TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Dembara Archive

View 13 posts and 2,332 comments by Dembara 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)
236

Dembara/r/MensRights16/01/17 11:48 PM
83

Dembara/r/MensRights26/03/17 04:29 AM
77

Legal RightsDembara/r/MensRights21/01/17 08:21 PM
62

ProgressDembara/r/MensRights22/09/18 05:55 PM
46

Dembara/r/MensRights17/03/17 08:33 PM
30

Edu./Occu.Dembara/r/MensRights01/05/17 02:55 PM
27

QuestionsDembara/r/MensRights19/04/17 02:31 PM
17

Dembara/r/MensRights12/03/17 05:38 PM
10

Dembara/r/MensRights10/03/17 12:24 AM
8

Fathers/CustodyDembara/r/MensRights04/01/17 11:17 PM
7

Social IssuesDembara/r/MensRights30/11/17 03:26 PM
7

GeneralDembara/r/MensRights16/04/17 02:29 AM
7

QuestionsDembara/r/MensRights26/05/17 04:35 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,332 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

Misandrist is fine. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandrist
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/04/26 01:16 PM
6

To be honest, this doesn't seem too bad. I would read "might be a solution" as "I don't know that experience; it could be more probable they would have a better experience" not as "it would be okay for a man." I think there would be better ways to put it (e.g. "from my experience and the women I know, it greatly helps to have feelings for one's partner to have a satisfactory experience") but I wouldn't read it as a per say condemnation of men, just less of an expectation of the role of connectio…
/r/MensRights01/04/26 03:43 PM
1

Yea, this is a general healthcare issue. Also, not totally true. Medicaid coverage applies to couples as well if they meet the requirements (which vary somewhat by state, but are around the poverty line).
/r/MensRights09/03/26 02:40 PM
20

I'd say, tbf, it also is mixed at the 'bottom' none of these are homogenous. Men are over represented at the 'top' and 'bottom', but society and social issues are complex and don't lend themselves to a single overarching narrative. We should be very skeptical of anyone presenting such a narrative.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/02/26 02:45 PM
5

And not even great ones, for the most part. I do like the push for price transparency in Healthcare, but it is going to need a lot more actual effort before it is meaningful, and it isn't really related to men's rights issues particularly.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:51 PM
10

I mean, it is just fluff.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:49 PM
34

You don't need to make it a case about misandry, unless they do. It is a common problem--group dumps one set of work on a classmate and excludes them from other work. I would try to document that you made a good-faith effort to participate in the other work--something like texting the group chat 'hey, I am a bit uncomfortable doing all the technical work and not being involved in the presentation. Could I present [some part of the assignment] and would someone be willing to take charge of [one o…
/r/MensRights28/02/25 04:24 PM
10

I agree, I also do think there is a tendency to focus on false accusations to the harm of other issues at time, but the way they are framing it is pretty absurdly in bad faith. The rate of male victimisation is about the same as for females if you consider made to penetrate to be rape. To nitpick, it isn't exactly certain. It is pretty hard to measure accurately the real rates of victimization for both male and female victims (there are a lot of reporting issues and other problems). The way I fr…
/r/MensRights28/02/25 04:17 PM
1

I think it is largely a general increasing emphasis on men's appearances, generally, including in media aimed at men (including said right wing podcasts, but other media as well). Not inherently a totally bad thing if it means being healthier and fitter, and is fostsred in a healthy way, but it can be an issue and lead to less healthy habits and anxiety or eating disorders.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/24 02:40 PM
8

Hard to get exact data as stats vary depending on measures used. Most estimates find at least similiar rates.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/23 02:32 PM
1

What does a fictional lawyer have to do with anything? Here is what a real lawyer looks like in the office at one of the top lawfirms in the world. Here is how one of their more famous partners dresses.
/r/MensRights31/08/23 01:43 PM
1

It entirely depends on the field. In many fields people are in positiona like u/ThreeLeggedTranny where they can turn around and go to a different firm offering them comparable pay with more agreeable conditions. Unless in a forward facing job in an industry where it is still expected, wearing a suit and tie doesn't really matter. Even some of the biggest lawfirms let their lawyers walk around the office in flip-flops and shorts (of course, in the courtroom you need to be in appropriate attire).…
/r/MensRights31/08/23 01:34 PM
11

Yep, absolutely. I think like many movements, a large part of our men's movements have often falling into the tendency of just critizing the outgroup, rather than focusing on our actual concrete goals and policy issues. Where women are granted some privileges (e.g., lax dress requirements) the response out to be to lobby for men to be granted those same privileges, not just complaining about how 'society' is more open to women's issues (though it is true, making that the focus just makes us look…
/r/MensRights31/08/23 01:26 PM
1

Generally, you are correct, if you are employed at will you can be terminated at will. However, there is more nuance. Most evidently, it depends on state. Different states have different labor laws that mandate different terms for different employees. Also, depending on the details of your employment you might have terms in your contract to some grievance procedure and rules about termination and entitlements.
/r/MensRights31/08/23 01:21 PM
3

Yea, comparing dress or shaving is fair, comparing undergarments to suits is not. A better comparison would be like telling a man to wear briefs because they can see his willy flopping around. Depending on context, I imagine most would be more embarrassed than offended, but that is absolutely inappropriate.
/r/MensRights31/08/23 01:17 PM
5

Yea, I wasn't trying to disagree outright, just point out where it is OK and where it becomes a problem. Not being interested or just feeling someone is weird or unattractive for some ill-defined reason is fine and probably normal. But what most people do, and what is the correct thing to do, is just politely excuse yourself and go talk to someone else, not to make a fuss about the person on that alone.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 02:14 PM
0

They aren't all. Many especially online that are dedicated to being not-men are, but that is not all groups of women. Though of course every sufficiently large group has its share of rude people. The problem is that when you get a bunch of one group together, to the active exclusion of another group, and they are likely to develop a bias against their out group and start coming up with superstitious and nonsensical reasons to critize the outgroup.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 01:42 PM
4

Like with any group of people, there are good and bad. You get a bunch of one group together, to the active exclusion of another group, and they are likely to develop a bias against their out group and start coming up with superstitious and nonsensical reasons to critize the outgroup.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 01:19 PM
24

Not giving someone a chance is fine, if you are not interested in someone you aren't interested in them, one doesn't have to fake attraction to see if it works. But turning around and then publicily gossiping about someone is not.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 01:17 PM
5

I wouldn't say this is specific to sexual encounters/women. I would recommend everyone to keep documentation of any agreements and relations you've had (within what is legal and common sense). Even if the other person is someone you trust, a lot can happen that might make it good to have things in writting (e.g., my grandfather ran a small company, one of his close friends died before paying him back on a purchase agreement. Said friend had initially not wanted to do it in writing, but if my gra…
/r/MensRights21/03/23 01:33 PM
3

I should have been clearer. It is easier to get more information but hard to get definitive information on attempts. For example, we can say that many/most attempted to suicides were impulsive (depends on definitions), since we can get that information from the survivor. For committed suicides, we can't say. Even if the person had a history of suicidal thoughts/inclinations, we cannot conclude that the suicide they committed wasn't impulsive and if they had no records of suicidal thoughts/inclin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/23 03:43 PM
11

There are no statistics that show women attempt more. That's pure fiction. Every article and opinion pieces just links to another article or opinion piece. This is false. The stats are more nuanced, but most do find higher rates of attempts among females. See for examples: Mościcki, Eve K. "Gender differences in completed and attempted suicides." Annals of epidemiology 4, no. 2 (1994): 152-158. Lewinsohn, Peter M., Paul Rohde, John R. Seeley, and Carol L. Baldwin. "Gender differences in suicide …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/23 03:02 PM
2

So it's pretty hopeless. Social engineering has a dismal track record. Src It does not require 'social engineering.' Treating mental health and making its treatment more accessible is not an impossible task, in fact it seems to occur fairly naturally to some extent in developped societies.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/23 02:57 PM
3

I very rarely see any of the at least half-intelligent ones claim that women do it at a higher rate, as this is overwhelmingly contradicted by, well, all data It is true that women attempt suicide at higher rates. But it is hard to get good data on suicides that are committed, since they are dead.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/23 02:54 PM
5

The point I have often heard about women attempting more is that their suicide attempts are cries for help whereas men's attempts mostly only aim to end one's life. I would not just say they are cries for help. There are clear differences, but rather than a cry for help it could be a spontaneous, rather than prolonged, suicidal episode that leads someone to, for example, take a bunch of drugs from the medical cabinet, regret it and decide they want to live and call 911. That doesn't mean it was …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/23 02:50 PM
3

“Have women’s rights got to the point where men are now the ones being discriminated against?” Do you have a source on this? I didn't find it quickly. I would disagree with the quoted question, the issue is not the expansion of women's rights but rather that there are gender attitudes that have traditionally discriminated against men. Heck, while extremely androcentric and patriarchal, even The Deuteronomic Code contains laws that discriminate against men in favor of women (the laws against adul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/23 05:36 PM
52

I think the problem is how people tend to think of intersectionality. Rather than recognizing the central claim for what it is (these issues are not mono-dimensional) it tends to intend get boiled down to ranking people by the number of identities they have that are perceived to be in marginalized groups.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/23 03:43 PM
3

I don't think it is. Unfortunately, one gets small minded people every where. But generally, I seen most people in men's advocacy groups like this to be very welcoming and recognizing of issues. Though, of course, I don't know if that is generalizable. But there certainly is an overlap between trans-issues and men's issues. A lot of the fear mongering against trans-women is predicated on a kind of fear-mongering against men. A lot of the bathroom debacle tended to be one side saying "men are so …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/23 03:38 PM
1

Ah, gotcha.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/23 03:29 PM
3

That paper includes a section comparing the criminality of transgender people to that of their biological sex. Which paper? I believe you are refering to the fairly well known swedish study which you linked elsewhere. They found no difference between the rates of violent offences in transgender women and rates of violent offences in people who identify as male That is not what the study found, or well not all. First of all, it was looking at convictions. Convictions are already a problematic met…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/23 08:23 PM
3

The people trying to exclude transwomen want to exclude them because they think they are male. That is male exclusion. They are women who are caught up in the attempts to exclude males from spaces.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/23 07:53 PM
2

They're unwilling to face the reality of the world the we live in and constantly find ways to blame men for issues that feminist created. I think it is a bit more mixed. They often blame the issues on feminism/change that are not the fault of feminism (or not the fault in the way they claim) and often exaggerate/misrepresent the feminist position in a way that actually makes it more appealing, imo, but is meant to demonize them (e.g. Gavin Mccinnes yelling about how feminists/'liberals' want men…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/22 07:32 PM
28

Israel, Eritrea, Mali, Morocco, North Korea and Tunisia conscript women as part of universal service. Benin, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Norway and Sweden have selective service systems that include women as well as men. It is not as though women are never conscripted. Lots of roles they can be conscripted into even without sending them to the front line to fight.
/r/MensRights08/03/22 03:22 PM
28

Your comment i would say was indicative of a general attitude which pervades society, but OP was entirely in the wrong to be as antagonistic as they were and imply you only saw worth by gender.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 03:45 PM
27

Saying one of "the most evil men" is fine, it is to some extent just a colloquialism.
/r/MensRights06/03/22 03:42 PM
10

Women are necessary to repopulating a country Historically, yes. In modern warfare, less so. Because people live longer havd fewer kids and giving birth is relatively safe, the number of women in a population is not as important as it once was nor is having women in the army the same risk given what modern conflicts look like. You just need to look at Israel to see this.
/r/MensRights25/02/22 04:29 PM
1

modernists believe in the empirical method which utilizes reason to draw conclusions, but you can still make presuppositions while still remaining within the realm of reason. Yes, which works well with more clearly definable natural causes but does become blurred with things that are not so clear cut (e.g. justice, good, criminal etc). It can still be used in these domains, but must acknowledge the additional imperfections and necessary uncertainties.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/22 07:23 AM
2

To be fair, I should say I think the postmodern critique is partially correct: what can be said to be or not to be a crime cannot be universally said with certainty and some degree of uncertainty is necessary. There are necessarily going to be fuzzy borders and unclear cases. The thing is, they ironically have the same problem as the modernists, they are not willing to accept that there will be some uncertainty and somethings not perfectly prescribed. Uncertain is just something we have to live …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/22 02:47 AM
23

This is not the postmodernist view of criminology. It is closer to a modernist conception of criminology. The postmodernist view is not that crime is a symptom of disenfranchisement but rather that criminality is a method of disenfranchisement. The postmodernist argument (to, perhaps, oversimplify) goes something like, "there is no true 'totalizing' theory of crime or conflict. Assertions of a totalizing theory of crime are not true assertions of what is really criminal but rather are themselves…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/22 06:31 PM
1

Correct. Truth is an affirmative defense that you can use to protect yourself from defamation including libel . However, you do not need to even prove that what you said is actually true. There are a lot of defenses you can argue depending on circumstances, but at its core the plaintiff needs to demonstrate: a false statement purporting to be fact; publication or communication of that statement to a third person; fault amounting to at least negligence; (in this case, assuming OP is not a public …
/r/MensRights02/02/22 03:46 PM
4

Probably wouldn't be libel (the guy can reasonably claim he believed jt was true even if the OP can prove it is false). Could well be blackmail depending on the details and state law assuming it does not fall into federal jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights02/02/22 02:06 PM
1

Lawyer, not reddit. This is a legal concern and not something you want to entrust to strangers online.
/r/MensRights02/02/22 02:01 PM
11

John Gottman says that it takes 6-7 years of unresolved conflict to bubble up into ending a relationship. Tbf, it is obvious that it is not going to be immediate. Assuming neither partner is entering thr marriage on a fraudulent basis, neither partner would marry expecting divorce. "Happy wife, happy life" is not a conflict resolution strategy There is a conflict resolution strategy implicit in its common usage, but it is a horrible conflict resolution strategy. Namely, it implies one ought to t…
/r/MensRights19/12/21 03:55 PM
13

In principle, lots of people. There is an old saying among Rabbis, I recall hearing, that goes something like 'if you have an unhappy marriage with your wife, you are not reciting the Eshet Chayil (the ode to a 'woman of valor' in Psalms 31) enough. Basically, that you need to appreciate your wife or your marriage will be unhappy. This is a bit more moderate then the happy wife, happy life, idea but same general concept.
/r/MensRights19/12/21 03:45 PM
1

My contention (and what this thread is saying) is that it SHOULD be classified as a sexual assault. I do not think shoving a woman in the chest should (in itself) be sexual assault.
/r/MensRights17/12/21 05:21 AM
1

A sexual act in colloquial usage (i.e. something you do to get yourself or the other person off) is not the same as sexual assault. Yes, but sexual assault requires a sexual act in the law. Under most legal definitions i am aware (including the Federal) hitting someone's primary or secondarily sexual body parts, with the principle intent to inflict pain, does not constitute a sex act. Sexual assault is NOT a separate category because of the perpetrator's intent. Not principally, no. The principl…
/r/MensRights16/12/21 04:31 PM
1

Hold on, are there different degrees or "levels" of assault? If so, I think my argument has been thrown out of the window already. Yes. I discussed a bit previously. Both sexual assault and assault and battery vary by degrees and can have plethora of aggravating factors. A common one in assault is the degrees of damage one's actions are likely to do. Worry about establishing the objective, just and constitutional stance in laws first, like what we're doing now. You're also talking in circles her…
/r/MensRights16/12/21 08:42 AM
1

And I'd argue hitting someone in the gonads should be a sexual act per se. If one of the lads told me "oh yea, I totally had a sexual act performed on me last night" when he got hit in a fight and got kicked in the gonads, I would call him a liar. The reason we classify sexual assault separately is precisely so we can handle it as a separate, Yes. We handle criminals differently based on their motivations and purposes. For instance, the fundamentalist terrorist who runs over someone with a car i…
/r/MensRights16/12/21 08:35 AM
3

Yes, but the same is true of punching in general. The police and courts are sexist and are far more likely to prosecute male accused, particularly when the alleged victim(s) are female, to a greater extent. I also would say that yes punching someone's genitals (male or female) could qualify as an sct of sexual battery under some definitions and should be prosecuted as such in accordance with the law. Sexual battery does not always require a sexual act and is defined by different jurisdictions. S…
/r/MensRights14/12/21 05:51 PM
1

Sexual intent is not necessary Yes, it has to be a sexual act. Some acts are sexual or not depending on intent while other acts are sexual per se. As I stated, punching someone in the gonads is usually not a sexual act. It can become a sexual act if done for sexual reasons, just like almost anything. Agajn, take thr punch to the chest example. Punching a woman in the chest is in and of itself just assault/battery. If, however, one punches a women in the chest because the victim has especially la…
/r/MensRights14/12/21 05:35 PM
6

It is aggravated assault, not sexual assault. Targetting the gonads is an aggravating factor but punching them for the purpose of causing pain and injury is not a sexual act. It is not sexual assault unless the perpetrator is doing it for sexual reasons. In the same way, punching a woman in the chest is just assault in and of itself but grabbing the chest is sexual assault. As defined by the DOJ, "The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or Stat…
/r/MensRights14/12/21 04:03 PM
11

Yea, also people tend to forget privilege is a matter of context and comparison. It is not a matter of "x is privileged end of story." Just about any privleged group can, in certain context, be less privileged than others. For instance in most contexts, those of affluent birth are privileged over those from less affluent families, however if you were living through la Terreur, being of gentle blood would be a distinct disadvantages and, comparatively, those of less gentle birth would have the pr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/21 05:20 PM
6

I would rather they just drop it. Rather than also making it a crime for women to look at men, the progressive thing to do would be to not use the police to impose skme set of gendered sensitivities on communities. Especially considering their definition. Like, most states have an aggravating factor for "hate motivated behavior" which makes some sense. Going around hating, say, French people is not a crime. However, if one goes around assaulting people who one suspects of having French heritage,…
/r/MensRights03/12/21 12:36 AM
1

Also, it was (depending on culture) seen as a thing for women, not for men. There is the old image of a midwife rushing the men out of the house.
/r/MensRights02/12/21 01:53 AM
1

What did you say about her, ooc? Many publications that allow comments, particularly those that are more tabloid-esque, are rather quick on the ban hammer.
/r/MensRights22/11/21 06:23 PM
2

I agree which is why I would be skeptical of their motives and encouraging expressing as much even as I would encourage their actions, if I believe they are effecting good.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/21 11:03 PM
1

Wishful thinking I described the ideal, so yes it is wishful thinking and I do not expect much from the UN. No, what would happen even if you could get the study done is that the conclusion of the 'Where men lag behind women' report would state that women are the victims of men's disadvantage. If that's how you have to frame it to the UN to get the UN to do anything, I don't really care. Getting something actually done to improve things is far more important the arguing about who the 'real' vict…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/21 09:23 PM
2

A one-tailed test is incapable of measuring inequality I don't believe I discussed the statistical methods, specifically. I would not recommend either a 1 or 2 tailed ttest on its own. Instead, you'd want to first identify the differences/effects, the relationship with other variables and then add in gender (checking colinearity) and running a few models based on that. F-tests, which is the total of your regression result, are always one sided. The p-value for the individual coefficient of sex/g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/21 08:11 PM
6

Even if there was parallel content showing men's disadvantages, with women's disadvantages being ignored, what would be published and attract attention would be the skewed version Neither would be skewed if the analysis is done properly... Ideally, what I would expect is for the GGGR to include both sides of the analysis, having separate parts discussion each. It is fairly common for organizations like the WEF to issue separate reports on analyses and then a joint report combining the major resu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/21 05:05 PM
-1

Tbf, empirically I see the reason you might want to do that. It is much better if you look at the hypothesis "men are overperforming/overrepresenting women in [field] in [country]" For statistical testing and then also run the same test for the hypothesis "women are overperforming/overrepresenting men in [field] in [country]." For a single report with some more qualitative discussion it may make more sense to focus the report on discussing the areas where the the first hypothesis fails to reject…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/21 03:46 PM
9

Love shouldn't be contingent on being the member of any group. I agree, so does bell hooks. Her point is 'we' love women, not for what they do for us but for simply being human. She notes how she realized she* (and others) did not treat men the same way and argues that they should be treated the same and equally loved. Of course, she puts this all under the term patriarchy, but whether you want to call it gynocentrism, patriarchy or whatever the issue is the same. It should be contingent on your…
/r/MensRights21/11/21 03:10 PM
33

While I disagree with her on many things, I always like to throw bell hooks' quote on the subject at them, because she was right on the issue. If you want to create a society in which men love and respect others for simply being human, you must love men for simply being. "To create loving men, we must love males... Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being." -bell hooks
/r/MensRights21/11/21 01:35 PM
2

I know little of the first amendment but is it really used and does anyone really win with it anyway Yes, many first amendment cases gave been won. The thing is, it is about laws not individual cases. The first amendment is not a defense in and of itself. However, if a law infringes on the first amendment it can be appealed to higher courts and struck down which is by no means unusual.
/r/MensRights07/11/21 03:14 PM
2

The thing is a law that applies to, say, the Wallstreet Journal applies just as well to something like Gawker or the any tabloid. taking photos of Princess Diana with her new lover Who the royalty of your nation is consorting with is of a valid public concern. I would like to know if someone who cohabitates with leaders of my nation attended a party in Nazi garb, for instance. that politicians are public property... normal citizens not The thing is they are not so distinct. Private citizen often…
/r/MensRights06/11/21 11:04 PM
2

I don't think photos of anyone charged, taken into custody, found guilty of a crime and ?? should be in the papers It is not without good reason that the right to a public trial is enumerated in the constitution. The public (including but not limited to mainstream news publications) has a right to oversee the government operation and hold it to some degree of accountability. The government should not be allowed to operate in private. Consider, for example, Joe Biden or Kevin McCarthy are arreste…
/r/MensRights06/11/21 05:49 PM
1

I am a bit conflicted, tbh. Take for example public figures. It would not really make much sense to disallow their image from being portrayed and of course public systems, especially those like the judiciary, ought to be open to the public and public scrutiny. Questions of free speech are most certainly there. Americans are generally more willing to make some allowances when there is a question of harm to minors, but less so for adults.
/r/MensRights04/11/21 06:56 PM
5

She is not allowed to be shown apparently but he is!!! Protection of minors. Often images of underage criminals cannot be disseminated by the media (varies a lot). The guy was not a minor so is not afforded as many protections.
/r/MensRights04/11/21 02:50 PM
2

Yea, unfortunately the legal system is such that generally lawyers want to throw every argument they can at the case and then focus on what arguments will work with the court. I am not sure how one could even go about fixing this. One could raise the penalty on provably false allegations, but generally it is hard to prove false allegations of this kind false. And of course there are many cases of real abuse that should be dealt with if it can be demonstrated, so just excluding it from legal proc…
/r/MensRights23/10/21 05:22 PM
2

Talk to your lawyer, they know better than people online. If she makes up dates and details, you are going to want to collect as much documentation around those dates as possible. Your attorney should be helping you with a lot of this and helping to argue that her testimony is less credible than yours.
/r/MensRights23/10/21 05:12 PM
1

if it is possible for the trial to be jury anyway, despite waiving the right to a jury trial, but I have never heard of such Short answer is "yes, but generally the courts won't do so." If you waive your right to a jury trial, the government doesn't have to give you a bench trial (they can still give you a jury trial) but they generally speaking will give a bench trial (sometimes they insist on trial by jury, but it is very uncommon). A few States give the defendant the right to demand a bench t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/10/21 05:36 PM
3

And do you know healthier ways to deal with being unattractive and undesirable? It's tough and depends on circumstances. You might be able to take actions to increase your desirability, but first and foremost, I would generally encourage self-worth that is not dependent on social desirability. Your value is not dependent upon others' desire to sleep with you. Find the things about yourself that you value, be they hobbies, health, work, accomplishments, etc and center your value on those things r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/21 06:36 AM
-2

There is a big difference between some seeking support for a terminal medical diagnosis and creating an identity based on beliefs of their own social undesirabillity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/21 06:29 AM
3

Yea, same with the US, though some testimony might be sealed from the public before showing up on trial, everything has to be disclosed to the other side before coming into the court and the other side has the right to scrutinize it before it is admitted as evidence which includes deposing witnesses (including expert witnesses). Some suprise testimony is technically possible, but only really if one side is stupid and doesn't fully do their job interrogating what the witness is going to say befor…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 03:56 PM
4

juries are supposed to be a check on governmental overreach. They should be at the very minimum required for all crimes involving jailing/imprisonment. The option to have a jury is a check on government overreach. In the US (no idea about Belgium), the defendant has the right to be tried by jury if they choose to. Often, however, the defendant would prefer to be tried without jury, just being tried by the judge, since juries tend to have a different set of biases. In the US federal courts bench …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 03:47 PM
7

He was deemed "responsible of his actions". Meaning not acting on a menalillness... No idea about the laws in Belgium, but in the US these are different things. There is legal "competence" which means you are mentally able to partake in proceedings and responsible for yourself and your actions and then there is separately the question of insanity or mental disorders and mens rea. Competence does not exactly have an affirmative burden on the defense's side and is a very low bar (basically, if the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 03:40 PM
15

Tbf, a lot if the groups I have seen that are explicitly incels are quite toxic. Many aren't, but I do think there is something rather unhealthy about forming your identity and groups around one's feelings of inadequacy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 03:26 PM
2

She simply hadnt ever considered the grass on the other side of the fence. Yea, people tend to really over estimate their own input in things. That's why something like 60% of men and 90% of women believe they do most of the housework. It is not them being narcistic, it is just that everyone is much more concious of what they do than what others do. For the same reason, both men and women report starting the majority of fights in their relationships, on average.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 02:01 AM
6

Violence is absolutely bad and unproductive for our position. Sometimes in extreme cases it is necessary and effective, but for advocating for men's issues (at least in the West today) that just isn't the case.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 01:53 AM
3

It is worth making the distinction that arranged marriages are not the same as forced marriages. Some arranged marriages are forced on one or both of the spouses to-be, but not all. Often arranged marriages will take the form of parents arranging their child to court/see multiple partners and decide whether to marry them, more akin to parent-organized blind dates (with the goal of marriage) rather than forced marriage.
/r/MensRights19/09/21 02:37 PM
3

Usually, you are correct. Forced marriages are not the norm and most arranged marriages don't go through unless the spouses to be agree. However, there are exceptions where marriage is very much forced on one or both of the to-be weds. Groom kidnapping also is a thing in India. Forced marriages are illegal in India for both forcing the groom or bride, however because of the marriage laws that have been put in place to protect brides and their families it can be much more difficult legally for an…
/r/MensRights19/09/21 02:33 PM
19

