundreds (at least) examples I could cite. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article127395.ece Of course, the moment someone discusses this very reasonable idea, w…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:10 PM
1

This always comes back to Nazism. Why? Because it is the logical conclusion of the process (not that they really knew what they were doing). Sweden's eugenics concluded in Nazism? I never heard that Nazism sprouted up in the U.S. either? What a strange statement considering it's been demonstrably wrong for decades if not centuries.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 03:23 PM
9

Lol, okay, okay! Just don't call in some extra "muscle!"
/r/MensRights05/01/16 07:03 PM
1

How does one define genetic superiority? An excellent question to start with. If only a there were a field of study to address the issue... Nature shows that no such thing exists. There is only strengths and weaknesses. Besides lowering genetic diversity (as all eugenics has done) would doom us to disease. It seems highly questionable to act as if every single genetic trait is desirable because it adds to the diversity of the gene pool. I'm sure you could start with genetic diseases. You would b…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 06:41 PM
1

Eh. I never understood the hostility expressed toward eugenics. It's just another strategy to improve humanity. Frankly, gender studies would be fine too, if such studies continued without an agenda.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 05:50 PM
1

There are numerous factors involved in sentencing beyond the crime committed (criminal history being the most important we don't know about). None of those factors are addressed in the story other than the age of the offender, which would work in her favor as she was a borderline juvenile at the age of 18 while all of the men were in their mid-twenties.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 05:45 PM
11

I would want to see this bitch fired if she were a biology professor. But the fact that she was a communications and journalism professor makes her actions borderline unfathomable.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 05:33 PM
20

She didn't commit rape. She was arrested for an "improper relationship with a student." 17 years old is the age of consent in Texas, but having teachers having sex with students is still illegal. Stop acting like feminists - it's embarrassing.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 10:33 PM
-2

No offense, but I don't think 15 year-olds should be able to play games with custody arrangements. Don't have my support with this issue.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 03:12 AM
2

Eh, I agree with the ex-wife. Alimony should be generally banished and anyone taking the alimony is a POS. The only exception IMO is when a spouse quits their job to raise children - and only then they should get a few years of alimony to reestablish their career.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 04:01 PM
3

He's pure commentary. NPR is mostly news stories. They're nothing alike, even if you ignore their political angles.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 05:21 AM
5

The permanent alimony trap can be especially maddening for someone like Jane Carter, 43, who is using a pseudonym so she can more freely discuss her husband's case, which will soon be hashed out in court. Her husband separated from his first wife in 2003 and was ordered by the courts to pay his ex-spouse $90,000 a year (not including child support). They divorced in 2005 and eventually the amount was lowered to $81,000 a year. So far, Carter's husband has paid his ex-wife $800,000 in alimony, an…
/r/MensRights17/12/15 09:53 PM
7

Right - "conservative" is probably the wrong term. I just mean less pandering to liberals and SJWs.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 09:23 PM
7

Same. On one instance, I remember during the last election that they gave this friendly interview with a girl who expressly stated that the reason she was voting for Obama was because he had the same skin color as her. I had to do a bit of a mental doubletake. Somehow I doubt they would give such a blatant racist airtime if she were white.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 08:29 PM
78

It's nice to see some factual affirmation of what I've come to believe through listening to NPR. I love the way they report news, but their political and anti-white-male bias is awful. I wish there was a more conservative equivalent of NPR.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 04:23 PM
6

I agree that "obliterating" is too strong of a term, but undermining and marginalizing men in every facet of their lives is having an distinct negative impact on our society. And then you could argue that Democratic stances like undermining Western culture, incentivizing broken families, and penalizing entrepreneurs pile on top of that problem. Regardless, relax! There's no need to start throwing around ef-bombs about the whole community just because it upvoted an opinion you don't like.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 07:48 PM
1

I consider myself an MRA, but I don't want to see women involved in warfare unless they are as qualified as male soldiers. That means they need to be able to march as well, to carry as much equipment, and to live in filthy conditions if needed. Political correctness has no place in warfare.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:16 PM
12

"No guy wants to have sex with a virgin." Wtf. That's not only untrue, but it's completely hijacked from lines fed to boys (changing "guy" to "girl" that is).
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:26 PM
3

That really was an amazing moment. It invites the ol' gender switcheroo - "Why do men dominate phyisics? Because it's a manly science." Isn't that the exact sort of sentiment that feminists complain about as the source of under-representation of women in STEM fields? I'm pretty sure a man could lose his job for saying something like that.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:28 PM
3

