TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

CoonTown Archive

View 0 posts and 1,011 comments by CoonTown on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,011 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

You might want to re-read my post. I said "a" defining aspect, not THE. The distinction is important. I will further restate my point for others who may be confused: it is ironic that MB associated feminism with mass shootings, when spree killers are more likely to espouse anti-feminist views
/r/MensRights26/04/14 11:10 PM
2

Not an MRA. Just someone who was crazy and didn't like women very much. "Didn't like women very much" is putting it lightly. Lepine's claimed he was "fighting against feminism" during and before the shooting, and blamed feminists for ruining his life in his suicide note. Is antifeminism not a defining aspect of the MRM? That does not seem to be a view endorsed by the leaders of your movement or the founders/moderators of this subreddit. Again, Sodini wasn't an MRA. Sodini, an avowed anti-feminis…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 10:41 PM
2

We're not the ones who pull fire alarms and go on shooting rampages. Is that last bit a typo? You guys have a rather sordid past relating to shooting sprees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Collier_Township_shooting
/r/MensRights26/04/14 09:51 PM
1

I'm aware of how big a deal movember is. However, I don't think there exists any evidence that the mrm and especially avfm played any significant role in this. The fact remains that movember is not an achievement of the men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 03:16 AM
2

Where did you get that notion from? What made Movember a "thing" outside of Australia was partnerships with various Prostate Cancer Organizations. The official history of Movember says nothing about the mrm, and certainly not avfm.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 01:59 AM
1

Consent does not have 'infinite exceptions'. It's really a very, very simple concept. When fucking, the fuckers should both agree to getting fucked and agree on how the fucking will occur. If they do not agree and one of the fuckers fucks anyway, that fucking was not consensual. Non-consensual fucking is rape. That was a wonderful, succinct explanation of rape isn't a "gray area" like wavevector seems to think. Unfortunately, you probably won't get far with him. Your words may fall on deaf ears …
/r/MensRights06/04/12 10:17 PM
0

I shouldn't have to link you a picture of yourself. Just look in the mirror. Of course, always the coward, things deleted the post with his picture after the ladies of 2x ripped that smug, balding prick a new asshole.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:57 PM
1

Oh, so you guys are just such good buddies that you just post pictures of each other as though they are your own, and pretend to be each other? Occam's razor says your the same shitlord avoiding a ban.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:54 PM
0

You omitted an important word. EXTREMIST. As in, he uses libertarianism to explain why rape isn't bad.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:52 PM
0

Nope, not the case at all. All mainstream fields of psychology use the same scientific method used in biological sciences. Same experimental designs. Same statistical analyses. Lemme guess, you learned about Freud and the early origins of psychology, and generalized that to the entire field. The origns of biology, physics, and any other scientific discipline are less than scientific. Did you know, when the greeks thought of the idea of atomos, or atoms, they were just guessing! By your logic, ph…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:50 PM
1

The evidence is stacked against you buddy. Sorry, your jig is up. Evidence: 1) Never denies being a thingsarebad alt 2) Only started posting in r/mr after thingsarebad was banned for threatening to rape female posters and being a terrible human 3) Somehow had talked to me before, even though I had never responded to a JeremiahMRA post. 4) While trolling 2x (by calling a cancer survivor ugly, or some equally ridiculous bullshit), things was asked to post his picture if he was such a cassanova. Th…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:46 PM
0

Yeah, but the people in the facebook link take your thinking to a whole different realm. Which I take issue with. They claim that because we may someday be able to treat mental maladies with complex, nanosurgical procedures, cognitive therapy is useless and psychology is not a science. It's akin to someone saying "Well, someday in the distant future we may be able to heal my ligament sprain with nanobots! Therefore, physical therapy is all useless and fake!"
/r/MensRights11/02/12 08:40 PM
–

I'd argue that clinical psychology employs a limited version of the scientific method, considering how much is relies on anecdotal evidence, and seems to not want to play nice with neurology. This is, at best, completely misinformed, at worst, at outright lie. Clinical psychology uses the exact same scientific method used by every other science. Clinical treatments are created through hypotheses drawn from past research, which are tested in experimental designs which eliminate confounding variab…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 07:05 AM
–

How about this exchange we had? This was the first time I had ever responded to a post made by the account JeremiahMRA. Yet somehow, you knew who I was, and acted as though we had spoke before. And somehow, you did not object to being called out as a thingsarebad alt. Looks like someone is scared of getting his alt banned.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 06:57 AM
–

Basically, it seems that they ate arguing that mental disorders can't bee treated through therapy because they have a fundamental misunderstanding about the brain. Basically, they think things like depression should be treated with surgery. Which is patently ridiculous. Depression can't be treated with surgery, but rather with behavioral therapy and medication if needed. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous comment, but the problem is that these guys see only physical solutions to mental proble…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:41 AM
–

Yep, when I called you out when you were trolling2x. And funny how you just started posting when things was righteously banned being a shitlord
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:37 AM
–

Except the part where you admitted you were his alt when I called you out last. funny how you're too scared to admit that here.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:34 AM
–

Okay, so you took some intro classes, then concluded it was not a science. You don't have enough information to reject an entire s scientific field based on psych 101. I have worked on published psychological studies. It is a science. Studies aren't theoretical, they are based in the scientific method, just as much as biological studies.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:27 AM
–

Religion is much different from a scientific study of the human mind. Point me to where religion uses the damn scientific method.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:22 AM
–

You are an alt account of banned troll thingsarebad. Troll who shames other men and is a outspoken homophobe who uses men's rights to advance an extremist libertarian agenda.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:20 AM
–

Yeah, a facebook group is totally a well thought out, scholarly resource that justifies disregarding an entire discipline that does a lot of people a lot of good. Especially when users post such "educated" comments as "Psychology' is an unhelpful word, because it clearly confuses people" The crux of their argument appears to be "Psychology is bullshit cuz look at this brain operation! Someone pokes this guys brain and things happen even though he is not awake!" There is something very ancient ab…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:19 PM
–

Do you have examples of universities in which this is the case? I ask because every university I have researched, visited, or attended has grouped the psychology department with the sciences, not with the liberal arts. The biggest reason for this being that psychology is a research discipline, like other sciences. Psychology professors are at the university to obtain research grants. They design experiments, carry out research, and publish journal articles according to the scientific method. It …
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:10 PM
–

You realize there are whole branches of psychology devoted to what you are describing (treating the cause of an illness, not simply the symptoms), right? See: The Journal of Applied and Preventative Psychology and the field of Community Psychology
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:05 PM
0

You keep saying that clothes don't make a difference but I really don't buy that, my observational bias may be clouding my judgement but it just doesn't sound right to me. That sounds very likely. You may be thinking in terms of what you would find attractive and provactive. That is much different than what many men would find attractive. This means that verbal harassers are all different people who are attracted to different styles of dress and different types of people. Just for an example, ta…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 04:25 AM
0

What I'm saying is that wearing attractive clothing makes people more likely to focus their attention on you Yes, you've said that a million times, and I have always responded by explaining to you how everyone has a different idea of what is "attractive". A portion of guys think yoga pants are the pinnacle of attractiveness. Should women stop wearing these casual, skin covering clothes as well to avoid potentially being harassed? Logic like that is a slippery slope to a world where women are wea…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 11:04 PM
0

You seem to be okay with victim blaming, as long as the victim wasn't raped, but rather faced verbal assault. You haven't adressed any of my original points. "Attractive" clothing is not a cultural constant. People find different manners of dress attractive. Also, attractive clothing DOES NOT make unwilling people harass others
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:56 PM
0

I also have a problem when men act like jerks. I have a problem when women act like jerks, too. However, we live in a culture (within a species, actually) where people exist who will murder others, beat other people with tire irons, smash windows, rob liquor stores, cheat on their taxes, steal candy bars, shout "God hates you!" at soldiers' funerals, or at women walking down the street with bare forearms, and all manner of other nastiness, and despite strong condemnation and even criminal reperc…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:54 PM
0

You seem to be of the fundamental misunderstanding that manner of dress somehow causes people to commit acts of harassment. This is the crux of our disagreement. Women in conservative dress, in fact, are just as likely to be sexually assaulted, and even more likely to be raped. The idea that some unwilling man or woman will be uncontrollably compelled to commit an act of harassment someone in a speedo or a short skirt just seems cartoonishly ridiculous. Because of this, it makes no sense to blam…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 07:23 PM
0

It's because the idea that the victim "brought about" their own harassment is patently false. Wearing a short skirt won't tempt some unwilling dude to suddenly have to assault or harass her. Not only that, women wearing conservative dress are verbally harassed and assaulted all the time as well. Rape stats show time and time again that rapists are more likely to target women dressed conservatively, rather than in revealing dress. Basically, if someone commits an act of harassment or assualt, it …
/r/MensRights03/02/12 07:18 PM
0

I don't think it is fair to blame the victim of harassment for dressing in an attractive way. There are people out there who find almost any manner of dress attractive. A woman can wear yoga pants and a sweatshirt, and be just as likely to be harassed as a woman in a woman in a halter top and a short skirt. Heck, look at reddit for example. There are whole subreddits devoted to fetishizing women wearing casual clothing like yoga pants. Not saying that attractions like that are wrong, just that p…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:50 PM
-1

Sorry you feel that way, I can understand why this would be a sensitive issue for you then. I have edited my post so as to be considerate.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:44 PM
0

I'm sorry you feel that way, I have edited my post so as to be considerate.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:40 PM
1

Edit so as to be considerate. In sum, sexual harassment is wrong, no matter the gender, no matter the manner of dress. And the victim is never to blame.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:30 PM
1

To thingsorbad, oh wait, I mean JeremiahMRA, yes they are. He's a far-right conservative extremist.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:11 PM
0

I also agree no one deserves to be harassed, groped or sexually assaulted. As someone who was sexually assaulted, I find it bizarre that you would ascribe that belief to me. It's very bizarre that you would express the belief that the victim is entirely at fault for being assault, but only if the victim is a woman. No one deserves to be mauled by a bear, either. But if I roll myself in honey and granola before I go hiking in the woods, people are going to think I'm stupid to complain if it happe…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:57 PM
1

No, I've been telling you how no one "deserves" to be harassed, groped, or sexually assault because of the way they dress. You've been arguing that ONLY WOMEN deserve to be harassed, and that women are stupid for being upset about being harassed.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:05 AM
1

Good thing I wasn't trying to. I was explaining that if someone is groped or sexually harassed, it is not their own fault. I just decided to play a game of dueling anecdotes with GWW. My anecdotes are just as good as hers.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:03 AM
1

Well then, you either haven't been presenting yourself in a way that attracts sexual attention, or you just aren't sexually attractive. Or, I dunno, maybe your experience as a woman doesn't give you more authority to talk about what it is like to be a man than I have? Maybe, crazy thought I know, I know more about everyday life as a man than you do. Or better yet, maybe you should just drop the bullshit anecdotes that don't prove anything from your repertoire. You have no way of knowing if your …
/r/MensRights02/02/12 06:31 AM
–

Another good test would be: Is what you're about to say or do something you would be fine with a man twice your size doing/saying to you?
/r/MensRights02/02/12 06:19 AM
–

In my experience, men are much more likely to be groped without permission than women. Just sayin'. How about my LIVED experience as a man? I've never been groped by a woman in an unwanted manner. Neither have any of my male friends. I have on multiple occasions seen other men catcall women and many of my female friends have been inappropriately touched at some point. I have yet to see women catcall a man. I anxiously await you invalidating my lived experience as a man, as though your anecdote i…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 06:16 AM
-1

I think it's a little off to be out verbally harrassing people on the off-chance that they will like it. That seems to me akin to saying that it's okay to mug people on the off-chance that they were going to give you a dollar anyway. It's not worth it to encourage people to verbally intimidate others, just because there are a few people that would not be intimidated. I believe people have a right not to be subjected to verbal harassment. If a man is in a speedo on the beach, it's not right for p…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 05:12 AM
–

If I go out in a skimpy outfit, people are going to look and think I'm sexy. This is patently not what the poster is talking about. I'll explain this to you like I would a child: Things you think are things you keep in your head and don't say out loud or act out. When you catcall someone, hoot and holler at them, yell degrading things or grope them and touch them, this isn't thinking. Get it, cuz you didn't keep these thoughts in your head! And ya know what, if someone is groped or catcalled, yo…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 05:03 AM
–

Things like whistling, crude sexual comments and staring can definitely be intimidating. I don't think that men or women should be subjected to unwanted sexual comments, touching, or intimidation. And this certainly doesn't change based on how we' dress.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 12:30 AM
–

So, women's bodies are public property if they dress scantily. But not men's! And the only reason for this is because one time you heard a woman object to her body being considered public property. That makes no sense, at all. Why does complaining about being objectified mean that your body is public property? To punish someone for having the audacity to complain? That's some gradeschool logic right there. "Timmy told me to stop kicking sand in his face! I'm gonna do it anyway to get his goat!!"
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:14 PM
–

claims her body isn't public property while she's wearing a go-go dancer's costume TIL dressing scantily means that you no longer have the right to bodily autonomy. So all those men at the beach with their shirts off, I guess their bodies are public property as well, right?
/r/MensRights01/02/12 09:20 PM
6

I chose my name based on a town that I spent time in during my youth. Obviously, as I have never harbored any bigotry towards any group, the connotations of the name of the town was lost on me. As it was a town around the mountains of Apalachia, I always assumed the name was a nod to the wildlife, and the local hobby of hunting raccoon. I'm sure that was a longer explanation than you were looking for, though.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 12:34 AM
20

anything you say about women that isn't a complement is taken as misogyny Just curious: How would you feel about negative generalization about ALL MEN, like "All Men are dopes"? Maybe, no one should be making blanket generalizations about ANY heterogeneous group? Because it's ignorant and bigoted to claim that ALL WOMEN or ALL MEN or ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS or ALL HISPANICS hold a specific negative quality.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 12:21 AM
4

I don't care how a woman dresses. SHE OWES YOU NOTHING. You cannot always have what you want. Just because you want something, DOES NOT mean you deserve it. For an "older guy" you have the mental processes of a child. Even school children know they cannot have everything they desire whenever they want it.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 12:09 AM
5

So why shouldn't I be able to have a piece of your pie Because you can't have everything you want. You entitled rape-advocating scumball.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 08:29 PM
1

Pfft, isn't it obvious, asians are bringing all these pitbulls into America!
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:29 PM
3

I didn't know that I said they were /s
/r/MensRights10/11/11 04:11 AM
–

Well u don't really need to assume they're cis, women are women either way, but if you have a particular preference for cis women, then its your obligation to make sure you're only fucking cis woman, not her obligation to dispel your assumption. Still not getting how this is analogous to a woman with AIDS having sex with someone. Do trans women carry some sort of icky diseases not that they should have to disclose to all partners? Still sounding pretty transphobic.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 05:12 AM
–

That's not the point I am making. Try again. You were comparing a trans woman not disclosing that that she was born without ovaries to a woman with a deadly infectious disease not telling her partner. I'm very curious as to how you are comparing the two without being transphobic, and how the two are in any way similar in your mind.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:38 AM
–

In response to a woman not taking the issue of Male Genital Mutilation seriously. Yeah, that totally makes it not sexist, man. Coming from the moderator of the forum who deletes comments with the word "dick" in them, it's very hypocritical. That's not the point I am making. The point you are making is that having sex with someone with a highly infectious, deadly, incurable disease is somehow analogous to having sex with a trans woman. Transphobia is a form of bigotry, bud.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:09 AM
–

Yeah, it's pretty nonsensical isn't it? Especially when one moderator loves to throw around the word cunt and likens being trans to having aids, but somehow still claims to hate bigotry.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 12:33 AM
1

But you don't care, because that one's not a man. This speaks volumes about you. I never said I didn't care. All I said was the daughter did not deserve to be beat, just because her journal said she wanted a car. You seem to disagree with this, which is majorly fucked up. Here's a concept for you: Mom hit too. Here's another one: hitting isn't the only form of abuse, there's one called neglect/endangerment The video doesn't prove neglect and endangerment, you fucking moron. That's why everyone i…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 04:41 PM
2

Oh sick burn bro! Distinct lack of source here... I guess you just admitted to making up a word to make yourself seem smart? Too bad it backfired. Thanks for the impotent rage downvote, btw! Shame that intelligent discussion is a bit beyond your grasp. Maybe when you grow up and mature a bit, you'll look back and realize what a petulant shitheel you've been and laugh! I wish you luck on your journey to maturity, puberty must be tough!
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:58 AM
2

You're the only one talking about the mom here. I'm saying whether the mom is responsible as well or not, the dad is still a fucking monster and deserves whatever punishment he gets through our justice system. It doesn't matter how guilty the mom is, the dad is still 100% responsible as well. (Both parents can be 100% responsible for their actions!) I don't care why the video was released. I don't care if the victim wanted one million cars. The guy is an animal, a monster who will get no sympath…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:47 AM
2

Oh my god, you're insane. You're claiming "bilateral violence", as in the daughter was equally to blame for the abuse? As a victim of abuse, seriously, fuck you. It's not a two way street. The victim did nothing to deserve to get beaten like that. NOTHING. e: just googled "bilateral violence" and got 0 results. I suppose that's just the grand feminist gynocracy oppressing you, not that you just made up a word to justify your bigotry.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:37 AM
2

Okay, let me drop some knowledge on you: The cycle of violence describes behavior of both male and female abusers (see this link) Abuse comes in cycles. I know it's crazy to think, but abusive people aren't abusive all the time! Again, you are showing your ignorance on the topic of abuse. What is your contention, that the man just can't be an abusive prick, because look how nice he was! He got her a car! Or is your argument that she somehow deserved it, because look how entitled she seemed in he…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 03:18 AM
–

I never excused the mom. That doesn't make the dad any less of a monster. And the cycle of abuse is a valid psychological concept. Not something made up by feminists. But please, blather some more about things you know literally nothing about. Shove your foot deeper and deeper into your ignorant maw.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:35 PM
–

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse I'm not just making shit up. Abusers are notorious for spats of extreme niceness, especially after times of extreme abuse. Uh huh... a beating, then 4-7 years later, buying a car for an independent adult. "I'll show you I'm sorry in 4-7 years, honey." No, I'm sure he bought her stuff 4-7 years ago too. And I'm sure he was still harassing and abusing her up to today. edit: Your gullibility is showing. So what are you contending? Good natured, lovable da…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 02:24 AM
3

Yeah, back in my day psychology was all about how cool it is to beat kids! /s
/r/MensRights02/11/11 11:58 PM
–

Which makes it alright to beat her? Yeah, totally man, right on. She could be the most insufferable person in the entire galaxy, it is not okay for her parents to beat her. As others have said, however, she's probably spoiled because she is abused. Abuse is a cycle. In the "honeymoon" phase, her abusive parents will buy her things to gain her trust back.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:58 PM
–

Holy shit, you have absolutely zero understanding of abusive relationships. Just because he bough her a car doesn't mean he's allowed to literally beat her! This isn't the goddamn 1800's.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 06:45 PM
5

It's not even so much the age thing. Yeah, it's an "arbitrary" line, but you need to draw a line somewhere. You can't let adults fuck 12 year olds. Most children under 18 lack the reasoning capacities to have sexual relationships, period. There is too much potential for manipulation. The most morally reprehensible part of jailbait is that these pictures are stolen and sexualized. Even if they were pictures of adult women, it's still creepy to steal and archive photo's from their personal faceboo…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:54 PM
4

Not really pissed off, but a bit puzzled. Even if you don't consider it exploitation of minors (which, let's be real, it is. They are literally sexualizing stolen pics of children), it's still worse than disagreeing with you. If you really think that disagreeing with your worldview is worse than masturbating to stolen pictures of children, or posting pictures of dead kids, you need to get your ego in check, hoss.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:15 AM
–

what are you even talking about anymore man? If you really think someone disagreeing with you on the internet is worse than the sexual exploitation of minors, you really need to get a grip on reality. <---- this was my point that you seem to be missing
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:09 AM
–

Sick burn bro! Because I totally called this post worse than jailbait... Oh wait
/r/MensRights01/11/11 03:49 AM
–

lol. Hmm, clearly disagreeing with your worldview is more terrible than actually morally reprehensible shit like exploiting and sexualizing children.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 03:31 AM
1

That's the first order change. Did you read the link I posted? You're wrong. Because they'll change their approach in entering marriage. There will be some short-term pain, but the long-term effect will be stronger marriage for the society which will raise better adjusted children. Yeah, totally. Most well-adjusted children come from homes filled with hatred and abuse. If you are going to use terms from the field of Community Psychology, how about you actually learn a bit about the field first?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:47 PM
1

You might wanna read this: second-order change: Attending to systems and structures involved with the problem to adjust the person–environment fit This is what I'm advocating. Changing the societal mechanisms surrounding divorce so people aren't trapped in loveless or abusive marriages. Because of what will happen due to second order change. HOW? Will spouses suddenly start realizing they like each other because they are trapped in a marriage? Or, will society as a whole suffer because people wh…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:35 PM
1

Okay, so tell me, if we force people who hate each other to stay together, how is that a net gain for society? You really think people will contribute more to society when they are constantly battling their spouse? Will anyone even want to contribute to the family unit when they hate their partner? This is the very definition of first order thinking. You aren't looking ahead to the implications of what you are advocating.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:03 PM
0

Yeah, totally, we should force couples who hate eachother to stay together with archaic divorce laws. That's be great for society as a whole /s
/r/MensRights31/10/11 07:39 PM
1

Well, seeing as most rapists don't even remember what their victims were wearing, and most rape victims are wearing jeans and a t-shirt, it's pretty safe to assume that there is no correlation between dressing like a slut and getting raped. Not only that, it's not my responsibility to prove a negative. If you want to assert that slutty dress increases your likelihood of being raped that's all well and good, but it's up to you to prove your assertion.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:01 AM
2

Hmm, you usually edit your nonsensical posts into actual thoughts after I've already responded.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 12:45 AM
3

You know this is my leisure time? Brace for ninja-edit!
/r/MensRights30/10/11 12:34 AM
5

It could have been a short skirt, it could have been late at night. It was a hypothetical regarding feminist attitude toward personal saftey (or lack there of), something we all need to consider to keep ourselves safe. Tell me more about how it being late at night or short skirts cause rape. And if they did, what could women do to prevent it? Wear burkhas and never leave the home? Sounds like a misogynist's wet dream! feminists argue that women shouldnt take any responsibility at all, not even f…
/r/MensRights30/10/11 12:14 AM
6

Sorry I proved your dumb misconceptions about rape wrong I guess?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 11:42 PM
6

, and it was about how feminists wont have women take any precautions for things that can happen in the real world. And what precautions would you like to tell women to take? You've already said things like "short skirts" and "it being nighttime" possible cause rape. Should women wear burkhas and never leave the home after dark, lest they be raped?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 11:22 PM
4

You said it in the sentence right above it: Again, they blame the rapist for the rape, they blame the woman for wearing a short skirt in a bad part of town late at night. Thats not blaming her for the rape. Thats "well what do you expect?".
/r/MensRights29/10/11 11:14 PM
4

Again, they blame the rapist for the rape, they blame the woman for wearing a short skirt in a bad part of town late at night. Thats not blaming her for the rape. Thats "well what do you expect?". Not that the above scenario is typical, but it just goes to show that feminists are not even prepared to concede that women need to take at least some precautions for their own saftey. So, are you done lying?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 11:10 PM
5

Okay, do you have any research that backs up your claim? It's pretty dumb to think that a short skirt is going to cause a man to rape. Rape is a crime of opportunity not attraction. e: And how would women even use this "advice" to keep safe? Never go outside at night? Never wear skirts?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:58 PM
4

Well, you did just say that short skirts are a mitigating factor in rape. Do you have any sort of research to back that up?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:54 PM
4

Maybe it's possible that short skirts don't cause men to rape? Talk about misandry....
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:47 PM
0

Yes, it is.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:02 PM
–

Please show me a study that correlated revealing dress with higher likelihood of being raped. You won't find one, because that is categorically false.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:01 PM
1

I don't think rapes go unreported to the extent the feminist propaganda would have us believe. RAINN, the US Dept. of Justice - Feminist propaganda organizations. You can't just excuse away numbers because you don't like how they sound. Unfortunately, telling women to use common sense and personal responsibility is seen by feminists as "misogyny". Who knew? Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, and no study has ever correlated skimpy clothes with higher incidence of rape. The "ad…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:00 PM
–

You're mixing two different things. You are thinking about a WSJ article posted here like a week ago. His statement was simply "Women should avoid dressing like sluts to avoid being victimized", which started the Slutwalk campaigns.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 08:02 PM
–

No, it started when a police officer claimed that, "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
/r/MensRights28/10/11 07:50 PM
1

"Rape culture" as feminists employ it is mainly a misogynistic tool of control of the patriarchy Absolutely not. Men are affected by rape culture as well. But there is no "rape culture" at large in sociey. Here's what you aren't getting: It doesn't matter if every member of society does not support attitudes that help support rape. The mere fact that these attitudes are prevalent in society is enough to harm rape victims. There is a reason that most rapes go unreported, and that includes attitud…
/r/MensRights28/10/11 04:13 PM
1

Of course we do, it's just that calling it gangsta culture is just as crazy as calling it rape culture. So you agree rape culture exists, but you just object to the name? Isn't that a bit pedantic? Rapists are pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole (Polanski not withstanding; the fucker got a pass from some people because of his fame), even in prisons, and that tells you everything you need to know about how acceptable rape is. This is categorically false. Rape in prisons is seen as high co…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:19 PM
2

and glorifies its violent, materialistic, pro-drugs, anti-cop, misogynistic culture. If a good portion of the population glorifies violence, materialism, misogynism, and anti-cop messages, then we live in a violent, materialistic, misogynistic, anti-cop culture. I understand you're calling it "gangsta culture" in order to make it sound ridiculous and untrue, but if you really think we don't live in a violent materialistic culture, you need to open your eyes a bit.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 04:51 PM
2

Wait, you actually think humans don't have the right to not be abused? You realize emotional abuse can be every bit as damaging and harmful as physical abuse right? It's not so easy just to "cut contact", especially if the emotional abuser is a family member or a spouse. See this: Emotional abuse is like brain washing in that it systematically wears away at the victim's self-confidence, sense of self-worth, trust in their own perceptions, and self-concept. Whether it is done by constant berating…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 03:29 AM
–

you don't have the right to have your feelings not be hurt. You do however have a right to no be emotional abused. Abuse isn't only physical.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 01:44 AM
10

Mel Gibson Status: Confirmed
/r/MensRights26/10/11 10:34 PM
–

Mel Gibson? Is that you?
/r/MensRights26/10/11 10:24 PM
–

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
/r/MensRights26/10/11 09:34 PM
1

Your reference to two MRAs that 'believe in Traditionalism'? Go fuck yourself, troll. Do they not believe in traditionalism? Please tell me where I used them to discredit "the whole movement" (HINT: This never happened) The MRM is about advocating for MENS equal rights...sound familiar feminist? Not according to the sidebar of this forum and the logo of this very forum Apparently you have no idea what 'quote' means. Dude, if I was a troll, I'm a pretty damn good one because YOU MAD. Do you have …
/r/MensRights26/10/11 01:14 AM
3

Reality TV is a bad example, I will grant you, because it's almost all a cesspool, it's all of and by and for the lowest common denominator. I don't really understand the people who appear on most of them, or who watch them. This is definitely something we can both agree on
/r/MensRights25/10/11 09:12 PM
2

The show appears to be based entirely around judging men as partners for women and "training" them to conform to female standards. Not female standards, societal standards. You're inventing misandry where there is none. The "tools" on the show (which, I'll remind you, were 20% female last season) are egotistical, crass, selfish cheaters who deserve derision based on their actions not their gender. Really, before you get outraged you should at least watch the first episode of the last season. Loo…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 08:46 PM
1

Ah, so we can judge the Feminist movement by the words of one or two people that aren't even writing articles...just comments? I never did this. Stop putting words in my mouth. Oh, and I'm NOT a 'gender egalitarian'...I am an MRA. Okay, so do you believe in equal rights for men and women or not? Make up your mind. No you dumb fuck, I told him he was ruining this subreddit by pandering to assholes like you Heaven forbid a forum about equality be inclusive. But that's not what you are looking for …
/r/MensRights25/10/11 08:22 PM
1

"Traditionalists", like Oz Conservative and The Thinking Housewife What about the "Traditionalists" like Demonspawn and ss_camaro at r/Rights4Men? Do they count? (I have no idea what those 2 blogs you are referencing are). Mangina is an accurate term to describe a lot of the people here demanding we 'accomodate' feminists. Cool, shame men for "acting like women" by using a term derived from female genitalia. Totally something an egalitarian would do. And you would have one hell of a hard time sh…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 06:47 PM
2

I'm not "moving the goalposts" because I never claimed literally every single person in our culture defends Roman Polanski. But a good amount do. And attitudes like that, coupled with the fact that a corrupt judiciary allowed Polanski to escape justice, are an example of a rape culture. We live in a culture that glorifies violence. Does every single member of our culture glorify violence? Of course not. But a good amount do, enough that it is a problem.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:14 PM
2

Of course they don't speak for everyone, they sure as hell don't speak for me. Rape culture doesn't mean literally every single person in society is raped, rapes, or glorifies rape.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:47 PM
1

Ask any of them if they are MRAs. Go ahead, I think you'd encounter a lot of resistance of you went on to r/Rights4Men and called them "Not true MRAs". Let's see, judging by this conversation you dislike my characterization of the term "mangina" as shaming and you don't believe in working for equality for all genders. In the past, you have objected to LGBT inclusion. Sorry bud, you fit in pretty well with the "traditionalist" camp.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:35 PM
1

Where did I characterize the whole men's movement? I'm only talking about the "traditionalists" who shame men into behaving more masculine, expect women to be completely subservient, and claim that homosexuals have "a disease".
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:04 PM
1

Well, according to Factory2, Feminism is "working for equality for ALL genders", which seems pretty cool to me.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:03 PM
2

But the show is clearly judging them solely based on their behavior. These aren't your normal, upstanding citizens. They're abusive slackers. If judging someone based on their actions is now unacceptable, how can you judge someone at all?
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:02 PM
1

What is so terrible, in your mind, that we work for equality for ALL genders? Do you really believe men are inherently superior to women? I think it's safe to say that a good amount of posters here (including moderator IgnatiusLoyola) don't buy into the hate-fueled diatribes of the Traditionalists - that men have to "man up" and support their wives, who are relegated to subservient roles in society.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:23 AM
2

You seem to have some misconceptions about what a "rape culture" is. It does not mean that literally ever single person in a culture rapes, is raped, or celebrates rape. Rape culture is a culture which seeks to excuse sexual violence (See: The reluctance to call unwanted sexual contact "rape", victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and the belief that prisoners deserve to be raped).
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:39 AM
3

Well, they are columnists from prominent news sources defending rape... Pretty heinous, no?
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:31 AM
1

So you're a Feminist....gee, who knew? Yeah, what a terrible view I have! That men shouldn't be shamed for not acting according to your idea of masculine! Jeez, what a terrible society to strive for! ....AAAnnnd the rationalization kicks in again....it's not ALL men they're insulting....directly. Again, directly in line with Feminist ideology. They're clearly not insulting all men. It's not even up for debate. I can be an MRA in the literal sense that I believe men are equal to women. The "Tradi…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 03:37 AM
–

Yeah, it's not like his actions are commonly excused in the media or anything like that. Nope, people never wore t-shirts supporting him in Cannes, he never received outcries of support from hollywood bigwigs, and his crime was definitely never explained away as "not real rape". Nope, you're right. The fact that he was able to flee the country proves rape culture doesn't exist. /s
/r/MensRights25/10/11 03:34 AM
–

