TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

CuntSmellersLLP Archive

View 4 posts and 201 comments by CuntSmellersLLP on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I don’t know if I’d call 60% “most”.
/r/MensRights23/12/18 06:01 PM
2

Some write books, I guess.
/r/MensRights23/12/18 04:28 PM
15

In your case it’s more of a “this person is being an asshole for no reason” button. Also known as a “probably a troll” button.
/r/MensRights23/12/18 04:27 PM
17

“Potential rapist helps rapists avoid justice.” - feminists, probably
/r/MensRights20/08/18 09:10 PM
7

And when someone tries to knee you in the nuts, you can smash their head in, then go save your sister from Euron.
/r/MensRights17/07/18 07:38 PM
57

Unfortunately, the reward is often a temporary reprieve from an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness. Rewards don’t have to be external, or even healthy, to motivate people
/r/MensRights05/06/18 09:11 PM
7

Indeed. During most of human history, blasphemy has been punishable by death. The times sure are changing quickly.
/r/MensRights10/05/18 02:55 PM
21

Yeah, it was almost 2000 years ago, I'm surprised nobody told you. Did you know him well?
/r/MensRights10/05/18 02:23 PM
28

Though they were also minorities, so it may have something to do with that as well. Equally illegal, and a violation of the same law.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 07:45 PM
3

I said “mid-puberty”. You may be thinking of someone earlier in the thread.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 06:37 PM
4

Also not pre-pubescent.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 05:48 PM
18

She clearly says “little boys”. “Little boys maturing bodies”, to quote-mine less. “Little” is far more ambiguous than “maturing”, which strongly implies at least being mid-puberty. And you don’t seem to understand the concept of “age of consent” which states that a minor cannot legally consent to sex with an adult. [rant continues] It’s not ok, it’s just that it’s not pedophilia. Multiple things can be bad.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 03:30 PM
1

A man's wife? Nice heteronormativity, Google! /s
/r/MensRights12/07/17 09:44 PM
28

I hear the retirement is amazing.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 07:05 PM
3

Just don't ask him to define "truth".
/r/MensRights02/06/17 11:30 PM
1

Better not associate with anyone, I suppose.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 05:37 PM
1

And nature doesn't distinguish between a "decent" man and a "trashy" man. Either way he's stronger and can assault you. Women better just avoid men. The difference between decent and trashy people isn't that it changes their ability to fuck you up, it changes their desire to.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 05:36 PM
31

Then you have low standards of decency, let alone outstanding...ness. Decent people don't physically abuse their partners.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 12:01 AM
47

Or just... date decent women. No need to go full MGTOW. Not associating with women because they're legally advantaged in some situations and might exploit it is like women not associating with men because we're physically stronger and might exploit it. Just stop fucking with trashy people.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 10:43 PM
9

¿Tu wot, amigo?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 10:41 PM
-38

What percent of those are cucks?
/r/MensRights14/01/17 05:43 PM
-7

I'm iffy on the "proud gay man" description. I agree with many of his views, but he seems somewhat self-loathing about being gay.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 11:48 PM
3

We don't need to. Society fails women. /s
/r/MensRights08/10/16 01:38 AM
2

No clue, also a southern yank.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 02:39 PM
6

This is a story about the UK.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 01:48 PM
0

Then the external quotes should be double quotes.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 03:17 AM
0

Unescaped quote.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 11:28 PM
8

I've still never seen a source for this.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 11:40 PM
5

The initial list (civil rights act) was created when the government wasn't particularly concerned about the rights of communists.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 10:21 PM
2

I'm pretty sure the baker could have refused a cake with "I support gay marriage" written on it. It would be interesting to see it play out.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 09:49 PM
6

He could probably win if he sues. He wouldn't. Feminism/MRM aren't protected classes.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 08:34 PM
7