Mostly. Nothing to do with the jeans (that was just a piece of evidence in the case, since the hole on the jeans was not consistent with her alleged assault). Her reason was issues with her relationship and depression, following having had an abortion for medical reasons (apparently, she didn't want to abort). Also, can only be partially removed from her record, she can remove the conviction (if she does what the ruling requires) but cannot remove that she pleaded guilty to a felony.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 01:25 PM
2

Maybe it took a year for the DMC to bother informing the SSS.
/r/MensRights26/08/21 12:20 PM
3

Was it when you got your driver's license? Some places put a sign up option on those forms.
/r/MensRights26/08/21 11:01 AM
2

If he's willing, I would suggest you see if he'd be willing to contact the ACLU about it. Would be great if we could get another challenge going.
/r/MensRights26/08/21 10:58 AM
12

The article title is actually clearer, the original New York Daily article (which is where the mail gets their info from) is even clearer. It was just confusing phrasing on OP's part.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 12:39 PM
199

Marital fraud, including adultery, according to the article. Not just a "history."
/r/MensRights27/07/21 05:26 AM
16

I would say that in about 95% of cases professional writers and editors will identify the writer correctl When it comes to professional prose, the accuracy one can get is generally ~80% relying on differences in the ways men and women tend to write (not, accuracy of a coin would be 50%, how percise and certain you are in an estimate also matters a lot). I imagine (though I have not seen any data behind this) that the number might be higher with amateur prose, 95% seems plausible but on the high …
/r/MensRights20/07/21 02:14 PM
2

Yes, the commission was a senate response, not a judicial response. The senate was not required to create a commission (or act on it). Instead, the senate chose to create the commission because they would be the ones in charge of redrawing the policy anyways. The commission's report argued for including women in the selective service system and laid out a proposal for transitioning to a gender neutral requirement. The senate committee would have to draft and vote on the new plan which would then…
/r/MensRights12/06/21 01:08 AM
1

Yea, my bad, I accidentally copied from the date from the when it was accepted into the court circuit before last. That only further proves my point though, the commission responded to the lawsuit, not the other way around.
/r/MensRights12/06/21 12:58 AM
1

The lawsuit was filed before the commissions. The lawsuit was first filed in Nov. 2016. The lawsuit triggered the commission, not the other way around.
/r/MensRights12/06/21 12:38 AM
1

The commission did recommend women be included. I don't know the details of the prior discussion (I would have to look for the minutes) and I am not sure if there is a new date for the hearing: as is it seems they are just going to kick it down the road indefinitely.
/r/MensRights11/06/21 09:51 PM
1

The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service filed its report in March 2020. However while the report was mentioned briefly at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, "The committee had to postpone [the public forum] hearing due to the pandemic" according to the committee chairman.
/r/MensRights11/06/21 09:44 PM
1

According to a few articles I read, there is consideration and that is what Biden's administration told the SCOTUS. A commission was set up by congress as to what to do on the cast in 2016, in response to the case. I don't know of the commission having done anything though and you are right that the congress has not heard any proposals for changing the rules. It is under consideration, but I don't see congress moving to make changes in the near future (which is why I think the SCOTUS should have…
/r/MensRights11/06/21 06:32 PM
1

Literally in the second sentence of the results they explain: "The majority of the deaths occurred during and immediately after the disaster." Please read the study more carefully. I explained it in detail above, but it is explained in more detail in the paper. As I said, they created a prior population by asking the families about how many members were in the family the day before the tsunami. Then they asked them about family members who they knew had died during or immediately after the event…
/r/MensRights10/06/21 04:47 PM
1

You do realize that the two studies actually looked at different things right? Yes. As I said, the first looked at the impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on coastal communities in Sri Lanka. The second examined the impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on the northwestern part of Sumatra (the largest island that is part of Indonesia), across two provinces: Aceh and North Sumatra (if may be worth noting that there was a civil war going on in the former of the …
/r/MensRights10/06/21 04:30 PM
0

Those quotes were from the first article, as I said. The second used a different methodology that did not have to retrospectively make assumptions, since they tracked people before and after. If single men were excluded (they weren't) it wouldn't matter since the mortality rates were determined by tracing the individuals who were alive before and seeing if they were still alive after.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 12:40 PM
0

In the interest of corroboration, here is another large demographic survey of same tsunami (albeit in a different area) with the same results as far as gender is concerned (though some other interesting details). They took large scale survey of family from 9 months before the tsunamis and followed up with a random sample from that to access the probability of dying. I don't think you are accurately representing the methodology, but even if you were the data is corroborated and it is hardly the o…
/r/MensRights10/06/21 05:47 AM
0

If the household consisted only of men, there was no one else to ask. If those men had other family members, they would report the deaths and those deaths would be included. This is why the householder cards were used to trace family relations and avoid repeated counts. If all members of a household died, survivors from related households could report their deaths. Unless families neglected to report their relatives' deaths because said relatives deaths, they would be included.
/r/MensRights09/06/21 09:59 PM
0

still lanka Its spelled Sri Lanka. investigated households with missing or dead, effectively excluding single men from the results The gender demographics of the interviewed population mirrored that of the national demographics. IF single males were excluded, this would not be the case. Single males, however, were not excluded, resulting in the demographics of the surveyed population mirroring that of society. As the paper states, the nearest family member (usually the spouse) was used regarding…
/r/MensRights09/06/21 09:25 PM
1

A few more examples for reference: Higher mortality among women in tsunami in Sri Lanka. Higher mortality among women in Tamil Nadu tsunami (also includes a discussions of how gender diffetences vary better different disasters and societies as I have argued) 1999 Taiwan Earthquake temporarily reversed the gender-gap in mortality (meaning higher mortality rates among women, when normally men had higher mortality rates) You provided a source that women don't go to shelter... No, I didn't. Did you …
/r/MensRights09/06/21 02:42 PM
0

you completely failed to do so I have provided sources already. How many do you want? What part of my claim do you not accept?* The point where I asked Try reading what other people say to you. I have provided sources and I repeatedly clarified my view, despite you continuing to misrepresent it.
/r/MensRights09/06/21 02:00 PM
0

Please read my original claim again. You keep entirely missing the point. I was rather clear in stating that "often" more women die in disasters than men, but this is not universal and these differences are not necessary due to gender inequities and when gender inequalities play a role, the effects vary depending on local cultures/social structures and the disaster in question. To this end, I gave examples of disasters in which more women than men died and an example where more men than women di…
/r/MensRights09/06/21 01:30 PM
1

No. Did you read my comments? Please try to pay attention. Women don't need special protection, in my view. The gender differences are not the result of inequities on the whole, if disasters were perfectly equitable in killing people regardless of demographic more women would die nominally since men (on the whole) die more from other causes. As I emphasized time and again, when there are gender differences from social gender dynamics, the effects are ambiguous, sometimes placing women at greater…
/r/MensRights09/06/21 01:08 PM
2

I don't think this attitude is helpful. I agree with u/ThisIsTheEnd6, most just believe feminism means equality and casually support that. Most people also place greater emphasis on protecting women and valuing their safety (including non-feminists, ultra-conservative societies cover women up and limit their public exposure for that reason) and as such tend to be cognizant of harm to women. Even parents (mothers and fathers alike) respond with greater emphasis on protection if their female child…
/r/MensRights09/06/21 12:44 PM
6

Honestly, I kind of do agree with deferring to Congress since reform is under considerable by lawmakers. But I would much rather a firmer statement be issued by the Courts, making it clear that if Congress does not implement reform then the Courts would hear a case regarding the draft.
/r/MensRights09/06/21 12:30 PM
-1

I did reference a few studies (though didn't explicitly link them, my mistake there, i will gave to go back and find them later). To be clear, however, one does not need any outside study to be able go conclude that if it affects men and women equally, women will nominally die more because normally men die more. Also, It is pretty obvious (and backed up by research, example below) how weighing more (as men do on average for biological reasons as well as being larger) can decrease the chances of …
/r/MensRights09/06/21 12:20 PM
-1

Read my comment.
/r/MensRights09/06/21 10:32 AM
-1

In actuality, the phrasing is misleading. Broadly, natural disasters have the effect of narrowing the gap in life expectancy. However, this is not a universal trend. This is to be expected. If some event equitably kills people, regardless of demographic, it is to lessen the differences between demographics from other causes, but not eliminate them. There is evidence that natural disasters, that considered, do often disproportionately harm women from a broad demographics view, but there are quite…
/r/MensRights09/06/21 02:03 AM
2

Tbf, in highly patriarchal societies most men are treated as disposable and the protection of women tends to be emphasized; patriarchal society's, contrary to the feminist talking point, are not by men for men, as a whole, they are a select group of men who act to reinforce and preserve their own positions. For various reasons, losing men is less damaging to society and the ruling class than losing women, leading the ruling group to be more willing to sacrifice men and put more effort into safeg…
/r/MensRights09/06/21 01:39 AM
1

That shouldn't matter. I would have to find and read the ruling there, but mens rea does not mean "knowledge of criminality." Rather, it just means your mind possesses a guilty state, which is to say that you willfully and knowingly committed the crimimal act. If I stab someone to death, thinking murder is legal, it is still illegal and I still satisfied the mens rea requirements. However, of I stay someone to death because I thought they were a tomato, then I did not have a guilty mind, despite…
/r/MensRights09/05/21 08:53 PM
4

Agreed, I think it is relevant to the general attitude which predjudices people to percieve rape rape as a crime commented by a man upon a woman (rather than as a person on a person, which is how it ought to be viewed) and have a greater tendency to find men guilty. Thank you for the clarification about the judge, I should have checked who it was. Also, I went into more details of the decisionn in another thread. She is almost explicit in her bias, noting that for reasons she could not "articula…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 08:13 PM
6

Yea, agreed there is a gendered bias in the charging and I doubt the judge would have found the same way if the genders were flipped. But the actual decision does not relate to gender. The judge found that she was unable to consent and also found beyond a reasonable doubt (in his mind) that the boy knew or was willfully blind to her inability to consent. His reasons for making those findings were flawed and almost certainly influenced by his gender biases, but are not gendered as a matter of law…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 05:08 PM
2

Yea, the problem is that if you make it like that you end up with the situation of "two 15 year olds committed mutual statutory rape" since both are capable of having the intent to commit crimes, but not consent to the sex. Indeed, by consenting to the sex, the minors would be committing rape. As such, they are liable to lie to avoid facing rape charges alongside their partner. As such, most places have an exception to statutory rape that minors cannot be charged with it if they are close in age…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 05:04 PM
3

"Drunk teen does something stupid regarding sex" is not an unheard of occurrence.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 03:09 AM
1

Because that she used the phrase "blacked out" does not necessarily mean she had a blackout, they did not have the testimony to evidence that. She may well have, but it was not a question the court judicated on. The judge took it as evidence of that "R.D. may have passed out, at some point, and has little memory of the evening" and as a whole took her statements as unreliable and insufficient to substantiate her inability to consent. Indeed, he outright says that she says she didn't think she wo…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 03:06 AM
2

He rejected her not remembering it as evidence of her being too drunk to consent. He did not reject that she did not remember the event. She did not actually give testimony. Rather, for her series of events they used the policy interviews with her where she noted she couldn't remember parts of the night, did not remember the intercourse and thought she had fallen asleep at some point before then but was rather uncertain about it.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 02:19 AM
2

Tbf, we don't know how it came to the prosecutors as far as I know. From what was mentioned of her police interview, it did not actually sound like she was trying to accuse him of rape per say, but that might just be my reading of it. Ultimately, I would say we just don't know what happened. It is possible what he did was rape (she indicated she might have fallen asleep before the incident but wasn't sure and her memory was spotty), but it is also entirely plausible that it wasn't. The judge rul…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 02:14 AM
1

That was a matter of prosecution. He was accused by the crown, she was not. The question before the court was did C.P. (the boy) rape R.D. (the girl)? The court only made a decision on that question. His consent only was mentioned tangentially in so far as it involved his mens rea. The court did judge he consented under that standard.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 02:05 AM
1

She didn't necessarily have a blackout. She claims she thinks she fell asleep prior to the sex but is not sure because her memory is iffy. The judge did not use her blackout as evidence of her drunkenness. Indeed, he rejected it as a basis for the reasons you say (which are also in precedent). Rather, witness testimonial of her having trouble walking after the sex occurred among other factors was his basis for stating she was incapable of consenting (he did not rule whether she was awake or not)…
/r/MensRights08/05/21 02:01 AM
2

Yea, IMO, it was wrongly decided and there is reasonable doubt based on the accused testimony. But the decision was not gendered and more complicated than made out.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 12:48 AM
5

Whether she "meant it" is not the question. It is a matter of mens rea. Establishing she was too drunk to consent, is his story that she said "fuck me" which he thought was her consenting to (and initiating) sex a reasonable possibility? I would say yes, it is sufficient to create reasonable doubt. The judge, for some reason, said no--such an occurrence would be unreasonable to believe without stronger evidence.
/r/MensRights08/05/21 12:34 AM
9

fact, the trail judge reject the accused testimony because she said he was too intoxicated to remember correctly That was not one of the reasons listed. The reasons the judge gave were appalling, imo, basically amounting to (paraphrasing) "a teenager was hesitant when talking about how intoxicated he was and when asked in cross-examination about the details of engaging in sex with a girl, that makes his testimony suspect and not enough to give reasonable doubt." The judge also expressed that he …
/r/MensRights07/05/21 11:45 PM
3

This was the final appeal. The linked doc is the trial judge but it just went to the Supreme Court which upheld the trial decision (like in the US, the higher courts in Canada, as a rule, prefer maintaining decisions of fact on the part of the lower courts, which were really the only main issues since the law is pretty straightforward).
/r/MensRights07/05/21 11:38 PM
-3

Cbc is legit, but read the actual article, the decision is not so radical as OP makes it out to be, gender was not a factor in the decision. Rather, "The trial judge found the girl was not capable of consenting to sex and that the boy, beyond a reasonable doubt, knew or was wilfully blind to this fact." A lot of stuff is not released to the public because the case involves minors.
/r/MensRights07/05/21 11:26 PM
13

It isn't. As the article notes, it found that a rape occurred because "The trial judge found the girl was not capable of consenting to sex and that the boy, beyond a reasonable doubt, knew or was wilfully blind to this fact." I think the basis for that finding is extremely flimsy, but it was not gendered. The boy also did not claim to be as intoxicated as the girl (he remembers the event and claimed she originally propositioned him which he interpreted as valid consent, while she says she does n…
/r/MensRights07/05/21 11:24 PM
25

Also, the police didn't bother to investigate any of the other reported individuals who matched the description more closely the falsely imprisoned? Plus, some of those had prior rape convictions. That should immediately raise a flag. Suspect parades can be done effectively, but not like they were in this case. Memory is Imperfect at the best of times, and in high stress, traumatic experiences (e.g. a violent stranger rape) it is extremely common for people's perception of events to be rather na…
/r/MensRights03/05/21 06:17 AM
99

Yea, small progressive changes are a good thing. Pardon the comparison, but the civil rights movement did not end segregation over night.
/r/MensRights24/04/21 05:26 PM
-1

Did you read what I was replying to? Read the quote i responded to. It asserted it should be illegal to claim one was assaulted without a conviction to prove it. That is a clear infringement on free speech. I agree that defamation is not protected speech and should be held liable. That is not what I responded to. Also, as I discussed this elsewhere, there is a problem in proving someone knowing and maliciously lied. Because we have free speech, and we air on the side of speech and innocence, you…
/r/MensRights10/04/21 03:31 AM
3

The problem is you have to prove they knowingly lied with the intent to do harm. Proving that is a very difficult hurdle, unless they are an idiot and you supeana person records discussing lying about it.
/r/MensRights10/04/21 03:03 AM
-12

The number of alpha errors does not tell you how many beta errors there are. Sometimes innocent people get locked up sometimes guilty people are let free. It is much easier to show the former than the latter by proving them actually innocent (we don't retry people once found innocent), but both define occur.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 11:59 PM
-22

No, it shouldn't. OJ is the prime example. He was found both guilty and innocent in court, with different standards of proof. The courts are not the arbitrators of truth.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 11:28 PM
-1

There are cases where I get that. When a case is such high profile that everyone is going to talk about it, getting an unbiased jury can be impossible, forcing them to basically let the person off. Generally, they have to just ban potential jurors from looking at media and hope they comply (sequestering jurors is generally frowned upon).
/r/MensRights09/04/21 11:05 PM
43

The thing is, more often then not proving either is going to be impossible.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 10:34 PM
7

It needs to be illegal for women to tell people they were sexually assaulted until there is a conviction. That is absurd. There should be accountability if you falsely accuse someone, but free speech does matter and the court is not always going to convict guilty parties as they (rightfully) are meant to air on the side of assuming innocence.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 10:32 PM
19

The US does have laws around it, but we also have free speech laws.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 10:30 PM
-1

It actually isn't, precisely. While illegal to discriminate by age (like race and sex) the protections do not actually count as civil liberties or equal protection cases. As such, it is harder to win as much in an age related suit as you could in a racial suit.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:36 PM
3

Not at all. There have been lawsuits that have succeeded on the basis of racial or gender discrimination against men and white people.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:34 PM
7

Some have various episodes, it can vary a lot. I remember reading a story by a woman describing her experience with postpartum psychosis and having to force the doctors to take the baby away from her because she was afraid she might hurt the child. It certainly does happen, but doesn't remove responsibility. It is not like other forms of psychosis where sufferers are unaware, as I understand it, people are able to recognize it and should be treated appropriately. The issue in the woman's story i…
/r/MensRights12/01/21 08:27 AM
1

Their is a science side of computer science. In the same where there is a science side of medicine. Most people, including many, if not most, experts, interact primarily with the practical side, but not everyone in the field is a practitioner first and foremost, many dedicate themselves primarily to scientific research.
/r/MensRights05/01/21 07:39 AM
3

When there are issues, I would think so, but you are not going to call in an outside consulted on every single procedure your preform because you are not an expert in the background research.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 05:16 PM
1

but the case for option 3 is pretty strong Agreed, though I would more so say 'there is no reason to rule it out' or think it is less likely. The author mentions it as a possibility, discusses it a bit, goes over some other metrics that might control for those factors somewhat, but honestly the statistical methods seem rather weak, though that is an issue of the data the author has to rely on rather than the data available. Though, I do not know what the standards are usually like for the field,…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 05:13 PM
1

Somehow, I don't think sudden infant death causing circumcision is a plausible possibility in this case haha. Otherwise, I agree and it is good to bring up. Though, the tentative theory the paper proposes seems more along the lines of A causes C causes B. With A having an established causal relationship with C and C having a more debatable relationship with B. With A being circumcision, B being SIDS and C being 'stressors' (the paper goes into more detail about what is meant).
/r/MensRights14/12/20 04:31 PM
3

It is more so the doctors are not really educated on it. They were trained to think it was a healthy, beneficial surgery with little to no risks, and raised in a culture that reinforced that view. If they never really had it questioned and didn't discuss it in depth with their patients, I would think it is quite understandable that they would defer to the medical establishment and what they were taught.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 04:13 PM
1

The website is just talking about the paper. The actual journal it was published in is the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research (JCTR). Looking them up, while they seem to be an above board, credible publication, though they do not seem at all impressive or very notable.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 04:08 PM
21

Doctors against Circumcision is not the source. The source is: Elhaik, Eran. "Neonatal circumcision and prematurity are associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." Journal of clinical and translational research 4, no. 2 (2019): 136.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 10:48 PM
9

Partially correct. The authors found a not overly strong but significantly correlation. They noted they could not draw a causal link, but proposed a theoretical basis for causality (that being that stress contributes to SIDS). Edit: it is a bit more detailed than that, discussing effects on blood volume/pressure, and sleep apnea among other things. As always, I would suggest reading the paper. Preforming experimentation for this would not be possible do to the rather substantial ethnical concern…
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:53 PM
88

I have a few issues with the study. It certainly draws a good link between the practice and possible causes of SIDS, but a lot of the discussion is rather unnecessary and detracts from the research rhetorically. I would really rather they left out the discussion of religion as it is extremely tenuous and as they note completely lacking in data. The scriptural links they draw on are extremely questionable and at least as likely (I would argue) to be related to views on child sacrifice and scriptu…
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:45 PM
19

SIDS is likely to have quite a few possible causes.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:30 PM
10

I would go to a lawyer your court's legal service center, not r/legaladvice. The last thing u/Joethe31 needs is to be inundated with reddit lawyers unaware of the law, circumstance or jurisdiction. Courts have paralegals on staff who ought to be capable of providing aid for this kind of thing, especially as filing a contempt complaint is relatively straightforward, they generally offer pro bono legal consulting and can help with legal paperwork and whatnot. Depending where you are, qualify can v…
/r/MensRights01/12/20 03:51 PM
4

Most states will punish it at some point. Even if it is not punished, having on record contempt complaints is going to make any judge much less accommodating towards her in any future negotiations. Also, many jurisdictions award legal costs for contempt complaints and it is possible to file without a lawyer, which should be done consulting/working with the court's service center. Having a lawyer is absolutely preferable, but if outside one's means, this is a more straight forward process that th…
/r/MensRights01/12/20 03:45 PM
72

With something like this, it is not necessarily that costly. Most courts are more used to it, so filling complaint for contempt of court can often be done with the help of court's staff at a court services center. Though, if it is within u/joethe31's means, having a lawyer is definitely preferable. Also, depending on jurisdictions you may be awarded legal costs incurred.
/r/MensRights01/12/20 03:40 PM
14

What? The guy did something heroic. Putting your life in grave danger to protect someone else is a heroic deed, regardless of the gender of any parties involved. I agree that the real man part is not needed and sends a wrong message, but the guy certainly deserves praise for his actions.
/r/MensRights28/11/20 07:02 PM
2

I mighy be misunderstood how UK law works, but from my reading of the rape statute, it is wrapped up in the charge of assault by penetration.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 03:04 PM
2

As u/tothecatmobile notes, the crime they are referring to is a different statute of causing sex without consent. The problem is that a male rapist is (rightly) considered guilty of that as well as rape, while a female rapist is guilty of causing sexual activity without consent, but not rape. While both can be punished by life in prison on their own, their is obviously an emphasis on prosecuting one more harshly.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 12:27 PM
1

It should be but legal definitions vary. Heck, in some jurisdictions it is still defined as "forced carnal knowledge of a woman."
/r/MensRights25/10/20 12:16 PM
8

There are rare exceptions (some conditions cause people's bodies to not process enough calories so they can starve if they are getting the same calories in as out). But those more extreme concerns are quite rare.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 07:13 AM
26

Why? Because he did not want to be filmed kissing her on the big screen?
/r/MensRights08/10/20 07:28 PM
56

Depends. Ronda Rousy assaulting Stephen Hawking would be much worse than the other way around and in either case it is equally wrong to commit assault.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 07:27 PM
7

Completely agree. Personally, I think a lot of trans issues would have so much less public vitriol if people were willing to confront and recognize their biases against men. Need I remind you that it was only homosexual males, not females, killed during the holocaust, a category that included trans women? Just a tiny nitpick, but you should always capitalize the Holocaust when you use it to refer to the campaign of mass slaughter enacted by Nazi Germany. The term itself is kind of problematic (l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/20 01:15 AM
1

Tbh, I think you may be more in the right on the underlying point the quote was making. It seems king david was used more as a somewhat poetic example. However, it is not king David's royal status that is cited to explain his many wives, but rather the "wealth and power" in his possession which let him give his many wives with far more luxurious lives than the common person could hope for.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/08/20 04:07 AM
4

"As a king, David had enough wealth and power to support more than one woman..." The example is a king, king David of biblical fame.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/08/20 03:55 AM
7

Yea, this is obviously set up as a joke on her part. I don't see anything wrong that she did.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 04:29 PM
2

There are invalid reasons and one has to be consistent about who they don't let in (in most jurisdictions). If men without masks were let in but women without masks weren't that would be illegal. However, so long as the policy is applied consistently companies can basically refuse whomever they want for almost any reason.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 04:09 PM
1

Yea, agreed. Which is why I criticized her statement.
/r/MensRights20/07/20 06:55 AM
25

Pretty sure for a your average black man, the average WBNA player is above him socially. That said, her follow up self-deprecating tweet was decently amusing: "Bitch I’m 31, only way a sports ball player is gonna fuck me is on a bet" It was a dumb joke, not something worth lambasting her over.
/r/MensRights20/07/20 02:57 AM
2

And also as Adolf Hitler Tbf, a bit different. You probably would not see him and think "Hitler" unless he was in the costume and everything. So one can probably expect to be judged more by how well they play the role rather than the content of the role.
/r/MensRights16/07/20 03:06 PM
3

Well, I imagine the role of sexual harasser on an advertisement campaign poster is not terribly popular.
/r/MensRights16/07/20 01:31 PM
2

I've never even heard about that trope. You've never heard about the trope of aggressive black men? Black men were traditionally demonized for their sexuality esp. around white women (see Emmett Till for the most famous extreme, read To Kill a Mockingbird as well).
/r/MensRights16/07/20 12:58 PM
6

What? What they are doing is, if anything, undermining the trope of the aggressive black man and the poor white woman. White women have used this stereotype to blatantly harass and coerce black men. The is a similar stereotype in general against men as the aggressors and doubly so for black men. Thus, a woman being the aggressor counters this stereotype and a white woman being aggressive to a back man undermines it more so.
/r/MensRights16/07/20 06:22 AM
22

Well, unwanted sexual advances do tend to be awkward, so that just makes it more realistic I guess.
/r/MensRights16/07/20 06:18 AM
9

The sign is telling you it is sexual. It is clearly unwanted (from the man's body language). She is at the very least making advance that, if persistent, constitute sexual harassment (as they should). I don't see how his race matters, it could be racial as well but nothing implies that and that would just make her that much worse.
/r/MensRights16/07/20 06:16 AM
19

Depends on the contract and the official reason, also on the company. It is likely if they don't settle he won't come out ahead, after everything. If the company has legal insurance, the company will probably be forced (by the insurance company) to settle immediately for a decent amount (depending on the company's size).
/r/MensRights06/06/20 04:35 PM
1

I get that, I am saying rhetorically I don't see it as a good way to discuss it in terms of attack and better to just stick with the language of manipulation and abuse.
/r/MensRights11/05/20 08:37 PM
1