I've never seen you post a comment in a specific thread voicing support for a legitimate men's rights greiveance. You must've missed all the times I've spoken out against the misandric, shaming term "mangina", explained how gender roles legitimately harm men, and voiced my support for men's ability to stay at home and parent. If that isn't a legitimate men's rights issue, what is? It is, obviously. What else do I need to add? where girls bring their boyfriends to make them into "proper men". Do …
/r/MensRights25/10/11 03:19 AM
–

Yeah, the guy who raped a 13 year old then fled the country. But please, tell me more how he's the real victim, thus enforcing rape culture and literally proving my point.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 03:13 AM
–

Common Roman Polanski Defenses, and their refutations
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:31 AM
–

Others cannot read your mind, they only see your comments. I've posted many times that men have legitimate issues in society. I have also explained many ways to solve these issues, and I regularly speak out against "traditionalist MRAs" who shame men who do not fit their standard of masculinity. However, whenever you do post that one issue does not pertain to men's rights, or that an issue is being blown out of proportion, posters here tend to take that as a blanket dismissal of all problems men…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:29 AM
–

No one, but people are excusing away the rape he committed.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:23 AM
–

Whoosh! The point is, his rape is regularly excused by hollywood and the media. Was going to respond seriously, then saw the last line. Troll away!
/r/MensRights25/10/11 12:55 AM
–

Well, most topics that do address legitimate grievances don't leave much to discuss. I would post "that's true" or "I agree" but that would add nothing to the conversation. BTW, it's not me making the movement look bad by pointing out bs rage comics and "women behaving badly" posts. It's the individuals who make these posts to begin with.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 12:48 AM
–

Well, yeah, when half the shit posted is irrelevant nonsense like "women drowns two kids!" and "Look at this rage comic! It proves women are dumb!"
/r/MensRights24/10/11 11:34 PM
–

where we all cheer rape and rapists are held in high esteem Ever hear of Roman Polanski?
/r/MensRights24/10/11 11:31 PM
–

Keep dreaming. This had only been up for 39 minutes when you posted this comment. What a coincidence, that's about when vote totals started getting skewed! And do you honestly believe there is something wrong with browsing on your phone, leaning against a wall NEAR not even in the dressing rooms while waiting for a GF? If I was harassed for that behavior I would report the employee who talked to me to their manager and inform that manager that neither I nor my girlfriend would ever be shopping t…
/r/MensRights24/10/11 05:45 PM
–

I was wondering why the upvotes/downvotes were so whacky, guess I have my answer now! e: Also, this isn't "creep shaming" in the sense it tends to be used because this isn't based on how he looks (we have no idea how he looks at all!). It's based on his actions. If you are in a woman's changing room, making women uncomfortable, you should probably leave. By that same token, if you are a woman in a men's changing room, making men uncomfortable, you should leave as well! Clearly, it's extremely di…
/r/MensRights24/10/11 05:30 PM
1

Okay? Good to know I suppose. Blanket hatred of any heterogeneous group (women, african americans, homosexuals, etc.) is wholly illogical, which explains why you have such difficulty presenting your views in a logical manner, without appealing to other redditors as though they are an authority on the subject.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 08:12 PM
1

If it is in such plain sight, you should have no problem providing an example! Unless, of course, you're no better than the feminists who make up misogyny when it is not really there?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 07:48 PM
1

I've never posted on r/Againstmensrights. Try again. Demonspawn has no facts to back up his argument. WHY is restricting women's sexual agency the "natural order of things". And how about you prove I'm a misandrist? As a man myself, I think you'll have a very difficult time doing so.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 04:38 PM
1

Okay, so I'm a troll because I disagree with you? That blog really doesn't prove anything. It's based entirely on evolutionary psychology BS . As a civil society, we are able to rise above base biological instincts. Humans don't devour our siblings to decrease genetic competition - we aren't unthinking beasts. Can you please, in your own words (Not Demonspawn's) whywomen do not deserve the same rights as men.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 05:06 AM
1

How will sexual freedom for women directly lead to the collapse of our civilization?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 04:03 AM
–

all that's necessary is that the misandry bubble pops Allowing women sexual autonomy is not misandry.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 08:29 PM
1

How does any of this make giving individual women the right to vote a "special right and privilege"? If men can vote, so should women, that's equality.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 08:25 PM
2

Note the spelling of "obama". You've been had!
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:51 PM
–

What about the first wave of feminism (suffragettes)? How is the right to vote not about equality between genders?
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:45 PM
–

What if one parent is genuinely abusive, should we allow the kid to be with them anyways?
/r/MensRights13/10/11 09:29 PM
2

And I would rather have a balanced message out there that rape is horrible but women can absolutely have the wherewithal, for whatever reason, to deal with it, sometimes even on their own, than a lopsided one that says all women are always destroyed by a rape. I disagree a bit here. I think an important message with any traumatic experience is that it's okay to get help, and that you shouldn't try to go it alone. There's a huge stigma in our society that dictates only "nuts" go talk to therapist…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:24 AM
2

You are the one who says he wants "accuracy", and for only what is provable to be considered. It is provable that not every victim is devastated by a rape. Talk to rape counsellors--women react differently, and some of them are even mostly okay. How is it not accurate to show some portrayals of those women in popular culture, or to allow them to be included in the discourse? I've met multiple attempts to silence me when discussing my own experience, and have been characterized as a horrible pers…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:10 AM
2

And I don't know what you would suggest. You won't accept lie detectors for research purposes because they have a margin of error. You won't accept recantation, because this is unreliable too. You won't accept police investigation processes, because they're wrong too. Here's my idea: Instead of using methods we know don't work, how about we do what society should be doing all along: investigate every rape thoroughly. Prioritize processing of rape kits, launch programs encouraging victims to repo…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:12 PM
1

Lie detectors do not fudge numbers. They determine whether someone is telling the truth within a scientifically and numerically quantifiable margin of error. This makes it impossible determine an individual's guilt or innocence, or to pinpoint an exact percentage of false claims, but it can provide a reliable range of numbers when utilized across large populations. [Citation needed]. All literature claims that lie detectors are unreliable, specifically in rape cases. Given that we do not live in…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:05 PM
1

However, when we try to estimate the number of false reports of rape in order to determine whether or not it is in any way advisable to relax due process rights or make other "amendments" to policy, the only data that is deemed "acceptable" is the data that is PROVABLE OR PROVEN. If a case is deemed less than proven, it is actually thrown back into the Big Bucket o' Rape as a "rape that happened" even though we don't know it happened. Okay, here are my problems with your argument. I'm going to k…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:29 PM
–

are you insinuating there is a separate women's rights movement?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:17 AM
1

Tell me, what is the best way to divorce studies on false rape from the legal system. I can not think of a single way to do this without creating an entirely separate body with no legal authority with the sole job of meticulously verifying every rape claim. Sorry, that's not happening in either of our lifetimes. Rape exists within the legal system. This is the framework in which rape allegations are framed. To ignore that would be ignorant and foolish. You don't see a problem here? Seriously? Yo…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:16 AM
–

By that logic neither can an mra.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:43 AM
1

I've acknowledged the limitations of these figures over and over again. It is simply impossible to get 100% accurate figures for violent crime statistics, particularly rape. There is too much statistical noise. Your solution to this seems to be potentially overestimating false rape by including victim recantations, etc. Why is this? Why is it not better practice to only include those cases that are definitely false rape accusations instead of including who knows how many real rapes in the false …
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:37 AM
1

To subscribe to the former conclusion rather than the latter is exactly the inverse of claiming that only 6% of reported rapes are true, because this is the often-quoted percentage of reports that end in conviction, because this is the only percentage of rape reports that have been conclusively proven (and even this number includes a margin of error). Not quite. Notice how our justice system is set up so that many guilty persons can go free instead of sending one innocent person to prison. A gui…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 10:11 PM
1

Every study I've linked is available online, or in your local library. Feel free to look up any of their methodologies. Lisak provides a great rundown of all research into false allegations in the past decade, as does Rumney. Let's back track to your initial claim: And OMG, what if we actually came to terms with and frankly discussed the fact that 30-50% of rape accusations are false or unfounded? As I've demonstrated, this is categorically false. At best you can claim that we cannot be sure wha…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 04:34 PM
1

I'm also curious to know how it was determined that "many women will recant their rape, even if it actually happened." How was it determined that in these cases, that the rapes actually happened? If there was incontrovertible proof that the rape actually happened, why were the victims given polygraphs? The Oregon State Sexual Assault Task Force explains why victim recantations are a bad metric of whether an accusation is false: Recantation is most often used by victims to disengage the criminal …
/r/MensRights11/10/11 02:11 AM
1

Funny you would mention that study. It was done by Roger McDowell. I'm very curious as to how you know it has a "solid methodology", as the study literally cannot be found. By anyone. Even the library of congress has no record of this study ever existing. LexisNexis, JSTOR, EBSCO, every single scholary journal database shows no record of this study. If you have an actual link to the study, I'd love to see it. As a man of science, I am in fact very open to being proved wrong. But you just aren't …
/r/MensRights11/10/11 12:36 AM
1

False Rape Society has plenty of examples of such. Plenty of examples of how men getting arrested based on a woman's word is the norm? With only 50% of reported rapes resulting in arrest, and of those arrests, 20% of them not being prosecuted, I think I'll call BS on this.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 07:10 PM
1

Given that, I'm going to take your cherry picked numbers with a grain of salt big enough to impact my blood pressure, because there have been studies that put the false report figure at 90% (and I don't believe those either). I gave you a huge amount of academic research to prove to you that the scientific consensus is 2-8%. You have absolutely no base to claim "50-60 percent of reported rapes are false claims". You have relied solely on personal bias and baseless conjecture. You can throw your …
/r/MensRights09/10/11 07:09 PM
–

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates From a report by the US Department of justice
/r/MensRights09/10/11 07:00 PM
1

The 2% figure has no basis in any actual research. False. The Police of Victoria Australia found a 2.1% rate of false accusations. Other sources within the 2-8% range: Victoria Australia Police - 2.1% Lisak - 5.6% FBI - 8% British Home Office - 8% (revised to 3%) Oregon State Police - 2% Literature Reviews: DiCanio (1993) - Reviewed all literature on false allegations, found most studies to fall within 2-8%. 1 study fell below (Thelaide and Thomsen 1.5%) and 1 above (Kanin 50-60%) Rumney - Criti…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 09:41 PM
1

Feminists are the ones constantly saying "LOLOL the police are gonna rape you a second time, patriarchy and misogynism lolol" (failing to mention that it's more likely the police will instead immediately arrest the man on nothing but a woman's word). Citation needed. Only 50% of rape reports result in arrest. Okay, so before those numbers came out, why were so many rapes unreported? It can't be because of feminists, there were no numbers yet! You seem to be subscribing to the belief that "the be…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 09:41 PM
–

So, there are no societal mechanisms preventing rape victims from reporting their rapes? Isn't it a bit curious that so many more rapes are not reported compared to, say, murder?
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:54 PM
–

Feminists run RAINN. This is a fact. Your link does nothing to refute this statement.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:35 PM
-1

That was a slip up on my part. It was meant to read "20% are not prosecuted". I've edited my post to reflect this.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:29 PM
–

60% of rapes are unreported. If you don't report your rape, your rapists walks free.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:27 PM
–

You have painted the most ridiculous straw-feminist I have ever seen. Not a single feminist I know would react negatively to the advice of "get a rape kit done" or "press charges". In fact, this is the most common advice given to rape victims. Feminists want rapists brought to justice, not free to walk the streets. And OMG, what if we actually came to terms with and frankly discussed the fact that 30-50% of rape accusations are false or unfounded? The scientific consensus of false rape claims is…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:26 PM
–

Really? Because I see that attitude on reddit all the time. It's usually followed by some drivel about "Personal Responsibility!" It's phrases like "this wouldn't have happened to her if she had a gun", and the incredibly stupid "you wouldn't wear a fancy suit in the ghetto..." analogy that essentially places the blame for the rape on the victim. The claim that feminists constantly tell women to not report their rapes is pretty wrong, seeing as the largest rape survivor network (RAINN) is run by…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:21 PM
–

For society to truly hate rapists, and punish them however they can, wouldn't it go out of it's way to punish rapists? You wouldn't see 30% of convicted felony rapists never spending a day in jail, and only half of reported rapes resulting in arrest. You wouldn't see convicted rapists like Roman Polanski celebrated, and their actions excused. In reality, where the rest of us live, rape actually often has a higher conviction rate (prosecutions that result in convictions) than murder, which is som…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 07:13 AM
–

If that man turns out to be a rapist, well, society hates rapists and will punish him if it can. Which is why 15 out of 16 rapists will never be brought to justice?
/r/MensRights08/10/11 06:09 AM
23

Here is the first way you can protect yourself--this rapist is looking for women dressed in skimpy clothing. Do not wear skimpy clothing. Actually, no study has found a correlation between skimpy clothing and likelihood of being raped. This is a stereotype that is pretty insulting to men. It's as though men are going to be driven into an uncontrollable rape-frenzy at the sight of a short skirt. Obviously, this is not the case with stranger rape. The most important predictor of whether or not you…
/r/MensRights01/10/11 08:35 PM
–

http://www.google.com/search?q=aspirin+dangers+forum Oh shit, look how dangerous aspirin is! http://www.google.com/search?q=ibuprofen+dangers+forum Oh man, ibuprofen is dangerous too! What am I supposed to take for my headaches now? DAMN YOU BIG PHARMA!!
/r/MensRights29/09/11 04:54 PM
1

LOL okay he's saying men are better than women. That is in no way better.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 09:22 PM
1

White colonists led by men? Hm interesting pattern we have here. The "interesting pattern" being white men conquering other cultures.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:51 PM
3

Tell me how "White men make the best societies" does not equal "White men are the best"
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:02 PM
1

TIL men are inherently better than women
/r/MensRights26/09/11 05:14 PM
–

You heard it here folks! Whites are the best race, men are the best gender!
/r/MensRights26/09/11 03:47 PM
-2

I'm sorry I really don't recall interacting with you. You're at a +2 in my RES, so it doesn't seem like I disagree with you as much as you think. Also, I don't hate anyone for their views on the internet, that'd be pretty silly.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:12 AM
-2

I'm genuinely curious as to whom I have been bigoted towards. And I don't think it's fair to judge my views based on what other people say. I'd be willing to wager you're just assuming I'm a bigot because I'm "rocking the boat", and not circlejerking with you.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:59 AM
-6

How in the world am I a bigot? I don't own any subreddits, so I'm not sure what "my own mods" even means.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:33 AM
-5

There is a classic joke about a woman being beaten, and a doctor prescribes swishing tea around in her mouth when her husband comes home drunk. I thought that was a funny joke. Do I support the abuse of women? No. Well, that's a fictional joke. I'm sure you'd agree there is a difference between telling a joke about, say, the holocaust, and actually watching videos from death camps and laughing your ass off.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:07 AM
-2

There's a huge difference between a joke, and posting images of actual abuse and laughing at them. In the latter, you are actually laughing at the expense of a real life victim of domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 11:20 PM
2

Are you aware that he posts on r/beatingwomen, and finds the content hosted therein "hilarious"? I don't see how you can reconcile views like that with the egalitarian mission of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 10:02 PM
1

SRS is predominately white men who take their recognition of privilege so far they end up hating themselves and other white men FTFY You've made this assertion over and over, but have yet to prove it! How about you maybe put up, and prove that the culture of SRS is one of white man hatred, or shut up?
/r/MensRights18/09/11 05:12 PM
2

Nice strawman attempt. It's not to be "minimized", it's to be represented factually in the first place. Pointing out that "1-in-4" is horse shit doesn't "minimize rape". Yes, it is. You are trying to prove that rape happens less often. How is proving that rape happens less a men's rights issue? Rape effects men as well as women. If you are showing up at an assembly on rape with the intent of "derailing the event", it sounds pretty pro-rape. Why does it matter if the rape rate is 1 in 4, 1 in 7, …
/r/MensRights16/09/11 05:16 PM
–

choose to agree to sexual contact without violent coercion What about non-violent coercion, like blackmail?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 05:06 PM
2

If what is so frequent and obvious? Misandry in their comments, or misandry in SRS? I think it's pretty obvious when the subreddit "subtitle" (?) was something like "white male castigation station", the number of subscribers is given by "X straight cis-gendered white men", and the majority of the front page is from MR. Again, that's clearly sarcastic. It's a play on the trope that SRS is a man-hating outpost. It's quite obvious to those who know how to read that, in context, "derail" means "call…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:48 PM
0

Yeah, it says: Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. They contend that the current “exclusion” rate for forensic DNA labs — close to 25 percent — suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability of forensic DNA typing. Unfortunately, too many variables are contained in the “exclusion” rate to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Furthermore, nothing about…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:20 PM
-1

LOL, how in the world did you find a post of mine from 20 days ago?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:17 PM
2

If it is so frequent and obvious, you should be able to provide a few links! I could say the exact same thing about r/mr. If you need proof that r/mr despises all women and wants to subjugate them, look at Demonspawn, AntiFeministMedia, and Thingsarebad's post history
/r/MensRights13/09/11 03:12 AM
–

You are terrible at analogies. For your analogy to be apt, SRS would have to actually be sexist. If you can prove SRS to be sexist, then you'd have a point. I have never seen anyone actually claim to hate white men. If you somehow interpret "white males are advantaged in Western society", as "I hate the white man", I don't know what to tell you.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 12:48 AM
13

TIL "all men are rapists" is a central tenet of feminism.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 10:42 PM
–

Links please? There are upvoted examples of misandry on the front page of SRS currently. Or are you using the "you guys are the true bigots for being bigoted against the bigots!" defense?
/r/MensRights11/09/11 10:33 PM
–

Not quite. SRS isn't a hate group, the title bar is very clearly sarcastic. Demonspawn is actually the moderator of a hate group, but is using the term "hate group" as a negative.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 08:54 PM
2

What are you trying to argue? That two wrongs make a right? That making women wear burqas is somehow a solution to child molestation?
/r/MensRights11/09/11 05:44 PM
13

Anyone who isn't a racist piece of shit won't look at a black co-worker and think, "that asshole is taking jobs from the hard-working white man!"
/r/MensRights11/09/11 07:33 AM
–

Well, it has a point. The US has a pretty bad record when it comes to human rights, yet it still holds itself as some sort of beacon of civility.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 11:38 PM
–

They admit they're a hate group. This coming from a moderator of r/rights4men, an openly homophobic forum
/r/MensRights10/09/11 10:10 PM
1

That comment doesn't say anything close to "Ban free speech when it comes to rape jokes". It says that joking at the expense of rape victims has the unintended consequence of normalizing rape. Which, if you are truely a free speech proponent, is perfectly within their rights to say.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 08:51 PM
–

Well here's a recent one for example. And I think the frequency of threads defending/condeming rape jokes speaks volumes about how common they are on reddit.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:40 PM
–

You absolutely have freedom of speech. Make rape jokes all you want. But at the same time, people have every right to get offended, and call you insensitive and unfunny. Freedom of speech =/= Freedom from criticism.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:13 PM
-1

You really can't handle criticism at all, can you?
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:30 PM
–

I dunno, Demonspawn is still at +1, and the lowest comment in this tree is -1. If this was a downvote brigade, it was the worst one ever.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 03:11 PM
1

Even gonewild?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:30 AM
–

Paranoia much?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 09:27 PM
9

Seriously, follow your logic. You said "I'm saying that you are not as good at thinking as men are" and that, because of this, he should fit in with women and homosexuals. That may not have been your intent, but you basically said, "Barbadosslim, you are dumb and unmanly, so you should hang out with gays and women, who have the same mental deficiencies" And you can't even deny the misandry in your comment.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 09:13 PM
–

Yes, you are planning to stalk him on the internet for weeks on end, and he is the nutjob.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 08:50 PM
5

I think you forgot to take your meds today.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 08:10 PM
8

No one hates men more than a misogynist.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 06:46 PM
2

and this article is CRAP Should've known as soon as you saw dailymail.co.uk
/r/MensRights05/09/11 04:56 PM
–

Nazi comparisons have no place in a civilized discussion of gender. If a feminsist called you guys MRAssholes, do you think they'd be conversing civilly?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 04:45 AM
–

In a thread encouraging civil discourse and rational discussion, do you really need to use the term "feminazi"?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 03:35 AM
–

I bet you would if the woman isn't the super-hot pornstar you're imagining in your head. BTW, attitudes like this contribute the myth that women cannot rape men. Pretty terrible, imo.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 09:42 PM
3

Umm, no. You missed the point completely. You cannot enter into a contract under duress, neither can you consent to sex under duress. The man in this situation put the woman under duress using threats and blackmail. This means the woman was coerced into sex, which is a form of rape. What the guy did was blackmail, and then rape.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:13 PM
–

Blackmailing someone to get them to have sex with you makes you a saint? Really? What a strange, warped world view you have.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:50 PM
–

This isn't "bartering", it's extortion. Which is a crime.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:41 PM
–

You are misreading that definition. Blackmail and extortion are crimes, therefore the threat is unlawful. The definition essentially reads "Duress is an unlawful threat. A threat is unlawful if it uses coercion to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]" The threat itself does not have to be a violent criminal act ("Blow me or I'll shoot you"), it just has to be extortive in nature. For example, say your boss tells you, "Blow me or I'll show everyone …
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:07 PM
1

Are you implying that the girl somehow secretly wanted to give this guy a blowjob? If that were the case, he would not have had to threaten her in the first place. Care to respond to my original point?: If you cannot sign a contract under duress, why should you be able to consent to sex under duress?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:47 PM
–

Duress does not mean what you think it means. In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily wou…
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:43 PM
–

Well, feminists and legal scholars. The source continues: Rape is also a legal term that is defined in Massachusetts by three elements: Penetration of ANY orifice by ANY object, Force or threat of force, or Sexual contact against the will of the victim. But I suppose the evil feminazi boogey-men have infiltrated law schools across America, making them invalid sources to you as well?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:38 PM
–

Of course I would. To me this is nothing more than a "I forgot my wallet, so the restaurant offered to have me wash dishes for 4 hours to pay off my bill" situation... or is that now slavery under your reasoning? You realize this literally never happens, right? There was an askreddit thread about this recently. They don't make customers wash dishes because it is a huge liability to have laymen work around industrial washers. The man offered a choice. He opened negotiations. She had the choice of…
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:35 PM
–

It's NOT rape if you threaten legal actions (if you are unwilling to have sex, I'll break up with you). This is false. Here is the legal definition of rape: Rape and/or sexual assault is forced, manipulated, or coerced sexual contact by a stranger, friend or acquaintance. It is an act of aggression and power combined with some form of sex. A person is forced into sexual contact through verbal coercion, threats, physical restraint, and/or physical violence. Consent is not given. Verbal coercion a…
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:32 PM
–

Even if he charged extra, how in the hell is that robbery? It's not. It's a goddamn choice. But, I forgot that in femiland, women just can't be responsible for their choice. Your bigotry is showing. If the genders were reversed, I would feel the same way. Would you? Offering a choice where neither choice is illegal is not a crime. Extortion and blackmail are crimes.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:15 PM
–

So let me get this straight. Had he said "give me the money for what you took or I'll call the cops" then that suddenly becomes theft? False equivalence. If he had said, "I saw you take that scrap metal, give me all your fucking money", yes, that is robbery. You seem to be advocating that individuals should be allowed to fight crime by committing other crimes. As a civilized society, we have a law enforcement system, so there is no need for vigilante justice.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:04 PM
–

The fact that reporting her to the police is not a "violent act" does not matter. If you extort someone into having sex with you, it is rape. You cannot sign a contract under duress, why should you be allowed to have sex?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 05:37 PM
–

If I tell you "give me your wallet or I'll shoot you", is it no longer robbery because you had a perfectly viable second option?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 04:18 PM
–

The dips coincide with Summer and Winter breaks for most colleges. Meaning that college students aren't googling "Feminism" or "Feminist" to try to write a paper for their Gender Studies classes. The peaks also seem to coincide with midterms and finals.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:44 AM
–

Please, tell me more about what I think. This is very interesting, as I have never discussed this topic with you before. I'm curious as to how many words you can attempt to stuff into my mouth.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:37 AM
–

Bullshit what? Are you claiming I don't think this woman should be charged with rape? Or that I think men are always rapists? I have never said either of those things.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:57 PM
–

Well, I'm a semi-frequent poster in r/shitredditsays, and I think the woman should certainly be charged with rape in this situation. I also don't believe that men are always rapists either.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:40 AM
-1

I believe that traditional gender roles (men as strong providers, women as weak subservient home-makers) harm men as well as women. I believe that, as a society, it would be best for us to move beyond these rigid gender roles and to allow men and women to be whatever they want to be. Men should be allowed to be stay at home fathers, and work in child care, while women can be assertive providers, without any stigma attached. This is what I actually believe.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 10:07 PM
0

Okay, well, I find it likely that the number is much lower. What now?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 10:03 PM
0

Okay, this is all conjecture. If you really think 50% of accusations are false, with no scientific data to back it up, you are relying on your own personal biases and making false conclusions.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 09:28 PM
0

that men collude to rape I do not believe this, nor have I ever said this. I don't think powerful men are secretly meeting in a covert operation to control women. I've said this to you countless times. And I certainly have not upvoted myself, nor have I downvoted you.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 08:05 PM
0

Okay, so you believe that "powerful actors are secretly conspiring to make men second class citizens"? Is that what you are saying? You seem to have some difficulty putting your thoughts on this question into coherent words.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 07:49 PM
0

Ah, like you are ignoring the source you are citing, which states "This study does not prove that 25% of rape accusations before 1989 are false". Ignoring your own study. The same study you cited. Excellent work.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:45 PM
0

Based on your gut alone? Welp, I think I'll throw in my lot with science on this one. So you really think something like this happened: Before 1989 1989 1989 to Present 50% rate ??? Happens 2-10% rate
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:43 PM
0

What does patriarchy have to do with anything? Patriarchy is not a conspiracy theory, it's a set of societal norms. I do not believe in conspiracy theories. Do you believe in a "worldwide feminist conspiracy" theory? It's very telling that you refuse to answer this question, and keep trying to reframe the discussion.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:39 PM
0

You have said this multiple times: Once: JUST BECAUSE the number of FALSE accusations BEFORE 1989 was 25% Twice: I said the rate before 1989 was 25%. Three times: 25% to 40% of all rape accusations being FALSE before 1989 MEANS that it is COMMON and it is NOT RARE. You have claimed that 25% of accusations are false (at least before 1989!) three times in this conversation.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:38 PM
0

I have never said false accusations never happen. However, you were using a study to say that 25% of accusations are false, when the study clearly states "Do not use this study to say 25% of accusations of rape are false". This is what we are discussing.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:26 PM
1

Holy shit, I've answered this question for you about three times already. I do not believe there is a shadowy organization made up of powerful actors trying to keep women down. Do YOU believe there is a shadowy organization made up of powerful actors trying to keep men down?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:22 PM
0

The study you cited literally says "Do not use this study to claim that 25% of rapes before 1989 were false". This is a "bad source".
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:08 PM
0

LOL, I literally just proved that the authors of the paper you cited said "Do not use this paper to determine the percentage of rape claims that are false" You are just "sore" because you looked like an idiot for citing bad sources.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:59 PM
0

So I might be crazy for believing in feminism, but you are sane despite your belief in Patriarchy? This make absolutely no sense at all. Feminism is a movement that undoubtedly exists. You are insane if you believe feminism to be a conspiracy theory. If you believe there are powerful actors conspiring to ruin the lives of men in secret, you really need to evaluate how you think about the world around you. And you should probably read this. Feminism can exist without it being a "worldwide conspir…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:04 PM
1

So what is your cunning dishonest trap? I suspected this was the reason you are being so guarded with regards to this question. There is no trap. This is not a trick question, there is a right answer to the question "do you believe there is a worldwide feminist conspiracy?" Your initial claim was, "Patriarchy does not exist, you crazy person". My assertion is essentially, if you believe in farfetched conspiracy theories, you may want to hold off on calling other people insane. Keep in mind, ther…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 08:22 AM
0

Okay? Why not say "As many as 100%" if you are going to pull numbers out of your ass?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 08:09 AM
5

Okay, so you are fine with people assuming accused rapists are guilty before a verdict is rendered, right? You can't just selectively throw out "innocent until proven guilty". Casey Anthony was not proven guilty, therefore you can't call her a child-killer. DSK was not proven guility, therefore you cannot call him a rapist. Unless, of course, you believe in "trial by media" or "trial by public opinion".
/r/MensRights27/08/11 06:49 AM
–

Well, according to the law, both are innocent! Not very smart, are you?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 06:37 AM
0

HINT: If you are saying 25% of rapes are false accusations before 1989, you DID, in fact, "interpret in the way they try to say people sometimes do".
/r/MensRights27/08/11 06:28 AM
–

Okay, so "Woman = guilty until proven innocent, Man = innocent until proven guilty"? And you say you are for equality... Or, do you honestly believe in "trial by media"?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:10 AM
0

Since you won't even tell me what you interpret the quote I am providing you to mean, you're obviously trolling or willfully ignorant.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:09 AM
–

She was acquitted. You can't crow "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to DSK, and then call Casey Anthony a baby-killer.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 02:36 AM
–

That very clearly isn't what saracuda is talking about. What the hell does "financial abortion" have to do with a situation where "A man wants a child, and a woman wants an abortion"?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:43 AM
2

Lol, that is not what I mean to imply. Edited to fix the intent. Even in the original format that would not be what was implied, btw. Not every father is in a custody dispute. And of those fathers that are, an even smaller percentage persue custody.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:42 AM
–

Why having sufficient access to the emotional resources of the father isn't also an absolute right of the child is beyond me. How do you propose you would compel a parent (mother or father) to be emotionally available to the child?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:19 AM
–

So 30% of fathers that wanted some level of custody received none. Those odds arent going to help anyone sleep at night that has kids. Is it possible that some those 30% of fathers had some extenuating circumstances which made them unfit to receive custody (mental illness, drug/alchol abuse, domestic violence)? It would be interesting to see this study run, with the reasons why parents were denied custody enumerated.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 11:06 PM
–

There is pretty much no way to make this equal without violating the bodily integrity of the woman.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:47 PM
4

Okay, so since some MRAs told this woman she should be raped, it'd be ridiculous for you to complain about being insulted by some feminists, right? Your logic goes both ways. Again, two wrongs are very clearly not a right.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:36 PM
1

Do you believe mens rights exists to keep women down? Do you believe an evil patriarchy conspires to keep women down? That is a conspiracy theory nutjob. Tinfoil hat nutjob theory. No, I don't believe there is a shadowy organization of men secretly conspiring to keep women down. Because that would be insane. It is equally insane to believe that feminism is a monolithic, secret organization insidiously conspiring to turn men into 2nd class citizens.' A conspiracy theory is much different than the…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:33 PM
-2

Feminism is a group of organizations with connecting sponsors, the ideology is discussed along with goals. Stick any word onto that you like retard. But it is proudly an agenda, out in the open. None of that is bad - feminism is bad. Like you it attacks people who are doing nothing wrong. By this definition, any organization can be called a conspiracy. The Big Oil conspiracy! The Red Cross conspiracy! To answer your question, no, I do not believe in conspiracy theories because I'm not a nutjob. …
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:05 PM
0

Nice dodge of my question. Do you believe there is a worldwide feminist conspiracy? Keep in mind, feminism can exist without there being a worldwide gynocratic conspiracy.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:54 PM
–

Do you agree that was a terrible thing to say to another person? Why would you want to do that same thing to someone else?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:44 PM
3

tinfoil hat crazy person. Do you believe in the "worldwide feminist conspiracy" promoted on the sidebar? If so, I've got some news for you...
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:36 PM
–

There have been a very high amount of posts removed in the last few days. Is r/mr moving towards the r/feminisms model? Do you think readers of this forum can still complain about being censored on other forums when this forum is actively practicing censorship as well?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:34 PM
–

You are defending telling someone you want to rape them, or telling another person you hope they get raped. Has a feminist ever wished rape upon you?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:25 PM
0