There's a list of "protected classes" in the US. The federally protected classes are: Race Color Religion National Origin Age (40 and over) Sex Pregnancy Citizenship Familial Status Disability Status Veteran Status Genetic Information Individual states have added additional ones. Some, for instance, have added HIV status. The state where the bakery was has sexual orientation on their list. No states consider "gender advocacy status" a protected class.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 08:34 PM
9

If they send something through the mail, are they not trackable? How would they be? Just drop it in one of the big blue things.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 08:26 PM
47

"You're both the dominant aggressor."
/r/MensRights27/06/15 12:27 AM
4

How would you even quantify this? Do 50% of rapists rape people they don't find sexually attractive?
/r/MensRights27/06/15 12:26 AM
10

Harassment = power + sitting Therefore it's impossible for a Mexican to harass, shitlord
/r/MensRights15/05/15 10:04 PM
12

Even among adult men, peeing on someone usually doesn't happen after a fight.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 07:54 PM
15

Pretty sure it's not your first sentence he's referring to.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 06:25 PM
1

Though I'm not sure I'd jump from "doubt God's love" to Atheism. You can doubt God's love without being an atheist, but you can't be an atheist without doubting God's love. According to this flier, atheism is a sign of child abuse. Not pedantic semantics, just pedantic set theory.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 07:01 PM
8

The flyer says doubting God is a symptom of child abuse. I don't find that "lovely" and think that mentality could actually do great harm, especially if someone who thinks that way ends up working for child protective services.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:16 PM
1

Except the strong implication that atheism is a symptom of being abused as a child.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 10:49 PM
6

But it snowed last week! Checkmate, ivory tower elitist with your fancy education in a relevant field.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:54 PM
11

I'm not allowed to have female buddies? :( What about pals?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 04:33 AM
2

Good to know that I was raped a few days ago when someone woke me up with a blowjob.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 05:51 AM
11

Just curious: What would she have to offer to the relationship? Is she rich and hot, too?
/r/MensRights31/12/14 12:06 AM
2

TIL the rights of Americans are the One True List of Rights and every other country gets them wrong.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 07:32 PM
0

I hold some ideals higher than individual liberty.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:20 PM
6

Yeah, fuck the civil rights act. Niggers aren't welcome at my restaurant.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 02:37 PM
4

You didn't word it badly. bigboss2014 is just one of those people who doesn't understand that you can compare one aspect of two things without saying that those two things are identical in every way.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 12:40 PM
4

Everybody poops. [Citation needed]
/r/MensRights12/11/14 12:35 PM
3

"Men who decide to have three or more children..." Oh, it's good to know that it's the man's choice.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:20 PM
0

That's not a complete sentence. I'm not sure what you're implying or asking. If the school in OP is treating sexes unequally, then yeah, I support his case. But it still has nothing to do with double jeopardy. Saying "title xi [sic] funding" doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 02:13 AM
1

Double jeopardy prevents the government from trying you for the same crime in criminal court more than once. It doesn't protect you from your school or your church or your circle of friends reaching their own conclusions based on a less strict standard of evidence. And a less strict standard is, to some extent, justified. Only the government has the power to deny you your freedom based on their verdict. The rest can only choose to stop associating with you . In the case of a school, there's a lo…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:31 AM
4

The standard of evidence should be lower for kicking someone out of your organization than it should be for denying them their freedom. Just not as low as it currently is at most colleges when it comes to rape.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 10:44 PM
6

It's also a crime. The police handle it as a crime, the school handles it as a conduct violation.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 09:30 PM
8

I rode my bike about 5 miles to a large public park all the time when I was only 10. Shit was normal.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 03:16 PM
12

Your honor, I withdrew consent as he was ejaculating.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 07:40 PM
2

GTFOI I think that's the initialism version of a garden path sentence.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 02:59 PM
28

Isn't forbes.com/sites a blogging platform, rather than official Forbes writers?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 12:30 AM
9

A lot of info on it can be found at the EFF's page about it.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:02 PM
35

You don't know if she was actually a lizard person from Zebulon 5.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:32 AM
1

