TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DevinV Archive

View 5 posts and 607 comments by DevinV on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

It's not exactly justice served as the perpetrator of the fraud goes scot-free but I agree in that at least the victim of the crime is not being financially punished as the doctors and facility now have to pay the child support for their mistake.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 05:54 PM
1

I agree with your post, but only because of the knowledge I have. If you think the average joe knows this much about how the legal system operates, think again. It's also interesting to note that these things are only "incredibly stupid," well, if you are a man. None of these are major pitfalls for women.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 04:18 AM
2

There are backwards laws in some regions where a man is presumed to be a father if he was married to a woman. This made sense hundreds of years ago when these laws were made and it was impossible to prove otherwise, but today it is merely a case of concerted filibustering as just about every other aspects of the system you can name has long since caught up to the technology of the day.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 01:11 AM
9

This "popular theory" is fronted by those who simply don't want to believe that women are women everywhere you go. They want to believe if they go to the Philippines or some other region which doesn't have the kind of despotic anti-male laws that they will magically find someone who "isn't like that" and worse, some even believe that this woman will not take advantage of the way the system is stacked when they bring her back home. They are living with blinders on and simply refuse to acknowledge…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 06:17 PM
1

In the end it is all just bluster to avoid discussing the issues, because doing so exposes their contemptible worldviews and hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 04:08 PM
14

It is a massive backpedal where they cannot define this so-called "misogyny" in any other terms than what is essentially "these meanies are saying things I don't like!" The one playing semantics games is in fact them. They cannot argue the issues so are looking to use a quick appeal to authority to dismiss /r/mensrights out of hand. Now that this so-called categorization of "hate group" is invalid, they are simply playing a semantics game with nebulous labels like "misogyny" without defining wha…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 09:47 PM
7

How is this story of a crime a man would fry for related to men's rights? I do wonder.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 05:25 PM
5

Dr. Phil-esque pop junk food "psychology" strikes again I see.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 05:20 PM
3

Have you had a look at news reports with ridiculous alimony amounts awarded? Most of them are awarded to women who make enough to live very comfortably.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 07:58 AM
3

"Transsexual makes 19th rape claim in 10 years costing taxpayer £200,000 in police investigation costs" is the article title.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 08:42 PM
-1

Yes this is reddit where dumb shallow things get more attention. Astute observation.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 09:38 PM
6

Don't expect honesty from the feminist mouthpiece mainstream media.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:29 PM
3

The point is this; Feminists cannot argue the issues and resort to underhanded false-flag operations like this in an attempt to discredit men's rights because they simply do not have any actual arguments against what is presented. This is why we have the bot that archives posts as soon as they're posted. So that the self-styled "trolls" out themselves with their petty antics.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 08:21 PM
2

It's very interesting how no one who makes this argument cares about the vast number of other tests and procedures run. Only in this specific instance do self-styled "civil rights" champions pipe up. Very peculiar, isn't it?
/r/MensRights13/04/12 04:55 AM
2

The only possible way that this is different from a regular old adoption scenario is your new distrust in your wife. And of course the consent to adopt and full knowledge going in that the child is not yours and, oh wait, it's... really not like adoption at all, is it? Stop trying to emotionally manipulate people with bad arguments.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 04:51 AM
2

Likely, but since I am definitely a modern man I would test at or around birth and it would never become an issue that would require a difficult decision.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 04:45 AM
3

That would be nice but not feasibly under the current political climate as it would simply be like the renaming of women's studies to "gender studies" which are the exact same thing, full of the same bigoted propaganda.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 08:01 PM
3

I posted about this months ago which prompted an AVFM writer to make an article about it. But is this any surprise? America is a country built on slavery and exploitation and that, well, hasn't gone away. The new slave class has become the poor and "undesirable" men who are thrown into this system and used up for corporate interests so they can proudly state that they don't use foreign sweatshop labor like those other companies-- oh no my friend, this article you see here? Made in the USA! By im…
/r/MensRights11/04/12 07:50 PM
-2

He's old, weighs like 350 pounds and probably can't even find his dick. I wouldn't worry much about that.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 07:39 PM
3

Not only did she admit she lied, there was video evidence that she lied. She recanted immediately once it surfaced. The most horrifying thing is how 4 of these men were thrown in jail immediately on nothing but her word alone.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 06:50 PM
3

Yes it's almost entirely tone arguments and deflections.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 01:55 AM
2

Well as long as there isn't some common-law marriage assumed where you suffer the same penalties for being the penis-owning party, sure.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 08:08 PM
14

He's not supposed to be "the face" or anything like that. He's someone on the air that a lot of people listen to that has the balls to talk about these issues.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:38 AM
2

Yes, everyone who talks about these issues must be Pierce Harlan.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 06:35 PM
2

Might I ask what control the government is gaining by making sure any purported children are in fact yours? Rhetorical question, of course. Stop trying to couch your aversion to DNA paternity testing in terms of liberty. No one is buying it.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 08:09 AM
1

because you want to be a parent and you have just spent 9 months of your life preparing to be the parent of this child. Under the implicit assumption that it is in fact your child. Yes, just about every man who is tricked in this way would have no problem walking away from that situation were they to find out immediately after birth that the child is not theirs; and that is both the logical, rational and emotional decision.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:51 AM
1

These mythological men that exist who wouldn't mind being cuckolded clearly wouldn't be bothered by DNA test anyway. You're just looking to rationalize what the women who sleep around and name the fattest wallet as father are doing.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:22 AM
1

in perspective this isn't really that much child support to pay. It is when the child is not even yours. That's fraud.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 10:26 PM
5

Well no, what it means is that men are in a double-bind. "Don't hit women, ever! Even if they're attacking you and it's in self-defense." That is the prevailing public attitude but more unfortunately the way the legal system and law enforcement officers operate.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 11:12 AM
5

Standard fare for the Steve Wilkos show and others like it. Look at the disgusting attitude displayed towards those falsely accused during the Hostra rape lie case.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 09:35 AM
3

Well, no. It's mostly a scam built around trying to sell books, DVDs, etc. to desperate lonely men.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:14 PM
3

How did the system "work." Is this woman going to be spending any time behind bars for what she's done? A man was subjected to state-levied violence as a result of her actions, taxpayer money was wasted. Police manhours, also wasted. Way to be callous and insensitive.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:07 PM
2

Appallingly, no, it isn't.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 09:01 AM
3

There are people of color who make a handsome living at talking shit about other people of color. I bet you these are stand-up comedians and not "journalists" and I also bet you're going to be intentionally obtuse and fail to make any distinction here. Good show.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 05:39 PM
3