Wow - that's a "wtf" story. As amazing as her discrimination against boys is, equally amazing IMO is how open she is, telling the press about her discrimination in an odd display of lack of self-awareness.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 07:07 PM
1

Your point? We should charge 8-year olds with murder?
/r/MensRights13/11/15 08:02 PM
0

Terrible advice. Engineering pays better, has a higher ceiling, has a better future and is generally healthier than trade professions.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 09:00 PM
12

It shouldn't be legal to charge a 9 year old with anything.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 08:43 PM
1

Questionable post: If you say you're not guilty, any sane judge won't accept your guilty plea. It's highly likely that you could have such a plea thrown out on appeal, which is often embarrassing for a judge.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 08:39 PM
3

A) Assuming it's a first time offense, they should get a slap on the wrist. It's not those two individuals who created a culture where men can be sexually harassed as a joke. B) Let's not act like all judges are the same.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 05:25 PM
1

They call it liberalism/progressive, but it's really fascism with a euphemistic label.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 04:02 PM
2

My guess would be schizophrenia...
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:59 PM
2

That might be it, too, but I would hypothesize that it's still just the difference in priorities between men and women. Men want money because women want men with money. That means men make sacrifices for money that women won't and it's impossible to account for all of the variables related to this difference.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 11:16 PM
3

From what I've seen (last time I looked at the research), it's probably due to lack of specificity in occupation. The researchers might consider attorneys one occupation and discover a pay disparity there, but that doesn't account for women who choose government attorney positions versus law firm positions. Women continue to choose lower paying professions, even when you control for numerous variables - for instance, they would be more likely to choose an idealistic cause or less stress over hig…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 10:55 PM
2

Well, to be fair to the media, liberal politicians also keep repeating the number in an effort to rally women to their side.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 10:50 PM
2

First off, he's not subject to the standards of the American Bar Association, so you're in the wrong jurisdiction. Assuming his story is true, he's licensed under the State Bar of Texas. Second, your rule is not applicable, as someone already addressed, anonymous statements on in a small corner of the internet with no identifying information have no "substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding." The possibility that his statement would ever be attached to the proceeding is remote…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:42 PM
2

It happens I'm pretty familiar with the Texas rules of ethics. I'm curious: which one do you think he violated? Here's a link to help you: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27271
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:10 PM
1

Don't be a dick. You're the moron if you don't think prosecutors talk about their cases before trial. Even more so if you think that risks disbarment (it takes much worse to be disbarred). He didn't give sufficient specifics to expose anyone's identity so there's no risk of contaminating the case. I, for one, am appreciative that he shared the story.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 05:35 PM
4

Naked doesn't equal porn. Calm down.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 03:24 PM
2

Agreed.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:22 PM
12

While I'm glad you're here, I wouldn't base too many of my world perspectives on the statements of mentally ill people.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:14 PM
7

44 percent? Good lord that's high! Equally as shocking is that 36 percent of men found a "nod in agreement" to not be consent.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:34 PM
-1

Or, do what you always do, but make sure you don't reproduce with that 44 percent.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:32 PM
2

Glad I live in Texas where Alimony is very limited. IMO, alimony should never be given to the spouse that initiates a divorce or to a spouse who has not raised the children.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 05:59 PM
3

I understand. But I'd rather assume that tiny risk. But I also walk outside at night and drive a car, knowing there's a chance that I'll be mugged or hit by a drunk.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 06:37 PM
3

And you can also bleep out your own swears...not sure why you feel a need to correct him.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:58 PM
4

I refuse to be afraid of being friendly to a little girl in a public place. That's too much. I'd rather be accused of pedophilia than live like that.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:55 PM
25

Nice video. Highlights for me: -when his casually-dressed, attractive wife came in and looked completely out of place -pointing out the hypocrisy of their feminist disdain for any religion other than Islam -expressions of disdain for the pro-obesity crowd supporting free healthcare
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:52 PM
1

Texas. I've linked to the applicable statute elsewhere if you want to save yourself the trouble.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:49 PM
1

No cite again, I see. Regardless, I don't know about you, but "criminal sexual conduct" sounds a lot more broad than "sexual assault" to me. Keep reaching.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:45 PM
1

Do you mean another Florida? This statute doesn't include butt-grabbing: >(h)“Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. Please stop talking out of your ass.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:41 PM
1

Maybe, but not in my state. Do you know any such state or are you just guessing?
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:37 PM
2