To me, "grazed" speaks more to a continuous movement of light contact than it does to intent.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:38 PM
38

It reads to me like the victim claimed oral sex, there wasn't any evidence, but she agreed to a plea bargain where she'd plead guilty to touching his genitals through his pants. At that point, as far as the courts are concerned, oral sex (and therefore rape) never happened.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 07:03 PM
8

Some huge guy could break my jaw for looking at him wrong too. But I still have the sense not to yell "what a fucking asshole!" at some huge guy in the middle of the night in a shady neighborhood.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:50 PM
4

Is this gonna be forever?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:36 PM
10

"It's all very comforting to blame media men for a lack of coverage, but if more women buy tickets to watch female athletes play, then more coverage will follow."
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:34 PM
5

thus if 30 years from now you have a sudden bout of guilt You do realize you're talking to a sociopath, right?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:27 AM
1

You remind me of somebody.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:25 AM
3

That's not how it works, though. If I'm accused of a crime (e.g. rape), I'm innocent until proven guilty. If I'm found not guilty, that doesn't mean I've proven that I'm innocent. If my accuser is then accused of lying (e.g. false rape accusation), she's innocent until proven guilty, too. It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally lied. Having insufficient evidence to prove my guilt isn't enough. I could be found not guilty of rape, and she could be found not gui…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 07:52 PM
3

Better than a snuke.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:19 PM
-1

And Bambi was the only one worth paying for anyway. I'm jealous of the Graysons.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 12:57 AM
14

woosh
/r/MensRights02/12/12 02:06 AM
14

You say "[but that's women's clothing, so] that's unrelated", which is equivalent to "but those are clothes that men aren't allowed to wear, so that's unrelated" How does that not strongly disprove the claim: men aren't told that they shouldn't wear certain articles of clothing You and OP have it so ingrained in you that men can't wear those clothes, that it's so absurd as to be considered unrelated. In fact, that's about 3/4 of most clothing stores' products that, if I were to wear them where I…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 12:04 AM
16

Surveillance everywhere and a law that allows any meeting to be forcibly dispersed. Congratulations! It's now impossible to ever rise up against your government.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 11:57 PM
3

shhhh nobody tell him
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:42 PM
4

they are still saying women can't rape men The discussion was about the specific people conducting the study, not a generic "they".
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:28 AM
1

She knows exactly what she's doing.... making it look to the TV audience like she can actually hold people in contempt, and possibly even fooling her contestants into thinking she can put them in jail, if they didn't fully understand the contract. It's blatantly dishonest. Contempt is an actual thing with a definition. She's threatening to put them in jail when she has no authority to do so, based on sneakily redefining a phrase that mean "I'll put you in jail" to mean "I won't pay you". I'm sur…
/r/MensRights14/09/12 04:01 PM
1

Being held in contempt involves sitting in a jail cell against your will. They can rename "you don't get paid" to "contempt of arbitration" if they want to, but it's not remotely the same thing. They might as well call not getting paid "arbitration death penalty". My point is that as soon as it's obvious that you're going to lose, you could curse Judge Judy out and walk out of the "court room" in the middle of the "trial", and there's nothing she could do about it.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 03:54 PM
14

That last one should have been held in contempt She's not an actual judge (anymore). She's an arbiter. Her "bailiff" is just a security guard with no more authority than the security guards on Jerry Springer. Not that she's not awesome, but she can't hold people in contempt.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 02:25 AM
6

As a brony MRA, fluttershy is best pony.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 08:03 PM
3

So then you actually hold that either men should stop being considered more disposable than women, or women should lose the right to vote. Since neither is currently the case, I don't see why you don't prefer to work toward the former.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 04:00 AM
5

Then the rest of us are just a bunch of pussies.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 02:40 PM
6

So many circles and dots... all for nothing...
/r/MensRights18/07/12 11:06 PM
72

It's only equality in action if he would have also done everything possible to avoid hitting a male assailant. Still, I guess "eventually defending yourself as a last resort" is a step toward equality.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 01:43 PM
9