It could be that it's literally acceptable (and it shows) to be racist against white men, as both your dismissive attitude and that of the article author shows. You think a publication would give the green light to that sort of thing aimed at any other racial or biological demographic? Rhetorical question of course. You can be racist if you want--free speech and all--but at least own up to it.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 04:58 PM
1

I also base my worldview on things that overpaid people like celebs and popular stand-up comics say. These people are clearly and truly representative of the common folk.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 04:55 PM
0

It couldn't be of course that America had been a vast majority population of whites for generations or anything like that, could it? No no, of course not. Here's a thought experiment for you: Why don't you head to a country like Japan or any other developed, majority non-white country and tell me who holds all of power and wealth there?
/r/MensRights27/03/12 04:45 PM
3

Good news. Factory's writing and the youtube videos he has are amazing. Hope to see more from him.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 10:49 AM
2

I upvoted your other post but how do you know that he isn't just be brutally honest about his intentions and wouldn't mind short term type deals? Most women like to think they can "change" a guy's mind about things like this. So this older guy who's likely one of those who's emerged victorious on the pile of corpses, broken dreams of other men that is the competition for "success" or the rat race or what have you has what women want. He has the resources and they know it, but the question is how…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 04:23 AM
10

Men who are "going for fucks" is the logical response to the feminist divorce laws which make it clear to any man who examines them that marriage and in some jurisdictions any kind of committed relationship give enormous power over your life to someone who is incentivized to screw you over. Men still want sex, and that's not going to ever change. The problem is that the law has made relationships with women beyond purely sexual arrangements a losing proposition. The only reason I can think of yo…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 12:57 AM
1

Actually, I couldn't care less about random anonymous Internet comments. What I and others refer to is institutionalized feminism. Feminism in our colleges, universities, government institutions and so on. What feminist organizations do. Their propaganda. That is the feminism we refer to.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 12:13 AM
2

We define false rape accusations as any knowingly falsely made accusation of rape. NOT "I identified the wrong guy from a lineup" but instead things like "My boyfriend/husband found out about me having sex with other men so I cried rape" and "I don't want to pay cab fare so I cried rape" or any how about "I was raped by ghosts" -- there are crazier. The actual outcome of the accusations are usually rather terrible but trying to say this is a victimless crime when a man is not ruined by a lie is …
/r/MensRights24/03/12 11:25 PM
5

The issue is the very unequal application of the law. A 17 year old boy jailed for having sex with a 15 year old girl. A 42 year old woman given no jail and slap on the wrist for having sex with a 14 year old boy.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 08:52 PM
1

Yeah, I missed it on the front page. I usually post barbarossaaaa's new videos because he doesn't seem to be as well known on /r/mensrights as well as he is on other parts of the Internet.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 08:09 PM
19

The difference? He's male, and his 'rape victim' was female. Not the only difference. 10-20+ years of age is the difference with those female teachers.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 06:56 PM
6

It is by and large a feminist organization so no matter what they say the cognitive dissonance will probably kick in the answer will be no, even though it is contradictory to their mission statement.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 05:03 AM
1

I don't see anything supporting your claim that he said he would. All I see is that he said he employed her to work in his shop and let her live in a property he owned, which he deducted rent from her pay from. That's a far stretch from agreeing that he'd pay for another man's child. That choice was made for him by the corrupt court, similarly to how it's done in the west when a man finds out he's not even the father of a child.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 04:59 AM
3

Ah yes, black men having things worse than black women is a result of "white supremacy." Real enlightening. For your next trick, please talk about nebulous concepts like "patriarchy" while pulling a rabbit out of your ass.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:42 AM
3

My response: Car insurance.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 03:19 AM
2

The "feminist playbook" is basically exploiting ingrained instinctual behavior. It will not work for men.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 12:46 AM
1

Not sure where you're getting that. Rather any kind of "social pressure" to "stick to your own" is negated by figuring out why it is harder for males to find a mate, something that having a seventh grade science education would be helpful in determining.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:33 AM
1

Those are shut-ins, actually. Not really MGTOW. It's not specific to Japan except maybe in the sheer number of them, either, it's just seen as even more shameful everywhere else that no one really even wants to talk about it.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 11:59 PM
1

No, not Japan. This is the state of western society.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 11:46 PM
5

Here is some recommended reading for you. You're actually right on the money. This is playing out as many philosophers on the subject would say it does, and exactly as evolutionary psychology predicts. These women are likely looking to settle down with some "stable" schnook after they've "had their fun." Get this: It doesn't even matter if that isn't their motive, because the legal system gives every woman the tools for any woman to exploit you if you actually do commit to a woman through marria…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:09 PM
3

It isn't about men's rights, you're right. It's only tangentially related with the assertions and implications by feminists that women do worse on, say, math tests because there are men around--As if similar circumstances do not affect men.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 06:33 AM
5

The only way you can silence our message is to completely censor the Internet.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:13 PM
7

Or, could it rather be that men as they say live in a sexual desert while women live in a sexual rainforest due to the specifics of reproduction, which creates a system where men often have to "take what they can get" as beggars cannot be choosers.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 09:58 PM
2

This is exactly the "only reason" most such things where someone is having sex with someone else barely under the legal age of consent become a matter the legal system handles. The only difference is that male offenders have the book thrown at them and female offenders almost always get off with a slap on the wrist. Application of the law should be equal.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:30 PM
5

The law isn't supposed to be based on subjective garbage like this.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:27 PM
1

Already allowed in some places with similar divorce laws.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 11:16 AM
6

Actually it's done for the exact same reason. Maybe read up on it a bit and find out why it was pushed by the likes of John Harvey Kellogg. You post in SRS all of the time though so it's not like you're here for any kind of reasonable discussion.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 05:01 AM
5

It certainly is a different site than it was a couple years ago but that's mostly down to the comments section being unfiltered garbage. You didn't read the article, though.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 04:55 AM
3

feministing.com says something incredibly dumb for the Nth time: no one shocked
/r/MensRights15/03/12 04:05 AM
2

The Sean Connery philosophy, I see.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 03:36 AM
6

That said, %40 percent think it's not ok to yell at a woman in the relationship if she has sex with another man? Canadians are just too polite for their own good, that's a great situation for yelling. And leaving. As someone who lives here let me tell you that Canadian men have been browbeaten for decades. Yes, there are men who are so far gone, so brainwashed that they think it's not ok to yell at a woman they are in a relationship with who has sex with another man. They will literally take all…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 06:09 PM
3

It was probably for your username if anything.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 02:10 AM
-3

Feminists and conservative women are slave drivers who merely disagree with how to best whip men into submission. See the book that the author of this article wrote for a good example of this.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 01:12 AM
2