Depends what you call "sexual assault." It's not what I would call sexual assault and, legally, in my jurisdiction, it was definitively not "sexual assault."
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:35 PM
1

I agree. My point is that it's not sexual assault.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:33 PM
1

Your point?
/r/MensRights22/09/15 09:14 PM
1

Well, you have a drastically different perception of sexual contact than the rest of the world seems to, then. My perception seems pretty in line with typical laws of nations with elected legislators. Not sure how that makes my perception "drastically different from the rest of the world," but you can say what you want. I don't think that's worth jail time, but it's certainly not okay. I never suggested otherwise. As I said before, (unwelcome) ass-grabbing DOES qualify as assault. It's just not …
/r/MensRights22/09/15 08:38 PM
0

And you'd be wrong. I've been present when someone grabbed my sister's ass. I don't think for a second she was "sexually assaulted" as I've always understood the term. Ass-grabbing = assault, not sexual assault.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 08:27 PM
0

Since when is ass-grabbing not sexual? Since forever? What's "sexual" has always been up for debate and ass-grabbing/touching is on the fringes of that debate.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:54 PM
1

I see nothing here defining a butt-grab as sexual assault (except the "women's health" website - which would include someone poking you with their finger as sexual assault [i.e. "Inappropriate touching"]). It would take a very loose definition of "sexual contact" or "sexual touching" to include grabbing someone's butt. Some jurisdiction out there might consider a butt-grab as "sexual assault," but you're talking about an exception to the rule.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:40 PM
1

Cite?
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:41 PM
2

I won't deny there are different levels of sexual assault, but legally, rape and ass grabbing are both sexual assault. Legally? Where? In my state (Texas), an ass-grab is NOT sexual assault. It's a simple fine-only assault - the same crime you could be charged with for pushing someone. It's not the law's fault if the general public hears "sexual assault" and thinks "rape". As I said, some jurisdictions (I'm certain Texas is not alone) attempt to define "sexual assault" as a legally-recognized ve…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:20 PM
8

It's ridiculous because "sexual assault" is a term that deliberately conflates something as innocuous as a butt-grab with something as terrible as forcibly raping someone. You have my permission to shoot me if I ever go around calling myself a "sexual assault" victim as if I've had anywhere near the experience of someone who has been truly raped.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:36 PM
2

I've had multiple women grab my butt without asking. According to this survey, I am a sexual assault victim (which is ridiculous, btw).
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:27 PM
1

I hear ya. But the OP isn't complaining about the double standard. It's complaining that the crime isn't taken seriously enough. Fuck that guy. The problem is that the crime is taken too seriously, and far too seriously when a man is the perpetrator.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 08:06 PM
1

The problem, as I understand it, is prison sentences for consensual sex.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:20 PM
-10

"Sexual assault." Give me a fuckin' break! A 17 year-old student boned his teacher. That's living the dream for christsake. Stop trying to turn the 17-year-old into some kind of fuckin' martyr. 30 days in jail for the teacher is too much, not too little. And that applies to both genders. Can we stop trying to be feminists and stop hailing posts like this as if they are a breath of fresh air?
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:38 PM
1

A ten percent difference isn't that large. That could be accounted for by something as simple as displays of contrition. I would hypothesize that men and blacks are groups of people who are less likely to show remorse. I would also hypothesize that their victims are more sympathetic. And hard-to-research facts like that will impact sentencing. And what's it mean to "account for criminal history?" There are varying levels of criminal history. Two criminals could have previous convictions for aggr…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:56 PM
-8

I decided to have my sons' penises circumcised, primarily because it's slightly favorable in a medical sense. Saying it should be an "adult decision" neglects the problem that circumcision is far more dangerous and painful if done while you're an adult. Parents make medical decisions on behalf of their children all of the time. If my sons have crooked teeth, I'll probably make them get braces too.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:13 PM
1

As an Actuary for over 25 years I can tell you statistically men have more accidents than women. I bet you could come up with similar statistics about racial groups.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 08:36 PM
10

I like this subreddit, but I sympathize with your post. At the risk of speaking for the sub, I think the general complaint is that it's socially-acceptable for women to ogle "DILF's" but it's not for men who want to ogle MILF's. i.e. The double standard is the issue.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 02:54 PM
1

Not true! Sometimes we can wear light pants.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 02:47 PM
6