Or it's even a possibility that there was a sexual assault, and the prosecution just didn't have enough evidence of it to bring it to trial. We shouldn't assume "not enough evidence" means "it certainly didn't happen, so it must have been a false accusation". There's not enough evidence to show his guilt or his innocence, so we correctly default to "not guilty", but we can't jump from that to an assumption of factual innocence, which would be necessary to call her accusation false. All we know i…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:26 PM
31

they should punish the shit out of the accuser The accused should be considered innocent of sexual assault unless there's sufficient evidence of his guilt. Similarly, the accuser should be considered innocent of making a false claim unless there's sufficient evidence of her guilt. In this case, there isn't sufficient evidence for either, and you jumping to that conclusion makes you no better than those who think we should assume the man's guilt.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:54 PM
1

When the only consequence of refusing a "mandatory" search is refusal of service, they're one in the same.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:46 PM
5

Same thing with receipt checkers. "No thank you!"
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:39 PM
1

From the article you linked: Many sex-based price differences are held to be illegal but still occur often in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:22 PM
4

You are for private school attendance, with the sole exception of race. Discrimination based on gender, national origin, religion, etc are allowed unless the school receives federal funding.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:20 PM
6

Won't someone think of the puppies?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:23 AM
9

If you're in a relationship where that's the case, I have no idea why you put up with it.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 10:12 PM
4

Agreed*! * CuntSmellersLLP is not associated with Cunt News Network or its affiliates.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 10:11 PM
6

Why is this upvoted? Legally the money can ONLY be spent on the children. It is for their health, food, and clothing. It is NOT to be spent on the mother. While I wish this were true, it's absolutely not. Especially in excess items. For a claim about legal knowledge, you're being pretty damned specific. Do you have a source, or am I correct to think you're just making shit up as you go to try to sound smart? This is a waste and abuse of tax payers. Child support isn't tax-funded. tl;dr: Not a si…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 08:22 PM
6

Henceforth known as "shiggles".
/r/MensRights07/03/12 08:32 PM
15

And eating his heart.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 04:23 PM
1

Thanks for starting by telling me how to feel. I'd be lost otherwise.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 08:45 PM
15

Of course it ended with "Women will never be liberated until men are." It just wouldn't be an acceptable article if it didn't end by returning women to their role of victim.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 07:25 PM
-1

though there are unfortunate anecdotal exceptions
/r/MensRights09/12/11 09:06 PM
13

That's a bit different. She wasn't known to be bat-shit insane before the custody battle. I'll grant that when all other (non-financial) things are relatively equal, courts favor the mother, and that's horrible. But when the mother has a history of mental illness and actions like those of this woman, and the father doesn't, the father will almost always get custody, though there are unfortunate anecdotal exceptions. We should focus on the real problems (including bias toward mothers when both pa…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 05:43 PM
2

I smell what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 03:18 PM
2

You make my job much more difficult.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 02:21 AM
2

All opposed?
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:34 AM
4

I agree that neither gender should be able to go to prison in this situation. But I also think the parent most capable of caring for the children should have custody, if one is clearly more capable than the other. I assume the father is employed and not dying. Why should he be denied custody in favor of someone who's unemployed and dying? He's clearly in a better position to raise them, regardless of how unfortunate the situation may be.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 08:37 PM
2

Wasn't saying it wouldn't, or saying one shouldn't do it, just saying that your idea of explaining your reasoning to those who would beat you up wouldn't work.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:53 AM
4

"I know that because of me, no girls will come to our parties anymore... but it's because i'm fighting for men's rights! Let me explain..." "You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded"
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:03 AM
3

If she didn't think gender should dictate who gives up their seat to whom, I misunderstood, and redact the sexism portion of my comment. If that's the case, I think you misunderstood OP's question. However, I still hold that "My grandmother said so" is never a valid reason for any stance on any issue.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:45 PM
0