Also, best to avoid accusations of brigading.
/r/MensRights11/05/20 02:41 PM
1

The thing is, professors have a lot of freedom in teaching their subjects (less in some fields), even very good schools are liable to have some profs that mark down anything they disagree with.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 11:37 AM
1

First of all, try to address it calmly. People can get emotional about these things, and getting them to take a step back and rethink their position is impossible if you get equally heated. As to your essay, I would have a few suggestion, though I am not able to go through it in too much detail: Be mindful of the format/goal. You want to avoid turning your audience against you, especially at first. This can be difficult when touching on a controversial topic in thesis format, as such, it is ofte…
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:48 AM
1

Yea, he was an edgy kid who stepped past a line. Definitely wrong of him, but not something that needs to be publicized. He should have a talking to about behavior online and be appropriately punished for a 14 year old for doing it, but all that should require is forwarding it to his parents and possibly his school at most.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:21 AM
2

Yep. She plead guilty to sexual misconduct of a student, but they were both above the age of consent in Texas. Though, apparently, she had one of the "affairs" somewhere in Africa, on a trip of some kind.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:16 AM
0

In this case, a bit more complex since the two kids were past the age of consent and did consent.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:14 AM
2

Not "as surely as if she was punching you in the face," there are degrees. It is domestic abuse/manipulation, but we should be careful not to fall into the same habit as so many feminists have of calling everything violence.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:10 AM
-1

"Women are monsters!" is not a rallying cry anyone will successfully rally behind. It certainly doesn't help refute bogus claims of hate. I am not saying don't point out the double standard, or not to identifying common situations it exists in, but that is a different thing.
/r/MensRights09/05/20 11:40 PM
3

Which points do you want some citations about? Citing Ben Shapiro as u/fuddubandha suggests is rather poor form. It is just shifting to someone else and moving the burden away from the conversation, it is better to address it point by point. This is your thoughts, and not based on fact. While "work harder' is subjective, it is factually true that men tend to be more likely to try and negotiate higher wages. Further, it is the case that male full-time workers work significantly more than female f…
/r/MensRights09/05/20 10:42 PM
4

I don't think it is a woman vs man thing, it is just general perceptions. Men and women both do it. I don't think gender divisiveness is helpful to our case.
/r/MensRights09/05/20 10:23 PM
6

This is not really true, it very much depends on the school and your professors. Some are fairly good about this, some aren't.
/r/MensRights09/05/20 10:16 PM
6

We all are, but they get those low engaging upvotes.
/r/MensRights28/04/20 08:45 AM
5

Having lower standards than the criminal justice system makes sense, but having no method for challenging it is absurd.
/r/MensRights21/04/20 04:24 PM
1

Nah, I'm in education, but on the student side of thing. Pedagogy is very relevant to my life, I suppose, but it is not an aim of mine.
/r/MensRights21/04/20 06:05 AM
1

Yeah, educators ought to question and challenge their student's reasoning but should not mark them based on their perspective/opinion. If their opinion is not well argued/reasoned in their work, that ought to be criticized regardless of the teacher's agreement. And if their writing is well done, it should be praised regardless of the opinion expressed.
/r/MensRights21/04/20 04:18 AM
8

TBH, if I was grading it the biggest issue I would think would have been that OPs original answer (at least in this part) doesn't fufill the task of the prompt which OP stated elsewhere was to "Select two different groups that have faced discrimination in America. For each group, describe examples of the discrimination it faced as well as actions taken by the government and whether those actions protected or limited the rights of the group." OP failed to do this. He outlined areas where there wa…
/r/MensRights20/04/20 11:20 PM
83

While decent, I think you should definitely not send that as is. It is only likely to get you in more hot water, imo. The changes I would make: Do not claim she misquoted you so directly. Instead of "Allow me to correct your misquote" say something more like: "I would like to clarify my position. My position is not that 'men have it much worse than women' and I did not state that in my prior response. Rather, the position I took, in line with the prompt, was simply that 'men have faced discrimin…
/r/MensRights20/04/20 08:28 PM
6

Not necessarily true. IN high school I had a teacher who was very much so on the extreme feminist side of things but was very fair when it came to evaluating student's work even when it vehemently disagreed with her views (which were pretty obvious and not at all hidden from the class).
/r/MensRights20/04/20 07:52 PM
1

Who is the feminist getting a cut? Why would they even inform any third party if the bribe was accepted? The article seems to lay the blame with the police and prosecution and who actually filed the report is unstated (sounds like it wasn't proven at the very least). If the police's hands were tied, then they wouldn't be able to drop the case when they got bribed, so that doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights20/04/20 07:12 AM
1

So, this is more an issue of corrupt police systems then false rape claims? Looking it up, I do see some Indians claiming the police tend to make most of their money in bribes, though most sound more like the standard corrupt "I'll overlook this if you grease the wheels" rather than making up criminal charges.
/r/MensRights20/04/20 05:24 AM
6

Read on. According to the article, she denied having made any of the accusations. Sounds like the police just decided to prosecute him for rape, almost.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 02:12 PM
6

To be fair, we don't know that these accusations were all false, and many of them did not hve their careers ruined. Neil Degrass Tyson had his show continued (after internal investigations into the accusations). Personally, the evidence I have seen leads me to be doubtful of some of their accounts (Silverman in particular) I don't know whether they are guilty or not (I don't think the accusations are or ought to be enough to hold up to legal scrutiny) but the accusations are not all 100% baseles…
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:21 PM
1

I did, I think. The premise of the meme is something like "feminists view of history is mistaken because they focus on the few men occupying roles of extreme privilege and power, but ignore the experiences of normal people overlooking the fact that men as a whole did not occupy such positions of power and those in those positions were not acting in the interests of common men" (perhaps to expand on it a bit). My contention with this statement is that "it is not the feminist view of history, but …
/r/MensRights06/04/20 02:59 PM
9

Not what I was referring to, but certainly true, and a point I agree with, depending on period and place.
/r/MensRights06/04/20 04:59 AM
15

I got that from primary sources that predate the feminist movement by generations. What are you smoking? I can try and see if I can get publicity available links for you tomorrow, if you'd like.
/r/MensRights06/04/20 04:23 AM
15

Nope. IIRC, TL:DR did s video talking about it. It is not particularly convenient for most feminists that early workplace reform in the industrial ahe consisted of banning them from jobs women had done from time immemorial to protect them and public decency.
/r/MensRights06/04/20 04:15 AM
29

There were points in history that women were recorded as making up a substantial number of miners, but some wealthy, puritanical men of the petitioned to ban the work of women (which was forced on them, like it was forced on the men and boys) because the women needed protecting and would sometimes remove their garments (/gasps/) like men did (because conditions were hot and crampt going naked while a crime tended to be more practical). Of course, no one cared what the men and women actually doin…
/r/MensRights06/04/20 03:55 AM
39

This is more an issue of who wrote history, having nothing to do with feminist and long predating feminism. 'Historians' were employed by the wealthy and focused on the large scale affairs, rarely caring for the doings of common people. Kings, Conquest and National conflict were what got put in the chronicles, the roles of common men and women were largely ignored.
/r/MensRights06/04/20 03:49 AM
3

It is poor wording, but they mean when such comments constitute a pattern of behavior which means they need to be repetitive or really extreme. To quote: "Harassment requires a “course of conduct,” which means that a pattern of behaviour or more than one incident is usually required for a claim to be made to the Tribunal. However, a single significant incident may be offensive enough to be considered sexual harassment."
/r/MensRights05/04/20 01:24 PM
2

Not generally. Their website states "Harassment requires a “course of conduct,” which means that a pattern of behaviour or more than one incident is usually required for a claim to be made to the Tribunal. However, a single significant incident may be offensive enough to be considered sexual harassment."
/r/MensRights05/04/20 01:22 PM
2

They are using sexual violence to be broadly encompassing. Sexual assault requires assault or battery (i.e. unwanted touching or a threat thereof that is sexual in nature). On the other hand "Harassment requires a “course of conduct,” which means that a pattern of behaviour or more than one incident is usually required for a claim to be made to the Tribunal. However, a single significant incident may be offensive enough to be considered sexual harassment." That is to say extreme instances may be…
/r/MensRights05/04/20 01:20 PM
21

Tbf, he could have been convicted a lot longer on the three charges he was convicted on. If a woman acted similarly, she could not be held on any of the charges he was, unless the woman was fingering the male's anus or was penetrating his mouth (which may be counted if she were to put her tongue in his mouth). He was prosecuted to a greater degree than would have been possible if the victim was a man and the perpetrator a woman, but because he did not not use his penis he (like every woman, with…
/r/MensRights04/04/20 01:10 AM
7

More info? What university? This is almost certainly illegal. I can't find any other information looking it up, so right now I am a bit suspicious of it.
/r/MensRights02/04/20 03:54 PM
2

I think in general the big hubbub around people being trans is based on sexist attitudes around men and a kind of androphobia which is prevelant in our culture(s). People are not afraid of transwomen because they perceive them as trans, they are afraid of them because they perceive them as men. You need only spend a short while listening to people on either side of the political spectrum to see that their complaint is with men who they view as unalterably dangerous in some way. One rarely if eve…
/r/MensRights02/04/20 03:50 PM
17

If they were pregnant, yes. Unfortunately, child support laws make no exceptions for the "circumstances" of conceptions and the courts have ruled that they are entitled in full even if conceived through "criminal actions" as per Hermesmann v. Seyer (and a few other cases that site it) were a 16 year old babysitter raped the 12 year old boy she was babysitting. The court decision in that cases even literally victim blamed the boy with their decision noting that he had not told his parents about i…
/r/MensRights02/04/20 03:34 PM
16

It is, statutory rape is one of the few kinds that courts (on paper) are fair about recognizing male victims.
/r/MensRights02/04/20 01:46 PM
1

It doesn't need to be the focus, but part of being a human rights advocate is speaking up for any human rights violations you see and being willing to state you support the rights of any group of humans.
/r/MensRights23/02/20 06:40 AM
13

Are you losing your rights because you're gay, or because you're male? Generally, both. Sodomy laws, for example. It is not homosexuality that is generally targeted, but homosexuality between men. If women do not have their right to their sexuality infringed on but men do, that is a men's rights issue, I would argue. The former fight includes lesbians as well, so it's not really our bailiwick. Including women is not something that men's rights should be opposed to (and I don't think it is).
/r/MensRights22/02/20 09:08 PM
8

Yea, this post doesn't have anything to do with men's rights, really, and isn't really the kind of thing we should be supporting. "Liberal feminists" generally refers more to those like Christina Hoff Sommers and more moderate feminists. Liberal feminism is generally contrasted with radical feminism.
/r/MensRights22/02/20 09:03 PM
3

Do you believe assuming lurid, sexual intentions from his behaviour is in any way shape or form healthy for someone tasked with teaching children? No. I explicitly oppose it. If there's a problem, the best approach is to have a sit-down with the parent/s and hash it out. Behind closed doors. I agree. He should be getting coaching and help to better navigate social interactions and understand boundaries others set must be respected. Punishing him for not understanding at the age of 5 is not going…
/r/MensRights25/09/19 11:26 PM
2

Ah, I thought you were asking, not just being rhetorical. A lot of people don't read the articles and just read the headlines.
/r/MensRights25/09/19 08:58 PM
3

According to the mother, what happened was: the boy tried to hug and kiss another student. He was asked to stop (it sounds like the teacher asked as well as the student), he did not understand this and still tried to hug them. The teacher the called the mother and told her she needed to talk to her son and accused her son of "sexual activities." The teacher reported it to the Department of Child Services.
/r/MensRights25/09/19 08:55 PM
30

even excusing the autism, or the fact that he's fucking FIVE, how the fuck is hugging a sex offense? He tried to kiss the other student and continued trying to hug them after being told to stop. If he was a fully-functioning adult, that would be a sexual misdemeanor and could even be assault. But for a five year old, especially one with autism who has trouble understanding boundaries, this is clearly not the case. Even without autism, it would clearly not be a sexual offense (though, it would be…
/r/MensRights25/09/19 08:49 PM
2

That's not in the article. At all. Which is here: The Sun gave some more details on the case. They quote his grandmother stating: "Who do you turn to for help when the school will not even listen to the child’s doctor when he explains the child’s difficulties in his comprehension of simple things such as boundaries."
/r/MensRights25/09/19 08:44 PM
1

Don't get too enraged over something one person said. That would make us just as bad as the feminists who generalize from one MRA.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 01:28 PM
4

A lot of the ones on the top of /r/AskWomen now look positive or just generally amusing kind of things. Similarly, a lot of the ones on /r/AskMen are generally just funny kind of things rather than all that serious.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 05:05 PM
1

doesn't have to be the algarithim. As you mention, it is the same on other search engines. Those article being the most common things google/yahoo/bing/duckduckgo associate with the term misandry is probably more a reflection of society (as /u/spamtheant notes) than a bias. Some things are definitely a bias put in place, some are an unbiased algorithm reflecting a social bias/attitude.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 04:54 PM
1

Can we not just post random misandrists on twitter? Yea, they exist. But focusing on these kinds of things instead of the actual legal and social issues is no better than the feminists who cite one guy saying "f*ck women" or something like that as evidence of a misogynist culture. All it does at the end of the day is promote hate and division.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 04:52 PM
2

It is really difficult to estimate. Simply put, we don't know. Circumcision was not the direct cause. How many cases are rightly attributed to circumcision or should be attributed to something else is a matter of debate. SIDS (which is one of the leading causes of infant mortality), for instance, may be associated with circumcision, however, uncircumcised kids can still suffer from SIDS and there a lot of factors which may cause it.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 04:49 PM
1

It should be a simple comparison of was the procedure done and was there a death soon after Not really. There are a lot of things that can kill babies a few days after they are born without being related to circumcision. SIDS, for example, which is one of the leading causes of infant mortality. There is some evidence that SIDS may be associated with circumcision, but it also occurs in many uncircumcised infants so attributing it is neigh impossible when there are a lot of factors that may be the…
/r/MensRights04/09/19 04:46 PM
1

Yeah, I just hope that there are other, better groups in the area. As much as this group needed to be shut down, it would be a shame if that meant victims did not have places they could go.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 07:47 PM
60

The group has already been shut down for their behavior, according to the OP. He told his therapist, she started an investigation or whatever of the group and got it shut down and the woman who was running it was reprimanded for not intervening.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 12:22 PM
7

The guy said she wasn't and that when he told his therapist she immediately took action against the group to start and investigation. The group (within the day) was shut down and the woman who ran it reprimanded for not intervening (from the OP of the original). I hope that reprimand included losing her license and being barred from serving victims of abuse, even if one gives her the benefit of the doubt and assumes she just didn't know how to speak up/respond in that situation but would have su…
/r/MensRights26/07/19 12:21 PM
9

It is quite possible that they were legitimate victims. Victims of crimes and traumatic experience are no less likely to form tribal in-groups and out-groups.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 12:18 PM
1

tbf, maybe they march against women's rights too. Doubt it, but possible.
/r/MensRights22/07/19 11:02 AM
1

Yes, but still if Arnold had been holding a paper, and a stranger grabbed it, it would not have been out of character for the Terminator to beat up said stranger and take their stuff. Since the Terminator had no regard for humanity. A character that does acting the same way, is very different.
/r/MensRights10/06/19 08:12 PM
2

Yea, but it was similar in that it was way out of proportion and and the Captain Marvel scene was referencing it (one part of the shot was almost exactly the same). It works with a heartless action hero who doesn't care how many people he kills if they get in his way. It does not work if you want a sympathetic, relateable hero out to help people.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 06:55 AM
4

To be fair, he did at least say "she probably went too far" at the end.\ He also then said "it is basically the same as that terminator seen. So why is that okay and this isn't? Is it because she is a woman?!?!" Now, he is right, it is a lot like the terminator scene. But the Terminator was NOT a good guy. He doesn't give a sh*t about killing people, all he cares about it the goal he was programmed to achieve.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 06:36 AM
15

"Men need to start their own discussions! THey shouldn't talk about men's issues in forums for women!" *starts a discussion about a men's issue "STFU, it is wayyy worse for girls, you crying manbabies. Why aren't we focusing on girl's issues?"
/r/MensRights09/06/19 06:28 AM
29

To be fair, this may be the laws fault more so than the news. If he was arrested on accusation of him leaving them, but the neighbor wasn't.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 06:25 AM
2

word 'male' in an insulting derogatory negative way to blame other men I think it was just meant to be cute, in that it is a 'dictionary' explicitly for things for men.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 06:22 AM
3

If it wasn't for the "boring" part I would be on board. Challenging the stereotype is great, demonizing/othering the stereotype is going completely the wrong direction.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 06:21 AM
4

If you agree before hand, that saying stop is just part of what you are into, it is not. She, however, clearly didn't.
/r/MensRights08/06/19 11:06 PM
5

I am so embarrassed that it got on the local news... If I wasn't so embarrassed, I just might shoot up another school, but o-golly o-jeez I don't want to be in the papers again.
/r/MensRights06/06/19 06:57 PM
0

"If they're good" Someone good at their job, will be able to put aside their bias.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 06:28 PM
3

Either you are a troll, or you really need mental help. Whichever it is, I am not going to deal with this.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 05:44 AM
3

No one said men and women have the same brain... Therapy was not designed just for women.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 05:01 AM
2

wut? THe system is not perfect. But there are good therapists. THe good ones just follow models for helping people through trauma or issues without imposing their own opinions. The goal of a therapist is to help their patient get through their issues, not to find the solution.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:55 AM
3

They really aren't. It's a job. IF they are good, they will be basically going through the motions of whatever type(s) of therapy they use.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:44 AM
3

Dude, seriously talk to a therapist. It sounds like you have some serious mental hangups. Social attitudes of mocking men's height is not even unique to women.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:16 AM
2

You can get a penis augmentation, bro. Though, ime, it rarely comes up out of actual prefrence. Normally it just used as a way to demean a guy a gal doesn't like.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:13 AM
5

wut?
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:12 AM
11

Have a preference, sure! But just rejecting a guy because he didn't get part of him cut off ought to be frowned upon.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:12 AM
5

Having limits is fine. Not liking people shorter than you is fine. Mocking people for immutable traits is not. I don't want to ban it or anything, mind you, but it is wrong imo.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 04:10 AM
0

Didn't say it was. Claiming the Jews are controlling American politics is, as is minimizing history.
/r/MensRights14/02/19 01:45 AM
12

Is being pro-Sharia and anti-semetic also a requirement or just suggested?
/r/MensRights13/02/19 11:38 PM
1

I think it was the way he described it. I am not sure if you could just hold the condom over the vag and pour it in. but idk
/r/MensRights11/02/19 04:03 PM
6

Yea, probably. The story was a bit suspect, but they were probably a bit more skeptical then they would have been if there was a somewhat unlikely story with the positions reversed.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 03:50 PM
8

You're right. They initially just locked it. I am guessing they deleted it because they were questioning the authenticity.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 03:41 PM
16

I wouldn't go that far. But this sub absolutely has become less concerned with the actual issues over time. I guess that is kind of what happens when you have very loose moderation (clickbait tends to get more clicks).
/r/MensRights11/02/19 03:25 PM
10

Not really. They let him get legal advice and had the thread up. They deleted it because it was getting off topic (having gotten to r/all) and they didn't want to deal with it. Also, the guy had made some comments about considering suicide which made the mods understandably concerned.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 03:23 PM
6

Definitely seems like a joke. Not wearing jackets to assert male dominance.
/r/MensRights05/02/19 05:29 AM
16

tbf, men do the same thing to an extent. Just when men do it it gets called out more.
/r/MensRights05/02/19 05:25 AM
8

Besides that masculinity is the oppressor and femininity the victim.
/r/MensRights05/02/19 05:24 AM
1

It still should average out to the same. The data is self-reported. It is probably down to men inflating their numbers and women deflating them.
/r/MensRights05/02/19 05:22 AM
2

It is probably roughly equal. After all, it takes two to tango. The average number of sexual partners for both sexes should be equivalent in the general population, but in the generation population men report twice as many partners as women. College kids are probably just a bit more prone to exaggeration.
/r/MensRights05/02/19 05:21 AM
5

I think that more has to do with who uses dating apps. I know some great women who are unmarried in that age range.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 04:56 PM
3

3 years left, my boy.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 04:53 PM
5

REEEEEEEEE
/r/MensRights26/01/19 05:45 PM
9

Looking through her twitter... I doubt it. She makes multiple references to it. Possibly exaggerated, but not sure if it is a joke. Looks like she deleted it though, but does make references to losing her virginity and taking a boy's at a movie theater a few times.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 02:45 PM
2

Anon is fake and gay. Also, I don't think posting greentexts as evidence does us any good. I would tag it as humor rather than social issues.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 02:40 PM
2

Agreed. Conflating things with rape (as anything other than a poetic exaggeration) is not a useful practice and only makes us look silly, imo.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 04:01 PM
3

That is not rape. That is adultery...
/r/MensRights08/01/19 10:19 PM
1

Rape is intercourse where one party does not consent. She did not have sex with anyone with out that person's consent. This is adultery, not rape.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 09:38 PM
5

Not so intentionally necessarily. But they are generally very poorly done or take a sampling bias (one can imagine the viewership of Cosmopolitan, for example, probably is very far divorced from the average person).
/r/MensRights08/01/19 08:07 PM
6

if anything, they should be complaining about the Telegraph talking about it, which I would understand.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 07:57 PM
6

I suspect the study probably used methodology that was misleading. For example, the study that found 50% of men would rape a woman if they had a chance was done on a sliding scale (0-10) asking "If you could rape a woman with no repercussions how likely would you be to do so?" 50% said 0 and the other 50% said something between 1 and 10 but that data was not released. I am betting that most men said 1 or something thinking "well I don't know for certain how I would act, but I would hope I wouldn…
/r/MensRights08/01/19 07:56 PM
4

Blood isn't everything. It is knowing. If you choose to adopt or take a sperm donor because you are infertile that is very different from your wife getting pregnant by committing adultery.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 07:52 PM
2

Though, potentially is the important bit. We don't know the full story. Could be that they are all *ssholes and have been horrible. All we know is that his wife violated his trust and did so not only in a dishonest manner but also one that posed dangers to him.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 07:51 PM
1

Though, in a lot of places for many crimes you can have your name redacted from any media mention of your case.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 05:27 PM
1

It would not solve the problem. It could help.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 05:06 PM
2

No. It is not logical to ascribe to an individual circumstances of the group. An assumption of guilt is not logical under our judicial system which is meant to assume innocence.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 02:25 PM
1

It happens to women but is much more common to happen to men because there is a greater assumption of guilt with men than with women especially for violent crimes.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 12:51 PM
1

Had his wedding in the prison.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 12:50 PM
2

Yea, absolutely happens to women too. The justice system's flaws can hurt anyone. It is a greater issue for men and certain minorities, but not unique to them.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 12:49 PM
1

Reading the case, that was basically it. A few witnesses were a bit hazy and there was one who was instrumental in his conviction that they proved was wrong.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 12:48 PM
1

Allow people exonerated of crimes to not have to report their arrest and only let companies look at convictions and penalties that they actually were judged guilty of.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 12:45 PM
3

Courts tend to have a greater presumption of guilt for violent crimes when it comes to men and black people. This has been rather thoroughly researched.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 12:40 PM
1

I think it is generally a problem with online communities. The more a group develops around a thing the more focused on that thing the group becomes and seeing everything through that groups perspective. I think most men's rights groups aren't so into it as to fall into this pitfall, but enough are that I think it turns a lot of people off.
/r/MensRights19/11/18 05:21 PM
20

I think you missed my point... The point being focusing on petty issues when there are much more serious instances of sexism just makes people tune what you have to say out.I think there are much bigger men's rights issues than google doodles.
/r/MensRights19/11/18 03:52 PM
70

I wouldn't go that far. I think over focusing on the smaller things makes us seem "just like the feminists."
/r/MensRights19/11/18 02:57 PM
13

Women are just as capable on boards... Requiring them to have women, however, is just creating a legally instituted bias. If you don't have enough women, you have to hire the next woman to show up at your door. Rather than getting the equally talented women, you will get women who did not earn their positions.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 04:59 AM
1

If you know any good professional therapists, direct your friend to them.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 01:10 PM
1

Yep. In high school, when I brought up in a political class that anyone could be a victim/perpetrator, my teacher said it wasn't as bad when it happens to men because when he was in high school once his drunk Frisbee coach (who was a woman) forcibly kissed him...
/r/MensRights03/10/18 01:20 AM
12

I don't think it is 'female.' I wouldn't be surprised if more men are being hypocritical in that manner (defending women, and obfuscating male victims). I have seen many men deny male victims, and many women acknowledge them. I do not think it is a matter of gender that our culture is divided on this. It is just the general social narrative of men as perpetrator and women as victims. Both men and women promote it.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 01:22 PM
2

I don't think this means she is lying. I know a lot of people who are afraid of flying but still do it for vacations and all sorts of things. They might dislike it, but be willing to go through the bad parts of flying in order to do something they enjoy. That said, I do not think the accusations shoud be taken as entirely credible. I see a lot of reason for doubt and a lack of evidence. It may well have happened, but memory can be a very tricky thing. It is possible someone else did it, and she …
/r/MensRights02/10/18 12:43 PM
2

Some decent discussion. I think most people in the comments just want to discuss the issues they have. But the mods are using it to try and push an agenda, I think.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 12:37 PM
30

Absolutely agreed. And we need to, as a culture, accept male victims. I have even met men who have been sexually assaulted who don't think it counts because their assailant was a woman.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 12:34 PM
1

The suit is not very comfortable or useful.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 09:04 PM
1

Basically, terfs put up a sign, trans people were upset. Not complicated.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 11:00 PM
1

We do... They just haven't caught on that much, besides among some of the gay community, apparently.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 06:59 PM
1

Yea, probably. Also, in Africa breasts (especially larger ones) are still considered sexually appealing. They are just not a taboo (because you are not exactly going to want to cover up when it is 100 degrees and there is work to be done). It varies a lot. I think that society probably has more of an influence than biology in this regard, but I think that biology and environment also develop society which in turn build upon itself.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 06:58 PM
3

I agree with /u/Lethn. It is probably unhealthy to keep reading up on it so much. I am not sure if you should avoid it, but obsessing over it isn't going to help. I would recommend trying to find a good therapist if you can afford it. Also, I would point out for some assault can be much worse and for some accusations can have much less of an effect. I don't think it can be generalized to say one is worse than the other. We should view them both as terrible, unacceptable crimes.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 05:00 PM
3