Tell me what you interpret this to mean. I am curious as to whether you are trolling, or you actually cannot read. Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. They contend that the current “exclusion” rate for forensic DNA labs — close to 25 percent — suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability of forensic DNA typing. Unfortunately, too many variables are cont…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:24 PM
0

So was this: Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. They contend that the current “exclusion” rate for forensic DNA labs — close to 25 percent — suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability of forensic DNA typing. Unfortunately, too many variables are contained in the “exclusion” rate to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Furthermore, nothing about t…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:50 AM
–

Yes, two wrongs very clearly make a right.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:45 AM
1

Well, I obviously can't vouch for all users, but the point of SRS is to post really terrible comments redditors make. If I see a post that strikes me as particularly outrageous or horrible, I'll link it and see if people agree.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:17 AM
0

Okay? Nothing about that says "25% of accusations before 1989 are false". This is what the authors of the report have said. I'm very sorry you never learned how to read.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:16 AM
0

There's a huge difference between what SRS is doing (downvoting a single terrible poster), and the typical r/mr downvote squad (linking an entire thread, downvoting everything they disagree with, and replacing the discussion with their own). SRS only effects a single post, an r/mr downvote squad ruins whatever productive discussion people were trying to have on a different subreddit. If SRS began linking entire r/mr threads, downvoting everything, and shitting on the entire discussion, I would n…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:11 PM
–

I never said it did represent all MRAs. There's this misconception that SRS is some sort of feminist propaganda machine. It isn't. I linked that post because it was horrible and morally reprehensible, not to make some larger point about men's rights.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:08 PM
1

It's a little bit like accusing my division VP of slave-trading if I don't want to go to work Monday, but do it anyway. Overstatement of the year goes to... Really, tell me how you interpret these two statements any way other than "a husband should be allowed to rape his wife if he isn't getting enough sex": i don't excuse rape, but taking some liberty in that situation isn't as bad as it's made out to be And you don't seem to understand the concept and pressures of monogamy in many cultures and…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 04:01 PM
–

Well, I really don't feel the need to "prove myself" to you (this is a problem endemic to this forum - many posters act as though they are the "grand arbiter" of who cares about men's rights). There are some legitimate men's issues in society today, and there are some things people say here that are morally repugnant. If someone says something particularly awful, it tends to be posted to SRS. Instead of complaining that a stupid post was linked on SRS, why not make fun of the stupid post as well…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 03:53 PM
-2

I never said the current rate was 25%, I said the rate before 1989 was 25%. This is false. The authors of the report you cited have said this is false. If you actually believe the editorializing of fatherforlife.org over the authors of the actual report, you are too dumb for words.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 03:47 PM
–

It was in the positives when I posted it. I also did not upvote the post or downnvote the post.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 03:45 PM
–

Are you saying you endorse the statements I've quoted to SRS, like spousal rape isn't a big deal? To clarify, I do believe there are legitimate men's rights issues in society today. However, when someone says something as terrible as "men should be allowed to take some liberty on their wives", they deserve to be mocked.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 06:19 AM
-1

Nice little hissy fit you have going on here. That quote you are boasting as "fact" isn't from the actual report. It is editorializing on the part of fathersforlife.org. The website you linked is misusing the data, according to the scientists who collected the data. You are perpetuating the misuse of this data. I'm not claiming it's 0 percent. I haven't made any claim as to the actual incidence of false rape allegations.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 06:10 AM
-1

Holy shit, you really have trouble with reading comprehension don't you? I'll break down the addendum to the study you linked step by step for you. Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. This is you. You are doing this. They contend that the current “exclusion” rate for forensic DNA labs — close to 25 percent — suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability …
/r/MensRights25/08/11 05:38 AM
-1

25% to 40% of all rape accusations being FALSE before 1989 MEANS that it is COMMON and it is NOT RARE. And I am telling you that is a false number! Did you even read the addendum to the study I quoted twice for you?
/r/MensRights25/08/11 03:15 AM
-1

You said: And believe it or not there are millions of examples of false accusations. They happen every single day. [quote misusing data] That means that, yes, there is such a thing as a false accusation and it is not "rare," it is in fact rather common. No, you cannot use this data to say that "false accusations are rather common". In fact, the quote you used literally said that it stands to reason that as much as 40% of accusations are false! Nice backpedal though.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 11:52 PM
-2

Since you evidently have problems with reading comprehension, here is what the author of the study had to say about people like you using it to claim a 25% false accusation rate: Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. They contend that the current “exclusion” rate for forensic DNA labs — close to 25 percent — suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability of…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 11:17 PM
0

And not only that, the 50% number is just how many accusations the police think are false.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:07 PM
–

When someone says "false accusation", they usually mean "the victim lied about being raped". My point still stands. The data you linked is absolutely useless in determining the percent of accusations that are false. The creators of said data have even said that there is nothing at all in this data that points to a rate of 25% of rape accusations to be false. You are misusing this data.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 04:09 PM
–

If you read the rest of the FBI program you cited, it says this: Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. They contend that the current “exclusion” rate for forensic DNA labs — close to 25 percent — suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability of forensic DNA typing. Unfortunately, too many variables are contained in the “exclusion” rate to draw any meaningf…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 04:53 PM
2

This is the internet equivalent to plugging your ears and singing.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 04:20 PM
1

My point was: girlwriteswhat is trying to discredit burnt_toasters advice by making a whole mess of assumptions. In the end, burnt_toaster is giving the OP very good advice that should not be ignored.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 09:08 PM
1

Well, tomek77 probably disagrees with your assertion that "you should not rape people", so that's why he banned you!
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:31 PM
–

I didn't say that at all. You seem to have a knack for putting words into people's mouths. If they went drink for drink (they were sharing drinks), she would be more drunk. In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread as a BAC reading of both the accused and the accuser at the time of intercourse. By claiming they were both "at equal blood alcohol levels" is jumping to conclusions. Burnt_toaster is giving the OP good advice, in that this post shows that he was clearly not drunk enough to not kno…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 06:37 PM
–

You can't deny that biologically, women get more drunk on less alcohol than men.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 06:26 PM
–

Well, yeah. Remember the Michael Jackson trial?
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:02 AM
1

We are very clearly arguing two different things. If you are unsure, make sure she is consenting should not be an objectionable statement for you.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 11:49 PM
0

Are you a virgin? How much sexual experience do you have? It seems like it might be a small number, since you don't seem to know much about the realities of sex. Maybe you just really lack self analysis and tend to believe text books over personal experience, or maybe you have a completely atypical set of sexual experiences... Yeah, saying "if you are unsure, make sure she's consenting" means I must be a virgin. I'm saying if you are unsure, make sure consent is given. If you are having trouble …
/r/MensRights19/08/11 05:51 PM
–

It is obvious from my comments, and from the comments of many on here, that we are talking about grey areas. Areas where consent is implied or granted and then withdrawn. If you are in a grey area, and are unsure if she is consenting or not, you have to err on the side of caution and make sure she consents enthusiastically The consequences of making sure you obtain consent are possibly not getting laid. The consequences of assuming "Not saying 'no' means yes" is accidentally raping someone. I th…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 05:11 PM
–

you didn't answer my question: why can't girls just say "no" and make their intentions clear? Should guys have to do the same, and should girls be charged with rape if the guy didn't say "I want you to touch my penis"? You are missing a major point realbarackobama is trying to make. Consent isn't about getting someone to not say no, it's about someone saying yes enthusiastically. "She never said no, so it isn't rape" is a pretty terrible standard.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 08:20 AM
2

I think Louis CK says it best [a little long, but it's worth it]
/r/MensRights17/08/11 11:31 PM
2

(by the way, your RES tag says: "relies on science when wading into the false rape controversy") Haha, if that's how I'm known in the community, I can be proud of that!
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:16 PM
–

Don't worry, the only requirement of being banned from r/malestudies is disagree with tomek77 ever. I think half this subreddit is already banned as well.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 11:08 AM
–

This is such a comically ridiculous thing to be calling for a boycott over. If you want a rose too, I'm sure they'll give you one if you ask.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 12:06 AM
-2

I love that you're being downvoted now, literally proving your point that all dissent is downvoted to oblivion here.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 06:10 PM
1

Well, seeing as you are constantly ridiculed on this very forum.... yeah, it's totally me who is the crazy person.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:57 PM
–

Umm, no, they do not just pull a number out of the air. They base child support payments on how much the individual was making. This can be readjusted if the payer undergoes changes in their annual wage. What you should be asking is why he never asked the judge to adjust his rate over the two years he didn't pay a dime in support. Also, refusal to provide employment documents is sketchy at best. What reason would he have to keep his business dealings a secret, unless there is something he wanted…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 07:35 AM
–

the accumulation of a debt that accrues steadily at more than $17,000 per month. It's $17,000 a month, he just hasn't made a payment in over two years.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:49 AM
–

Yeah, it may be obvious that he has taken a pay cut, but how will the judge know where to set the bar for child support if he refuses to provide details of his employment contracts? They can't just pull a number out of thin air. Refusal to provide his employment details is a little suspect.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:47 AM
-2

He misspelled "bourbon" as well
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:38 AM
1

*You're
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:07 AM
–

I'm not trying to fool anyone. These are things you have actually said.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 10:49 PM
–

Okay, I'll bite. How is this a men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights15/08/11 07:59 PM
1

Well, yeah, but nothing in the source says anything about "lesbian activists groups".
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:17 PM
–

LOL, please. You've already noted your hatred of "academics" and their troublesome facts, so I doubt you've read a methodology in your life. Go back to taking the Daily Mail as fact.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:08 PM
–

So, any study that does not fall neatly into your worldview must be tainted by "lesbian activists" or "feminist junk science"? Interesting. EDIT: I mean, if you actually read the study and found faults with it, that would be one thing. But you literally took one look at it, thought "I disagree with the conclusion, so it must be pseudo-science", and rejected it outright. Not a very scientific approach to this serious issue.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:13 AM
–

Now that every measurable form of equality has been achieve Discrimination based on race, sex, orientation, class, or religion: A solved issue.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 11:15 PM
–

"creep", "creeper" and "weirdo" How are these words in any way gendered? I think women can be creeps and weirdos as well.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 10:53 PM
3

In the Encyclopedia of Violence, DiCanio states that the agreed upon range of false allegations lies between 2-8%. This is just a review of the most recent research on false allegations. I make no claims that the rate is 2%, as AntiFeministMedia would have you believe. Most studes (British Home office (3%), Lisak (5.9%), FBI (8%), Victoria Police (2.1%), Thomsen (1.5%)) fall between the range of 2-8% Here is a link to the Victoria Police study which found 2.1%
/r/MensRights13/08/11 08:49 PM
1

Okay, so you are arguing that the range of false accusations should be 8-10, and not 2-8? I say 2-8 because most studies fall within that range: The studies by the FBI, Home Office, Victoria Police, Lisak, State of Oregon. Literature reviews, such as DiCanio's in The encyclopedia of violence also state a range of 2-8% to be the general consensus. I have really no interest in nitpicking 2-8 vs 2-10. It's a matter of 2%.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 02:11 AM
1

By who, you? Because you've spent this whole time trying to connect Stern saying 8-10% to somehow mean false accusations happen more than real rapes, which is so insane and illogical it's ridiculous. I say 2-8% because that is the frame where the majority of studies lie. It could be 2, it could be 8, it could be in the middle. But it is certainly not 50, 60 or 90%. I have never said false accusations are not a problem. I am only arguing that most rape accusations are not false allegations, which…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 02:04 AM
–

I literally have spent the last hour explaining why Kanin and McDowell are not credible studies. I have not relied on anecdotal evidence. You even admitted the Stern Report suggests the rate to be around 8-10%. Yet you still believe that false rapes happen more than real rapes. It's obvious you just can't be reached by logic and reason.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 01:49 AM
3

I think you are misinterpreting what the study is saying. Only 7.4% of all complaints are false accusations, false accusations being defined as a point where there is clear proof or confession. It is not saying that, of those "false accusations", only 7.4% are prosecuted.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 01:43 AM
–

LOL, yeah, I'm not really going to try to explain why you can't include outliers like Kanin and McDowell, because your grasp on the scientific method seems rather tenuous. The agreed upon rate based on the vast majority of research is 2-8%.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 01:39 AM
–

What are you talking about? I literally have been claiming this entire time that studies show that 2-8% of accusations are false. Not anecdotal evidence. Studies done by the British Home Office, Victoria Police, FBI, The State of Oregon, and Dr. David Lisak are not "anecdotal evidence".
/r/MensRights13/08/11 01:30 AM
1

Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports. This is what she says. I never said false allegations never happen. I simply claimed they certainly do not happen more often than, or anywhere close to as often as, actual rapes, as Demonspawn suggested. I think you have lost sight of what we were debating about to begin with.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 01:13 AM
2

Well, yes, I would prefer not to rely on the opinions of lawyers and prosecutors when it comes to the rate of false accusations. Thankfully, there have been many studies into this phenomena, which places the false accusations rate at around 2-8%. The Stern Report does not help prove AntiFeministMedia's persistent claim that false allegations happen as often, or more often, than actual rapes. The actual prosecution rate for these cases are very low for an obvious reason: Not every rape allegation…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 12:58 AM
1

Well, I am also interested in chatting about cats. What kind are your favorite? I've always been partial to Siamese, but really any kind of cat will do.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:51 PM
-3

How common are false allegations? It is not possible to establish an exact figure and the research that is available gives a wide range of suggested percentages. Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports. 33 However, those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few.A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer told us, ‘They are extremely rare. I have been prosecuting for 20 years, and have prosecuted for a false allegatio…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:42 PM
0

Well, until we get rid of the entire welfare system, you don't really have that option. Right now, this program is actually going to save you money! The cost of birth control is a lot less than the cost of prenatal care and the cost of an unwanted child.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:02 PM
1

No, racism is correlated with reality, same with sexism. Saving this for posterity. Racist and a sexist? You're a regular national treasure.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 10:36 PM
–

You realize that the opinion of one police officer isn't really the best way to form your opinions on false rape accusations, right? If anything, this is evidence of the bias against rape victims in the system which prevents assault victims (both male and female!) from getting help.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 10:14 PM
–

See, but that's because I can read. And I mean really read think and comprehend, rather than just regurgitate points disproven in the post to which I am replying. Talk about regurgitating points. He posted literally that same 500 word copypasta at me a week ago, I carefully debunked every single point he made, and he just insulted me and disappeared. Sorry, you are relying entirely on your bias, and you are misusing and abusing research. And for a guy who thinks women should literally be subserv…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 10:03 PM
–

Can you answer my very obvious question: why are you ignoring the vast majority of research on the subject of false rape claims? I'll wait. Could it possibly be that you are exercising confirmation bias, and you have blinders on to only accept information that goes with your world view that false rapes are more common than real rapes? Since you have literally argued in the past that suffrage wasn't worth it, my money's on this. Talk about leading horses to water. I just gave you 4 studies, and a…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 09:46 PM
1

Yeah, but keep in mind these are rape victims. Being confronted with distrust from authorities after such an ordeal shows bias in the district's PD, and can certainly lead to a number of false positives. A good study would control for confounding variables like this.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 09:26 PM
–

Buddy, I had this same argument with you last week. You essentially ended it by insulting me, and you never explained why you are ignoring the vast amount of scientific research. Can you explain that now, without a 500 word blob of copypasta? Rife with anectodotes (Who cares if a police officer thinks 90% of rapes are false? That isn't science). In fact, you are citing the same stuff I debunked in our last discussion. Unless you want to bring something new to the table, I'm not going to wade thr…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 09:11 PM
–

Yeah, I don't really have a copy of the Stern Review on Rape in front of me to leaf through, so that really doesn't help me at all. Do you have a link to the review, or that page of the review or anything? Keep in mind, you are the only person who references this figure from the Stern Review. No other blog online has done this, so I think my suspicions are justified. EDIT: I bolded it because she is very clearly stating that she does not know the exact rate for false accusations. That does not s…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:42 PM
–

Can you link to this figure? I have been trying to find it, and the only mention of this comes from what I assume is your personal blog. In fact, every mention of the Stern Review in terms of false allegations says something like this: Yet the Stern report on rape complaints, commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission under Harriet Harman and published earlier this year, made it clear that it is not known whether there are more false allegations of rape than for other offences and …
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:30 PM
1

Okay, so those people who can't afford to pay for birth control: Would you rather pay for their cheap BC pills, or pay for their unwanted children through the welfare system? Talk about a "fail to understand economics".
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:24 PM
–

So, answer me this: Why ignore the vast majority of research which indicates that the rate is somewhere between 2-8%? Why rely on ONE STUDY, with questionable methodology? You can't ignore all studies on a subject in favor of one. That is not how science works. You have to take the sum of all the research on a given subject to find the real truth. EDIT: Keep in mind, Kanin relied on the opinion of the police officers on whether or not a report is false. Also, the district he surveyed used lie de…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:13 PM
–

Holy shit, I'm not getting into this with you because you are impervious to any logic that isn't "All women are bad and mean!!". However, the Stern Review only concluded "We cannot be sure how many accusations are false". Which isn't very useful in the discussion we are trying to have. You can't take "We aren't sure what the percentage is" to mean "It's gotta be over half!" That isn't how science works. EDIT: By the way, do you have a citation for that figure? The only mention of Baroness Stern …
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:05 PM
–

Best internet meltdown of the year thus far. http://i.imgur.com/uOezH.gif
/r/MensRights12/08/11 07:59 PM
–

The Kanin and McDowell studies clearly have methodological flaws (See page 1324 here). It's also important to note that no one has actually been able to locate the McDowell study to read the methodology, and the only information on the McDowell study we have was mentioned in a 1985 citation in a different paper. The vast majority of research has the rate of false accusations at around 2-8%. The wiki article on false allegations is a good starting point. Notice how the FBI, British Home Office, V…
/r/MensRights12/08/11 07:56 PM
-1

If what you read in the history books is somehow "bunk" placed there by liberal feminist boogey-men, what makes you so sure you have "seen the light" and know the true nature of feminism? How are your resources somehow more reputable than history books?
/r/MensRights12/08/11 05:20 PM
–

Please explain how being an "ephebophile" is somehow morally superior to being a pedophile. You are still nursing a paraphilla which you will never be able to legally satisfy.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 09:49 PM
–

No one said this guy should be thrown in prison for "thought crimes". However, It is undeniably creepy to look at a 14 year old, dressed in normal summer attire, and claim she is "fair game".
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:14 PM
–

I disagree with the assertion that there is nothing wrong with laughing at a woman being beaten. I also think there is something wrong with laughing at videos of Holocaust death camps and videos of people being raped.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 12:30 AM
1

But why do they chose these lower paying jobs? It's ignoring the big picture. Women are in lower paying jobs because societal forces dictate that women should work less then men, do house work, take care of children, etc. Look at it this way: Black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than white people. By your logic, the reason is, "Oh, black people just choose to commit more crimes!" But that's ignoring the big picture. Black people are incarcerated more because of societal forces keeping …
/r/MensRights11/08/11 12:27 AM
–

Black humor isn't just "laughing at anything terrible". This is a common misconception. Black humor is a narrowly tailored form of satire in which grotesque or morbid humor is used to depict the absurdity of the modern world. It's basically exaggerated, extreme satire. Laughing at a Black comedic work, such as Doctor Strangelove, is a lot different than queuing up videos of innocent women being beating and laughing your ass off.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 12:22 AM
–

This isn't an example of Black humor. If you really don't see the difference between Doctor Strangelove and and a video of a woman being beaten violently, I can't help you.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 12:11 AM
–

How is a woman being beaten funny in any way, shape, or form? Finding such a horrific thing to be hilarious is indicative of a lack of empathy and maturity, not presence of a sense of humor.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 11:59 PM
22

How does this make it funny? Watching women get beaten isn't funny at all, staged or not. And ALMOST all? Do you find the ones that aren't staged hilarious as well?
/r/MensRights10/08/11 10:22 PM
–

Yeah, because if you don't find a .gif of a woman getting th shit beat out of her hilarious, you have no sense of humor. :rolleyes:
/r/MensRights10/08/11 05:43 PM
-1

And then someone is being harassed in a way not named in the handbook, and they are afraid to go to the administration. They aren't actually going to expel a kid for scratching his groin, let's be a little realistic here. They're leaving the definition of harassment so open-ended so that high school aged children will not be afraid to report harassment.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 04:34 PM
5

Show me where there is a sentencing disparity here. You cannot just post something and say "There will probably maybe be a sentencing disparity, so it's a men's rights issue". And no one thinks that women are incapable of doing anything wrong. Absolutely no one. I have yet to see a single person on r/mr, reddit, or even IRL claim that women are incapable of doing bad things.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 04:26 PM
–

But that isn't the case here. The woman was caught, is being charged with statutory rape, and there is no evidence she got off easy. How is this a men's rights issue at all?
/r/MensRights10/08/11 01:49 AM
–

Literally no one has said that, however.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 01:46 AM
–

But the thing is, it's not a criminal code. It's a passage from a school handbook, not a state's book of laws. It'd be impossible, and impractical, for them to write down every single action that can be considered harassment. It's basically just saying, "If you feel harassed, report it to us, then we'll try to resolve the issue as best we can".
/r/MensRights10/08/11 01:38 AM
10

Well, with a lot of digging, I was able to find the case. It's People v. John Z. Here's the reasoning of the court as to why the accused is guilty of rape (D is the accused): In this case, victim initially consented but then withdrew her consent and, through her actions and words, communicated that fact to D. Nothing in the language of the statute suggests that the D is entitled to persist in intercourse once the victim has withdrawn consent. D continued the sex for at least 4 or 5 minutes after…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 11:30 PM
–

It wasn't that simple. She asked him to stop and resisted multiple times, and he kept saying no: In the case out of El Dorado County, a 17-year-old girl initially consented to have sex with a 17-year-old boy at a party. After intercourse had begun, she resisted and told the boy that she had to go home. He repeatedly asked her to give me some time,'' but she kept saying,No, I have to go home.'' He did not stop until several minutes later. He was found guilty of rape and sentenced to spend time at…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 10:30 PM
1

Seeing as you've been soundly mocked and downvoted in this topic, you don't really have a leg to stand on. Sorry, maybe r/misogyny would take more kindly to your constant crying about how mean all the big bad women are to you?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 09:56 PM
1

You don't really seem to know much, especially when it comes to apostrophes, and how to spell, aren't. Oh, look at me, being an academic again. Sorry, I know how much facts offend you personally.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:51 PM
1

I can read you like a book I don't know, judging by the constant stream of spelling and grammar mistakes you make, I highly doubt you are capable of reading a book.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:37 PM
1

I'm not shaming men, I'm shaming only you. It's interesting how you construe any attack on you personally as an attack on all men, when in fact, most men disagree vehemently with you. With all your talk about the "female android revolution", and your blind hatred of women, I was simply assuming realdoll collecting would be right up your alley.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:27 PM
2

I don't have to be a woman to think you're views are absolutely abhorrent. In fact, the only explanation I can think of for your complete disdain for 3.5 billion people is that you've never been able to get up the courage to talk to a real woman. Have fun with your realdoll collection, I suppose?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:07 PM
3

By "treat me like a woman", you mean awkwardly stare at your shoes when confronted by me, mumble and avoid eye contact, then come home and complain about me on the internet?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 12:56 AM
–

Not accusing you of this specifically, but you realize many, many MRAs on this subreddit blame "matriarchy", "women", and "misandry" for all the problems men face in society today. Do you believe this is any more accurate?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:47 PM
–

I'm just curious, when did That's Life Magazine become a peer-reviewed journal?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:38 PM
1

I think this has happened so few times in the course of human history that it is foolish to worry about it. If you get a vasectomy and freeze your sperm, you are most likely not going to have a kid unless you want one.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:36 PM
–

I thought I'd try and keep things civil with you, but your attitude is the problem, especially your attitude when another woman comes in like CoonTown. Now its all sisterhood. I dunno, I'm pretty sure I'm a man, but I guess if I'm still posting after the "female android revolution" you're waiting for, you'll finally be convinced!
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:20 PM
2

You know, by baselessly crying misandry, you are know better than the feminists who baselessly call people misogynists, right?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:19 PM
–

Before you waste your time on that guy, you might want to read his post history. He's an admitted misogynist, he believes men are better than all women, and he's literally waiting for the day female androids are invented so all women can be "phased out". You're not gonna make any headway with that kind of insanity.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:42 AM
3

Gender stereotypes: A solved issue.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:40 AM
0

Uhhh, I think we can all agree that beating the shit out of someone because they disagree with you is wrong, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 08:24 PM
–

I think that domestic abuse is a serious problem, whether the victims are male or female.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:23 PM
–

I'm pretty much in agreement with your first point. But I am confused about what you mean by getting education down in cost. If you're talking about cost to students, that almost always means offloading that cost onto government. Not entirely. This chart shows that college costs have skyrocketed over 300% percent more than the Consumer Price Index. Essentially, the reason for this is that the federal government backs student loans, so it is in the best interest of any educational institution to …
/r/MensRights05/08/11 06:37 PM
–

That doesn't mean it's not important. That's like saying AIDS research isn't really a big deal because it only effects >1% of the US population.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 06:28 PM
–

The whole thing, being "violence against women", is exclusionary and can easily lead one to believe that A) it's a big deal Can you please explain how violence against women is "not a big deal"? Violence against men is a big deal as well, but are you honestly claiming violence against women is "no biggie"?
/r/MensRights05/08/11 06:14 PM
3

And people who disagree with you ever.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 06:08 PM
1

Okay, if you really are interesting in the subject here is a good breakdown of the different aspects of baby talk which help children learn languange. This [PDF warning] is also an interesting resource on how "baby talk" (referred to here as 'motherese') helps introduce a child to concepts. Also, here is some info on how "baby talk" changes over time to accommodate the child's development.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 05:31 PM
1

Is he? My mistake, I found his post very difficult to parse for some reason. Obviously you shouldn't talk to a child in "baby talk" all the time. But you shouldn't talk to it like a little adult all the time either. Demonspawn was claiming that "Baby talk" serves no purpose, and was actually damaging to the child. My point is that baby talk serves a real purpose in cognitive development.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 05:22 PM
–

I'm unaware of any special, extra financial resources available to men who want to train as nurses. Are there? I would expect a male-aimed scholarship or grant program would still be considered sexist by most. So I'd actually guess that again, it costs the system less to train that male nurse, and the system will then get more out of him after he enters the workforce. Yes, at least in the US, there are actually a lot of grant programs helping men get into female-dominated fields such as nursing.…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 05:20 PM
–

Yes, I fully understand that women are choosing to raise children and do housework and all that jazz. However, you cannot deny that there is societal pressure on women to choose to raise children, stay at home, work less, spend more time with the children, etc. There are also societal pressures on men to work harder, work longer hours, keep stress bottled up, etc. (which may be one of the reasons for the life expectancy differential). Yes, genetics and biology play a certain role, but it is up f…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:46 AM
–

Did you read any of the actual studies I linked? Honestly, this is not a debatable issue in cognitive science. It's well accepted and well-documented that baby talk plays a very useful role in brain development and language acquisition. I linked you a total of 7 sources, 5 from peer-reviewed journals, 2 from media outlets, and 1 from a linguistic organization. I'm really at a loss as to what other proof you would need. If you are honestly interested in the subject, see if your library has Cognit…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:28 AM
–

Okay, and if I said, "Men aren't pre-disposed to caring for kids, so children shouldn't even be allowed to see their father in divorce cases. He just won't know how to deal with them! He doesn't have the ~motherly instinct~", you would most likely turn beet-red and start calling name-calling. You can't have it both ways. You can't fight against male stereotypes, but then explain away female gender roles as "biology".
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:23 AM
0

To claim that women are "forced" or "coerced" into taking care of kids against their true desires is incredibly insulting to women. That would mean that women are so weak that they have no agency, their free will is so limited that it is influenced by something as weak as "societal pressure." Clearly not what I am saying. There is a societal pressure on women to be home makers, and to ignore that is extremely foolish. You are ignoring the big picture of why women make the decisions they do. Wome…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:21 AM
0

The genders are different. Gender roles are harmful when they're forced on you. But if you give every kid dolls and trucks, and raise them the same, the girls are still going to be more likely to play with the dolls. These gender roles are still forced onto people today. Men who play with dolls, or have characteristics which are coded as "feminine" are going to be called "sissies", "faggots", and told to "man up". Women are still expected to be primary caregivers and housekeepers. Yes, there are…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 02:03 AM
–

The real point is that bad statistics like this are used as a justification for more government intervention. eg minimum female representation in certain layers of management etc, which are only going to be harmful if the candidate pool of women is smaller and less experienced (because of choices women tend to make). I recognize what you are saying, but is there a better method out there to reverse the gender stereotype of "Women must stay home with children, work part-time, etc"? If women are g…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 01:12 AM
–

What? How am I am being misogynistic? You are claiming women should stay home with the children because they are biologically capable of having kids. If someone said, "In custody cases, men should never get custody because they are biologically not capable of raising children" you'd pitch a fit.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 01:04 AM
–

Wait, you are really saying women have children, therefore, only women should be allowed to stay home with children. That's a very non-MRA view to hold. I think "freedom to be a stay-at-home dad" is pretty high up on the MRM's list of goals. Did you form your opinion after reading an evo-psych textbook by any chance?
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:35 AM
–

What's the fucking point of even having children if you're going to work 50 hours a week while the paid help spends most of the day with your kids, most of the time interacting with them, and will have most of the influence on what kind of people they become? You're missing his point. He's wondering why it always has to be the woman who works less, does housework, stays home with the kids, etc.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 10:27 PM
–

Women choose to work part-time? Women choose to stop work to have kids? That's their own damn choice. Have you ever stopped to think as to why women make more choices like this? Could it possibly be because traditional gender roles and societal pressure dictates that women should stay home with children, work less, spend time at home, etc. I thought the MRM was about getting rid of gender roles, not finding sneaky ways to enforce them? Keep in mind, these same gender roles hurt men who want to s…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 10:24 PM
20

Barack Obama: Secret Muslim, Secret Socialist, and now Secret Female!
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:52 PM
11

Not that you have, just making a broad statement so that everyone supporting your measure understands they are actively participating in censorship as well.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:50 PM
25

I think if you are honestly trying to keep a guy from becoming a mod of a forum you don't even post in, you lose all right to complain about censorship in r/feminisms without being a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:47 PM
–

Okay, do you see all the references I have given you above? The importance of "baby talk" is confirmed by countless studies, peer-reviewed journals and media outlets.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:23 PM
6

I'm aware it's not due to the "gibberish aspect", but baby talk does serve a very useful purpose in the fact that it eases infants into adult language. As sources in my reply to Demonspawn explain, "Studies show that the 'baby talk' that adults naturally use with infants and toddlers tends to always be just a bit ahead of the level of the child's own language development, as though pulling the child along. This 'baby talk' has simpler vocabulary and sentence structure than adult language, exagge…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:21 PM
–

I don't recall making an argument. I'm poking fun at the childish, immature language prevalent on the website in question.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:18 PM
–

Do you really not see all the citations? This is a very common belief in cognitive science, it is not even a controversial issue anymore. Various sources confirming: Phonetic and prosodic aspects of Baby Talk. Input and interaction in language acquisition. INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION The speech of two- and three-year-olds to infant siblings: ‘baby talk’ and the context of communication Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implicati…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:17 PM
–

Yes, it actually does. Baby talk teaches children early forms of grammar and helps them acquire language skills.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:53 PM
–

Actually, "baby talk" (high pitched voice, slow delivery, enunciation of key sounds) plays a crucial role in early language acquisition and brain development.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:48 PM
1

No, you.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:59 PM
–

Pfft, don't be such a mangina beta! /s
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:52 PM
–

That makes no sense.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:46 PM
1

Yeah, not getting into a circ debate sorry. You very obviously have an entrenched opinion which will never change, so I stand to gain nothing.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:45 PM
3