Your grandmother came from a time when men and women weren't considered equal. That's not something to admire. Your grandmother was raised to be a sexist, and she apparently raised you to not think for yourself.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 01:30 PM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:19 AM
0

I can agree to a monetary debt when I'm drunk, therefore I can agree to sex when I'm drunk. FTFY, troll.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 08:27 PM
3

Spagooter and mork
/r/MensRights06/08/11 11:53 PM
3

If a woman cannot show she acted in good faith Small nitpick. They should be considered innocent until proven guilty. It's not her job to prove she acted in good faith, it's the prosecution's job to prove she acted in bad faith.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:30 PM
1

Depends on what you mean by date rape. If you mean slipping something into someone's drink, or having sex with an unconscious person, that's rape. If me and a girl get drunk, have consensual sex, and then she regrets it when she sobers up? Yeah, not even close to rape.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 05:48 PM
4

Get raped? :picture of a girl: Sorry it doesn't count because you consented! FTFY
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:03 PM
1

Awkwaaraaaard. I am funnybot.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:02 PM
3

I thought the same about Palin, and then she joined McCain's ticket.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 05:38 PM
17

A young man disappears, he's probably a deadbeat dad skipping town.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:07 PM
3

Pretty sure cruel and unusual punishment only refers to particular sentences (e.g. We find you guilty and sentence you to an acid bath) and not to what can and can't be made illegal.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 03:42 AM
9

Being visibly erect is indecent exposure in my state.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:15 AM
2

I like how the different shades are 0-20%, 20-80%, and 80-100%.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 05:39 PM
2

What the fuck is up with the pro-circumcision downvote brigade here? JIDF
/r/MensRights25/06/11 05:38 PM
9

Whereas this post seems to imply "Due to the matriarchy conspiring with Mozilla, etc etc" Crazy is crazy regardless of the side it's on.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 01:22 PM
5

The joke is "This actually happened, and I can't believe I'm so spoiled that I actually care lol" Some of them are actually bullshit, but many aren't. I suspect the joke of this one was "Oh poor me, I have towels that serve no purpose and have to sleep on a comfortable leather couch".
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:01 PM
1

I wonder how many of these are because of my username.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 04:05 PM
5

Why would you be ashamed of that? You refer to it ad "my family" as if it's not equally her family. If a woman made the claim that she wants her family to have her name, would you consider that equally valid? I'm not necessarily a proponent of hyphenated names, I'm just opposed to the reasoning "I'm male, so it's my family, so we should all have my name"
/r/MensRights08/06/11 10:10 PM
4

She knows our children will be hers (then again, I will to because I'll paternity test a wife) You've negated your own reason. (Not that a name change does anything to ensure paternity anyway... I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is) I want any child of mine to have my name. So I'm still curious why it's not sexist to expect them to have your name instead of hers. (It would be equally sexist of her to demand that they have hers). I can't think of any reason other than "because I'm…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 08:30 PM
3

Assuming you were to get married: How is it not sexist to expect her to change her name to yours, and not expect yourself to change your name to hers?
/r/MensRights08/06/11 08:17 PM
2

I pictured Cilia Hodes
/r/MensRights08/06/11 08:15 PM
1

Given that there are multiple reasons for why this kind of cut might take place this kind of cut [7]
/r/MensRights08/06/11 07:00 PM
1

Women, having vaginas, can't become old rich men. But I agree with your actual point.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 02:57 AM
32

I think he was mainly criticizing the courts, not the women. I took his post to mean "The courts will order the man to give the women all of his money, regardless of who earns more".
/r/MensRights29/05/11 05:18 PM
1

Agreed. But if you promise a chick 3 kids, then change your mind after the first, she has a right to be angry. That's all I meant.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 10:41 PM
3

I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm just saying you're potentially fucking over the other person, and they'd be justified in being frustrated and getting a divorce.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 10:40 PM
3