There is some evidence that we have evolved an attraction to the breasts. But I agreed. They are not primarily sexual. In a similar way, we have evolved an attraction to people who are fit, but we don't require muscles be covered all the time. And the largest predictor of attraction remains the face, and no one out side of some radical sects of Islam is saying we should ban showing faces in public.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 04:56 PM
3

If you have kids, yea, the court will fck you over. Even if you win, the process will fck you. But if, say, you try to get a restraining order, and you have that you will probably get it (in the US anyway, we give out restraining orders rather liberally). And if she accuses you of abuse in a court, you will probably be able to get the judge to drop the case (not guaranteed, it depends a lot on the jurisdiction and judge, but it's likely).
/r/MensRights28/09/18 04:52 PM
1

I saw another picture of the poster. Not the one there. SOmeone else here in the comments posted a link to the website.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 04:49 PM
1

Ah, got it. Thanks!
/r/MensRights28/09/18 04:16 AM
1

And he has had on Amy Schumer and a bunch of feminist comedians and all kinds of people. Joe Rogan is basically the internet's hippie uncle who doesn't really know what is going on but is honest and curious.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:18 PM
1

Does sterilization surgery include men?
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:14 PM
1

"How about a compromise, we let her keep teaching boys but we sew her vagina shut"
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:11 PM
1

The organization that it did it (which had their site on the billboard) is very much anti-trans (they are a group of TERFs). I can absolutely understanding why some people might find that upsetting.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:09 PM
1

At the bottom was a link to a TERF website...
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:08 PM
0

Tend to, yes. But if you have enough evidence on your side, you'll be able to win out.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:07 PM
1

Sometimes loneliness is scarier than abuse. It might be scarier, but it sure as sh*t is better for you. If you work to make yourself the best you can be and try to be more confident, you are bound to find someone better. You might be lonely for a while, and that can be really hard. But it is a thousand times better than being with someone ready and willing to ruin your life and make every moment miserable.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:06 PM
2

I have actually seen men and women like this. Who are just ridiculously controlling. They exist.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:04 PM
1

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 10:04 PM
3

No one cares. A lot of people here are left. A lot are right. Some have fetishes we might find odd. I care more about the issues.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:58 PM
1

Some of the comments at least are reasonable. The top comment is a prosecutor who says they used to administer polygraphs talking about how they shouldn't be used.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:57 PM
1

Not confirming him, will likely not ruin his career. It just will prevent his advancement.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:55 PM
1

Entirely agree. I don't see the relevance to men's rights. A lot of MRAs are not exactly the traditionally masculine man's man. I think we all know people express themselves in different ways.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:53 PM
5

No. I support Kavanaugh's right to innocence until proven guilty, but I am not going to say he must be confirmed.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:51 PM
-5

I am kindof OK with quarantining TRP. But the then putting forward a clear ideological view point, is really bad imo.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:50 PM
20

So, basically, now they are going to have to allow cross examinations? Good.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:48 PM
1

Yes, this mistake was already pointed out.
/r/MensRights23/09/18 04:35 PM
1

Well, this is clearly progressive, imo.
/r/MensRights23/09/18 05:09 AM
2

college*
/r/MensRights22/09/18 11:21 PM
1

You know what I meant. Don't place so much value in word choice.
/r/MensRights22/09/18 07:19 PM
4

Taking a victim seriously does not mean believing them...
/r/MensRights22/09/18 06:30 PM
2

I meant generally.
/r/MensRights22/09/18 06:30 PM
3

Yea, if I knew who put them out I would I would send them a message. It doesn't say who put it out, though.
/r/MensRights22/09/18 06:29 PM
3

We need to keep taking them seriously. But we need to separate respecting them and taking them seriously with assuming everything is true.
/r/MensRights22/09/18 06:16 PM
3

Rule 2, m8.
/r/MensRights20/09/18 09:37 PM
1

Personally, I thought the way she framed it was just as good. It seems to be calling out Dave Brat for ignoring male victims.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 01:06 PM
1

She didn't comment on whether it would help or not. I think she was saying that she didn't know what they meant by a new tone, and would try to bring her experience in to get them to help victims, including men and young boys.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 01:06 PM
1

Is that the first American politician to make a statement like that? On social media, maybe. I have definitely heard some mention victims of any gender before. But normally not specifically calling out the issue.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 01:04 PM
1

People are telling Serena to grow up and admit she's wrong... I've seen some articles by women commentators saying as much (that it is a standard ruling which was applied entirely correctly and is often applied to men). Also, I should not Serena basically agreed with MacEnroe (in an interview), though she did make some tweets capatilizing a bit on the publicity (asking for respect and not to be involved in controversy during an interview). Also, MacEnroe said she would be ranked "like 700 in the…
/r/MensRights11/09/18 12:07 PM
1

None of the evidence presented shows her calling on people to attacked her... However, Owen's did lie in her blog post from which that was all taken (saying the mock site had never been up, when in fact it had and had had entries).
/r/MensRights11/09/18 04:30 AM
2

And people allow men to whine. If they agree with the person complaining, it is not whining but righteous indignation. If they disagree, it is whining and the person falsely playing a victim. Quite regardless about whether the complaints are legitimate or not. In the case of Candace Owens, when she started doxing people, while whining about bullying, she got lambasted from both sides (since the people who she would be doxing were from every side). She then started whining claiming Brianna Wu per…
/r/MensRights10/09/18 11:39 PM
1

Yep. Self advocacy and luck are how many people become famous. I doubt she was really doing well financially before, though.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 11:34 PM
2

Mostly agree, though I disagree about Hillary. I think both Trump and Hillary should be criticized for their gender views. The people in politics are a bigger concern, imo.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 01:28 PM
1

Yea, see her wikipage, and look up people talking about her around social autopsy.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 01:26 PM
2

Nope, just describing what she did.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 01:25 PM
275

Woke is silly. Candace Owens made here career whining, making excuses and coming up short. She started by suing her high school (when she was 18) for not doing enough to stop a 14 year old from sending her threatening phone calls (she apparently had conflicts with other students as well). She was awarded 40k. She then went on to drop out of college, according to her due to mental issues resulting from the bullying. She then become a writer for Vogue, where she did not gain any notoriety. She the…
/r/MensRights09/09/18 10:16 PM
2

Well I challenge you to find a politician in recent times that specifically attacked one group of people who did nothing wrong like female leaders do to men. Look at the way 99.9% of male politicians talk about men as a group...
/r/MensRights29/08/18 09:00 PM
2

I didn't look for dirt... I glanced at your front page to see how involved you were with /r/MensRights. I wouldn't consider Peterson dirt. A true friend will try to get to the bottom of things before they make a value judgment Someone being part of the same movement does not make them your friend. We're using Billy Joel as citations now? No... I didn't use that as evidence. What he describes existing is the evidence. I just used him out of laziness. I call AWALT a truism for a reason That reason…
/r/MensRights29/08/18 06:03 AM
2

I didn't cite any logical fallacies... What? It is not being fair-weather to not want to help people who call you evil... it is true that all women are hypergamous No, it is not... Billy Joel described a not so uncommon relationship. It is not hard to find them. It is rarer, yes. Most women prefer men who are better off. But it is not universally true...
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:53 AM
1

I have seen those in power do things that couldn't be defined as anything less than evil So, like everywhere else in the world? Politics is not exactly full of saints... There are plenty of evil women and plenty of evil men. But men and women are both fundamentally decent, imo. Not good, but decent. not a word from women. Meanwhile Donald Trump visits and they're all out with protest signs. And what are the men doing? Their support begins and ends with kind words online. And what have you done? …
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:25 AM
3

My main motive is to make the movement successful. It is not going to be successful if it doesn't have the support of men and women. Don't care. I wasn't saying that /u/BaileysBaileys was a good person. I wasn't "defending" her, I was attacking your view point, and trying to encourage more people towards our movement... People are not going to want to get involved in a movement that says "all race/sex/etc are like this." My point is simply that you are wrong and needlessly divisive. Not that any…
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:20 AM
2

If someone was actually hitting a guy in the balls, then it could be. As is, it is just someone's dumb joke... Don't We shouldn't take these things too seriously.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 02:52 AM
3

r/mensrights is meant to be a men's rights forum, not a men's forum. There is a very distinct difference. If I was with a group of largely females and they started talking about how men were innately evil, I may well get a bit annoyed. I think you should be able to understand /u/BaileysBaileys feeling that way. Not all men and not all women. Stop it with this group think. People are individuals, treat them as such. I see you seem to be a fan of Peterson, isn't he always saying that?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 02:40 AM
1

Like any community, we have our sh*tty people. Of which, it would seem to me, /u/TheImpossible1 is 1. A lot of us have been trying to call out the less desriable people who try to affiliate with the movement. But ultimately, if one advocates for men's rights they are not wrong in calling themselves an MRA. I am sorry people have made you (and anyone else) feel unwelcome. It very much disappoints me that this silliness spills over into the men's rights community.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 02:29 AM
-1

"Woman pulls publicity stunt and wastes everyone's time." Though, what does this have to do with men's rights? I don't think we should focus on this kind of petty sh*t when there is so much more important going on.
/r/MensRights26/08/18 08:31 PM
8

Lots of problems with the article. Ugly men and women can be rape victims. Plenty of the people coming forward are legitimate victims (it is often good to people to get it out), though, I suspect a lot of the ones who keep talking about it either have other issues.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 09:59 PM
5

Even if there is discrimination, that does not justify more discrimination against random people. You would think any imbecile would be able to figure that out.
/r/MensRights14/08/18 04:19 AM
1

At a party where the person is clearly into it, I don't have a problem.
/r/MensRights14/08/18 04:17 AM
3

I am not going to judge. I have 4,000 unread emails.
/r/MensRights14/08/18 04:15 AM
6

Eh, I wouldn't be so certain. I would hope /u/MaMagooni knows her well enough to make the judgement, but I would guess the girlfriend thought her grandmother was just joking and just played along with it.
/r/MensRights14/08/18 04:15 AM
4

Correct. As I said, communism, in theory is not totalitarian. But communism is an unachievable goal. And all but 1 attempt to achieve the goal have been done through totalitarian governments. The other attempt didn't work very well, but was certainly better than other attempts (that being Anarchist Catalonia).
/r/MensRights11/08/18 04:54 PM
3

Yea.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 04:45 PM
4

My dude, the idea of a communist state is one where all government is abolished and the people run everything. It is really dumb, and impossible to achieve, don't get me wrong, but the idea is not totalitarian. Lenin's basic idea was that the people weren't rising up fast enough, so you needed a totalitarian state to take control and start imposing communist ideas before it could then be abolished once it dominated. Of course, the means to the end just became the ends, since totalitarian leaders…
/r/MensRights11/08/18 04:14 PM
1

Because inequality.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:35 PM
4

But only 2 years. Should have been more like 10.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:33 PM
2

As opposed to what, a communist system? Communism (in theory) is democratic... So yes, you get what you deserve.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:33 PM
7

She got 2 years.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:32 PM
12

Not really. If you have a massive fine you can't pay, you just declare bankruptcy and sell off most of your property and whatnot to pay what you can and the rest gets wiped. With child support, you can default on outstanding payments, I believe, but you will continue to get fined even if you declare bankruptcy.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:31 PM
1

I don't mean she should pay $2.1 million. But I would rather she had a greater penalty (as opposed to the two years she got) rather than the state footing a bill.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:30 PM
1

Declare bankruptcy.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 03:29 PM
175

Would much rather the teacher pay. But I'll take whatever we can get. I wish the kid the best.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 05:29 AM
6

no
/r/MensRights08/08/18 02:57 AM
7

no
/r/MensRights08/08/18 02:52 AM
1

Nah, I bet they will say "Almost 100% of women STEM..." Otherwise it is too suspect
/r/MensRights04/08/18 01:54 AM
7

Abolish Selective Service. Amend 18 US Code 116 to replace "labia majora or labia minora or clitoris" with "genitalia" (make similar changes in other countries as appropriate). Amend child support laws such that they cannot force labor and do not force victims to pay. Amend domestic violence services to either include men or have equal services available for men, do so by amending and replacing the VAWA with a more inclusive violence prevention act. Amend the model for police response to domesti…
/r/MensRights09/07/18 03:54 PM
1

Who cares? Women are not the issue. Being resentful and bitter will win NO ONE to our cause.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 03:48 PM
1

Why are you asking r/mensrights? It depends on your situation.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 03:46 PM
1

Women can commit it... IF they stick their fingers in someone.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 09:25 PM
2

Fair enough, but I think in cases where someone has something like endometriosis more accommodations would be reasonable.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 03:56 PM
1

I meant extra time if there are extreme circumstances where you can't move the time and have a doctors note or something attesting to the pain being a serious issue.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 02:22 PM
2

To be fair, we can acknowledge it is probably an issue. I am sure there are many women who suffer due to home issues, just like there are many men. But claiming that it is a women's issue, is just absurd.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 05:39 AM
9

Wait, so how old is you daughter? What is her relationship actually like with her (i.e. does she see you positively or negatively)? What child support payments stopped? Did you stop having to pay, or stop getting them for something? I am a bit confused. As is, if you take it to court, it is really a flip of the coin. If you get a good judge, you will probably get at least some rights. If you don't, well...
/r/MensRights25/06/18 05:36 AM
23

I don't see an issue with that. Taking an exam early or late due to menstrual pain sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Or even getting extra time in cases where that is not possible for whatever reason. I know kids who would just call in sick on exam days if they didn't sleep well. There are ways to mitigate the pain (i.e. drugs). For cases where the pain is seriously damaging (i.e. endometriosis), I suspect you probably could get doctors notes. Also, if your periods are really bad, you should ta…
/r/MensRights25/06/18 05:28 AM
1

I like /u/lookafist's answer. But, alternatively, just tell them to switch the genders. I.E. "excuse me, miss, but I would appreciate not being demeened. I doubt you would be very pleased if I said the same about women, so I would appreciate you not saying so about me. Thank you."
/r/MensRights25/06/18 05:24 AM
2

But, seriously, how can you unambiguously determine a troll? An MRA made a video on that. Hope that helps! Happy troll hunting.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 01:47 PM
1

The legal ones are more important. And the rights issues.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 08:46 PM
3

What does that have to do with rights? Being mocked in an unfair way is wrong but it is not a violation of your rights.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 02:43 PM
2

Not men's rights, and I agree with /u/mrwhibbley.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 02:02 PM
1

I have heard it depends on where you are, so it may be some areas have higher or lower rates of false accusations.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 02:00 PM
-15

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:57 PM
2

The study actually used three tests. Indeed, we found that subliminal exposure to stereotypes (vs. counter-stereotypes) led women who identify relatively strongly with feminists, but less strongly with women, to (a) persist in a math task, (b) show increased willingness to sacrifice men in a Moral Choice Dilemma task, and (c) show implicit in-group bias on an evaluative priming task. This evidence of resistance suggests that members of devalued groups are more resilient than previously thought. …
/r/MensRights06/06/18 07:37 AM
4

Yea, /u/AmbitiousRacoon is right. It has nothing to do with being 'soy boys' or weaker types of men. Most men and people in general place the lives of women first. Men are far too willing to sacrifice themselves. While perhaps noble in ideal, it shows an unfortunate lack of value for their own lives.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 07:31 AM
3

As with everything, take a breath and deal with it rationally and calmly. Screenshot it, save it. Record everything, (looking it up, it is legal in japan to record people, but you cannot publish it, but you can use it in court). Though, I would suggest avoiding conversations, generally, but you do not want them to call the cops before you do. Make copies, when you can. Do not meet in person (you do not want any kind of altercation to occur). Call the cops (might want to wait till you're sober th…
/r/MensRights03/06/18 03:07 PM
3

Great to see the support! I think anyone who helps advocate is fine. You don't have to change the world or dedicate your life to it. The best course, in my opinion, is to try and be the best person you can be and try to be successful in life, and then speak out where you have the opportunity. Not everyone has to be or should be a professional advocate/activist. As for questions: What do you mean by 'banning' third wave feminism? I personally am of the view nothing should be banned. Do you have a…
/r/MensRights03/06/18 03:01 PM
7

Have you tried contacting father's rights groups? What was their reasoning for cutting you out? Just allegations?
/r/MensRights22/05/18 05:22 AM
3

People here often seem to forget a lot of it is case by case. It happens rather often, numerically. The thing, in many places (some areas are better and others worse) it is still very much stacked one way, by default. Luckily, there are many judges who have some common sense and decency. Unfortunately, there are others who do not.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 05:20 AM
1

Honestly, I think it should be allowed in high school up but discouraged. You should dress professionally, but I do not think it is right to enforce that in a public/government area (excluding where clothing directly takes away from the learning environment). I think it should be socially discouraged for guys and girls to dress very loosely and have inappropriate dress, but it shouldn't be forbidden as they have the right to free expression in a public place.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 01:03 PM
1

Factually, it is not healthy. We have evolved to find things unhealthy disgusting. Now, today, most of the time other people's blood isn't that unhealthy (with fewer disease and modern medicine). However, we have an evolved disgust for it (well, an evolved fear response really, but as I understand it people normally express this as a disgust response instead when not in a a dangerous situation). If you are into it, I don't see the issue, tbh. I find it disgusting, but what you do in the privacy …
/r/MensRights21/05/18 12:59 PM
14

Some people want kids. Nothing wrong with that...
/r/MensRights19/05/18 03:00 AM
5

Please use archive links in the future. I don't want to support this kind of trash.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 02:59 AM
14

Guys, this just makes us look ridiculous. We can protest injustices without getting all pissy.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 02:56 AM
0

This just makes us look silly.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 02:55 AM
21

Her excuse was claiming he put the acid in the water for her too drink... When she threw it at him saying "if I can't have you no one can" something doesn't add up there. But even if true, she still absolutely did what she is accused of doing. Murder I can get arguing it is not. But under the UK definition described in the article, it absolutely is manslaughter.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 02:55 AM
1

My grandparents are holocaust survivors. I actively advocate against circumcision.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 01:32 PM
2

It might have been a uni case.
/r/MensRights10/05/18 06:44 PM
-2

Old.
/r/MensRights10/05/18 02:41 AM
6

Need more info, tbh as to who is to blame. I remember one case at a college where a woman was talking to her friend and talked about having a bad night with a guy (never saying she was raped) the friend interpreted that as rape, reported it (without telling the "victim") then the "victim" came forward saying it wasn't rape and had been consensual, and the entire process ignored what she has to say and still decided the guy was guilty (because of a 3rd parties word).
/r/MensRights10/05/18 02:41 AM
3

Though, personally, I think conversations about sexism should involve all sexes (which is to say everyone) and conversations about racism should involve all races (which is to say everyone).
/r/MensRights07/05/18 01:27 PM
2

Fathers do have rights, it is just really easy to take them away. But yea, if he is a donor I don't see the issue. He shouldn't have any right/responsibility. If he wants to visit and the mother is OK with it, that's fine, but it's a donation...
/r/MensRights27/04/18 01:33 AM
12

If he is a donor, why is he involved at all?
/r/MensRights27/04/18 01:32 AM
1

The advice was "here are steps you can take to stop cheating"... Seems reasonable.
/r/MensRights27/04/18 01:29 AM
1

Okay, thank you for the information! I'd plan on going to collage first and was looking into going to the ROTC there. I am sure that discussing it with them they will have the relevant information.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 09:01 PM
1

US Public school? If yes, file a Title IX complaint. This site has some good information on the process: http://www.titleixforall.com/
/r/MensRights25/04/18 08:14 PM
1

Also, what benefits? I was considering going into the military because I wanted to serve the country (and I thought the experience would be good for me). I do not have any real financial reason to do so. Though, from what I have heard they do have good training programs which would be helpful but they are absolutely not the reason I would want to join.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 08:12 PM
2

When was this? Just looked it up, the internet says that you can't have taken meds for a year prior and then medical examiners can decide on your eligibility into the military. So, I may well have been wrong.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 08:10 PM
0

You need to go without them permanently... After 6 months you get the waiver allowing you to enter the military with ADHD. You still are not allowed medication.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 06:07 PM
3

You can get a waiver for ADHD. To get the waiver, you have to not take medication for 6 months. I probably could do it, but honestly it doesn't feel like it's worth it.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 04:46 PM
2

Outdated rules banned people with ADHD entirely. Updated rules let you if you can function without medication and then they require you don't take any...
/r/MensRights25/04/18 04:45 PM
1

-Being a human
/r/MensRights25/04/18 02:20 PM
4

Makes sense. If you are kept down I can imagine many become vindictive. And when you stop being held down, I can imagine that the culture that still tells you you are is not helpful.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 02:19 PM
51

Because they don't allow you to take ADHD medication, tbh.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 02:17 PM
3

Most people have an aversion for it because they feel it is a symbol of mistrust. But what you should explain is that you don't know if you'll be the same person 20 or 30 years from then. Not sure how well it would work, but that's what I'd do.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 11:46 PM
5

I still don't think it is all or even necessarily a majority.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 01:04 PM
2

Yes... But I think that is really just because legally women are privileged in the divorce courts.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 01:01 PM
1

Nope, won't lock him up. She'll get the house temporarily and a restraining order against him. Not just sending him to jail right off the bat. It doesn't mention them having kids, if they had kids you'd probably be right.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 01:00 PM
0

Apparently you can get it after 10 years.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:27 AM
3

Yea, I agree. It seemed like a really odd case but "fair enough" was my attitude towards it.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:26 AM
7

I have heard of a few cases. There was a recent one with a boyfriend who won and the girlfriend got it. THough they weren't married, she had texts of him saying they would split winnings (didn't mention the amount) then he won, she sent him a message like "OMG!!! Are we keeping our agreement?" he then blocked her and cashed out, she sued and I think she got half of the after-tax amount. But yea, it happens both ways, I think it counts as civil fraud.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 03:16 AM
7

Why apologizing? It is often better for both parties. If you and the wife have all of your finances properly accounted for so you can separate them fairly relatively easily and you have everything in writing as well as agreements on how money would be divided, neither party has to suffer through the years of court hearings and fights. It is better for everyone if you can easily cut the finances, often even if you get a good deal less it is not worth the time, stress and work of divorce proceedin…
/r/MensRights24/04/18 03:13 AM
34

#NotAll Let's not become like feminists. We should not generalize women or men. Some women are asses, some men are asses. Most I would say are decent. Not good, but decent. Men and women alike. But most is not by a lot.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 03:11 AM
9

No alimony in this case, /u/N0S0M (lacking odd situations). In Texas, you need to be together 10+ years to qualify (the argument being if one person spent more time at home for that long, it will have significantly damaged their ability to function in the job market).
/r/MensRights24/04/18 03:10 AM
22

I don't think so. From what I have seen, this has not been a new thing with feminism. Men in the past were still financially responsible for there wives and off and on throughout history when divorce has been allowed women tended to get a good deal out of it. All that feminism has really done is created the opening of no-fault divorce which is really, really hard to deal with financially. Definitely a men's rights issue, but I wouldn't say it is limited to feminism.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 03:08 AM
10

In a lot of places, assests are only split "equally" if you have been together for a set number of years (normally five or something). Otherwise, courts take into account different incomes (depending, less so if kids). So it is possible if he takes it to court he will end up getting most of the stuff. The problem is: you don't want to go to court, divorce court is especially bad (I don't mean just in terms of unfair, which basically comes down to the judge, but rather just the ordeal and the law…
/r/MensRights24/04/18 03:04 AM
1

I thought you meant that it was the norm, which I am not certain of. Thanks for the clarification!
/r/MensRights24/04/18 02:59 AM
8

I don't think it is a fair to label all male feminists that way. I think for many it is they are told "(most) men think this way which is wrong." Then, like most men they realize those attitudes are disgusting and ones they wouldn't hold so come to think that most men are bad while they and most of the men they are close to are obviously just the outlying good ones.
/r/MensRights23/04/18 05:05 AM
0

>"A+ daddy" Do those have A+ cummies?
/r/MensRights23/04/18 05:01 AM
7

What happened in the case?
/r/MensRights15/04/18 04:34 AM
0

Yes, but the laws do so much more.
/r/MensRights14/04/18 02:56 AM
4

Who cares? Seriously. WE have much more important human rights issues.
/r/MensRights14/04/18 12:58 AM
3

It's your other lost cousin: 3NVWtPaBWGgNe7XkZzWFyPGAbPR45aLT58
/r/MensRights24/03/18 02:21 PM
5

No one is saying we should ignore harassment and assault... Saying men have serious problems we should deal with, is not saying men are the victims and we should ignore women.
/r/MensRights22/03/18 01:36 PM
7

Yep. I like that they don't try and censor discussion, but just try and lead things in the right direction.
/r/MensRights17/03/18 01:52 PM
1

You wholly accept the hypocrisy?? Or you recognize it. Recognize. I think it is wrong. I think doing that kind of thing purposely humorously should be fine regardless of sex.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 10:30 PM
9

Yea, I don't think there is anything wrong with this. It is not like when Jenny McCarthy molested Justin Bieber on stage and violated him. It is something that should be taken lightly as amusing and cute. However, if it were the other way, I have a feeling a lot of people would not think the same.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 01:50 PM
1

how can any sane male that knows the truth not be mgtow I am going to use a hamfisted analogy. How could any black be with whites 50+ years ago? How could any Jews be friends with any Germans/(other European groups) 75 years ago? Now, of course I am not broadly comparing their treatment, but the principle is the same. In the case of a divorce, or a false claim, whites and non-Jews would have been favored not unlike women are today. Though, the situations beyond that were VASTLY different. No com…
/r/MensRights07/03/18 09:54 PM
4

There are plenty of jerks, men and women. It sounds like you just have a bad friend group.
/r/MensRights04/03/18 05:23 PM
1

Perhaps. I still have something against being any ist. I am a men's rights advocate, because I advocate for men's rights. I am a women's rights advocate, because I advocate for women's rights. I would be fine supporting feminists, but I would still hesitate to call myself one.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 10:11 PM
9

They say, reducing him to his gender.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 04:37 PM
5

I was replying to you saying: "this whole sub is cherry picked stories. Most men and women exist fine together." Implying that this sub disagrees with the latter sentiment.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:24 PM
1

I think it is normally just a confirmation bias.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:11 PM
3

While interesting, I do not think this is directly men's rights.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:10 PM
10

That was not what his comment was about. A woman started a buisness dedicated to being women only in a hyper-competative industry and the women just would not get work done and were too busy competing with each other. Women run businesses can do well. There are plenty of smart capable women. But some women tend to be more competitive with each other in some environments in a way that is harmful to productivity. /u/peppaz, I doubt anyone here would say women and men cannot exist just fine togethe…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:10 PM
1