Okay, so you are relying on 2 studies, and ignoring the bulk of scientific evidence to support your bias. I never said false allegations were not a problem, it's just wrong to assert that the majority of rapes are false claims. False claims are a problem, but they do not happen as often as you are claiming. So, I'm curious, why do you reject the vast majority of scientific research in this field? Also, why have you not responded to the obvious criticisms of the Kanin study? You should change you…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:43 PM
1

I dunno, I think the situation for straight, white males in America is really not comparable at all to the plight of blacks in Apartheid South Africa. White males aren't literally second class citizens. Even so, if that black man hated all white people, I would recommend that he gets help to manage his hate and anger. Same goes for this guy. He's basing his view of the entire female population on a few choice interactions with "man-hating feminists". Praising him and encouraging his hate is dang…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:12 AM
1

Nope, I told you I am not engaging you in a circumcision debate. You continuously tried to drag me into this debate anyway, but sorry, not having it. Yes, purposefully (or unintentionally? Maybe you just have a really scrambled brain?) misinterpreting my argument, and continuously trying to reframe a discussion on downvoting to a discussion on circumcision isn't fair and honest. Be as snippy and snarky as you want, but I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss circumcision with you.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:58 AM
1

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that hating all women is completely illogical. He can be angry at the individual women who were mean to him all he wants, but generalizing that to all women is extremely ignorant. Would you say it is right for someone to hate all blacks because he was mistreated by a few?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:51 AM
1

Yeah, not reviving this day old argument, sorry. Already said I'm not getting into a circumcision debate on the internet (Truly a fool's errand). As usual, you are confusing "absolute fact" with your opinion. You've made it apparent you will never understand what I'm saying, and are going to continue misrepresenting my argument (HINT: Saying I'm presenting something as absolute fact IS misrepresenting my argument). Sorry, I can't debate someone who has no interest in remaining fair and honest.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:49 AM
-1

Hahaha, no he should be fixed because he has an irrational hatred of women. Not something that should be idealized. I kinda expected this from the guy who linked to stormfront, and regularly argues that feminists are literally nazis, though. EDIT: I love the "we're done here" at the beginning. It's like my assertion that we shouldn't celebrate misogyny was too outlandish for you to process.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:07 AM
-1

I don't accept that as a valid excuse for hating all women. This guy really does need help and support from a reliable therapist who can help him work through his irrational anger and hate. He doesn't need a pity-party telling him it's okay to hate all women. The fact that you are justifying blanket hate like this is pretty disgusting, actually. The MRM could use a culling of misogynists and extremists like this guy. Hatred like this should not be endorsed by a so-called "egalitarian" movement.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:57 AM
-1

Wow, I've never seen the point sail farther over someone's head. The cause of his hatred is not the actions of all women, it's the actions of a few women. He is making the mental leap of "A few women were mean to me" to "All women are mean". Clearly, the guy can't just "get over it" by himself. He has a deeply entrenched misogyny. He needs therapy. What you are advocating, which is essentially celebrating this man's irrational hatred as somehow "profound" is very harmful. We can talk about inequ…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:43 AM
-1

I never said any of those things. I was explaining how becoming a misogynist is not a normal response in society today. This guy cannot justify his hatred through societal pressure. He has to own his hate, recognize it is illogical, and get rid of it. Sexism is a big problem, and there are many legitimate men's and women's issues in society today. The existence of these issues, however, does not mean it is okay to start hating all women or men. I think that celebrating stories like this is only …
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:36 AM
-1

Uhg. This is not about the actions of a "few bad women". This is not a story about a man who grew up in a society which respected and empathized with men, but suddenly decided to start hating women because he had a couple bad experiences. He is not making 'excuses' for his misogyny, he is explaining how he came to feel that way. It is a critique of man-bashing, not an excuse for misogyny. How do you not get this? Okay, by your logic this man is a misogynist because of some vast, man-hating cultu…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:21 AM
–

I'm not saying don't listen to his feelings. But by telling him his hate is right and justified, you are enabling him to continue hating. Hate should not be glorified and celebrated. He is using the actions of a few bad women as an excuse to hate all women. This is just as wrong as the guys at Stormfront using a few bad African-Americans as an excuse to hate all blacks. The vast majority of women are not terrible. This man should recognize that, and not be praised for his blind hatred of a huge …
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:00 AM
–

Yea these people clearly have no bias at all do they? Can you possible cite a US study that isnt commissioned by people that specialize in "violence against women". Yes. You glossed over it, but Dr. David Lisak, founder of the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity concluded the rate to be around 5.9%. He also wrote an excellent criticism of Kanin, on page 1324 here. You really should read and respond to these criticisms before we continue. Also, the British Home Office and the police for…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 12:56 AM
–

You're grasping for straws. Everyone who disagrees with you is not a troll, and I think you have to be off your rocker to claim, "I don't think people should hate others due to race, sex, orientation, or creed" is trolling. You're basically saying "I can't intelligently respond to your points, so here are some ad homs". Keep hating if you want, I really don't care, but hate doesn't do anyone any good. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only l…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 12:26 AM
–

Yes, clearly me saying "Don't hate people" makes me a racist. Get a fucking clue. No surprise that you browse stormfront though. Explains a lot.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 12:09 AM
–

This title is misleading. They were having trouble finding men who had never purchased sex, which includes pornography. It's not like they couldn't find a man that had never hired another human for sex.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 11:54 PM
–

I never accused him of violence? I don't think hating any large, heterogeneous group (men, women, blacks, homosexuals, etc.) is right, no matter how much you think they "made you hate them". Racism and sexism is never justified in my mind. Honestly, thinking of this as a "gender war" isn't very mature. It's not a zero sum game. Men and women shouldn't be fighting to take away each other's rights, that isn't how equality works.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 11:41 PM
–

Okay, so you're cherry picking studies to support your view? That's not how science works. Study after study has found the rate to be much, much lower than 40%. Studies: British home office found the rate to be 8%, later revised to 3% Police in Victoria, Australia found the rate to be ~2% Dr. David Lisak (Founder of the journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity) found the false accusation rate at Northwestern University to be 5.9% In a literature review, Margaret DiCanio wrote, "while researcher…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 11:37 PM
–

There are competing studies. There are some methodological problems with the Kanin study, and many other studies place the false report instance at around 2-8%. The wiki page on "False Rape Reporting" is a good clearinghouse for relevant studies. The only thing we can be certain on when it comes to false allegations is that we cannot be sure how often they occur. But research seems to suggest most rape accusations are not false.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 10:12 PM
–

The pro-choice thing stems from the writer thinking that false rape accusations have a good reason behind them, like not being able to get an abortion. I didn't get that from the article at all. She's not saying all false accusations are justified. She's responding to the claim made by the nutjob in the youtube video, who was saying that in the Roe case, Roe made a false rape accusation. It seems pretty reasonable to think that, if abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or incest, women wil…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 09:26 PM
–

How is this an example of white-knighting? I think most MRA's are pro-choice, which is what this article seems to be advocating.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 09:12 PM
0

These are two separate discussions. Crime prevention techniques and alcohol safety techniques should be taught in schools if they are not already. This is how you help prevent violent crimes without victim blaming. Telling a victim of a violent crime, "Too bad, you shoulda done X Y and Z" isn't helpful. You aren't preventing future rapes, murders, or shootings. You are instead placing blame from the perpetrator of the crime on to the victim.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 06:31 PM
-1

When you hear about someone being raped, why does "personal responsibility" even enter the equation for you? Do you feel the same way about prison rapes? ("If he didn't want to be raped, he shouldn't have gone to prison!") What about other violent crimes? It is not your place to tell victims what they should have done to prevent their rapes. And the huge problem is that rape, unlike other violent crimes, is framed as "preventable". There is always something a victim could have done to prevent th…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:41 PM
0

Women do not see themselves as a potential rapist in our society because of our views on rape. In fact, many people don't even believe it is rape if a woman is having sex with a man against his will. Some people don't even think it is possible for a man to not give consent, if he has an erection that is consent in some people's minds. Imagine if the same argument was used against women, if she was wet then it was consent. That is disgusting. Yes, I agree that the gendering of rapists and rape vi…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:38 PM
0

but I hear that a lot with other crimes, too, most notably online fraud and phishing scams. Let's try to keep our analogies within the realm of violent crimes. I think we can agree getting raped is in a whole different ballpark then falling for a Nigerian Prince scam. I get the vague feeling that we are both arguing separate issues at the same time. Can you just answer a few questions so I can clarify your argument? Do you agree that blaming and shaming of rape victims is a serious problem in so…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:30 PM
–

I dunno, I think this kind of reads like a "Why did you make me hit you?" or "I wasn't racist till I started talking to blacks" argument. Saying a large, heterogeneous group somehow made you hate them doesn't justify the hate to begin with. I understand people can become misogynists because of the actions of a few women, but that is hardly an excuse. The worst part is, it seems like he understands that it's completely illogical to become a misogynist, but he's just going to continue to hate. It'…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:48 PM
-1

There is a distinct difference between dealing with your own personal trauma, and the prevailing attitudes of a society towards sexual assault. If you were able to come to terms with your own assault that way, wonderful, that's a great thing. However, it's problematic when the prevailing attitudes of society are that victims somehow bring rape upon themselves. Look at any rape thread. Why should "personal responsibility" even come into the discussion? Why does assigning blame have such an import…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:35 PM
0

Hmm, well I was possibly prejudiced by Fox's previous coverage of the matter. Earlier in the day, they had a representative of a conservative think tank on who compared the program to "paying for manicures and pedicures" and stated that it supported immorality.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:29 PM
0

I didn't picture a male rapist at all. In fact, I didn't picture any rapist. I read the list, and saw it as saying that "rapists cause rapes, not victims". I think if you showed this to most people, without any prior cognitive priming, they would agree that it is not an attack on a specific gender. I agree that many people think of rapists as being male, and that is a legitimate problem in our society. People should be taught that rapists come in all shapes, sizes, orientations and genders. Howe…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:58 AM
-2

I must has misinterpreted this portion of your post: There are sick individuals that will rape a woman if she's scantily dressed and drunk. They see her as "easy prey." It doesn't make up most sexual assaults, but they do happen. People don't start doorwalks, where they state that they should be able to leave their car doors unlocked in bad neighborhoods without fear of having it stolen. It seemed like you were saying that victims should have some sort of personal responsibility when they are ra…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:17 AM
1

BUT blaming men because women who make themselves vulnerable to attack by those who would end up getting attacked is backwards. Like the flier. I disagree that this flyer is blaming all men. I'll reiterate that I do not believe all men are rapists, or that all men should be blamed for the actions of male rapists. However, I see this sign as shaming rapists, regardless of gender, which I have no problem with. So now the flier is there so bystanders who might have an opinion one way or the other h…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:14 AM
-1

Women can rape other women. The passage you are referring to does not say, "Men, don't assault women in elevators", but rather "If you see someone alone in an elevator, don't assault them!". This could apply equally to all genders. I don't think it's fair to call this a "sexist attack on all men" when there is no obvious gender listed.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:02 AM
-2

Yes, there are preventative measures that can be taken to minimize the chance of rape. However, most rapes don't occur because a woman is walking down a dark alley, or she is dressed in a revealing outfit. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. It is inhuman to expect someone to never be in a risky situation in their entire life. If something terrible happens to them (rape, murder, or even mugging), they should not be assigned any blame. The rapist, murderer or mugger gets 100% of…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:59 AM
-1

What is it when you are saying, "Haven't been raped? Cool! Well, here's some very simple, non-restrictive, common sense methods to maximize your chances of staying that way"? It is fine to say, "Take preventative measures so you are not in dangerous situations". This is very different from telling rape victims what they should have done, and assigning blame. The best way to feel safe, even after you've been stripped to your bare ass under a swing set and groped by two Neanderthals, is to know th…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:53 AM
4

Still a difference. And, if you couple birth control covered by this measure with the male condom (which can be found for free in a variety of places), the failure rate is virtually nil.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:41 AM
0

If I may ask, if you had to guess, what gender, if one had to be assigned, do you think the flier is aimed at? Either gender. I wouldn't assume it is aimed at either gender, because it is not something that is stated in the flier. Some things on the list can be addressing both genders, sure. However, there are a few that are gender specific, the elevator and walking alone ones in particular. They imply, and rightfully so, all other things being equal, of the two genders, one of the two have the …
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:38 AM
-4

When you are saying, "Oh, you got raped? Well, you should've done X and Y, and you shouldn't have done Z" you are placing some responsibility for the rape onto the victim. There is nothing a victim could have done to prevent the rape, you can't expect people to never walk alone at night, wear revealing clothing, or drink alcohol. People are going to be in "risky" situations at various points in their lives, it's not right to claim that they should shoulder some blame if something terrible happen…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:06 AM
0

How does addressing males in general as though they already are rapists and just forgot reduce rape? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any gender listed on the flyer. I don't see how this flyer is accusing all men of being rapists. It seems to be making a statement to the effect of "Victims don't cause rape, rapists do".
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:02 AM
–

Why should I have to pay for a girl's birth control when a condom (which is what many women suggest I use) is not only free but already widely available? Condoms have a much higher failure rate than hormonal birth control. Like a difference of 15% to <1%.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:59 AM
1

you have any evidence to the contrary of that position, I'm happy to look at it. But maybe that's why you were downvoted--calling your own opinion a fact and everybody else's facts opinions? Remember--being a troll ALSO gets you downvoted. When did I say my opinion was fact? Never. However, it is my opinion that there are many reasons that FGM is different than circumcision (Religious support for circumcision, FGM is more severe, FGM has no potential health benefits). I am not going to argue thi…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 12:53 AM
–

I think the Fox News criticism for this program is going to come more from an angle of "Birth control is against God!" and "Birth control encourages sex and immorality! Think of the children!" than a Men's Rights prospective.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 12:46 AM
1

Man, you still haven't looked up milquetoast in a dictionary?
/r/MensRights02/08/11 11:09 PM
1

Well, those are two different things. You trying to say that mods removing posts and banning users is the same thing as downvoting? Highlarious. They aren't the same. They are comparable. Censorship is: "the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient". Downvoting dissenting opinion is suppressing dissenting speech by hiding it, not removing it. That's because your opinion is not only factually incorrect but not i…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 10:46 PM
–

You are proving her point. Because she is attractive, you are claiming she "has nothing going except for her looks". Yes, attractiveness helps both male and female actors, but there seems to be a stigma attached to attractive female actresses that they are able to skate by on looks alone. Look at it this way: Have you ever heard anyone claim actors like Clark Gable, Jon Hamm, and John Franco are only "skating by on their looks"? Probably not. Compare that to the list of actresses upon actresses …
/r/MensRights02/08/11 10:39 PM
1

Welp, I can't say I didn't expect it, and it only helps prove my point :)
/r/MensRights02/08/11 10:28 PM
1

And half of the stuff on the reddiquette list are things nobody bothers to do. Seriously--are you going to try and say that because "reddiquette" says something should be done, we are in the wrong for doing something different? And just in case you were wondering, even the reddiquette page is unclear on the difference between "disliking" and "disagreement": Yes. If you are downvoting because you disagree, you're redditing wrong. That being said, evidence is only as good as its medium and those w…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 10:13 PM
0

Thanks for moving the goalposts--now you're saying that only "a lot" of users agreeing is suppression of dissent. Well, how much is "a lot"? 51%? 63%? 85%? My main point is: downvoting is not supposed to be used to express disagreement. This seems to be why you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Read the reddiquette. Downvotes are for posts which add nothing to the discussion, not posts you disagree with Sorry, I can't run a statistical analysis on reddit and determine who votes correctly. B…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 08:59 PM
0

Do you really think the people who are downvoting are trying to hide things they disagree with? They are just using the downvote button as a way of saying 'this post is bad'. I think it's a little of both. I'm sure some are just blindly mashing downvote, but I feel others do know exactly what they are doing. Either way, the consequence of downvoting dissent is censorship, which is something users should know. (this is a problem particularly evident in the feminist movement) And this one as well.…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 08:44 PM
0

You seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying. Not everyone downvotes based on disagreement, but a lot of users do. When someone downvotes based on their disagreement with a subject, it is an act of censorship. They're saying, "I don't like your opinion, so even if it adds to the discussion, I'm going to try to hide it". Look at any thread about a contentious issue. I could write a detailed, well-sourced post disagreeing with the "financial abortion" system many MRAs advocate, and I would be (…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 08:28 PM
0

News papers make a fortune telling people that what they already believe is correct. Reddits upvote/downvote system is literally designed for that and almost no one uses it for it's intended purpose... so complaining about men's rights misusing it specifically is silly. I recognize that it's a problem endemic to the reddit system, however it affects forums like r/mr and r/politics to a greater degree, as they are focused on polarizing issues and are attempting to foster serious discussion. You c…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 08:22 PM
0

If the community downvotes all dissenting opinions, it becomes an echo chamber. What issue to you take with my assertion that people should downvote according to the reddiquette, not just mash downvote whenever they see something they disagree with? If you think this does not happen here, you're delusional. Obviously not all downvoting is censorship. But when a community uses downvotes as a way to cull dissent, it is.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 08:13 PM
0

And all subreddits are echo chambers... that's the nature of any system that relies on popularity to be heard, people will only get told things they want to hear. In my opinion men's rights is much less prone to this than others subreddits but it still happens. And you don't see that as a problem? Downvoting dissent is both rude as well as censorship. Censorship is "the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient"…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 07:44 PM
0

Most people don't adjust those settings. By default, mass downvoted comments are hidden from the majority of users. This is a form of censorship. You can't have it both ways. You can't get thrown into a tizzy by one form of censorship (deleting posts), and then engage in censorship yourself (downvoting dissenting opinions). Read the reddiquette. If all dissenting opinions are hidden, the community becomes a circlejerk.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 07:28 PM
14

How about redirecting a stimulus package intended for useful industries to useless public services because the latter employ mainly women rather than men? Yes, clearly the stimulus package is a gynocratic conspiracy to throw men out on their ass in favor of women.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 06:18 PM
1

Are you really asserting that most people hate a heterogeneous group (women, black people, homosexuals, etc.) SO MUCH that they would like to wipe them off the face of the earth? I'm curious, which one of those groups is it that you hate?
/r/MensRights02/08/11 06:03 PM
0

That's very clearly not how downvotes are used here. People are most often downvoted here for disagreeing with the "hivemind". And people wonder why r/mr is a circlejerk.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 06:01 PM
0

If you really don't know what the downvote button is for (read the reddiquette), and don't see how hiding all dissenting opinions under the -4 downvote threshold is censorship, I don't know what to tell you.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 06:00 PM
–

Have you every explained why you thought the reddit alien was talking to you? Like was that just a joke that fell flat, or did you literally see the logo mouth your name?
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:54 PM
1

A downvote is for posts which add nothing to the discussion (see the reddiquette). When something receives a score of -4, it is hidden from view by default. If you downvote all dissenting opinions, they are hidden, or censored.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:38 PM
-1

Welcome to men's rights. Everyone claims to against censorship, until something disagrees with their worldview, then they'll mash the downvote button like there's no tomorrow.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:44 AM
3

No what? Are you saying "No, it is the terrorist news network"?
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:35 AM
–

Yes. It's not the "terrorist news network", like Fox would like you to believe
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:28 AM
0

Do you have a source for any of those statistics? There is literally no way condoms are only 30% effective, even when you factor in improper use. I also find it really hard to believe that half of the births in the US are unplanned, and occur while a woman is on birth control. EDIT: Says here condoms only have a 15% failure rate with typical use (note: this factors in incorrect usage)
/r/MensRights01/08/11 11:59 PM
–

Why would it not be? Al-Jazeera English is an excellent source of world news.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:58 PM
3

You're the only person I've ever seen to take, "Women! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em!" as a challenge.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:56 PM
5

As a man, I have never met another man who thought that we should replace all women with androids. Possibly because normal men enjoy women that are human beings with thoughts, emotions, and feelings, and do not see them as just robots you fuck?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:42 PM
–

WTF? So exercise, which helps with weight gain and depression, is somehow off the table? That isn't how depression works. Yes, exercise increases endorphins, but it isn't going to cure depression. If a medication is making a high volume of users suffer severe side effects, they'd be better served going back to the drawing board than continuing the study.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:38 PM
1

Haha okay
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:32 PM
9

Thinking "I can't wait until all women die out and are replaced by artificial wombs" is not a normal line of thinking. Most people do not have such distaste for a heterogeneous group of people that they wish they did not exist.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:30 PM
1

Do you see the logo in the upper corner? This isn't r/misogyny, or r/menarebetterthanwomen, it's supposed to about keeping the rights of men equal to the rights of women. If you need this cleared up, I'm sure you could message a moderator and they'll be willing to explain it to you.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:29 PM
8

Hahahaha, holy shit you're nuts. What the hell did a woman do to you to make you hate absolutely all of them?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:25 PM
–

He's belittling the guy he responded to, who claims it's necessary to avoid elevators and enclosed spaces, lest you be accused of rape. It's a little nutty to think you should wear a wire in every interaction with a female.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:24 PM
1

Well then, I think you have the wrong subreddit!
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:17 PM
–

If the racists, the anti-semite's, the homophobes realized that, and came together as men to address the female problem, we would be in a much better state. Ah, the female problem! Would you say we need an, ahem, final solution to this problem?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:14 PM
1

When did I say you were denying it? I don't think I did. I also have never said anything about this topic was misogynistic. I don't think sexism is a laughing matter. If you believed in equality (the purpose of this forum, mind you!) you wouldn't either.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:09 PM
–

Both sexes maybe? I'm not going to argue with you over whether men and women are equal. It'd be like arguing with Nathan Bedford Forrest over whether or not blacks and whites are equal.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:05 PM
3

I agree, I don't think rape is a very humorous subject.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:09 PM
–

Yeah, I don't think everyone thinks men are better than women. Sorry, we aren't all sexists!
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:07 PM
1

I haven't called the subject of this thread misogynistic at all. I have called you, as a person, a misogynist, but this is a fact you admit to. Yes, when you say "men are better than women" and "women are innately harmful, men are not" without any facts, you are being misogynistic, and someone has to call you on it. This forum welcomes FACTS and discussion, not misogyny. Perhaps r/misogyny would be more your cup of tea?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:06 PM
–

Things that are "absolutely obvious" to you are statements like men are better than women. Yeah, think I'll stick with facts, rather than your bias.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:14 PM
1

Why do you get so upset when people call you a misogynist? You don't seem too "proud" about it. Seems like, deep down inside, you realize men aren't better than women.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:12 PM
4

Traditional_Gender_Roles.html
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:50 AM
–

And devoid of actual facts and research! Just how you like it!
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:10 AM
–

Holy shit, you just cited newgrounds.com as a source. Do you have any enlightening anime flash animations that can also help explain this subject?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:07 AM
0

Wait, thingsarebad's hero, Paul Elam, is himself a mangina!? What a twist! EDIT: How long until the next thingsarebad blog-spam extolling the benefits of being a mangina?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:04 AM
–

So...how would you make it a right that is not exclusively for women?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:53 AM
2

Thank you for summarizing every comment you've ever posted.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:52 AM
4

Well, except the fact that the woman is actually carrying the child in her womb. It's already been ruled unconstitutional to force someone to undergo a medical procedure (see McFall v. Shimp), so it's not really logical to expect a man to be allowed to force a woman to abort or to carry a child.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:52 AM
2

So, you're calling for a downvote brigade on a men's rights thread in men's rights? How meta.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:10 PM
–

So abortion isn't a right? I'm curious as to how you could make abortion a right that is not exclusively for women.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 05:05 PM
3

In spite of our differences, I think we can both agree that less sexism is a good thing :)
/r/MensRights31/07/11 04:59 PM
7

I like this, as it also reminds users that sexists from either side of the spectrum (misandrists and misogynists) are not welcome.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 10:33 PM
–

she was really drunk and barely remembers and she happens to be dating my roommate. She knows that he'd be furious if he found out that she hooked up with someone else so she told the guy she was dating she "didn't consent" to it and it was "against her will" reddit please help. Was your best friend intoxicated as well? If he wasn't, consent laws dictate that this is legally rape. If she was blackout drunk, she cannot legally give consent. EDIT: Would you be able to edit your original post to in…
/r/MensRights30/07/11 08:54 PM
1

Things Are Bad maxim #248: Spousal rape is bullshit.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 08:41 PM
–

Hmm, I don't quite think I remember "finding misogyny everywhere". In fact, I haven't claimed anything in this thread is misogynistic. Please, keep calling yourself a misogynist. Since this subreddit does not welcome misogyny, reasonable posters can know that your opinions can be safely discarded.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:33 PM
–

Your aware that r/feminisms is heavily, heavily moderated, correct? Comments are deleted there all the time.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:11 PM
0

Ah, I see. The link showed both importance and quality, so I thought they were one in the same.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 07:42 PM
–

Surely you'd need proof of paternity, correct? I'm unsure of the semantics of paternity testing, however, I doubt it only takes a few days to establish paternity beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 07:31 PM
1

Not really, other than the additional box reminding users that the talk page is not a forum for discussion of Men's Rights. The Women's Rights page has the same reminder in the top left though. Am I missing something?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 07:07 PM
–

You should probably know that I am all for a father-to-be being able to go to court in the first 3-6 months (not dead set on the issue) of pregnancy and state that he is the father and that he wants to absolve all rights and obligations of parenthood, as this would give the woman more information to decide whether to carry to term or not, but not once there is a living child in the world. Do you think that the court system in the United States would be able to move quick enough for this to be a …
/r/MensRights29/07/11 07:04 PM
1

Feminism is a entrenched ideology that controls a substantial, if not majority, section of western law, business, government, military, education and many other social and other systems. The MRM is a group of pissed off guys on the internet. Apples and oranges bro. Okay, that's absolute bullshit. You are saying feminism is a monolith, but the MRM is not. That's absolutely wrong. Feminists agree and disagree on many different issues within the movement. Claiming "all feminists do this" is about i…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 04:40 PM
–

For someone who constantly claims that men are better than women, you sure get awful butthurt when you're called out on it. Maybe you regret outing yourself?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 04:35 PM
–

Okay, I disagree that there was "evil" intent behind the billboard. Really? Evil? Grow up.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 04:34 PM
1

Do you see how many times you said "likely" there? You have made this person into a feminist just because you disagree with her.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 04:33 PM
–

I'm sorry that is your first thought. Read the backstory, you will see she is being helped by the police already! Sorry, I never called you a misogynist, it is a title you proudly bestowed on yourself. Wear it like a crown, you sexist bastard.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 02:01 AM
-1

Then the police wouldn't be able to keep an eye on her. Plopping a drunk girl on a couch in a dark club and leaving her there wouldn't be a great idea. Plus, the club owners have a valid concern that she could throw up in there, or even die, and they would be held liable.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:58 AM
–

Well, yeah, move her to a park bench nearby. But it wouldn't be in her best interest to have her leave with a stranger or to send her off in a taxi alone or anything. There's not much anyone could do in that situation; if her friends never came back, she'd be best to sleep it off in the county jail.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:53 AM
2

But it isn't true! All feminists believe and say the same exact things. But if a self-identified MRA says something racist or sexist, he's not a true MRA, the MRM isn't monolithic! /s
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:48 AM
2

Do you also assume Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson are innocent? Or does this attitude only apply to rape cases?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:43 AM
–

I think they acted in the right way. The police stayed with her to make sure she was okay until her friends came back, even though that wasn't until 2 hours later (some friends, huh?).
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:39 AM
–

I'm sorry, but if you don't enjoy the inclusiveness of r/Mensrights, maybe there are other subreddits which will suit your needs. There are a myriad of other Men's interest subreddits which are much more exclusive than this one. Or, perhaps you can create your own? However, I am curious as to what our resident proud misogynist thinks of a drunk woman collapsed on the curb. I'm sure your answer will be very bitter.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:36 AM
–

*due I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Should we be happy that this woman is collapsed on the street? Do you have a backstory for this?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:24 AM
–

Yeah, but his assertion that the judge just MUST be a feminist because he disagrees with her is classic circular logic. The assumption that "women that I disagree with = feminist" is pretty rampant around here, and it really shouldn't be encouraged.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:23 AM
–

I think this may just be confirmation bias on your part. While I agree that they should have presented the information better, I seriously doubt the intent of the ad was to claim that fathers don't belong with children and any man you see with a child is a pedophile. I think it was simply trying to get people to keep their eyes open for suspicious situations. Like those ads in metro stations with pictures of abandoned brief cases, telling people to watch out for suspicious behavior. The intent o…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:24 AM
–

I think you may be misinterpreting that ad. It seems to be saying you should call the helpline if you see an adult and a child behaving inappropriately (inappropriate touching, kissing, etc.), not "call the police on all men with kids!!!"
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:18 PM
0

I'm only replying because you seem to have some kind of mental disorder where you have to get the last word in.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:26 AM
0

So willfully ignorant I guess? Okay then. Come back when you start using reason instead of emotion.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:23 AM
0

Hahaha, I've never talked with someone who couldn't understand the word "proof", or the difference between "fact" and conjecture. You're a troll, or you're willfully ignorant. And I'm leaning towards the former.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:20 AM
0

Okay, so you have no proof. Have fun making baseless accusations. In the future, I implore you to follow the advice of kloo, a moderator of this forum: post your opinions consistently and back them up with facts. The better sourced those facts are, the better. Even if you disagree with the mission of the subreddit, presenting well sourced, well documented facts is a respectful and respectable thing to do. Even if you're a true believer in 'everything mensrights', presenting biased opinions that …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:55 PM
0

Prove it with a study or a peer reviewed journal article. What you have now is conjecture, not proof. If this is so obvious, surely you will have no problem finding a reputable source which shows that men are more productive than women, no?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:39 PM
1

Put up or shut up. Prove your assertion, or this conversation cannot continue.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:33 PM
0

Men have a higher rate of attendance so they bring in more money. So they in a sense, come out on top. It's in the department of labor report. You are mangling that report so badly. Find a study that concludes that women are less productive than men. You simply saying "Welp, women work less, ergo, less productive!" is not proof. As I have explained, women may be more productive while working than men, which would balance out the sick days. In short, find a study that backs up your claim. As of r…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:26 PM
0

All women do not take one extra sick day than all men. It is already established that women take more time off than men with sick days and other reasons besides sick days. Men spend an average of 140 days off sick during their working lives, while women stay at home on 189 occasions. Source: Here A sick day is defined as calling out from work for any reason, even if it is a lie. You can't correlate being away from work more with being less productive. It isn't that simple. Productivity is measur…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:49 PM
0

And what I am saying is that one employee taking more time off than another means they are less productive. And I am telling you this is false. Let's say Employee A and Employee B both make widgets in Factory C. Employee A spends all day on reddit instead of making widgets. He took 2 sick days that year. Employee B works diligently, makes widgets faster and more efficiently than anyone else in the factory, and was employee of the month 10 months running. He took 3 sick days that year. Which empl…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:07 PM
0

What I am saying is that taking less than one extra sick day does not make you less productive. That is very simple-minded thinking. Women may be more productive in general, which may make up for the extra sick day. What everyone is upset at this guy for is making unsubstantiated claims. He had no research to back up any of his statements. He shouldn't be making sweeping claims without and substantive evidence. That is the definition of ignorance. , they take easier, less paying jobs than men, a…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:45 PM
0

Women in general take more time off than men. This is why when all the raw wages from different professions are added up, men come out on top. The difference in time off between men and women is 40 sick days in their entire working careers (average of 47 years). That means women take an extra .85 sick day per year. And you are saying that explains the entire wage gap? Yeah, okay. Taking 1 extra sick day != less productive. Try again.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:30 PM
0

I reply to you because you replied to me. I don't have to care about what you think to correct things I feel need correcting. It's not that you are replying, it's that you say "sorry, I don't care" about 50 times every reply, especially when presented with facts. The ones who care the most make the biggest show about how they "don't care". Yes that's exactly what I expect. Men being fired because of words is downplayed and treated as bullshit. Just gives people like me more fuel for the fire. Yo…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:06 PM
0