I think it's wrong for anyone, regardless of gender, to agree to something, enter into a contract based on that agreement, then change their mind once they get what they want. Perhaps had she known he'd only want one kid, she would have decided he wasn't the right guy for her, and married someone with compatible reproductive preferences. Now she's screwed because he couldn't stick to what he already agreed to. Disclaimer: I didn't read the thread you linked to.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 07:10 PM
5

Having a standing army apparently serves that interest. Wouldn't "excluding females from the draft" have to serve an important state interest? My non-lawyer understanding of it was that the gender discrepancy itself had to serve an important state interest.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 09:10 PM
1

Your sad/happy brain bits are very confused.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:48 PM
3

Likely a joke, but I agree. I don't see a difference between us requiring women to cover their breasts and Muslim countries requiring burkas.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:47 PM
2

No fast account creation, but fast account switching with saved passwords. And when leaving a comment or posting, you can choose which account it posts as and it'll switch back after. If that didn't make any sense, wait til 4/20's over and ask again lol [8}
/r/MensRights21/04/11 02:29 AM
0

It likely depends on which feminist you're talking to. The ones who write the books and give the speeches are the politicians, the Womyns Studies students are the indoctrinated people.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 02:06 AM
1

I use Alien Blue on my phone when I want to swap back and forth between novelty accounts. It's perfect for it.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 02:03 AM
2

Does legal precedent work the same way in the UK?
/r/MensRights01/04/11 01:20 AM
1

To do otherwise would be discrimination. Not true. You could also refuse to hold the door for anyone and say "fuck you" to anyone holding it for you. :P
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:10 PM
0

The "extra privileges" (don't fight back against violent women, hold doors, give up your seat, give them the lifeboat and sacrifice yourself, etc) certainly weren't on par with the privileges men had (voting, property ownership, holding public office, etc), but they certainly exist/existed.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:09 PM
6

it would be nice, but it's her uterus, so... no. This is a valid argument for the abortion aspect of it. But after birth, she can decide to absolve herself and him of any responsibility. He doesn't have that same power. And at that point, it's not "her uterus" anymore. It's a baby that's equally his and hers. Yet she has the sole power to decide whether or not they're collectively responsible for raising it.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:16 PM
3

You should totally walk in on him masturbating. It'll go okay.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 07:43 PM
1

tell me more. Like does he have a car?
/r/MensRights23/03/11 02:53 PM
2

I almost agree with you. I think they both owe each other an apology for what was said. Saying mean things isn't something you have to defend yourself against. I think she should also apologize for physically attacking him. I don't think he should apologize for defending himself against a physical attack.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:28 PM
4

I support men's rights. I support the right of workers to unionize. However, I also support the right of workers to work without joining their industry's union. For instance, I don't think a republican teacher should be forced to pay dues to a union that will give that money to the democratic party.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 07:34 PM
-1

Isn't this just preaching to the choir? This applies to every niche subreddit. However, to do otherwise would result in "OMG put this shit in /r/subreddit i dont want to see this and my downvote button is broken bawwwww!"
/r/MensRights24/02/11 05:01 PM
0

I think the assumption is that the same people would accuse a man of sexually objectifying women if the roles were reversed, and it was a mens blog with "happy birthday" and a woman in the same pose.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 10:36 PM
2

Maybe a long time ago. She's 65 now and looks kinda like a blonde crypt keeper.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 03:17 PM
4

Here in Tennessee, it's indecent exposure to have a boner poking your pants out. "Nudity" or "state of nudity" means the showing of the bare human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of the areola, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. "Nudity" or "state of nudity" does not include a mother in the act of nursing the mother's baby.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 08:13 PM
7

I've heard the first step is to do way instain mother. YMMV.
/r/MensRights08/02/11 03:38 PM
2

Again, only if you know a corrupt police officer. I doubt he has the balls to just go down to the station, ask to speak with an officer, and then be all "so hey, I'm a billionaire, wanna kill my wife?"
/r/MensRights05/02/11 10:24 PM
6