Makes sense. You expect there to be a lot of in-group competition in the workplace.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:07 PM
2

As it will always needed to be said to prevent strawmanning: we are not saying these women are not entitled to their preferences. Rather, this is pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing men of misogyny for not liking overweight women while at the same time disliking overweight men.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 11:47 PM
2

The problem is, definitions are not actually definite.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 10:04 PM
2

Correct.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 01:48 PM
5

...The judge throws out the case before it goes to jury.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 11:29 AM
1

The problem is there are two possibilities. They "fall into your lap" because they are very emotional unstable types, who would carry risks (not just in relationships, but especially in relationships). Or they are blunt outgoing types, in which case they are just being honest and not beating around the bush.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:47 AM
1

!Remindme in 8 hours It is not an easy thing. I will go over my views on a few possibilities later.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 05:45 AM
4

It's things like this that really disgust me. They frame innocent people as perpetrators and put legitimate victims into doubt.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:58 AM
7

If legal, lawyer up. If not, highly situation dependent.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:57 AM
1

What form did the accusation take? What are the statutes of limitations where you are? If she could accuse you criminally, lawyer up as /u/William__F0ster suggests. If not, still consider it depending on your financial situation. To the rest of it, it sounds like she has confused people in her head over the years. This is a pretty common thing with people's memory. They will swap out one person in a memory with someone else they are close to (it has to do with how the brain stores information, I…
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:56 AM
5

And a bad defense, or a really bad judge. Any decent defense should be able to get the case thrown out if there is no evidence beside an accusation.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:48 AM
1

Depends on the case, the area and everyone involved.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:47 AM
8

Same as I would for a man: help as much as I could so long as the risks of intervening are less than those of not.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:44 AM
1

You asked why I qualified that sometimes praising men might not be acceptable.. I gave one such example
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:43 AM
1

You have qualifiers? Yes. If you want to talk about the great things Nazis did on Holocaust remembrance day, I would say it is not the time or place... "Our goals"? When did YOU set the agenda? ... Our goals of expanding the human rights of men... Answer that question. See above.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 03:59 AM
1

Do you mean curb? And no it is not. It is a discussion of what tactics would be best for our movement and how we want to present our movement. Not what you can and cannot say.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:46 AM
7

Really sad to see people unable to draw meaningful connections simply for fear of a small group of moralizers going after them. I have seen somewhat similar things happen to women (on a lesser scale), but I do not think any woman would be accused of grooming for giving out high fives.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:44 AM
4

To be fair, that was duchess. But yea, I somehow do not think if it was a woman there would have been any backlash.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:43 AM
3

In any meaningful way, no. But it depends on how you define it.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:39 AM
18

Just so it will be in the comment section if people accuse us: we are not claiming that they are discriminating against men. Rather, we are drawing attention to clear hypocrisies within the rhetoric (70% men = inequality, 70% women = equality)
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:36 AM
8

Calling 911 does that already... Pressing lock 5 times is not much easier. I would much rather have a feature like this which might save lives than not. So long as the officers handle the reports properly, it shouldn't be a problem (though how they handle it atm, is the problem with reports).
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:33 AM
21

She already has a legal obligation (in a lot of states) to give him the paper work for paternity if she knows the father and is not with him. Though this is not enforced right now, it would be fairly easy (one would think) to alter this existing structure to confirm the father was properly notified and failing that the father would be given the option to exempt himself at a later time (possibly having to share in some fee to cover the cost of bureaucracy).
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:28 AM
1

There are ways to make similar statements without being so needlessly confrontational and divisive. For example "We would like to thank all the great hard working men who built our town's proud infrastructure #MenAreAwesome"
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:24 AM
1

We have been at a "sad state of affairs in gender politics" for the past few thousand years. I do not know of a point in history where a man who, sympathetically and honestly, complained (for lack of a better term) about his wife physically abusing him would not be seen as a subject for public shaming.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:23 AM
0

I did not find it offensive. I do not see how what I said is different.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:20 AM
1

I do not think this is a good way to get people to recognize the achievements of men. I think this will just turn people off of any message we have to say. Something like Dunkirk will help people recognize the value of men. This will just be divisive.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:20 AM
1

No, it doesn't. r/theredpill might. We do not.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:18 AM
1

Going "look around you this is the product of men" is needlessly divisive. We do need to take control of the discussion (it is not taking it back, though, it has never really been ours) to some degree. This will cost us control. It will turn people off from the underlying message. Also, we as men do not deserve any credit for what other men have done. Just like women do not deserve credit for what any individual woman has done. And whites do not and blacks do not.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:17 AM
1

As I have said to all those other comments, it is how it will be perceived. Most people, including most non-feminists, will see something like this as putting women down and will be immediately turned off by it. There are better ways to frame it that do not appear so confrontational. Being confrontational is fine if done to positive effect, but this will not have a positive effect, imo.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:15 AM
1

Saying men are awesome is fine. Talking about the great things men have done is normally fine. The thing is we have to be careful in our framing of it. Most people reading this poster will see it as putting men's accomplishments above women and putting women down. It appears confrontational and will drive people from supporting our goals.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:13 AM
1

Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. This will be taken as promoting men over women and putting women down, wrongfully. Saying men are awesome is something I am all in favor of. Doing it in a way that is confrontational and will make people pull back from supporting us, is not.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:12 AM
1

There are ways to promote men which will not be taken as an attack. Most people, even non-feminists, will see this as confrontational and offensive. Saying men are awesome, is not the issue.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:10 AM
1

Yes I am. And I have the severed knob to prove it.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:09 AM
1

I did not say it was comparing them. However, it implies a comparison. When people see it, they will immediately see it as an attack on women because of the way it is framed.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:09 AM
1

"Proper" was the wrong word choice. But no reasonable person would be offended by that statement. While most people, feminist or not, would be offended by the original statement.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:08 AM
1

The problem is people will not recognize it as that. They will shut down and become defensive as they will take this as something confrontational.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:07 AM
1

Not really. It is discussing what tone we as a movement should use. It is not me saying "you can't say that" it is me saying "I don't think saying that will help us, maybe for practical reasons we should consider framing it differently." Discussing the proper tone we should use is not policing people for using a tone I don't like.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:05 AM
1

True, but there are better ways of doing it. This will be seen as confrontational and offensive to feminists and people in the middle alike. While you can put out the same message without reasonable people seeing it as such (ex: "We would like to thank all the hard working men who made this city's infrastructure while supporting their families #MenAreAwesome")
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:03 AM
1

Dude, look through my older posts here if you have to. While I certainly do try and keep people on message for what I think is the correct direction of the MRM, I've spent more time/effort being supportive of it by a good deal.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:01 AM
2

I am equating the way people see them. I regularly comment here. I am an MRA.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 03:45 AM
0

There's a difference between saying "I think talking like this is harmful to our movement" and "don't talk like that"
/r/MensRights10/02/18 03:13 AM
0

And every reasonable person will see that as unreasonable.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 03:12 AM
2

We look better not doing so in a confrontational way, and preferably, we would just rebut their accusations.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:46 AM
1

There are ways to frame it that will not be taken badly by reasonable people (i.e. "we would like to thank all the men who worked hard to build this city and support their families. #MenAreAwesome").
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:44 AM
5

The normal person reading this, will not read it as just acknowledging the good of men. That said, I do agree.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:43 AM
-3

They do it in a proper way. IN response to a feminist. Or in a way that will not be seen as an attack by reasonable people (i.e. non-feminists). For example, say "We would like to thank all the great, hardworking men who built this infrastructure and supported their families."
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:42 AM
1

It's largely a positive message about men and not attacking women. The phrasing will immediately put people off to it. While you are correct, it is not an attack, it certainly will be taken that way. How have our other strategies been working for us? Legal activism, has been one. A lot of the main stream is starting to realize how ridiculous people are over accusations, for another. How is this going to change anything? Who is going to see this poster and go "you know what, there are certain rig…
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:41 AM
2

No, it is not. I am Jewish, for one. Just like it is not antisemetic to say that killing gays is a barbaric practice.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:38 AM
1

Not just women, but the men.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:37 AM
-6

How is white power different from black power? Fundementally, they aren't. However, if you say the former, no matter the point you are trying to make, you will immediately be demonized and no one will listen to the actual message. Men should be able to be proud of what we have built. We should not be proud of the accomplishments of others.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:36 AM
16

"Thank you to the great men who helped make this city" =/= "Everything you see was made by men" the latter makes people feel confronted. It makes people hostile to our aims.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:35 AM
-1

Dude, this is just for pragmatic reasons. People see this, what do they think? The average person, that is. They will think that we just care about how accomplished men are not about specific rights issues. That will turn them off from our aims.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:34 AM
1

Yea, if they had pointed it out politely that would have been fine. However something like this just makes it sounds like we are crediting men as a collective for these things. We are not as a whole responsible. I, for example, have never done any construction. I do not deserve credit just for being a man.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:33 AM
1

That was not my point... For example, I do not believe it is necessary to point out the fact that white men commit less crime. Though a fact, it will only harm my attempts to push for any goal.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 02:31 AM
1

Worried about pragmatically appealing to others. Not offending people. For example, I have told orthodox Jews that circumcision is a barbaric practice.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 09:26 PM
-6

Focus on the people doing them, not them being men. Except in direct countenance, it makes people just get on the defensive.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 06:23 PM
4

Did I say it did? The implication is a comparison. We do not want to start taking responsibility as a collective.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 06:07 PM
-4

Most of the comments are quite reasonable.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:51 PM
4

This is not a good weapon. It will be used against us before it helps us.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:50 PM
1

I think it is important to remember individual men and honor them. Not to start this kind of identitarian response.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:50 PM
-7

This is not trp stuff. Just bad jokes. It is an issue, as the jokes directly detract from our goals and provide fodder against us.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:49 PM
1406

I do not think this is the kind of thing we should be promoting. We are not based on comparing men against women, just supporting men's rights.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 04:26 PM
3

On a personal level, Everyone should take responsibility.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 04:55 AM
-2

Verbal contracts are legally binding. Really complicated, almost impossible to enforce, but legally binding.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 04:50 AM
0

Did you read the article? She is claiming (falsely from the looks of it) that they'd agreed to split lottery winnings if either won.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 11:17 PM
13

Blindness doesn't effect men.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 08:08 PM
-8

Not men's rights, really.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 08:06 PM
1

Feminism and post modernism have only grown, not weakened, the left.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 05:01 PM
1

I know a lot of people at the top. That is not at all why they promote these things. They just do not have the issues average people have, but feel the need to jump on something and take a moral high ground. Many of them, see people talking about how women are this and that and need help and they then jump on that and use their influence to help women, believing everything they are told to be true.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 04:53 PM
3

you don't fight it, don't correct it, don't oppose it You don't have to. It is laudable if you do, but /u/RacelessSexlessName's wife is not obliged to do so. If you are trying to do what is right and avoid doing something negative, that is fine. If you just speak up against it, that is fine. Do not become like those people who go after MRA's claiming our activism isn't activism since we haven't accomplished most of our aims.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 04:50 PM
4

I have met a few feminists like that. I often try to dissuade people from just painting feminists with a broad brush. From what I have seen, both in reading and in person to person interaction, the extremism really comes from the top and a few extremists. Now, I think most feminists have beliefs that are not outright false, but misleading to the point of effective falsehood, but most of those beliefs are held by everyone (i.e. "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpat…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 04:47 PM
4

Not really men's rights related.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 04:40 PM
1

It being a men's rights form doesn't mean we will allow nothing else. However, we discourage unrelated posts. While we allow them to make their posts, we discourage it. When such posts begin to dominate the page and cause issues, mods start removing them. But so long as they aren't getting in the way of other issues, we just discourage it.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 04:38 PM
3

As u/Lethn said, it is a really difficult situation. But, ultimately, I think both should be able to veto their burdens of becoming a parent, with or without the other parent's consent. For a mother, one of those burdens is the pregnancy. So long as reasonable regulations are in place, I believe the would-be mother should have the right to choose whether or not she bears out the pregnancy. So long as the man has the right to forfeit his responsibilities (i.e. financial support) with similar reas…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 04:36 PM
28

I disagree with you a bit. I don't think the man should have veto power over an abortion in all cases. However, I do think a man should be able to abort his parental status without the woman's agreement just like she can without his.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 01:54 AM
8

In emergencies, you still should. They take out a knife and start making legitimate threats, get away and call the police. They may well arrest you, but they still will protect you. And if she does stab you, they will already be on their way and will be able to get medical aid.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 01:48 AM
1

Masturbating =/= having sex. Masturbation is a bodily function, sex is much more a mental thing as well. Which is why it can cause long term mental damage to have sex when very young, with someone older.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 09:01 PM
4

More like whitism for blacks. Imagine if the response to the civil rights movement was "we will only except you if you look at civil rights through a whitist lens."
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:38 PM
4

Also, later in life they will very often feel violated from the experience and it can lead to other issues throughout their life. Even if they like it, being young and not mature enough to give their consent can be seriously damaging.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:30 PM
2

It's not normal. Not men's rights related. Get professional help. It doesn't make you evil or anything, but it is a problem that you should get help for. People who are that young are not mature enough to have sex. If my understanding is correct, most doctors should be able to redirect you to services that can help you.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:27 PM
44

Great to see help being offered for all victims.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:24 PM
1

No, why should it? What is wrong with simply putting in the comments: "this isn't relevant, but we are not going to delete it"?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:23 PM
1

First of all, I am not a mod. But it is more, "we follow our rules, but some we enforce more than other and tend not to remove posts unless in direct violation or otherwise causing issues, since we do not want to censor users"
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:17 AM
1

Probably just average people browsing it, while ideological people made/run it.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 11:45 PM
1

...but fine ??? You can have other things than the normal that are here, though I don't really like it, if it is flaired as humor it is not an issue since we also are something of a community.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 11:45 PM
5

TwoX I have seen be very reasonable at times. I have seen a few times someone come up accusing a guy of rape and everyone shoots them down saying it is ridiculous and all that.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 09:02 PM
3

Apparently, there was a detailed writeup of it. I would really like to see that released so we can tell.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 09:01 PM
8

Just a suggestion, "concede" some point you would agree on when making an argument. For example instead of responding: "She voluntarily disrobed. Her own choice. Not rape." make it less combative. For example: "It was wrong of him to continue to pressure her after she declined. However, in the end she did, voluntarily disrobe. One could consider badgering her for sex harassment, but the sex itself was voluntary and not rape." While in both cases the underlying point is the same, in the latter yo…
/r/MensRights26/01/18 08:13 PM
2

Not really men's rights, but fine, just make flair humor.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 08:04 PM
1

No worries.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:49 PM
3

It's not really official, and I don't really care, tbh. Could probably try to get them in trouble if I wanted and knew when they were going to do it next.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:48 PM
3

Are you getting professional help for your depression? If not, seek professional help for it. As to your mentality, I am no professional, but I will give my thoughts. I agree with others that you are overvaluing women (and others, more broadly). It is not wrong to want women to think well of you, that is natural and acceptable. But you have to understand that there is more to life than what others think of you. Don't try to make other people like you and think highly of you, try to make yourself…
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:41 PM
2

Depression is caused by a persistent chemical imbalance in the brain (can be genetic or brought on by a long period of feeling depressed/sad)... It is not unlike /u/Aivias has such a problem.It is not helpful to tell them they have to deal with it. In a way, they do. But they cannot just will themselves to feel better, like a healthy person often can. Professional help is normally the best option.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:37 PM
-2

Relevancy to men's rights?
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:34 PM
4

A club at my school does it every year.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:33 PM
1

See sidebar for rules. Ban posts are no longer allowed (not relevant to rights, and were too common).
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:31 PM
2

I am not saying it is wrong to teach us how to use rhetoric. I am saying it is wrong to just teach us how to use rhetoric.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 02:12 AM
8

I'm in highschool, I wrote an article for the school paper basically saying our education fails us by not properly teaching us how to properly distill information and see past rhetoric.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 11:43 PM
1

Intelligence alone does not break the thought pattern, however. Just being intelligent isn't enough. You need to be intelligent, and self-conscious about your beliefs.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 11:14 PM
2

Most professors are intelligent... Go to any math department.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 11:13 PM
10

Agreed. In school I spent one unit on rhetoric... It was not on how to recognize rhetoric from the argument being made, it was how to use rhetoric in our writing to be more persuasive.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 11:12 PM
1

/u/drlayman
/r/MensRights23/01/18 11:09 PM
0

There are legitimate areas in which women should have rights they do not. Having a movement that works hand in hand with and supports the MRM would be good.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 05:20 PM
2

She called herself a feminist.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 05:19 PM
2

(
/r/MensRights23/01/18 05:19 PM
2

She is a modern feminist, for the most part. One of two I have met who are reasonable.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 04:14 PM
4

I would say that is a good reason to work to create a good women's rights more focused on rights.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 04:07 PM
49

It is kind of true. But it is not because the system keeps women down, but because top positions often require you dedicate your life to those positions and most people do not want to do that. And the handful of people who are willing to do it, are mostly men.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 04:06 PM
160

More likely, just stubborn. It is surprisingly easy to get intelligent people to believe absurd things, unquestioningly and reject any evidence that goes against their biases.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 04:05 PM
21

I had one really feminist teacher in high school who was actually really good about this. There was one conservative in my class, and she would intentionally try and get their opinion (mine as well as a radical alt centristtm . Also, though she went to the women's march I remember her complaining about it, she said she really disliked how many people brought their kids and had their kids holding signs, saying it was wrong to get one's children involved in one's politics. She had two kids. Not th…
/r/MensRights23/01/18 04:04 PM
1

Not even that far, just be careful.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 10:58 PM
1

Tell him to be careful who he associates with and be sure to try and protect himself.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 10:09 PM
1

I did skim it. None of the ones I read said what you claimed, but I didn't read all of it. Did you?
/r/MensRights16/01/18 09:28 PM
0

No, I am not going to read through pages of cases if you won't... I am not going to look for evidence for your claim. That is not how discussions work.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 04:41 PM
0

Which one of those shows police tracing the person making a report?
/r/MensRights16/01/18 03:12 PM
1

What is this? 99.9% sure this is fake.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 02:09 AM
26

For those who don't know what happened: Women approached Aziz, he didn't talk with her having something else to do but gave her his number. She called him, they met. He then wanted to bring her black to his place, she agreed. They then undressed at his place (she says she was giving non-verbal cues she was uncomfortable). He then asked her to preform oral, she did (but claims she was sending non-verbal cues she was uncomfortable). He asked her to have sex with him, she said no, he didn't push th…
/r/MensRights16/01/18 02:03 AM
0

That they have ever traced someone's number for reporting a crime...
/r/MensRights16/01/18 01:56 AM
1

I think it is better to help someone while avoiding risk to yourself, however I do not think you should be compelled to do so.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:34 PM
1

The first one is exaggeration (though not entirely wrong, there are a bunch a facist regimes in the Islamic world, not really fair to call them Nazis, but not entirely incorrect). He is misleading his audience about the threat, but not exactly lying. That is what I meant when I said they aren't trustworthy. The second one is basically a ridiculous rant. Not a hoax, but just Glenn Beck speculating and drawing clearly ridiculous false conclusions. Is he deceiving his audience? Yes. Is he perpetrat…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:33 PM
1

In the video, he says as much.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 06:26 PM
1

Glenn Beck did not expose this. This is old news and not relevant to men's rights.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 05:07 PM
1

Glenn Beck and fox mislead their audience, yes. I have not seen any hoaxes coming out of them. They are not trustworthy news sources, but they are not just making up what they are saying.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 05:07 PM
0

They have and they do. Citation needed
/r/MensRights13/01/18 05:02 PM
1

I don't think anyone should be forced to intervene or punished for doing nothing...
/r/MensRights13/01/18 05:01 PM
1

They have in the past. Only if they think you committed a serious crime... They won't trace someone like that for making a report. Sorry you value your own life so little. The fact I do not value my as millions of times greater than everyone else does not mean I do not value my life. I put my life first, but that does not me I do not value other people's lives. You on the other hand have made it clear you only value your own life.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 04:39 PM
1

Shaming men into putting themselves at risk is one the themes of this ad! Shaming women into standing up for themselves isn't. Which is why I agree the ad is wrong.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 03:29 PM
1

tbh, I can kind of understand where some of them were coming from. A few people thought I meant that men in particular should try and help others and not people in general should do so regardless of general. But yea.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:15 AM
1

I agree, there is danger in saying no. But you can get the same reaction from saying nothing.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:12 AM
1

I didn't say this one made sense. I just hadn't thought it through and was pointing out that regardless it is good to uphold etiquette.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:10 AM
1

The phone company always has a record. See the second part. The police will not look into it. They have the record, but how paranoid are you? Greater risk than just walking away. Not really.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:09 AM
1

Did you not see where I said "do not act in a way to put yourself at risk"? Similarly, when someone is drowning you should try and help them but you shouldn't try to jump in after them, since they will probably just grab onto you and then you'll have two drowning people. My principle that you should try to help is true regardless of genders.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:06 AM
1

The behavior does make sense... Because other people will see you as unprofessional for acting in that matter.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:04 AM
0

No.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:03 AM
1

No... Just like I don't want circumcision to be illegal. I want it to be illegal without consent and I think it is wrong to pressure someone to give consent to something they don't want to do (that doesn't have any pragmatic reason).
/r/MensRights12/01/18 10:02 AM
1

That makes zero sense It is etiquette. It doesn't always make sense.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:29 PM
2

I would consider almost any pressuring of someone into do something that is mutilation without need or good reason to be wrongly doing so.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:28 PM
2

Cell phones are not anonymous You can pay to hide your number. The police will not trace you if you do so unless you committed a crime. Still puts you at risk. Less risk than standing around.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:24 PM
1

I agree. I said "a point" she'd still be wrong, but if you are in an extremely violent area I could understand it.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:22 PM
6

Yes. When several thugs are around never directly engage. I am not saying it is gendered. I agree with the OP that the sign is wrong.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:21 PM
0

As I said, you should be more concerned about your own safety than that of the people you are trying to help. That doesn't mean you should just do nothing.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:20 PM
-1

Call with a hidden number. Walk up to a police officer tell them then walk away. Those are two options right there.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:19 PM
1

Women are supposedly strong and independent and don't need a man. I think women should try and intervene to help men if a man needs help men should help men and women should help women.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:19 PM
1

I was giving different examples of what you could do. You could deescalate it to minimize your own risk. Or you could leave and contact someone more capable to minimize your own risk.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 08:17 PM
16

Identifying yourself as a witness to something where certain people don't want witnesses. Just being there does that... You can make a police report anonymously. You aren't saying women should step up in these violent situations. Yes, I am. Women should step up, I said literally that in the next sentence. Intervening at all puts you at significant risk. No. Example: walking away and telling an authority figure that something is happening. Because you are still acting as if men have a responsibil…
/r/MensRights11/01/18 03:05 PM
1

I do think it was wrong for them to be pressured into it and arrested. But I agree that it is not the same as it being done without your consent. They did consent, even if they were wrongly pressured to do so.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 03:02 PM
2

Not a men's rights. Absolutely wrong what those women went through, they should not have been pressured to undergo mutilation, like men should not be pressured to undergo mutilation. However, this is a less egregious case than what we see with many boys in the west because they still had a choice.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 03:01 PM
5

She would have a point if she said that as a woman she is weaker than most men and wouldn't be able to defend herself. It is probably not a safe place to be out at that hour for anyone. And if you can't defend yourself, all the more so. However, the same is true for anyone who is unable to protect themselves, not just women.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:59 PM
2

I was agreeing with you. I was just being more clear on the "or you know..." part since I would not be surprised if people with an agenda contradictory to that of the MRM took that as you were saying men should do so. It shows how inhuman feminists have become that they view the world through such a twisted lens. I don't think this is a problem specific to feminists, and I think it is in fact a very human problem. People have a tendency to become tribalistic very easily and stop empathizing with…
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:58 PM
14

I think it's morally wrong to do anything that puts me in any danger. I disagree. I would say it is amoral. However, what risk is there in stepping away and calling the police? I see how little you value the lives of men. Dude, I did not make it gendered. I think men should do the same for other men they see being harassed/attacked and women should do the same for men they see being harassed/attacked and women should do it for women. My principles are universal. Try and act without putting mysel…
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:50 PM
15

you should mind your own business, worry about your own safety, and trust them to be adults who can take care of themselves. You see someone getting beat up on the street. Do you think it is wrong to call the police? Do you think you should just mind your own business? Or do you think you should try and act without putting yourself at risk. Don't act in a way to put yourself at risk, of course, but you should try and do something.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:37 PM
7

Absolutely. It is better to have one person in danger than two people in danger.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:34 PM
0

Because you're sitting here looking for ways to defend a woman for a guy being attracted to her and making his move. Making a move on a customer while on the clock is unprofessional. If he got of work, or if she was a fellow employee or he was the customer there would have been nothing wrong with what he did. You are not supposed to pursue relationships with the clientele while you are at work (I think flirty with peers is different of course), unless you are a prostitute.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:27 PM
4

I don't think there is anything wrong with her not wanting to go out with him if she has no attraction or anything. But she should just tell the guy no. When someone doesn't say no, you cannot expect the other person to know you're not interested. Did no one teach these feminists that they can tell me they aren't interested in politely and settle the conversation?
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:24 PM
6

Just tell the person you aren't attracted and hand him his number back... Did the thought never cross her mind? If someone says "Hey, I like you, are you single? Here's my number, call me if you want to go out sometime." And you take the number and leave he will think that was a yes. That is not harassment. Though, it is bad practice at a business, it is not unethical just unprofessional.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:21 PM
6

You should try to act if you see someone in danger. However, the proper course of action is very rarely to get in the way. It is better to have one person at risk of being attacked than two. It is better to contact authorities.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:18 PM
-13

I think an issue is also that we often do not properly tell people how to intervene. You don't intervene and start telling the guy to just back off, you will get beat up if you do that. I don't really like the angle they take, but this article is correct in what you can do. You can respond directly if you don't think the attacker would be a risk to you. However, they almost always are a risk. So it is normally better to take a more indirect approach to deescalate the situation instead of coming …
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:17 PM
2

I don't think this is the right place to sh*tpost.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:07 PM
3

Wut? You are right, they aren't going to do anything. Nor are the men. No one in the industry really cares beyond what is best for their career. However, I doubt women are going to get cut out of the industry.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 02:29 PM
2

I think you could teach people reasoning and logic and have them develop their understanding of innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 11:43 PM
2