Nothing wrong with wanting your own biological children. Most women who want children want this as well. It's just that nobody makes a big deal out of it when women do.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 11:57 PM
-2

Rather avoid committing to any woman in countries which have laws like USA, UK, Canada, Sweden, Australia, etc.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 08:34 PM
9

Oh yes his male aggression of sitting down and offering no resistance.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:46 PM
1

Marriage is a path best avoided as the laws stand anyway. You've never heard of the X year itch, seriously? Same concept.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 04:42 PM
1

What marriage? I'm fairly young and watched too many fall apart. I'm not going to fall into that trap.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 07:53 AM
3

She could claim that but at that point he's got the only actual evidence that isn't just he-said-she-said. Basically: RECORD EVERYTHING.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 11:44 PM
4

Here's what happened: A pedantic turd had no counter-argument to what you posted and instead treated your reddit post as if it were a wikipedia entry even though they could easily google and confirm what you said.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 11:12 PM
2

Unbelievable.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 08:47 PM
1

Well if he was only with her a couple times the chance of him impregnating her is kind of small. May be a good idea to paternity test before he does something serious like flee the country. Men do have no reproductive rights and that is the underlying issue but until that changes these are his only real options. Test and make sure it's his, and decide what to do from there.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 08:46 PM
2

You also see this in many other games where this is no strength advantage. Look at most "professional" video game setups: Why is it necessary to have women-only tournaments/leagues?
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:53 PM
5

He's probably upset about being forced to pay for someone else's unilateral decision in a world where women are never forced to do so, and even more so that it ended up being mommy support, though.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:48 PM
3

Just a hunch, but women are probably less likely to begin seriously playing chess. So then why do we have quotas, affirmative for other things women are also less likely to be interested in but in actuality have equal opportunity to participate in?
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:15 PM
4

Everyone judged by physical appearance: Women affected more. (interesting to note: top comment) We need more boys like Calvin in the world. @ 5:03 The kind of kid that women by and large will mock for his physical appearance, mannerisms and voice and not give the time of day. US Politics largely a smear-game: Women affected more. Throw in some buzzwords and well-debunked feminist talking points and you have the recipe for a sweet propaganda flick.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 05:37 AM
14

Simple. He panders to the mainstream. He is the Dr. Phil of so-called "legitimate" psychologists.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 04:23 AM
5

In a third world country, maybe, but then you could say the same for men in the same country.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:37 AM
5

Yes, Canada is well-known for being almost as bad as Sweden by the men who live here.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:30 AM
1

i.e. the feral mating cycle. Woman bonds with man long enough to have child, rear it and get herself in physical shape to survive without the man. It's not that their sex drive decreases, it's that their desire for sex with their husband does.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:25 AM
3

Let's also use nature as a determinant for various other undesirable things that don't comport with the supposed "gender equal" kool-aid of today's society that so many drink. Isn't the naturalistic fallacy great?
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:20 AM
8

It's simple--at the time the original poster's link article was written, women could take their spouse's previously owned home in a divorce. Now they cannot. Here are a few recent articles lamenting the loss of being able to take assets someone else paid for, because this is somehow "bad for women." Yes, the fine "ladies" over at feministing.com believe it is women's right to do this, while paradoxically claiming they have a worldview in which women are independent and equally capable. China's d…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:18 AM
5

director of the Women's Studies Center Note this part. More of that famous feminist "equality" rhetoric at play here, fellas.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:07 AM
4

By people you mean zealots who foolishly believe in the blank slate.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:05 AM
2

What's even more surprising is the lack of understanding about how our legal system handles this. A man has NOTHING to gain by lying about it or not being diligent in taking it, he in fact has a lot to lose. The same cannot be said about women who would lie about it or carelessly miss doses, as our legal system and "strict liability" clearly show.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 11:11 PM
7

I too enjoy twisting what were analogies into "violent war fantasies" while simultaneously and paradoxically defending crazy people in prominent positions who have meetups in real life to talk about plotting genocide.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 08:53 PM
12

You mean against a group which one is not born in to and in fact one chooses to believe the incredibly hateful ideology of, a group which by the way he's exposed the underbelly of. But you're right he should just bend over while literally crazy people in government positions have their SCUM manifesto meetups and ponder eliminating half of the population.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 08:40 PM
2

He's been transcribing his own youtube videos for months. http://barbarossaa-male-sovereignty.blogspot.com/2012/03/radfem-calls-porn-commercial-rape.html You simply can't field an argument against what he is saying.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 04:34 PM
12

The miniscule amount of men written about in history books and who sit in congress and corporate boards are in fact all men. Surely the far greater amount of imprisoned and homeless and poor and other common men are not more representative. This is what a feminist looks like.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 02:23 PM
11

Yes this character of high repute who last year said, in regards to the absolutely insane policy being implemented on US college campuses: "Better to protect thousands more children from real abuse than to worry about the occasional adult being burdened by a false accusation" Who went live on the Nancy Grace show during the Duke lacrosse false rape hoax with this to say (before any actual evidence proving guilt of course): "["These guys, like so many rapists -- and I'm going to say it because, a…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 12:44 PM
3

The Something Awful Forums are the farthest thing from trolling there is. A casual perusal of the banlist on those forums can show you this.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 12:26 PM
5

The David Futrelle approach of trying to attack the comments section rather than the content presented, I see.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 06:40 AM
1

There's no way you're not a goon or ex-goon if you know about the Lowtax mangosteen thing.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 06:21 PM
1

I can only guess it's some kind of online gaming joke.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 04:11 PM
6

I'm sure they could do a top 10 craziest jezebel posts as well.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 04:03 PM
9

Judging by the tone of posts on LF before it got deleted I'm going to say yes. They are nothing but defenders of the status quo who think themselves to be clever or revolutionary in some way when they are in fact as conformist to the establishment as it gets.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 03:05 PM
5

It's funny because the founder of Something Awful somewhat recently went through a divorce. You'd think the guy would be able to identify.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 03:03 PM
1

Many of the actual issues are on the sidebar. You can read up on those.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 02:59 PM
1

Nobody said it should be illegal. There are several categories of entry on the site and not all of them are for criminals.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 02:57 PM
1

There are several categories on the site. Some of them are for legitimate criminals that should be behind bars, some not for that purpose. You'd probably know this if you actually read the site. By the way all of the entries are confirmed matters of public record.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:47 PM
5

You replied to a 1 hour old sock account.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 01:33 PM
1

There was a lot of talk about Assange's case last year on this sub.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:23 AM
1

Yes, they should.... but well-known feminists like Amanda Marcotte disagree.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:22 AM
1

