TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Chamoflage Archive

View 1 posts and 714 comments by Chamoflage 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)
1

Step 1: Do not go out of your way to mold him into a sociopath. Step 2: There is no step 2.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 10:10 AM
3

Sorry fellas. She's married. To SCIENCE!
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:31 AM
12

Well, we can't just go around giving rights to everyone. That would make too much sense.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:24 AM
5

The movement isn't getting more support and awareness, radfem just forgot to pay their bills.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:22 AM
1

They're effectively synonymous because the social sciences are the ones we can't produce exact test results for, and thus must work entirely with vague and imprecise results. It's still theoretically supposed to include actually testing your hypotheses, but the things tested by any given social science usually involve a lot of people's commonly held beliefs about how other people and themselves behave, plus the results are easier to fake because if you do the experiment again you actually expect…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:05 PM
3

Wait, is /r/pyongyang actually run by North Korea? I can't tell.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:41 PM
7

"Feminism" is a political movement, not a soft science. When a science is "soft" that just means we don't have any method of producing exact test results which means all results and theories must be viewed as general rules and approximations. We can nail down the exact speed of light, but with current knowledge and technology there's just no way to calculate exactly whether or not, say, a randomly selected person in a crowd of bystanders will move to help someone who's fallen over and dropped a …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:38 PM
2

Those things are alike basically only in that they involve going to subreddits and posting things. Christianity is a religion. It involves taking certain things to be real based on faith, and typically does not have much impact on policy. Christianity doesn't even have much of a unified sense of right and wrong, in fact (most of the things the majority of Christians agree are wrong are things that all people agree are wrong; no one's disagreeing with "thou shalt not kill"). Christianity as a who…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:31 PM
6

Are you perhaps Canadian?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:46 PM
1

Indeed. Delivering terrible wrath upon anyone who is found to be lying about an accusation means that people might be less willing to come forward with real accusations for fear it will be found that they are lying. The last decade or two have made it obvious that there need to be some consequences for false accusations or people will make them for personal gain, but if the consequences are too dire, people won't report.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 11:42 AM
0

Ah, this is a good point. How, then, do we determine the odds of getting knocked up during an affair (and, from this, extrapolate a rough approximation of how many women are cheating in their marriages)?
/r/MensRights27/01/13 07:34 AM
-3

So we're probably looking at ~30% of married women cheating on their husband, assuming that donating blood doesn't make you particularly more or less likely to be a cheater. That's...Better than I was expecting, actually.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 07:24 AM
1

Doesn't seem like this information is publicly available. Most people don't investigate too much into schoolyard bullying incidents.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 06:57 AM
8

Why is this a problem? All they said is that they would like people who do not typically come to math things to come to a math thing. This doesn't even seem like "too trivial to be worth talking about," this seems like "nothing even slightly wrong why are we even talking about it?"
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:32 AM
1

Okay. What do you not understand?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:30 AM
2

I'll just yank a quote from another comment I have floating around somewhere in this tangled knot of threads: Online lynch mobs don't care if your behavior is corrected, don't care if you apologize, don't care about anything to do with the actual situation at all. Correcting bad behavior in a kid works when there are explicit rules and explicit punishments given for breaking them. Endlessly insulting and threatening a kid until you get bored, regardless of whether or not their behavior changes, …
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:15 AM
2

The guy in the suit? Doesn't look too bad to me. Most people who wear fedoras do so with like a trenchcoat or regular street clothes and it doesn't work at all. Fedora was made for a suit. Also for Harrison Ford.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 11:04 PM
43

Yes. This is why victims of child abuse never, ever go on to become abusers themselves.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:47 PM
6

Online lynch mobs don't care if your behavior is corrected, don't care if you apologize, don't care about anything to do with the actual situation at all. Correcting bad behavior in a kid works when there are explicit rules and explicit punishments given for breaking them. Endlessly insulting and threatening a kid until you get bored, regardless of whether or not their behavior changes, is called child abuse when parents do it. It is not known for turning out model citizens. Your sob story about…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:47 PM
1

This looks like the beginning of an enlightening discussion.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:37 PM
4

Well, video is here. It's obvious she was attacking the boy (that, or the whole thing was elaborately staged and for some reason no one, including the one accused of bullying, has said as much...I find this unlikely).
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:26 PM
24

Online lynch mobs are not terribly effective means of correcting behavior.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:21 PM
3

Technically the complete version is typically "if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread not directly related to that subject, you've automatically lost whatever discussion you were taking part in." It's how you avoid things like this. /nitpick
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:17 PM
0

Mainstream feminists don't have moderates almost by definition. There are a lot of demographics that do not agree with us right now who we must persuade to our side in order to make progress, but trying to draw converts from mainstream feminism is a doomed effort.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:37 AM
16

The fear is that the reason males are not so common in education roles is because it is presumed they are pedophiles. I don't have any hard data to back that up, but it seems plausible.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:30 PM
1

No, actually, this is the opposite of true. There are people who can be persuaded, but dogmatic feminists aren't among them. You won't get anywhere talking to a brick wall when you could be talking to people who might actually change their minds.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:20 PM
9

It's sort of like Reddit's own local version of "at least we're better than Hitler."
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:15 AM
3

There is no good way to open up discourse with a mainstream feminist. They're zealots.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:14 AM
3

See, you say that, but my experience has been that people don't care about those things.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:13 AM
9

Yes, the phrase really should be "any publicity is good publicity in show business." It really doesn't apply at all to products that are expected to actually do something.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 11:01 PM
5

Article isn't loading. Do you mean that 41% of boys 10-18 have been violated by a female, or do you mean that of the boys who were violated, 41% were violated by a female? Latter seems more likely, women being responsible for 41/44 violations seems like a pretty ridiculous imbalance.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 10:59 PM
0

Does it, though? How much less attractive is a woman for picking on lower classes? If, for example, you're already considered attractive because you look good or you're great at sex or you're really good at flattering the ego of the upper classes, the fairly minor hit to your feminine mystique from punching a beta might be worth the cost.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:04 AM
9

Oh, well, if you say so. I'll just completely ignore the violently aggressive protestors at Warren Farrell's lectures, then, because surely random internet person #6 is the final authority on how feminism really acts.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:01 AM
1

The CBS article linked by the AVFM article talks about how Strauss-Kahn's odds for office are seeing a turnaround now that he's been cleared of charges. Which obviously means that he was publicly known to have been accused of the crimes, and his polls suffered for it, before his trial was actually concluded. I haven't actually googled anything, this is just from the AVFM article. With a few minutes of research (I went through the footnotes on Strauss-Kahn's Wikipedia article, took me five minute…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:00 AM
2

We're getting better at discrimination as we go. What white males have to look at right now is nothing compared to what poor people lived with in the late 19th century, or black slaves in the early 19th century, or peasants in the 15th century, or slaves in ancient Rome. The discrimination is bad, yes, but it has actually been getting better, not just getting shifted around to different demographics. That said, the holocaust was 70 years ago. Backsliding is also totally possible. It could get be…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:47 AM
12

No, because you do a shit job distancing yourselves from them. Radfems are able to use mainstream feminism for support because the mainstream puts zero effort into avoiding association with radfems.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:42 AM
0

Because hurting them would invite retaliation from their alpha male, and they can use the threat of physical force to take what they want from betas or possibly even women outside of a harem.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:41 AM
2

Sure, anyone can be a perpetrator of sexual assault. However, first of all, being that he married the woman, he's probably reasonably certain that his wife isn't actually going to sexually assault someone. Second of all, if a woman is accused of sexual assault, there'll be an investigation, and if it doesn't turn up convincing evidence, she'll be let go. A man won't get that.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:39 AM
7

Male assholes can make false accusations, but they'll have to back them up. Thus, they typically don't, for lack of opportunity. Female assholes (aka crazy bitches) can totally get away with it.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:34 AM
4

Religion is one method for controlling people, yes. And if you want to control people, you have to get rid of the competition. QED.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:27 AM
2

This is pure speculation, and I have no studies to back this up. But mightn't it be that men use violence to obtain status, whereas women use violence to assert status they already have? Generally speaking, of course.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:24 AM
5

Best numbers I have right now is 40% of domestic violence victims in the UK are male. Not quite half, but close enough you'd round up in casual conversation. Might be there's some solid numbers on men in the US, but if there are I don't have them.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:23 AM
4

Dunno why this is being downvoted. The grammar is weird but that last line is brilliant. EDIT: Hm. Seems to have been turned around since last I posted. It's gone from -4 to +12.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:22 AM
1

Being that gay men are in fact men, the oppression faced by gays does fall under the umbrella of Men's Rights. So gay men pretty much definitionally have a place in the MRM.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:13 AM
3

It might be that in the 70s a few women who were raped and, for various reasons, because the rapist himself was a twisted bastard who laughed it off and misrepresented to his friends, because the campus police didn't want to make the university look bad, or whatever, nothing ever happened. And so the victims end up convincing themselves that men are universally evil assholes who just don't even care about rape. But that can't account for all the rape paranoia in the world today, because the numb…
/r/MensRights20/01/13 06:10 AM
2

There's plenty of logistics roles where all they really need is warm bodies driving the trucks. Women could serve there just fine, excepting the ones who have terminal illnesses that could claim them at any moment.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:57 AM
2

This subreddit is supposed to be about rights. You don't have a right to not be mildly irritated. Especially considering the enormous injustices men face, a slightly irritating joke doesn't seem worth spending any amount of time on.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:55 AM
2

I am often irritated when this subreddit labels things as misandry that are not. This is not one of those times. Girl in the pic was clearly sexist. It's an incredibly selfish philosophy to believe that you shouldn't bother contributing to any discussion that doesn't directly affect you.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:52 AM
1

I disagree. Every post like this that gets downvoted to Hell is proof that we're not on board with these sorts of opinions. That's really useful for passing visitors who've heard bad things about us and want to see for themselves whether it's true.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 08:20 PM
1

What are you talking about? He's at -1.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 08:02 PM
2

Because I base definitions on how the word is actually used. The label of "concern troll" is thrown onto anyone who voices an unpopular opinion, under the assumption that apparently all MRAs will agree on what the best way to advance the cause is and therefore anyone who thinks differently is secretly a feminist spy. The problem with the definition posited by others is that part of the definition itself is the true motivation of the person making the statement, i.e. that you're not a concern tro…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:12 PM
4

I can't even tell who you're talking to here. The way your second paragraph is phrased implies you think I'm opposed to concern trolls when the comment you're replying to is all about how concern trolls are actually a bogeyman who rationally cannot exist. If you're talking about other people who use the phrase unironically, why are you posting it in response to a comment calling them out rather than posting it as response to someone who is actually using the term?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 02:52 PM
-1

This might sound a bit conspiratorial, but I suspect vote manipulation on that image (EDIT: to clarify, I'm talking about the original image from /r/feminism, not the response linked above). All the top-level comments, including one with over a hundred upvotes (very significant for a subreddit of this size) are criticisms of the image as disingenuous. None of the first few dozen comments were even slightly positive. So where did that image manage to find 2,000 upvotes?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:42 PM
1

This picture has 2,000 upvotes, but the most upvoted comments (including ones over a hundred upvotes strong) are criticizing the image for being disingenuous. So where the Hell are all the upvotes coming from?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:40 PM
7

It doesn't mean anything, effectively. Literally all it means is "someone who is trying to change the behavior of other people," which means everyone who ever posts anything about Men's Rights always counts as a concern troll. It's an SRS-style buzzword that can be applied to anyone who expresses any sort of opinion at all in order to demonize them, and also a conspiracy theory that proclaims that anyone who has differing opinions about the best way to advance the cause is secretly a feminist in…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:36 PM
4

This is a divisive statement that has nothing to do with men's rights. All it does is damage the movement.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:27 PM
0

The efficiency of markets to provide a supply when there is demand is an accepted cornerstone of economics. Yes, because it is reliably true that consumers will make their demand known. If consumers did what you advocate, remaining completely silent about what they want from companies, then modern economics wouldn't work at all. Human beings reliably complain when not satisfied, however, which is entirely what makes your condemnation of people who are complaining because they want a product that…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 11:32 PM
0

I don't have time to explain how the process of invention works to someone who refuses to argue in good faith, and who can't comprehend the notion of discussing general trends rather than literally discussing every single male ever when saying "men." The short version is people wrote games before there was money in it because games were easier to write back then. 1-2 man teams were the norm, not the dozens or even hundreds strong armies required to (reliably) make a game the mainstream will care…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 11:27 PM
1

I know what the undistributed middle is. What you don't seem to grasp is that, for people who are arguing in good faith, the idea that opening up new markets is profitable isn't something that has to be proven.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 11:23 PM
1

The meaning of what I said was that there is no need for governement intervention or even this childish revolt of feminist organizations. Except that nobody ever mentioned feminist organizations. The comment that started this thread was that people dissatisfied with current games should make their own, an asinine rebuttal because the amount of time and effort that goes into making games is monumental.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 11:22 PM
0

Okay, let me just make sure I'm parsing what you're saying correctly. You think that even if you do not tell corporations anything at all about why you're dissatisfied with their current products, or even if you don't let them know you're dissatisfied at all, they will somehow know that you are dissatisfied and what products you would be more likely to buy, presumably because they're psychic or predicting the future with animal sacrifice or something? "Radicals with a misandrist agenda" were nev…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 11:01 AM
9

I don't know how they'll be when you (whoever happens to be reading this) check, but right now the comments are phenomenal. Discussions of evolutionary science, primarily. Are we sure this is YouTube and not a convincing but obscure clone with a way more reasonable userbase?
/r/MensRights08/01/13 08:57 AM
13

What's the source on the numbers for this? You know that anyone who sees it in a facebook feed will demand the source (if they comment at all), there's hardly any point in posting it until you have the source ready to go in advance.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 08:37 AM
6

This chart shows a total of ten men jailed for rape, 18 who were prosecuted and found not guilty in a court of law, and a few dozen more who were reported, but whom the prosecutors could not find enough evidence against to make a convincing court case and thus decided not to bring to court. I would like to know what extensive forensic information this chart has access to that has convinced it that it knows better who is guilty than police investigators, prosecutors, judges, and other people who …
/r/MensRights08/01/13 08:31 AM
0

Asking me to prove that something will happen in the future is asinine. Markets don't operate on certainties, because you can never be certain of the future. Speaking probabilistically, however, the Wii, Farmville, and mobile apps have done a lot to prove that there does not exist a demographic of human beings who would be unwilling to play a video game directed at them. This is not surprising; video games fairly convincingly mimic the achievement of very fundamental human desires.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 07:49 AM
0

Explain to me how a company is obligated to make something just because they can. They aren't, and no one has said they are. This is a strawman argument. Men have game ideas they want to make. So they get up, and they get their programming tools, and they make them. No, they don't. The number of men who make games is dwarfed by the number of men who want to make games but do not. Further, the majority of men making games are not working on the games they want to be. On top of that, several men h…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 07:47 AM
-3

I was never talking about pundits. The whole point of that quoted paragraph that I disagree with is that the pundits are the only ones unhappy with the status quo. There are regular women who want games aimed at them and they do not have them and it is totally reasonable to complain when companies refuse to make a product you are willing to buy, especially when their reason for not making it is because they don't think you'll buy it. And when someone wants a company to make a product so you can …
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:19 PM
-1

And that second one makes perfect sense and the gaming community in general does it all the damn time and no one accuses them of being an evil conspiracy. I'm not a fan of feminism, but not everything they do is automatically bad just because it's them doing it. More games focused on the female demographic isn't an invasion of male spaces, it's good business. There are a ton of women not buying games and if they started buying games then game companies would have more profits.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:15 PM
-1

Yes, because they marketed and appealed to a demographic that currently wasn't typically interested in video games, and thus got a monopoly on that demographic. Which is why if game companies were smart, they'd be trying to appeal to women. But they aren't; the recession has made them hyper-cautious and dedicated to trying to make formulas that have already worked work again (hence all the WoW and CoD clones), which is doomed to failure because people bought those games once and aren't nearly as…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:13 PM
-1

I have to wonder what makes these women so different from the average male who wants to play a nonexisting game. Numbers, mostly. If you're a male between 15 and 35, the gaming industry is already tapping your demographic. If you don't like GTA and CoD, well, tough shit, because everyone else in your demographic does and once you cut them away you're left with a demographic consisting of like ten thousand likely buyers, and that's not enough to sustain any kind of significant game on its own. "W…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:11 PM
1

There's nothing to invest in. None of the companies are willing to take a crack at the female demographic despite the fact that Farmville and Angry Birds make billions off of it and it's far from completely tapped.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:10 PM
-2

Okay, cool for you. What does that have to do with anything?
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:08 PM
3

I'm not shifting the goal posts, you've just forgotten what we're talking about. It is completely conceivable that there are women out there who want to buy and play games other than the ones that currently exist, but for whom "spend half a decade being trained in relevant skills and then three decades establishing a presence in the gaming industry" is, understandably, too steep a price to pay. Someone is saying that they want to pay money for a product which a corporation is fully capable of pr…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 08:41 AM
1

When does this actually happen? How often do 3-4 people actually get together and make a profitable game that actually becomes relevant to the games industry as a whole? The ratio of indie games to AAA titles that catch the attention of Reddit favors AAA titles by a fair margin. The idea that three determined programmers can get together and make a game that mainstream markets actually care about is a fantasy, the same way that a valley girl moving to Hollywood and becoming a star is a fantasy. …
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:16 AM
4

Yes, actually. This is the reason why "no true feminist" arguments don't work; you become a "true feminist" by declaring yourself to be one.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:03 AM
5

Since he declared himself to be so. There is no president of men's rights who can say what is and isn't an officially endorsed platform of the movement.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 05:02 AM
1

The men who actually make video games are not just random joes. They are executives who already have the funds and have skilled people on payroll. The Apex Fallacy cuts both ways; you can't point to the achievements of the top 1% of men and tell women as a group it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to be able to do that.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 04:42 AM
1

the companies (who you can bet would love to open up 50ish %of the population for extra revenue) would be constantly monitoring this. But not necessarily with any kind of accuracy. Companies do, in fact, make dumb decisions sometimes, and the video game industry in particular is notorious for making spectacularly dumb moves regarding how their customers think and react to things. Their futile attacks on piracy, for example, which as near as we can tell only ever lost them sales. And when did app…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:32 AM
0

Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress are the exception, not the rule. Generally speaking if you make a game on a shoestring budget it'll end up like Trilby's Notes at best. Popular in its own circle and pretty well done, sure, but it's not even an indie project, it's amateur, and no one really cares in the long run (and honestly the only reason Trilby's Notes is as well known as it is has way more to due with Zero Punctuation than the game itself).
/r/MensRights07/01/13 02:17 AM
8

That link is just taking me straight to funnyjunk.com.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 01:54 AM
0

Well, funding and a lack of relevant skills. I want to make all kinds of games, doesn't mean I can just go ahead and do it.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 01:51 AM
5