Wow! Do you do hand-readings too!?
/r/MensRights04/08/15 02:40 PM
13

I don't know why, but this guy's lack of eye contact is fascinating to me. Does it convey deceit? Or does it give him more credibility because it conveys passiveness or perhaps a sense of being victimized? I can't decide if it hurts him or helps him in these debates. And yes, he destroyed the opposition, even with the host trying to prop her up. The way he laughs off their jibes is really perfectly-done - nothing they do or say seems remotely surprising to him (probably because the arguments are…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:44 PM
1

tl;dr Got moved to the main office where I was the only man out of 30 women. I lasted 3 1/2 days. It's 100% female again. Then they bad mouthed me to my temp agency, despite outlasting 95% of the other temps. I've had a very similar experience. Small office with about 10 women and myself (a man). My work was fine and was cordial with my co-workers, even though I was clearly the outsider. Suddenly, one day I'm fired for poor work performance with some completely-made-up examples of my performance…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 05:52 PM
1

BS. Get a record of it. Lawyers, judges and juries don't want a he-said-she-said case. He could still win without a record, but it gets much more difficult and your settlement offer will likely be much smaller as a result.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 05:43 PM
3

Probably that too. At least while unsupervised.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:32 PM
5

Such a gross mother. I like how she pulls out a baseball bat and smashes the dad's window in front of a bunch of little kids and doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that. If a guy pulled that, he'd be charged with a felony and shamed on the national news...
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:25 PM
-5

Again, I agree you'd be dumb (just like I agree the lady in the video is dumb, if not despicable), but an MMA fighter needs to show restraint because their punches are the equivalent of your average guy hitting someone with a baseball bat. A basic principle of civil behavior is that you should only use proportional force in self defense. Even as an average dude, I would avoid getting in a fist fight with a drunken idiot, much less a drunken idiot who happens to hit like a girl.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 04:21 PM
-7

I'm not taking up for her - my point is that we shouldn't be taking up for him. They both made the situation worse than it should have been.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 04:11 PM
-16

I think that's the problem. This guy is an elite athlete. When he punches somebody, he WILL hurt them. Someone with that sort of strength should use more restraint than your average Joe. While I consider myself an MRA and I definitely think the girl was out of line, I also don't think we should be defending this guy. Elite athletes shouldn't be knocking drunk people's teeth out every time one does something offensive.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 03:46 PM
9

That being said, I do think 22 years is ridiculous when the men were consenting. At 17, I was as capable of making decisions for myself as I am now. If they were 12 year Olds, it would be different. But unless she coerced them using her position as a teacher, I don't think she deserves 22 years. Nor would a man in her position. Came here to say the same thing. Thank you.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 03:38 PM
1

I don't know this guy, but he absolutely wrecked this lady's tired women-are-pushed-away-from-STEM-subjects argument.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 03:13 PM
1

Rape culture?
/r/MensRights24/06/15 02:56 PM
-1

I can totally imagine him saying it to Hillary Clinton, Michelle Bachmann, or Sarah Palin, yeah. FTFY.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:20 PM
2

One would think that Anglo-Americans would express some degree of personal and social responsibility for allowing their governments to kill over 4 million Muslims since 1980. 4 million? Lol! Inflate statistics numbers much? Muslims/Arabs didn't participate any of that killing, no doubt - they've been peace-loving people since 1980, amirite?
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:04 PM
0

That's fine if you disagree with him. I do too, I think. The problem is when you suggest that he should not be in a position of power and responsibility for just bandying about the idea. God forbid he suggest an unconventional approach to a perceived problem. Do we really want a society where we silence the discussion of unconventional strategies, particularly when our society is founded upon embracing innovation?
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:28 PM
-4

The idea that girls are a distraction and emotionally unstable in the workplace is not one that should be banded about by a person in a position of power and responsibility. There's still a lot of debate about whether genders should be segregated in education. He's just making an extension of that argument. And it's not like the idea is unreasonable. Men and women are sexually attracted to each other and everyone agrees that sex/courting interferes with work. It's not a huge leap to suggest it m…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:46 PM
1

That's a routine mistake by the media nowadays. "Not guilty" to a journalist means "exonerated." It might be intentional clickbaiting I suppose.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 05:49 PM
1

You know damn well that's not what I said. Are you pretending that you have no control over your health? And there actually is a choice - I plan on killing myself when my body turns so frail it's not worth living. It's not that crazy of an idea.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 09:34 PM
1

Feel free to cite that.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 08:42 PM
1