I thought the official feminist line was that they were a myth which they need to resort to citing Susan Brownmiller's made-up-on-the-spot 2% figure for. My bad.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:20 AM
8

It's like you can't demonstrate this so-called gender privilege exists for men because, wait for it... Men experience a poorer average outcome in life in our society than do women.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:04 AM
7

Yeah those homeless, poor, etc. men that far outnumber the women in similar positions have a total power hegemony in our society. You've nailed it. All of the best we've come to expect from a women's studies zealot.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:49 AM
10

Haha yeah you're right she totally doesnt belong on... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Marcotte Reason contributing editor Cathy Young has described Marcotte as a "leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax". In "Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault."[25] Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused Duke students wer…
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:41 AM
9

"Check out this propaganda campaign we're running against you, guys!" "What's this, you want to expose the individuals responsible for this blatantly false information?"
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:39 AM
12

Futrelle cherry-picks anonymous comments from the comments sections of blogs and then takes out of context snippets of articles at an attempt to reach at straws, while curiously condoning on his own blog the comparing of men to animals, among other things.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 06:48 AM
35

They cite Futrelle and Marcotte. Marcotte who firmly stands for the idea that a man accused is guilty until innocent (and then still guilty after proven innocent) as shown by the Duke lacross false rape fiasco. This is clearly a reliable source.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 06:21 AM
7

They cite David "Manboobz" (self-license I'm sure) Futrelle who scavenges the anonymous comments sections and takes tiny snippets out of context and presents them as "proof."
/r/MensRights09/03/12 05:12 AM
-11

The concern trolling about "image problems" from day old accounts and never-posted-in-MR accounts are really valid, I'm sure. Note also that you have a history of concern trolling this sub. Basically you can't argue the issues so you try the classic ad hom of "you hate women! misogyny!" to avoid facing the issues presented.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 03:40 AM
-21

Except this "image problem" is manufactured from whole cloth by the very status quo jockey feminists that have no logical or even rational arguments against the issues?
/r/MensRights09/03/12 02:19 AM
-5

I too conflate "feminism" with "women."
/r/MensRights09/03/12 02:17 AM
5

LF, a forum so bad and full of the worst idiot posters that would repeatedly get banned and then spend another 10+ US dollars to register and post the same orthodoxy-fellating garbage you see them doing here as well as lame catchphrases like "islam is the light." A subforum so bad that the admins fucked with it on a regular basis before outright closing it.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 02:06 AM
3

They can't. The shitty subforum teefs used to post on was so bad that the admins deleted it.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 01:54 AM
-3

Well the government already does most of those things to men.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 09:29 AM
4

Actually, it's not reasonable anymore. It was reasonable in a day and age where you could not actually prove if the man fathered a child. This is a case of the law not catching up with the times, and for largely political reasons as the law has been using plenty of other technological and scientific advancements in determining guilt or innocence, liability, etc.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 08:57 AM
3

Some random anonymous poster once made the analogy so it must be true, right?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 08:52 AM
1

In fact you're essentially saying 'Civilization can write anything it wants on the products of nature'. That means our current sexual roles can be completely re-written and in opposition to natural sexual roles. No I'm really not. Civilization is a byproduct of again, as I said, sublimating those base desires which when followed lead to nothing but primitive tribalism. You can't get rid of those desires altogether. You can only provide a system of incentive and punishment for violators who don't…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 08:40 AM
9

No good deed goes unpunished.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:54 AM
6

Yes, because people don't already know that rape is an illegal and terrible thing to do. Great show.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:51 AM
1

But let us consider Shalit’s own account, culled from anecdotes and women’s magazines, of the sexual situation women face today. The humble corporate drone who has to fear harassment charges and loss of livelihood if he winks at the girl in the next cubicle will feel like he stepped through Alice’s looking glass when he reads this material. Here is a realm in which men have reduced women to struggling to see who can offer them the most and the best sex, frantically searching the Kama Sutra for s…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:45 AM
2

How do you know these social hierarchies are a product of civilization and not something inherent to the species. Ghengis Khan is just proof in the extreme that there are big losers and big winners. In our closest animal cousins you can observe the same thing. Big winner and big loser males. With many species of animals the male kills the young from another male when he mates with a new female. Look, the biological imperative to pass on your genes is very real. They just manifest differently in …
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:45 AM
3

The fact that you think it normal and acceptable that men should have to go to such extreme measures in which the law is implicative of an attitude that it is irresponsible to trust women just shows how we have no rights. Even if we do use condoms, and even in the case of the male being raped or being too young to consent there is somehow a strict liability model in place. Of course you are not going to address these obvious double standards. You are going to parrot the shopworn mantra of "keep …
/r/MensRights07/03/12 05:31 AM
1

Educate yourself in the concept of moral hazard and you'll come to the conclusion that yes, it would reduce the amount of women willing to engage in these kinds of acts. More specifically it will reduce women who have unplanned/"oops" pregnancies because taking any birth control would be a big thing with no safety net.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:09 AM
1

Why were twice as many women alive if there were no hierarchies with big winners and big losers, where men would literally risk life and limb for the chance to successfully mate? Cause and effect. It seems more likely that there were not many less men than women, that some may have been killed working to try to achieve success so that they could pass their genes on, others killed in wars, and others still fooled into subsidizing their own genetic meta-death as we've uncovered with today's DNA pa…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:01 AM
2

How then do you explain the stunning disparity in reproductive success which supports what Demonspawn is saying. That is, how does what you are saying mesh with the proven fact (via analysis of DNA) that of our ancestors who have a living descendant today, that there are twice as many women as men. TWICE as many women than men got to pass their genes on! If there were no big winners and big losers, you'd think that the numbers there would be closer to even... but they're not. Not by a longshot.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 01:41 AM
4

Briffault's Law: The female determines the conditions of the animal family. Where the female cannot derive any benefit from association with the male, no such association will take place. Think about how this applies to modern family court, divorce laws, etc. where the man is still forced to provide the benefit even after the association no longer exists.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 11:47 PM
2

The fact that these people who claim to be all "progressive" and for "equality" will refuse a men equity in rights says it all, and indeed if you flip the script you will get something close to Rick Santorum. You can try to rationalize this away by just saying "it's different" but it's really not. These are functionally from a legal rights standpoint the exact same issue. What it comes down to is this: One sex has the right to fully determine when and if they become parents, the other does not. …
/r/MensRights06/03/12 11:19 PM
4

Being forced to labor and losing a large percentage of your livelihood to the point where having a decent standard of living or having your own family of your own choice become impossible is as close as it gets to slavery to me.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 11:11 PM
16

I'm demanding equity. Her body her choice, but should be just her responsibility if I don't want any any part of it. After all, she's the only one who gets to make those decisions. Sounds fair to me.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 02:44 PM
4