Ceo wages have skyrocketed. The reasons for that are separate, with some exceptions. CEOs get massive pay for one simple reason: that's what the other guy is paying their CEO. The cost of paying a CEO is insiginificant in total wage costs. Let's use McDonald's as an example. Of their total revenue, they spend a bit under 20% of that on employees (roughly 5 billion dollars) (using 2015 numbers). They pay the CEO about 5 million. It's not hard to do the math that the CEO makes roughly 0.1% of tota…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:06 PM
2

With current laws, those accused of rape can be named and shamed in public Not a problem of laws. I personally do not see why either should be kept secret from the public (with certain exceptions). The issue is the culture that assumes guilt.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 08:45 PM
2

but if you get dysphoria over your gender, suddenly these people think it's a civil rights issue. /u/2717192619192 didn't claim there was a civil rights issue with gender dysphoria, just that being a male with gender dysphoria helped them recognize the civil rights issues that exist having to do with gender. For example, if you are a man and try to do something prescribed for women (perhaps because of gender dysphoria) and have your rights infringed on, you will come to see the civil rights issu…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 04:44 PM
2

That was my point. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my phrasing.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:49 AM
1

Men will believe it... From my experience men are just as likely to buy into it as women are. I suspect they find something comforting in being able to think of themselves as better off then someone no matter how bad things get.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:36 AM
4

Since others mentioned it, I should clarify, Legal precedent in the US is that even if the woman got pregnant through committing a criminal act, she is still entitled to child support on the basis of the child's interest. She also is supposed to be on a birth control, which she got off of, without informing me. Doesn't matter. proves I was way too drunk to make any decisions How does it prove that? It may well. That could be valid evidence. However, /u/GentleInAndOutMotion is correct that blacko…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:29 AM
33

It also should be noted that one can actually make an argument that we should put men's health first. If you consider the wage gap an issue, then surely the life gap is also an issue.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:19 AM
5

I would suggest going to local publications, rather than the internet. Other than that, I am not sure.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:18 AM
6

I don't see why anyone here would think you were a snowflake for what you've said. The only thing that you put any emotions into is circumcision, and I think just about everyone here would agree that mutilation is a valid thing to get emotionally upset about (even though I would say it is better to be level headed about it).
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:09 AM
1

Who are you? The mother I take it? Also, I wasn't manipulated. All I did was tell him what he could do if what he was saying was true. Telling someone "if someone did something wrong consider reporting it" to someone who lied about something wrong happening is no different then telling it to someone who told the truth. I still have no idea what happened. I didn't and do not know what happened. there are very good reasons he has no rights There may well be, in his case. I have no way of knowing. …
/r/MensRights04/01/18 06:33 AM
1

Does your state have one-party consent or two party consent? If one party consent, try and record all your interactions with her (just record the audio, even). Though, try and always be civil around her (though I can imagine that will be difficult).
/r/MensRights29/12/17 09:00 PM
2

I didn't say it was the correct thing to do. It was however entirely reasonable. Parents are reasonably very defensive of their parenting.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:28 PM
2

It's impossible to know who suffers more. Frankly, I think it is just a petty thing, not something anyone should care about. The latter part is something we know the answer to. It has been empirically shown that men have a greater out group preference for women and women have a greater in group preference for women.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:22 PM
3

He is barely able to control his rage at some random asshole on the internet You don't know that. You just know he insulted you in text. If you were having a voice chat and he started screaming it would be different.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:16 PM
3

Dude, it is perfectly reasonable that /u/votebot9898 reacted the way he did. You did not say so explicitly, but it very much sounded like you were insulting him as a parent. I think it is understandably that that parents get very upset when they feel their being shamed or criticized for trying to do the best for their kids. You (/u/grasshopa) should have just apologized and explained what you meant.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:14 PM
4

I didn't get that impression from your post, though you did make it clear in the comments.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:11 PM
2

It's an awful situation. I can think of two real options. Try resources like those /u/Girltech31 provided, if you can. That failing, you can consider going to the media. However, going to the media is something you should consider carefully. While it could be useful to draw attention to give yourself some leverage, if it becomes too big of an incident you risk getting your kids involved. Also, you mention that the mother was abusive, to some degree. Do you have any evidence of this? If so, that …
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:10 PM
2

The article does not say the mother abducted them. The case the father filed doesn't say that either. Rather, they disputed who was more fit, the court at first judged the father to be more fit. The father's house was then put up for auction and the mother filed to repeal the decision and it was reversed on the basis that changes in the fathers situation meant he would be less able to care for the child.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:04 PM
2

I would say it is an important thing to mention for the principle of it. However, there are other things we should focus on.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 03:58 PM
1

Of course, so was Himmler First, Godwin's law. From what I've studied of Himmler, I would contest that. His education did not center around political or economic thought (Friedman's positions are much more firmly rooted in his economic background). Himmler's formal university education was agronomic. His only other formal education I know of was at a Cadet school where he was training to be an officer (the only reason he 'qualified' for becoming an officer was because of his connections to the r…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 03:54 PM
2

I make that exact analogy in replying to another commentor. I would say it is better to frame it as consent rather than theft. Someone taking your TV is not an issue, so long as you consent to it (whether you charge them or give it for free). But if they don't have your consent, then it is theft.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 03:33 PM
2

"I take random people on reddit seriously, even when their 'arguments' consisent entirely of logical fallacies" Sharipo, dailywire and right libertarian sources are on the same level as infowars. You are a troll, I am guessing. If you can't present an arguement beyond "the guy I cite is more valid on what Adam Smith believed than Adam Smith is" and "[person I never cited] is not a valid source" I am done here. Shapiro is a decent "source" for what fundamental conservatives believe. He is not a g…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:14 AM
1

You didn't address anything I said. I didn't cite the Daily Wire. I would agree they are junk if you are using them for news. Chomsky said Adam Smith was against the division of labor... Have you read the Wealth of Nations? Adam Smith's entire magnum opus preaches the virtues of the division of labor. Just read the first sentence. Chomsky said factual falsehoods. I gave primary sources to the opinions of the people he discussed. You rejected them on the basis that Chomsky claims Adam Smith didn'…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:11 AM
2

He supports trump He was an avid opponent of Trump... He was isolated from his peers at Brietbart because he opposed Trump. The Only Reason Ben Shapiro Says Anything Pro-Trump (meme). Trump is a Liar by Ben Shapiro. The Biggest Problem for the Trump Administration's is Trump Ben Shapiro on fox. Trump vs. Clinton "I want both to be cast adrift in a boat another meme. Thug life, "the guy [Trump]'s tounge is a slip and slide, his tounge keeps slipping so often. When the guy you are talking about su…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:05 AM
2

"Here is a historian" A random guy on reddit with no credentials is not a historian. Though I critiqued his arguments anyway in my other posts.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:56 AM
2

Here is a historian on jeffersonian politics. A random guy on reddit is not a valid source... Also, his only citation is discussing what the government should do with the vast amount of land that was not really claimed for anything. He argued that everyone should get a default amount of land and be left to their own devices. That is not socialist. It is not capitalist, but it doesn't conflict with capitalism. Both belonged to the "radical enlightenment". In a time when capitalism was radical... …
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:55 AM
2

She doesn't make that argument. But I do not see how her logic makes sense without that supposition.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:43 AM
2

Extreme right He isn't extreme right. He is the fundamental right. There is a difference. no empathy Wrong. He puts facts before empathy, that does not mean he dismisses empathy. Also, are you going to tell me Paul Bloom is a right winger? make the rich as rich as possible and fuck the poor. His position is the opposite. He has said so explicitly. To paraphrase him, he believes "who cares how the rich are, what matters is how well everyone is doing". In other words: "f*ck the rich, let them do w…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:42 AM
2

No they were anti capitalist I quite literally cited Jefferson and Adam Smith praising the tenants of Capitalism. You cite nothing and claim that prove you are correct. Jefferson wasn't an anarco-capitalist. He did believe in very limited redistribution programs (though those he proposed are vastly different than anything proposed in the modern day). However, he supported private property (see my citation) which Chomsky opposes. You can argue Paine (unlike Jefferson) is like Chomsky in that they…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:37 AM
3

People get PTSD for robbery too. Yes. But less common. THe highest number they could get was 8%. Versus, over a third of rape victims. Do it then. Where's the argument? Finish the sentence. You're just saying it is worse because it can be worse I said, and I quote: "I would argue that rape can be worse even if less violent"
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:24 PM
2

I dont rate Shapiro at all. I didn't tel you to rate him. Nor did I say that he is a good example of an MRA. He is a fundemental conservative. If you want to see what the conservative position is, he portrays it well. Have a look at how his media outlet fairs here ... You say that like it is proof of anything. Though I don't like the Daily Wire's writing. It is rather poor. I have not seen them misrepresent much (though they do a little). But they are not Ben Shapiro entirely. Though he endorses…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:22 PM
3

This is left libertarian, real libertarian - as supported by Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is a socialist... Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were a capitalists. He is not a libertarian in the slightest. His beliefs are antithetical to libertarianism, by the classical definitions. He calls himself of libertarian, but that's all. He actively opposes liberty. He explicitly believes that individuals should not be free to do as they please with their earnings and possessions but should instead should …
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:17 PM
4

Your argument makes robbery into slavery. No it doesn't. It equates the problem with slavery to the problem with slavery. Robbery is taking something without consent. Slavery is labor without consent. In both cases, the problem is they lack consent. Evidence? PTSD in rape and sexual assault victims (this research has a few flaws though, but none that should relate to my claim as I can tell). Also here. A rather stupid point anyway unless it's always or nearly always worse which it obviously is n…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 07:47 PM
5

Yes, the scale is different. My point was the idea. The issue with rape is not a matter of sex, it is a matter of consent. The issue with slavery is not a matter of work but a matter of consent. You can sell sex as work, but that is consensual since you agree to the exchange (you can argue people might be pushed to it by circumstance, and while that's true they make the decision that not making that exchange is worse than making it so taking away the decision would make their lives worse). I do …
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:39 PM
3

Since the right libertarian movement was launched, the conservatives have stagnated mens wages Since Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine men's wages have stagnated? I would argue that it is because of restrictions on the free market and labor that have caused men's wages to stagnate by driving up the cost of labor and thus making it more efficient to outsource. Here is a great video on the effects of minimum wage. Minimum wage helps the middle class and hurts the lower classes, and doesn't really aff…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:35 PM
26

“If prostitution is really just physical labor,” says the Canadian feminist writer and prostitution abolitionist, Meghan Murphy, on the phone, “if it’s no different than serving coffee or fixing a car, then why would we see rape as such a traumatic thing? If there’s nothing different about sex, then what’s so bad about rape?” If serving coffee or fixing a car is just physical labor. Why would we see slavery as such a traumatic thing? If their is nothing different about work, then what's so bad a…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:24 PM
3

/u/Kuramo is wrong, in my opinion to draw that conclusion. However, it is perfectly understandable. There is an entirely legitimate fear that if you marry a person they will be abusive. As we have seen with numerous cases, in addition to the broad statistics, if the person you marry in such a relationship is a woman, you will have no real means of defending yourself. As such, it is perfectly sensible to be more fearful of marrying a woman than marrying a man.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:21 PM
2

in exchange for not living in some kind of Hobbesian nightmare It is a bit of an ad hominem, but I must admit I always find it telling if someone agrees with Hobbes. It takes quite the character to believe that man is naturally evil. It is not even a hard thing to rebutt. You need only look at spending on charity, or people leaving tips at restaurants. Man without coercion acts well. Now, Locke also is wrong. Man is not naturally good either. This is quite obvious if you have seen a school playg…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:16 PM
1

Record everything, 1. 2, appeal the decision. Especially if you have recordings.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:02 PM
1

Consider contacting a lawyer, before you discuss it with anyone else. You want to be careful not to say something that might incriminate yourself. I would suspect it is unlikely anything will happen, as she is over seas, but you just don't know.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:00 PM
1

I would say that is evolutionary. If you want to reproduce, what matters most is getting women. The men who cared more about having women would be more likely to reproduce. We have something similar with all people in general, but there is plenty of research showing men have a out-group bias in favor of women. I don't think there is inherently anything wrong in this. I don't think it's good, but it's not bad either. The problem comes when society insists the opposite is true (with most people be…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:57 PM
3

Which economic policies hurt men? If you mean the standard conservative argument of a free-market, I would argue that helps men. For evidence, I would submit men's high earnings. Men, on average, tend to do better in competitive environments.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:52 PM
2

r/BernieSandersgirl101 want to say anything? Also, Bernie has very much taken a progressive stance, claiming supporting women's rights (while he has never don the same for men's rights) is promoting equality. See here. Someone who takes positions that oppose (if indirectly) men's rights, is not going to get much support from people promoting men's rights.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:50 PM
5

Whats happening is right center liberal identity politics is so unbearable, its allowing the far right - a normally disgraced ideology that never produced a good economy or system to look good. ...If you consider Nazism a far-right ideology, it produced a good economy. It was evil and killed much of my family, but the one thing they had was economic growth.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 07:13 PM
7

The people in the mrm might lean right. The movement doesn't. In fact, I would argue it leans left, if anything. The argument that women do not need more protection, as they have been historically given, is a liberal argument, for example. The idea that tradition does not justify mutilating baby boys is a progressive idea. However, plenty of conservatives support these ideas. If they want to and do so effectively, I see no reason to stop them.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 07:11 PM
6

Not platforming, maybe. Deplatforming, never. Edit: to be clear, I don't actually think we shouldn't platform conservatives. I think we should platform any reasonable, well spoken supporter.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 07:07 PM
1

Yes and then no. It means they can't be proven in a court of law, that does not make them false. Most of the time there will be no evidence besides maybe that sex occurred. In such cases, the judge is oblidged to dismiss it due to a lack of evidence. There is a requirement for a certain level of evidence for a case to procede. In cases where rape actually occurs, there is likely to be little evidence most of the time. Equally true is that if it were just sex or nothing at all it is likely there …
/r/MensRights21/12/17 02:42 PM
7

So long as they are earning it. Given fewer women seek success as CEOs, I do not find it ridiculous that the smaller sample who do might do so because of their skill leading to it being a smaller more skilled sample of women than the larger sample of men who attempt the same.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 02:36 PM
0

Average =/= all. The top percent of women, are far bellow the top percent of men. That does not prove much of anything.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 12:07 AM
0

You would need some evidence of that, m8.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 11:07 PM
1

again you are comparing the average UNTRAINED man to the strongest woman who is on steroids. You said the average male. That was your comparison. The average male is much weaker than the average male who exercises regularly.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 07:44 PM
2

here for the average man. here for the strongest woman. She lifted about 6 times as much as the average man can.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 05:28 PM
1

Google the numbers. You are very clearly wrong.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 05:27 PM
1

Suffice to say, you are very wrong. Look up how much they can lift.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 05:08 PM
2

Read some stories about combat nurses in WWII. even average men are significantly stronger than the strongest women False.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 03:16 PM
1

My point was that it can be more difficult to write wonder women very well, because of her lack of weaknesses.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:17 PM
2

There are plenty of women who are that brave talented/skilled. Women tend to be more risk-averse (making them less likely to be as brave), but there are still plenty who do deeds of heroism. Though, they are much weaker, physically, in general. There were a number of female volunteers in WWII among the airforce and combat nurses (being a combat nurse was a really dangerous job, see Hemingway), just to give that example. It is rarer, true, but they certainly exist.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:16 PM
1

tbf, she was written based on superman (though she has her unique traits). Because of that, she quite obviously was OP, which makes it a bit harder to write her as well.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:09 PM
1

True, but I don't think it can just be said to be sexism.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 01:34 AM
1

They are not successful because they nitpick over every little thing in media. That is why most people dislike feminism. They are successful because they entirely separately of that got government support.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 10:59 PM
1

When it comes to this kind of thing, I don't think that this is a case where it is generally true. The sentencing for spies and whatnot tends to be more of a political matter.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 09:24 PM
7

It is a movie. Boycotting this kind of thing makes us look like morons. We don't want to go down the feminist route of demanding all media conforms to us before we accept it.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 08:54 PM
7

cosmo isn't strictly feminist... The heads of it are,but they seem to care much more to just go "yea wamyn" and try to keep some of their views by being edgy.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 08:25 PM
5

TwoX is very much a mix from what I've seen. I have seen them go way into feminism at times and at other times be very reasonable.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 04:27 PM
27

Also, they kidnapped over 10,000 boys, and tortured those boys into becoming child soldiers.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 04:16 PM
13

TBF, I would say it is just as likely that they are just morons with no ethical sense... Or they just publish whatever shite people send them that has any chance of getting attention.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 04:10 PM
2

And we aren't even lacking in accomplished female astronauts... But for some reason I think women like them don't care to much about the gender of astronauts. I'd suspect they care much more about having competent crews.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 03:02 PM
11

Doctor Randomercam had a good bit on this. If everyone who ran the animal shelters were convinced that cats already had more resources so devoted their shelters to helping dogs on the basis that dogs lacked support, it is fairly obvious what would happen.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 02:59 PM
1

Yea, in much the same way a lot of people say they want to eat healthy and try to convince themselves they prefer it when they eat unhealthily.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 07:08 PM
1

Without more evidence Given HR concluded that he was correct, I suspect there is enough evidence.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 07:06 PM
2

Another small win for men justice FTFY
/r/MensRights14/12/17 07:00 PM
1

I don't care what they want. I care about getting rights we lack.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:58 PM
1

TIL people say they are actually attracted to Soyboys. FTFY. A lot of people are not attracted to who they want to be attracted to and just keep trying to convince themselves they are.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:58 PM
1

...I don't think she'll get what she is looking for when she finds a guy who is turned on by police brutality.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:57 PM
1

Possible, but it is more likely just doesn't want to take the pill. I would suggest taking the first person's advice.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 05:19 PM
12

I have a few male teachers who are really good as teachers. One, who is a great teacher, told me that when his coach (a woman) forcibly kissed him it was not the same as if a man did it to a woman because of the power dynamic... A lot of these people really just have the attitude that women are meant to be the victims and men the perpetrators.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:16 PM
20

Is it a public school? If so, file a title IX report for not being given access to the same resources and information that girls were provided, as well as whatever else.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:13 PM
1

I think what they did was a serious offense. Note the "exactly"
/r/MensRights07/12/17 05:23 PM
1

Who is siding with the people who bullied her? I do think it is not exactly their fault that she committed suicide, but it is absolutely wrong to shame anyone for not having sex with someone due to a fear of risks.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:20 PM
3

Estimates vary a lot. It is hard to get a good number depending on how you count the abuse and whatnot. Most decent research I have seen places them roughly equally.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:18 PM
1

It is not way more likely with women. They are about as likely in general. They are way more likely to hit their partner without their partner hitting them (so they hit and there is not mutual violence). But in general, it is not that far off.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:17 PM
0

I can't tell, it's cut off.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:01 PM
5

He doesn't look like he is joking around... The male entertainer, I mean.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:56 PM
6

Al Franken actually had a bunch of other accusations come out.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:56 PM
1

Not every time, of course.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:49 PM
6

Doctors don't advise it Some do. it causes significant dysfunction So can male circumscision. Also see here. not performed with the baby's best interest in mind. Yea, it often is. See here and here.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:01 PM
7

Vaccination doesn't cut off a functioning body part...
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:48 PM
4

You're really just introducing unnecessary stress into your life by getting mad about it. With a lot of men, the circumcision (generally with high tight cuts) results in the skin stretching during erections making getting an erection painful. Would you be stressed if every time you got aroused it caused you physical pain? DO you think that might impede your life somewhat?
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:47 PM
4

So what do you propose for all the dudes like me then, huh? Get on with your life but oppose mutilating children. You don't need to fight anyone, what your parents did wasn't evil. You shouldn't feel sorry for yourself, that will help no one.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:45 PM
8

My dick is not mutilated because it's circumcised No. It is mutilated because a functional organ was cut off and mutilated without your consent, presumably. I like the way it looks, and so does my wife. I am glad you are happy with yourself, as am I. However, that does not change what was done. You might be happy with the results, but the cause is still mutilation. My dad and mom are intelligent people with their sons' best interests in mind I am sure they were. However, intelligent people can b…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:44 PM
1

If you can, just record your day to day goings about the work place (just audio even). So you have some evidence, in case it can help. Also, file a report to HR if you can and you can file a legal report as it is potentially criminal behavior.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:40 PM
2

Can a woman falsely accuse a man of sexual misconduct and easily get away from it in USA? Yes. You need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actively and intentionally lied to hold them accountable. Is it true that men are considered guilty until proven otherwise? Not before the law, but generally within the public's eyes.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:36 PM
3

I kiss on the cheek, I would say isn't really. Just randomly kissing someone on the lips, I would call assault.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:35 PM
5

Document. Get a lawyer. Lawyer up immediately, make sure they are a good lawyer. Her word alone and evidence you had sex is not supposed to be valid grounds for a conviction, however, it often is. It also is possible the judge will dismiss the case.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:34 PM
-2

I think you can. However, I do not think we should treat Lauer as such yet. For example, I think it is fair to say OJ is almost certainly a murderer.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 07:01 PM
4

Why didn't you just use the first psychiatrist? Your attitude is entirely reasonable, however, there is a lot of value in many of these professionals. They certainly can help, if they are any good at their job.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 10:14 PM
5

Get a better doctor. You can try to find nearby places your insurance will cover and try to email them or something to get in touch. Though, doctors (for the most part) avoid correspondence online or on the phone for medical issues (because anything they do over the phone, can be detracted from the amount insurance has to give them. It is really stupid).
/r/MensRights29/11/17 09:29 PM
3

Good term. I'll start using it going forward.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 06:12 PM
6

Have you tried to get medical help? It is often possible to preform partial restorations of the foreskin which can eliminate pain caused by 'complications' during or after the circumcision.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 06:09 PM
6

Circumcision is actually a technical term derived from the type of cut, as opposed to something like Penile subincision, another form of MGM which is more invasive (it is when an incision is made into the urethra which is then split open to create a large gap/split). In the same way, female circumcision is the cutting away of the clitoral hood (normally with an incision made into the clitoris, but rarely the full removal of the clitoris), this is the most common form of FGM and I would consider …
/r/MensRights29/11/17 06:08 PM
3

Yea, my dad said as much. He also once was in the hallway and walked into a woman and they did that thing where you both go the same way a couple of times, he did it intentionally once jokingly and she slapped him in the face with a lot of force behind it. He said he knows if he did anything to her, he would be fired. Apparently, the woman did to and apologized to him the next day.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 05:13 PM
1

I'm not sure, I don't think so. I think they were a senior professor to him and he wasn't tenured there. I think he talked to them, however.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 04:50 PM
2

I have seen it a few times.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 01:10 PM
14

To reference the last comment in the OP, I don't think we should even burn Mien Kampf. I come from a family of holocaust survivors. I found it valuable to read. You have to read what other people say if you want to understand them.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 01:09 PM
4

Thank you. We always have to be skeptical especially of something that conforms with our biases.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 01:01 PM
6

I think I saw something a while back that claimed that 60% of women were sexually harassed into sex, using a study which found that about 60% of women and 60% of men reported at some point having sex that they felt they shouldn't have...
/r/MensRights29/11/17 12:59 PM
3

Is this victim blaming? Not really. It is rewriting the answers to the question which is not bad in and of itself. However, I suspect a lot of the way people interpret the phrasing is victim blaming.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 12:58 PM
20

My dad is a college professor. As a professor, he once had a friend come up to him (the friend was a student at the university) and tell my father that a female teacher had told him if he wanted good grades he would have to sleep with her. Like everything, these things go both ways. It is really bad people only care about one side.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 12:56 PM
1

No worries, it happens.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 02:25 PM
2

It may be because of my situation, but it does seem to me as though the Jewish social justice types have a disproportionate voice in social justice spheres, including but not limited to feminism.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 02:25 PM
1

Or, the people liking it thought it was a joke...
/r/MensRights26/11/17 11:20 PM
2

I was comparing rape to being a sjw, not being Jewish I thought the comparison was comparing a man raping and a Jew supporting social justice. Look at your own second sentence and notice how you switch from saying men to genderless terms later. That was intentional. I was saying that men could hold dangerous beliefs because anyone could. What followed was me rebutting the comparison of believing social justice and raping. The former is a dangerous belief which anyone can fall into, the latter is…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 11:19 PM
3

Rape is not the same as an ideology. And I do not see the harm in acknowleging that there is a group of men who hold dangerous beliefs. It is possible for anyone to be taken in with dangerous beliefs, and that is a risk that everyone has to be careful to avoid falling into. While very few people have a real risk of going out and raping someone. It is very easy to fall into negative ways of thinking. It is very different to go out and commit a heinous act.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 06:50 PM
1

I would say with the Muslims and socialists it's a bit different, since their problems spring directly out of the ideology they subscribe to (well, it depends on the type of socialism and how you want to define it). A lot of the issues in the Jewish problem are in direct opposition to the ideology of modern Judaism. To be clear, the canon in Judaism is not just the Torah/old testament. The Tanakh and Talmud is basically canon (the Tanakh is the collection of canonical text (the Torah and other c…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 06:45 PM
2

Men who would spew this kind of thing out should keep their mouths shut. It is not hard to find men decrying their gender and talking about how much better the world would be if there were less men (see Arthur "I want to join all men arm-in-arm & then run off a cliff and drag the whole gender into the sea" Chu). They should not get beat up for saying anything. They should however be publicly shamed and shunned.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:14 PM
2

As a Jew, I just want to say that most Jews are not into the whole social justice thing. There is, however, a small very politically active minority of reform Jews who are. They are the ones who spew out this drivel.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:11 PM
17

Eh, I don't really like mentioning her religion, but I don't see the harm innately. So long as /u/martin59825 isn't trying to say it is some sort of Jewish problem, it's fine by me (as a Jew). And it certainly is true there is a group in the reform Jewish community that is very social justicey, which I oppose.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:03 PM
1

I agree. However, it can be a problem and something that you can work around.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 06:45 PM
3

Honestly, if you can get over the SJW stuff, Mass is really nice place.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 12:26 PM
2

For the most part #NotAll. Most of them learn very quickly they have to pander if they want to be liked and reelected. The only exceptions are universally respected politicians that no one really is going to try to kick out of paper (McCain for example).
/r/MensRights17/11/17 12:25 PM
1

I am not sure if it is correct to term it heroic. It is certainly virtuous though.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 12:24 PM
9

"I think it's time we killed for our women" What do you think was on the lips of a nation going to war? Was it the women they sent to die? They sent the men. And they told those men to fight for the women, children and homeland. They did not fight for the men back home, because there weren't any. They fought for the woman. Slaughtered millions in their name.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 04:43 AM
60