A popular myth.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 08:12 PM
1

I had a friend who went schizophrenic (completely crazy, and it was a bit movie like, but worse IMO) for awhile and recovered (mostly). He recalls very little from that time in his life. You could say he was "aware" of his surroundings I supposed, but he didn't seem very concerned about being homeless.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 08:09 PM
1

well the USA is almost entirely right wing so ..... Which goes to my point that the left is authoritarian. The U.S. has arguably the least intrusive government among developed countries.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:56 PM
1

Maybe it's just me, but public decency laws or pornography restrictions don't seem to be very controversial right now (meaning the left and right are largely in agreement). And boycotting is a form of censorship. It's certainly legal and is not government censorship (usually - I've seen some government entities doing this lately), but the goal is to shut down someone with an opposing viewpoint. That is censorship IMO.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:29 PM
-1

Oh yeah, I've heard this one before - "Smokers save money because they die earlier than healthy people." Of course, this argument absurdly overlooks the loss of productivity associated with dying...
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:09 PM
3

Seems like all of the censorship and authoritarianism I've seen lately come from left-wingers. I don't see people being fired and boycotted for left-wing opinions, but I can list off examples of people/entities being fired or boycotted for right-wing opinions (or even just donations to right wing causes). Chick-Fil-A, Arizona, Indiana, the Whole Foods CEO, and the CEO of Mozilla all come to mind.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:03 PM
1

Seems consistent with socialism to me - ban it if you don't like it.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:49 PM
0

Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives and public healthcare is a perfectly affordable means of providing it for everyone. The gaping hole in this argument is that people demand FAR different degrees of healthcare and your healthcare needs are, to a large degree, a product of your life choices.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:48 PM
-3

you might become a paranoid schizophrenic 20 years from now. I'm sure you would appreciate not being homeless then. If I became a paranoid schizophrenic, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't give a fuck.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:46 PM
-1

Because women want it in case they can't find a spouse to support them.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:44 PM
3

Anybody who believes in social and legal equality as well as freedom of choice Pretty sure that's how conservatives would describe themselves too. Source: I'm a conservative
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:41 PM
1

Lawful and morally justifiable are not the same thing. All we can say is too many boys and men have died due to a culture devaluing, and demonising black (and in general) men. IMO, black men have been demonizing themselves for quite some time. Look at all of these so-called "victims" - all of them were behaving in, at best, a highly-inappropriate way. And these are the "poster children" i.e. ostensibly, the most sympathetic cases. AND their community is largely supportive of these criminals!
/r/MensRights21/05/15 02:31 PM
-2

The only recent unlawful killing I can think of is the one in Baltimore.* And I'm pretty sure that got a fair amount of attention. *This case has not had a trial yet, so I'm operating on the generous assumption that the killing was unlawful.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:28 PM
0

Are you suggesting (with sarcasm) that there is not enough attention being given to black men "murdered"* by cops? *Most of the instances of "murdered" black men were lawful killings. Therefore, they weren't murder.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:09 PM
14

As awful as that sounds, what she did is even worse. He did not even have the notice of an ultimatum; he was completely blind-sided by the rape allegations.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 09:20 PM
31

If you actually look into the facts of this case, this girl is awful. She didn't report the "rape" for months, and AFTER the alleged rape, she was texting the guy about how she loved him and wanted him to come over again.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 07:53 PM
2

Title IX has been a travesty for boys and men. The reality is that women are not remotely as interested in competitive sports as men, but Title IX requires equal funding for both. In my high school that meant 50 guys fighting each other for 10 slots on a team, while girls who didn't care about the sport would play on the team because they had nothing better to do. And then we wonder why boys are disengaging from school.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:51 PM
-21

You said "No they don't [need probable cause]." That's what I was responding to. Do cops always follow the law? Of course not. I'm just telling you what the law is and the U.S., as a whole, has a relatively robust legal system. Acting like we live in a lawless land where police just arrest people for whatever they want is just disingenuous.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:00 PM
-4

It gives them a pass to enter a unit where they reasonable believe someone is in distress.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:57 PM
-11

You're right about one thing. It's not the 50's. But domestic abuse is still common. Police don't know if the person answering the door is someone being abused or the abuser. For all they know, this lady could have been abusing her lesbian partner. It's not the 1950's anymore, ya know.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:55 PM
-44

I don't know what to tell you other than you are factually wrong. You have to have probable cause to arrest someone in the United States. That's the law. It's pretty simple. If you don't have PC, then the arrest is illegal.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:50 PM
-19