Are you talking about the financial abortion In short, yes. The standard should be signing the birth certificate and then acting as the father, and if necessary, a DNA test confirming the man is actually the father.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 02:40 PM
1

Well that would depend on the local economy, largely, and the cost of living. A few US states I believe already have such a cap in place.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 02:38 PM
1

Learn the concept of moral hazard.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 02:29 PM
6

What would you say to those claiming that, in the grand scheme of things, this issue is a "luxury problem"? My point is that this is part and parcel of the kind of oppression that leads to women being raped, getting lower salaries, and being exposed to violence in relationships. You heard it here folks. A man relaxing on public transit is equivalent to rape, domestic violence and women's own choices leading to them not earning as much as men. Feminism.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 01:37 PM
1

It should be 0 if the man never wanted a child in the first place, and wanting a child should be an opt-in thing. But of course this will never happen because those who claim to espouse equal rights really don't and this is the litmus test for it, as these same people have no problem with women having options that amount to women never having to be responsible in any way for a child if they don't want to be. To answer your question though for men who actually wanted to be fathers and for some re…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 01:26 PM
1

Men do not talk about masturbation except in passing, uncomfortable jokes like "oh everyone does that" which do not discuss techniques or anything specific, or even acknowledge that they personally do it themselves. That's because for men, touching yourself is seen is almost as shameful as owning sex toys. Just like the image in the OP.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 01:14 PM
5

It's kind of how people think its sickening to see a fat kid eating a huge burger, but if you were to see a thin malnourished kid eating one, its not so bad. Except in your example the "fat kid" is the woman who can have sex just about anytime they want, and the "malnourished" the man who has to work for it and will usually come up empty handed. The analogy is backwads. That is, the one who's least likely to be able to get sex is catching shit for something the one who's almost guaranteed to be …
/r/MensRights06/03/12 01:09 PM
21

Women get the choice to not be responsible at any time they don't want to be. Here are a woman's choices: Pregnant? Keep it, and in under today's laws have a man subsidize you keeping it even if he never wanted it. You can be nice about this and not go after a man you know never wanted to be a father but let's be honest, this isn't happening very often. Abortion Adoption "Safe abandonment" laws Hilarious comedy option #1: Keep your legs closed. This suggestion went over real well when suggested …
/r/MensRights06/03/12 12:44 PM
44

Feminist bigot du jour Amanda Marcotte "weighs in". More casual misandry. Even more! A university report has claimed that while men welcomed a male contraceptive pill, women said their partners could not be trusted to take one regularly. The title of this one is really telling of the true reasons feminist-types don't want to see a male pile. Reddit dot com's "male friendly" (feminist subservient) subreddit: OneY I'm sure you can find more if you really want to.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:23 AM
2

Maybe they did show up but with the kind of preferential treatment women are used to in today's society I can't imagine many stayed around long after once they learned how hard the work was.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 04:21 AM
2

Maybe you haven't noticed this but reddit itself is little better than 4chan and has a ton of fake, shitty trolls and posts and terrible tropes like "rage comics." If you're looking for 100% quality content all of the time, I hate to tell you but reddit isn't the place to be. You know this though because you have a post in the first page of posting in history /r/4chan, making you part of that problem. Here is a suggestion: Take your concern trolling about "image problems" (which come almost excl…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:58 AM
6

You epitomize the negative attitude displayed in the original image but can't rationally explain why.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:52 AM
14

We're talking about sex toys here. Not the proverbial "village bicycle."
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:42 AM
27

Mostly it is in the form of usual form of casual misandry where men are presented as dumb and irresponsible with odd unfounded claims that men wouldn't use it and talking as if men don't have more to lose by not using it which is categorically disprovable if you look at the legal reproductive rights that women have vs. the ones men have (men do not have any).
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:40 AM
4

Non-sequitur that doesn't explain the differing attitudes.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:37 AM
4

All covered in the report the US government commissioned about this very subject. Number of hours worked, what the work entails make up the vast majority of the difference in pay. In other words, women's choices are the arbiter of how much less they make than men. The "wage gap" as feminists present it as some phantom discrimination is nothing more than a myth.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:27 AM
5

It's you, the one who can't make logical arguments about the content of the post linked, rather seeking to appeal to ridicule about some supposed reputation of the site linked. Good job.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:25 AM
8

Feminism isn't supposed to make sense. It's a power grab using whatever spur-of-the-moment justification.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 03:16 AM
9

Where have all of the worker drones good men gone? I do wonder.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:42 AM
1

The actual issue is that the wikipedia administrators involved are propagandists who are part of a "feminism wikiproject" who refused to allow a revert of the defacement and then hid behind pathetic semantics games involving the empty credentialism of feminist academia as justification.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:04 PM
5

Neither am I. I think you are arguing from a standpoint of social mores and what you think is acceptable. I think you are wrong. The drive to reproduce is powerful and if the ability existed for men to reproduce without having to bow and scrape to please women with all of the added pitfalls that currently plague men who want to have children, I think a whole lot of them would take advantage of this option. It would neutralize the leverage that women currently have due to their superior position …
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:29 AM
2

What have feminists done to reduce these expectations? Nothing. They have only reinforced them with implementation of draconian laws.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:20 AM
4

The "original way" involving kowtowing to someone else who holds all of the power due to the state-enforced laws. The "original way" should this technology exist is therefore undesirable and does not foster male sovereignty.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:01 AM
2

No less ethical than artificial insemination.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 08:48 AM
5

Or it could have more likely been (and still is) that men are not the protected class and need to actually do things in this world, giving rise to desperate actions for desperate circumstances i.e. facing homelessness with no reasonable expectation that someone else or as in today the government will provide for you. There is not a plethora of social programs available to unsuccessful men today. This is why the homeless population is almost entirely male. Women didn't have to resort to committin…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 08:33 AM
1

"Creep" shaming is really a misnomer. It is by and large simply women feeling they have the moral authority to treat men they aren't attracted to in whatever deplorable manner they wish.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 08:25 AM
3

What do I think? Bring them on. As soon as possible. As soon as the technology becomes widespread and affordable enough, we will finally get the much talked-about "equality" -- and those special treatment-seekers who are worried are right to be worried because it will mean no more advantage simply for being women. There will be no more coercion with the leverage that women's reproductive potential currently rewards them with. Women will have to accept being as disposable as men and being treated…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 07:45 AM
2

It's basically a nebulous catch-all used to justify the discriminatory and oppressive feminist policies enacted such as VAWA and the erosion of due process for men.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 07:38 AM
9