This is a well-written comment; it has my full support. It's important to note that there is a world of difference between screenshots of facebook arguments where someone says something dumb and offensive (because surely that only happens in the context of gender issues!) and a satirical attack on the morally bankrupt concept of the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 06:55 AM
3

Yeah, and you've probably also never seen family law reformed, circumcision outlawed as potentially fatal ritualistic genital mutilation, or a man accused of rape returning to a perfectly normal and happy life like nothing ever happened once it is emphatically proven in court that he is innocent. Do you plan on giving up on those, too? Convincing people who are currently not on our side to come over to our side is something that must happen if we're going to actually make progress. Unless you wa…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 06:46 AM
1

It's far more likely that as the movement went mainstream, it picked up a horde of far less radical and far more self-absorbed adherents who drowned out the voice of the old guard rather than there being an intentional conspiracy to derail the movement.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:17 PM
9

This isn't a shooting war. We can't win by divvying up the whole world into "people who are already on our side" and "people who will always be our enemies" and hoping to hate the other side into submission. There are people who are opposed to our movement who we need to convince to stop being opposed to our movement. For your mainstream feminists, this isn't happening. They're zealous cultists blinded by dogma and hate. Anyone who's nodding along when Hillary Clinton says that men are not the p…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:06 PM
9

This is because women (as a non-collective group) are afraid that the price of sex could drop. This is from the comment you linked, and it's actually explicitly stating that women are not a collective, i.e. that it is not a conspiracy. Rather, the average woman feels threatened by her value on the sexual marketplace decreasing, and instinctively shames whatever activity lowers it. The majority of women do this despite not having acted in concert in any way, shape, or form, and thus become a soci…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:44 PM
1

Because crime does not work that way.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:34 PM
2

These five or six women are all better off than they would have been otherwise. Nitpick: One of those women would have been at least as well off.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:18 AM
19

You're making a post on the subreddit telling people to stop making posts telling people what kinds of posts should be on the subreddit? If you don't think those posts are helpful to the discussion, that's fine. But let's not immediately assume that anyone who has differing opinions on how to make the movement more effective must be an evil feminist conspirator trying to destroy the movement from within. It totally makes sense that a lot of men's rights activists might just be wrong about what i…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:08 AM
1

The writer of the article is so unfamiliar with the source material s/he is criticizing I'm actually kind of laughing. Let's run through some of what they got wrong! Bilbo has a story to tell his young nephew or cousin — the relationship and intermediary relatives are unclear — named Frodo. Frodo refers to Bilbo as "Uncle Bilbo" multiple times in Fellowship of the Ring, and Bilbo is clearly far older than Frodo! His actual relation to Frodo is actually maddeningly complex, but "uncle" is the sho…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 05:51 AM
1

We take credit but off put the blame actually. We'd like to, but that's not how the world actually works. If you call yourself a satanist, it doesn't matter if you, personally happen to be grounded or rational. What matters is that a million angsty teenagers take it up as a protest religion to irritate their parents, and you will absolutely be lumped in with them.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:25 AM
2

I'm mostly concerned about fathers mistreated by divorce courts, boys dropping out of schools in prodigious numbers, and men falsely imprisoned for rapes they didn't commit.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:03 AM
1

Wait. Butlers are male.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 10:59 AM
2

Okay, I am again going to ignore the fact that abuse victims can be reminded of their abusers based on way the Hell more than just the sex of the person in quest and give you a simplified example of why VAWA is misandrist even if gibbly bits are somehow magically the only vector for triggering trauma (something I can tell you from personal experience is not remotely true, but whatever). We have enough resources to make ten domestic shelters. There are two options. Egalitarian option: Men are 40%…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 03:10 AM
1

I don't see anyone else covering historical revisionism, so let's talk about that. It's common for mainstream feminists to complain about how women in the middle ages were treated like property by the evil patriarchy. This is technically true; noble women were married off to seal political alliances, the feudal system would probably be best described as "evil" in most modern moral systems, and males were considered the head of the household so that fits one definition of patriarchy. The lie ther…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:15 PM
2

Classical feminism (for those of you that may not know about the history of the feminist movement) was just as concerned with how the current systems of power harmed men, as how they harmed women Cite? Modern feminists often talk like they're concerned about men as much as women, but that doesn't stop them from campaigning to have university students presumed guilty whenever someone accuses them of rape.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:34 PM
1

I don't know much about the details of European politics, but I have to say I find immediately suspect the claim that a nation will automatically have similar politics to its neighbors. Geographic proximity doesn't mean that much in terms of shared policy.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:30 AM
1

In this case, women are the ones buying the houses, but we already know that men and women use houses equally, and in a family both have to be satisfied with the house. Your post is generally a fair point, but it's worth noting that men are, in fact, homeless at a much greater rate than women.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:25 AM
0

"Concern trolling" is an empty term which describes literally anyone who wants anyone else to change their behavior for any reason, a term which accurately describes every single MRA by definition. It's a vacuous term that applies to everything. There's actual useful words to describe the people who are derailing discussions of facts and issues in semantics and unimportant details (including will4274 above); words like "obfuscation" and "red herring" and "tangential" and such. It would do the co…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:22 AM
2

So I guess it's a good thing he provided sources for his material then?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:18 AM
1

However, I would argue that just because laws are passed protecting a disadvantaged group, that doesn't mean that they are seeking to put down another disadvantaged group. How could you possibly have come to this conclusion? This isn't like diseases or dictators where curing one doesn't (usually) do anything to help with the others. There are shelters out there that are totally capable of housing domestic violence victims, which were created to house domestic violence victims, and which refuse t…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 06:36 AM
1

Cite?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:32 AM
2

Alright, here's the deal. Mainstream feminism's line is that they're fighting for equal treatment of women, and that is obviously a good thing. I'm ignoring fringe elements and sticking only to people and organizations that manage to actually get laws passed and policy changed. Some crazy's tumblr blog does not matter, even if the news is reporting on it as though it were mainstream feminism, because the news lies all the time. We'll even be generous enough to ignore packs of feminists who get t…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:27 AM
3

The efficiency of the brain is in how fast it can communicate with other parts of the brain and with the rest of the body. Having a larger brain would, if anything, slow this process down; though given the speed with which chemical reactions happen, probably not enough to make a big difference anyways.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 02:19 AM
2

Is the stuff John's ranting about actually a thing that happened? I didn't really see any mention of it until now. Granted I don't typically read through more than the first few comments.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:31 PM
2

Disagree. Yes, there are totally (self-proclaimed) MRAs out there who believe despicable things, and it is the MRMs job to police them and distance ourselves from those bigoted nutcases. As near as I can tell we're doing a pretty good job of it so far, but we'll see how things go if (when) we actually get significant social influence on our side. Regardless, the response to assholes doing terrible things in the name of Men's Rights is not censorship, but condemnation. If feminists said "those je…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:53 PM
1

Schizophrenics and manic depressives can be pretty pleased with themselves, too.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:47 PM
5

Please tell me what part of VAWA is explicitly sexist. ...Do you know what VAWA stands for? Also, I don't remember hearing about a giant feminist uprise when she cut off his penis They almost literally threw a party outside the courthouse during the trial. I don't need to apologize for some woman I don't know. When you associate yourself with them, yes, you totally do.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:47 PM
5

SRS' "fempire" has done a lot to make anyone claiming to be feminist look terrible. They very regularly try to subvert this subreddit, interfere with our ability to communicate with each other, or get us shut down and an administrative level. This doesn't even touch on things like VAWA and other policies pushed through by feminist lobbyists that clearly discriminate against men. If you want to keep calling yourself a feminist, then frankly you need to get used to apologizing for all the oppressi…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:56 PM
5

I don't like referring to MRAs with the other kind of gibbly bits as "allies." The phrase "allies" has always struck me as being self-absorbed and oppression olympics-y. It's an attempt to stake out that we're the oppressed ones and you horribly privileged people can only ever be our allies but can't actually be in our movement because it's only for us poor, beautiful, oppressed people. GirlWritesWhat isn't an ally, she's an MRA and one of the most important ones out there.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 12:05 PM
2

I don't have time to go and find all the relevant sources, however the fundamental argument is that primary sources from actual history demonstrate that women were not particularly oppressed. And indeed, a lot of the horrible abuses that women were supposedly forced to endure were actually things that people were forced to endure because the industrial age sucked and the middle ages were even worse.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:41 AM
1

It is entirely possible to make the MRM look bad; that's why Manhood Academy isn't welcome here.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:00 PM
1

Uh. Not necessarily. It's really easy to get away with killing random targets, since the police are forced to start with a suspect pool of millions and have little other than physical evidence (usually scarce) to narrow things down. Not to mention a struggle is less likely since someone killing for giggles has the luxury of choosing the weakest target out of a pool of hundreds or thousands of potential victims, while someone killing for a purpose (irrational or otherwise) has, at best, four or f…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 08:55 AM
2

"Concern trolling" is a catch-all phrase that can be applied to literally anyone making any sort of moral stance with regards to the real world. If it involves asking other people to change the way they treat each other, i.e. all societal change ever, it counts as "concern trolling" which means the entire MRM is literally founded on the concept. It's an empty and specious concept used to demonize unpopular opinions regardless of their merit.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 08:50 AM
1

Kickstarter is for commercial products. Donation funds are against their terms of service.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:22 AM
1

Or if the plants get in on it.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 05:34 AM
0

When it's not actual equality, but a grab for as many rights and as few responsibilities as possible. Exceptions will exist, of course, but if we could rely on those exceptions, we wouldn't need government at all.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:18 AM
3

Equality means we all follow the same rules for door-holding. Whether that rule is "we each hold our own," "the first person holds the door for those immediately behind," or "doors are outlawed and we must all enter buildings by clambering up the fire escape to a fifth story window" doesn't matter, so long as the same rule applies to everyone.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:07 AM
0

I would be entirely willing to believe the majority of feminists are greedy, selfish people who want rights all to themselves. There are a lot of studies done that reinforce that people given power are very rapidly corrupted by it.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:04 AM
7

Halle wrapped her arms around the dude. The body language I'm reading is that she was cool with it. If she felt violated, she did a pretty poor job of communicating it. Granted, I avoid celebrity news like the plague. She might have said something explicit on the subject and I wouldn't know it.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 06:25 AM
3

People who produce terrible art can still be awesome people (Rebecca Black seems like a pretty cool person, too). Likewise, just because someone was awesome in X movie or whatever doesn't mean they aren't an awful person. The Halo Effect is not something we should be ignoring. EDIT: Halo Effect, not Hale Effect. I don't even know if the Hale Effect is a thing.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:17 AM
3

If you post enough counterproductive idiocy you eventually become persona non grata, doesn't matter if you happen to be right about one thing. Stopped clocks and all.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:11 AM
3

I'm not sure you know how "proof" works.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 07:25 PM
3

You may be interested in knowing that /r/autistic and /r/autism are both a thing, in case your son does indeed prove to be autistic.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 05:42 AM
3

You're offended by injustice even when it favors you. This is extremely rare, so first off, props to you for that. Secondly, that's a pretty good indication that you are generally a decent and responsible person, which are both pretty solid traits for a parent. Thirdly, because this is so rare, it is statistically probable that your kid's father doesn't have these traits. In conclusion, from what little I know, it would appear as though, just this once, the system has worked out alright. By acci…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 10:08 AM
2

Frankly, she's got a damn good point in the edit. D&D is a game that is fundamentally about running around murdering other creatures so you can take their stuff. If you're running a serious game where this sort of thing is necessary because of wars or whatever, then the sudden tone shift is an issue with narrative but not with equality. If you're running a lighthearted game to begin with, than joking about rape, despite our cultural hangups, is not any worse than joking about murder. So really t…
/r/MensRights09/11/12 12:12 AM
4

You can't pretend-kill people and keep the language "proper" Are you kidding? Killing with class is the way to go.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:56 AM
1

I don't think you realize how hilariously bizarre the idea of "inventing" science actually sounds. It's like one of those dumb jokes I tell about how George Washington invented America.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 08:59 AM
1

This is semantics that doesn't begin to address the point I actually made.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 08:51 AM
2

But people's choice are random enough that as far as our capacity to understand and manipulate them in advance is concerned, they may as well be free choices. Which is all that really matters to the conversation, since we're talking about how society is and ought to function, not trying to provoke an existential crisis.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:28 PM
7

October is breast cancer awareness month.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 11:19 AM
4

And yet, Cortana tits.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:57 AM
2

GirlWritesWhat has a ton going for her besides being a woman. She's level-headed, logical, good at explaining her points, doesn't get angry but is as unapologetic as her Canadian blood can manage, and her videos are single-minded. There's never an aside about economics or politics or other divisive, big-picture issues. She's about men's rights and only men's rights, which means no one's getting turned off because they're anti-socialist or anti-libertarian or whatever. It'd be interesting to see …
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:55 AM
1

The "boys/girls/both" is almost definitely hand-written, but clearly by somebody other than the child who filled the boxes in. Question is, who wrote that, and why? Was the intention of the assignment to divide up the items into three categories regardless of what those categories are, and if so, who penciled in the boys/girls/both idea? I don't think it was the teacher, because the teacher's handwriting at the bottom looks pretty different.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:40 AM
1

No, the resources are our motivation to do things which is squandered on falsities instead of reality (and which is limited enough to begin with) and our credibility as a movement in the eyes of our own members. I can sure as Hell tell you that if the MRM at large is going to endorse outright bullshit just because it's politically useful bullshit, then I'm done with the movement. I'm not going to sacrifice all honesty, integrity, and honor just to try and right what is really only a very small s…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 12:04 AM
7

That idiotic response is what was used to justify the slutwalks. Using a lie to spark a discussion isn't a good thing. It's a distortion of reality and a waste of resources and awareness on something that isn't actually a problem.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 09:43 AM
10

Is racism already a bannable offense? Honestly I don't think anyone's going to argue that X-Box Live is suffering from too much moderation.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:11 PM
0

NO Do not turn this into a stupid economics debate. That is not relevant to our movement and I do not care about your bullshit fantasies where it is.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:18 AM
3

I don't think he's saying "you should stand up and get curbstomped," I think he's saying "you shouldn't have so many good reasons to be scared of the government."
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:08 AM
3

But no true Scotsman would refer to the magna carta as being relevant to the United Kingdom!
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:04 AM
1

Make sure you can move around if your race comes into it. In some places, everything that will go wrong for being a man is made ten times worse for also being black. In other places, it won't matter. I would recommend you stay fluid enough to move around until you find one of the latter. I'm not sure what the ratio is, but it seems like color-blind places outnumber the ones that are racist beneath the surface, which makes me happy.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 05:40 AM
1

And I hate myself for it. Please don't. A lot of people pretend that terrible things happen to them in order to get slack they don't deserve for their bad behavior. You are not one of these people. Terrible things really did happen to you, and you really do deserve a lot of leniency for what you do when you freak out. It really isn't your fault; you're already doing your best to keep it under control and so long as you're doing that you can't be blamed if it doesn't always work because you have …
/r/MensRights22/10/12 05:34 AM
1

Proximity. Yes, people really do just say "gee I think I'll investigate the Mormons today," because they've been living next to them a while and become curious as to what's in this book they're so obsessed about. I've heard way more Mormon conversion stories than I care to listen to, and nearly every single one is someone who was friends with a Mormon, someone who was approached by a non-missioary Mormon acquaintance during a time of crisis, someone who went actively looking for a Christian chur…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 05:11 AM
1

They are indeed doing a lot of things right. They have a culture that is intensely dedicated to preserving their virtues (whether or not you agree with them), and doctrines specifically intended to target the sort of peer pressure or lines of reasoning that might lure people away from the church are circulated and taught to every member. All members are expected to do quite a bit for the LDS church compared to most other churches, paying 10% tithing and generally being expected to help out other…
/r/MensRights20/10/12 02:14 PM
1

The point I was making was that two separate organizations using the method he thought would be so effective for recruiting have failed to recruit as many as an organization that does not use that method. Even when they're put together. Even when stacked up against only a small and recent branch of the entire organization. The Mormons see significant growth in terms of percentage because they're already really small, and even then it's safe to say that the mass proselyting isn't what's doing the…
/r/MensRights20/10/12 03:09 AM
1

That has absolutely nothing to do with the subreddit you're posting in, so stop derailing conversations with it. All you're doing is weakening the movement with partisan sniping.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 03:07 AM
1

Do you think the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons don't? Mormons may not be literally polygamous anymore (or at least, not the mainstream ones) but they are nonetheless famous for gargantuan families.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:27 AM
1

This whole conversation is counter-productive. The fact of the matter is that differences of how much or how little the government should intervene in anything is irrelevant to the fact that your gibbly bits shouldn't make a difference as to how often or how much the government does intervene.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:14 AM
1

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have missionary programs far more prolific than that of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church of the United States has 77.7 million members. Just the United States mind you. Whereas Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS church put together have about 20 million members worldwide. This is to say nothing of the actual studies I've read but cannot currently be bothered to dig up which support proselyting being of little use. Just …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:08 AM
2

Proselyting doesn't actually do much to persuade new people to join a movement. Mostly it just reinforces the beliefs of the people out proselyting.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 12:17 AM
3

"Men" are not some kind of united bloc. The government forced male citizens to fight and female citizens not to fight. The actual male citizens had exactly as little say in the matter as the actual female citizens, but the male ones were the ones forced to put their lives on the line.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:14 PM
39

Men weren't allowed to not-fight in the war; there was a draft.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:58 PM
0

Well, duh. Their whole point is to hate on the MRA, you expect them to listen to someone advocating for them?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:40 PM
4

If you stab straight in from the stomach, you won't be able to thrust up to the heart. There's ribs in the way.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 10:16 AM
5

Keep your fantasies in the bedroom.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 09:58 PM
4

Men are much more violent when it comes to killing their partner. So it's cool if you murder someone so long as you take your time with it?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:24 AM
0

This one is Denomspawn. You have presumably been possessed by jeans with poor spelling.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:19 AM
8

This is totally anecdotal, but in my experience boys typically rate their own race as second or third most desirable in girls. The exact race of girl varies a lot, but I find that almost every guy I ask says they'd prefer some other race than their own. I've never bothered asking women, so I 'unno there.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 04:00 AM
3

At 3 AM half the city isn't getting a police response for anything short of someone unloading a machine gun into a bus full of nuns. It seems reasonable to be cautious concerning every man, woman, and squirrel you see on the streets at that hour.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 03:46 AM
3

This was pretty obvious troll just from the concept it's pushing. OP's responses in the comments are completely transparent.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 10:01 AM
5

Sometimes the statement is absurd enough that it doesn't need the tag.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 09:45 AM
4

It turns out that Men's Rights is comprised of lots of people and some of us actually have different opinions from each other. Weird, right? What does /r/MensRights think of feminism? Well, generally speaking this subreddit is opposed to it on the ideological grounds that its philosophies are fundamentally based on the assumption that all men are evil and all women are saints. Feminism doesn't say this directly, but it is the only logically consistent way for all the things they say about rape c…
/r/MensRights28/07/12 08:08 AM
7