It depends. Was the call anonymous or was it someone who ID'd themselves? Some 911 calls are more credible than others. Did the police hear anything themselves? There's a lot we don't know.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:47 PM
-18

In my experience, apartment complexes usually have multiple units, meaning the screaming could have come from another unit.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:38 PM
-17

Well, since OP was not in any distress, had no marks on her, was not appearing nervous, then the police had no just cause to assume she was in any danger and thus no legal right to enter OP's home, against her expressed will, and search her residence for "someone hiding". (A) You're assuming facts we don't know. (B) You seem to be ignoring the possibility that a perpetrator might be the one answering the door.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:35 PM
-28

Police lose lawsuits all of the time. The courts are not "zero recourse." And, under the circumstances described by OP, if I were arrested, I'd not hesitate to sue the police and I'm confident that I would win. P.S. I'm an attorney.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:31 PM
-48

They still have to have probable cause to believe domestic violence occurred. Those "mandatory arrest" policies just keep police from letting people go even though the police believe domestic violence happened. The probable cause requirement still reigns supreme.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:27 PM
-20

The police didn't hear anyone screaming themselves. They only had the neighbor saying she heard someone screaming. That is not enough for them to force entry without a warrant. How do you know what the police heard?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:20 PM
-39

Just like the OP, you're fantasizing. Nothing like that happened and I'm not afraid of police arresting me as a wife beater because I don't beat my wife and there is zero evidence that I do beat my wife. In fact, I hope they arrest me so I could win a bloated settlement for false arrest.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:16 PM
-60

If she's living in a mandatory arrest jurisdiction, it's not wrong to assume her husband would have been arrested, even with no evidence or desire for arrest from either party. Hence the mandatory part. I don't know what you mean by mandatory arrest. In the U.S., you have to have probable cause to make an arrest.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:11 PM
-19

In the US (and many Western nations) it is AGAINST THE LAW for the police to enter a citizen's domicile and search the premises without a warrant. Not always (in the U.S. at least). There are many exceptions, depending on which state. But a common exception is under emergency circumstances. I.e. Someone screaming for help.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:09 PM
8

Yikes! Isn't Cornell supposed to be a selective school?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:06 PM
-120

How dare police respond in a reasonable way to someone reportedly screaming in distress, right? If my neighbor calls 911 and tells them I'm screaming in distress, I sure hope police come to my house and make sure nothing is wrong. IMO, it's wrong to assume the police would have arrested the husband. They probably just wanted to see if the lady was covering for her abusive spouse - it's not an uncommon phenomena in the world of policing.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 03:56 PM
2

There are lots of reasons police can enter a home without permission or a warrant. Someone screaming in distress is an example. That sounds like what happened here.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 03:54 PM
2

If you're married, you're not "legally disconnected." Far from it, actually. The passage you cited does not apply to "former step parents." Furthermore, it imposes no obligation on current step parents; it imposes an obligation on the kid applying for financial aid. Get. A. Clue.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 07:59 PM
3

Former?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:28 PM
26

This is just talking about a kid's financial aid eligibility/application, or am I missing something?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:13 PM
4

I don't know if it's a recent trend or not, but there seems to be a large sector of the population that enjoys demonizing past generations. Maybe a backlash against "The Greatest Generation" label or insecurity on the behalf of contemporary generations. Whatever it is, I've developed a deep disdain for people who attack cultures or individuals who are no longer around to defend themselves.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 03:25 PM
7

He needs to work on his stutter. It kills his presentation.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 07:55 PM
4

It's amazing how she smiles like she's a fuckin' genius for spreading this profound message.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 02:45 PM
4

That's because modern "democracies" aren't democracies at all; they're Republics. Like the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago...
/r/MensRights22/04/15 06:17 PM
3

Modern democracy could not have worked 2000 years ago for the same reason today's gender roles wouldn't have. Not to undermine your point, but Athens employed a democracy well over 2000 years ago.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 04:04 PM
3

Competitors will be only too happy to snap them up, perhaps even at lower wages. (emphasis added) Don't look now, but you just gave a reason to be concerned.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 03:47 PM
6

I'll share my experience with this issue. I've always been a very talented math student - it's probably my only talent really. Even when I took my last math course (college calculus I), I suspect I was one the most talented math students in my class. I discontinued my math studies after that point (I just didn't enjoy it much). Anyways, I use the word "talented" because I it wasn't always reflected in my grades. I would often be mediocre in terms of grades associated wtih completing homework ass…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 03:43 PM
3