Wikipedia itself is feminist thought -- See the defacement of the men's rights article months back.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 07:36 AM
7

Never seen it but am not surprised by the downplaying of this manifesto as if it were "just satire" in the linked thread when the woman who wrote it went out and shot some men, and modern-day feminists in so-called civilized countries like Sweden and Australia openly celebrate this garbage.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 06:00 AM
3

Put it this way: Just a few years ago you'd have to really look to hear about any of these issues. The message is getting out there.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 05:54 AM
1

It's not that they like their job usually, it's that they are there of their own will and they do it because it pays much better than any other "real" job they can get. It's a cost:benefit analysis put into play.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 05:43 AM
5

It's only "sad" to you because of your social conditioning. After all, if you're not one of the very few lucky men who rise to the top of the socioeconomic ladder and/or ended up with generous physical endowment, then you're a loser that women won't choose, right? And so you've been conditioned to believe you've got to be one of those men and if you aren't you certainly won't admit it by resorting to prostitution, going to a strip club or anything like that. Oh no. Not you. You're a winner. Only…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 05:40 AM
4

It's really pathetic that you spend your time making accounts to make transparent "troll" attempts to try to quotemine for your equally pathetic friends over at SRS.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 04:40 AM
8

What I'm saying is that you are being unreasonable and either are naive or simply refuse to admit why people really go to those kinds of places. It's a social environment but you aren't really acknowledging what kind of social environment it is. "Mating ritual" describes bars very well. Now if you were to go to some place for some sort of hobby or whatnot then yeah I'd be right there telling you that it's bullshit that people are out looking for sex and the women treating you poorly because you …
/r/MensRights04/03/12 04:29 AM
13

I read the title and thought "yes" but then I read the post and thought "no" to the scenario you present. These places you're going on these nights out are for all intents and purposes meat markets. It's not just women that will drop someone like a rock in these situations. Look, people are by and large going to these places with the unstated motive of getting laid. You can try to dress it up all you want but think of parties you've been to or bars you may have visited with your male friends and…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 03:44 AM
1

http://books.google.ca/books?id=nimVOvQ8NYsC&pg=PA32
/r/MensRights04/03/12 03:34 AM
1

Well then you see my point. Men cannot be obsoleted solely by technology which allows reproduction without a man or woman. Women on the other hand due to their stubborn refusal to do the work which makes modern civilization possible would be obsoleted by reproductive technology. As Demonspawn said--being judged by the same standards that men are judged, women would be found lacking and without the backing that the massive advantage that natural reproductive systems afford them in leverage curren…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 02:38 AM
1

As soon as you can demonstrate that modern big feminism is a proponent of equal rights and not a lobby for special treatment and the blocking of equal rights i.e. NOW opposing assumed 50/50 shared parenting laws then maybe we will take your suggestions into consideration.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 02:24 AM
1

The moment we can breed without sex then men become obsolete as well. Not as long as men are the only ones doing the things to create and maintain civilization. Jobs which women refuse to do despite having all of the opportunity to do so. Until you have machines with the artificial intelligence to automate all of those tasks, men will never be obsolete. This will need to include the ability to repair and produce the technology required for artificial human reproduction, by the way. What do you t…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 02:12 AM
2

Nobody should care if feminists "feel" attacked. Feelings are less important then the facts that feminists with influence and power are the ones causing a large amount of the issues talked about here and are who block reform such as in the example of shared parenting laws. Again I ask, when these issues were brought up by the proto-MRAs such as the ones I mention, why did these "good" feminists you insist exist not hop on and support these men instead of universally ridicule and shout them down,…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 01:54 AM
2

How nice of you to register an account just to post this.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:31 AM
2

Relevant.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:25 AM
5

Sounds like a lame propaganda shell game to me, like "gender studies" which is really just women's studies.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 10:55 PM
1

Where were these "good feminists" to play ball with the likes of the earlier MRAs like Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrel in decades past? Nowhere to be seen, of course. The bow and scrape approach they employed clearly doesn't work, and it's no big wonder when the core of feminist beliefs are what they are.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 10:08 PM
-2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqojmhHHXAw
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:17 AM
7

What he means is that taking someone who holds all of the power on their word is a poor choice. So even if the efficacy of female contraceptive options like pills, patches, etc. are demonstrably better than condoms you are still putting blind trust in someone else in the hopes they won't fuck you over if you take them at their word, in a system that gives incentives for them to fuck you over -- i.e. "oops" pregnancies in the child support system.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 04:42 PM
3

Maybe so, but the bottom line is that as long as the state is in the business of enforcing child support, then the state should be making sure that the wrong man isn't stuck paying.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 12:55 PM
13

Thing is, there are a lot of people out there who equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation, and that is downright wrong. It seems you've failed to demonstrate why this is somehow so. Maybe because it's normalized in your culture and you think nothing wrong of it.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 10:47 PM
6

How it works: When a man forbids a woman from going out on "ladies night out" or with "male friends" then he's being controlling and jealous. When a woman does it, well, that's just a natural suspicion and you shouldn't be offended or hurt by it.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 05:11 AM
5

Ah yes, the keep it in your pants argument. This went oh so well when used by anti-abortionists a few decades back, I'm told.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 04:52 AM
8

Yes, most genital mutilation period is done to babies.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 08:04 AM
1

Yes this sounds like a great idea, 7 day old account who posts in SRS. Good try at amateur trolling night here.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 11:33 PM
2

The laws are such that any woman who doesn't want to be saddled with child support, raising a child or any of that doesn't have to be. But a man is beholden to a woman's choice. "Keep it in your pants" is a non-argument because it doesn't apply to women as well. This is quite clearly unequal rights--And before you say something facile about biology not being equal you would do well to know that biology doesn't mandate child support.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 11:20 PM
0

"Trigger warnings" are for the most part yet another deflectionary tactic to avoid addressing a presented argument.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 04:46 AM
3

I think he's making a more educated guess than you based on the whole showing her tits and leaving with a stranger bit.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 06:55 AM
6

Unfortunately there is a thing called a default judgment that can be entered against someone who fails to respond to a notification even if the notification was sent to a bogus address given by a fraudster, meaning they never got the notification in the first place.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 12:25 AM
0

When it comes down to it, most human relations are about what someone else can do for you. There exists some irrational, sentimental connections that are the exception to the rule.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 11:57 PM
2

A hypothetical quoted out of context isn't the same as being a lunatic who glorifies the SCUM manifesto.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 03:33 PM
3

Goons are by and large conformist drones who attack those who speak against the dominant narrative. The Something Awful Forums themselves are run like that and haven't been worth reading or posting on for some time. It has nothing to do with reddit.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 09:51 PM
2