The odds of being sexually assaulted or raped are slim enough that it is actually irrational to be constantly on guard about it. It's like a male living in the United States being afraid of some sort of criminal assault (mugging or homicide or whatever). Like, yeah, that's a terrible thing that totally does happen to males and about as often as rape happens to females, but there's not a huge reason to freak out about it.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 07:54 AM
1

Are you implying that you were diagnosed with an Autism spectrum disorder, yet you've been able to read at a 12th grade level since you were eleven? Yes. What the Hell else could that mean? Aspergers and autism are the same thing. Aspergers is just a specific spot on the spectrum. And I wasn't diagnosed as having Aspergers, either, I was diagnosed with autism, and was scoring so high on middle school reading tests that they could not quantify how good my reading skills were, so they just marked …
/r/MensRights28/07/12 03:51 AM
1

Nitpick, but I'd have gone with a more informative title. Sensationalism is bad at all, but when I read this, my first thought is "um, do we like AIDS now?"
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:26 AM
1

Would you like to explain why I've been reading at a 12th grade level since I was eleven?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:34 AM
0

Autists are socially, not mentally, challenged. /nitpick
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:22 AM
-2

So I realize there are some unfortunate implications in that apparently she believes there are some significant number of people out there who think rape is okay. But I don't really see the justification of this level of freakout from a sign that basically says "rape is bad."
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:09 AM
2

Occasionally someone says we need to start banning opposing viewpoints so we can have a "male safe space" or whatever, and the response is always that this is a political subreddit that should be seen more like a staging area just behind the frontlines rather than a safe space far from any kind of conflict. So, yeah, females are most definitely welcome. In fact, if they're on our side, it seems kind of weird to think they wouldn't be.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:59 AM
2

Well there's longterm planning skills, to start.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:56 AM
14

B-B-But you don't have a picture of Ashley's wall! That is a totally reasonable piece of evidence to demand in this situation!
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:50 AM
3

It also earns you a woman. Probably one who whines about it, but whatever, if she actually disliked you she'd just, y'know, leave.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:54 AM
0

Fortunately, girlwriteswhat has this covered.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:25 AM
0

It's a bullet fired into the air. So, yeah, no harm, no foul.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:16 AM
2

Eh. As false rape accusations go, I'm actually pretty okay with this one. Yes, she wasted a lot of police resources, but as far as I can tell there was never any risk that some random dude was going to jail over it.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:39 AM
1

Because slaves were expensive, yeah. So?
/r/MensRights09/07/12 02:39 AM
4

It's not an evil conspiracy, it's just a cultural prejudice. There was no evil mastermind behind American slavery, or shadowy cabal of powerful people who decided to make it happen. It happened on its own.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 10:40 AM
5

Wow, I can't believe how quickly that went from a promising premise to me wanting to gouge out my eyeballs for how uninteresting a rant it was. I get the feeling the piece wanted to be inspirational since it didn't really do anything but go on about how we are the universe and the universe is strong and bugger all, but I find myself distinctly uninspired. Whole message could've been condensed into two or three paragraphs probably, and hit with a lot more force.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 11:16 AM
2

This is anecdotal, but I have never seen "spergy" behavior from an actual autist that was more severe than what I see from neurotypicals all the time.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:54 AM
2

Whose to say that severely limiting the rights of a good half of the population didn't lead to a stagnant economy that forced horrific employment situations? Basic logic? You actually think that women having the right to vote would have magically and instantaneously advanced automation by several centuries to the point where strenuous manual labor is mostly phased out of the economy? That's absurd. Before the invention of the backhoe, digging foundations required a lot of manpower. Women being a…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 05:22 AM
1

You lack the capability to carry on even the most basic discussion. You refuse to acknowledge the specific points made by the opposition even in passing. This isn't even a strawman, you've simply declared yourself a victor without demonstrating any understanding that your opponent has made an argument at all. I'm done with you. Goodbye.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 11:47 AM
2

Black people are also incarcerated at a higher rate as compared to white people. Unless you're going to make the argument that black people are naturally more prone to commission of crimes, you must concede that this is, at best, a side effect of society encouraging males to commit crimes (but not letting them off the hook for it).
/r/MensRights29/06/12 11:40 AM
4

Remember the time when white western women had to work for in coal mines for 14 hours a day because there were no other jobs available? Or when they could and quite probably would be drafted into an extremely bloody and traumatizing war? Or when they would bear the responsibility for crimes committed by their husband? Anyone who claims to be able to easily make the decision as to whether it would be better to be the average male or the average female back in the day is either stupid, lying, or i…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 11:37 AM
0

If you had actually had a point to make, you would've complied with my extremely simple request that you quote the comment wherein you supposedly proved why people end up conforming to cultural norms if they are not actually influenced by cultural. And of course you can't do that because you never did because that's contradictory. I have an actual argument. It goes "people end up with values which are almost or completely identical to those of the culture they live or were raised in, as compared…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:45 AM
0

Great. Quote it. Go back and find the quotes where you actually demonstrate, without tortured metaphors, why people conform to culture without being influenced by it at all.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 05:03 AM
0

You haven't actually demonstrated my argument is false even once. I'm just trying to get you to actually give a straight answer as to how people just so happen to conform to the culture around them an overwhelming majority of the time regardless of which culture that is if culture does not influence behavior at all. And you haven't. You've given incoherent answers about sculptors and statues, but you haven't actually backed the analogy up at all, and it is incoherent: Culture doesn't create choi…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 04:57 AM
1

our thoughts, our communications, our actions, and our creations. All of which just so happen to be very, very similar to the culture we were brought up in rather than other cultures we have just as much access to thanks to the internet? You posit that culture does not influence people, and thus that the very existence of distinctive cultures at all is just a spectacular coincidence. This is obviously absurd.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:22 AM
1

If culture does not shape people, why do cultures exist at all? You have no argument until you have answered this question. If culture has no influence on people, why is Chinese culture significantly less prevalent in America than in China? It's a simple reduction to the absurd: Your argument ultimately means that American culture would not be more prevalent in Americans than other cultures. This is clearly not true. Therefore, your argument is false.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:40 PM
1

To say that culture is evidence of lack of control is ludicrous. What did I say that was even remotely similar to that? Countercultures are just permutations. Tiny permutations. If you look at a counterculture and compare it to an actually different culture, you'll find that it is overwhelmingly more similar to its parent culture than to cultures that actually developed in different circumstances. Even if that wasn't true, the fact that a minority is different from the parent culture doesn't cha…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:47 AM
1

Your second paragraph supports that, in the statement Manhunt was not well received. No, it doesn't. Our culture believes that serial murder is wrong, and thus a game glorifying it was condemned. If people controlled their own choices, culture would not be a thing. When you see the vast majority of people raised on certain fundamental beliefs always embracing those same beliefs or something very similar as adults, it becomes absurd to say that it's just a gigantic coincidence that people just so…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 09:53 PM
1

Okay, yes there are. And I'm one of them, and I would absolutely say that waterboarding is torture. But being hit in the face with a brick is also torture, and it is a worse kind of torture, so the main point still stands.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 04:50 AM
2

This is nonsense, almost incoherently so. People who save other people pro-bono are not being exploited, they are being heroic. That the woman is almost always the one being saved and the male almost always the one doing the saving is equally problematic for both men and women. Some people prefer autonomy over security, and others vice-versa, and assigning the role of protector or protected based on gender/sex/whatever you want to call it is going to leave members of both groups dissatisfied.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 04:40 AM
3

And of course, this very thread gets spammed with the links. Reported the lot of them.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 06:51 AM
4

The overwhelming majority of reported military rapes. This is the exact same kind of pre-determined conclusion disingenuous BS that keeps the 1-in-4 statistic alive. If it hasn't been reported, what could possibly justify your certainty that it's happening?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:00 PM
-4

lyk dis if u cry errytime
/r/MensRights23/06/12 07:57 PM
1

But the illegitimate male ones are okay?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:51 AM
2

She is demonstrably already capable of doing this, because she's been doing it for a while now. The money is going into her pocket because the videos are something she can already pay for and does not actually need any help to fund.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:35 AM
2

She is demonstrably capable of making the webseries without Kickstarter money, because she is already doing that. The money is going to her pocket.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 03:31 AM
3

You really don't see how the recipient of donations is relevant to a group defined by the fact that they donated to her?
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:02 PM
2

Of course not, but the issue of "I am a female and would like to have $150,000 more than I have right now" is not actually a gender issue. It's someone using kickstarter to beg for money and then trying to turn it into a crusade when internet trolls come along. But the money isn't going to stopping the trolls (I'm not sure how you would, anyway), it's just going straight to the pockets of the person running the Kickstarter. She's violating the Kickstarter terms of service as well as at least a c…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:00 PM
5

The point is that the "problem" this girl is whining about is, in fact, no problem at all. Her actual "problem" is that she doesn't have $150,000 and she would like to have $150,000, which is a problem that hey, whaddayaknow, I also have. The internet trolls are a problem too, however trivial, but the money isn't going to do anything to stop trolls on the internet.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:58 PM
5

I'd love for you to actually describe these "legitimate" gender issues to me. I can't wait to hear them. Women in third world countries have their faces burned off with acid for mostly trivial transgressions related to religious dogma.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:23 PM
6

The point is that if the donors wanted to be actually helpful to legitimate causes, they'd have donated to actual victims who don't get to make whiny YouTube videos about how mean the internet trolls are for any number of reasons.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:21 PM
5

Go back. Read the conversation. Find out what we're actually talking about. Then get back to me, and see if you can find out where you went wrong.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 01:10 AM
11

People, generally speaking, suck. If you marry a girl and then leave her for months or years at a time, she is going to get lonely. Because she is a person and therefore probably sucks, she will probably cheat on you, fall for the other guy, and go for a divorce.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 12:59 AM
1

Um. Yes. That absolutely does come across as offensive. The "punchline" of that joke is "lol moms suck," and that is no more funny than "lol dads suck," especially not on a day that is supposed to be dedicated to celebrating them.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 05:32 PM
1

Taking time out of Father's Day to talk about how mothers are more important than fathers is symptomatic of an extremely depressing double-standard. This isn't an isolated incident.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 05:30 PM
2

I sincerely hope this sort of thing doesn't dominate the movement, but it almost certainly will, just like it did to feminism. If men can be taught to stand up for their own rights, however, then there will at least be some sort of equality as the result of the political battlefield.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:23 AM
2

In this particular instance, I would say so.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:11 AM
1

It's not like Kloo has a huge amount of clout here as far as I know.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 08:43 AM
4

Okay. But why didn't he use his normal account?
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:55 AM
2

Her being a feminist/woman's rights major creates an inherent double standard. No, it doesn't. In order to hold a double standard you must actually express what standard you think would be appropriate for both of the involved groups, and she never once commented on whether or not males should or should not be treated the same way.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:54 AM
2

There's only two strong motivations to claim that all men just want sex when you yourself are a man. 1) You're lying and following a script because you're afraid of social rejection. 2) You're a sex-crazed maniac and are using stereotypes to try and excuse your abhorrent behavior. Neither of these are very flattering, so just call them on it.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 09:26 PM
25

In the text-thread she seems more like she was irritated that you turned it into a gender issue when she was just looking for someone who would sympathize with her. She never once even denied that men wouldn't be able to get out of a similar situation. All she said was that something happened to her and she wished it hadn't and wanted someone to agree with her.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 04:26 AM
6

A lot of police also have the policy of always arresting the man, regardless of physical evidence. So calling the police on your abusive girlfriend/wife could be shooting yourself in the foot.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 01:51 AM
7

Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence, no, not even in relation to body size. What matters is the rapidity with which one part of the brain can communicate with other parts of the brain, and having more space between different parts of the brain would, if anything, slow that process down.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 09:21 PM
2

Link isn't working.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 12:36 AM
1

In Victorian England, being middle class or wealthy was way better for your odds of successfully passing on genes than looking healthy. Thus, if the local male population has decided that sickly pale appearances are in, it is evolutionarily advantageous to look like you're about to die of wasting illness at any second, partly because the appearance is artificial (you aren't actually sick, you just look like you are), and partly because medicine had advanced to the point where they could actually…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 05:52 PM
4

I have some bad news for you. It turns out that science is real and you can't change facts just by using the right buzz words. The only thing men find consistently attractive across all cultures is being recognizably human and being alive. Even having poor health was widely fetishized in Victorian England.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:54 AM
4

It seems kind of ludicrous to say that a false assumption that sends men to be slaughtered in the most horrible conflict ever witnessed on the planet is "patriarchal." The definition of that word is pretty flexible, but it's pretty consistent that patriarchal policies are supposed to benefit men, which this clearly doesn't. It is not inconceivable that an oppressed class could be convinced of how lucky they are to be sent off to labor camps while the upper class is "forced" to stay behind and li…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:41 AM
2

Okay, so the trial is unfair due to an implication of the law rather than a direct result of it. So what?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:18 PM
0

Oh, God. So much jargon.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 12:21 PM
2

Dismissive remarks like 'just no' gets nobody anywhere, is that how you became a liberal? I'm so glad I got this snazzy new RationalWiki Irony Meter. It doesn't explode upon encountering comments like this one, the way the old ones always used to.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 03:25 AM
1

That just undermines your original point. "The men people refer to as manginas" is basically all men, ever, because at some point someone has used some definition of that word that applies to just about everyone. Assuming mangina has no stable definition, then it's also meaningless when someone is called a mangina. Also, isn't that term falling out of vogue? I haven't heard it in a while and I can't say I miss it. Everything about it seems stupid and petty.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 11:12 AM
1

Well, this is new. I've never seen males delusionally pedestalized before.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 10:36 AM
2

I'm a white male. I'm also autistic. When people make racist jokes about white people, I don't care. I have never seen the slightest trace of racism against whites that has actually made a practical difference to anyone, so when someone claims that white people are evil or whatever, I don't feel threatened. When someone makes similar statements about men, I get irritated, because that is a legitimate threat. There are actual laws laws in my state saying the male should always be arrested in dome…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 10:22 AM
2

Being taken to a mental hospital is not better than being arrested. To go to prison, you have to stand trial before a jury of your peers and are given a fixed sentence. To go to a mental hospital, a group (or even just one) of unelected experts with little or no oversight and accountability have to determine that you're crazy, keeping in mind that this is the same group of experts that defined homosexuality as something people should be incarcerated for indefinitely up until 1973. Once these peo…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 07:42 PM
1

Jim Jones' promises of an afterlife were absurdly vague. He didn't even get past the point of vaguely implying that there was one. If I gave you a cyanide pill and said "relax, you're just stepping onto another plane," would you take it? If you want to split semantic hairs, yes, it ultimately comes down to changing the cost/benefit equation, but we can do whatever we want with that equation.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 10:00 PM
1

Know not they enemy and know thyself, find victory and defeat in equal measure. Know thy enemy and know thyself, find victory in a hundred battles.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 09:31 PM
1

This simple, crude method is incompatible with virtually every system of morality accepted by modern society (which is not to say that most people actually adhere to the philosophies they claim to). The only purpose was to quickly prove that it was possible. More advanced methods take much longer to describe and are not as effective across large groups anyways, besides which I'm not as thoroughly familiar with them.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 09:30 PM
1

I don't believe that it does. Nine hundred people committed suicide on the word of Jim Jones. You are wrong.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 10:10 PM
1

How do you imagine that we change it such that men care more about men than they care about women? First, control their environment as totally as possible. This is important groundwork simply because unknown variables can ruin the whole process. Entice them into the environment with "love bombing," disarming their criticisms with flattery and interest in their person. The vast majority will open up and give valuable information which can then be used to manipulate their emotions. Since ethics ar…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 10:01 PM
2

Human nature bends, breaks, and is reshaped based on the will of those who control the environment. Human nature adapts, and there are multiple sciences dedicated to figuring out how to get it to adapt into whatever is most convenient for any given purpose. Ignore this at your peril.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 09:48 PM
4

Men are also the vehicles of violence and aggression. This is a dictatorial regime, not a feminized corporate democracy. What they do, they do for results they think it will bring, not to chase after some stupid ideal that more stable countries had the luxury to waste time dreaming up. You kill the young men in a raid because they're the ones who will join your enemies if they survive.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 09:17 PM
1

You should say what you mean and not rely on others to divine your intentions based on contradictory or incomplete information.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 04:59 AM
1

It is of no comfort to the six men to know there is a seventh who can vote when his sister cannot.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 03:13 AM
1

Nor can you argue with me, evidently.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 10:49 PM
3

Were women of the past a literal hivemind collective, or do you contradict yourself?
/r/MensRights20/02/12 08:22 PM
1

But the world’s first men’s rights organization was founded as an international one, founded in 1926 in Vienna, Liga Für Menschenrechte (League for Men’s Rights). And if you are wondering what book you might find it mentioned in, or what encyclopedia lists it, or which college professor discusses it, the answer is: none, zilch, zippo. Then how did you find out about it? Just curious, as I don't see a reference.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 08:20 PM
8

Wouldn't it instead provide for proof that if it does exist as it is claimed, it must be the consequence of human biology rather than culture? No. Survival of the fittest applies to societies and cultures as much as to individual organisms. If patriarchies are the only cultures to survive to modern day, it is likely that non-patriarchal cultures lack the durability to go on existing, for any of a number of reasons. Maybe such cultures are inherently unstable and collapse in upon themselves. Mayb…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 08:01 PM
3

and if women are going to be held responsible for anything Judging culpability by demographics is a bad idea.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 07:51 PM
1

The adherents of a belief believe in them for reasons greater then "we just believe it". Prove it. Demonstrate a chain of moral reasoning that does not end with "because I arbitrarily think that's morally incorrect."
/r/MensRights20/02/12 07:29 PM
1

Look, I'm only saying this once because I don't generally entertain conversations with people too stupid to remember what we're even talking about. Murder is bad because murder is bad. It's a moral position. It can't be proven wrong and you don't need citations to back the statement up. At the core of every coherent belief systems are a number of principles which you believe because you believe in them. One of these positions is that slut shaming against any gender is bad, and you cannot prove s…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 01:33 AM
3

Alright, let me walk you through this. The answer to literally everything you ever bring up boils down to "so?" And at some point along the chain, you are going to have to say "and I think that's wrong."
/r/MensRights19/02/12 11:59 PM
6

No. No it isn't.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 11:58 PM
5

Alright, I will specify: No one is assuming the second sentence is true. Except that last guy, but he's at -4 karma.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 11:16 PM
2

For starters, "sluts" are at higher risk of spreading disease. So?
/r/MensRights19/02/12 11:09 PM
8

No one is assuming this.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 10:49 PM
3