However, money doesn't give them the knowledge of how to find and contact an "old KGB or SAS operative" without accidentally a police informant.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 10:02 PM
5

it doesn't help either party Did you read the article? ;)
/r/MensRights05/02/11 09:56 PM
1

Directed by R. Kelly.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 05:11 AM
7

And on yet another level of your retardedness: There wasn't even a question for her to answer. There was a random accusation out of nowhere. She correctly responded with "wtf where'd that come from?" followed by a denial of the accusation. The fuck is wrong with you?
/r/MensRights19/01/11 02:52 AM
9

lol seriously? Enso: I love cake! Evil-doer: But I bet you hate pie, you whore! Enso: You'd have to be crazy not to like pie! I have like 12 pies at home *right now*! You: It's a yes or no question, ma'am. Stop avoiding the question. MensRights isn't about being dicks to women just because they're women.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 02:45 AM
2

Men will never need to breastfeed. Men are, however, more likely to be a victim of violence.
/r/MensRights06/01/11 05:04 PM
2

is it bad to teach women self-defense techniques? Is it bad to give men training in non-violent expression? It's bad to only offer self-defense techniques to women while not making it available to men.
/r/MensRights06/01/11 04:38 PM
8

Is that all you know how to say?
/r/MensRights28/12/10 01:17 PM
2

Not criticizing the ad. I just assumed that this post was meant to imply "unlike all the 'watch out for men' ads we've been seeing on here lately". I was pointing out that that implication doesn't really apply, since nobody ever suspects attractive men anyway.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 09:09 PM
35

It's ok, guys. He's attractive, so we don't have to call the police. It's the fat and/or bald ones you have to look out for.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 01:22 AM
7

It's a normal sized kitchen trash bag, filled with normal every-day trash.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:34 AM
3

I'd be more ok with it then, but nope, that's not the case.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 11:51 PM
1

Answered here, but if it were a safety issue, I'd agree with GorillaJ's response.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 11:50 PM
1

Nope
/r/MensRights17/12/10 11:48 PM
1

I probably will, but over other issues.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 11:47 PM
1

Seems you "know your place".
/r/MensRights17/12/10 11:46 PM
4

but really there are more important causes to fight for no matter what the cause, this statement is always true.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 10:31 PM
2

We're in a pair of houses that were converted into offices, and we're in a residential neighborhood. It's just taking out the trash like it would be at home. Taking it from the trashcan inside to the bigger trash can outside against the house.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 10:30 PM
1

You've just opened up the door for someone else to anonymously complain about it and have you take the blame. Take the blame for what? I'm lost :(
/r/MensRights17/12/10 10:25 PM
5

Vs white women, we do.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 10:14 PM
8

No HR department. It's a small company (~40 employees).
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:02 PM
9

If you ever expect to hook up with any of the woman at your workplace, be a gentleman and play ball. I don't. Chivalry will get you lots of pussy! No, it won't.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 07:51 PM
5

It may come across as passive aggressive, but really it's just a compromise. It makes me not have to do something I have a moral problem with, while not imposing my crazy men-aren't-beasts-of-burden views on everyone else.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 07:49 PM
20

We're a 9-5 office in a upper-income residential area. It's not a danger concern.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 06:28 PM
15

We need more of you in my city. Please clone yourself.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 06:02 PM
7

In a situation where only women are on a bathroom-cleaning rotation, would you say: agreed, there are more important things to get worked up about. Be a woman, clean the bathrooms and quit bitching. Make the world a better place. If so, at least you're consistent. Edit: Also, I don't think blindly going along with gender discrimination makes the world a better place.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:53 PM
8

Yeah, it's certainly not a username I should be using from work :P
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:52 PM
4

It's a ~75% male web development company. There isn't an HR department (only around 40 employees). I've come up with a solution for now. I'm just going to put my own little trash can under my desk, use it exclusively, take out my own trash, and refuse to be in the rotation.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:49 PM
8

And yet if the situation were flipped and I told the women "get over it and clean the bathrooms", I'd be an asshole.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:46 PM
2