People can, like you, have their own personal biases and subjective opinions. That's fine, but... The law shouldn't.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 01:05 AM
-1

Why isn't it natural? In nature, males compete against other males due to the realities of mating and reproduction, a strong force in their behavior as your genes stand a good chance of dying out if you don't seize each and every opportunity. But therein you see that just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's necessarily good or moral. What is unnatural is the formation of civilization; The mass cooperation of men (or at least the convincing illusion of) in defiance of nature. The thi…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 12:07 AM
18

Where I live it is perfectly legal for women to go topless. They don't. I can count the number of times I've actually seen this happen on one hand, and even then it was just for political reasons.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 03:19 PM
1

And the results are, of course, as expected. Even though the options could have been worded better, almost all of the votes were for the options that show that men believe that it is a terrible thing.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 02:13 AM
1

And yet you won't hold women to the same standard, and resort to petty emotive garbage as a way to try to deflect out of this reality of very unequal rights.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 01:59 AM
2

It's amazing how many accounts you've made and how much time you spend posting this kind of garbage. Your posts must be pure projection.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 09:40 PM
1

It has nothing to do with economics. You are obfuscating the real issue here: Men have no reproductive rights and even when they do not want a child are forced to labor to pay for one they did not want. Women however have reproductive rights along with more forms of contraception than men, AND abortion. If a woman does not want to be burdened with a child she does not have to be. In no way does a child that a man never wanted receive a father by the state forcing him to labor and pay under pain …
/r/MensRights14/02/12 08:58 PM
1

No, it really isn't. There's no father figure, no actual father in the child's life and the child knows it, I know, you know, and everyone knows it. You're simply content to see the current status quo of man-as-money-tree continue.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 07:58 PM
1

Forcing an unwilling man to labor to pay money for a woman's unilateral decision doesn't give the child a father.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 04:01 PM
9

This is because men have to actually do things in this world. There are no reasonable assurances that even if you fuck up bad that there's something to fall back on, something which is evidenced by the massive disparity in the homeless and imprisoned. You want women to try as hard as men? Fine. Treat women just like men. No more special treatment. I get the feeling that she won't go for that, though...
/r/MensRights14/02/12 03:47 PM
8

Maybe try being a bit more subtle when you make shill plant accounts to try to score points with the people no one else likes over at SRS.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 03:37 PM
3

It's a game: See how many buzzwords you can throw into it.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 12:55 AM
0

Are you suggesting women never lie about rape and that standing up for due process rights is a popular thing to do? Nice SRS posting history, by the way.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 01:36 AM
-1

And isn't it something how quite a few of those questionable posts there come from you.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 01:33 AM
2

What I was doing is saying how things are. Women are exempt from these things. Clearly not "male privilege." You still haven't demonstrated how this nebulous concept supposedly exists, by the way. If only the tiny percentage of very wealthy males (and all females) all can avoid the things the overwhelming majority of males are subjected to, you cannot say this is "male privilege" in any way shape or form. Also, just a reminder, I have to say that it isn't women sending poor people to war, it's r…
/r/MensRights12/02/12 12:42 AM
2

I think what you really mean is that all women have had the luxury of not being conscripted as cannon fodder, among other things.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 04:51 AM
3

Then it's not MALE privilege is it?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 01:03 PM
1

I'm not making anything hard on myself by not buying into feminist framework. Again the difference is it is acceptable when women have these preferences. "Old Spice Guy" commercials? Look at those. How about showing off a guy's body in the frame, common in many television shows and movies. I remember when "BayWatch" was a big thing. Nobody made a big deal about the men on the show being displayed in the same way as Pamela Anderson and other female cast members.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 08:57 PM
1

The existence of things like Twilight does indeed prove that this isn't some sort of male-only phenomena. People ogle those they find sexually attractive and being forward and open about it. The only difference is again that men are denigrated for it. For women it's simply there, it's normal-- no one cares. The concept of objectification itself is also very suspect and can really only be applied to the most extreme examples like gold diggers and those looking for trophy wives who value people as…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 06:34 PM
2

Doesn't make a lot of the things he said when his show was on the air less valid or true.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 10:52 AM
2

If it can be proven that the biological father colluded with the mother to deceive the man then he should be liable, sure. But the woman should always be held accountable in cases of paternity fraud. She's the main actor in the whole deception. Women always know at the very least if there is a possibility that the child does not belong to the man she's saying is the father, because women and only women know when they have engaged in intercourse with more than one man around the time they conceiv…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 10:39 AM
1

What the OP should have read to be correct is 'When a rape accusation is proven to be false, it's taken as proof of "rape culture"'.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 10:36 AM
2

The concept of "male gaze" is still junk. Men are still presented in this fashion all of the time. Here's a good example: Remember a film based on a book called "Twilight"? Remember the womken, some up to 40-some years old drooling over the body of a 16-17 year old boy, presented in the same fashion...? You see the only difference is that men and male sexuality are denigrated while women are allowed to have those preferences and openly talk about them.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 09:09 AM
1

Yes and it already has compared to when the technology was newer and lesser known.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 04:33 AM
2

I can't recall the camera ever really "eye-fucking" anyone in these games, having played the original Xbox Ninja Gaiden Black and both versions of Ninja Gaiden 2. The jiggling is certainly there and perhaps a little weird that they thought to put so much effort into animating such a small detail but it's not like the camera is constantly focusing on the female characters from strange angles anymore than it is the males in the cinematic scenes or anything. The only thing those games really seemed…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 03:56 AM
1

"Progressive" is what they call themselves but you are right. It is one of the most ironic misnomers.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 03:13 AM
2

Another answer could be that objectification requires power, which women lack in this society. How so. It's interesting how so much of this pseudoscience theory is build upon articles of faith such as this that you either have to believe in good faith or they crumble like a house of cards in the wind. How do ordinary women lack power any more than ordinary men do in this society? The answer is of course do not. Men in fact make up the vast majority the lowest rung of society, the homeless. Also …
/r/MensRights04/02/12 03:07 AM
2

She has not had any consequences as a result of the fraud she visited upon the non-father. Clearly the man was not OK with this arrangement since he took the matter to court.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 09:31 AM
1

Men have arguably even more to worry about in that department. Depictions of what are desirable men include many congenital traits that you can't even throw money at if you weren't lucky enough in the old genetic lottery. Consider height. There is literally surgery where the bones in your legs are broken and allowed to heal so that you will grow slightly taller. It is described as very painful and you are by and large crippled during the recovery period--and yet some men actually do undergo this…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:35 AM
3

I don't agree with the title statement, not everyone "has to" advocate for men's rights, but it'd be nice if more did. I will say that if you deny these facts and think there's nothing wrong with the status quo then you are indeed a shitbag.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:22 AM
9