From a purely logical perspective, yes. Logic does not dictate your ends, it is a means towards achieving those ends. Therefore it is impossible for a moral position to be logically invalid or false unless it contradicts itself. Therefore no moral position can be backed up or disproven by citations, regardless of whether or not we personally agree with them.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 10:45 PM
4

...It's a moral position. You don't need citations for that.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 02:50 PM
3

So I'm assuming this guy's downvotes are coming because it's assumed he's an SRS troll or something, since he kind of sounds like he's stirring things up. But his recent comment history suggests very much the opposite. Though I still don't quite understand what you mean. The reasoning between rape has always struck me as "I want something from you, and you can't stop me from taking it."
/r/MensRights19/02/12 01:44 PM
0

You have said that when he says "X is Y", that phraseology automatically implies "Not-X is Not-Y" Technically correct, but you're missing a few words. When someone says "X is Y" they automatically imply that "some form of Not-X is Not-Y," elsewise he would not have used X in the first place. Thus, when a vegetarian claims "violence against cows is terrible," it does imply that violence against some other group would be not-terrible, but not necessarily that violence against all other groups woul…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 12:26 PM
0

"Eating animal meat is terrible" then by your logic they must mean "Significantly more terrible than eating human meat". Or "significantly more terrible than eating vegetables," which would be what they actually believe. Unlike male and female, animal meat as a dietary choice is not completely binary, which means your counterargument is totally arbitrary.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 11:58 AM
1

But not a person?
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:32 PM
1

But all of those statements do imply that there's an important distinction between the group specified and others. And in those three cases, there is. We rely on the police to protect our society, so it is especially unacceptable when they fire on unarmed civilians. Congressmen hold a lot of power, so it is especially unacceptable when they abuse it for personal gain. Tigers are more dangerous than the vast majority of animals when provoked. Etc. etc. It implies that violence against men is, at …
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:10 PM
4

Single-issue parties are a bad idea.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:51 AM
2

Am I the only one who would not be terribly likely to side with someone just because they made the opposition cry? I mean, really.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:27 AM
0

Why did he specify "women," though? What possible point was there in that specification?
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:03 AM
-3

So, look up what "imply" means and get back to me.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:02 AM
-9

Specifying that "violence against women is never, ever, ever okay" does actually imply that it's a different case for men.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 07:28 PM
1

Well, I guess I could give it a shot, but...Is there, like, an approval process, or what? How would I actually do that? I've seriously never worked with a gatekeeper before.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 08:16 AM
0

Yeah, I'm more than sick of you blatantly ignoring what I'm saying, so the repetition's getting on my nerves, too. And bugger all, who's been whining about how we can't change anything? No one ever said that. All anyone ever said is that your proposed solutions are stupid.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 06:44 AM
0

I said to downvote the misogynist commenters. And that's a violation of reddiquette that is universally condemned by the community. You do not blindly downvote every comment made by someone just because one particular comment really irked you. I have never seen a single non-troll community condone that sort of behavior. Unhelpful, bitchy little comments are heavily upvoted. We've been here before. All of Reddit upvotes those kinds of comments, and those comments are not the same as the misogyny …
/r/MensRights14/02/12 05:05 AM
0

You're contradicting yourself now. You've said several comments up that just downvoting the misogynist comments should be enough, and we already do that, so now you've changed your tune.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 04:13 AM
0

Because this is Reddit. There are no avatars and names are easily missable, so most of us just don't even keep track of who says what, and when we do, it's usually because we really like what they're saying and not the other way around (this is why I remember who girlwriteswhat is but I can't even remember why JeremiahMRA isn't liked by a lot of /r/mensrights).
/r/MensRights14/02/12 03:37 AM
1

So if you aren't actually arguing that other people should change their behavior, what are you doing? Just whining on the internet in an entirely inappropriate subreddit? Bugger all, of course you're trying to dictate to other people what they are or are not allowed to do. That's been your whole point all along is that other people should not talk to strangers in public because it irritates you, personally. Your want not to be hit on is really damn easy. Stop treating strangers like you're going…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 02:19 PM
2

If he takes offense, that's his problem. If you come off as rude to him, that is still his problem. If he persists, he's being a jerk, and that some people are jerks is an entirely separate problem from the one being discussed.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 02:13 PM
1

All of culture is not going to reshape itself for your benefit.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 02:12 PM
2

We've been here before. We are distancing ourselves from them. Those people do not get upvotes when they go into full-on idiot misogynist mode.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 02:12 PM
1

I'm just saying people don't go around just wanting to make friends. They do it because sometimes it works. There are people other than you in this world, and some of them totally do want a stranger to walk up and make friends with them. They enjoy that. They live in this world too and you have no rate to dictate to them that they aren't allowed to be themselves and look for other people like them to enjoy life with just because you find it irritating.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 11:09 AM
2

The personal struggle I deal with is coming off as a bitch. A flat "I'm not interested" takes minimal effort, doesn't come off as aggressive or offensive so much as just apathetic, and is a very effective refusal. If you want to be polite and clever when rejecting total strangers who would probably prefer to just immediately know whether you're interested anyways, that is your problem. Don't inflict it on every other person hoping to meet someone.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 11:06 AM
1

My point is that because every woman has a different idea of what's acceptable, a person should err on the side of caution. This is unfair to everyone who has differing tastes than you, though. The women who are hoping to meet someone at the gym cannot, because social mores demand that men not flirt with any woman at the gym, even if they're very scantly clad or otherwise seem to be sending some kind of signal, nor can the men find the women who are receptive to their attention because even a te…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:56 AM
3

Then why get so upset and make a thread about how the 'bullshit' has to stop? See, the people calling for a closure of /r/mensrights aren't accusing us of making "sarcastic, bitchy comments," because they do the exact same thing all the time. They're accusing us of being blind misogynists on the same scale as /r/beatingwomen, and that's obviously false and slanderous, and I do care when people are spreading lies about me.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:47 AM
13

People get the results of these studies wrong all the time. See, although a psychopath is four times as likely to be a CEO, non-psychos outnumber them by about 2000%. Thus, there are roughly five times as many non-psychopathic CEOs. Further, a much higher number of psychopaths are imprisoned or otherwise disadvantaged for being stupid, impulsive, and short-sighted. The end result is that non-psychopaths are most definitely capable of being CEOs, and psychopaths aren't even all that likely to do …
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:45 AM
6

Winning the battle at this stage basically just means permeating the mainstream with our perspective until people view it as normal instead of fringe. If you hear about something all the time, it stops sounding crazy, particularly if it's, y'know, actually a good point. Two approaches I might suggest. First, when the topic comes up, don't shy away from it. Don't scare people with an angry or zealous approach. Talk slow and casually, like you aren't expecting a fight, and you're less likely to ge…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 06:59 AM
3

How could the community possibly silence these people on other subreddits?
/r/MensRights13/02/12 06:30 AM
8

Okay, so he was trolled. He still said it.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 03:58 PM
8

So, you lied to your wife for two years about something she considered important enough to be unwilling to marry over it. Further, she was unwilling to marry you over something you weren't actually willing to give up. Look, I'm not eager to see you get screwed by alimony or whatever, but this is seriously a marriage that never should have happened and which is better off being over with now. There are so many holes in this relationship, it just never could've worked.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 03:53 PM
1

This is a lunatic fringe not worth our time. Our real problems are the kinds of misandry the mainstream embraces, not this sort of thing.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 10:21 AM
1

Bugger all. You are too narrow-minded and paranoid to even have this conversation with.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:46 AM
1

When something becomes normal, for any reason, others will begin doing it simply to fit in. This is especially true if the behavior has little to no cost. This is how cultures work.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:44 AM
1

Well. Sure, treating depression with surgery is insane right now. And there are alternative methods that can actually work with the technology we have. But depression is, in fact, chemicals messed up in your brain. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a mental disease, it would just be someone having a bad day. Treating it with some kind of nano-surgery is theoretically possible, we just don't have the technology to do it.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 07:54 AM
3

It's a novelty account created to serve a single function. Welcome to Reddit, we do this sort of thing all the time.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 02:42 AM
3

Um...What's the difference between a mental condition and a condition of the brain? What else would a mental condition afflict but your mind?
/r/MensRights11/02/12 02:39 AM
1

He's a well-shaven noble dude who stands in contrast to the filthy poor Arabs. He's an underaged street rat who is also an Arab. Bugger all, did you even watch this movie or did you just read some nutcase's conspiracy theory about it? Nearly any movie ever made can have hypothetical racism associated with it if you are willing to squint your eyes and look sideways hard enough.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 02:32 AM
3

Not really. People like to think of themselves as immune to social mores and prejudices, but we're not. If people, especially people you're on good terms with, keep saying the same things to you over and over and over again, something deep down inside of you starts wanting to believe it very badly, no matter how stupid it is. That's how cultures happen at all.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 12:55 PM
0

"Japan" isn't one civilization. The Japanese archipelago has been home to several. Right now, Japan is a part of the western civilization. Has been since roughly 1945.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 12:38 PM
3

This is an interesting new novelty account. Wonder if it'll stick around.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:34 AM
1

But...Japan isn't Sweden or Australia or wherever. It's very explicitly one of those places people say you should try if you're sick of American women who don't appreciate what you bring to the table in a relationship, or whatever (I admit I never paid much attention to the relationship advice segments of Men's Rights, just not really something I'm interested in). Japan is seriously one of the least misandric nations in western civilization.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:32 AM
1

Everyone in Aladdin is the same race. How can you possibly be racist when there are no other races? Just because a certain actor had an influence on a character doesn't mean that character emulates everything about that actor. If you asked people to describe Ursula, I can very nearly guarantee that almost nobody would put "drag queen" in their description.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:15 AM
1

So, absurdly contrived, then.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 04:21 AM
2

The Beast is both a metaphor for another race AND the id. So it's the story about an aryan who got turned into a black guy and then was redeemed back into an aryan again? That doesn't make any sense. At all. Race does not work that way. Reading race into this is absurdly contrived.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 05:32 AM
1

Seeing the Beast as a metaphor for another race instead of the human id requires all kinds of willful ignorance of mythic archetypes and literary tropes.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 03:38 AM
5

I can't recall who, but an erotica writer once polled her female readers (who were the majority) about their favorite sex fantasies, and being raped came in at number one. That's not exactly scientific data and applies only to a very specific demographic, but there you go.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 02:02 AM
4

Spock is actually really bad at logic. For example, he often says "this is illogical" when what he means is "I do not approve of your priorities." So, it doesn't come to me as much of a surprise that someone's logic is not impeccable just because they're a Trekkie.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 01:57 AM
1

Well. Unless the situation is so dire that it would probably be easier to deal with the police and legal system than the situation at hand. So, pretty much if it's facing an extremely high chance of death or calling the police.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 01:53 AM
1

So, basically you sympathize most with Gaston's worldview? I...Don't think the conversation even needs to go any further than that.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 01:47 AM
1

I am going to start working on a website for her Please tell me that you bothered to ask her opinion before you decided to do this.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 05:52 AM
2

In the U.S. there was no universal right to suffrage for woman until 1920. There was also no draft.
/r/MensRights05/02/12 06:19 AM
1

Australia is infamous for being stupid about these things. I'm almost positive that there's nothing on actual Australian lawbooks (IANAL etc. etc.) saying that she can do this, but that doesn't mean some politician won't do it anyway for brownie points with the political zeitgeist.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:32 AM
2

I am not extremely sexually active in the first place. I'm so apathetic towards it that if given the choice to magically regrow it, I'm not sure if I'd take it, simply because getting used to it would be weird and I really just don't care that much one way or another.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:26 AM
0

Scobes said they couldn't be compared, but that's entirely untrue. Both of them are medically useless and irreversible surgeries performed without anesthetic on the genitals of a helpless infant for ritualistic purposes, and that gives plenty of ground for comparison. The fact that one of them is a bit more severe than the other is trivial, so if his only point was that one of them had worse longterm consequences for the victim, his point was stupid. When some bullied and disturbed kid walks int…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:02 AM
1

Any woman who has had sex with anyone becomes a target. The Hell are you even talking about? Do you know what the virginity rates for women at marriage is? Twenty. Do you seriously think that eighty percent of all women have become "a target" for anyone other than irritating old people rambling about young people these days and their loose values? Yeah, she was asking for it, right? Did you read what I wrote? What I said was that female victims are treated sympathetically, and if you disagree th…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 01:54 AM
3

He's not suggesting that anyone who fails to convict their accuser gets sentenced instead. He's suggesting that someone convicted of making a false accusation actually get sentenced for it. There's a difference.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 10:11 PM
1

wat
/r/MensRights02/02/12 09:57 PM
0

Manhood Academy? Bugger all. Crawl back into whatever cave spawned you.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 08:35 PM
1

1) Um. You're going to have to back this one up. They seem pretty similar to me. 2) If you want me to believe that the feminist movement (or any of its bickering components) is against higher incarceration rates for males, you're going to have to provide some evidence. Particularly in Europe, feminists have consistently campaigned to get women lighter and lighter sentences, or even abolish the imprisonment of women altogether. When's the last time any feminist organization complained about a wom…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 08:33 PM
1

Okay. So granted, I'm kind of tired. But I've been over this sentence here several times to make certain: Is it not reasonable to presume that if one perceives a woman as an object for assualt on the basis of the way she appears, that it has also informed by external forces? And it's gibberish. There is at least one word missing in there, and the "it" referred to after the comma is entirely ambiguous (the woman, the perception, the assault?). From the context of the discussion I can probably ass…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 09:02 AM
13

Babbage and Lovelace are both barely even worthy of footnotes in any reasonably concise and practical history of computer science, and through no fault of their own. Both of them were brilliant and I personally think that Ada Lovelace is the closest the world has ever come to a real live steampunk engineer, but they lived in the mid-19th century, a solid hundred years before computer science would actually become a thing. They're interesting, sure, but if you want to teach people about computer …
/r/MensRights02/02/12 05:01 AM
12

Babbage, her teacher, would've been the first programmer. Ada Lovelace is notable for being the first to realize just how much the machine was capable of, though. She'd predicted just about every use of the computer short of the internet.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 04:32 AM
1

Um...Did you just completely ignore what I said? I feel like I could just copy/paste my last response and it would be just as valid now as it was when I first wrote it. My whole point was that the emphasis on girl was not that girls are females but that girls are immature in the same way that boys are, i.e. because that's what those words mean.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 10:32 PM
0

? "Girl" describes a person as being more than just female. The thrust of the image linked is that a male becomes mature when he is easily manipulated by an immature female. The comment you're responding to might not have had the most eloquent of phrasing, but I read it as highlighting how ironic it is that apparently boys become men when they meet the standards of girls and not women.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:16 PM
2

He neither dominates or 'submits' to his partner, Unless they're into that sort of thing.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:14 PM
1

Dressing up nice in a bad part of town, is a declaration of wealth and money - and hence makes you a target. Most would agree that dressing in a short skirt and heels is not a declaration of sexual promiscuity and consent for unsolicited sex. A declaration of wealth and money is not a declaration of consent to mugging, either. The theory goes that women who dress provocatively are being something of a tease, which is well within their rights and all, but there's plenty of criminals who've been r…
/r/MensRights31/01/12 01:57 PM
1

I guess if we're playing the opposite game then it would be women attacking the women who slapped the guy, not men. Right? Well, no. It's no big deal when women hit each other or men, nor when men hit each other. It's often seen as childish and immature, but it is not a violation of the social contract. It is a big deal when men hit women. Also, India is generally really bad about these things, so /r/MR is eager to vilify it. So.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 05:58 PM
1

Could you actually see some guy punching out a woman because she slapped a guy? Sure, I can't prove that it wouldn't have happened if it was a male actor slapping and then being slapped by a female contestant, but it's practically unthinkable that a woman would actually be punched and kicked on live television by two men. If that happened, there wouldn't just be a lawsuit, the whole show would probably be permanently done with and it's guaranteed that neither of those two would ever get another …
/r/MensRights30/01/12 05:21 PM
1

Well, yeah, OP had a stupid point because we only see clear evidence of two guys punching or kicking anyone. But it's still worth pointing out that two separate guys violently, physically attacked the male but not the female, even though they both did pretty much the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 05:00 PM
6

Hang on. I called you out for likening women to children. Even if I misunderstood your meaning, how does my arguing against generalization of women imply that I support the generalization of women?
/r/MensRights30/01/12 02:29 PM
2

Compared to most men women are closer to children physically. Flat-out wrong. It takes until the age of 14 or 15 (sometimes a bit longer than that, even) before the average male is equally strong to the average female in her 20s. The idea that the average male twelve year old could overpower a grown woman is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:45 PM
1

No one (rational, at least) is claiming that the female is the perpetrator of the crime, here. No more than the victim, at least. It's the guys in the pink shirt and black vest who can be seen visibly punching or kicking the victim, either clearly or by implication because who else would they be attacking?
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:40 PM
5

I doubt she was angry, she was playing her part. Even if it wasn't about humiliation and she did overstep boundaries it was still no reason for him to retaliate. She slapped him once, she didn't threaten his life. That's like a child slapping a grown man and the grown man slapping the child back.. It's weak, shameful, and it makes the man that did it look like scum. . That's like a child slapping a grown man and the grown man slapping the child back.. . That's like a child I'm sorry, but are you…
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:30 PM
5

We know that her role was to generally be a jerk, but is their any evidence that her slapping him was specifically scripted?
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:25 PM
5

The implication I got was that Bobsutan was referring to the subject of the article, since "serial harasser and professional victim" is an apt description of a feminist.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:15 PM
1

Huh, I don't usually expect someone who actually knows how to carry on a discussion to show up waist-deep in a comment thread like this one. Guess this is going better than expected so far. But what exactly makes you so positive this guy was blaming rape victims, anyway? Just because someone is giving the general population advice on how to avoid being victimized by a crime doesn't somehow automatically mean he thinks everyone who already has been victimized deserved it, and you never see these …
/r/MensRights30/01/12 12:21 PM
1

If you haven't figured it out after having it very explicitly explained to you all of about two posts up, you're clearly too dense to carry on a discussion at all.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 06:41 PM
1

Good for you. How did you manage to miss my point, then?
/r/MensRights29/01/12 06:04 PM
2

Do you know what "cthonic" means?
/r/MensRights29/01/12 05:38 PM
1

His point was about our getting their opposing viewpoints in this subreddit all the time, whether you call those opposing viewpoints "civil," "reasonable," or "cthonic" is actually moot.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 05:23 PM
1

Call it "civil," then. His point still stands.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:48 PM
6

I'm pretty sure there's something about this in the sidebar since, y'know, this is the whole point of the subreddit. Quick list from memory: 1) It is not uncommon for infant males incapable of informed consent (or, for that matter, any consent) to be circumcised, while female genital mutilation is seen as monstrous. 2) Men are incarcerated at vastly higher rates than women, and often given higher sentences for similar or even identical crimes. There's also a huge problem with prison rape that go…
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:46 PM
2