Watched five to ten minutes - lots of anecdotes and generalizations with no evidence to back up their generalizations. There is a huge problem with boys academically, but a strong factual basis exists to reinforce this statement. These people presented no factual basis for their discussion and just didn't seem that well prepared to discuss the issue.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 03:21 PM
2

ITT: People who need to sue for discriminatory practices instead of venting anonymously on a message board.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:36 PM
3

IIRC, Paterno reported what he heard to authorities. That wasn't good enough. There was real rape, but Paterno didn't know that - his information was based on hearsay. All he knew was a rumor of rape and he reported it. The hysteria is that Paterno should done more than alerting authorities based on little more than hearsay statements. To this day, a lot of people believe that Paterno himself is a rapist.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 04:41 PM
3

I wonder. Coach K has so much public support that a lot of people would trust and believe him (though of course many wouldn't). An unknown-to-the-public lacrosse coach had no chance, no one bothered to listen to him. Still, it's hard to say who would win the battle of public support between him and a rape hysteria mob. Look at Joe Paterno. No one has enough prestige to withstand rape hysteria.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 02:38 PM
3

I would say "at least she's getting some equal treatment." That said, I generally hate the idea of registering statutory rapists as sex offenders for life. Consensual sex between a teenager and an adult is world's apart from forcible rape IMO.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 05:19 PM
14

Crazy, isn't it? On top of that, did you see this comment by this person: Women are over half the population. They likely should dominate academia. This person apparently believes that, since women are 50.8 percent of the population,* they "likely should dominate academia." *The slight majority is almost surely due to men dying early, resulting in a disproportionately female population among senior citizens. In fact, last time I checked, more men are born than women.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 02:01 PM
2

I agree that alimony and child support are broken in many or all jurisdictions. For instance, I hate that child support is a flat percentage of usually-dad's income, even if dad makes a million dollars per year. I'm just saying that I think there's a place for those laws, as long as they are implemented properly. What happens when the kid goes to day care or school? There's no reason some woman should be a stay at home wife for 20 years. A mom or dad is, on average, going to take better care of …
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:19 PM
1

Marriage has little purpose outside of getting the government involved in your relationship. I've given this a lot of thought over the past few years and I disagree. The government involvement is necessary to protect stay-at-home spouses. I think society believes (and rightfully so) that it's in the child's best interests to be raised by their parents, rather than a daycare. For that reason, we involve the government so stay-at-home spouses aren't at the mercy of the working spouse. Government i…
/r/MensRights08/04/15 02:14 PM
2

Not sure if you're being hyperbolic, but I agree. Geriatric marriage is pointless except to reap the benefits intended for couples raising families (e.g. SS benefits passing to your spouse).
/r/MensRights07/04/15 06:32 PM
13

I don't know how you can do any serious analysis of marriage without considering the impact of children. The whole point of marriage IMO is to raise a family in a stable home environment. Of course there's no point to marriage if you don't plan on having children. Men getting screwed in divorces is part of the issue, but people don't even seem to grasp the point of marriage in the first place - to raise a family.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 06:04 PM
47

Or Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway. Lack of diversity doesn't seem to be holding them back to me.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 02:35 PM
2

I don't like all of the MRA issues, but I think this is a big one. IMO, the child support system is broken and rife with abuse, almost unilaterally at the expense of men. For example, child support, almost everywhere, is taken as a percentage of the parent's income, NOT as a representation of what the child needs. That means a parent with high income pays a ridiculous amount of child support, far in excess of what the child needs, which in turn will fund the custodial parent's personal expenses.…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:35 PM
31

He said their dorm-room sex was consensual. She said it wasn’t. In the end, the jury believed him. Um, no. A "not guilty" verdict just means that they didn't believe her beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't know who the jury believed, if anyone. In fact, the fact that the jury took four days to decide suggests that they believed her but weren't quite sure. No one knows what happened in that dorm room except these two people. the young lady had admitted that she went to Strong’s room to get a guy …
/r/MensRights02/04/15 02:19 PM
1

This guy sounds drunk. That said, I agree that Obamacare has pushed the boundaries of government even further.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 03:53 PM
2

Yeah, this is just like an insulting racial stereotype. What a great comparison. /s
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:06 PM
9

I find it strange to hear someone who has named himself "FuckALLSJWs" complain about other people having something they are angry about.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:25 PM
1

There's nothing like "diversity" as a reason to smother the interests of whites and males.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:15 PM
15