I thought we already went over how I don't care what you think. For someone who doesn't care, you are making a really big show about how much you don't care. I'm sorry you think this man getting fired is a huge, tin-foil hat feminist conspiracy. Doesn't make it right. Prove to me that women are less productive because of menstruation. If you can't, you have no leg to stand on.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 08:56 PM
–

Honestly, I would consult a lawyer, not the internet. This is a very serious matter. I'm unsure of whether or not a contract such as this would be admissible in court. EDIT: Is there a reason a sperm bank is not an option? If she is offering to pay you to impregnate her, that's not necessarily legal.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:00 PM
–

If she wants a child, why would she not just go to a sperm bank? If you impregnate this girl, you aren't going to have any legal protection against child support claims. Legally, it would be your child. EDIT: Basically, what I'm asking is, what benefit were you hoping to get out of this?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:53 PM
–

Feminazis? Really?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:19 PM
0

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding, where you claim someone said something they did not say. If you cannot equate "women take off work because of monthly sick problems" with "women take off work because they have periods", you're hopeless. He said women take leave more because of periods and children. I have acknowledged this twice already. You seem to gloss over it intentionally in your quest to be needlessly outraged. There is no tricky part about it. Men are routinely fired from …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:02 PM
1

Yes, however, I have a problem with the claim that women make less "because of monthly sick problems". That's not a very reasonable claim, especially when there is no research to back this up (As Thompson admitted). Yes, they should pay or promote the best person for the job, however, Thompson's explanation of the pay gap was poorly thought-out, and ignorant.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:52 PM
–

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding, where you think that he cannot be saying two things at once. He said it is okay to pay women less money than men because: 1) They have children, maternity leave, etc. 2) Because they have periods. (or, as he so eloquently stated, "monthly sick problems") Now, I do not believe that is reasonable. It is not justifiable to claim that women should be paid less because they care for children, or that they have periods. When pressed for data to prove hi…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:57 AM
–

Can you possibly link one of these studies? I have never seen this posted. I am curious as to whether the difference in sick days is actually statistically significant, because when women with children are factored in, the difference is only 40 sick days per 47 years working.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:27 AM
–

I didn't bold it because you won't stop bringing it up as if it is the only thing he said and I was waiting until you did bring it up because I knew that was the only reason you decided to reply to me; to see if I will say that I think all or most women get paid less because of their periods. I'm bringing it up because that is why he got fired. He got fired for claiming that women take more sick days because they cannot work through periods. Picking through facts of this case is not "trolling". …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:25 AM
–

Well, informal studies show that women actually are sick more often then men. The life expectancy gap can be explained by a myriad of different reasons, the principle one being that men see the doctor much less regularly than women. So, if a man is diagnosed with a serious illness, it is likely to be in the late stages of the disease, when they are showing serious symptoms. Women are much more likely to get regular physicals, so doctors notice diseases earlier, when they are more curable. Also, …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:15 AM
5

That is different than what this guy said though. He's claiming that women take more time off because "once a month they have sick problems". I don't think there is any research to indicate that women are less productive due to menstruation.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:43 AM
–

I like the part you so conveniently didn't bold: It is because once a month they have sick problems. Dude is literally saying women take more time off because they have periods. That's a profoundly ignorant thing to say. Women are perfectly capable of working through a period. This smacks of the excuse bigots use to justify not voting females into office. "But what happens when she nukes Iran cuz she's on her period? Har, har!" Sorry, that's not how it works. The main point of this is that he wa…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:42 AM
–

His statement was that women make less because they are less productive while they are on their period. This is the reason he was fired. Do you believe this was a true statement? If so, do you have any evidence that this is the case or is it just an assumption? Hope this clears it up for you.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:40 AM
–

Typical. A man makes a true statement about some of the reasons women earn less money and he is fired. Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the claim that most women's productivity is imparied while they are on their period? Or is this just an assumption?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 12:45 AM
5

432 readers. 2 threads per month average. Yeah, I think "most people" is more apt.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 06:13 PM
–

Says the guy who runs a subreddit most people don't know about until they are banned (for disagreeing with you).
/r/MensRights26/07/11 06:06 PM
–

To be fair, the only qualifier for being banned from malestudies is "disagree with tomek77 ever".
/r/MensRights26/07/11 05:32 PM
–

Okay, well, when you have some science that proves it, get back to me. But until then, I implore you to take kloo's advice and cite your assertions if you hope to add meaningfully to this subreddit.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 12:09 AM
1

Where MRAs get offended is when feminists hold rallies in the street essentially claiming that they can keep smoking as long as they please, fuck you. It's hard to have sympathy for someone (lung cancer patient or not) who won't entertain taking preventative measures, even though we might mourn every lung cancer diagnosis. The problem with this reasoning is that most rapes are not forcible, man-drags-woman-into-alley rapes. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, and as I demonstra…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 12:07 AM
1

You are an admitted "proud misogynist". Are you really saying calling you a misogynist is out of line now? Saying essentially "women are worse than men" is misogyny.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 11:42 PM
–

You dont want to revive it because it showed you were cherry-picking old stats for your own agenda to minimize false-rape allegations. And that is the reason I get annoyed at people like you, you dont want the facts, you simply want to add FUD. No, because it's been like a month. I have neither the time nor the the desire to re-read the discussion again. ow anyone can deny mothers are the chief culprits in PAS is beyond me. You've only got to read the many stories of fathers that have had their …
/r/MensRights25/07/11 11:41 PM
–

Sorry, I'm really not interested in reviving such an old discussion. I'm simply noting a tendency you have to become enraged when people ask you for citations (facts) and remind you of the "burden of proof".
/r/MensRights25/07/11 11:22 PM
1

I'm quite aware that you aren't the only misogynist in the world.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 11:20 PM
1

The issue here is asking women to take some responsibility for what happens to themselves. (Yes, I think men should also take some responsibility as well.) See, this is where we disagree. I don't think the victim is at fault at all if they are mugged, murdered, or forcibly raped. Could they have taken some extra steps to protect themselves? Yes, probably. But that shouldn't make the mugger/murder/rapist any less morally or legally responsible for his/her actions. It's a good life skill to know h…
/r/MensRights25/07/11 11:11 PM
1

It's not about infidelity, I think what he means to say is that a non-virgin is more likely to end a marriage, rather than "stay[ing] with you through thick and thin" Reread his posts, as well as the thread he made about this issue. He claims all women who are not virgins until marriage are sluts, and will most likely cheat on you. He also believes that if a man is dating a woman who has had previous sexual experience, she is a "slut", and he should dump her immediately. However, thingsarebad br…
/r/MensRights25/07/11 09:13 PM
–

You are seeing "female bad behavior" and ignoring "male bad behavior". Men and women can both be evil, but as a whole, both groups are good. Hating all women isn't going to take back whatever terrible thing happened to you to make you so bitter.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:53 PM
–

Go back to ranting about those darn "academics" with their troublesome "facts". It must be tough when your hate isn't backed up by science :( EDIT: Fair warning, everyone, AntiFeministMedia is a proud misogynist who admits to not be part of the MRM, who believes that men are better than women. If being a "female apologist" means "not a woman-hater", than so be it.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:49 PM
–

You cannot necessarily just combine two unrelated studies and use it to confirm thingsarebad's hypothesis. Yes, catholics as a whole may have the same divorce rate as atheists, but they are also including the "cafeteria catholics", who claim they are religious but only attend church on holidays. It seems that the researcher just asked what religion the subject fell into, and there is simply no measure for the degree of religiosity. Keep in mind that, women who remain virgins until they marry, ar…
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:47 PM
1

You literally just posted this topic and it got heavily downvoted. It's safe to say that your assumption that women who are not virgins are "sluts", and unfit for relationships is not a popular one.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 05:26 AM
1

No serious MRA argues that dress is a factor in rapes. I'm glad that is not a view you hold, but I have heard this very thing argued. Certain individuals actually believe that if a woman "dresses like a slut", she somehow brought rape upon herself. With regards to forcible rape, which everybody agrees is a bad thing: women should take the same precautions men take to avoid getting mugged. Yes, people should take precautions to avoid bad situations. However, if for one reason or another, a woman …
/r/MensRights25/07/11 05:19 AM
–

Damn, was just about that edit too.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 05:03 AM
–

Well, as long as you think your right, because no one else does :) EDIT: You misinterpreted your stats, as countless others in this very forum have explained to you. If you won't listen to them, however, I doubt you'll suddenly understand it if I go through it again.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 05:00 AM
–

Yeah, I think you're pretty much wrong on this one. Hopefully one day you find your ~perfect virgin flower~, and hopefully someday you'll crack a statistics book and learn how to actually interpret studies. The simple fact is, you have no proof that a being in a relationship with a virgin is any better than being in a relationship with someone who has had other partners. So basically, put up or shut up.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:49 AM
1

Being threatened with bodily harm is not 'date rape', which is mostly what MRAs are concerned about. The volumes of cases that reach the university tribunals, as well as the cases of date rape that reach the courts, are almost always 'he-said/she-said' situations where consent was ambiguous. In other words, no lethal threats were made. Therefore, your statistic doesn't apply. How does my statistic not apply? I was proving to you that the majority of rapes are forcible rapes, and a pre-meditated …
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:40 AM
–

Well, yes, I think most rational human beings believe that all women aren't evil harpies. But of course, I suppose you think the majority of rational people are also "female misbehavior deniers" as well.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 01:00 AM
1

Unfortunately, you went pretty quickly over to the "evil rapist man" talking point. You seem to very eagerly want me to say "all rapists are evil, and all rapists are men". I never said that at all. I said that I have no problem considering those who commit forcible rape to be evil. And neither should you. So, your desire to have a "serious discussion" seems disingenuous if you are going to trot out the old party line that date rape is always about a man "taking advantage" of a woman. I literall…
/r/MensRights25/07/11 12:59 AM
1

Here is a more complete article. From the article: The legislation, which requires the South Korean president's signature to become law, would allow judges to sentence adult sex offenders who victimize minors under 16 and have been diagnosed as sexual deviants to chemical castration. Essentially, it seems as though the convicted offender must be diagnosed as a sexual deviant, meaning that this most likely will not apply to simple statutory cases. Also, this is just legalizing chemical castration…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 10:40 PM
1

Man, you aren't even trying anymore. You're not even putting any effort into your trolls nowadays. Hell, you haven't even used the phrase, "calling you out on your bullshit" yet.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 10:34 PM
3

I know, you are instead deluded with self-victimization.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 10:33 PM
–

I think the problem you are going to run into is the the MRM is set up as an opposition to feminism. The motto of this very forum is "earning scorn from feminists". I think many MRAs would be wary of donating to a feminist organization due to the oppositional nature of the two causes. Not only that, I don't think many self-identified MRAs have any interest in being accepted by, or "proving themselves" to, feminists.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:08 PM
–

The biggest problem with this law is that chemical castration does not fix the sexual urges which cause people to be pedophiles. It is only removing the functionality of the penis. People who are chemically castrated, I believe, can still abuse children in other ways. It would be much more beneficial to focus on counselling, which would help pedophiles to manage, control, and redirect these sexual urges in ways that do not harm children.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 07:20 PM
–

I have absolutely no problem with calling rapists "evul". Rape is a crime committed by evil people, men or women. Date rape isn't caused by a woman "dressing slutty", it's caused by a sick and twisted individual taking advantage of her. To be clear, by date rape I am talking about situations where the victim cannot give consent, and is very clearly being drugged and raped. People who slip drugs into other people's drinks to rape them are also looking for power and control.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 07:17 PM
0

When a man chooses to stay in an abusive relationship with a woman--does the man bear any responsibility for his choice to stay? Absolutely not. Extricating yourself from an abusive relationship is a very difficult process, and the victim is absolutely not at fault for "staying too long".
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:42 PM
0

No, if a woman dresses a certain way, she should not reasonably expect to be raped. There is no excuse for raping another person.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:41 PM
–

I am very clearly not talking about situations where consent is ambiguous. The idea that a woman "brought rape" on herself by dressing a certain way is simply absurd. evul menz want to control the wimminz. And really? Come on, we can have a serious discussion, but not if you are going to take the low road and try to repaint my argument as something that it is not. I never said ANYTHING like that, forcible rape is about power and control when men are raped as well.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:36 PM
–

And I said I disagree? You really think a woman "had it coming" for dressing a certain way? If so, we are in complete disagreement. The idea that a rape victim somehow did something to "deserve it" is deplorable. Keep in mind, rape is about power and control, not about how attractive the victim is. Men don't get so overcome with passion by the sight of a beautiful women that they just have to rape her. It's an insulting notion to both women AND men.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:07 PM
–

No, the thief who stole car A is responsible. If they catch the thief of Car A, they still prosecute him as a thief. They don't just tell the owner it was his own damn fault his car got stolen. If someone is walking down the street at night, and gets murdered, is it his own fault? Of course not, it's the murderers fault! No one can reasonably expect, "I'm probably going to be murdered for walking down this street", just as no one can reasonably expect "I am probably going to get raped for dressi…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:01 PM
–

In this scenario, it is still the car thief who is responsible for the theft...
/r/MensRights24/07/11 03:45 PM
2

That's a very nice strawman you have there. You are assuming I can't agree with this message, yet be disgusted by the way he delivered it. I disagree with what the women of The Talk did, however, I think calling them "cunts" is extremely immature and childish. By the way....act like a fuckin smelly cunt, get CALLED a fuckin smelly cunt. And if that offends you, so much the better, you man hating harpy. You sure are a gem. Keep assuming everyone you disagree with is a "man hating harpy". You are …
/r/MensRights24/07/11 03:23 PM
–

What? Yes, as a mature adult, I recognize that being a white male, I am extremely privileged in society today. Do you also?
/r/MensRights24/07/11 03:21 PM
-1

if the FBI were to take any part of the petition into account if/when they decide to redefine the definition of rape, i would hope it would be just to gender neutralize it to include men, rather than demonize men. :/ This is almost certainly what would happen. People here seem to be confusing the text of the petition with the actual text of the updated definition of rape.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:34 AM
-1

I have to go with thingsarebad on this one. It looks like men (and transgendered) are just thrown in as an afterthought because it would be too obviously bullshit to omit them in any new definition and for that inclusion we have to give up "forcible". I see nothing in the article which leads me to believe that men and transgendered victims were thrown in as an "afterthought". I think this may be a case of confirmation bias causing you to read the article in a different way. It is a good thing th…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:33 AM
3

If it's called for, why not? My entire point is that it is never called for, in a serious adult discussion. It's childish and immature. it's not possible to "act like" a nigger. Well, according to that Chris Rock bit that reddit is in love with, it is. But that is neither here nor there.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 07:48 AM
3

What is racism and what is free speech? I think telling a black guy you are going to skin his monkey ass is racism.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 02:22 AM
–

As usual, you have no proof of this.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 02:18 AM
1

Actually, many states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, protecting people in relationships where one party is a minor and the other is above the age of consent, providing their age difference is only a few years. I support these laws, and think that all states should enact similar measures. That being said, if someone who is 17 has sex with someone against their will, they deserve to be on the registry.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 08:00 PM
3

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. Which is why I wasn't arguing with anyone, I was simply stating my views on the issue. the writer addressed a particular case where two boys got put on the list for when they "sat on some other kids' heads", an offence that is best handled with a "hey, knock it off and say you're sorry". That's not the whole story, the kids actually held down a 12 year old, pulled down their pants, and sat on his face. Legally, the judge is hamstrung by the definition o…
/r/MensRights23/07/11 07:55 PM
–

I agree, there is a definite problem with the registry in the fact that it doesn't distinguish cases like you describe, with actual rapes and molestation. Getting placed on a registry for life should be reserved for violent offenders. However, that being said, if a person commits rape at the age of 17, s/he should still be on the registry. I don't think "being young and stupid" is a valid excuse for sexual violence.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 07:22 PM
-2

FTA: "Gardner's original formulation, which labeled mothers almost exclusively as the alienating parent, was endorsed by fathers' rights groups, as it allowed fathers to explain the reluctance of their children to visit them and assign blame to their former wives." That may have been the original formulation, but that is not the current definition of PAS. The current definition is: "The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody dispute…
/r/MensRights23/07/11 06:37 PM
1

So it is said, and so it shall be!
/r/MensRights23/07/11 05:14 PM
–

have been affected by female bad behaviour You know, PAS can occur when a father alienates a mother as well, right? It's not a disorder caused by women only.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:28 PM
2

I think you must've missed: Kieston Roofner, 23, of Zelienople, was arrested on charges of domestic violence.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:18 PM
3

No, I'm making the same argument. Saying something is "just a word" is stupid. "Cunt" isn't just a word, it's a vulgarity with sexist overtones. In an adult discussion, I would not call my opponent a dick or cunt, nor would I call them a "nigger" or a "faggot". I am really curious as to why you are defending the use of vulgarities in discussion. Do you really think it's appropriate to use words like "cunt" or "dick" when discussing serious issues? I agree with tenets of both feminism and the MRM…
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:11 PM
–

By knucker's logic, words are just words. So, it's perfectly acceptable to call people "niggers", "faggots", and other profanities because they're "just words". But that isn't how it works. Words have meanings, and they have power. And, I wouldn't call someone a "dick" in a civilized, adult discussion either. Vulgarity and name-calling has no place in an adult discussion about serious issues. Calling someone a troll is the lowest form of argument. Believe it or not, I don't have my views just to…
/r/MensRights23/07/11 05:14 AM
3

Terrible. I hope that the perpetrator of this act of violence receives the punishment she deserves.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 05:05 AM
–

Where in the story does it say the woman is a feminist?
/r/MensRights23/07/11 05:03 AM
1

Nope, I think I'll be staying right here!
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:35 AM
0

Look how riled you are getting! You are trying to prove you aren't getting riled by my posts by yelling and cursing at me. If my posts were so "bland" (this is what milquetoast means), you would not feel the need to comment on them. They would be so bland, boring, and inoffensive that they would just blend right in with the rest of the thread.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:30 AM
1

You're so riled you felt the need to point out that I posted? And continue to respond to me? You know, you could save yourself the embarrassment and just admit you didn't know what milquetoast meant.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:21 AM
1

Milquetoast doesn't mean what you think it means. If my posts rile you up to this degree, they are far from "bland, meek, or mild"
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:13 AM
–

If you think the word "cunt" carries no sexist overtones, you're hopeless. Same goes if you cannot make an argument without relying on vulgarities. Or labelling the opposing person a "troll". I think in this case, it's just your lazy way of saying "I'm really bad at arguing with you, so here are some ad hominems".
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:11 AM
–

If you honestly save and number ever post you think is from a "concern troll", you need to find a hobby.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:08 AM
–

Really? What 5 year old do you know that uses the word "cunt"? It's an offensive word, grow up and present your arguments like an adult.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:04 AM
–

It's not an analogy, it's an allegory. It's basically a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning (anger) through concrete forms (words). It's not a 1 to 1 comparison like an analogy, but rather an attempt to explain how holding onto anger can harm the person who is angered. He didn't really offer a competing allegory, only "what if I have a sword instead of coals?"
/r/MensRights23/07/11 02:40 AM
–

Or, quite possibly, they enjoy looking at issues like adults, without resorting to name calling. I'm sure many people fall into this group. Personally, I don't see how you can discuss a serious issue through vulgarities and slurs and still expect to be taken seriously. It's immature and childish.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 02:33 AM
–

I'm curious, do you say this to black people, then smile smugly while you call them "niggers"? After all, it's just a word!
/r/MensRights23/07/11 02:31 AM
–

It's an allegory. He isn't saying you're supposed to literally throw hot coals at people when you are mad.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 02:30 AM
1

Just because they are "first world problems" does not mean they cannot be actual problems.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 09:25 PM
2

Don't get in the way of his circular logic! Anyone who disagrees with him must be a feminist!
/r/MensRights22/07/11 09:23 PM
–

Since you did not overcome my point by identifying ANY legitimate grievances faced collectively by western women, then this little debate is over. I dunno, I think being sexualized, objectified, and treated as a petulant child (as in the Got Milk? ads) is a pretty legitimate grievance. I applied your logic to the NAACP, which you have yet to address. Do African-Americans face no real discrimination, as they have time to complain about ads? If you do not answer this, you are admitting your argume…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 09:22 PM
2

Yeah, but the article specifies a $100,000 bond, which means that the actual bail was higher.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 09:20 PM
–

Nope. Dunn and Jefferson are both being held in lieu of $100,000 bonds.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 05:49 PM
1

It was an analogy. Regardless, that "flap of skin" happens to be a functional part of the penis. Society's problem is the mentality that the foreskin is somehow separate and not-penis. As long as we're talking about eye-rolling, that's one of mine. Regardless, it is certainly different from amputation of a toe. You can't make an apples to oranges comparison, then try to explain it away as "an analogy" Which one is physically worse is irrelevant. They are all bad, and they all need to be stopped.…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:58 PM
–

This is terrible regardless of gender. I don't see how these women are getting off easy, as you seem to be implying. There hasn't been a conviction yet, and they're being held on $100,000 bond.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:36 PM
–

And your argument is still a straw man. The only determinant of whether my logic is "dangerous" is whether the women in question actually face any legitimate kinds of discrimination. Your logic is essentially "women have time to complain about ads, so therefore, they must not face any discrimination" The NAACP has the time to complain about Playstation ads. Does this mean that African-Americans have no legitimate problems in society today?
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:29 PM
–

Really? I guess you missed this thread in this very subreddit: This new "Got Milk/Milk Helps PMS" advertisement is a good example how how our rights have suffered... There you go, now it's not a "complete straw man". Can you explain to me how complaining about something trivial means that a group faces no real discrimination? The NAACP has recently complained about racist ads. Does this mean that African-Americans have no problems in society today that need addressing? It's dangerous logic, plai…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:47 AM
1

My god, you are literally ignoring my main point. I will bold it here to make sure you address it: I am not arguing pro-circumcision, I was only correcting a misconception. The misconception was that Islam backs FGM. Whenever someone makes this claim, it makes my eyes roll involuntarily, because it's so astoundingly ignorant. Also, if you REALLY don't see the difference between amputating a flap of skin, and a toe, there is no reasoning with you. I can understand being against circumcision on mo…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:34 AM
–

How bad can things be for women if they can afford to bitch and moan about advertisers bending over backwards to kiss their entitled asses? Answer: not very fucking bad. More accurate answer: really fucking good. This is pretty dangerous logic. By this logic, anyone could argue that things must be "pretty fucking good" for men too. Feminists could argue, "How bad can it be for men if they have the time to complain about a milk ad?" You can't use complaining about something trivial to discount th…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:21 AM
2

Just take a look at the ads. It does the typical "dopey husband" stereotype stuff, but it also implies that women are irrational and crazy once a month. Both genders should be offended by this.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:09 AM
1

I'm not sure you are really getting what I'm saying. You seem determined to interpret me as somehow arguing for circumcision. If you aren't going to logically interpret what I am saying, what can I do? It's not a true "double standard" because FGM and circumcision are two very different procedures. One is backed by two major world religions, one isn't. One is clearly much more dangerous to the recipient than the other. Also, one has some possible medical benefit, while the other serves no purpos…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:57 AM
1

Well, no, that isn't quite my point. My argument is that it's not a true double standard, as circumcision is a major part of two religions (Islam and Judaism), while no religion supports FGM. I intentionally avoided discussing my opinion of circumcision, as I quite honestly don't have a strong opinion either way. I've just studied Islam fairly intensely, and the assertation that FGM is somehow supported by Islam is pretty ignorant.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 11:20 PM
-1

I'm curious as to how you interpreted that from what I said? I simply said that FGM is not a tenet of Islam, as is the common misconception. Neither the Quaran nor the Sunnah discuss FGM. It is for this reason that it is unfair to call FGM a "religious rite". DefinitelyRelephant stated that Jews would have a problem with a circumcision ban, and NovemberTrees responded sarcastically that FGM should be legal as well. They are clearly two very different things, as FGM has no religious backing.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 10:20 PM
-1

No, that's quite an extrapolation of what I actually said. I'm simply saying that FGM is not a religious right.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:06 PM
-5

That's not a fair comparison, FGM is not a tenet of Islam at all, it's a cultural relic.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:57 AM
1

So... you're losing an argument and calling for help?
/r/MensRights20/07/11 04:13 PM
1

What is the point of this thread other than to prove that women are somehow less fit parents than men, or "boys are better than girls"?
/r/MensRights20/07/11 04:04 PM
–

Really? You don't see anything wrong with that study? Maybe it didn't control for religiosity? Those who are virgins till they marry are much more likely to be highly religious, and stay in miserable marriages. Today you learned! Yes, if someone has sex with one previous partner, she is a slut unworthy of a relationship. What a horrible thing for you to say. EDIT: You have some very paradoxical views on women. You support PUA and "Game" culture, which is all about getting women to sleep with you…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:59 PM
–

Fight bigotry with a reflection of itself. That isn't how it works. In the end you are just creating more bigotry. Yes, I do not believe that women are better than men, and I would not support a subreddit posting "girls are better than boys" stories either.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 11:33 PM
–

Or, in other words, fight bigotry with more bigotry. That's not how it works, sorry! As an egalitarian, I don't believe that boys are better than girls, nor are girls better than boys. If you are for equality, you would believe the same. Unless, of course, you're not looking for equality?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 10:55 PM
–

Yes! Let's fight misandry with misogyny! Bigotry with more bigotry! That'll get a ton done! /s
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:25 PM
–

Surely you understand there is a way to discuss male problems without framing it in a "boys are better than girls" context, correct? Equality isn't a zero sum game.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 06:31 PM
–

Didn't you get the memo? We're done with the whole equality thing, this is now the "boys are better than girls" club.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 06:11 PM
1

The role of housewife has devolved into (mostly) glorified baby sitting, something the housewife of decades ago simply didn't have time for. Welp, I think we are at a fundamental disagreement and will simply never see eye-to-eye.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:52 PM
4

Wrong. No, right. She felt uncomfortable because of her own interpretation, which may not have been the intended interpretation. That's nothing he could have done anything about unless without her asking for clarification. Yes, he could have been more tactful, and approached her in a way that would not make a woman uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 12:21 AM
5

Okay, you are literally never going to understand cultural norms are human interaction, so there is no point of engaging you anymore. "Come up to my room for coffee", or "Come in for a nightcap" are coded words for "come have sex with me". Consider this your first step to becoming culturally literate! In the unlikely scenario that he WASN'T asking for sex, it still made her uncomfortable because the implication of sex is still there. My point still stands.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 12:13 AM
4

While an interpretation may depend upon context the simplest interpretation is always be assumed if context doesn't make it clear. Look at the context clues. It's 4 AM. She had just said she's going to bed. Who drinks a caffeinated drink right before bed? Also, look at where he wanted to take her. Up to his room. Hmm, why would he want to take her to his room, maybe to have sex? Lets examine the other options he had: Ask to meet her for coffee the next day, ask to get coffee that night at a publ…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:56 PM
3

Nope, they are different. Elevator Guy said "Come up to my room for coffee" because society dictates that it is a better way to ask for sex than, "hey stranger, let's fuck". Society does not dictate that no means yes. There you go. Have you really never heard "come up to my room for coffee" as a sexual euphemism? Seriously? Never watched a movie, read a book, seen a play, where anything like that was said? If not, sorry you are culturally illiterate.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:44 PM
1

Apples and oranges, buddy. Stop inserting your rape fantasies into this conversation, pal.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:37 PM
3

Asking a woman to your room for coffee is asking a woman to your room for coffee Or, sometimes it is something else! Have you really never heard the term, "Come in for coffee", or "Come in for a nightcap" in reference to sex? If not, TYL!
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:34 PM
–

Nope, "come back to my room for coffee" is heavily entrenched in society today as a way to ask for sex. Nice try, deary, but it's not my interpretation, but rather society's.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:29 PM
–

Sorry you don't understand how asking a woman back to your room at 4 AM has sexual overtones :shrug:
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:20 PM
–

So, you're losing an argument so you're calling Men's Rights to defend you? EDIT: Wowsers, noticed your -1,000 comment karma in one month. Not sure if troll or...okay probably troll.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 10:49 PM
3

I stil don't see where the guy went "wrong", outside of her feeling "uncomfortable". Maybe there should be a law to that effect? What is your issue with her feeling uncomfortable here? I'm not sure what you are getting at. She should not be allowed to say the guy made her uncomfortable? Bullshit. He asked one question. I dunno, I can think of plenty of ways to make one question really creepy. So what wrong did Stef commit? None. But your argument is that somehow Watson being wrong about somethin…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 10:02 PM
5

Hahahaha. Yeah, she has shown that she doesn't have any of those either. Two wrongs don't make a right. The guy asked her a question, that's all. Sorry, no, not the guys fault or problem. Not sure if you realize this, but you are in some ways responsible for how you present yourself to people. If you act in a creepy way, don't be surprised if you make people uncomfortable. No, I think someone who thinks they have a right not to be made felt uncomfortable and then uses their public status to go o…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 09:52 PM
4

You still don't get it. She has no right to not feel awkward, uncomfortable etc. Sorry, not even the US Constitution gives you that right. I'm not saying she has some kind of inalienable, constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable. What I am saying is that part of being a mature, empathetic adult is recognizing how your actions affect others. It's called social grace, the guy should've realized he would make her uncomfortable by acting as he did. If you think the only reason not to make peop…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 09:37 PM
5

Cornering? Bit more melodrama please. Oh, and that "stranger" apparently was sitting with her in the bar for a few hours, so it's not like it was a guy dashing into the elevator, covered in black clothing and wearing a face mask. She's inside an enclosed space with him, this is what "cornering" means. It is my understanding that they never talked one-on-one. He was simply in the same area as her. Again, if you do not understand why asking a strange woman, late at night, in an enclosed space to c…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 09:21 PM
–

Uhuu. So I guess men now have to be able to read women's minds in order to make them not uncomfortable. Yeah, that'll work. If you can't see how cornering a strange woman in an elevator in a strange country at 4 AM and asking for sex would make her uncomfortable, you lack empathy. Yes, part of being a tactful, empathetic human being is trying to understand how your actions affect people. Again: This happend in Dublin, which is in Ireland, which is part of Europe which is much less obsessed with …
/r/MensRights18/07/11 09:11 PM
–

Claiming that she wasn't being asked for sex is obfuscating the issue, that's what. The whole point is that he asked in an awkward way that would make most women uncomfortable. In the future, he should try to avoid that.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 09:04 PM
6

Did you watch her video? Did YOU? She never said one thing about rape in the entire video. The rape comments came from later commentary by outside sources. Calling someone who disagrees with you a troll is the weakest form of argument. We may have differing views, but at least I don't have to resort to name-calling to make my point.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:57 PM
2

In her assessment that she was uncomfortable? Yes, I think she is entirely reasonable to have feelings. Who are you to say that she had no right to feel uncomfortable? Especially in such an awkward situation?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:47 PM
3

Yeah, she had never talked with the guy one-on-one, which is why it made her so uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:46 PM
2

Never called him a rapist. Not my words. PROTIP: Read what I write before you respond to me, or else you look like a dope.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:34 PM
4

The only thing this woman in a elevator really objected to was the attractiveness of the man hitting on her. Let's all be adults here and admit that. No, that's entirely wrong. What she objected to was the way he asked her for sex, not his attractiveness. In your situation, you met the girl at a bar, then brought her home. In THIS situation, she had never met the man. He just overtly followed her into the elevator and asked her for sex. That is a creepy thing to do, regardless of attractiveness.…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:23 PM
1

No one has to go out of their way to alleviate unreasonable bigoted fears of being raped by random men in an elevator when no such actions took place. The man got turned down, he left. The end. I never said she was about to be raped. I said she was made to feel uncomfortable. Again, social grace and empathy. The commonality in stories like this seem to be that the woman in question suffered the horrible indignity of being approached by a man they find unattractive, and think this should somehow …
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:16 PM
2