It's not the movie that bothers me, but rather how the movie is symptomatic of how shallow relationships are in our society. Still, it strikes me as being every bit as insulting to women as it is to men.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 10:02 AM
0

It's not about "female emotions," it's about fighting against oppression, What oppression is actually being fought in this place? Quit giving me hollow non-answers and tell me what, exactly, the slutwalk was supposed to accomplish besides getting a random guy fired because you didn't like the way he phrased his PSA? And yes, I am addressing your point from the previous post; everyone knows exactly what sort of policies and treatment Thomas Ball was immolating himself over. You have yet to pin do…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 08:52 PM
-1

Explain to me the "real issue at hand" without 1) Using meaningless jargon, or 2) Claiming that female emotions are so pathetically fragile that they are actually incapable of defending themselves from insults from jerks and assholes individually.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 07:29 PM
2

If you are some cop from another city, I will roll my eyes and maybe write a letter to my editor or something. I will not organize or participate in a massive protest in order to get you fired because all you did was say some mean words. You did not actually do anything that has any sort of repercussion in the real world, and thus I don't really care. I'm not ignoring the context. I'm saying the context is moot. It doesn't matter unless that context is some kind of actual, legitimate threat. Wha…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 07:12 PM
2

I really don't care about what context the mean word was used in; it is still just a word and carries absolutely no practical impact for anyone, ever. Anyone who freaks out that much over words when people are legitimately suffering in their own backyard is a child.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:55 PM
1

I was referring to the slutwalks, the most massive feminist protest in recent history.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:48 PM
4

If bruised feelings because some police officer used a mean word is actually one of the most grave issues facing women in America today then they don't need any movements advocating for them anyways; they've got nothing but first world problems and unless they're little more than a pack of overgrown children, they should be more than capable of handling these things on their own. Do me a favor and read this response over twice before responding. I'm positive you've got a strawman all fired up an…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:13 PM
3

If you want to stand even a chance of making an impact, I'd recommend starting with something like this: Start by telling the class that men face significant challenges in the modern workplace. Immediately follow up by guessing that every single one of them immediately dismissed the very possibility without even considering it, or waiting for you to build a case for it. Everyone "knows" that men have it easier in the workplace, and no one bothers to question how it is we all found out (and the s…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 12:08 PM
2

There's a reason Jeremiah hasn't got a single comment with more than one upvote in this entire comments section. Just ignore his tripe.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 12:30 PM
1

I don't see why consensual sex should be banned just because a fifteen year old was involved. Certainly I'd want the situation examined to ensure there was no coercion involved, but no one should be lumped into the same category as rapists, people who knowingly inflict life-altering trauma on others for giggles, just because they had consensual sex with someone who was perhaps not fully prepared to make these decisions. There is a threshold below which it can be assumed that coercion was somehow…
/r/MensRights27/01/12 12:29 PM
3

The part where she tells me to be afraid of her based on her opposition to these things. So, the part that's upsetting is the part where upsetting people is the explicit, stated purpose of the art piece. The accusation that we're a part of these problems, presumably because we refuse to torch liberty and justice in futile pursuit of their total extinction. This ad looks like it came out of the seventies. It certainly would've been more appropriate then.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 12:20 PM
1

Well, sure. I've been traumatized (in a way not particularly relevant to MR, so I won't go into details), complete with recurring flashback nightmares for years afterwards, and to this day I can't see any humor in any situation even remotely similar to the one I was in, just because it freaks me the Hell out. But that doesn't mean that making any media related to that subject should be automatically boycotted, even if it's a satire of how awful the system is, just because I, personally, will rea…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 06:01 AM
6

Okay, so I haven't actually seen any Harold and Kumar films, so maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. But isn't this the same series that makes fun of being detained without trial in Guantanamo Bay? Sensitivity to traumatic experiences isn't really something this series promised in the first place, so why are we only calling them out when they hurt our feelings, but don't have any problems with them making fun of everyone else's trauma? Again, though, I'm flying blind here. I haven't a…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 05:11 AM
4

Indeed. As far as we know, at least. Nations like North Korea don't provide a whole lot of reliable data. Nations like Russia and China, however, do.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 09:58 AM
0

The topic is discrimination. Racial discrimination is, therefore, on topic. It's virtually impossible to have a discussion about one kind of discrimination without using others as comparison. And the "discrimination is totally fine so long the government isn't directly perpetrating it" bit leads to extremely dark places.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 01:43 PM
3

"Professionalism" doesn't mean "being right and also a professional" but rather "using professional expertise to prove that you are right." This opinion piece makes absolutely no use of actual psychology, and so is unprofessional. A layman could have produced the exact same thing, and it carries exactly as much validity. Thus, it is unprofessional.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 01:17 PM
3

The point in history, or rather pre-history, when our instincts were forged. Which was before the invention of boats big enough to be evacuated rather than just jumped off of, granted.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 03:22 AM
0

There is so much gibberish in this post that I can only assume you're trolling.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 02:46 AM
6

This subreddit is one of very few places men can air their grievances without being attacked. If you're looking for an unbiased, level-headed discussion of race issues, you probably shouldn't start at a Black Panthers meeting, even if a lot of their grievances are perfectly valid.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:11 PM
11

People can be trained like dogs, yes.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:07 PM
5

Um. This sort of thing isn't really the kind of message I'd want to be sending to impressionable young girls, either. I actually wish this kind of outrage at the infantilization of women would happen more often. A lot of bigoted laws and attitudes comes from the concept that women are somehow more vulnerable and in need of protection and assistance in virtually every area.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:06 PM
2

Just the ones who are true adults. No true Scotsman would make an argument like that.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:02 PM
2

Well, you seem to be implying that it's a satire of feminism, which it's not. It's a feminist satire of practical advice given to women as to how to avoid rape. If all you're doing is pointing out that it is satire at all, then...What, did you think that wasn't obvious?
/r/MensRights16/01/12 08:59 PM
4

Until very recently, the definition of rape as a crime required that there be unwilling penetration. In other words, if a woman forced herself on a man without actually penetrating him with anything, it didn't count as rape, even if it was unwilling sex.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 02:44 AM
3

There's some common advice as to how women can avoid being raped, like, for example, using the buddy system, since people traveling in pairs are much less likely to be targeted. This joke is made in support of the "men can stop rape" by mirroring the same bullet points. And, nitpick, the poster isn't advice to women at all. It's advice to men.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 02:42 AM
1

The more things you add to that host, the harder it's going to be to find someone who supports all of them.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 02:29 AM
7

Humans do tend to split into tribes and cliques, and whitewash the sins of their side while nitpicking the other. Doubleplusgood doublethink, comrade. Feminism is generally worse about it, but only because it's much, much bigger and thus it's easier to create an echo chamber. /r/mensrights gets echo chamber-y sometimes, but even within the greater context of Reddit, it falls under fire frequently enough that people are quick to acknowledge and actively disown the uglier people attaching themselv…
/r/MensRights15/01/12 10:10 PM
1

The (fictional) interviewer was being clearly hostile towards the general's actions, which is not something interviewers are supposed to be. She'd already asked her "tough question" and he'd responded to it. She wasn't raising any additional facts or passing on opinions held by others. She was presenting her own, something which is both argumentative and unprofessional. All of this is kind of irrelevant to any kind of Men's Rights issue, but yeah, that hypothetical reporter is hypothetically bad…
/r/MensRights14/01/12 02:29 AM
1

They're functional at least. That's not a high standard to meet, and it's pretty sad that we look fondly back on the days when most relationships and communities could meet it.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 02:26 AM
13

Hi. The Daily Herald is from Provo, Utah. Timberline High is entrenched in one of the most Mormon areas on the entire planet, even more so than Salt Lake City where the actual LDS headquarters are located. And Mormons are just stupid for gender roles. The majority of women in Provo are shopping around for husbands by the time they're 22, and being an incredibly clean-cut, socially acceptable Mormon guy is actually a pretty effective dating tactic (though granted this is more true in college, whe…
/r/MensRights13/01/12 01:38 PM
3

The Snopes piece seemed to imply less that the piece was actually morally wrong (they're pretty sympathetic to the fictional general in the rest of the piece), but rather that it would be impolitic and the general would probably face repercussions for bad PR. That seems like a fairly accurate assessment of the current political climate.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 01:34 PM
10

We've all known female teachers who are heartless and uncaring, but it's hard to think of one male teacher who is such. Probably the most infamously crazy and sadistic teacher in my middle school was male. I think the problem in your data is that ~90% of all teachers are female to begin with.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 01:45 PM
3

The MRM is, as the name suggests, solely concerned with Men's Rights. Trying to convince women how they can benefit from the cause stinks of "men benefit from feminism" to me. A cheap propaganda tactic, because even though feminism has caused significant harm to women (it's in their best interests to keep as much rape hysteria and, thus, actual rape going as possible, for example), the MRM isn't actually concerned with helping women. At all. It might be very open to a partnership with a Women's …
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:24 AM
3

Note: OP is currently sitting at -11 karma. Granted, he's got 9 upvotes, but at least some of those have got to be coming from trolls. I agree with xenithorb that this deserves its own post, but don't despair completely, this subreddit still has plenty of potential left in it.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 11:49 AM
0

Speaking of, can we swap halves of our sexual partners? Getting the bottom seemed like a good deal at the time, but she's not much for conversation and I'm pretty sure I could talk her into oral sex.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 08:49 AM
9

TIL MRAs are Sith.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 08:45 AM
5

Sure, a bit. But our society isn't so impoverished and disorganized as to mandate making rough generalizations and applying them ubiquitously. We are more than capable of making a much more nuanced decision about these kinds of things, and judging people based directly on their qualities instead of taking a wild guess based on some immediately obvious characteristics (like their sex) which usually imply that they do or don't have certain characteristics. i.e. instead of making "is a man" your re…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 08:44 AM
2

You don't even have to edit the text. It's just ridiculous all by itself.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 08:39 AM
1

This is called a joke, boys and girls.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 08:34 AM
8

Of course. It happens all the time. What kind of person would think there's no such thing as male circumcision?
/r/MensRights07/01/12 01:47 AM
1

Beating a dead horse, of course, of course!
/r/MensRights06/01/12 07:45 AM
1

Does whining at strangers on the internet make you feel less impotent?
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:42 AM
1

Well, you respond to criticism by throwing a tantrum, so there's that.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 12:51 AM
1

Quoted from the article: Women's behavior is overwhelmingly governed by feelings, and women want to share feelings and emotions. This, boys and girls, is called "begging the question." Specifically, it begs the question as to whether women's behavior is, in fact, overwhelmingly governed by feelings. Being generally more aware and willing to share feelings doesn't mean they're significantly more likely to dictate your actions, and these kinds of statements, which carry implications for the relati…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:16 AM
9

This subreddit may have a strong Libertarian population, but it isn't Libertarian inherently, so why do we care?
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:11 AM
0

When a feminist is losing a debate, they will try to make it emotion-based. Which, as far as we're concerned, is actually just fine. Because feminists don't actually have a leg to stand on emotionally, either. If a feminist whines about how you're being so mean to her, just recall an example of someone suffering (almost certainly far more than she is) because of feminist policies, hammer home that he is suffering way more than she is, and ask what on earth makes her emotions so much more importa…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:46 AM
1

That's just levying personal attacks and makes you look like a bully to neutral observers (if there aren't neutral observers to the argument, you may as well not have it at all, because feminist zealots won't have their minds changed). It's be better to call them out on attempting to manipulate the emotions of the audience, if you must remain confrontational.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:37 AM
5

If you want to be charitable, you might consider this in the same vein as those shirts that say "Hey! Stop reading my shirt!"
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:29 AM
1

Hm. Unfortunately I can't remember a lot of details, but this sort of thing isn't terribly out of place, there. The legal system can get away with all kinds of insane things in general. Some of the conditions in their prisons are insane, too. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of French people are just as well off as anyone else in the western world, but if you slip between the cracks, you slip deep.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 08:26 PM
1

Well, sure. But much as they're a big problem that need to be addressed, a bit of perspective is important with regards to the fact that France's human rights issues are far worse than anything that has ever been discussed in this subreddit (including Men's Rights issues in France). That place is messed up in ways that go far beyond unfair sentencing standards.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 08:14 AM
3

Doesn't strike me as that obvious. The vast majority of female 18-22 year olds I know still refer to themselves as "girls."
/r/MensRights08/12/11 08:16 AM
1

What's wrong with Spain? It's not that I don't believe you (you live there, after all), I'd just like to know more. Also, isn't the UK relatively chill for civil rights? I mean, sure, they've got the whole Big Brother thing going and as far as this subreddit in particular is concerned it's not really a paragon, but on balance I don't think they're any worse than the United States. And really, once you exclude the United States and Europe, how many countries with even halfway decent civil rights …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 08:13 AM
3

Not necessarily, it just makes it an unreliable source. Which doesn't really leave us any better off.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 08:08 AM
3

Why on earth would you judge the amount of systemic corruption from a single data point?
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:50 AM
13

If it were the only court case ever then it would be.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:57 PM
1

It really depends on your opinion of the law. Is the law still trustworthy enough that calling the police could have saved his remaining child? If not, killing his wife potentially saved his daughter's life and should actually be applauded. If the law was capable of handling the situation anyway, then he's undermining a working system in favor of mob justice and that's bad.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 10:48 PM
1

I confess I don't really pay attention to AVfM lately, since it seems really self-indulgent and whiny (particularly since the only one who posts the articles is their author), but I confess I just didn't want to waste time arguing with an idiot when I could toss out an easy and condescending answer that was just as valid.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 10:39 PM
4

Today, Reddit. Tomorrow, the world.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 06:03 AM
1

I don't see how that's more than extremely tangentially related to what was being talked about before.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 06:02 AM
1

Okay, sure, things were probably pretty chill for women in Arabia, but when people say something happened "a thousand years ago" they typically mean "in our culture," the same way that when I say something "happened in China" it's pretty safe to say that it was recent enough to be relevant (barring other context). And I know it may not have been as bad as it was made out to be, but that's because it was made out to have been marginally better than the Holocaust. You can still have a really terri…
/r/MensRights02/12/11 05:43 AM
3

A thousand years ago, women were married off by their fathers or brothers. They didn't really get any say in anything, so whether or not they would've chosen to avoid marriage altogether is pretty much irrelevant. A thousand years ago was the freakin' Dark Ages. It was before the birth of William the Conqueror. It's not exactly a huge leap to say that we've come a way since then.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 05:38 AM
5

Not to mention all those "kill all men" bloggers who are about as threatening as the /r/beatingwomen folk, the very existence of which they refuse to acknowledge or address.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 08:51 PM
2

Oh, well if it's on the internet then it must be true.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 07:05 PM
0

For most of human history, people were dirt farmers. Pre-historically, this was different.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 07:03 PM
5

Nonetheless, evolution is an inefficient and absurdly slow method of doing things. We've short-circuited evolution by discovering much faster methods of adapting to our environment, and I don't see why we shouldn't take advantage of that.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 07:02 PM
3

This deserves more upvotes than it's getting. A thousand years ago, things sucked pretty bad.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:59 PM
1

Well. I guess there's money, contacts, and political power.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:59 PM
1

...None of this seems all that bad to me.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:56 PM
3

The whole point of the companion cube is that you think of it is a sentient, affectionate being, even though it's just a box with a heart on it.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:50 PM
5

I'm not the guy you replied to. Note, however, that he has nothing but downvotes so far. /r/MensRights at large doesn't believe in the "women are inherently evil" shtick that trolls (and probably the occasional genuine prick) like to throw around. There is a fairly large amount who think that western women have been trained by society to be self-absorbed pricks. Personally I don't want to throw in with that until I see hard data, but it certainly seems plausible from personal experience. Upbring…
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:47 PM
1

That's the point. If many in r/MensRights weren't so preoccupied with vilifying women, this wouldn't have come up, and I wouldn't have spent so much effort arguing against their discriminatory views. Clearly, you did not read what I wrote. Try again. Tell that to the Democratic Party. Tell that to the Republican Party. Regardless of the subject, I'd be pretty pissed if police recommendations to solve a problem were not effective, and came with implied blame toward victims of crime. There was no …
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:36 PM
3

I imagine such a post would be ignored on r/MensRights. It would be downvoted into oblivion before the discussion took place. Um, duh. It also would've been downvoted into oblivion on /r/gaming or /r/writing or /r/basketweaving. It's not a relevant topic. And yes, associating yourself with feminism at all is a pretty good way to get yourself ignored by large parts of modern society even if you do have a legitimate point about women being oppressed, because mainstream feminism has held so many st…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:34 AM
6

This entire subreddit is proof that a subset of men won't take feminists seriously no matter what. Because they've destroyed their own credibility. I absolutely hate things like the sex trafficking industry and other forms of oppression. Freedom and choice are a big deal to me, and now that I'm aware of the situation I want to do something about it (though I don't have any clue what I can do...). Except, it wasn't topless girls that made me aware. It was you, posting on Reddit about it, because …
/r/MensRights29/11/11 10:07 PM
5

litchitea smells strongly of troll to me. I wouldn't advise further response.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 02:52 AM
3

Not likely. I'm guessing these people are getting behind such a message only because, deep down inside, they know it's not revolutionary at all. It's just an unusually radical affirmation of the status quo, and the powers that be are not going to challenge them over it (unless the situation changes even slightly, in which case doing away with a few radicals no one will really miss might prove a convenient way to quell a rebellion without really rocking the boat at all).
/r/MensRights28/11/11 02:49 AM
3

I thought the /s only applied to the last sentence. My apologies.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 08:16 PM
6

conversationsthatneverhappened.txt
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:59 PM
2

You're quick to judge the father for something the mother would have been excused for in society. It's mentioned a lot around here that women do not shoulder any of the responsibilities for all the rights they've claimed, leaving men to carry the weight of the world while they get a free ride. Personally, I don't think things are quite that black and white, but the general sentiment is accurate. The implications of the quoted statement above is completely incompatible with that sentiment. Societ…
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:54 PM
5

Children would not lead us to a world like this one. This world is built upon using children as pawns to convince adults to do things that are not in their best interests nor in the best interests of the children.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:49 PM
1

Why are we keeping everything to PMs?
/r/MensRights19/11/11 11:30 PM
6

Nitpick: The ad says 'husbands,' whereas your rephrase statement reads 'women' and not 'wives.'
/r/MensRights19/11/11 10:31 AM
3

Fake feminist is fake.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 10:29 AM
2

You didn't even switch accounts before making the fake-misogynist post. I think fake feminist is fake. EDIT: No, correction, you did switch accounts, but the names are so similar I couldn't tell at first glance.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 10:24 AM
5

You aren't really starting the dialogue off on a good note.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 10:23 AM
3

Have her file an affidavit stating that she wants to do a rape scene, and that you have no intention of taking any action against her unless it's explicitly to fulfill a fantasy she's asked you to fulfill.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 10:13 AM
1