Yes, many. I don't consider the women in this story representative of all women.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:11 PM
0

I dunno, she has 500+K hits on that video. Sounds like she's found a profitable way to rebuff her daughter's pushy suitor to me. If I were her, I would have zero regrets.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 05:02 PM
2

Eh, if the facts are as she describes, the mother has a legit complaint. There's a difference between asking someone on a date and badgering/harassing someone who has made it as plain as possible that they're not interested.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 03:18 PM
2

Respondents were recruited by means of leaflets and advertising. Well, the study lost me there. The participants were self-selected.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 03:09 PM
1

Common law marriage requires more than cohabitation. In other words, you also must agree to be married and hold yourself out as married in order to establish a common law marriage.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 08:35 PM
-1

Child support is irrelevant to marriage; child support obligations exist whether you're married or not. Alimony ((i.e. spousal maintenance) is absolutely related to the wife's income.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:14 PM
-1

What financial obligations are you talking about?
/r/MensRights17/03/15 10:07 PM
-4

This is the benevolent slave owner argument. You have no power in the marriage, whatsoever, but if your wife is "nice" maybe she won't take your kids and financially destroy you. You're being absurd. A mother can take your kids regardless of your marital status - but let's not pretend that custody to the mother is automatic. And if your wife makes more money than you or you live in a state with no spousal maintenance, then you won't be financially destroyed. My argument is just to be selective. …
/r/MensRights17/03/15 07:50 PM
0

There's no good reason, whatsoever, for a man to get married. I hear this sentiment a lot on this board, and it seems overboard to me. While I sympathize with many of the complaints about marriage, if you pick a wife who is a good human being, you treat each other respectfully, and you want to raise a stable family, marriage still makes sense.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 07:08 PM
17

You probably could make a criminal complaint. She's taking your money for a service and purposely not delivering. That's theft.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 05:21 AM
5

Bingo. Until the left faces real backlash from men, they will keep pushing anti-male legislation and ideas.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 06:12 PM
11

I like NPR. I like the way they report news. And they produce some original, thoughtful content. But goddamn if they don't push feminism hard. Every day it seems like they have some story about how women have it hard. Drives me crazy.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 06:03 PM
2

I was just about to preen myself on having my liberal credibility proven in front of a crowded carriage Liberals...
/r/MensRights10/03/15 04:36 PM
0

I can't tell if you're joking.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 03:04 AM
-1

I mean the way that we take, say, a hundred million people who might have good ideas that they could develop if they had access to good education, time, and capital, and then instead give them shit education and make them spend most of their day working at one or more shit subsistence jobs. That is NOT how you promote innovation. Wtf are you talking about? I have a cousin-in-law who isn't wealthy and could barely pass high school Algebra, but even he is going to college - to study history becaus…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 10:20 PM
4

Maybe, but I would suggest you observe and see how conservative comments are treated around reddit for some examples. Maybe a Southern rural Democrat has a similar experience, but I would bet that's about as far as it extends (grossly generalizing of course).
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:53 PM
0

"Wealth inequality"? You mean capitalism? Yes, I think that does promote innovation. I would think the U.S. has proved that a thousand times over. Regardless, it does a hell of a lot better than socialism.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:49 PM
-4

Well, I'm married to a so-called "progressive,"* so I try not to paint them with the same brush, but I certainly understand the sentiment. I often keep my mouth shut about politics in social situations because liberal hostility seems so unrestrained these days. *I don't like to endorse that term because IMO conservatives (in the U.S. at least) are the true party of progress. They are the ones to endorse innovation-promoting principles.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:09 PM
14

As a conservative, that's what most struck me. She labels him a Republican (although they don't really know) as if he's a friggin' Nazi. I've met people like this and their disdain outweighs anything I've ever experienced from a Republican referring to a Democrat. The party of tolerance indeed.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 06:43 PM
1

Agree completely. Well said. And I'm someone who is probably hypersensitive to the prevalence of liberal messages injected into various media.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 06:46 PM
2

"Police have said he was driving without his lights on, but Mildenberg said the footage shows that the lights were on, along with the car's turn signal." sounds like they stopped him with no probable cause. Or, you know, he turned his lights on once he realized the police were pulling him over. Not the craziest possibility. Would hate to assume the police are corrupt when there's a perfectly reasonable explanation there.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 06:17 AM
8

By providing contraception, they allow people to plan when they will become parents. The name makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 04:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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