Those hateful human rights activists. How dare they advocate for their rights!
/r/MensRights13/11/17 03:43 PM
1

And if we talk to them they may do that. But if we don't and they would, they will anyway
/r/MensRights12/11/17 10:40 PM
1

I didn't make a claim about feminists in general. I said that some feminists are willing to listen. Any number of feminists greater than 0 is proof of that claim.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 10:17 PM
2

She was a feminist when she started listening. And I made no claim about most feminists.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 10:13 PM
1

Cassie Jaye.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 02:27 PM
2

If we don't talk to them, they can write a hit piece about us anyway. If we do talk to them there is a chance they will be reasonable and portray us fairly.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 02:26 PM
1

Cassie Jaye.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 02:25 PM
1

You don't have to try to give up privileges. Just try and be a good person, help and show compassion for men. Most of these you should do not because they are relinquishing privileges but because they are the moral thing to do. Though, you don't have to worry about the suit thing. That is a non-issue. Wear what is comfortable if it is acceptable attire. Though wearing a suit may be better as it can look more professional.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 05:59 AM
1

You can /u/BernieSandersgirl101. You may not be able to serve, but will so long as you can still pass the standard tests.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 05:57 AM
1

I thought he means he went up to a woman and snapped her bra when she didn't want him to.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 02:21 AM
1

As I said, I don't hold it against you.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 02:20 AM
1

No, it's not. Reasonable people can be indoctrinated. Reasonable people can be convinced of something that is unreasonable by only seeing things argued from a place of falsehood.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:48 PM
-20

What? I am not going to hold it against /u/BlockNotDo. If it happened more than a few years ago, I think it should be left in the past. But he was more than just a creep.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:47 PM
1

Here is a representation of meninist humor, it is purely satire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBoT9mmtTO8
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:45 PM
1

For the most part, the risks are fairly low. It is not the rate that men are victimized by the law that really bothers me (though the rate is quite high, for a given individual it is low). What is really an issue is that the law allows for it. The law is what I want to focused on. Great on you for having a positive relationship! I always like to see more people supporting issues I care about. Though, I am not a big fan of Bernie Sanders.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:42 PM
-24

because I snapped her bra strap in the hallway. Sounds like you were a bit more than just a creep, mate. I was a creep in middle school (more so in elementary school, however), but I never went around doing anything like that.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:38 PM
1

When she was a feminist, she was still a reasonable person. Reasonable people can believe unreasonable thing.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:33 PM
1

Cassie Jaye absolutely stated she would be fair. /u/breenakerr said she would be fair and wants to represent us honestly. She may or may not actually end up doing that. She may try to portray us fairly but have her editors alter it. We do not know. However, we can be polite and document it all and then create a fuss if they misrepresent us. And if they represent us fairly, then that's great.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:32 PM
2

We did not know Cassie Jaye was sympathetic until after she wrote the piece. Treat the, politely, answer their questions, but do it with suspicions and make sure to document everything.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 06:30 PM
8

Cassie Jaye.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 07:49 PM
8

Some feminists are willing to give a fair shake. Be suspicious, but do not discount them on that alone.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:03 PM
8

Not all. See Cassie Jaye. Some are legitimately good people who simply have been surrounded by a movement or otherwise felt that movement was on the 'right' side even when it wasn't.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:02 PM
5

Not necessarily. Some feminists are willing to be reasonable. Be suspicious, but give her honest information. Do not assume the worst quite yet, but keep the possibility in mind.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:01 PM
13

I don't think we should judge /u/breenakerr quite yet. Carry some reasonable suspicion, but some feminists are open to conversation and changing their views or at least accurately understanding the other views. While the minority, I have met a few feminists like that who were willing to acknowledge the problems with feminists and support the issues I brought up.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:00 PM
2

I don't think Alison ever considered herself a feminist.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 04:58 PM
7

Unfortunately, it does make one more skeptical of the editorial decisions.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 03:33 PM
1

I do not think this should be lumped together with assault and rape. Nor should it be if a man does it. But remember, this is basically half of what Weinstein did. It is wrong and is a lesser kind of harassment. Should be treated as such.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 03:12 PM
1

The average sentence for rape is 11 years... Why do we treat rape as worse than murdering a man?
/r/MensRights09/11/17 03:08 PM
12

Having "some good" in you is not an excuse. You can't go around murdering people even if you are doing it out of the kindness of your heart. And if you kill someone, you can't just say "but I gave a million dollars to charity" and be expected to let out. You certainly shouldn't be able to beat up a baby and then respond "back in college I helped animals" and be let off.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 02:40 PM
5

Do you have a link to the study itself?
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:23 PM
1

Which is why I spend more time arguing them than standing beside them...
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:38 AM
2

I'd like them to leave as well, which is why I argue with them and oppose them. However, they are entitled to support the movement if they would like, though I do not like them.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:18 AM
2

I don't have a problem with this really. It is a product of language, not something worth getting worked up about. We don't want to start going down the feminist rabbit hole of semantic games.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 03:33 AM
5

Most here do not seem like racists to me in here. But there is an uncomfortable number. Unfortunately, I do not think the solution is to just ban them. Rather to do what I do: argue with them and try to show them wrong.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 03:32 AM
3

Apparently, some in her family had darker complexion. But she was portrayed as very white.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 03:30 AM
3

She wasn't called black, historically. Her mother's side was of Moroccan descent so a bunch of them had darker skin but weren't black.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:00 AM
17

There are 40 some-odd people who are considered legitimate possibilities to have a chance of having written Shakespeare's works. Bassano is at the bottom of the list as there is no real evidence.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:15 PM
475

Shakespeare was literate. He wrote his name different ways because that was common to do back then. There is some argument he might not have written it, but if he didn't it probably was his wife (a white woman). Heck, Amelia Bassano was a white woman (though she may have had a darker complexion than the regular Englishman). Shakespeare referred to her as the "dark lady", but portraits and descriptions of her all portray her as white, which makes sense considering she was a rich white woman. Amel…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 03:39 PM
1

"While rape is always abhorrent and the solely the perpetrators fault, though on some level if you hang out with bad people, you can expect bad things are likely to happen so you have to be careful."
/r/MensRights05/11/17 12:39 AM
1

Except it sometimes is. You can cut your wrists trying to kill yourself or do it trying to hurt yourself to feel the pain. It is hard to then tell which it is.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:52 PM
1

It is not a matter of the already dead bodies. It is a matter of the rate at which men are currently dying. One is going on at a higher rate. I care much more about preventing murders than preventing murder attempts, though one should try to prevent both.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:50 PM
1

It was a badly worded statement as it lacked the proper qualifiers to prevent confusion, but other than that it is a perfectly fair thing to say.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:45 PM
2

You could become a custody lawyer, or something like that if you want. The Duluth Model is not part of the judicial system but rather part of the executive.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:44 PM
23

I think that is more likely. Probably just wants to get rid of the issue so he can continue with his career.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 03:23 PM
18

There was probably a portion which saw it and liked it thinking it was a joke or something. But I doubt that is all of them.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 11:24 AM
13

With 65 previous convictions. I could almost understand giving her some leniency if it was the first time she had done something, but she is clearly someone who is perfectly willing and able to be violent again.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 11:22 AM
331

It started a while ago, really. He complained that he felt objectified and was rather uncomfortable with it and felt the way he was being treated around it was sexist. He was basically then told that you can't be sexist against men and he went quiet.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 11:17 AM
10

I think both mindsets are the wrong to hold. The issue is not that men as a whole need to change nor that women as a whole need to change. People, individual people, need to change.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 01:43 AM
3

Not men's rights.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 01:41 AM
1

Except I do not have the choice to buy the other ticket. I can buy the female products and women can buy the male ones. A product is not discriminatory if it is the same price for all. If you sell the same thing for more based on someone's gender, that is discriminatory.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 09:45 PM
9

The difference is you are not saying women are somehow innately bad. You are saying they are more able to get away with it and it is not treated in the same light when they do it. The two things are clearly different.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 09:32 PM
1

No it's not. Learn about brain development.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 11:21 PM
1

It being the perception of age does not so much as indicate that it is social. With teens, both have similar development. When one is developed and the other is not, that is different than when both are undeveloped. Are you really too stupid to understand this?
/r/MensRights30/10/17 06:43 PM
1

"If we removed their ability to see age, they wouldn't realize they had sex with someone of that age therefore it is not age" Seriously, that logic makes no sense. It is wrong do to cognitive ability. One person has a greater cognitive ability and understanding than the other. Also, it is a matter of the authority figure. Most men do not think there is something wrong with having sex with a teacher, in fact many fetishize it. However, where they suffer problems is because of the age difference a…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 05:58 PM
1

It is different than someone their own age... Normally they will have issues because they feel it's a violation.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:15 PM
1

"Newfoundland" . . . I think the movement is going to get dumber... /s
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:57 AM
2

I am really sorry about the people who went after you. While a lot of people on the sub are overly skeptical at times, I do not believe what happened is really representative. Judging from conversations elsewhere, I think a lot of people going after you came to this thread to pretend to be on a side they aren't and just lash out at people and create drama. Trolls, to put it bluntly.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:54 AM
3

If you have a point to make then you should make it I guess it is my fault for not immediately recognizing how much of a blubbering idiot you are.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:43 AM
2

That at the time of the action they are happy, excited, and proud, why would they say they were used or raped right now? There are cases I have seen where a boy who at the time wanted the relations will even just a say or two latter report what happened due to stress and upset he is suffering over it. Unfortunately, I doubt these are the majority. I feel we are still moving a direction that will still not allow for these men to come forward in 10-20 years I agree. It is unlikely to change in tha…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:32 AM
3

I didn't state that news organisations are publishing unlabelled satirical pieces that state that women shouldn't be in the workplace. I didn't say you said that... Are you really so dense? The above is an example that news organizations published an unlabeled satirical piece saying men shouldn't be in the workplace. https://www.google.com.au/search?safe=off&ei=xqf2WZ22JsTMjwOQzZpw&q=women+don%27t+belong+in+the+workplace&oq=women+don%27t+belong+in+the+workplace&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4398.9397.0.9502.4…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:29 AM
3

Can you cite a single anti-feminist who has said that? Now try to show me that published by a news organization (wherein it is standard practice to clearly mark satire) without being labeled as satire? It seems to have a humorous intent, but the message seems rather clearly to be one against men.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:10 AM
2

I think this is an entirely pointless discussion not relevant to men's rights.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:08 AM
4

Any reason to think it's satire? Look at the other stuff from the author.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 03:26 AM
-2

I understand that the situation was difficult, but what she did was absolutely unacceptable. It was forced sex agaisnt your consent. I would consider that rape. You should consider reporting the incident, though authorities might not help you, it is worth a shot. Definitely consider seeking help, as it sounds like it is causing mental unrest. I was disgusted with myself and since them I can't forgive myself for that. You did nothing wrong. It is entirely her fault for forcing herself on you.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 01:55 AM
17

If you listen to the testimonail of the guys, it paints a clear picture. While many of them enjoy it and even want it at the time, there is a difference between what one fantasies about and what they would like in reality. Later, many will suffer from mental issues regarding the instance(s) and feel extremely uncomfortable and normally regret it. Just because you fantasize about something as a kid doesn't mean it would be good in reality. Most people will at some point have fantasized about punc…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 01:51 AM
19

Not what the research found.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 04:51 PM
1

What post?
/r/MensRights26/10/17 02:16 AM
33

feminists opened up women only shelters First one was opened up by then non-feminist now anti-feminist (I think) Erin Pizzey. which are mostly populated by violent women Yep. Erin Pizzey made this very clear when talking about the women at her shelter. She found about 70% were also abusive to the men in her life and published a report on that. She has since tried to use her findings to get support for male shelters but has gotten littler support.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 12:46 AM
22

Also, the only reason women's prisons have been found to be objectively worse is that the female inmates start more fights than their male counter parts (even though they are less likely to be in jail for violent offenses) leading to more disciplining. Why this is, I have no idea. But, it is. Here is an article on it. Of course, the female inmate interviewed blames sexism (which would have no baring on the higher rates of women physically assaulting officers). The articles conclusions are incorr…
/r/MensRights25/10/17 03:11 AM
2

Actually, the cases of that happening I know of was a white person who did it to raise awareness about hate crimes against black people (and other groups). There might have been another though.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 03:03 AM
21

You can practically see them plotting the nearest route to the cheapest hotel. umm... Most of them just smiled, chuckled and went back to what they were doing. None of them made any advances, or they would have shown it.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 05:29 PM
26

Think about the mindset this requires. "To raise awareness about harassment, we decided to harass men" is basically what they said. Imagine that with just about anything else similar. "To raise awareness about assault, we decided to assault men" "To raise awareness about murder, we decided to murder men"
/r/MensRights24/10/17 05:27 PM
1

Normally, I'd say the feelings of t he victim cannot be fully blamed on the culprit as they didn't have the intent to cause that harm and most likely did not comprehend the risks. However, with someone who you know has issues there is clearer risks.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 01:28 AM
1

Apparently I don't know how the sex offenders register works. I thought that followed you for life. Would it also disappear from her record with police? I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US it varies. There can be a minimum time one would be on the registry at which point they can apply to be removed. For serious offenses it is almost always permanent.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 01:25 AM
7

True. But it's not like women are any better. Men and women can suck at things equally.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 01:17 AM
8

I wasn't referring to the hatred of men. I don't think a lot of it is outright hate and runs the risk of becoming ridiculous in throwing around accusations. Instead, noting they fear men when they say they fear men is a much more reasonable response.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 01:37 PM
1

We really have no idea. The immediate affects are going to be primarily male (given that work driving is the largest employment for young males and that will be the first to go with self driving cars, to give just one example). But after that, they are likely to recover and who knows what will happen.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:18 AM
5

Not rape. Should be tried for the drug offense and (not major) sexual assault/offense (depending on whatever they call it there). He didn't rape her, but it was inappropriate sexual conduct to the point that the law could be reasonably involved.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:15 AM
1

I was referring to it in general, not to his lectures. I have seen some of the 2017 lectures, but I am not caught up by a long shot.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:13 AM
3

That doesn't make it right to give them an easier time then men. It is still really hard for both, but you should not give an unearned leg up to anyone just because of what they were born as. The veteran thing I can kind of support, disabilities too to an extent (i.e. finding work for people who would be unable to work most jobs is admirable imo). The others should have no bearing.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:12 AM
1

I agree. Though I do think the victims should be allowed to drop charges if they choose.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:09 AM
6

Never fear! Feminists are expanding the definition to include males who do it to males... (if you don't know, that's what they campaigned for with rape and (with no opposition) succeeded in doing.)
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:07 AM
1

Some are certainly justified. Most, I have no idea. I would say probably, but you never know. I don't think it means much besides that just because someone says they are a good person doesn't make them a good person.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 11:00 AM
1

As a man you're supposed to 'be a monster'. That means being tough. You're not supposed to be a monster. You are supposed to be tough. The stereotypical ideal of a man is the noble savage. Someone civilized in a way but still brutish and violent.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 10:58 AM
19

We need to start calling them androphobes.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 10:54 AM
4

Sounds about right to me. I think people who make false accusations should get the same sentence they would get if they had committed the crime (one of the only points I agree with Hammurabi on) but her getting just about half of that (the average sentence for rape is 11 years) is fine by me.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 10:34 AM
1

She is not actually the first. She is the first male (as in the biological definition of being capable of producing spermatozoa) transgender playmate. There was another who was born intersex (I think it was a long time ago too) .
/r/MensRights23/10/17 10:30 AM
3

Depends on the person. If she is taking the pill consistently (at a regular time frame each day*) the probability is <0.1%. The less consistent she is, the higher the probability. If you are worried, but still trust her enough to have a relationship, it can't hurt to be careful and use a condom.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 10:28 AM
76

How about you try raising him as an independent person to determine his own path?
/r/MensRights23/10/17 10:26 AM
1

It's very limited. Politicians have very few options but to follow the lowest common denominator in what their constituents care about. Not true. A lot of seats are very secure and they can get away with a lot. Politicians who speak out for men's rights take a huge risk. Agreed, for some. Some politicians could do it without risk because they are so well respected but for most they would risk their job. But even if they lost their job, they are in no real threats. The greater incentive can be an…
/r/MensRights20/10/17 06:48 PM
2

Be excessively cordial in any discussion. Try and separate it. You don't have to get into the arguments with them: it is not worth ruining your family life. It is unfortunate, but the best thing to do. Also, try just bringing up nuance. Imply that you agree with them (i.e. "You may be write, though I think things could be a bit more complex than that. Have you considered [insert relevant statistic (example: if talking about domestic violence, mention how Harvard studies show there is a near symm…
/r/MensRights20/10/17 01:41 PM
5

I think the mother's group against false accusations did something like that.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 11:12 AM
1

I don't think this is too major of an issue. At my school, they replaced a bunch of women's restrooms with the all gender bathrooms, while leaving the men's.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 11:09 AM
1

They do have power and they are men. If they wanted, they could put through the legislation we might want. They don't because they don't care. You are right about them representing women too. It turns out men have an incentive and it's women who are doing the incentivizing (high status is attractive to women). This just isn't true. I know a few people in politics. Some already had wives. They weren't doing it to get women. They were doing it either because they wanted influence or they were idea…
/r/MensRights20/10/17 11:05 AM
1

Okay, I can understand that. Fair enough. I don't have too much experience over there. I will just comment or post occasionally to try and help out the more reasonable people or give them alternatives. I do tone myself back a bit (though I do not misrepresent my views by making them overly mild), and have had a little trouble with the mods, but not much. I got the sense that they didn't like what I was saying or doing, but that they didn't want to ban me without some transaction.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:40 PM
2

I just mentioned this area to keep it brief. Also the power difference in dating permeates everything else too. It does. But there are other spheres which are dominated by men that have a lot of influence (though they do not act in line with men or as men as a whole or even in men's best interest, often times). The government for example is mostly male. However, they actively create policies that harm men and prevent men from being taken seriously when they have problems (see the VAWA for exampl…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:32 PM
2

I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was just being clear in what I mean. I disagree though that it's equal responsibility. The dating market is so heavily skewed towards women that women's collective decision making is the primary driving force. Except it isn't just the dating world that is affecting this. It is much broader reaching than that. People as a whole, be they man or woman, are less comfortable with vulnerable men than vulnerable women in almost every area, for example. But that i…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:15 PM
1

Okay. That's why I said to use an NP link though, which prevents people from commenting or voting.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:11 PM
3

Women are not solely to blame in the matter. Women still have their part of the blame. Or rather, the women who reject men's vulnerability have a part of the blame, as do men who act the same. Neither is more innocent then the other.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 01:43 PM
1

Can you link the discussion (use a NP link).
/r/MensRights19/10/17 01:41 PM
1

I meant the dear college letter.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 03:34 PM
3

Thank you for sharing your story! You might want to try to reconnect with your friend and tell him what happened. Also, if it was within the statute of limitations where you are, look into legal action. If not, file an anonymous report with her name. While you might not have been that affected, you never know if she will do the same or worse to someone else.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 02:10 PM
1

Research varies heavily. We really have no idea. The point is they happen, and they might be common. As such, we must assume innocence until proven otherwise.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 02:03 PM
2

We have no idea how rare they are. Research has found estimates ranging from 2-50% of accusations. Generally, I have found the 40% numbers to be done a bit better than the lower numbers, but the methodology is still hopelessly flawed and there is no good way to get stats.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 02:03 PM
1

Not men's rights related.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 02:00 PM
3

Domestic violence (policies in place make it such that man is assumed aggressor when research finds the sexes are almost identical in perpetrating) Rape (current definition excludes forced envelopment, or being made to penetrate) The draft, currently only applies to men, Legal paternal surrender/child support (controversial among MRAs) current policies grant women more autonomy than men, and because of the way child support is done it is a form of forced servitude. Education initiatives dispute …
/r/MensRights17/10/17 01:59 PM
23

Thank you participating in this dialogue! I wish more feminists would be willing to do so. Is there a topic in particular you would like addressed? You mention elsewhere you would like to know why many of us think feminism "fails to address issues that matter to men." I would first object to the phrasing. It is not what issues matter to men, per say. It is issues that are related to men. Many men will readily dismiss men raped by women, however, that the law refuses to recognize rape perpetrated…
/r/MensRights17/10/17 04:41 AM
4

Record it. Preferably without the camera obvious, but regardless. Ask her to clean up, and record how she acts. Record the way she treats the children. If you own the home, you have the right to do so in most areas.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 08:44 PM
2

Title IX was a policy Obama "wrote" (really, an underling wrote it). Executive orders are government policy.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 08:37 PM
5

I think they should be pieces any freethinker should be familiar with. Regardless of what one advocates for.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 03:36 PM
3

I don't think they believe it. However, they write policy on their behalf. See Title IX, for example.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 03:35 PM
9

So I ask, how do you cope? May I suggest a reading of "An Enemy of the People"? Really a brilliant piece, as with most of Ibsen's works. The third to last line sums up the message without any spoilers: "the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone." Do not be afraid. In its way, "isolation is the gift" (video link to the referenced poem by Bukowski). Also, keep active. Don't rest or despair. We may not be large in number, but we can still bring about great change. My second questio…
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:49 PM
14

feminists are useless non-achievers Unfortunately, this isn't true. See Obama, Biden, Hillary, Hollywood, etc... There are many people in power who are feminists and go along with feminists. They are not the extreme ones, but they enact policy on the behest of the extreme ones. Now, the everyday feminists, have nothing going for them really, you are right on that.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:42 PM
5

I have chosen to cut out my feminists friends from my life. Geez, they are fucking insane. I actually maintain a few feminist friends are are very smart and normally rational people. Which in a way makes it all the more disturbing when they start spouting nonsense.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:40 PM
3

Having some of these things brought up is fine. But the focus and bias into it is awful. If the BBC wants everyone to have to pay for them, they have to cater equally to the people (that is not to say they can't go against the people if the people are wrong, but they have to bring up issues on all sides and all points of view).
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:38 PM
3

The entire end of the first paragraph should just be cut off. It is both of their faults in many cases. In some it is the girls fault, in some the men's. But it is only an issue in so far as bad desicions are an issue. It requires both boys and girls to take responsibility for their actions. Trying to make boys responsible while removing girls responsibility will only make the issue worse (of course, trying to make girls responsible and removing boys responsibility does the same, but not many ar…
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:36 PM
9

Incredibly unlikely. He doesn't need to give the police his name and he can file it online in some areas or if not via mail.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 10:34 AM
20

You still might want to file an anonymous report just with her name. Nothing legal will come of it, but it can make the police take any further actions or accusations more seriously if she does anything.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 03:02 AM
1

Also, even her backpedaling seems reasonable. She avoids outright saying "we want more of these groups" or anything like that. And she mentions opportunity and access. If you ask me, I suspect she is going to be rather fair on the issue. And given the language, if she tries to get in more women and minority groups, she may do so through less objectionable means (like the methods that Damore posed for getting more women into tech, ones that do not discriminate against men or women but still make …
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:30 AM
2

Even I might agree that 12/12 people being the same isn't diverse She didn't say them being the same is diverse. She said they could be diverse even if they had the same race and gender depending on their background. For example, if some had to struggle coming from a foreign language where they didn't know the language, or others were born into poor families while others were born into rich ones, or some had single mothers others intact families and others still single fathers. You can imagine t…
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:26 AM
1

What is it in response to exactly? Here is my suggested edit. Take others comments into consideration as well and edit mine as you would like: I am sure some things could be further improved. Hello! I am a young man working at one of your locations. I believing raising awareness to be a good thing, so I am glad Shoppers supports it. If possible, I would love to help broaden the current campaign(s) [give name] to be more inclusive of other issues without taking away from its goals. Particularly, …
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:23 AM
34

When did this happen and where? If you can, contact a lawyer and see about pursuing her. If you cannot, I would call her out on it like /u/johnnyboy11111 suggests, if you think it would be reasonable to do so (if you expect a backlash you are unwilling to deal with, you may not want to do so. It is up to you.)
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:10 AM
1

I am not so sure. I suspect experience biases us on these matters.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 05:12 PM
37

I think this is the worst case scenario, /u/KexyKnave. See how she responds. If she is willing to listen and acknowledge your points, it is more likely she has just been fed positions by different sources in her life and has not thought them through but may be able to. If not, then definitely you should try to get out. She might not be malicious, but she doesn't sound like she has anything resembling a healthy attitude for the opposite sex.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 02:21 PM
9

She is not technically wrong. I would point out that men have different mental illnesses than women and respond in different ways. Also, I would note some women are just as violent as any man, though they are less likely to commit mass murder and other acts of extreme violence they can be as violent or even more so in the day to day. Note that it is not reasonable to connect it to men as a group, though more men do it than women. In the same way, it is not reasonable to connect theft to black pe…
/r/MensRights12/10/17 02:17 PM
6

I have only ever heard the saying boys will be boys used to refer to the way young children act and how they are hard to control. Kids will be kids. Adults should be held responsible.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 02:13 PM
3

Seems a benign mistake. Not a big issue.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 09:16 PM
2

What does the study really say/why?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 09:13 PM
4

A lot of women will grow hair on their lives beginning in puberty.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 06:06 PM
1

Except I don't think it's quite the same as Darwinian sexual runaway. Because I don't think that it actually involves biological change, because people will easily change their actions making it unnecessary to select for biological traits.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 06:03 PM
5

My personal theory is that there is a natural like for things that are smooth and all that and we inherently dislike things that are coarse. I then think this led to society adopting it as something women would do which led us to in essence require it for attraction. I think a similar theory can apply to most things. There is some biological drive, society builds on this drive and amplifies it. I can't prove it to be true, but the evidence does indicate some difference is biological and society …
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:14 AM
1

There may be something instinctual about it, but really think about it. 500 years ago how many women would be able to cleanly shave their legs? Much less a few thousand years ago before the invention of steel. Or even before that during the stone age.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 03:45 AM
1

You should confront your opponents directly. It is good practice to go to their forms and politely try to talk to them while disagreeing. IT gives you practice in dealing with these types and helps strengthen your arguments. Also, it is amusing to see how benign of a thing can set them off. IRL, a girl started yelling at me because I stated that we should not gender domestic violence and should help all victims. It was during class. We had just been given the stats that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 m…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 03:04 AM
0

I believe they are most likely referring to it in areas where girls lack education giving them education with everyone else improves standards of living. It, however, is badly worded and should focus on it in general with gender being a side note about how both having equal opportunities spurs growth.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:58 AM
3