"Hypothetically, let's say you're right and I'm arguing purely from a selfish standpoint to try and gain as much privilege for myself as possible. That doesn't actually mean anything, because you/women might still have more privilege than me, in which case I'm just doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. This is why ad hominem attacks are a fallacy."
/r/MensRights10/11/11 01:43 PM
0

And?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:36 AM
0

Insensitivity is not misogyny, . None of it is outright hatred, so technically not actual misogyny, but it's what most people are actually talking about when they say "misogyny." So, it'd be chill if you could actually read what I write before responding to it. As for the rest, you seriously can't pick up on the contextual differences between "now kiss" and a specific compliment?
/r/MensRights08/11/11 08:26 PM
3

I don't care to go digging through comment archives to find links, but I can think of a few examples that would make women feel unwelcome at Reddit. Y'know, things that are bad for your self-esteem. None of it is outright hatred, so technically not actual misogyny, but it's what most people are actually talking about when they say "misogyny." For example, there's "now kiss." The fact that I probably don't even have to explain what that term means goes a ways in showing how ubiquitous it is. And …
/r/MensRights08/11/11 08:14 PM
6

First the Daily Mail, and now Cracked! The giants of respectable news reporting are lining up to support our cause!
/r/MensRights07/11/11 11:33 PM
4

There was a plan to repair the economy by paying for all kinds of shovel-ready jobs a bit back. That didn't end well once a few choice feminist organizations caught wind of it. What is your point, here? How are men who consider a ~$500 television the pinnacle of luxury supposed to plan around being completely unemployed for over a year?
/r/MensRights07/11/11 11:31 PM
7

So, what exactly are you saying young men should do? There just aren't jobs for ~20% of them to find, what are they supposed to do about that? Go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt to get a degree that will barely qualify them for fields with marginally lower unemployment rates? Get a sex-change operation and go into one of the still-growing female-dominated industries that the government is spending disproportionate amounts of money protecting from, I dunno, gypsy curses, I guess? Mug th…
/r/MensRights07/11/11 09:39 PM
3

Huh, you even got the declensions right.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 06:26 PM
0

There are different kinds of feminism and all, but I've yet to see one that is both politically active and even remotely egalitarian. So when the choices are between people who theoretically disapprove of inequality but won't do anything about it or the people who have a huge hard-on for misandry, there's not really a baby to throw out with the bathwater.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:44 PM
2

Oh, no. You must be a troll. There's no doubting it anymore. No way in Hell does anyone not know the name of the language every single Catholic prayer is given in, that was spoken by the first superpower the western world had ever seen, that's still used as the universal signal of "this music is really scary" in movies and video games today. People unfamiliar with the "argumentum ad latin noun" fallacy format could potentially exist, but people who do not know about the latin language at all? Th…
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:37 PM
6

...No. It's latin. Most of the fallacies' formal names are in latin. You don't actually know anything about logic, do you?
/r/MensRights07/11/11 01:49 AM
4

No. Your attempt to present a clearly staged photo as the result of crime is incredibly relevant to your ability to research accurate statistics. It's a demonstration of your incompetence, not your poor character. Even if it wasn't valid, that's just argumentum ad logicam instead, which is still a fallacy. I'll let you look up the details.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 01:43 AM
4

So, that's called "argumentum ad hominem" and it's not valid logic. Wanna try again?
/r/MensRights07/11/11 01:34 AM
3

Are you overly concerned about being abducted by human traffickers? You are wealthy enough to have internet access, so if you are, you're worried over nothing. Not having to live in fear of abduction isn't a privilege it's a right, and if we're only fighting to preserve that right on behalf of 77% of the population then that's monstrous because abandoning 23% of any group to slavery is unconscionable. Though, frankly, I doubt the statistics reported by anyone who uses a very clearly staged photo…
/r/MensRights07/11/11 01:03 AM
4

That woman is healthy, wearing expensive clothing, and the subject of a glossy, airbrushed photo. She's a model, and frankly I don't care how many women "end up like that," because being a model doesn't really strike me as the end of the world.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 12:31 AM
3

So you've found a trait that you think is more prevalent in men than in women, then arbitrarily declared that trait to be "more human?" Your logic needs work.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:46 PM
5

Occupy Wall Street is a big thing. The actions of a few individual occupiers can't be taken as representative of the whole.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:44 PM
2

So we vote for...Mitt Romney? What alternative are you proposing, here?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:40 PM
3

In which case we should be warned and women should be taught this behavior is unacceptable. Although, frankly, we aren't going to see much change until women are taught that this behavior is costly. People respond to incentives, not preaching.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 09:50 PM
3

What does SAHD mean?
/r/MensRights05/11/11 09:46 PM
5

Yes, let's not actually take action to defend ourselves from predators. Let's whine about how society is broken. That strikes me as a winning strategy.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 09:42 PM
1

Because I know the people wearing them.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 12:19 AM
1

My evidence is anecdotal, but yes, tight pants are on the rise. Do you have any reason I should believe otherwise?
/r/MensRights05/11/11 12:11 AM
1

My original post about men making fashion choices viewed by our culture as being feminine, you mean? Because, no, this isn't male clothes taking occasional cues from female clothes, or a piece of clothing becoming unisex because of universal appeal. This is a cultural tendency for men to wear feminine clothes because they are feminine.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 12:02 AM
1

What's your point?
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:58 PM
1

Yes, but men are making fashion choices which are viewed by our culture to be feminine, which is symptomatic of a general shift in the male population's attitudes.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:51 PM
1

Is this misconception really that common? I think I might die a little inside if it is...
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:47 PM
1

WOMEN are sexist. Really? All of them?
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:46 PM
1

Soldiering specifically was an example. Whatever role it is you want men and only men to have, it would be more efficiently performed by whoever is best qualified, that's tautological. I can't imagine any role that would be always better performed by a man than a woman.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 03:59 AM
1

On a fundamental level, everything is a moral argument. Justice does not physically exist and cannot be measured. There is no subjective reason to say that one result is more desirable than another. My factual argument is that there are women capable of being soldiers and it is in our best interests to allow them to do so. You, on the other hand, have no facts on your side at all, nor any argument at all.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:35 PM
1

You have not defended your position. You have simply stated it.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 11:59 PM
1

I'd like to see men having a role for men only. This is an inherently less efficient philosophy than that of equal rights, even if the advocates of equal rights do not think of it in those terms. The variation between individual humans is far greater than that between the sexes (meaning that, for example, while men may have greater upper body strength on average, it isn't hard to find a woman physically stronger than a man, and the differences don't tend to show up until you get to the upper ext…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 11:44 AM
1

His suggestions seem valid Because he isn't suggesting anything. He waves a bunch of buzzwords around and then let's your subconscious fill in the blanks as to what he actually meant. Naturally, since you made up the conclusion you're attributing to him, of course you like it.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 11:38 AM
1

This is not an incredibly powerful sexist message, though. The message of the movie itself is not sexist in nature. It's just a single line, and a gag at that. What are we supposed to do with this information?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:30 AM
1

Yes, but this is an exceptionally trivial example of it. I don't really see how anyone will benefit from having this pointed out, particularly when there's far more important symptoms of the same disease which, frankly, deserve a lot more of our attention.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:35 AM
1

Um. Okay, yes, but so?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 01:29 AM
0

This kind of reaction particularly concerns me because it reinforces the belief that male minors cannot be harmed by these kinds of things.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 12:21 AM
1

Yes, and I agree. My statement was oversimplified.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:11 AM
2

I'm not confident it would, actually. But the general point that there are other factors to be taken into consideration is valid. For example, if we kill anyone who ever makes any kind of accusation, we are guaranteed to hit all false accusers, but then we'll have an actual rape culture to worry about.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 08:07 AM
0

That is not how laws work.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:39 AM
5

I am extremely suspicious of this subreddit. What can /r/askmensrights do that /r/mensrights can't? Are people not allowed to post questions here anymore? But I suppose innocent until proven guilty still applies.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:38 AM
0

Creating a law based around transitory social conditions is idiotic. Convicting for false accusations is rare today. That doesn't mean it will be rare tomorrow.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:35 AM
2

You should link it and pick out a few choice comments with the relevant upvotes. Do you remember what it was called?
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:11 AM
1

I had the spontaneous urge to say "nice" at the time of that IAMA, and didn't even realize what had happened until I saw this thread.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:10 AM
-1

And once upon a time it was practically impossible to convict a white guy for murdering a black guy, but that doesn't mean that laws which implied that every murdered black guy must've been murdered by a white guy would've been wise.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:07 AM
2

The penalty for making false accusations should be whatever will most effectively prevent false accusations from being made.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:06 AM
1

Yes. You are wrong.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 09:56 PM
1

News at 11: Sociological issues are complicated. Do you advocate ignoring the reasons you find inconvenient for fear of offending your delicate sensibilities?
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:54 AM
1

I didn't use the word masculinity. The original poster a few comments up used the word, and it was inaccurate, but that's actually not terribly relevant to his overall point. I'm talking to someone (I'm willing to bet) How much? I could use the cash.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:52 AM
0

You can quibble over semantics if you like. The expectation that men should never express emotion is largely reinforced by other men, and is likely closely linked to the high rate of male suicide.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 06:54 AM
2

If your "problem" is that people disagree with you sometimes? No, it doesn't.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 05:42 AM
27

This speaks poorly for our society, but the mothers' concerns are very, very legitimate.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:56 AM
2

Oh. So it is.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:55 AM
3

You've got a lot of Men's Rights buzzwords in there, but they don't make any sense in context. This subreddit has a purpose, and it is not to make you feel better. It is to advance men's rights such that they are equal to woman's. That is a practical objective, and it is not accomplished by constructing an echo chamber. We need to talk to people who are on the fence and convince them to join our side, and that definitely means talking to people who don't entirely agree with our views.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:52 AM
6

I feel like the entire culture is emanating misandry, and this is one place that I can come to where I feel like it's a safe zone from those attacks. This isn't a safe zone. This is a staging area. If open and honest discussion is something you're opposed to, please show yourself out. If you want a subreddit that's dedicated to circlejerking about how much misandry sucks, feel free to start one, but the purpose of this subreddit, at least in theory, is to actually get things done.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 02:33 AM
3

I love how the bird is raising its wing, as if to ask if they necessarily have to climb the tree.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 02:27 AM
2

I also got him to jump.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 06:16 AM
0

This is very much a good point.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 02:03 AM
6

First off, displaying only men as abusive totally is sexist, and it conditions people to believe that only women can be abused. Particularly, it conditions men to think they'd be abusing their girlfriend if they got angry at them because their girlfriend is very clearly being abusive (i.e. the man is insulted, smacked, having things thrown at him, etc. etc.). Secondly, and this is a nitpick, but when the commands you punch in make absolutely no difference to the end result, you may as well not m…
/r/MensRights23/10/11 01:22 AM
2

The comments show up in a totally random order, and the response from the people running the ad campaign is a carbon copy (saw the exact same response on three different comments, including the one by Alistair from Dragon Age). Shameful.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 01:11 AM
2

Um. That's rather an edge case and more easily covered by a single stipulation (i.e. "also if you have sex with someone by impersonating someone they know personally, that is also illegal") than by having the entire law be dependent upon whether or not the jury feels like convicting someone. Requiring consent places the burden of proof onto the accused and voids the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That's bad.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 07:35 AM
2

I dunno. If you're masturbating, then you're performing the sex act on yourself and you've presumably given yourself consent. The porn itself isn't sex, because you can't legally sell sex in the United States; that's prostitution.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 02:03 AM
1

People get romanced without explicit consent all the time and they're just fine with it. They give implicit consent by getting alone and naked with someone of the opposite sex (or same sex, if that's their thing). If someone shows up at my door with a pizza, hands it to me, and asks for a twenty, and I give it to them, then that's a legitimate transaction and I just bought a pizza. If someone shows up at my door with a pizza, hands it to me, and I refuse to take it and tell them I will not pay f…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 02:02 AM
7

How is that man still alive?
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:38 AM
0

I can definitely tell you that more blacks have been convicted of armed robbery than whites. I'll let you sort out what that implies. Those were the most recent statistics available. The statistics from 2000-2004 support the same general trend.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:03 AM
1

Considering that most of those women probably abuse those children verbally, by withholding food, emotionally, or with neglect. Prove it.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:17 AM
0

Even though women abuse children at a significantly higher rate than men?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:14 AM
3

Back in the day keep tracking of who was in what family was a really big deal, so much so that certain last names were literally invented just to signify that "this dude was my father" (Xson) or "this dude's wife was knocked up by someone way more important than him" (FitzX). These days it's a legacy system.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:52 AM
3

What kind of man would want to take a little girl to the bathroom anyway? Her father?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:31 AM
2

How many times have you actually bet money on things like this? How many times have you been in a position to actually observe the results? Anyone can say they're good at reading people.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 07:09 PM
1

Sounds like a porno plot.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 06:58 AM
2

TROOOOOLL! In the dungeon!
/r/MensRights16/10/11 11:37 AM
5

The last group of thugs that famously trying to silence ideas was the catholic church. That was 400 years ago. There've been a few others since then.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 11:35 AM
2

No, "we" haven't. Because I am not involved in my nation state's governing process in any significant way. You cannot reasonably expect me to take you seriously when you say that I should feel guilty over something that I had nothing to do with.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 12:21 AM
2

Maybe you did, but I haven't pillaged, raped, or enslaved anyone. Just 'cause some other guys who did happened to have my same skin color doesn't make me culpable for their actions.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 12:09 AM
0

Hmmm...If a guy wants to get his femininity on, shouldn't he be able to make use of the rooms with hair curlers? On the other hand, I can totally imagine making "no men" or "no women" an actual selling point for a lot of different services. Like those men's clubs the feminists shut down. If the women-only floors are wrong, so are those (of course, if the women-only floors are okay, so are the men's clubs, but it's not like double-standards are anything new).
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:24 AM
2

On the one hand, customizing services to certain demographics makes plenty of sense...On the other, I'm reminded of the various and sundry white-only facilities that used to be ubiquitous in the South and I'm pretty sure fairly common elsewhere.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:20 AM
2

This seems like an edge case to me. Perpetuating the "all men are rapists" myth is way more important than exceptionally unlikely inconveniences like this.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:19 AM
1

I hear it used that way all the time. There's a lot of times when I think to myself that "I wish X would have done Y," where Y is something that X could not have been expected to do, but which would've been a really lucky coincidence.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 06:13 AM
3

I wish my husband would have == I wish my husband would have and it's his fault he didn't. No, it doesn't. That is a false equivalency. You are assuming things about someone who is actually in this conversation right now and you have only the slightest amount of evidence to support it. Bugger, I don't see why you think mind reading is such an unreasonable demand, when you evidently think yourself capable of it.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:57 PM
2

"I wish my husband would have"=/="my husband was obligated to". Maybe her husband was dealing with some post-partum emotional issues himself and was keeping it together as best he could? Yes. I'm sure that you know her husband way better than she does, and bringing this up is not at all making things up to try and make your position look stronger.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 07:58 PM
6

Is your husband your daddy or something? If that's what you needed why didn't you do it for yourself? Her husband is a loved one, which means pretty much by definition they help you through psychologically rough times. She stated pretty explicitly that she wasn't thinking fully rationally, and that's exactly the kinds of time when it's nice to have a loved one on hand who is thinking rationally and can take over executive planning until you recover.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 06:34 PM
7

Okay. So your wife is obviously in the wrong here. That being said, have you tried asking her why she's so defensive and hostile? I don't think we have enough information to go off of here. Which, on the bright side, means that this marriage might still be very much salvageable, which is really important for the sake of your daughter. People talk a lot about how the father is just as important as the mother in raising kids, and that's very true, but right now it's important to note that this mea…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 02:20 PM
7

The current link's first paragraph is now identical to the old one. I think it's been restored. Begun, the edit wars have.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 02:05 PM
2

Egalitarianism is still an -ism. /nitpick The problem is that nobody really gets angry over someone else's bad deal. A sort of civil rights mutual defense sort of thing would be cool, where the hispanic women agree to help the white men with gender issues and the white men agree to help the hispanic women with race issues (apply again as necessary for all discriminated groups). But that isn't going to happen. These groups mesh poorly with each other because they often have their own problems tha…
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:10 AM
3

Do you really think a billboard ad, which these people sunk thousands of dollars into buying out, was something they threw together on a lunch break? They intentionally decided that reporting any man holding a girl's hand who gives you bad vibes is what they should spend a huge pile of money telling people to do. Assuming these people are even marginally competent, what intention might they have had?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:00 AM
2

Insurance rates are written according to numbers, not personal biases. If you get higher rates because you are a male, it means that the male demographically statistically gets into more wrecks than females. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:09 PM
1

There is now!
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:50 PM
2

May I point out that this thread is about 2X and not /r/feminism.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:48 PM
0

I'm sure that helps.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:47 PM
1

European cities were mostly made in a time where the further you traveled, the more likely you were to be jumped by roaming brigands. The cities tend to be pretty compact as a result, which has the happy side effect of making cars much less necessary.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:45 PM
1

My ego is unjustified because I don't know what I'm talking about. You know I don't know what I'm talking about because my ego is unjustified. No kidding, you're drunk.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:25 AM
1

Alternatively, I don't get girls because I don't go out of my way to meet them. If Game were true, the number of girls I know from other contexts logically means I should've picked up at least a few who at least tried to make their interest known, since I'm apparently an extremely Gamey bastard. The girls haven't turned up, though, because what they're programmed to look for is a good looking guy. Which is not to say I'm completely undatable. I'm positive if I expanded my pool of acquaintances w…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:16 AM
1

I guess you weren't paying attention the first time around, so will pass this by you one more time: Yes, I am cocky. Confident bordering on narcissism. I said that already. Do you know what narcissism is? It's not "I think I'm great." It's "I think I'm better than everyone else in the world, bar-none, by virtue of my own existence." I'm not quite that arrogant, but I'm close. And yes, I've been pretty consistently described as funny. Again, these things help only if the girl was already attracte…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:50 AM
1

So the courts have failed in their responsibility. That means we need to fix the courts, not place the burden of investigation onto the civilian population, and certainly not onto /r/MensRights. We work with the side of the story we've got. If the girl he claims raped him wants to come give her side of the story, I'll listen to that, too. Otherwise, I'll assume OP is innocent of deceit until I'm given reason to believe otherwise.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 06:43 PM
2

Yeah, sarcasm just doesn't contribute anything to an intellectual discussion, right?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:27 PM
1

He was tried and found guilty by a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Until it becomes a required class in a competently run school system, I am not confident in the ability of any jury to hand out legitimate verdicts.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:26 PM
1

How many female sex offenders do you think are currently imprisoned in Iowa?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:22 PM
2

It's funny, because the latest Men's Rights blowup has been about how Richard Dawkins posted a sarcastic condemnation of feminist rape alarmism.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:03 PM
1

What is the functional difference between benevolent sexism and misandry?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:54 PM
1