I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you honestly think asking a girl you met at a bar to come home with you is analogous to cornering a woman you have never met in an elevator and asking her back to your room? They're apples and oranges.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:12 PM
5

In all honesty, did your last one night stand go that way? Mine didn't. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Was your last one-night stand after cornering a strange woman in an elevator and asking for sex? If not, you are proving my point.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:03 PM
3

No, actually, what I was saying that is even if he was, what is wrong with that? Nothing is inherently wrong with that. He just went about it the wrong way. Selective quoting is great and all but you ignore the multitude of other locations that I've also seen similar complaints about. Supermarkets, restaurants, it doesn't seem to matter where. Okay, well I am not complaining about that at all. If a man wants to try to meet women at a supermarket, more power to him. How am I supposed to know plac…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:01 PM
8

I played football in college... Yes, attractive men live in that world. Really, you could go up to any woman, having never met her previously, ask her for sex and she would comply on the spot? Calling bullshit on this one. What's more to the point, under what circumstances may a man ask a woman to his room for "coffee"? Maybe in a tactful manner? Ask to meet her in the morning to talk? Don't just go up to strange women, corner them in an elevator, and ask them to come back to your room? This has…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:33 PM
0

some i knew for all of an hour or so and in all cases i started with buying a drink, in all cases it started out getting to know someone or wanting to know them My point is sailing right over your head. I am not saying "Men! Don't approach women!" I'm saying that Elevator Guy acted in an awkward way which made Watson uncomfortable. In your situation, yes, you were approaching strange women. But did you immediately ask for sex? Of course not! You bought them a drink, and got to know them. EG skip…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:30 PM
3

I have left nightclubs with women and gone drinking coffee talking till the morning, ive also gone home and spent the night screwing ..... Do you not see the difference between these situations? In your situation, you have spent ALL NIGHT at a nightclub with these women. A proposition for "coffee" or sex is not out of line at all. In the Watson situation, the guy was approaching a woman he had never met, and asking her to come back to his room at 4 AM. Totally different ballgame.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:22 PM
10

You initially said, "So what, he wanted to get laid"? That is acknowledging that he was asking for sex. Asking to "come back for coffee" is widely coded as a proposition for sex. Where is the appropriate time to approach someone might you ask? It's very obvious. How about OUTSIDE of enclosed spaces? How about after you have already talked to someone, and gotten to know them? Elevator Guy asked her for sex and she was uncomfortable. That's it. You're going for the special pleading route here and …
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:20 PM
–

Don't approach women guys, it's creepy. Male sexuality? It's downright dirty, but don't you dare call me a slut for doing sexual things for money or anything... It's called social grace, keeping in mind how your actions make other people feel. He isn't creepy because he asked her for sex, he asked her for sex in a way that the vast majority of women would find creepy. No one is saying "Men! Don't approach woman!" She was merely saying that men should exercise some social grace, unlike Elevator G…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:07 PM
–

Had it been a guy she was attracted to, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I find this line of reasoning very interesting. I'm pretty sure getting asked for sex by a strange man, in a strange country, in an enclosed space at 4 AM would set off any woman's "He's going to cut me up and hide me in a secret basement" alarm, no matter how attractive he is. Do you really think attractive men live in a world where they can ask any strange woman for sex, and get it on the spot? What a strange view o…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:02 PM
3

Really? A cup of coffee, at 4 AM, in a strange man's room has no sexual overtones for you?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:00 PM
–

Maybe if you read down the comment tree, you'll find out!! The point is she's allowed to feel uncomfortable, and claiming it "wasn't about sex" is just purposefully obfuscating the issue.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:00 PM
8

Even if she wasn't right in her assumption that he was asking for sex, that doesn't matter. The point is, asking a woman you have never to come back to your room in an enclosed space at 4 AM is going to make her uncomfortable. "Want to come back to my place for coffee" is heavily coded in society today as a proposition for sex, it is simply foolish to ignore that in this situation.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:19 PM
–

She was asked for sex at 4 am Okay, I'm glad you understand that. The issue that started this whole shebang is that it made her uncomfortable, and she said so. She has every right to feel uncomfortable when she is propositioned for sex late at night, in a closed space, by a strange man. You have no idea what her reaction would have been if she had been approached in a more appropriate manner, that is simply childish conjecture on your part.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:16 PM
–

It is downright dangerous to assume that, asking someone to "come back to your room for coffee" is sex? Hmm. You aren't advocating a "middle ground", you are claiming it probably wasn't asking for sex which is just ridiculous.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:28 PM
1

Just wait till you get banned from r/malestudies without posting!
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:19 PM
–

You have to read the context clues. First, the guy heard her say she was going to bed. He followed her into the elevator, and asked if she wanted "coffee" in his room. Who the hell drinks a caffeinated drink right before bed, at 4AM? What was he going to do, fire up the tiny hotel one-cup? Not only that, if he really wanted "coffee", he would have taken her somewhere public to talk, or asked her to meet him the next day. He was asking her for sex, stating anything else is just purposefully obfus…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:13 PM
–

she was asked for coffee Oh come on, she was being asked for sex. Coffee, in this room, at 4 AM? Give me a break.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:09 PM
1

You're argument is that stay at home moms sit on their ass and eat bon bons all day. You have no argument. You're a bitter man who has abandoned logic and reason.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 04:57 PM
2

Really? You don't think "dump the bitch", when the only thing we know is that she has an internet masturbation video, is a little excessive?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 04:56 PM
–

I don't buy that one mistake in her life makes her "damaged goods", and thus unworthy of a relationship. The top reply to Subduction really says it best.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:31 AM
–

But, he can use that to prove that your argument is invalid. No point in arguing with you though, as you've admitted your disdain for "academics", with all their bothersome "facts" and "burdens of proof"
/r/MensRights18/07/11 01:32 AM
–

The point is, he is a self-proclaimed misogynist who is bent on using this forum to prove that men are better than women.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 01:31 AM
1

And having had a conversation with you last week, I can tell anyone else reading this sub, that CoonTown is a woman that will argue day-is-night. Again, not a woman. I know this is your clever way of asking for pics of my dick, but it's not going to work. In other words A typical woman. This is just as bad as saying "A typical black" or "A typical Jew". Hope this helps! BTW, this forum is about equality, it's not the "Men are better than women Club" that you want it to be.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 01:29 AM
1

. Most women, even those which are highly educated, would rather not work. They want to stay at home with their kids. (And most men would love to do this as well.) And if their husband makes enough money they GET to stay at home. There is no sacrifice involved, whatsoever. That's an awful misogynistic statement for someone who claims to not be a misogynist.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 01:27 AM
–

First off, link to ACTUAL STUDIES, not posts on biased blogs. Secondly, it is my guess that the study did not control for the fact that women spend much more time with children then men do, which would perfectly explain a higher neglect number. Good thing you did edit, because not understanding burden of proof pretty much ruin your argument.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 09:03 PM
–

Burden of proof belongs to you, the person making the claim. That's like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist. Not how it works, bud. EDIT: I should start quoting you, you always completely edit your posts a minute later. You initially said "well, prove they arnt".
/r/MensRights17/07/11 08:56 PM
–

Yeah, you can't just go around claiming women are innately neglectful without any source, if you want to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 08:48 PM
–

More often than not its mothers alone with the children. [citation needed]
/r/MensRights17/07/11 08:41 PM
–

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/1-Year-Old-Child-Found-in-Pool--124136544.html http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1003251--toddler-drowns-in-ancaster-pool-as-father-naps http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/apr/04/19-month-old-florida-boy-drowns-familys-swimming-p/ All from a cursory Google search. Hope this helps! :)
/r/MensRights17/07/11 08:30 PM
1

Everyone knows "deadbeat dads" end up in prison, right? PROVE IT then, if it's so obvious. REMEMBER: Blogs don't count as sources! I'm sorry but your world view is extremely warped. I guess I don't drink the same kool-aid you do. I don't see anything "sacrificial" about not having to work. On the other hand, it's an obscene sacrifice to work and have to take care of a perfectly able adult throughout marriage and even more so during divorce. You must live in an alternate universe. Yes, housewives…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 08:20 PM
6

You mean skepticism. Edit: In fact, you are the cynical one for assuming the worst in this situation.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:54 PM
–

Keep taking the troll-bait, my friend. Critical ability is a valuable thing. The whole comic reads like an MRA redditor's wet dream. Right from the "nerdy" guy who's had a crush on her since grade school (whom the reader is supposed to empathize with), straight to the unsympathetic bitchiness of the woman in the comic.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:51 PM
1

You don't think alimony, which involves involuntary servitude and forced labor, punishment? You do know the punishment for non-payment of alimony, right? PRISON! You still don't think this is a punishment? It's modern-day slavery my friend. You've been called out before on this, and you are wrong. The dude who went to prison was commiting FRAUD and PERJURY. The punishment for not paying child support is wage garnishing, not prison. My point stands, you are insane, get help. It's not slavery, it'…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:48 PM
–

They do if they want people to take the bait.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:47 PM
–

Really? Known troll posts obvious bait rage comic -> realizes people will look through his/her post history, and realize that he/she is a troll -> "Deletes" it (really, this just removes his/her username from the post) It's pretty obvious, and it happens all the time.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:39 PM
–

Edit: Also, she deleted the comic, so that probably means she wasn't trolling. Or he/she is a known troll who removed their name from the comic so it would not be found out. It's very obvious MRA bait, and I'm amazed so many people are taking it seriously.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:25 PM
1

Again. You're just wrong. The ENTIRE purpose of legal marriage, as we know it today, is to transfer wealth and earnings from people who work to people who don't work. That's it. Prove it. That's a very bold claim to make with no citation. The point of marriage and divorce law is to "ball-and-chain" housewives to their husbands to keep up the standard of living of women and keep them off the welfare roles. This is all historically and legally accurate. You realize alimony does not exist just to "…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:18 PM
1

The "legal view" of marriage is not "Take money from the hard working man and give it to his leeching spouse". That is your own bias, not fact. In fact, you can sum up your whole post history as saying, "GUYS! Don't get married! Those bitches will bleed you for all your worth!" I'm sorry YOU had a bad marriage, but there are plenty of redditors with great marriages who don't believe that the whole system is evil.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 07:01 PM
–

How is this an antimale legislation? As someone else pointed out, the wording of the bill is gender neutral. If a woman was convicted of sexual assualt, and was accused of sexual assualt a second time, they would use it against her in court as well. You are assuming that all rapists are men.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 06:58 PM
1

Sorry, but you have a warped and bitter view of marriage, most likely brought on my personal trauma. Rather than arrogantly assuming marriage is an "evil" institution, and does not work for anybody, try instead to learn to manage your anger, and move past your negative experiences. I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that someday your bitterness can be replaced with self-satisfaction.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 06:48 PM
–

If anyone thinks this is anything but a troll, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
/r/MensRights17/07/11 06:20 PM
3

How do you know it was? Assuming everything you read on the internet is true is a very dangerous mindset to have.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:03 PM
–

Do you not see the irony of your statement? Scumbag redditor: Complains about how false allegations can ruin a man's reputation. But who cares about how false allegations of false allegations can affect a woman!
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:56 PM
19

I don't think balancing misandry with misogyny is really the right answer
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:31 PM
2

Marriage is all about the transfer of wealth and earnings from people who work to people who don't work (it's a state welfare program). That is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. First off, you are assuming one partner is working in the marriage. This is not true for many, many marriages. I'm sorry YOU had a bad marriage, but this is not the case for every marriage.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:16 PM
1

I love this horrible "straw-feminist" you seem to have built up. Keep in mind, in this very subreddit, I claimed that I was sick of the needlessly hostile articles raving about "manginas", and I was upvoted pretty heavily. You are the oddball here for enjoying rants over journalism. Not me.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 03:24 AM
1

Bull fucking shit you would. You were gunning for AVfM, for doing what hundreds of thousands of other sites do. Your 'best' defense so far is they were so successful you needed to try and shut it down. What? Yeah, I'm totally trying to "shut down" your little blog. The self-victimization complex is strong in this one. You have yet to provide ONE thing AVFM was accomplished, outside of, "Well, people are reading it!" What legislation and REAL CHANGE has it influenced? Right, none. Again, bullshit…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 03:23 AM
1

Hmmm, can't imagine how I would think this is a shill for the feminist-approved mens movement...you know, where we ignore legal rights issues and debate about why it's not ok for men to wear skirts... I have not researched the Good Men Project, I was simply using RationalWiki to explain to you how AVFM is perceived outside of your clique. I am not the only one who does not care for the articles on the blog, and finds the wording to be needlessly hostile and juvenile.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:25 AM
1

Now, go and post some comments there asking these sites just what the hell they're going to do with the money. Go on /r/feminism and do the same. I wouldn't donate to any of those sites either, your point is moot. I don't throw my money away, if I wanted to give money, it's going to be to a real organization that is a registered non-profit. If there was a topic on r/feminism titled "$5,000 so far! We're coming to get you MRAs!", and the site was just a blog on the internet, I'd post the exact sa…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:19 AM
1

I get that you're jealous or something, and that's not my problem. But all you guys saying what he's doing is 'wrong' are getting left in his rhetorical dust. So if it's not sour grapes, then I suggest you get off your ass and develop a site that IS the 'right way' and show him how it's done, instead of trying to dictate. I'm really not jealous at all. It's interesting that you'd construe any criticism as jealousy. By your fail-proof logic, since you are spending many hours criticizing me, you m…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:00 AM
1

Really? You wish you had schizophrenia? Interesting.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 12:15 AM
–

Also, only stay with her if she's a virgin. If you weren't her first, she'll have a hard time committing. This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. Yes, clearly there is no line between virgin and "cheating skank".
/r/MensRights16/07/11 10:59 PM
2

You claimed the whole purpose of marriage as to "give money to greedy spouses". Those are the ramblings of a madman. I'm sorry you have such a terrible, warped view of marriage and male-female relations in general. I hope one day you are able to move past those delusions.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 09:53 PM
1

This whole group of people are activists operating on a budget of basically zero, trying to raise social awareness of many issues that bigots would prefer were left unexplored. Paul has been at the forefront of the sweeping changes that have taken hold of the MRM, along with Welmer at The Spearhead, Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide and several of the writers that post at each site. What changes? Around here, it seems like most AVFM articles, and articles by disciples of AVFM, are commonly downv…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:36 PM
1

That's what marriage is - the forced transfer of assets and income from people who earn it to their gold-digging, mooching spouses. Hahaha, okay, I get it now, you're insane.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:22 PM
0

Downvoting is the only way you can show distaste for a comment. Bullshit. You can, I don't know, ADD A COMMENT as to why you disagree, instead of mashing the downvote button. I'm starting to think you're a concern troll. Yeah, anyone who shows concern is a troll. Baseless claim is baseless. Well, my initial comment was downvoted because people disagreed. Regardless, it's a huge problem throughout Reddit, but it is especially harmful in a forum like this, where you are trying to foster serious di…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:21 PM
1

He, in fact, was "forced" to give up possessions he earned as a result of the divorce. Prove it. Are you Sugar Shane Mosely IRL? You are literally adding facts to the story that aren't there in order to find misandry.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 11:17 PM
–

Why does it matter whose possession they are under? They BELONG to the kids, not the wife (as the title of the thread implies). Not only that, Sugar Shane AGREED to this. I'm not quite sure why you are astounded by this. No one forced him to do this.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 11:11 PM
–

Okay, but you really don't know what went on behind that court room door. For all you know, Sugar Shane suggested the wife hold onto the belts, and didn't want custody. Not only that, you are overlooking the simple fact that the belts DO NOT BELONG TO THE WIFE. They are being held until the kids turn 18. They are not for her, but for his children.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 11:02 PM
2

Censorship isn't showing your disapproval for a point of view, it's erasing it completely. Downvoting a post enough hides it from view, under the downvote threshold. It IS a form of censorship to downvote things you disagree with, and it goes against the spirit and guidelines of this website. I'm applying it to r/mensrights because it's the norm here. It happens in places like Askreddit, IAMA, and others, but not nearly to the extreme it happens here. EDIT: I really hope you haven't been here fo…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 10:54 PM
2

It is what they agreed upon in the voluntary settlement. Neither you nor I were in the room. All we know is that Mosely agreed to have the wife hold onto the belts for the kids until they turn 18.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 10:52 PM
–

You have no leg to stand on. The belts were given to mom in all liklihood because she got the kids. You have no leg to stand on. Prove this is the case. Oh wait, you can't, you are basing your entire argument on mindless conjecture. The belts were voluntarily given to the wife, to be given to the kids. This is a voluntary settlement, if he wanted to fight this he had every right to. For all you know, HE suggested it!
/r/MensRights15/07/11 10:51 PM
–

In this case, the wife is probably being a vindictive bitch and asked for the belts to humiliate and hurt her ex-husband. He accepted because his lawyer advised him that litigation is futile (he might (maybe?) save the belts but would probably end up paying more on other items, so it's not worth it) All conjecture at this point. You have no leg to stand on to claim, "The wife is PROBABLY being a bitch". If you have an article that says that, by all means post it. But as it stands right now, Suga…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 08:41 PM
–

He wasn't forced, the title of this thread is sensationalist and misleading. Look at the title of the actual article: Shane Mosley Wife Gets Championship Belts in Divorce Settlements are the norm in divorce proceedings. The system is set up so that a judge dividing assets is really a last resort.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 07:05 PM
–

It's right there in the article. That is what a divorce settlement is. If it was ordered by a judge, it would be a divorce decree.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:47 PM
–

This was a voluntary settlement, a judge did not divide the assets. This is an agreement both parties were alright with.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:29 PM
–

How so? This is a divorce settlement, the assets were divided completely voluntarily. Sugar Shane wanted his children to have the belts, so they'll stay with the mom until the kids turn 18.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:28 PM
4

Shane Mosley wanted to give the belts to his children. The court isn't ordering him to give the belts to his children.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:26 PM
–

The settlement provides that ex-wife Jin "shall maintain custody and control of three championship belts for each of the respective parties' three minor children." Each of the kids get a belt when they turn 18. The belts aren't for the wife, they are for their children.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:10 PM
–

The "degrees" of sexual assault are based on age, not severity of the crime. The victim would have to be below the age of thirteen for it to qualify as first degree sexual assault
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:07 PM
6

I don't really get the moral superiority male related subreddits claim over female related ones. Yeah, r/feminisms censors content by way of deletion, but censorship happens here as well. Dissenting opinions are swiftly downvoted and buried. The consensus is "downvote if you disagree", which is even practiced by the moderation here, and it's just wrong. Downvotes should be reserved for posts that add nothing to the discussion, not posts that people disagree with. It doesn't foster discussion, it…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 07:22 AM
–

She's being charged with 2nd Degree Sexual Assault. This is being charged with statutory rape. A person accused and convicted for having sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has attained the age of 13 years, but has not attained the age of 16 years is guilty of second-degree sexual assault of a minor child, a Class C felony. Source: http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/Sex-Minor-Crime.asp
/r/MensRights15/07/11 04:43 AM
1

Yeah, probably because I usually just sit here and read, and let things go as they are until I run up against something or someone that needs addressing. Okay, so you admit that you see the views of other users on this website as "something that needs addressing"? That sounds a little arrogant. You seem to belong to that little clique of MRAs that got punted from AVfM and the Spearhead a while back I really don't need to be explaining myself to you, but I had never even heard of "A Voice For Men…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 04:32 AM
1

Just look at your post history, it's pages upon pages of you "calling people out". Get real. You don't have some kind of ideological superiority that allows to you backseat moderate this forum. I've never said the rest of us. You pick out new members, and anyone who disagrees with you, and call them out as "Not true MRA's". If I'm not an MRA by your bullshit, arbitrary measure (Which basically boils down to disagreeing with you = not an MRA), then fine. I could not care less. Just know that you …
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:53 AM
1

What are you going on about? You've got an ego the size of the empire state building. You are literally advocating silencing all dissenting views, and forming a massive circlejerk. YOU can behave however you want (Calling out new members and people who disagree with you, spouting non stop Scotsman fallacies, generally adding nothing and being a douche), but don't expect people to put up with it.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:34 AM
0

I think this quote by the comic creator sums it up nicely: Jezus guys, would you stop overanalysing? Ye at the moment I thought she was a bitch. Im not going to put my life story here. its a ragecomic, so just relax.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 11:33 PM
–

Exactly, you have to be a special kind of fucked up to look at a mental disorder as something you wish you could have. It's like being "pro-depression" or "pro-schizophrenia".
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:22 PM
1

QUIET DOWN, I'M TRYING TO CIRCLEJERK IN HERE!! ACT LIKE I WANT YOU TO! FTFY
/r/MensRights14/07/11 04:00 PM
–

Yup. Well, makes sense. As long as you are consistent with your application of blame I can accept your line of reasoning. You have more options then just condoms. Don't play the victim to sabotage when there's many more methods out of birth control. I'm not a woman. However, I do have female friends who have dated crazy guys who were caught poking holes in the condoms because they thought they were going to be dumped. Since men have no influence on whether or not the child is born, it ultimately…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 02:04 AM
–

By sabotaging birth control, I mean actually poking holes in condoms so that they rip during intercourse. Not all women can get the shot. Most hormonal birth control pills cause a host of side effects, and some women have very strong reactions to certain types. Surely, then, you agree that if a woman sabotages birth control, the man should've just "gotten better birth control", and worn a condom or gotten a vasectomy, right?
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:38 AM
1

I think he got fired for being a jerk to the customer? How is this gender related?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 11:45 PM
1

troll is trolling. Says the guy who was autodownvoting ::eyeroll:: So everyone who disagrees with you is both a troll AND an idiot? Gosh, self-righteousness is one helluva drug.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:31 PM
–

Don't you know the new PC narrative is that it is actually men that sabotage birth control to retain power over women? This actually happens, though. Surely you don't believe no men have ever sabatoged birth control?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:25 PM
1

[citation needed], self-proclaimed expert. I already refuted your notion that FGM is an accepted part of Islam. If you aren't going to even read anything I post, why bother responding? You accuse me of this again? I did not say they were the same. I said they were comparable. Finally! They are not the same! Thank you. At least I made a slight bit of headway with you. You accuse me of this again? I did not say they were the same. I said they were comparable. Okay, and my point is that the ban on …
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:23 PM
2

You are completely ignoring the fact that FGM has no religious backing. It is not a major religious tenet in Islam or in Judaism. Banning circumcision is banning a religious rite, banning FGM is banning a cultural artifact. That is the major difference between the two, which is why it is profoundly ignorant to compare the two as though they are the same.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:01 PM
0

yah! I tried to make that known in the times I said "there are multiple sects within Islam, which neither you nor I can enumerate intelligently. " Okay, well I am fairly educated on Islam, so I CAN tell you that the sects that practice FGM are very small, and in areas where culture dictated FGM BEFORE Islam arrived! So it's not devoid of religious meaning, which has been my point. Both Christians and Muslims have been known to pray as well. Does that mean that prayer is cultural and nonreligious…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:59 PM
1

it is not devoid of religious underpinnings, held by (some) faithful to be required. I did not ignore this: As I said above, there are sects that believe in it. Read my edit. The edict you quoted was from 1950 in Egypt. Since then, leading Egyptian authority has denounced this. Your ignorance of Islam is really showing. Islam is a religion of acceptance, and as such, there is no governing body like you would see in Catholicism. This leaves different regions and cultures free to practice Islam di…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:37 PM
1

I said: No, you said: "Funny how we ban FGM, even for religious reasons, but not circumcision". That's an incredibly ignorant comparison. They are not the same. Now, we can go on a 'my imam is better than your imam' kick but it's pointless because as I've said, there are multiple sects within Islam, which neither you nor I can enumerate intelligently. You realize the sects which support FGM are very small, right? It's akin to someone attributing the acts of a small Christian sect to the beliefs …
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:28 PM
2

Yet even a ceremonial "nick" to the labia or hood of the clitoris is outlawed for girls. This would placate many people who wish to do this for cultural reasons I don't care about cultural reasons. America has a distinct culture, it does not have to embrace barbaric cultural rituals. RELIGION, on the other hand, is a different story. Can you imagine the outcry if men routinely said things like, "I just like a modified pussy better--it's all tidy-looking and tucked-in," I don't know if you realiz…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:14 PM
1

that is not correct, as I have already proved. You have only proved you are incapable of discussing this issue without emotions clouding your reason and judgement. I never implied circumcisions should or should not be banned, do not put words in my mouth. where did I imply that they were the same? Your initial comparison compared the two as though they were the same. that statement is ambiguous and nonsensical. Yes, they are comparable in the fact that they are both procedures involving the geni…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:54 PM
0

he amount denial in your comment about my points indicates willful stupidity. Pain proves nothing? fuck off. You know that in the long term effects section there is a comment about PTSD. You ignored it. fuck off. Again, I AM NOT ARGUING PRO-CIRCUMCISION. Pain proves nothing as FGM RESULTS IN REMEMBERED PAIN. Circumcision does not. Again, HUGE DIFFERENCE. I'm not saying the two are identical. It's insulting however, to say that they are incomparable. They are not the same, as you implied. Glad yo…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:16 PM
3

See my reply to Kloo. I am not arguing for or against circumcision, I am simply stating that it is much, much, much different than FGM, and comparisons like that do no favors to either side of the debate.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:02 PM
–

this would be relevant, if most of the people who were circumcised in the USA were either Jewish or Muslim. That is clearly not the case. Circumcision in the US owes its prevalence to John Harvey Kellogg, who was a nut and openly advocated that it be done without anesthesia, and as a cure for masturbation. It is relevant, because, I am not talking about my personal stance on circumcision, rather how they are DIFFERENT, and it is not apt to compare the two. You are proving my point. A ban on FGM …
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:51 PM
3

That's not cancer prevention, and even if it were, that's not true. WOW. Okay, let's take all the money that was supposed to go to that "Cancer Research" bullshit, and spend it on translating C-Code. Priorities, right? The problem here is I'm thinking about the long term benefits of each experiment as well as the long term potential contributions of each participant. You have yet to tell me what the long term benefit is to translating english to c-code as opposed to researching carcinogens. The …
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:35 PM
2

Or, being his complete ally is enabling him to live in self-pity. He needs to know that he's behaving irrationally, or he'll never be able to correct it.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:30 PM
–

FGM does likely have medical benefit. Females are more prone than boys to urinary tract infection, and folds of skin around their shorter urethras hold in germs. This is not true at all. Mutilated women actually have MORE urinary problems. World Health Organization - FGM has NO MEDICAL BENEFIT
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:30 PM
1

As or 'adding something useful', I'm afraid refusing to play by your rules doesn't invalidate my position, or the points I make. I will not engage you in wild goose chases, and I get that this pisses you off. You add nothing. Sorry, yelling that you disagree with someone, and "Why won't everyone act JUST HOW I WANT!?! WAH!" adds nothing. I guess you'd rather have MensRights be one huge circlejerk thought, right?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:26 PM
1

I do agree with certain issues, not every one. I don't have to prove myself to a chump like you. Stop complaining because everyone won't act "just how you want them to". Especially when YOU typically add nothing useful to the conversation
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:58 AM
–

No she identified levels of carcinogens in certain chicken. Cancer prevention >>>>> c code, no matter how you look at it.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:28 AM
–

Such infallible logic! Next you will say that in order to be a democrat, you must agree with every stance a democrat takes! No group is completely homogeneous. I have every right to pick which issues I advocate and which I disagree with
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:19 AM
–

I dunno, I think cancer is a pretty big deal, but that's just me. Encoding english to c is a non issue. Anyone who needs to write c will learn c. Sure it sounds cool and science-y on paper but out doesn't solve real world issues like the girls did.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:13 AM
–

You're funny. You responded to my post About the scotsman fallacy WITH a scotsman fallacy. I thought I told you that you are not the grand arbitor of mens rights? Deflate that big ole ego!
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:08 AM
3

See my reply to Kloo. I'm not concerned with how the procedure started, that's not how sociology works. The difference lies in how the procedures are treated in society today.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:12 PM
–

Okay, here's is exactly why I think the comparison between FGM and circumcision is not apt: 1) More religions practice circumcision than FGM. FGM is largely practiced in the Middle East and Northern Africa by certain sects in Islam. However, it is important to note that FGM is not a religious rite, but rather a cultural value. This is where the "religious protection" argument falls flat on it's face. There is nothing religious about banning FGM, neither the Koran nor the Sunnah advocate FGM, and…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:10 PM
–

Not in "no way comparable", of course they are both sets of sets of genitals, but it is not a very apt comparison from a medical, as well as sociological standpoint.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:42 PM
–

No, see, that was a clever way of explaining to you that the comparison between FGM and circumcision is not valid. As in, it's like comparing apples to oranges.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:31 PM
–

How freely we condemn apples, even when done for religious beliefs, but accept oranges, because religious beliefs are its foundation.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:04 PM
–

Well, they gave the age 13-14 prize to a girl who basically just cooked chicken with different marinades. Okay, this is wayyyy over simplifying. She actually, "studied the effect of different marinades on the level of potentially harmful carcinogens in grilled chicken." It's not like she just cooked chicken and mailed the pictures into Google, as you seem to be implying. The main difference between what Luke Taylor did, and what the winning girls did, is that they focused on solving problems wit…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 05:57 PM
–

Well, they gave the age 13-14 prize to a girl who basically just cooked chicken with different marinades. Okay, this is wayyyy over simplifying. She actually, "studied the effect of different marinades on the level of potentially harmful carcinogens in grilled chicken." It's not like she just cooked chicken and mailed the pictures into Google, as you seem to be implying. The main difference between what Luke Taylor did, and what the winning girls did, is that they focused on solving problems wit…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 05:57 PM
–

It's like if your brother shot you in the foot and you went to tell your dad and he suggested how to deal with your disability, what you want is justice Okay, that isn't an analogous situation. The guy chose to cheat on his girlfriend who he "loved", and had unprotected sex in a one night stand. That is monumentally stupid. Let's say that instead of having a child, he ended up contracting HIV (a distinct possibility in this scenario). Would the best advice be to tell him, "Oh, poor you, you are …
/r/MensRights12/07/11 04:39 PM
1

It really depends on the size and strength of the woman. If you are being attacked by a woman your size, and you are genuine being hurt, it should be acceptable to hit back. However, if a 6'5" guy is being hit by a 5'0" tall, 95 lb woman, punching her in the face would probably not be appropriate. The man could easily restrain her, or try to otherwise extricate himself from the situation. You are entitled to self-defense, not revenge. For either gender, violence should be a last resort.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:51 AM
–

It's hard for anyone to be active when differing opinions are either shouted-down or censored by way of downvotes.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:42 AM
–

Well, to run with your holocaust example, it'd be incredibly damaging for someone to tell the victim to continue living the past, and live a life of self-pity, as this guy is doing. People in that thread have acknowedged how bad of a situation he is in, saying things like, "I'm so sorry you are going through this". He's steadfastly refusing that his attitude is part of the problem and is refusing any advice to get help or otherwise change is outlook ("You don't see someone bleeding out on the fl…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 12:40 AM
–

The guy is really not taking anyone's advice. Honestly, he seems very depressed yet refuses the obvious suggestion of "go see a psychiatrist. Seek help!" or "Try your best to move on, don't get sucked into a life of self-pity". He either didn't want advice or he's a troll.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 12:18 AM
–

Well, he was rebuffed earlier, then overtly followed her into the elevator and propositioned her for sex, which made her uncomfortable. Other than that, you're not missing anything.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:07 PM
8

I agree. There are certain sites posted here that a needlessly nasty tone that just ruin whatever point they were trying to make. I'd much rather read an article that sounds as though it was written by a journalist, rather than pages of "God damn fucking mangina fembots" over and over.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 06:37 PM
2