It is surprising how there are many reasonable people even in unreasonable groups. However, they remain unreasonable as the leadership prevents reasonable dialogue.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:54 AM
1

They should call themselves female supremacists Funny, as they are run by a male feminist.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:53 AM
1

Did you ask the staff why you were banned? I would like to see their excuse.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:53 AM
4

I agree with /u/Duck_Sized_Dick to an extent. While I think this was wrong, there were other reasons for it and the courts are not really acting out of line. Though, I would like to know more about the case as it is possible the woman was abusing the laws which led to the scenario he found himself in.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:52 AM
5

I can kind of understand them wanting to be able to be socially accepted if they don't shave... However, you can't expect people to find it just as attractive. And there is nothing wrong with finding it unattractive (so long as employers and whatnot don't discriminate). Really, these people are entirely ridiculous. They take something that almost has a point and inflate it to such a ridiculous extreme that no one can reasonably support them. Also, the reason we likely have come to find hairlessn…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:50 AM
11

Their primary use was for the early gun cavalry. If they failed to break the opponents, they might end up in close quarters with foot soldiers very quickly (since they got fairly close to open fire). The heels served to deliver a better kick to anyone getting to close as your horse withdraws. (They were often armed with two wheellock pistols, they would come into range, turn slightly one way, fire with their pistols on one side then turn the other way to preform a U-turn shooting when parallel t…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:29 AM
8

Definitely lawyer up and all that and keep in contact with your lawyer to make sure they are doing what they should be (as you filed a title IX complaint, keep calling the office or emailing them every few days to keep their being at least some pressure). Also, it's not the most moral choice, but if I were you I would look into transferring schools. Given your grade, you wouldn't be unlikely to get somewhere else about as good. It will make it much harder to maintain a lawsuit, but for your own …
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:17 AM
5

I think he said he is involved with a lawyer elsewhere. But he definitely should still try to do so.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:15 AM
2

Not men's rights.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 03:46 AM
1

but you still can not confirm it or consider it fact until you've actually seen it carried out, and seen studies confirm it So I can't say the sky is blue as a fact because there hasn't been any study confirming the sky is blue? While in some cases what you hypothesize may be true, it varies geographically, economically, socially... so many other factors. Not how I said in general and do to biological roles. Of course, society can change that. But naturally things are a way.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 10:57 AM
4

Don't know about in this shooting, there have been some in the past I've heard of. But it's a real rarity. The reverse is much much more common.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 02:44 AM
1

Agree with /u/BlindGardener this is not a men's issue. It doesn't belong here.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 02:36 AM
1

But irrelevant to all this if you're arguing that the fact that females are at a biological advantage with child rearing means that they can brainwash children and control society I think you're going too far into speculation with no science to back you up. Do you contest that women due to biological roles general are dominant in the sphere of child rearing? I'll assume you do not. Do you contest that by controlling someone as a child, you can affect how they develop, to the point of effective c…
/r/MensRights06/10/17 02:29 AM
2

hmm so you don't believe in the concept of an inherently dominant sex? Like as far as it pertains to humans? Depends on how you define dominant. I do not think in a society (at any level) there is one sex that is biologically predisposed to totally dominate the other. That said, I do believe in many fields men would naturally dominate women (as there is a kind of might makes right and well men are stronger). For example, chimpanzees exhibit a pretty cookie cutter model of a species in which the …
/r/MensRights05/10/17 10:34 PM
3

So did I. Women biologically are the dominant sex when it comes to child rearing, for example. Do you contest that? Men are more likely to be physically dominant, but they are not entirely dominant.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 09:13 PM
3

Then I would still disagree for similar reasons. As as far as we can tell, women naturally are the dominant sex in certain fields. As men are dominant in others.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 07:13 PM
3

I am not necessarily saying it should be paid. It should be offered regardless of pay by law, and then an agreement between the employer and employee. Perhaps with government aid for poor couples, but I can see both sides of that.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 04:18 PM
6

They can, it is unhealthy for the child (having long term effects) if their job has any physical labor or stress to it. As such, it would benefit society as a whole to allow those women time off so their children will suffer fewer issues (including intellectual ones) and as such will better be able to contribute to society.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 02:10 PM
3

What has become obvious is that 50% of all rape allegations are false. No, it hasn't. Because it cannot be proved either way so best option is to go with half of all allegations are false. It is best to take niether side. Assume that any accusation could be either and that if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt there must be an assumption of innocents. How many are actually true is irrelevant to how they should be treated. If it is 1% that are false, we should still maintain due process. But as…
/r/MensRights05/10/17 02:04 PM
6

I don't think people should use it to simulate rape. But it being possible to simulate rape is not the issue. A knife can be used to actually commit rape, should we outlaw those? No, it's silly. Better yet, the exists of women let men rape women, should we get rid of all the women so no man can rape a woman?
/r/MensRights05/10/17 02:00 PM
3

This just seems silly. What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:54 PM
5

Approximately. They should not get as much time off before the birth, as they do not have the medical issues and all that. However, after the birth they should be allowed the same as the mother in raising the child.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:53 PM
3

If you're taking that angle, then I think it is clear that instintually, males are the dominant sex. Which institutions (I assume you meant institutionally)? In the institution of the home, women are generally dominant. In the institutions of primary education, women are generally dominant. Those are, if you ask me, some of the most important institutions in society. Now in other institutions, men are dominant. For both, however, it is not men as a group or women as a group. It is a group of men…
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:51 PM
2

That makes sense. Yea, for the federal police it should not be considered. I just meant in general it can be OK by me, if done for utilitarian reasons rather than ideological ones.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 02:53 AM
3

Here we tend to talk about the legal issues. The whole rights things. When a man commits a crime to a man or a woman he is rightfully prosecuted. But when a woman commits certain crimes to a man she is not treated as a criminal.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:54 AM
2

I actually think when it comes to lower-level police their should be some level of diversity. Such that a woman can deal with a woman who has been traumatized and a man with a man. Now, not 50/50 or anything. But greater than let's say 5% of each. But there should be an effort made to have at least one person of each sex in a police office.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:50 AM
7

Yes I am a feminist, but there is a lot I don't agree with in Western Feminism Thank you for the post, though not everyone is super welcoming, I hope you understand many feminist-types will come here to try and accuse us of being misogynists and whatnot so many have a vitriolic reaction, that and other real life experiences. I very much appreciate having this dialogue, though I will disagree with you on quite a few points. I am a minority and focus mostly on issues that affect women from my cult…
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:48 AM
3

I think they are trying to accuse you of living in an echo-chamber... Rather ironic given they do it while opposing you speaking in their echo-chamber.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:30 AM
3

Unless it's a feminist men's group.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 10:45 PM
2

Are you in the US or someone else? If his family (or friends) can help him afford it, he should try to appeal the case. It sounds like the judgement was absolutely wrong.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 04:38 PM
6

I don't have anything against these groups. So long as they would be equally tolerant of men's only groups.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 04:36 PM
13

Personally, I think we should focus on the ethical argument. If someone wants to get circumcised, that's fine by me. It's the child that's not capable of consent that's the issue.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 04:38 PM
1

No. Because they are not representative of the general populace. While random men are representative of men and random women are representative of women, given enough of them.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 03:47 PM
6

Even if both exist, it is discriminatory, arguably. Separate but equal has been judged to be discriminatory.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:49 PM
1

We should be teaching both both. Women should be taught about how to remain safe and what kinds of things are immoral and healthy attitudes they should take. And men should be taught the same. And they should both be taught how to help others. It really is disgusting the way we divide the two this way.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:48 PM
1

It does. I think it is wrong. I just also think there are bigger issues.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:45 PM
1

I didn't say the time causes the abuse. I meant the number. For example if 500 women spend any time with their kids and only 100 men do, if they would commit abuse at similar rates, you expect more women to abuse their children just because there are more of them. Single mothers with full custody are much more common than fathers with full custody.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:45 PM
0

I did not excuse it. All I said is that it is not a major offense. It is still wrong, but there are more important things.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:43 PM
3

I entirely agree with you, except I doubt it was malicious. I bet the creator of the question believes in the wage gap totally.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 03:13 AM
5

That is just stupid. I can even understand someone being a bit upset by your termonology. But you'd expect them to respond politely and not go about harassing you (i.e. they might have reasonably respond: "I understand no malice was meant, but it would have preferable if you included 'cis' in the title as to prevent confusion and prevent others from inferring that you are claiming that trans men aren't men"). In my experience (mostly online, but a bit IRL) most trans people are not nearly so mil…
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:58 AM
-1

It should have been the earnings gap, but making that change it's not wrong. Its not like they said it was for the same work or anything. I would just dismiss it as a stupid question, but easy to solve.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:52 AM
5

No idea the french laws, but in the US, you do not sue the rapist. You can, however, choose whether or not to press charges. You can make an anonymous report to the police, or inform them of what happened and say you do not want to press charges. Not sure if it's the same in France, but that's the US.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:51 AM
1

I wouldn't say it's oppression. But even if it was it wouldn't be a matter of one gender oppressing the other.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:13 AM
1

That is not the same as what often happens to men. I have not heard of a woman being arrested for helping a child, much less beaten to a bloody pulp by the parent. There is a disdain for anyone around the child that exists regardless, but I don't think there is the same vitriolic reaction. There may be, but I haven't seen evidence of it.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:06 AM
2

Why not do number 3? Why do nothing? I think number two is the best option, honestly, I;d take the risk though I know it might end badly for me. However, I do not blame you for not doing so.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:04 AM
1

Just in general. It is not just women who are gynocentric. Men react more to a woman in need than a man in need. Men propagate the mutilation of baby boys, just as women do. It is not a matter of one gender oppressing the other.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:01 AM
1

I can't remember the study, but if I remember correctly the majority of child abuse is actually perpetrated by women. Mostly because it is more common for the mother to be with the child than the father. I suspect, men and women would be about equal in this kind of violence, with the vast majority of both wanting to absolutely avoid harming the child.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 12:15 AM
3

Most women are fundamentally as decent as men. The problem is not women, but the legal system and the general zeitgeists in society.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 12:12 AM
2

But I don't think that is really men's rights.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 03:11 AM
1

Most people have heard it: they just mentally phase it out.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 04:27 PM
1

We gave people the power to turn a bad experience into a legal action. You still can hook up with someone if you know them decently, or if you are willing to take the risk.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 04:26 PM
2

The point that most of the homeless are men, however, still stands.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 04:24 PM
1

No, it isn't. You can be right wing, classically liberal, and support significant government intervention in internal affairs. You cannot be a right-wing libertarian and support significant government intervention in internal affairs.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 04:23 PM
2

90% of the right, including the rich, are classical liberals.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 03:36 PM
3

It is about shifting the bias to be less of a bias. Also, making charities non-discriminant, and the same with government funds.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 03:08 PM
3

I think the research overlooks why students like teachers. While they may add as much as their male counterparts, that is not generally what students think of when rating their teachers. They think of how entertaining the teacher was. Edit: that said, it is perfectly possible there is a bias in this domain. Though more evidence would be needed.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:00 PM
2

To be fair, a lot of the CDC numbers are not great estimates. The only reason I use them is because it is the statistics feminists commonly try to use to support their case so if they dismiss the stats they can't use them themselves and there are other stats we can use.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:58 PM
3

I think you are wrong in calling the numbers officially equal. Government stats say 61% of the homeless are male while 39% are female. This is not close to equal. Though you could say it is closer than many people think, it is not the same. Source Further, the homeless male population tends to be perpetually homeless, while homeless women tend to be temporarily homeless (also homeless women are less likely to be solitary).
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:56 PM
2

We are for helping the homeless. /u/DerwahreKerder is right on that. Just about all of us want to help homeless men. Some however disagree on the methods of doing so. The left wing people tend to want to do so with government aid, the right wing people tend to want to do so more through charitable donations and that kind of thing. Both however want to help homeless men (and women). And both want men to receive the same aid women currently do.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:50 PM
3

I disagree with what you said, as I am fine with any gendered insults as they are not inherently disparaging to the group they refer to rather they have evolved. However, I do not see why you would be banned for taking the other side of that issue. And if you ban insults that refer to women, you should absolutely do the same to those that apply to men. Though I think neither is better, if one the other should follow.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:46 PM
35

Lesson: don't have sex with women you do not know and have no reason to trust. Same goes for women with men, tbh, though they are not likely (as it is nearly impossible for them) to suffer in this way. Be careful with your choices, you never know who might be a nutjob.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:44 PM
8

I don't really think he was relevant to men's rights. I don't care for a lot of what he did, though I had no problem with him doing it.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:41 PM
1

Repeating it again and again is not going to win people over. Coming to them reasonably discussing the issues and rebutting the points as they come up will.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 10:55 PM
1

It is discriminating based on political leanings. What would you think of a company that introduced measures to prevent MRAs from joining? It absolutely discriminates. It uses political views to make judgements based on their brand of collectivism.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 10:54 PM
6

You definitely can sue for child support, especially if she makes more. Find a decent lawyer and take it to court. See if anyone nows any good lawyers who work in the family courts. Also, record everything. Best of luck!
/r/MensRights27/09/17 05:15 PM
7

Most violence goes unreported for boys girls men and women. However, it is worse for men/boys in the sense that the violence is less likely to be reported.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 05:13 PM
1

It's going to take at least a generation.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 05:11 PM
5

Dude, there are a lot of women who post here ant 99% of the responses to them are positive. There is a lot of immaturity here and a lot of useless content, which is a bad thing, but there is by no means rampant women hatred or anything like that.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 05:05 PM
4

I am not new here. Look at my history. Making fun of feminists =/= women. Also, people here are normally very good about sourcing when asked. See my history for example.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 03:21 PM
2

It has been debunked already.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 10:56 AM
1

We need to condemn them such that it will be obvious anyone conflating us with them are being absurd. In practice, they may be similiar to Cosmo, but in theory they are not. They are not the same as PUAs who are just trying to get the opposite sex, they also generally have a very traditional outlook on gender and gender roles.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 04:20 AM
1

Not men's rights related.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 03:25 AM
4

Proudly. I actually do think that many here get sidetracked and put anti-SJW/feminist stuff before men's rights things. Though they often overlap (like when feminists campaign against men's due process) we should focus on men's rights and only anti-SJW/anti-Feminism when they impede men's rights. I do agree with you on everything else, however.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 03:23 AM
4

Red-pillers don't just point out that there are false accusations. I've seen one on this sub try to tell me that everyone just knows women are moral inferiors. Now, 99% of the people on this sub disagree with those red pillers, and everyone in the conversation was against the guy. But they absolutely do exist and we need to condemn them when we see them.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 03:21 AM
97

I don't think this is the kind of thing we should focus on here. Though, I am not against it being posted. I think we should try and focus more directly on men's rights issues rather than debunking absurdities from the opposition.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 03:19 AM
1

If you want to write something like that, you should ground it, put it much more strongly in perspective. Focus on the monotony, but don't make it monotonous. You should write in them moment so no single moment throughout feels absurd, and then build to an absurdity that follows from the previous steps.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 03:17 AM
1

From what I heard, they did pass the standard to become rangers, there was just a big push to find some who would.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 02:16 AM
3

Not likely at all. Most likely, they would both get a small reprimand or something.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 01:52 AM
2

Okay, no worries. Sounds fine. I am just always a bit suspicious of anything that uses a torrent.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 08:20 PM
2

I actually do know that. It is just that it is so commonly used to send pirated material.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 08:17 PM
1

I don't think there reaction would be so bad if they would have the same reaction (in reverse) with female on male assault. If they thought it was worse because the person was most likely straight and so it carries a stronger sexual undertone, that is not unreasonable, though I disagree. However, if this was true, they should similarly feel it is equally wrong if a woman assaulted a boy in the same way.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 01:48 PM
2

Ok. I am just always a bit suspicious that it is a pirate or something when someone uses torrents.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 01:33 PM
1

Strongly against this. Also, not men's rights.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 04:10 AM
2

Why is it a torrent?
/r/MensRights26/09/17 04:09 AM
4

I don't think this is a really egregious example, in itself. What I do find bad is that they would not think the same if it was a female teacher and male student.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 02:35 AM
3

I'd suggest shooting Warren Farrell an email: he is very responsive. Also, Erin Pizzey would be a good one. Howard Stern is an intactivist, I think.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 02:32 AM
3

Asked the mod why they made their comment here was the interaction
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:50 AM
1

Yea, read that one a while back. I messaged the mod who made the comment asking what they meant by it. Always best to give them the chance to explain themselves.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:10 AM
1

can you link the /r/nottheonion article?
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:00 AM
1

It is a reference to a famous quote from the bible (though I am not religious). Don't punish the son for the insolence of the father.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:35 AM
23

Which isn't really what we try and go for here...
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:34 AM
7

It is true that sometimes people need to reflect, but it is not a matter of time. It is a matter of thinking over what happened. Best done with a professional who does not have an agenda of rape to push.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:33 AM
49

Not really men's rights related.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:31 AM
2

Don't kill the daughter for the crimes of the mother.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 01:11 AM
3

I agree. /u/HellstromC, we need to call out our own. So when people point to the worst people on this sub, we can show them that those people are not accepted.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 10:07 PM
0

This is the wrong attitude to take. It doesn't matter who the victim is. Male or female, women should not be allowed to victimize them.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 10:05 PM
2

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights24/09/17 09:14 PM
10

Warren Farrell does it quite well. I suggest you read his book on the matter or listen to him. Here is an interview with him. Here is a longer lecture like thing. Here is him in a debate. Here is an interview of him by Tucker Carlson on the topic.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 09:12 PM
9

Some subs will auto-ban people who post here. However, when I have contacted the mods following such I ban, I was unbanned on some such subs.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 02:58 PM
7

This is absolutely not true. There are some women who think that way, but the vast majority of mothers love their children. We have evolved to love our children, be we male or female. There are narcissistic psychopaths (more often female than male) who do not hold these feelings and will lash out at their children. But they are the minority. The issue here is the way the law treats women who act like this, not women as a whole.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 02:57 PM
5

Not men's rights. Let's not call our opponents sluts, it is not helpful and only gives strawmen some basis.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 02:52 PM
9

First, I would apologize for all the downvotes: people here are used to trolls coming in to try and claim we all hate women when we very much do not (I believe I can safely say almost all of us also support women's rights). It is not a trolling sub. There is a good deal of anti-feminism, though some here do consider themselves feminists. This is largely because there has been a push from feminist movements to suppress any men's rights movements, so we are often found in opposition. Also, some of…
/r/MensRights23/09/17 09:45 PM
15

Reading the article, it seems that when they came to the ship, they only saw three and the husband is believed to have gotten stuck under the ship and died. It notes they saw three on the capsized vessel. I do not think this was necessarily a case of the man being ignored.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 12:32 AM
1

It does explain what I intend to say. Since it's my terminology, I'll stick to that tyvm ;-) Do you think it is fair to define suffragettes as Nazis by definition? You are literally just defining yourself as correct. Words have meaning, use them properly.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 12:27 AM
4

She did not in her video and conflated the terms "suffragette" and "feminist," which is probably an anachronism. Mentioning both is not conflating. She was marginal because she only wanted property-owning women to vote That doesn't make her marginal by default. Nope Citation needed. Who wrote "Subjugation of Women" and said they were treated like slaves??? I can agree with him on one point without agreeing with him on all points. Are you that dense?
/r/MensRights22/09/17 07:48 PM
1

I agree, I do not think Harvard was wrong to refuse her. I do not think the two are the same.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 07:07 PM
19

Get a lawyer immediately, if you can. That is the best way to go.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 06:55 PM
6

the White Feather Campaign was mostly run by Anti-Suffragists It was run by both. I have seen those like /u/girlwriteswhat acknowledge this. Emmaline Pankhurst - who was a marginal Suffragist to begin with She was one of the leaders of the movement. There was a strong pacifist strain among Suffragists in the UK in those days The pacifists were a minority, but yes there was a part of the suffragettes who were pacifists. We call them idiots. I give a quote from John Stuart Mill with which I agree:…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 06:54 PM
1

Also, I doubt you have any idea how women in FGM countries handle circumcision. I have seen the stats. Most women who suffered from fmale circumcision, support circumcising their daughters and do not view it as a bad think, much like in the west with MGM. Then there are numerous women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who are strong enough to advocate against the practice and do work on it, despite it occurring to them later in life (I believe for her it was at 14). I still think that men are hella tougher t…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 06:50 PM
1

Not being a teacher. But going to school.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 03:36 AM
1

To be fair, one is an elected position, the other is a position in education.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 12:52 AM
1

It's perfectly understandable: our views tend to be shaped by what we see. Though it absolutely does not seem to be true everywhere. It seems to me, many girls in the US are wrongly taught to focus on their feelings and cater to them, while boys are taught to show a stiff upper lip. This rather predictably results in many women not dealing appropriately with many issues. I think we should be teaching both to value a stiff upper lip, while teaching both to be able to understand and cope with thei…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 12:49 AM
1

I don't think it has to do with men being uniquely strong. Most women in countries were FGM is practiced learn to deal with it. I think people naturally harden when faced with such pain/trauma.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 12:02 AM
11

According to every estimate I can find, the foreskin has more nerve endings than the clitoris. Also, is FGM OK if you just cut off the outer labia? Or is it wrong regardless on the basis of principle? Also, comparing fetal development, the clitoris is analogous to the head of the penis, not the entirety.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:20 PM
1

Yo could try contacting a group like the Honey Badgers, and they could do fundraising for you.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:17 PM
2

Everyone has value. Life has value.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:15 PM
2

This article raped me.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:14 PM
1

Well, for some it can cause men to be more sexually repressed as circumcision (depending on the type) can make sex or even just arousal painful.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:13 PM
3

While I think modesty is important, I do not think that justifies segregating bathrooms. I honestly do not think bathrooms should be segregated, not by race nor sex.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:11 PM
2

File a complaint. First go to the school administration, if they don't act you can file a Title IX complaint.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:09 PM
14

I agree with /u/bufedad. It sounds like u/WhyDoBirdsAppear is saying that the woman is raping the man if they are both drunk and she mounts him. Still stupid, but not saying that women can't rape men.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 10:07 PM
3

Sounds weird. The article sounds biased. Do you have any other sources?
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:52 AM
2

Seems a legitimate issue due to the system. I want equality on all ends. Were should give women longer sentences so as to treat them the same in sentencing (or give men shorter), and institute programs to remove discrimination in conviction. So too if there is anything that men are afforded but women lack, women should be given that thing in equal measure or men should not have it. I want equal treatment before the government.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:48 AM
1

Seems the school could have been a bit better (they didn't have any school staff with him at the police station), but the main issue is the health services. He is on a waiting list to receive mental health services to help with whatever his issues are.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:45 AM
2

Do you have sources on that? It sounds believable, and I'd like to have the sources in case it comes up.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:40 AM
4

Yea, I've quite often had feminists tell me it's justified that women be afraid of being assaulted but when I point out that men are more likely, they just obfuscate to it normally being male perpetrators. They seem incapable of seeing past their ideology.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:36 AM
2

I think the author forgot that masturbation is as old as time...
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:29 AM
3

Does it matter? What women choose to put on their faces is the least of my concerns.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:21 AM
1

I can understand a bit of suspicion. But you'd think they'd come up and ask if everything was alright and that kind of thing before assuming the worst.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:21 AM
1

Estimates vary, from what I've seen. Numbers range from ~45-75% female. It is hard to get accurate, but most good estimates are around the 70%. This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 09:03 PM
2

It is stupid all around.
/r/MensRights18/09/17 01:54 AM
2

Can you give a bit more detail about what is going on? It is hard to tell.
/r/MensRights18/09/17 01:51 AM
1

I don't think having feminism is really the way to go. I don't think we should make women's rights or men's rights ideologies in that way, but I get what you mean. There are lots of things you can do. You can help out with various organizations that promote men's issues (there are a bunch in the US, like Intact America for a more specific one or NCFM for a broader group, and there are also a number elsewhere like CAFE in Canada). Starting conversations is very helpful (though you should be caref…
/r/MensRights18/09/17 01:49 AM
3

Thank you very much for your support! I wouldn't say we (men) are worse off everywhere, I am sure there are some difficulties women suffer that men don't suffer as much. There certainly are in other parts of the world. But what I care about are the legal rights and treatment which we measurably lack. As others have said, you do not need to apologize for other's wrong doings. Just because people who share your sex have done bad things, doesn't mean anything about you or even your sex as a whole. …
/r/MensRights18/09/17 12:05 AM
61

They slaughtered about 20000 men and boys, leaving most of the girls alive (telling the women to go and find a husband and live their lives in the service of Allah, but letting them go freely). Some women were killed (estimates that I saw ranged from a few dozen to a few hundred) but they were a small minority. Boko Haram at this point was covered noting the number dead without ever noting the gender (except in a case where an elderly woman was killed). Then boko haram came to a school system th…
/r/MensRights17/09/17 11:54 PM
1

Don't really care what idiots think of me. I am not fighting to take away anything from anyone, nor am I demanding something I already have. I just want the same to go both ways.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 11:49 PM
2

Not men's rights.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 11:46 PM
1

I just said they weren't in a state of war and I agree on that. I wasn't addressing your claims. And yes, I would have to read it.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 05:22 AM
1

I didn't say you were. I just said I think the book may be flawed from the description. Also, the egalitarian bands were not real. The overwhelming evidence indicates homo-sapiens did divide labor and women and men would have had different status. Their is some debate as to the exact nature, but it was almost certain mostly men doing the hunting.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 04:39 AM
1

I'd have to read it, but from the description, I suspect it has some flawed premises. While yes, humans are not innately warlike they are not peaceful either. An examination of how children interact will clearly demonstrate this. Warfare is pointless when we lived as hunter-gatherers, since no one else had any significant resources to steal, it was easier to hunt some animals.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 04:34 AM
1

For the most part, I agree, and that is indeed interesting information I'll have to think over. Though I would note that there shouldn't even be a need to acknowledge that it's not about blaming women, as presumably men who commit similar abuse would foster similar behavior. we have numerous documented examples of peaceful societies (see eg Douglas Fry). Can you cite the society?
/r/MensRights17/09/17 04:19 AM
1

Lawyer up ASAP, if you can. Talk to your family/friends/family friends, preferably the wealthier ones if you can, and see if they know any good lawyers (preferably not directly related to them though) who are used to dealing in family courts. If not, you should do some digging to find one. That is your best bet. And you want to do it as quickly as possible, as it will become harder to take action.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 03:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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