From his account she certainly seemed more sober but with only one side of the story we can't say for certain. The courts are responsible for getting both sides of the story.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 04:51 AM
1

Except you demonstrably haven't got it figured out.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 04:38 AM
1

See, that's just it. Allies are universally more useful than enemies. Which is also in the book.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:19 AM
1

1) Biology textbooks don't say anything about male or female dominance in the human species. Other species' don't really matter, because they're other species. 2) World history is rife with women who ruled nations competently to the chagrin of societies that believed this to be impossible, and with other women who used their husbands or sons as puppets and/or pawns to further their own ambitions. 3) Game doesn't work. It's something which attractive men retroactively credit for their success bec…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:11 AM
2

Except, again, this is a totally ineffective way to go about doing...Anything. Which you would know if you'd read the book.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:09 AM
2

I respect the science and power behind the advertising community, though. Those are people who are concerned with getting results, not boasting about how they have all the bitches.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:30 AM
1

The Id is much more powerful than the Ego. You would do well not to broadcast your weakness.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:29 AM
1

Except, autists don't do that. Some of them are incapable of emoting period which makes it appear like that, but they do not lack empathy for other people. Someone without empathy for others is, by definition, a sociopath.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:29 AM
2

Oh, really? So, according entirely to the opinions of others, I'm a skilled martial artist, bursting with confidence bordering on narcissism, an exceptional writer, and through high school (where over half of my experience with datable woman currently comes from) I had really wealthy parents which made it easy to show off lots of personal wealth. I commanded a fair amount of respect amongst my classmates throughout most of my high school career (this dropped off at the end when I stopped caring)…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:25 AM
4

Game needs a makeover. It needs to distance itself from the egomaniacs who think they're geniuses for reinventing the wheel that's been embedded into most philosophies and cultures for millenia. It needs to stop acting like it's a philosophy that gets you laid and start acting like it's a philosophy that will make you a better man, which will incidentally get you laid. It needs to stop calling itself Game, too. The parts of Game that actually work aren't games at all, they're a way of life.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:03 AM
0

Prove it.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:44 AM
2

You can't really say something like that - implying that half of the entire population operates as a hivemind and desires and wants the same things - and expect people to take you seriously. Sure you can. It just reflects poorly on your intelligence.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:44 AM
1

Your right they seem sort of autistic, cold. Autism=/=Psychopathy
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:42 AM
2

Having read the OP article, I'm going to go ahead and say that helping her realize her full potential as a human being was not at the forefront of his mind, which kind of pushes him out of the "loved one" category for me.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:40 AM
1

Here's the deal. There are good things in Game philosophy, and things should not be dismissed just because they're part of Game. But everything good about Game is reinventing the wheel. There's a link in the OP to another blog that says a good relationship requires about a 3/5 balance between beta and alpha traits, respectively. And then it goes on to explicitly label beta traits as "Yin" and alpha traits as "Yang." In other words, he is repackaging advice that has literally been around for mill…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:37 AM
2

Which page does he tell you to insult people the instant they disagree with you? I don't remember that part.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:34 AM
5

This really irritates me. Manipulating people is a goddamn science, they call it advertising. I see these PUA communities stumbling through the dark and reinventing the wheel and they think they're geniuses because they can manipulate vacuous, empty-headed attention whores into bed. It'd be like if I, a dedicated and talented martial artist who nonetheless has only been practicing regularly for about four months, went up to one of those girls, beat the tar out of her, and then declared myself to…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:33 AM
3

How? Seriously? The basic concept of self-improvement with an aim to becoming more attractive is fine. It's great. It's not only benign, it's an actual force for progress and improvement in our society. That's...Not what I'm getting from this post. I won’t bore you with the story of how I maintained my pimp hold over my girlfriend during two years in which my bank account, external status, social life and health plummeted to zero and stayed there for extended periods. . I lifted my chin, pursed …
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:22 AM
1

I never saw that movie, actually. I'll see if I can find it sometime. Sounds interesting.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 03:51 AM
1

Hmm...I'm not sure about Rambo, but I wouldn't mind if Rocky were a model for masculinity. Stallone works.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 02:33 AM
0

I don't consider any man to be a rapist. Not even the ones who've actually raped people? /nitpick
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:42 AM
1

My original comment wasn't meant to be in the context. Then why did you post it here in that thread, where the elevator guy is the context for everything?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:40 AM
3

I've entirely lost the thread of what you're trying to argue at this point. Yes, context matters. Yes, it is possible for a man to do something that would genuinely make him seem threatening to a rational woman without explicitly threatening or committing violence. But that's not what happened here, so why bring it up?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:39 AM
1

After you tell them to stop, sure. Someone who keeps on going for it after a very clear refusal is someone who might escalate further, and that's a legitimate worry. Most of these stories don't involve the woman asking anyone to stop, though.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 11:54 PM
1

I certainly enjoy him for a lark, but I wouldn't call him a role model for masculinity. Better than Michael Cera, sure (Arnold played, off the top of my head, the Terminator and one of the good guys from a Predator movie, which is totally two separate characters, so there's that, too), but still. Wouldn't call him a paragon.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:12 PM
1

Arnold was laying it on a bit thick.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:38 PM
0

Seriously? He said to mark them NSFW, not to avoid posting them entirely.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:28 PM
3

Eh, upvoted for a decent point, but look at the language this guy uses. "...many men do not truly understand what women go through in such situations." He's acting as though the guy did something wrong. Sure, you have the right to be a little cautious. I get jumpy when just about anyone approaches me for any reason, because I'm a naturally suspicious person. Anytime I see someone who looks really fit and like a rougher kind of person (obvious tattoos and etc.), I get nervous, because they've pro…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:26 PM
2

All you've done consistently is shown an incapability to conceive of the concept that there exists a state between agreeing with a viewpoint and holding frothing, incoherent rage for it.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 08:43 AM
1

You linked the article in the opening thread. If the article doesn't matter, than neither do the people writing it.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 08:42 AM
2

Wasn't that clear, no. Making things more clear would've taken some punch out of the joke, though.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:56 AM
2

Every post you've made in this thread has been about nazis. Clearly, this means you are a nazi.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:55 AM
2

...Then why did you post about it in the first place?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:54 AM
2

The article wasn't reporting facts. The article was an argument based off of facts that we already agree to be true, and the validity or not of that argument is found in the actual argument made, not in their source. Nobody should be barred from discourse, no matter how repulsive their arguments are. That's a basic tenet of freedom of speech.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:23 AM
2

You continue to make the strawman argument that I want nazis here. I don't, particularly. That doesn't make it logical to condemn an article written to them without bothering to examine its contents.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:21 AM
4

You seem to have missed the point of my comment.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:20 AM
18

I have a single unsourced datapoint attached to some wild speculation! Clearly this proves my superiority.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:01 AM
2

Here, let me play. Phlake14222 is a contentious, argumentative, rude person with absolutely no grasp of the fundamentals of logic, who sacrifices reasoned argument to his ego and agenda. He is therefore not a reliable source. He says that this thread came from neo-nazis. Because he is an unreliable source, we can conclude that the linked thread does not come from neo-nazis.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 12:53 AM
1

Except, the idea for a highway originated from the Nazi Party. That one opinion is abhorrent does not automatically make all other opinions from the same source abhorrent. This is basic logic. This is seriously what they teach you in, like, the first hour of a logic course. It's on every list of fallacies I've ever read. This is not hard.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 12:51 AM
1

Smart people are fallacious? Your definitions are a bit screwy there.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 12:37 AM
1

You're bad at this.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 12:37 AM
1

No, this is a condemnation of a specific article that has an unsavory source. Saying that the article is to be condemned because of its source is quite literally the definition of ad hominem argument, one of several fallacies you seem overly fond of.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:23 PM
1

There has been no "accusation" on anyone except the self-professed nazis who you are inexplicably defending. . Nazis want to bring us back to 1933; you are helping them; you pretend you aren't, but it's a shitty pretense. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:13 PM
0

The war on straw rages on.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 09:04 PM
0

I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about all the other people who disagreed with you who you've accused of being nazis. Which is, like, 90% of /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 09:03 PM
0

You're all upset that accusing the other side of nazism didn't automatically win you all the karma in the world, aren't you? Have a cookie. You'll feel better in the morning.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 09:19 AM
1

... Nothing in that post made sense. If I'm not helping the nazis, why are you arguing with me? If the nazis don't want to bring us back to 1933, what do they want?
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:58 PM
0

That, too. There's a lot of panels in that comic, and a lot of stupid tropes in its source material.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:15 AM
1

See, anti-female sexism in video games is still an actual thing that happens. So the comic works.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:53 AM
0

No one read this post and gasped and thought to themselves "what? You mean nazis are evil? I never knew!" If all you've got to say is that nazis are bad, then stop clogging up the frontpage of a movement opposing injustices that are still relevant after 1945.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:46 AM
0

I HAVE THE POWER!
/r/MensRights27/06/11 08:20 PM
8

Moderation here seems fine to me. Any ugly truths you'd like to turn my attention to?
/r/MensRights27/06/11 07:57 PM
1

Depends. How much do we need? If I get enough 25 cents off coupons, it'll be worth the trouble of ripping the packets open and dumping them into generic containers.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 07:45 PM
-2

Then it doesn't belong in this subreddit. Men's Rights is about Men's Rights, not racism. There is a different subreddit for that.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 07:43 PM
3

Then I'll shoot the man who tries to take the gun.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 05:33 AM
3

Not true. The "ate sugar" part is still there, we've just replaced "Hitler" with "Neo-Nazis." Neo-Nazis published pro-Men's Rights literature is no more an automatic condemnation of said literature than Hitler Ate Sugar is a condemnation of sugar.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 04:30 AM
0

Hitler Ate Sugar.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 03:07 AM
1

There are entirely some good points about here, including a company being quicker to take our issues with service more seriously. But that last one doesn't really register as privilege to me. "Instead of being beaten up and raped, I will be beaten up and mugged." Yay?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 04:14 PM
1

Worth noting, even if they didn't, the physical differences between men and women will require any woman wearing pants/skirt/dress/anything below the waist, really to take longer than a man to pee.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 01:10 PM
2

I was so confused about whether rantgrrl was a woman or not for a while. People kept referring to her by different pronouns.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:37 AM
4

Hmmmm. I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, I don't like encouraging downvote brigades unless it'd already devolved into a troll thread. On the other hand, if someone wants to bring out attention to a legitimate discussion, I don't want to discourage them. There must be a more nuanced standard than "no xposts ever" or "whatever the mods say."
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:36 AM
2

I pay more for car insurance because I'm a guy. If we're going to compare all price differences and see who lives cheaper, we'll want a comprehensive risk. Is there any functional difference between manicuring a woman's nails as opposed to a man's? If so, it's the business' right to charge more for a separate service.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:32 AM
1

I don't mean to be rude, but what makes you think MRAs have some kind of united set of desires for women? Why not just ask Reddit as a whole? Also, I think you're going to get guys shooting for a lot more equality than they actually want, just like you get a lot of feminists gushing about how much they want a partner who will be an equal instead of abusing them and demeaning them, and then cry misogyny on anyone who refuses to lick their shoes clean every morning.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:28 AM
3

The Daily Mall? Let's not break out the champagne just yet.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 11:01 AM
1

That's the issue with the OP, not the issue you brought up. The issue you brought up was that the draft exists at all, not to which groups it applies.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 05:17 AM
0

That's a valid question. It isn't a Men's Rights issue, though.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 11:49 PM
3

/r/circlejerk is self-aware. That'd get /r/feminisms' panties all bunched up.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:30 PM
13

People can be trained like dogs. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 08:01 AM
16

The mother. Pedophiles are barely even involved at this stage. Pedophiles could vanish off the face of the Earth tomorrow and this would still carry on. For years. Possibly decades.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 06:32 AM
2

And in Scotland it's a placeholder term for half the dictionary.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 09:10 PM
1

Uh. I've already forgotten the link.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 09:04 PM
2

MLK said that all men are created equal But women are inferior? And since in this subreddit it wouldn't be obvious: I'm just poking fun at archaic English. I'm not being serious. Relax. Deep breaths.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 07:42 AM
2

If it were a woman making a comic about men, I'd be irked. If a man made a similar comic about men, I'd give it more thought and wonder if it might actually be true. See, if a woman makes a comic about men, she's basically just whining and then expecting other people to laugh at her shrill, hysterical accusations. But when a man makes a comic about men, he's providing anecdotal but unbiased evidence that the stereotypes frequently whined about are actually true. Same with genders reversed.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 07:36 AM
1

The difference between nature and nurture is irrelevant so long as there aren't any powerful social or especially legal forces preventing someone from pursuing happiness. For example, I'm a male, and I feel uncomfortable in situations wherein it would be hard to defend myself, therefore I've studied assorted martial arts to make these situations less common. The constant battle-readiness thing would be assigned to the male sex over the female by every single person I know if they had to choose o…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:04 AM
1

This begs the question, are cars and etc. referred to as female because of their temperamental-ness?
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:38 AM
0

Singular "they" flows a lot better than "he/she."
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:31 AM
2

Thoughts while reading through the first half-chapter of the free e-book from the linked website: "Hm, a book on deficiencies in masculinity in modern society. I am not typically appreciative of people telling other people there is something wrong with them, but this may prove interesting. After all, the number of whipped males out there standing passively by while their rights are reduced to next to nothing are certainly an objective problem for society." "Oh, so it's some dating/confidence sel…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 11:21 PM
3

A woman is the protagonist, though. That precludes an "all womenz r beatchez" conclusion from anyone who wasn't going into it with one.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 10:31 PM
107

Y'know, when I said I wanted equality, "equally oppressed" wasn't really the direction I was shooting for.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:34 PM
2

Sure.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 08:49 AM
9

Would I have been satisfied if you'd posted an actual Men's Rights issue in /r/MensRights? Yes.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 08:22 AM
4

I can no longer imagine how it is that doctors haven't been completely eliminated from the gene pool by their own unwillingness to reproduce.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 08:18 AM
2

There wasn't a question in there.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 08:15 AM
23

And suddenly an actual Men's Rights issue happened. The thing about the reporters in locker rooms irks me. Do you have a link to more information?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 07:12 AM
2

You got me. I'm secretly a Middle-Eastern oil prince.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:59 AM
2

For all that I've reiterated the same point something like a dozen times, you really, really don't seem to get it. There isn't any sexism here. It's not just that there was some sexism but I don't think it was enough to make a big deal out of it. It's that there wasn't any. At all. Also, your assumption that I'm stressed is entirely mistaken. If anything, I'm a bit irked that Android Quest has ground almost completely to a halt after drawing a crowd of 4-5 active players on the first day, but th…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:30 AM
8

So? He wasn't watching television. He's at work, she was a client. Giving patients as comfortable an experience as is possible is part of the job.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:12 AM
9

Mostly because it would contradict my comment history, and anyone browsing through it would get all confused.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:10 AM
5

Yes. It'd be his problem. The resident still gets paid. But that's not equivalent in the slightest. Being embarrassed about one's body/sexuality is not the same about being uncertain of someone else's professional capabilities. Furthermore, it was never implied in the screencapped text that Elizabeth would've considered the same reaction coming from a man concerning female residents (or a gay man concerning male residents, or a lesbian concerning female residents, or whatever) would've been some…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:09 AM
10

Alternatively, you could've not submitted it at all, because it's seriously just not a big deal at all. Not to mention, /r/very_minor_rhetorical_infractions_against_males kind of implies that infractions against males as a whole, not just minor infractions against people who happen to be males. If you reversed the sexes on this, and it's a man asking a female resident to leave the room, it's still not a big deal. At all. There might be a few stupid comments about "manning up" in the following di…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:10 AM
10

What I'm saying is that no implication was made that men are big, hairy, perverted children in the image you screencapped, so even though I despise that assumption, the only problem I have with the capped image is John shoving his politics down everyone else's throat even when it is a huge stretch to say that any wrong is being done, and it's making the MRA movement look bad. In the capped conversation, Leo explicitly states that the female navy doctors are sometimes obviously unprofessional, Je…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 04:39 AM
17

Elizabeth was pretty explicit in that it was her who couldn't handle having her exposed vagina in a room with a man, not the other way around. She wasn't worried about the man molesting her, or failing to do his job. She was worried that a single sexual thought might cross his mind in relation to her. This is not unreasonable to suspect, because the humans who think about sex a lot are the ones who will have kids. It's also immature to worry about it, something which Elizabeth herself is very ob…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:43 AM
2

Oh. Heh, I'd missed that entirely.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:38 AM
2

And you get this feeling because I missed one joke? Or just because I've disagreed with you elsewhere in the thread?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:38 AM
10

Am I misunderstanding the flow of that conversation? Isn't Jennifer being the opposite of sexist?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:02 AM
17

That perspective comes up in one comment out of over a dozen. And it was countered by Elizabeth's friends long before you shot her down. And even the rest of Elizabeth's comments admit to being immature about it ("yes, still"). It's never suggested that women wouldn't be having the same thoughts, and while the wording is a bit ambiguous, it sounds like Amy is using her experience, as a female doctor, to defend the idea that male doctors don't think like that (alternatively, Amy is a homosexual m…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:00 AM
12

...The response box showed the Wizard avatar. Which means that the only person spewing misandry was the guy who took the picture. Which I'm guessing is you. Everyone else was just talking about how it's uncomfortable for a doctor of the opposite sex to be looking at [insert-euphemism-here]. And admitting that it's a bit immature.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 02:03 AM
3

It's still the finger that pulls the trigger.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 01:49 AM
1

They killed him with a sledgehammer, with multiple blows. That implies it was not self-defense, as the mindset of self-defense is typically to get out of the situation, not to kill the enemy. It does not rule out self-defense, because different people react in different ways, but it makes it less likely.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 08:08 PM
2

Maybe some day, these people will encounter a real predator. I know it shouldn't, but the concept of their being picked off one by one by a gleeful serial killer makes me smile.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 12:44 AM
1

The shrew-like mothers didn't show up on the thread. There were just a bunch of stories told about them. AnnArchist's confusion is probably sourced in the fact that you seem to have misunderstood the nature of the discussion.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 12:36 AM
3

Would InstantMisogynyJustSwapSexes be too long to fit in the name field? It could make a nice novelty account.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 05:41 PM
2

What if it was a little boy in a woman's room? Should we be scared for his innocence? Yes. Not necessarily sexually speaking, but bathrooms are a very private place where there isn't much observation, which makes it easy for a predator, of either sex, to abduct children there. Regardless of what their purpose is. Then again, the father was probably no more than ten feet away from that girl, and likely wouldn't have taken well to some other guy trying to steal her (swap sexes for women's bathroom…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 05:39 PM
1

While her intention was not to turn people against me, Physically? Maybe not. But I promise you that turning people against you was exactly what she wanted. And I doubt she would've been all that bothered if the result had been a physical beating instead of social ostracization.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 05:33 PM
2