Seems pretty useless to me. Consent can be withdrawn at any point during sex, rendering those contracts null and void. You can't legally sign a contract that would allow you to be raped. Not only that, I don't think those contracts are legally valid. You can't just print out a contract on your inkjet and it's a valid contract, you have to get it notarized.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:56 PM
1

Eh, I guess I misread. What's the point of posting it besides to say, "Hey everyone! This cartoon guy disagrees!"
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:24 AM
1

I disagree with the notion that a man should have the ability to choose whether or not he wants to be a parent after conception. It ignores the rights of the woman, has enormous potential to violate the bodily integrity of the woman, and is extremely unfair to the future child. However, I believe there are biases against males in the court system, and certain career paths, particularily child care. Quite frankly, you think anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. People are going to have differ…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 09:50 PM
–

Dude, you gotta read into the context. He was posting a cartoon as though it was supporting the MRM, but really it's just saying that men have more rights then women. The second cartoon was to illustrate Drew's (of Toothpaste for Dinner) views on feminism and the men's rights movement. Damn, people are so reactionary with their downvotes. A lot of anger could be avoided if you just, ya know, read the entire post.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 08:25 PM
–

When did I say women don't have privileges? Jesus, you sure love to jump to conclusions.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 08:18 PM
–

You know, you can agree with certain points within the MRM, and disagree with others, right? You're basically saying that, in order to be a Democrat, one must agree with everything any Democratic politician says ever.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:32 PM
1

And yet suddenly you all pile in with downvotes and GTFO OUT OF HERE FEMINIST replies. I thought that MR was better than this. You must be new here. The prevailing etiquette in MensRights is "downvote if you disagree" and "anyone who disagrees with me is a woman or a fembot". Which is why this place is such a haven for groupthink.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:31 PM
–

I think you are misinterpreting that cartoon. He's saying that men have 20% more rights than women, which goes against the MensRights hivemind view that men have no privileges in society today. Here is another Toothpaste for Dinner on the subject.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:19 PM
2

Oh god, I haven't taken a science course. I must sound like a real buffoon! Better end communication. FTFY
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:01 PM
4

Okay, I'm sure you pressing animes to watch, or wallscrolls to hang. It must save so much time having no friends or relationships!
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:00 PM
6

I have other interests in my life Anime, World of Warcraft, Mountain Dew, neckbeard stroking, licking Cheeto dust off your fat fingers... The only thing I'd want you for is a vagina. and inbetween sessions with that, I'd despise you. It's unbelievably sad that you have no interaction with women in your real life, so you have to invent "secret women" on the internet. I'm obviously a man. You realize you are about 1 degree away from becoming "prison gay", don't you?
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:47 PM
2

Saying, "Welp, I'm not sure what the real numbers are" is somehow equated in your mind with "The real number is 40%! Probably higher! I bet it's 90%!!" Why in the hell would you lean on a study that came to no conclusion as though it supports your point. Have you literally never taken a science course?
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:37 PM
1

Said the man who read the Stern Review, and who's favorite part was where she concluded that she cannot tell the true percentage of false accusations FTFY You aren't even putting any effort into your trolling anymore. You're losing your touch.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:26 PM
1

Im sure you're enjoying the male attention, that you cant get in real life, but I've got better things to do than keep you company. *can't Anyway, go talk to your cats, have them keep you comapny, because its quite obvious you are lonely. *Company Says the dude who is celebrating not being able to meet women.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:12 PM
2

and YOU ARE A WOMAN, I dont know why you deny it. Its obvious. Hurr durr, you disagree with me, so you must be a womans!! You're so funny. Im simply not that bothered about it. *I'm I would rather be alone than live with a woman like you I'm glad you have accepted being a foreveralone for the rest of your life. I'm sure your 6 foot tall anime body pillow will keep you company just fine!
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:16 PM
1

I'm only replying because I want to see if you'll say "Good Day" for a third time, only to come back and try to get the last word in.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:13 PM
1

Info on wikipedia is cited, troll. I can't help that you aren't self-motivated to look up sources.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:11 PM
0

Stop doing it. No. See, usually when someone uses the "Econ101" defense, it's because they are wrong, but don't know enough about the subject to refute the other person's claims. See: "Feh, you think raising the minimum wage would lead to a jump in unemployment? Typical Econ101 logic." Psych 101 would be the basics of psychology. Yes, I am going to explain psychology to you using the most basic language and ideas, because you have no background in psych (that I know of), and therefore would have…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 08:29 AM
1

An interesting theory (psych 101 rears its ugly head). Here's a better question. Can you spot your - probably untrue - assumptions? My favorite part about reddit: discussing any subject is immediately related to the most basic college course. Usually Econ 101 or Psych 101. My assumption is that all humans crave self-affirmation (FACT!). Your behavior indicates you are lacking the self-affirmation that we, as humans, need in order to feel fulfilled. You may be more qualified to speak of the law, …
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:42 AM
1

Here's a good one. Why? Why? Let's see, why in the world would going on the internet to berate people show lack of self-confidence? It shows that you have a need to attempt to prove to yourself that you are just as smart as you think you are. All those years of law school weren't a waste, that guy on the internet agrees! All humans crave self-affirmation, and internet "trolling", "griefing", and otherwise belittling is an extension of this. To be clear, however, I'm sure this behavior is not res…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:25 AM
1

Yep, I am a terrible attorney that has somehow managed my firm and my clients to bill me at $250 an hour about 4 years out of law school. The fact that you log onto an internet forum and actively seek out opportunities to berate people for not being experts shows a lack of self confidence. My deductive reasoning leads me to believe this lack of self-confidence is either inborn (unlikely, you would not have the self-motivation to obtain a law degree), or it is because you are really don't get pos…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:00 AM
1

Yeah, we are done. You have no idea what you are talking about. Try not to speak on matters you have no experience in. You only embarrass yourself. Good day. Damn right we're done. I can tell by your post history you're entire schtick is acting like a huge dickbag whenever someone discusses law or economics. Oh, and please don't go to law school. We have enough bad attorneys. Yeah, It must seem that way when you have to look at one in the mirror every morning :) Don't worry, if I do pursue law, …
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:43 AM
1

No you weren't. I might believe you if you didn't make grammatical errors all over your posts What? I'm sure I could go through your posts and look for spelling and grammar errors, but I'm not a fucking creep. Your ignorance on the matter is being reveals more and more. Do you understand what a charge is? Or what a grand jury is? Quick! Look it up on wikipedia. Oh please. Literally the first thing I learned is that a grand jury will pass anything. Yeah, maybe she'd be indicted on extortion, but …
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:32 AM
1

I know it's supposed to be "read well", I was mocking you. How am I wrong? You really think a jury would charge charge her with EXTORTION, based on circumstantial evidence? No way.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:06 AM
–

When did I say the woman could only be charged with 1 crime at a time? Because I never did. You sure don't read too good for a supposedly educated individual The charges for extortion wouldn't stick, stop being a pedant.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:02 AM
1

It's not equivalent at all, it's a textbook false equivalency. He just trying to find the words to justify an idea that no sane person would attempt to justify.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:00 AM
–

Let me ask you something. What the fuck are you doing on this subreddit? I mean, what is your fucking role here? No true MRA would have that view! Just as no true Scotsman would wear underwear under his kilt!
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:59 AM
1

LOL, what? You really think that the model in that picture eats like a hippo every day? She probably has to eat right, and go to the gym at least 3-4 days a week to look like that.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:57 AM
–

Currently a Poli Sci major concentrating in legal studies. As a Defense Attorney, you would probably understand that you could spring your client in a hot minute on an extortion case as circumstantial as this, correct?
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:55 AM
–

Do you have any experience in the law? If not, you may want to get off your high horse.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:49 AM
1

You are totally missing the point. The real problem here is the INCEST. The boy cannot consent to have sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER. This is not a balanced, consensual relationship. The mother is using her parental power and authority to force him to have sex. This is repeated rape. Repeatedly raping someone deserves 30 years. And yes, this will result in lasting emotional damage. This young man had his trust repeatedly violated, and he was repeatedly abused by his own mother. Unless you are one of t…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:21 AM
–

Umm, yes they do. They chose the highest possible charges they believe they can get a sentence for. If you think any jury would convict for extortion on this case you're kidding yourself.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:17 AM
1

It must be tough to be a 30 year old foreveralone. Because I can't imagine any woman, scratch that, any PERSON wanting to be around someone as willfully ignorant, embittered, and unpleasant as you. You realize, if this was the 50's, you are the guy yelling at the black children trying to integrate into a white school, don't you? Not a woman, again. Being a misogynist is the same as being a racist btw. You're still a fucking moron. (See, I know how to use the word YOU'RE correctly, unlike you)
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:17 AM
1

Haha, yeah I'll trust the government over you, a whackjob on the internet.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:14 AM
–

You really don't think there will be any lasting mental and emotional damage from being repeatedly raped by your own mother? She did permenantly injure someone. Not only that, there is the potential that she will get out of prison and be able to continue abusing her own child, or other children. If the genders were reversed, would you still feel as though there was no permenant mental injury? Or do you honestly just think repeatedly raping someone is not worthy of a 30 year sentence?
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:43 PM
–

It's not only statutory rape, it's incest. Incest is it's own form of rape. There in absolutely no balance in the relationship, the parent is free to control and manipulate the child he/she is raping. It's not a consensual relationship. Now, considering it is both statutory rape and incest, this is pretty heinous as far as sex crimes go. You are also ignoring the fact that, in the US, half of that sentence will probably get commuted to parole if she behaves in prison.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:34 PM
2

When she and her fellow SkepChick bloggers and readers took it to the next level and make it about acceptable male behavior, it became very much a Mens Rights' issue. I think you have lost track of what started this conversation. I took issue with the OP claiming he "just asked her for coffee". That's it. Stop jumping to conclusions. I did not ask to debate the "blogosphere" bullshit, you did.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:28 PM
–

Legally, this is rape. You are looking at this as though it is a consensual relationship, it is not. She repeatedly raped her teenage son. If a man repeatedly raped his 14 year old daughter, you bet your ass he'd get 30 years.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:18 PM
1

This is obviously a much bigger conversation than just between Watson and Elevator Guy, or Richard Dawkins would not be involved in the first place, you tool. Yeah, I'm the tool for not following this completely rubbish non-issure. Sure. I purposefully avoid the blogosphere aftermath because I have neither the time nor the desire to read the mountains of literature devoted to this bullshit. You are obviously ignorant of how this went down initially, so I'll summarize it for you: Guy asks girl fo…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:05 PM
–

Not only that, the son is incapable of giving consent, due to the balance of power in the relationship. Edit: I like how some guy went and downvoted any comment against incest. Stay classy, reddit.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 07:30 PM
–

The Watson camp is "patriarchally" oppressing Richard Dawkins into silence and suffering. Oh, come on. If you really think Richard Dawkins is "suffering" over this whole ordeal, you need to take a step back. Dawkins argument of "You can't complain because worse things are happening elsewhere" is simplistic, and disappointing to hear from a man of his intelligence. I could just as easily argue, "Well, people are starving in Ethiopia, so who cares about the separation of church and state"? I reall…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 07:16 PM
–

You realize that when the prosecution chooses a charge, they pick the highest possible charge they can get a conviction for, right? She'd most likely walk if they tried to charge her with extortion based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 05:06 PM
1

How is this a ridiculous comment? I don't think anyone can tell who's a rapist and who isn't.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 05:00 PM
6

Nah, bro. He's just negging ya. He's gonna try to get in your pants later.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 04:55 PM
–

So what if he was tactlessly propositioning her for sex? It made her uncomfortable. That was her only point initially. Her point was just to say that if you follow a woman into an enclosed space and ask her for sex, it's probably going to make her uncomfortable. She's not trying to "manipulate others behavior through social class", that's ridiculous. Sure, man can ask women for sex in elevators, her point is only that they are going to be shot down, and it's going to be really awkward and uncomf…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 04:48 PM
1

You can claim Kanin's studies were based on 'flawed' methodology, I will claim the 2-3% studies are based on flawed methodolgy. Kanin has come closer to the true figure than any of the other studies, so yes, I think its highly likely 30-40% of all rape allegations made to the police are false. How do you know 40% is the true figure? Possibly because you are misogynistic idiot with a bias? Hmm... And the The British Home Office doesnt believe its 3-4% (or it shouldnt anyway, The Stern Review of R…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 04:46 PM
2

A cat is not a dog. 'Black' people as a group are not 'women' as a group. You are making a blanket statement about a diverse group of people. You might as well be posting on stormfront. It's the same thing. It's not a fact that women "lie about everything", it's not analagous to "dogs are pack animals", you fucking idiot. And if there is a problem within the black community, then its the black women that are the cause of it, just like the white woman in the white community. Your pathetic attempt…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 04:40 PM
1

I don't think that really has any bearing on the point I was making...
/r/MensRights09/07/11 04:35 PM
–

If you were really caught up on your Machiavelli, you would know it's not all just "being ruthless", as is the common misconception. The Prince is predicated on the idea that you have to strike a balance, know when to be good as well as when to be ruthless. In fact, this thread is very Machiavellian. The idea that you could put a benevolent face on your movement to gain societal acceptance, then use that acceptance to control and enact policies would be an idea Machiavelli would have approved of…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 10:37 PM
-1

But it wouldn't have worked. That's awkward as fuck, he shouldn't have followed her in the elevator and asked her there, he should have asked her in the lobby, or hung out with her a little first. Asking a stranger in an elevator, "Hey, wanna fuck?" has a pretty high failure rate.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:59 PM
–

Really? What was he gonna do, fire up the shitty little hotel one-cup coffee maker? Why not just go to a 24 Hour convenience store and have a convo in the hotel lobby? Come on, you can reasonably infer he was asking her for sex. No, it's not analogous to rape or sexual assault like some people have said, but it's still a pretty awkward situation. Which is why she was uncomfortable. Which she has every right to be.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:57 PM
–

Okay, as long as you recognize he wasn't asking her for "coffee and a conversation", he was asking her for sex. Which made her uncomfortable, since he did so in a very awkward place (an elevator).
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:51 PM
–

I think SkepChick is full of shit and an attention cow. If a man can't ask a woman for coffee, what exactly can he say to her? I can see your point, but I think you are being purposefully obtuse. We're all adults here, we all know that asking someone to "come back to your room for coffee" at 4 AM is propositioning for sex. If he really wanted to just have coffee, he would have asked her to meet him at a Starbucks the next morning. Plus, who is going to drink something loaded with caffeine at 4 i…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:43 PM
3

Well obviously, you can't control how people on the internet are going to react, but she's not being an enormous bitch by saying "Hey guys, if you proposition women for sex in enclosed spaces at 4am, it'll probably make them uncomfortable"
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:37 PM
–

I'm sorry you've been downvoted, but you are absolutely right. This subreddit all too often devolves into "Us vs. Feminists" or, even worse, "Us vs. Women". Not only that, the prevailing logic in this subreddit is "downvote if you disagree", so there is a large amount of groupthink. If you don't agree with every facet of the men's rights movement, and don't reject immediately any pro-women ideal, get ready to collect downvotes. There is a fairly sizable population of extremists and admitted miso…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:33 PM
–

LOL, every time someone links to the-spearhead, I can only think of that guy, and I can't take the article seriously. It's a little scary to think that there are actually people who think like that.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:25 PM
2

I agree. It's a lighthearted comedy, it's not meant to be taken seriously. I think the real humor comes from the fact that it is a very attractive woman (Jennifer Aniston) who is pursuing the man, but he still feels harassed.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:02 PM
1

Most black people lie about anything and everything. This is why us whites get shafted and dont see it coming. If white Americans were taught the truth by fellow whites about the true nature of black people, they would be able to protect themselves a lot better. The problem with that is a lot of white children don't get taught about blacks because A. The parents may not know all blacks are liars, or B. They know about black people but are afraid to sound racist. Now do you realize how stupid you…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:18 PM
2

And the Kanin studies are not faulty. It is. How the hell do you think every other study found a rate of 3-6%, while the the Kanin study was off by a factor of 7? The methodology is flawed. The fact that you are relying on ONE FLAWED STUDY, and ignoring the bulk of scientific research shows your idiotic bias. So yes, I think false accusations are at around 30-40%. I absolutely think that Kanin is right on the money. Then you're an idiot. You obviously are not a scientist, or you'd learn how to r…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:15 PM
2

Listen, buddy, I know you are trying to subtly ask me for pictures of my junk, but it's not happening. Yes, most men don't think women "lie about anything and everything". Most men don't want women "to be second class citizens". YOU are the oddball in this situation. Not me. You are using circular logic to justify your misogyny. You are assuming everyone who disagrees with your extreme views just has to be a "secret woman". BTW, here's a list of quotes, many written by men, using the word "bitte…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 03:07 AM
1

Yeah, I keep using it because it's the best word to describe your attitudes towards women. I could also say that you have a great deal of animosity and antipathy, as well as a great deal of malice towards women. Do any of those words upset you less?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 02:21 AM
1

Are you really going to split hairs with me here, going from 5-6% to 8-10%? At least you backed off your insane estimate of 40%. How can you say that's a conservative estimate, and then link to the Kanin study, where women were considered false accusers by default? I'm not denying that false rape accusations happen. They do. So do false murder claims, false robbery claims, and false assault claims. But your assertion that rape accusations are false 41% of the time, based on a faulty study, is ju…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 02:15 AM
–

I'm saying that her primary complaint seems to be that she was sexually propositioned, treated like a sex object instead of the towering atheist intellect that she is. I think you're reading a little too much into her intent. It's my understanding that her primary complaint was she felt uncomfortable with being propositioned for sex in a confined space, such as an elevator. I don't see any of the egotism you implied. Honestly, we're all adults here, she was most likely being propositioned for se…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 02:06 AM
1

What? Assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a woman just further illustrates how bitter you are.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 01:51 AM
2

Alleged by those who have a hidden agenda Yeah, the professor in charge of the "Men’s Sexual Trauma Research Project" is completely biased against Men. Nice try. The main problem with the study you cited is reliability. It is impossible to determine whether the 40% number was derived from the rapes actually being false, or from the innate biases of the police officers. One of the biggest red flags is the use of a polygraph test on every woman accusing someone of rape. This practice is now outlaw…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 01:47 AM
1

What lead you to believe that? I've called women bitter before as well.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 01:27 AM
4

For what, refuting the bad science you are citing? Because that wouldn't be "nice try", it would be "Thanks for debunking me :("
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:53 AM
3

Hahaha, what? How is the word 'bitter' gendered? I'm bitter when my favorite hockey team gets knocked out of playoffs, and I'm bitter when I lose money at the casino. Women can be bitter as well. It's not a word only females use, that's ridiculous. When you speak about women, you sound like you are bitter. You have claimed they "lie about anything and everything". There is no other way to interpret that other than "bitter".
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:52 AM
2

That study isn't really scientific at all. Read this criticism by Dr. David Lisak, Professor of Psychology at the Men’s Sexual Trauma Research Project at UMASS-Boston: "Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own ‘evaluation’ of the police reports—for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research— pro…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:46 AM
–

Are you saying that just because she dressed up as Wonder Woman with her boobs pushed 8 inches out with a "come-hither" look, that she deserves to get sexually assaulted!? I really hope I'm just misreading her intent, and you aren't advocating that she would be at fault if she was sexually assaulted.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:38 AM
1

Yeah, I was reading my inbox, so it looked like you repeated yourself after I told you I was male. Not female, but my statement still stands. I feel so sorry for whatever happened to make you so bitter about women.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:36 AM
2

Oh god, you're a nut. Really, 40% of rapes are false claims? You really shouldn't just pull numbers out of your ass with no research to back it up. Most women lie about anything and everything? How about most people? It's shit like this, Mens Rights. It's shit like this...
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:34 AM
2

Yeah, I think that's a bit of exaggeration. But she does have every right to feel uncomfortable. Like I said, a complete non-issue hat got blown way out of proportion.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:29 AM
2

TIL 14% of women in Britain is the same as "Most wives". Hmm, let's see, why would you equate femininity with anyone who disagrees with you....
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:28 AM
1

LOL. I feel so sorry for whatever happened to you that made you so bitter.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:24 AM
2

I got caught spouting absolute BS, now I'm sad :( FTFY Also, I'm a man, but it's very interesting that that you assume anyone who calls you out, or disagrees with you, is a woman. Very interesting indeed...
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:16 AM
1

However, I was also speaking partly hypothetically, as I have argued on many other occasions that the minimum wage should be raised to a level which is sufficient to support one adult plus the target number of children per adult without welfare payments, with the additional cost to businesses being made up by cutting corporate taxes (in particular, payroll tax). Not to get into too much economics, but that is not as simple as you are making it seem. Demand for American workers is elastic, if the…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:15 AM
–

Okay, so my BS meter was right, and instead of writing, "One wife in an anecdotal situation had a secret account", but accidently mistyped "Most wives have secret accounts". That or you're intentionally lying?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 11:53 PM
–

A female feminist called 'skepchick' was at an atheist conference. After giving a speech a male attendee asked her out for a coffee while travelling in a elevator. She said no and he left. You're forgetting an important part: This was at 4 am, and the guy invited her back to his room for "coffee", which at 4 in the morning is usually an invite to have sex. Correct me if I'm wrong, but her initial video only claimed that the guy made her uncomfortable, and she urged guys not to do things like tha…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 11:50 PM
–

Oh, then I'm sure you'd have a citation! Without it, that claim just reeks of BS.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 11:46 PM
1

What country are you talking about? Because that is certainly not the US. Most people in the lower strata, and some of the middle class, absolutely could not afford to care for a child by themselves.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 11:42 PM
–

I'm just curious as to how you personally know most wives well enough to say that they have secret bank accounts. Seems like a dubious claim at best.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 11:40 PM
1

Do you have a lawyer? It's most important that you get a good one. After that, filing for back child support shouldn't be too hard, so long as you have evidence of the missed payments.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:23 PM
–

It looks to me like Casey Anthony got off on the battered/abused woman defense Have you followed the trial? In the end, the judge would not allow her defense to argue that she was abused as there was no evidence of it. The real reason she did not get convicted is because the prosecution over reached on the charges. They went for the slam dunk, and wanted to keep the death penalty on the table, and the jury felt they could not put a woman to death strictly on circumstantial evidence.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:21 PM
–

Most wives have a secret personal bank account [citation needed]
/r/MensRights07/07/11 06:30 PM
1

See the problem here is, you keep descending further into self-delusion. I mean, you can keep characterizing me as a woman-hater, since you feminist types have been doing that to MRAs since the beginning. You have been ranting this entire time about your fury against women, and you are advocating sexist policies. Yeah, you may not be a woman hater, but you certainly aren't advocating EQUALITY. Be nice and ask the politicians for some consideration? Wow, yeah that'd be effective. You have admitte…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:17 PM
1

Crawl back to Manhood 101, you're not worth my time. Oops, wrong detractor.. Okay, good to know I'm not the only one who thinks you're a pompous windbag without an original idea in his pea-sized brain. I think your approach is foolish, ineffective, and beggarly. I don't give a fuck, at all, HOW 'right' you think you are. How is my approach either foolish OR ineffective? I'm advocating realistic solutions that would solve actual problems. You are living in a fantasy world. I will do as I please, …
/r/MensRights06/07/11 07:49 AM
1

WHAT 'realistic solutions'? You haven't offered a single fucking one! All you do is try and insult me, and call me egomaniacal. Seems like you have a serious problem understanding something: I offered realistic solutions: write to media outlets and pressure them to not assume men are guilty before being proven innocent. You, on the other hand, have offered nothing even close to reasonable. You are simply ranting about your "righteous fury" now. Calling yourself an MRA doesn't make you one....And…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:06 AM
1

Go complain to someone else that they aren't living life exactly as you demand. What the hell are you talking about? I don't care how you live your life. I said in my last response, I don't give a shit about your grudge against women. Be angry all you want. Just don't act like you represent the MRM, you don't. You, and people like you, are a Cancer to the MRM. Yeah, the people proposing realistic solutions to societal problems men face are the cancers to the MRM. Not the guys who just get angry …
/r/MensRights06/07/11 12:39 AM
1

You're on glue if you think that would ever be a policy. I was talking about my attitude, and you damned well know it. There's a difference. Okay, I honestly don't give a shit about your attitude. You have a grudge against women? Fine, whatever. Hope that works out for you. But stop acting as though you somehow represent the MRM. You don't, you represent your own angry fringe clique. As for 'fighting for equality', you "academics" don't even understand the current state of affairs, let alone the…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 12:28 AM
1

No, you are saying that YOU want the MRM to go in a certain way, and if it doesn't, then YOU say we won't get anything done. You position yourself as some kind of authority, then mock those who think you have your head up your ass. You realize, this entire discussion, you have been speaking and acting as though you are a leader at the forefront of the Men's Rights Movement. Some kind of Men's Rights Martin Luther King Jr, if you will. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but you aren't. You are …
/r/MensRights05/07/11 11:40 PM
1

Oh man, there is no hope with you. You are going to hear what you want to hear, regardless of what anybody is actually saying. Keep attributing the title of "feminist" to everyone who disagrees with you. Excellent circular logic. I'll say again: It's already obvious you are "no academic", don't need to tell me. If you were, your argument would be a little more logic and reasoning, and a little less rhetoric. EDIT: I'm not saying, "MRA's cannot get anything done", which is what you want to hear s…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 11:28 PM
1

I'm not a NEWS channel. I'm not an Academic, and there is NO 'requirement' that I be 'fair and balanced'. I am not here to be fair, I am here to be an activist. Okay, well you can't be an activist for a completely unfair solution or you won't get anything done. It would be more productive to try to change the media practices in place that illustrate men as guilty before conviction. No one is ever going to get behind your solution of assuming all women who are raped are liars, and trying them bas…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 08:05 PM
1

in the sense of the law, for the female that states: Females have every opportunity to go and get birth control therefore it is there responsibility to not have children unless there is a stable environment with enough commitment and financial security to properly raise a child. Really? It's only up to the woman to get birth control? The same birth control that has a 1% failure rate with PERFECT USE? You know, men have options for birth control as well. Condoms, when used in conjunction with fem…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 08:01 PM
1

when's the last time you personally knew a girl that got pregnant while legitimately being on birth control? There is a 1% failure rate with birth control with perfect use. Even if the woman took the birth control at the same time every day, never missing a pill, there would still be a 1% failure rate. These things happen. If you are claiming that every time a woman gets pregnant on BC it's some kind of purposeful scam you're way off base. For males there is condoms (which make sex suck) and Vas…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 07:55 PM
1

When the media stops plastering men accused of rape all over the airways, when the Law isn't 'accused? ARRESTED!', when there is some basic fairness...hell, even a SEMBLANCE of fairness when it comes to rape accusations, them and only then might you have something to say on this subject. The issue you have is with the media, not the law. You should be focusing your efforts on contacting major media outlets, and spreading the word that men are "innocent until proven guilty". Urge them to balance …
/r/MensRights05/07/11 07:49 PM
–

So your position is that men should be forced into responsibility while denied any of the power on the decision whether to abort/keep/adopt. Yes. I know that is a tough pull to swallow, but the child is going to be growing inside of the woman. The man cannot have any power to decide what a woman does with a child inside her, that's just a consequence of the innate biological differences that make us either male or female. The problem is, giving the man control to withdraw his resources in this s…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:28 PM
1

A pregnant woman who doesn't have money to raise a child can choose to birth the child, then give it up for adoption. She may even abandon it at a fire station or hospital, and walk away, 100% legally. You would be compelling a woman to abandon her child against her wishes. I love how you advocate a woman taking responsibility for her actions, but a man paying child support for a kid he had equal part in creating is somehow horrible and akin to slavery. If I'm a manhater, you're a misogynist.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:59 PM
0

A pregnant woman who doesn't have money to raise a child can choose to birth the child, then give it up for adoption. She may even abandon it at a fire station or hospital, and walk away, 100% legally. You would be compelling a woman to abandon her child against her wishes. I love how you advocate a woman taking responsibility for her actions, but a man paying child support for a kid he had equal part in creating is somehow horrible and akin to slavery. If I'm a manhater, you're a misogynist.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:59 PM
1

So get an agreement beforehand. Hell, even having default responsibility and an opt-out indemnity waiver would be an improvement on the current state of affairs. Yes, if before the pregnancy the woman opted-out somehow, that would be fine by me. This would take into account both the needs of the man, as well as the woman. As opposed to the current system, where the man is completely disadvantaged? The solution to this absolutely does not lie on completely disadvantaging the woman. You are advoca…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:54 PM
–

He didn't say anything productive at all. He's relying on the same old MRA platitudes and talking points, not having an adult discussion. It's like listening to your kooky uncle try to paraphrase the latest Rush Limbaugh diatribe.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:52 PM
–

Wrong, the woman having a child with a guy who she knows does not want to father a child is selfish and more importantly plain spiteful to the kid and father. Yes, that poor selfish woman who isn't having an abortion. Jesus, you know there is a good portion of the population who is against abortion on moral grounds? You realize that having an abortion is a very difficult decision and a violating operation? It's not as simple as a doctor waving a wand over her stomach and the baby disappears. You…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:50 PM
1

What if it were you? picture you fucked some girl (assuming your male) and she promised she was on birth control. 9 months later your served with child support orders out of the blue... Honestly, I wouldn't engage in casual sex without a condom, that is needlessly risky. If I did, and I was served child support orders, I would take a paternity test. If it was mine, I would recognize that I made a mistake, and I would do my best to be in the life of my child. I wouldn't be screaming to the govern…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:48 PM
–

But let's say the man was poor and couldn't afford child support without working 60hours a week. Child support is based on the income of the man. A poor man isn't going to have to pay 100,000 a month in child support "just because". Forcing a woman to have an abortion is in a whole different ballpark than forcing a man to work to support the child he helped create. Whole different ballpark. Someone else on this forum proposed a solution where a woman could sign away her right to claim child supp…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:45 PM
–

I am thinking logically. This system would lead to many women being forced to have abortions due to the man withdrawing financial support. The man had an equal responsibility in creating the child, he should have equal responsibility in raising it. Yes, the woman has more options while the child is in her body, but that is due to innate biological differences that you cannot change.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:42 PM
1

And treating every accusation as Gospel Truth isn't? I never said that. The basis of law is "innocent until proven guilty". That's the way it should stay. Suspected rapists should be treated exactly that way. At the same time, it's wrong to claim that all rape accusers should be "guilty until proven innocent". It's a fact that most rapes go unreported, and those that are reported seldom end in conviction. There is already a huge burden the victim (man or woman) has to prove his/her rape. Basical…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:40 PM
1

Yeah, and I'm saying that was the dumbest analogy I have ever read in my life. A human life is different than an apple tree. Sure, my side looks really ridiculous when you say the mother is suing a man over planting an apple tree in her garden, but it's not. How about you talk about the actual act of a man withdrawing child support, and how many potential women would be compelled to have abortions because of this? Or is it easier for you to defend your view when you take it out of the human real…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:23 AM
1

What? Really? You don't think a woman being forced to have an abortion because she cannot afford to take care of a child without the father is terrible?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:11 AM
1

I believe in equality between the genders, it seems like what you are looking for is male supremacy. You cannot treat every accusation as a false accusation, that's crazy. That's not how the justice system works. A women should not report a rape (a crime which very seldom ends in conviction) and be prosecuted as a false accuser immediately. That's not equality. Nor is that justice.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:05 AM
1

Okay? Cool quote bro.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:01 AM
–

Okay your analogy is not even equivalent, it's ridiculous. We are talking about a human life here, not a freakin apple tree.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:00 AM
1

LOL, yeah, you're biting commentary and flawless logic are really going to "take me down", or take down any of the sensible MRA's who fight for equality, not male supremacy. In short, you are incapable of arguing without making yourself look like an ass.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:56 AM
0

How so? In your "financial abortion" situation, there would undoubtedly be financial manipulation that would force women to get abortions against their will.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:54 AM
–

You're funny. You are actually incapable of having a conversation without it devolving into profanity and rhetoric. Sorry, I only debate with adults.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:53 AM
–