Yup
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:45 PM
13

I'm pretty sure the women saying "Eeew I can't take out the trash! That's a boy's job!" are the assholes.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:44 PM
7

It's an homage to a once-famous Redditor by the name of CuntSmellersInc. But that's irrelevant.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:37 PM
12

Nope. In fact, if there were a rotation of all the women making coffee, I'm pretty sure there would have been a lawsuit by now.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:21 PM
33

I got a "whatever, I'll take out the trash when it's your turn if it's that big of a deal" from a woman who overheard me complaining to a friend/coworker about it. But all that accomplished was making me look like an asshole who's trying to avoid taking out the trash. I assume that was her intent.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:14 PM
3

There aren't any tasks that are women-only here. A guy usually makes the coffee, but it's a bring-your-own-coffee situation with a non-discriminatory rotation of who brings it. Whoever wants it first in the morning is the person who usually makes it, and that's usually the same guy.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:07 PM
22

It's a single bag of trash in a standard kitchen trash can. I'd be pretty desperate of them to say the women can't lift it.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:02 PM
2

Of course it's 'as illegal.' There are no 'semi-illegal' or 'mildly illegal' offenses. In that regard murdering someone is as illegal as jaywalking. Of course things are either legal or illegal, but a Class C Misdemeanor isn't the same as a Class A Felony. That's the sense in which I meant they're "as illegal" as one another. If you get an unintentional erection and make a visible attempt to hide it you will not be charged. Source? The law makes a clear "unless you try to hide it" exception for …
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:19 PM
2

An even more similar comparison is erect nipples. Those are fine.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:12 PM
1

Yeah, it's a legal term in the sense that it's illegal. It's as illegal to get an erection in walmart as it is to go streaking through walmart.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 01:51 PM
5

Here in Tennessee, having an erection is considered nudity and indecent exposure. “Nudity” or “state of nudity” means the showing of the bare human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of the areola, ** or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.**
/r/MensRights15/12/10 05:12 AM
2

Yes, that's exactly what I would say. I see what you're getting at, though -- the woman is still better off in this hypothetical scenario, because she could have an abortion whether the man agreed or not. Wasn't getting at that, was just curious if you applied your logic equally to both sexes. And you do :) I can't think of a fool-proof system to fix the issue you brought up, either. All the ideas I could come up with would be unfair to an anti-abortion woman in a pregnancy that neither party in…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 06:56 PM
1

Wow, I really didn't know other states were that way. That sucks. I'm in Tennessee and it's not that way here. We have laws that ensure women can get their job (or a comparable job) back after maternity leave, but I honestly have no clue what those laws are like in other countries. What would be ideal, in your opinion?
/r/MensRights11/12/10 06:05 PM
3

True, but guys don't have breasts or produce breastmilk. Which, of course, can hardly be blamed on sexism of any sort. You can only take people to court if you try and resolve it at the employer level first. Not true, assuming you're in the US. Still, I know it can be difficult. Being sexually harassed is certainly a big issue that needs to be addressed (without making men constantly afraid at work, of course). Edit: I really am curious about your response to this, however: What if the man pokes…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 05:36 PM
2

In the broken condom situation, neither party intended on getting pregnant -- since it wasn't a mutual decision, it's not fair the guy is locked into child support payments til the kid is 18. What if the man pokes a hole in the condom and doesn't tell the woman? This seems comparable to a woman lying about birth control. The wage gap is mostly due to women having to leave their careers to take care of kids at home because child care is so damned expensive (this affects guys, too, but mostly wome…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 05:12 PM
2

I'm against hate crime legislation too, but you're wrong. A more reasonable version would have been: A crime against anyone but a while heterosexual male when the victim's minority status or gender can be shown to have motivated the crime
/r/MensRights30/11/10 06:31 PM
1

How about a compromise: Testing by default unless you opt-out.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 03:45 PM
3

Unfortunately, the chances of that are very low. Most people think they have to answer every question a cop asks them.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 02:59 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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