"Benevolent sexism" and "female privilege" are the same thing. Literally. It's sexism, favoring one person over another solely because of their sex, and from the perspective of women, it's benevolent in that it favors them at the expense of men.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 05:46 PM
1

I'm not blaming anyone, and I'm aware of the cause and effect between movement size and changes brought about. It's just that there should be a cause and effect between rights infringed upon and movement size, and yet we're a bunch of guys on message boards and blogs who spend far more time being angry than doing anything.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:53 AM
3

Y'know, it's funny. I know plenty of guys IRL who've been on the bad (well, worse) end of a divorce. I know of no women who've been murdered in one.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 12:50 PM
1

TIL straight men have it worse than gay men in a lot of places. Now compare the size of the men's rights to the gay rights movements. Something is wrong with this picture.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 12:47 PM
-1

In my experience, there's no such thing as a sane woman, but some of them are crazy in a good way.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 12:44 PM
1

What the legal definition of rape currently is has no relevance to the question of what Whisper thinks it should be.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 10:55 AM
6

True, however he was still being disingenuous with his reporting.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 08:13 PM
1

I'd rather not have a wake up call that ends with us invading Poland.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 04:30 PM
1

Feminism is an internally contradictory belief system, so yes, almost by definition feminists are idiots.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 02:44 PM
1

Do the most addictive drugs in existence, but don't get addicted? I presume the first drug he'll need to pick up is pixie dust to make that fantasy come true.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:03 PM
6

Argh. My thoughts exactly. Incidentally, I've found that the more a person asserts that they are something, the less likely they are to actually be that thing. Feminists shout to high heaven about how they're about equality, because they're really not about equality at all, so they have to constantly convince others and themselves otherwise. Similarly, guys who constantly try to assert their alphaness are, in general, really bitter betas who just discovered Game and are laying it on way too thic…
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:59 PM
1

Hillary Clinton doesn't strike me as the kind of woman who'd want to get off the feminism boat until just before it sunk beneath the waves. The way she retaliates against anyone associating her with her husband just doesn't sit well with me. But then, maybe I'm just associating bad things with her because I still haven't gotten over the "dodging snipers in Bosnia" stunt she pulled while running against Obama.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:31 PM
2

I was amused by the letter. Her worldview is fundamentally contradicted by her own willingness to post it. If men were truly such terrible, predatory monsters, she'd be terrified to attack them so openly. Surely, she'd be raped and murdered in retaliation. And yet, she is not. This fundamental logical disconnect, this incapability to process the basic logistical reality of the situation, removes her as a threat in my eyes. If push came to shove, I can easily exploit her delusions and undo her.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:26 PM
2

"This letter written by a woman is illogical, therefore all women are illogical." Something's not quite right with that argument.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:22 PM
1

Pin it on her boyfriend. Spin it that he's the source of the abuse and the mother just isn't willing to fight him over it. Underhanded, but more likely to work.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 11:55 AM
1

So if "no doesn't always mean no," how do we, legally, determine when rape has occurred, even assuming the event was perfectly recorded on camera? When the woman still feels bad about it the morning after? Or is rape no longer a crime in your view of things? I find it difficult to find a way to support either conclusion.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 11:49 AM
1

Are you sure? I'm not sure I'd be willing to believe either position on someone's say-so alone. This looks like a job FOR SCIENCE!
/r/MensRights16/05/11 04:52 PM
2

According to downforeveryoneorjustme.com, aVfM is down for everyone. Troubling.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 09:59 AM
3

Suggested caveat: Examples must be from the year 2000 or later on both sides, so as to keep the challenge relevant only to relatively current media, instead of digging up media from the 70s.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 01:41 PM
0

Feminism has no useful meaning, except perhaps to say "not openly misogynistic." It's been redefined, misappropriated, and straight out used incorrectly so often and so pervasively in the last few decades that it has lost all meaning in daily usage. We can redefine it to reflect our observations of the people calling themselves feminists that we frequently encounter in relation to Men's Rights, but there are plenty of people who call themselves feminists who simply don't care about Men's Rights …
/r/MensRights14/05/11 08:36 AM
2

pedal*
/r/MensRights14/05/11 01:14 AM
-5

Yeesh, relax, people. It was a joke. I seriously just plugged in the word I thought would be most likely to amuse my target audience. So I guess I bungled that one, but it's not like I was making an actual serious statement about anything.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 01:08 AM
1

Yeah, I noticed it happened with Owning Your Shit, too. I hope that gets backed up, because I really like that blog, I'd hate to miss a post.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 10:50 PM
-4

Having a part of your penis cut off isn't normal. But on feminism it is. Feminism Not even once.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 10:05 PM
2

Uh. Blogger says page not found. Can't get to any page from the past few days. wat do?
/r/MensRights13/05/11 12:15 PM
3

I'm not sure what the reason for all the downvotes is. Are we not allowed to make the occasional joke or funny observation just because we're talking about a serious subject matter?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:31 AM
1

This joke is less funny than the original for two main reasons: The original uses the dissonance between the cheerful, cartoony art and the disturbing imagery while this version uses morbid imagery, and the original doesn't break the poetic flow by inserting gratuitous profanity. Gender in either case has nothing to do with it, except in that the joke makes more sense with the man as the actor since he has to provide the diamond according to common practice, while the version in the OP implies t…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 10:20 AM
1

Worth noting: The feminist movement worked. Harassing people about minor slights is a good way to get them to become compliant. Maybe playing nice isn't a workable option. Or maybe it is. Just food for thought.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 09:59 AM
1

The joke is dependent on a diamond at one point, but it's the man who provides the diamond in a relationship, not the woman. The joke was obviously originally intended to be "man murders woman."
/r/MensRights11/05/11 09:44 AM
1

I've thought the same thing every time I've gotten the last word on a conversation. I've said some variation of every single one of those to myself at some point (some more frequently than others), and both resulted in no further response. Whoever figures out a way to write a feature that can tell you for sure which it is will make a lot of money.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 07:28 AM
1

'Kay. Listen. Rape happens in war. All war, unless you are incredibly vigilant in stopping it. As will civilian death, and torture, and all manner of other nasty things. War isn't Hell only because it's terrible to live through, but also because it turns normal people into demons. The Viagra comment is almost certainly untrue and frankly pretty stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that rapes are guaranteed to occur during this war, just like every other war before it.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:39 PM
3

The point isn't that females are more violent, but rather that females are capable of violence.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 11:22 AM
2

So, I'm a pretty kinky person. It actually does irk me that I have to worry about what effect knowledge of my sexual preferences will have on the people who know me. You know what I think the solution to that is? If people would not flip out when they learn I'm kinky. Really, that's it. I don't want reparations for all the oppression I've suffered under since puberty. I don't want special laws passed forcing everyone to respect my personal choices under threat of lawsuit. Really. I'm a big boy, …
/r/MensRights23/04/11 11:05 AM
1

There are generally two kinds of people in the world: Those who assume that mental health professionals are always right, even when their treatments are demonstrably not helping their patients, and those who think they're part of an insane conspiracy for world domination. The lack of people willing to call shenanigans on a medical professional that sells you/your family member a drug or treatment that does not actually solve any problems means that a lot of incompetence crops up.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:35 AM
2

"Benevolent sexism" and "female privilege" are literally the same thing. As in, the definitions are identical. It's sexism, meaning that one sex is favored over another for no other reason than because they are of that sex, and it's (from the perspective of women) benevolent. Therefore, it is female privilege, just like male privilege is also benevolent sexism...For men.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:29 AM
9

no u
/r/MensRights12/04/11 09:23 PM
1

You don't seem to have grasped my point at all. That, or I've thoroughly failed to grasp yours. What part of my argument are you taking issue with? How are your questions relevant to my post at all?
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:52 PM
19

Not have a girlfriend. It's, by definition, impossible to cheat if you aren't in a relationship.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:25 PM
1

Nothing legal.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:22 PM
2

Links to this research, then?
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:20 PM
1

The first theory seems unlikely to me, the second a bit more plausible...But these women are arguing that women should be able to dress slutty without being attacked, which implies solidarity with the victims. Logical contradictions are abundant in any sort of dogma, of course, but this seems like an emotional contradiction, asking someone to feel two different ways about the same person depending on what conversation we're having. That seems like it'd be harder to swallow without Orwellian cond…
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:15 PM
0

I don't argue that rapists are innocent. They are, by definition, guilty of rape. And when a man gets mugged because he was wearing nice clothes in a bad part of town, my first thought is to wonder why on Earth he would do something so likely to make him the target of a crime. Safety and freedom are often at odds with one another, and going to either extreme is ridiculous. In this case, we're dealing with the "freedom" extreme. Yes, in a perfect world women could wear whatever they want and not …
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:04 PM
1

Sure, why not. At that stage, it's just one person you're up against. Regardless of what they'd like to do to you, your friends and the local authorities will do their best to protect you, which is exactly why people made societies in the first place.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 08:02 PM
1

Well, no, rapists shouldn't be punished more diligently than they are now. Because the court system is much too willing to assume that any man is a rapist based only on the following criteria: 1) He had sex with her. 2) There is no proof that she gave consent, even if she herself says that she can't remember whether she did so, or even was the aggressor. 3) She decides she doesn't like him. Assuming, however, that we have firm evidence that the man has in fact had sex with a woman who did made h…
/r/MensRights06/04/11 07:57 PM
1

Firstly, trust me when I say that literally anything can be spun to make it sound like you're in the right if the people you're talking to hear your side of the story first and react with emotions instead of logic (women usually call this "intuition" and men usually call it "common sense" or "gut instinct," but in both cases the more accurate term would be "bullshit"). Secondly, so what if she does get a few hard glares from a few of her old friends? How does that even begin to compare with the …
/r/MensRights06/04/11 07:41 PM
21

My thoughts on the matter: There are regular men, and then there are rapists. Except in bizarre cultural conditions like Sparta, rapists are fundamentally different from regular men. This doesn't necessarily mean they're pure evil, but it does mean that their priorities are significantly different from that of a normal man. When I hear people saying that women should avoid dressing in ways that would draw the attention of a rapist, I react the same way as when I hear people saying that men shoul…
/r/MensRights06/04/11 04:25 PM
8

Easily the most important lesson life has taught me to date is to never, ever underestimate the cruelty that people are capable of when freed of threat of retribution. The guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment were chosen specifically because they were psychologically normal, and they inflicted crippling, traumatizing mental horror on the prisoners within days.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 04:16 PM
7

I'm not sure where it's implied that all women are out to get anyone in particular. But it's a well-documented historical fact that people will, in general, abuse whatever power they have. And personally, I'd much rather deal with a lone rapist than a vindictive woman with all the powers of the state behind her.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 03:50 PM
8

Just because we can doesn't mean we will. This is inaccurate. If you'd used singular pronouns ("just because I can..."), it would've been accurate. But when looking at the entire group of "every woman in the entire country," you are virtually guaranteed to come across a significant number of people morally bankrupt enough to abuse the system any way it will let them.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 03:48 PM
2

There are plenty of times when people are better off with actual rehabilitation instead of a stay in a "correctional facility." This is not one of them. The man is dead. She killed someone. I place a very high priority on making sure that doesn't happen again, which means not giving her the chance.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 10:47 AM
0

If you're going to drop an entire subreddit because a grand total of one jerk wanders in and wins an argument with the strawman he made of you, I'm not entirely sure I'd want you around anyway.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 10:44 AM
1

The basic idea is a good one, but the execution could use some work. Specifically, considering there's only two people involved in any given court case, I don't think there's any need to use numbers going up to the tens of thousands. Instead, just assign each one some kind of neutral identifier (for example, if the lawyer is Mr. Smith, just refer to them as "Mr. Smith's Client").
/r/MensRights03/04/11 10:01 AM
1

The relevance is that your entire post hinges on two things: Your assumption of my belief in the patriarchy and your assumption that Romans, a people who did not have any concept of psychology or sociology as fields of study whatsoever, were spot on in their observations of cultural trends. Neither of these assumptions are correct.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:40 AM
1

Ahem. I am not now and have never been a believer in the concept of patriarchy. Actually, I spat out a half-dozen advantages women have over men to a skeptical Redditor not more than two hours ago. None of that formula past point one is at all relevant to what I actually said. Further, what the Romans believed isn't really relevant to me. There's an article from the Spearhead on the /r/MensRights frontpage right now about how women believe men become rapists for the same reasons that women would…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:15 AM
1

Concerning media: Typically, when someone says "media" they mean "news," and your summation of the news media is accurate (as far as I know, at least). But entertainment media tends to have an incredible lack of products aimed at female demographics. This has two nasty side-effects: First, it means that very, very bad products like Twilight will receive international acclaim because they have no competition for massive demographics. Second, more importantly, it means that the opinion of the publ…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:12 AM
3

I've been aware of the similarity between the instincts, capabilities, and intentions of other primates as opposed to humans for some time. Constantly, I am baffled by this assumption that humanity is somehow worth less because of our similarities. I am amazed and delighted at "lesser" species' capability to connect with us emotionally.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 04:37 AM
2

No wonder*
/r/MensRights27/03/11 04:34 AM
3

"You have allowed this dark lord to twist your mind until now...Until now, you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
/r/MensRights27/03/11 04:32 AM
1

Well, personally my definition of "responsible" is "you are morally obligated to do this, that, and the third." I'm aware the law isn't exactly balanced.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 10:12 PM
1

Can't even tell if you're trolling at this point, but your comment a few posts up is very nearly incomprehensible.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 10:11 PM
2

Hm. That's interesting, and not in a good way. My personal circle of friends is extremely odd in many ways, and I suppose this is just another of them. Both of the women I'd consider myself friends with, I consider myself friends with only because they've been willing to help me the same way I've helped them. I know this sort of thing is more rare than common, but seeing as I managed to find two, I'd assumed it wasn't so rare that the average man couldn't find even one.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:05 PM
2

The level of sexual pandering in games is irksome to the point of being insulting. I wouldn't mind so much if the female characters had a personality that wasn't made of cardboard, but then again, this complaint can be applied to pretty much all video game characters.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:27 PM
1

Um. Is English your second language?
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:17 PM
1

It's a question of options. Men having the choice to enter the military and women not having the choice. There's no draft in effect at the moment, though its archaically male-only-ness does irk me.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:15 PM
0

I was discussing morals, i.e. the way I think things should be, not the way things are.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:09 PM
2

Is that a rhetorical question? If the woman took it upon herself to have unprotected sex with a man without his knowledge and/or consent, then obviously it's her responsibility.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:07 PM
3

Context is important. I'm willing to do this sort of thing for someone if she's willing to do something similar in return. It's being unwilling to give anything back for these kinds of favors (or, equally irksome to me, assuming that having sex is sufficient) that grates on the nerves.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:40 AM
2

GUYS I CAN'T FIND THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON HOW DO I TURN IT OFF?
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:37 AM
-2

If they both consented to unsafe sex, they should be willing to deal with the possibility of a pregnancy. Both of them. They should've been ready for a child. Unless the condom ripped (or something similar), there's not really an excuse not to be.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:36 AM
1

Are you trolling? I think you're trolling.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:31 AM
2

I think you might be taking this guy too seriously. Keep in mind, he is a pathological liar.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 09:27 AM
1

Then they, like so many thirteen year olds before them, have managed to make catastrophic emotional decisions all by themselves.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 01:49 AM
1

Blanket downvotes do no good, because the comments remain ordered the same. Downvoting specific comments will push them to the bottom, making them less likely to be seen, however.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 06:48 AM
8

How can a "real man" be defined as anything other than "someone who genuinely possesses a penis?"
/r/MensRights21/03/11 06:33 AM
0

Like a sad majority of human beings, Redditors are very bad at relating to people who are going through something unlike anything they've been before. They're thinking of the first time they had sex (or possibly even the last time they had sex), and thinking how nice it would've been to have that happen sooner rather than later, without bothering to realize that having it sooner would've been a totally different experience. Also, a lot of it is just black humor.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:35 AM
2

Joking about terrible things is something I do all the time. Honestly, it kind of helps me to stop myself from freaking out about it.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:32 AM
7

Emotional fallout. Having sex with the wrong person can cause quite a bit of emotional distress, and thirteen-year olds are notoriously bad with relationship decisions.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:31 AM
1

Well, that is a case for misandry, then.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:59 PM
8

-115 karma. I think that post is perhaps not representative of the hivemind.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:17 AM
1

Are there female aliens to contrast that against?
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:13 AM
2

How many male characters were in the movie to begin with? Counting the main character, who is also a child, I'm pretty sure there's two.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 06:33 AM
7

The case for this being misandrist propaganda is pretty weak. Just because it doesn't appeal to boys doesn't mean it's prejudiced against them. Just because it involves a single mother doesn't mean that it thinks fathers are worthless.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 10:14 PM
0

So having sex is now an act of oppression, or...?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 05:57 AM
17

Agreed. Banning dissenting opinions is only going to encourage tunnel vision.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 02:41 AM
1

TIL it is not possible to downvote a link into the negatives.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:33 PM
2

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm. /r/MensRights is not exactly a force to be reckoned with. Besides which, the boy in question is a teenager who requested he live with his father. I think he's old enough to have his decision respected.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 11:21 PM
2

The reviews left by the girls weren't exactly negative. They were neutral at worst. They felt a creepy vibe and they reported this in their reviews, which is exactly what they should be doing as couchsurfers. EDIT: Also, worth noting: We aren't saying he's guilty. We're saying the evidence should be left untouched.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 11:12 PM
0

I think maybe you've missed the point of this sub-reddit. We're not the False Rape Society. We just link to them when we want to whine about how much it sucks to be male and blame all our problems on the alien.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 10:17 PM
-1

I think it would hilarious! It is worth noting that I am a terrible person, however.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 05:06 PM
2

This is a joke, right? You're being sarcastic? Because this is a level of political sniping that reminds me of a misandrist acquaintance from high school. Reading insults and attacks into everything that isn't bending over backwards to glorify your cause.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 05:03 PM
1

Do you have evidence that a man who committed a similar crime would've gotten a lesser sentence?
/r/MensRights28/01/11 01:38 AM
1

...Probably not? Do you have any reason to believe she wouldn't have?
/r/MensRights27/01/11 07:12 AM
2

This is literally true, in that gays are men by definition (female homosexuals are lesbians), but practically speaking, that a woman beat on a man for being homosexual and then got sentenced for it is absolutely no reason to believe that a man would've been sentenced more harshly if the genders were swapped or that the woman would not have attacked him if he were a woman. This is a gay rights issue, not a men's rights issue. It's not like you can't be for both.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 07:11 AM
2

...Seriously? So they claim the right to punish people even though they didn't know and, legally, couldn't have known what the laws are? That's every kind of messed up I can think of.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:35 AM
17

...How is this a Men's Rights thing? I mean, the perpetrator was a woman, the victim was a man, but so? It doesn't seem to have any particular misandrist bent to it.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:11 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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