Okay, but let's say the woman is extremely poor, and she is going to need some support in raising a child. The father wants nothing to do with the child, so he has a "financial abortion". Now, the woman is effectively forced to have an abortion against her wishes. It's not fair to the woman. I agree, the current child support system is not perfect, but this "financial abortion" system is absolutely not a fair solution.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:52 AM
0

He had a responsibility in making the child. Honestly, you recognize that there would be a problem of financial manipulation forcing women to have abortions, don't you?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:50 AM
-1

I explained it to you: financial manipulation. If she doesn't get an abortion, the man will not pay a cent of child support. I know it's hard to think outside of an upper-middle class mindset, but this would be a huge problem in lower classes.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:48 AM
–

So you would approve of a man using financial manipulation to compel a woman to have an abortion? Because that would definitely happen in the plan you are advocating.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:47 AM
–

If you choose to carry the pregnancy to term, and you choose not to give the child up for adoption after the birth, then the costs and responsibilities of raising the child are the results of that free, deliberate choice of yours - and as such, cannot be offloaded on someone else. In the situation I am describing, where a father does not want a child or any part in raising a child, the mother is not offloading all responsibility onto the man. The man simply has to pay his fair share or the child…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:44 PM
–

Even if the child is his? Even though the man had an equal part in conceiving the child?
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:30 PM
1

Okay, then, propose a solution that would not allow a man to force a woman to have an abortion. Because your "consensual fatherhood" system sure as hell isn't that solution.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:30 PM
-2

The safe haven argument is a red-herring, in a safe haven situation neither parent has a financial responsibility. What option do you propose for men that would be, at the same time, fair to women? It's a very delicate issue.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:27 PM
–

I'm not talking about the unborn fetus, like most scientists, I believe that life begins around the 3rd trimester, when the fetus can exist outside of the womb. If a woman wants to abort what is essentially a lump of cells, good on her. I'm talking about the best interests of the born child, that you would allow a father to walk away from scott-free. You really don't show a delicate understanding of this issue. You are advocating a system where absolute power is on the side of the man. Women hav…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:25 PM
–

Unfortunately, allowing men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers is not in the best interest of the unborn child. The man could walk out on the woman and child, leaving the woman to shoulder the physical, mental, monetary, and emotional burden of raising a child on her own. It also opens the undeniable possibility of financial manipulation by the man to force the woman to abort against her wishes. ("Don't want an abortion? Fine, I'm not paying for shit")
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:17 PM
–

I'm unfamiliar with that term, but if it is the idea that a man should be allowed to walk away from his family without paying child support, merely because he wanted the woman to have an abortion, than yes. That would be a huge male advantage over women.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:02 PM
1

Ah, I see. I can't refute anything you're saying, so I'm just gonna start name crying. Also, I'm a big baby. FTFY
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:00 PM
–

Okay, that is what I was referring to, if the child was his. It makes perfect sense that a man should not have to pay for someone else's child.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:51 PM
–

I've heard people advocate for the ability of the father to walk out on the family whenever he pleases and not pay child support. If this is not a common MRM view, please correct me. But if so, this is a huge advantage for men.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:15 PM
–

Yeah, why don't we all just yell and curse at each other really loud? It won't get anything done, but it'll sure be a lot of fun!
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:09 PM
1

Okay, or don't explain your logic. I'm curious as to how your logic applies to women but not men. If you are implying that all men are punished for rape, that is simply untrue. Also, how do you propose all women should be punished for false accusations? Should every woman who reports a rape be subject to a prison sentence if there is not enough evidence to lead to a conviction? I hope you realize that just because a rape accusation does not end in conviction, does not mean that the accusation wa…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 08:43 PM
–

I don't think "3 men die in bus crash" would even be a men's rights issue
/r/MensRights03/07/11 08:29 AM
0

He's most likely the next president of France, I think is career is far from destroyed.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 08:26 AM
1

Hilarious, calling me a "feminist sockpuppet"? What are you gonna call me next, a "mangina"? Hint: anyone who disagrees with you is not a troll or a sockpuppet. Sometimes, people have different views! Surely you don't think the entire men's rights movement agrees with you, do you? It's called 'social pressure', or 'shaming' and it's exactly the tactic used by women, on men, for at the very least the last 50 years (but truthfully, it's far longer than that). Make ALL women pay for the transgressi…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 08:23 AM
–

No, I've literally never heard "all men are rapists". I'm not saying "Not All Women Are Like That", an even better acronym would be MWANLT (Most Women Are Not Like That). Why is it so preposterous to you that not all women are false accusers? I think we are at a fundamental disagreement. Yes, the law ensures that a women can falsely accuse someone of rape, but the law also ensures that someone can accuse another person of murder. It would be extremely difficult to modify the law system to stop s…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 07:54 AM
1

Obviously what I said was very controversial, as it got a ton of comments. If you really have nothing to add to the conversation, how about you don't even comment?
/r/MensRights03/07/11 07:48 AM
–

We are essentially in agreement here. I don't think the minority of women (thank you for recognizing this as a minority of women) who commit false accusations should be ignored, nor do I think the minority of men who rape should be ignored. The title of false accuser shouldn't be generalized to all women, nor should the title of rapist be generalized to men as a whole. The poster I was responding to initially basically said, "psh, look at all the false accusations then see if you think women are…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 01:24 AM
–

What the hell are you talking about? You are completely misrepresenting what I am saying. You are relying completely on bland, recycled rhetoric and talking points. When did I say men don't deserve equality? I didn't. Most women are not making false accusations, some are. Just like most men are not rapists, but some are. You cannot generalize the title of "rapist" or "false accuser" to apply to any gender as a whole. In the grand scheme of things, most people aren't rapists or accusers, but are …
/r/MensRights03/07/11 01:04 AM
0

You said" Cover up the truth so we can go on ignorantly believing women are not so bad". I am saying that women, as a whole, are not so bad. Neither are men. I never said anything about female victimhood, stop putting words in my mouth. What is so controversial for you about the statement "Women aren't so bad, and neither are men?"
/r/MensRights02/07/11 10:20 PM
–

"Enough out there that would falsely accuse" is such a vague statement. How many women are out there who would falsely accuse? One could say the same thing about men. There are enough men out there who would rape, to cause a woman to be very, very careful around all men. I'm not sure why you are phrasing "Not all women are like that" like it's some kind of lie. It's true, not all women are false accusers, not all men are rapists. As a whole, both genders are a-ok. It shouldn't be generalized fro…
/r/MensRights02/07/11 09:59 PM
–

I don't need to, I think you have being inflammatory down pat. Read the comment section on the original post, and the agreement is that the presentation is needlessly inflammatory.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 09:54 PM
–

I think the problem is that people are taking stories like these and projecting them onto women as a whole. Some women are bad, but so are some men. As a whole, both genders are pretty okay.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 08:02 PM
–

5 second rape, consensual sex with 17 year old girl friend rape, consented but blamed alcohol rape, etc Are you really suggesting that it isn't rape if you stick your dick in a girl for only 5 seconds? This is non-consensual sex, not eating an oreo you dropped on the floor, there is no "five second rule".
/r/MensRights02/07/11 07:58 PM
–

This was literally just posted. Same inflammatory headline and all.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 07:54 PM
1

Straw men. I am done with them.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 06:16 AM
1

Canadian Red Cross is a different organization. I'm through with this Red Cross straw man, they aren't a business, they're a non-profit organization. If I start a website complaining about women, will you give me money too? I promise I won't use it to buy a flatscreen!
/r/MensRights02/07/11 06:06 AM
1

You have yet to provide an actual link to your supposed "scandal" that isn't from a blog of questionable repute. If you think the Red Cross has done no good in disaster situations like Haiti or Japan, you are either an idiot of the highest order or a very dedicated troll.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 04:04 AM
1

He wasn't asking for examples of the treatment of men by the system. If he presented those cases to his friend, she would point out that they were not convicted. All I'm saying is he could find much more apt examples. This should not be such a controversial statement.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 02:02 AM
1

Thank you for the suggestion! I will be sure to keep that in mind.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 01:39 AM
–

I'm not sure where our opinions are differing... No one was convicted in the Duke and Hofstra cases, so they would not be good examples for him to use. He should use a case, as you are saying, where a man was convicted without DNA evidence.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 01:38 AM
1

They could have. Or they could not have. It's all speculation. If the OP wants a strong argument, he needs to find a case where a false accusation with zero evidence resulted in a conviction. Those cases don't fit the bill.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 01:00 AM
1

I might, after I carefully research each organization to see what they stand for and where the money goes.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 10:33 PM
1

List of Father's Rights Organizations That's what I got from googling. I'd say they're safer bets than donating to a blog.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 10:23 PM
1

That's fine, I'm glad you are happy with your investment. But don't kid yourself and say it's somehow better than donating to a non-profit men's rights organization.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 10:14 PM
1

Talking about the American Red Cross. They're different organizations. Fraud is taken very seriously in non-profits. How can imagine a huge coverup in the nation's largest charities, but the idea that a guy on the internet could take your money and run is unfathomable? Stop throwing out strawmen, like all this Red Cross BS, and start thinking.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 10:09 PM
1

My point still stands. I can go on charity navigator and Look at the books of the Red Cross. The guy from avoiceformen.com could literally be taking your money and wiping his ass with it, and you'd be none the wiser. EDIT: Do you have any real sources for that Red Cross scandal? Maybe one that isn't a blog?
/r/MensRights01/07/11 10:03 PM
1

I really don't care what you do with your money. But I make it a practice not to give to any organization where I am unsure of how the money will be spent. Your initial claim that avoiceformen.com is somehow more reputable than The Red Cross is extremely disingenuous.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 09:55 PM
1

You don't have a balance sheet showing you how much of that money goes to web design, how much to podcasts, and how much goes into the webmaster's "vacation fund". For all you know, he's paying his cousin $8 an hour to run the whole shebang, and pocketing the rest. The reqirements of a 501(c)3 Non-Profit reads, "organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." You don't have that guarantee with a private website.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 09:44 PM
1

You're forgetting how this convo started: I'm getting called out for asking if there is any info on how the money is being spent. Glad you were able to answer my question though. (There's no way of knowing)
/r/MensRights01/07/11 09:29 PM
–

That's the point of the star rating, it tells you how much of the money goes to the cause, and how much goes to administrative fees. The fact is, you have no idea how much of every dollar you donate actually goes to the cause.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 09:20 PM
–

What? Are you kidding me? You're delusional if you think giving your money to some dude on the internet is better than donating to a 3 star charity (Such as the ASPCA, Red Cross, etc). These charities are legally held to certain standards, the dude from avoiceformen.com could claim that $5,000 as income and buy a new flatscreen.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 09:15 PM
–

Makes sense to me. I don't think it'd be wise for any organization to condone domestic violence.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 08:15 PM
–

LOL, I'm not the only one who voiced concern about where the funds are going. Legally, if Paul Elam's organization is not registered as a non-profit, he can conceivably just keep the money for himself. Personally, I wouldn't give money to any organization that isn't at least a 3 star on charity navigator. But that's just me.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 08:13 PM
–

I'd rather not get into health care, I'm just going to say you have a valid point, the entire system needs an overhaul, and leave it at that.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:25 PM
–

People wouldn't need to justify their jobs if you weren't attacking them (Women who move papers around)... But I agree with you, the health care system in the US needs a serious overhaul, but I think that's getting off the topic a bit.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:15 PM
-2

Does that matter? Jesus, I was paraphrasing the OP. Yes, looking at the Innocence Project is better than looking at the Duke and Hofstra cases, which won't help him at all.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:04 PM
–

In the US, most insurance companies cover annual physicals, you only have to pay a copay. I'm not sure where your hostility comes from, but physicals are extremely important. I'm a man, and I go for yearly physicals without much difficulty. Yeah, you have to wait :gasp: 10-15 minutes in a waiting room, but it's completely worth it. That 15 minutes has the potential to save your life. I'm a man, and I work in the health care industry, and I can assure you the the women you see up front are not ju…
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:01 PM
–

To prove he's right, he'd be best to find an example of someone who was convicted. All the Duke and Hofstra cases prove is that false accusations happen. To prove that he can be easily convicted without evidence, he'd be better served to find a case where that exact thing happened.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 06:57 PM
–

What the hell is a "concern troll"? His point was that his friend could get him easily convicted without any evidence. No one got convicted in those situations, therefore they are bad examples. Other people have made better suggestions in this thread.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 05:37 PM
–

Yes, clearly women are the largest consumers of UFC pay-per-view.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 05:08 PM
–

Yeah, I think punching her repeatedly and choking her until she blacks out went a little above self-defense. She could have died.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 05:06 PM
–

No one was convicted in the Duke and Hofstra cases, they would not support his argument.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 04:51 PM
–

When raising a child, the mother is sacrificing time in this scenario, while T.O. is sacrificing money. The father should have some responsibility, especially if he does not want a part in raising the child.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 04:49 PM
–

Well, all it says in the linked article is the money will be used to "directly fight our enemies". Is avoiceformen.com a registered non-profit? If not, he can spend the money on whatever he wants, you essentially just gave him a $500 gift.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 04:44 PM
–

That's not how it works. Women are 3 times as likely to go to the doctor regularly then men. That means three times as many women get their yearly physicals than men.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 04:34 PM
–

Betty founded the National Organization of Women, and she wrote "The Feminine Mystique. She considers herself a feminist. The founding idea of NOW was to bring women "into the mainstream of American society now [in] fully equal partnership with men"
/r/MensRights01/07/11 06:09 AM
–

Is there any evidence that this fundraiser isn't just so the guy can buy a new flatscreen? The goals of the fundraiser are extremely vague.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 10:59 PM
–

Yeah, lost me on that last sentence too.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 10:18 PM
–

Have you ever read Betty Friedan, or are you just assuming it's bad?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 10:12 PM
–

You misread, it says that women have a stronger immune system, and are more likely to see the doctor regularly. As in, they are three times more likely to get physicals regularly, not get sick 3 times as much.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 10:07 PM
2

Typical, just passing the buck. Thanks a lot Obama!
/r/MensRights30/06/11 09:49 PM
1

Yeah, I think its' a bit of a stretch to claim the prosecutor is somehow lying about what the victim said. Who else is going to talk the victim and the family? I'm not talking about crime stats as a whole, but in this case, the prosecution acted completely rationally. You're doing all sorts of mental gymnastics just to find mysandry where it doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:22 PM
1

See my edit, the victim himself said they were more culpable. I'm more inclined to believe the victim's story of what happened then yours.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 07:56 AM
1

The punishments were the outcome of plea agreements their attorneys reached with Oklahoma County prosecutors. The men were more culpable in the attack than the women, Rowland said. Straight from the article. In a plea agreement, the men were found to be more culpable than the women. You don't know what was said to the police, for all you know the men admitted to planning out the whole attack. The men agreed that they were more culpable. How is this hard for you to understand? EDIT: According to …
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:55 AM
2

LOL, wut? You commented on 4 of my posts, and I responded! If anything you're stalking me
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:26 AM
–

Prove the women instigated it. Oh wait, you can't. You're adding your own misandric slant to a story where it doesn't exist. The women went to jail, so did the men. EDIT: According to another article: ""We looked at the case, talked with the victim's family and the victim himself and determined that the culpability of the male dependents was higher than that of the two females," Rowland said." So yeah, the victim himself said the men were more culpable. This cannot be spun as misandrist.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:16 AM
1

I think you missed the part where the women went to jail as well! Hope this helps!
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:05 AM
–

It's tangentially a men's rights issue at best. The ones who did the most damage in the attack were the men, they beat him over the head and tattooed him. It's largely a man on man attack. There is no sexism or discrimination involved here. Hope this helps!
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:55 AM
–

They are all deserving of punishment, the women just participated to a lesser degree in the attack Both actions are being deterred through punishment by the court system. I think that knocking someone out with a bat and tattooing "Rapest" on a man's forehead is much more heinous than shocking his genitals with a stun gun. It's much more permanent. The women and men are equally dangerous to society, but you don't base punishments based on how dangerous a person is to society. It is based on the u…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:45 AM
–

The law is based on actions morso than intent. In my scenario, the man who actually pulled the trigger would get more time because he's the one who actually pulled the trigger, and committed the act of murder. No one compelled him to commit murder, just like these women did not force the men to hit the victim with a bat and tattoo him. The law takes into account that these men had free will, and judges them based on the actions they took. They chose to hit him and tattoo him, so they pay the pri…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:04 AM
–

Yes, they were part of the same "crime" in the broadest term, but that is not the way the justice system works. When a crime with multiple actors goes to trial, you have to look at the role each individual played in the crime. These women would have been just as capable of coming up behind the victim and hitting him over the head with a bat as the men; it's not an issue of "it's discrimination against men because they are big and strong!" Let's look at an example. Say two men rob a liquor store,…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 03:43 AM
–

Don't necessarily believe that, I think the justice system acted swiftly, fairly, and reasonably in this situation. Are you arguing that the men did not deserve a 10 year sentence?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 03:19 AM
1

I probably have been, I have not read up on SlutWalks, and I'm still at a complete loss as to why Mens Right's has such disdain for them.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:48 AM
–

Nice conjecture on your part, assuming that the women planned the whole thing when there is nothing in the article that states that. There's nothing in the story that would lead you to claim that these women controlled the men to the extent Charles Manson did. The argument in the Manson trial was that they did not have complete free will. Manson manipulated them to such an extreme that they were not acting in sound mind, and under their complete free will. He was a cult leader, this is an apples…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:37 AM
–

Please understand the duties of our office are prescribed by law. Sounds like her hands are tied. Did you contact the state attorney as she suggested?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:35 AM
–

The men had a greater role in the attack. The men beat him over the head with a bat, and did the actual tattooing. This lead to a higher charge for the men. The women did nothing to legally force the men to attack. Unless there was some behind the scenes blackmail, , which would have come out in court, the men acted with their own free will.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 12:31 AM
8

Exactly, but the title reads: None of the even thought he WAS a rapist -- it was purely an attack That's entirely wrong. It says right in the article that they believed he tried to rape one of the women in her sleep. I never said he actually did, don't put words in my mouth.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 12:03 AM
7

The men had complete free will in this situation. The woman did not somehow control the man and make him tattoo the victim. In fact, this is a load of conjecture on your part. You have no idea if she told her friends this story, and the males concocted the plan on their own. Your mafia analogy is not apt, this is not murder for hire. The hitman would probably get a lesser sentence because he would enter a plea bargain with the prosecutor and rat out the boss. The mafia boss would get more time b…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:53 PM
–

But the men did the beating with the bat, and the actual tattooing, so obviously they were more culpable. Using a stun gun on his genitals, while heinous, carries less of a sentence than assaulting with a bat and tattooing "RAPEST" on someone's forehead. There doesn't seem to be any sexism at play here, the men accused did not have their rights violated.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 10:32 PM
–

Not the same crime. The men admitted to doing the physical tattooing and hitting him in the head with a bat, hence the extra culpability.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 10:05 PM
–

From the article: "The punishments were the outcome of plea agreements their attorneys reached with Oklahoma County prosecutors. The men were more culpable in the attack than the women, Rowland said." The men did the actual tattooing, as well as hitting the man on the head with the bat. Hence the extra charges, and extra culpability. And the title is wrong, they did think he was a rapist. From the article again: "Hodges told police they tattooed Johnson because he tried to have sex with her at h…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 09:54 PM
–

I don't see how this is a men's rights issue. Two men were involved in the attack as well.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 08:59 PM
2

I think it makes perfect sense. If being able to opt-out of child support is such a hot button issue for you, you should only be with someone who feels the same way.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:46 PM
–

Which? That there is an age limit, or those below the age of consent should be allowed to sign up? If the latter, that may be an issue. People below the age of consent are believed to not be able to make constructive decisions on their own. If you let them sign up for a list like this, allowing them to sign away rights to child support, I think that'd be a real legal issue. I do like the way you're thinking though. I'm glad you recognize that allowing men to opt out of child support no matter wh…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:35 PM
–

That last part brings up an interesting point - will there be an age limit on who can sign up? If someone is below the age of consent, will they still be allowed to put themselves on the list?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:22 PM
–

I honestly don't think that many men would be constantly checking a registry to see who they can and cannot fuck. So, if a woman doesn't want to "opt in", she could just have sex with someone else.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:48 PM
–

Interesting idea, but what motivation would a woman have to be on the registry? It'd be basically guaranteeing that if an accident were to happen and she wanted to keep the child, she would be a single parent. There still doesn't seem to be a benefit to women.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:38 PM
–

May I ask why the event merely existing offends you? It's my understanding that the complaint about slutwalks is simply that the intent is misguided, as most rapes are not perpetrated on scantily clad women.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:49 PM
–

I wouldn't go that far. If he follows your very sound advice, I'd say he as a very good chance at getting some type of custody. He's already ahead of the curve, he has a decent lawyer, and he actually wants custody of his children (it is imperative you make this clear in mediation!). Don't get to down about it, man! While mediation cannot force her to come to a custody agreement if she decides she doesn't want to, but if you keep fighting, and document every interaction with her, you've got a go…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:15 PM
–

Why bother? Let them have their event. You aren't going to change anyone's mind. How would you feel if you held a men's rights event and the facebook page was spammed by angry feminists?
/r/MensRights28/06/11 09:52 PM
–

Just come to mediation prepared to work out a co-parenting plan. Do you have a lawyer yet? If not, get a good one who specializes in child custody.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 09:42 PM
-4

I'm going off of what Hearthrow posted, you dolt. As a man with with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, I'm going to take any stories told without factual, provable evidence (also known as anecdotes, in case you were too dumb to figure that out) with a grain of salt. If you have any useful statistics concerning men getting passed over for the engineering field, please post em. Burden of proof lies on the accuser. Or keep being a moron and believe every single story you read on the internet…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:30 PM
3

I chose my name after a town in PA I used to live in. I hadn't heard of the song till someone pointed it out to me after I made the name.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:16 PM
–

Did she send out seven times the amount of resumes? Did she apply for positions which were more reachable for her, while the OP applied for positions which would have been more of a reach? I'm just saying there's probably more at play here than he is letting on, so I'm going to take his anecdotal with a huge heaping grain of salt. EDIT: Based on the info in the OP, it's entirely possible that she sent out 50 resumes and he sent out 5. Maybe she just put more effort into the application than he d…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:13 PM
–

I dunno, I think there may have been something more at play here. The guy probably bombed all his interviews, and the girl aced hers. I've seen lower qualified candidates taken over me, and it's usually because I didn't prepare for the interview.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 05:50 PM
2

Out of curiosity, how in the world would you enforce quotas at the bottom of society? Count up how many men are homeless, and throw that many women out on the street?
/r/MensRights28/06/11 08:01 AM
2

Good story, but that guy on that blog is really annoying to read.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:51 AM
–

Eh, seems like a bit of stretch to be included in r/MensRights
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:44 AM
3

That guy had a really shitty lawyer. This, folks, is why you never go with a public defender. A little bit of debt is worth keeping your ass out of jail.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:26 AM
1

Okay, and my point was that there are fathers who are kept away from their children by the courts for a good reason. Also, there are fathers who simply choose not to pay child support, or choose not to budget child support into their monthly spending. These people are abandoning their families and deserve the label "deadbeat".
/r/MensRights27/06/11 04:50 AM
1

I've gone through this further down in the thread, but they are not analogous situations. When a woman gives a child up for adoption, the child is getting a better life, and a better opportunity than he would get with a single mother. When a father abandons his parental responsibility, he's stuck living with a single mother struggling to make ends meet. It's apples to oranges. If you say that a man should be allowed to abandon any parental responsibility in the event of an accidental pregnancy, …
/r/MensRights27/06/11 03:11 AM
1

Dude, what are you the Men's Rights police? I love how you jump to the assumption that anyone who posts here that isn't spouting the approved talking points is a troll. I assume you meant to say "What of men raped by women"? Or else I'm not sure what you are asking. Men who are raped should absolutely not be responsible for child support, and should have the option to have sole custody of the child if they so choose, with the mother recieving intensive counseling if she wants to have anything to…
/r/MensRights27/06/11 03:01 AM
1

No, it is not better than no evidence. It is equivalent. The study cannot be taken as any sort of evidence for reasons I have beat to death.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 08:25 PM
1

No it's not. That survey is zero evidence. "That's Life" Magazine has no motivation to make sure their results are not flawed. Hell, they could be making it all up to get readers. Lesson 1: Don't believe any statistic unless it is printed in a scholary, peer reviewed journal.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 08:15 PM
1

No, it's not leading towards "somewhat common". That survey has zero scientific credibility. All is proves is the views of those 5,000 women throughout England. I encourage you to read a book on statistics so you can think critically about these issues, and not just float through the internet, taking every study you see as fact. I surveyed 5 of my friends, and none of them had trapped a man into pregnancy. Looks like it never happens! That's how science works!
/r/MensRights26/06/11 07:59 PM
1

Nope, it's actually being intentionally misleading by masquerading as a study. Moral of the story: If you can't prove it's common, stop saying it is.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 07:30 PM
1

Oh dear, I hope you don't actually believe that survey. It's a freakin magazine survey of only 5,000 women. Not even close to being scientific. No margins of error, they didn't even bother to check if their statistics were generalizable to a population. They don't tell you exactly what questions they asked either. This is the epitome of bad statistics. Yeah, "That's Life!" Magazine, definitely one of the more respected scientific journals. /s So, basically, until you can prove it's a common occu…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 07:07 PM
1

But it objectively cannot be considered common. What is your threshold for something to be a common occurrence? I would definitely not say this is a widespread or ordinary occurrence. I'm going to be extremely generous here, and say that for something to be common, it has to happen to 1% of the population. Okay, now let's take the number of times a woman has tricked a man into pregnancy. Keep in mind, you should throw out any anecdotal evidence, like you have presented, because there's a good ch…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 06:37 PM
1

White_cloud did the exact same thing, yet he was upvoted because his view agrees with that of MensRights. I was using the DV statistics to illustrate that DV is a factor in many divorces, which he belittled (Yeah, keep those bad, evil men away). Yes, the abuser could be a woman, but I'm assuming that in at least half the cases it is a man. Therefore, DV is a fairly common reason men would be kept away from their children. EDIT: Dug a little deeper, and found that Females accounted for 39% of the…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 05:02 PM
1

Nope, I meant total stories. And keep in mind, I mean confirmed stories. Any Joe can accidentally get a chick pregnant and be like, "Oops, i mean, she tricked me!1!!" So, take the number of confirmed stories you have of this happening, and divide it by over 3,400,000,000 (the number of women in the entire world), and multiply it by 100. That's going to be such an extremely small number, maybe it will help you wrap your head around how uncommon this really is. Also, these 5 cases where you have s…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 03:42 AM
1

Did you even bother to read my post, or just angrily skim it? I clearly said the man deserves custody in this situation, with the woman given an avenue to come back into the child's life if she undergoes extensive counseling. It is extremely uncommon. If you are using r/MensRights as your go-to source for news, you are practicing the epitome of confirmation bias. Let's play a little game. How many confirmed stories have you heard of this situation happening? Now how many women are there in the e…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 03:23 AM
1

If you really don't see how forcing a woman to either get an abortion, or have to carry the child to term and have it ripped from her hands is cruel and unusual, you need to step back into reality. I think, in a situation you are describing (Which is extremely uncommon!), and the deception can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court should grant the father full custody with the mother providing a certain amount of support. The mother, at the same time, should have the opportunity to under…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 02:50 AM
1

Yeah, but making a woman birth a child, and then immediately taking it away could probably pass as "cruel and unusual" punishment. I think a fine, and allowing the man the option to be in the child's life, should be enough of a deterrent.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 02:37 AM
1

Hmmm, that's something to think about. I think it would make more sense for the father to have the option, in a case where deception can be proven in court, for the father to have the option of whether or not to be in the child's life. He should also not be obligated to pay child support. However, there would have to be strong evidence, as this would be a very serious charge. It couldn't just be based on the father claiming he was deceived. I feel a little uneasy about the idea of forcing a woma…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 01:48 AM
0

What kind of woman takes away a man's right to consent to fatherhood? An abusive one. Wrong-o. So you're basically saying that if an accident does happen, and a woman does not want to abort the child, she is being abusive? That is way off base. Legally, a man consents to fatherhood whenever he ejaculates. There is literally no way to change this that is not unfair to the woman or the child. There are risks involved in sex for men, and fatherhood is one of them. That means automatic father custod…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 12:59 AM
1

Riiiiight.... I find nothing wrong with this. Assuming both are fit parents, joint custody would be the best situation for the child. However, if one of them is not a fit parent (Mom or Dad is an alcoholic, etc.) the unfit parent should not get custody, but still have to pay their fair share of support for the child through child support. Also, if one of them do not want to have contact with the child, they should have to pay their fair share through child support. I said BORN... This is the fin…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 12:33 AM
1

Cry me a river... Yeah, I agree bro. Those bitches who got raped are just big crybaby btiches. Those cases you described are the extreme exception, not the rule. For most women, at least those under 30, getting pregnant is their worst nightmare, not something they will try to obtain through trickery. Situations like you described happen so seldom that they should be treated as such. Yes, if a man can prove in a court of law that she conceived a child through trickery, he should not be required t…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 12:11 AM
1

Adoption and abortions are necessary in society for women who are impregnated against their will. Trust me, most women are not out there using adoption and abortion as birth control. The consquence of a woman being raped is a child, which she should not be forced to raise. In an ideal world, a man would be able to have as many options as women when it comes to pregnancy. However, that can never be the case. If men were given an "out" like women have, they would be able to use financial manipulat…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 11:43 PM
0

Sorry if I was unclear, my point was that while making sure a baby does not occur is the responsibility of both parties, it is also the only part of reproduction men can have a hand it. Men can't control what a women does with a fetus because, like it or not, it is her body. But keep being a reactionary douchewad, sir. Quiet down, the adults here are trying to talk.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 11:32 PM
1

Holy shit, you think condoms have a 75% failure rate?? So, if you have sex with a condom on 4 times, chances are it will fail at some point? Wow, just wow. Men have a choice whether or not to have sex. If a woman refuses to use birth control, don't have sex with her! Women are not some mysterious succubi who are hypnotizing men into impregnating them. No one should be allowed to abandon a child. Sorry, but in this situation, I'm siding with the child in this situation. If the dad did not want hi…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 11:22 PM
0

This is real life. There are innate biological differences between men and women. Until men evolve to carry children like seahorses, this will always be the case. As such, men must take extra precautions to make sure BC DOES NOT FAIL so it does not get to a situation where a baby is on the way. Men have the ultimate choice to wear a condom. Condom + Other BC Method = Almost 100% effective. I'll reiterate: There are biological differences between men and women! Men do not carry children, so they …
/r/MensRights25/06/11 11:02 PM
0

In a situation where an accidental pregnancy happens, would you support a man abdicating his parental responsibilities? Absolutely not. You realize how much of a slippery slope that would be right? A man, when confronted with an accidental pregnancy, could use financial manipulation to force a woman to get an abortion. "Don't want to get an abortion? Fine, I'm not paying for shit." It takes 2 to tango, they both made the child, they are both responsible for it. You act like men have no options i…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 10:30 PM
0

So, in the situation where an accidental pregnancy happens, would you support a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion? If so, you are terrible human being. Yes, sex is how babies are made! Surprise! There are biological differences between men and women. Women have the ultimate choice as to whether to keep a child. It is living in her body. That's life, there is literally no way to change this. You need to stop throwing out straw men. Abortion should be legal, it is a woman's right…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 10:14 PM
0

Yeah, F&F if reporting the facts of the study, but I still have to go to the actual study to check what they are saying is true. Just cut out the middleman and link the study directly. If you really can't see how a blog named "Father's and Families" could be in any way biased, I'm afraid there is no hope of continuing this discussion. Same goes if you continue to reject basic biological differences between men and women. Women have to carry the child, so yeah, they are going to have more of a re…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 09:56 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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