The only "war" raging is against the third rate demagoguery of those like NOW and their propaganda machines. Keep it up, I say.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:21 AM
0

Read the post history of the user you replied to and tell me if you think you will receive a reply with any sort of logic or solid reasoning whatsoever. You won't. You'll just get more of the same braindead rationale of "oh it's different when women do it" -- how is it different? It isn't, of course, and they won't be able to qualify the statement.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:17 AM
1

It's a not-so-subtle appeal to ridicule.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:20 AM
2

Paul Elam is taking the action necessary to see these issues forced into the public consciousness where those who have bowed and scraped for decades like Glenn Sacks have been utter failures. The only reason you don't like him is because he's effective.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:16 AM
1

Context? What's the deal with this post.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:09 AM
8

Oh I get it. We should all be deliberately obtuse like you and claim that someone is denying that rape exists because they don't believe it's something entirely subjective with impossibly nebulous and ever-shifting definitions. Good job. You showed us.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 04:51 AM
1

Yes I saw that too. That's really something.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 11:31 PM
6

Ah, my bad. I thought the linked article was more demagoguery about how false rape accusations never happen and how the author knows this as just-so, so we should just take an accuser's word and treat it as the absolute truth, throwing away anyone accused without any actual investigative work or anything like that... because accused = guilty, right? Just like the the good ol' witch trials. Innocent until proven guilty? What a quaint old concept indeed.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 11:07 PM
6

Well if they were we wouldn't constantly see a bunch of articles entitled "Where have all of the good men gone?" which are complaints about less men wanting to commit due to the legal realities and/or less moneyed men for women who totally aren't in it for his money, you gotta believe them.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 11:05 PM
3

Of course. As long as it can be proven, as rape should have to be.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 11:01 PM
2

Did you have an actual argument or were you here to threadshit for the... how many times is it now?
/r/MensRights02/02/12 10:05 PM
3

Actually the best way is to drop the witch hunt mentality of accused = guilty and actually investigate each claim properly. You know, that whole due process thing that seems so anathema to feminists.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 10:04 PM
4

Not so much an attack as a lame quote to preface a strawman about so-called "strong women" ("strong women" who can compete with men need affirmative action, quotas and the like to do so? news to me) followed by conflating PUAs the "manosphere" at large and finally an attempt to conflate PUAs with men's rights activism by stating it is just-so. What I find most interesting is that she actually agrees with the methodology and concepts of "game." This is just a religious social conservative rant. T…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 12:03 PM
10

Did you seriously just post on two different sockpuppets in the same thread? That's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on reddit.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 02:15 AM
6

I see. You are a 6 hour old sockpuppet account of the poster in question, showing up where that poster shows up. Maybe you can, you know, field logical arguments instead of throwing your hands up saying you're blocking people? The ultimate sign that you have no argument and have in fact lost. For all of this bluster about "stalking" you sure seem to be the one obsessed with going around and compulsively downvoting and threadshitting everything in sight. Maybe get a hobby.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 02:13 AM
9

You are a transparent sockpuppet with posts in SRS, literally one click away into your post history. Stop trying to pretend you are "one of us." You are not fooling anyone.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 02:00 AM
6

Possibly this clown and her classy arguments and sockpuppet accounts.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 01:56 AM
1

Here is an exchange that ended with this classy ending. Lifeboat feminism at its finest.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 01:22 AM
2

Or it may just be the indoctrinated notion that men have everything that feminists via mainstream media and educational outlets have been shoving down people's throat for the past four or more decades that inculcates a kneejerk reaction of that type.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 10:43 PM
3

You're getting downvoted for some reason or another (who knows), but really counseling is useless. I've seen this play out so many times with other people.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:23 PM
9

TIL that when both people are drunk, the male is a rapist.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 04:55 AM
13

Textbook examples of appeal to ridicule and appeal to authority.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 02:45 AM
6

I'm not sure why you need studies for addressing the just-so of feminist dogma. If you're talking about domestic violence studies, well... Here's a good start: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:49 AM
2

False accusations, vilification, custody discrimination, legal discrimination, education discrimination. All of those. False accusations (notably of rape) existed before but except in the most egregious cases such as white women accusing black men in America men still had due process for the most part until feminist propaganda and pressure from well-funded feminist groups began to make things by and large guilty until proven innocent and have weaponized false accusatons as ways to destroy men's …
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:45 AM
1

I've seen a lot of racism in here, yes. Mostly "white male" used as a pejorative/slur.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 09:52 PM
0

All of the downvotes in the world without telling me how I'm somehow wrong won't make you right. Maybe learn of a little thing called logic which anyone who reads your posts will find sorely lacking.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 09:39 PM
1

My oh my, someone's throwing the toys out the pram. Just because you get angry does not make your points anymore valid. Ah yes a charge of irascibility. But only an ignoramus would even begin to suggest that male circumcision is anywhere near as bad as female circumcision. How so. Prove it isn't. You can't. Not to mention the fact that many women in these societies are ostracised if they do not get cut. American culture vis-a-vis men. They're also cut specifically for the reason of decreasing/pr…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 05:04 PM
1

Lack of evidence? Go read your feminist literature. Go. Read it. Male privilege? Patriarchy? Rape culture, etc? Read it. Really read it. Then come back and say it's anything but anti-male. Go look at feminist political action that uses these just-so stories with no scientific backing. The unreasonable one here is you. You dismiss the issues--"Just a piece of skin." If I show that men have it at least as bad, it isn't dismissal. Don't project your qualities onto me.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:47 PM
-3

Also, I'm assuming your comment about feminists advocating the rise of homeless women in order to level the playing field was a joke? I'm sorry, but I can only perceive it as one. Actually it wasn't. Feminists tend to clamor for the high-prestige, high-pay jobs but want nothing to do with the dangerous jobs of on the end shit-end of society that are worked by almost entirely men. This is feminists looking covetously at the positions of a tiny percentage of men and then demanding women have those…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:32 PM
2

Yes, that is a good point--and it's because women initiate the vast majority of divorces and are almost guaranteed to receive custody and can then play games in a system which will not hold them accountable to keep fathers away from their children. What would the numbers say if men weren't fodder to be bilked in the corrupt institution of family court? Who knows. The fact is that as things stand mothers abuse their children at a rate of around twice what fathers do.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 03:40 PM
4

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf
/r/MensRights28/01/12 03:36 PM
-2

I see. So you bring up third world problems as a response to the fact that first world feminists by and large have no issues left and push anti-male propaganda and policy. You shift the goalposts and then when I prove that men don't have it well in third world countries either on top of showing what feminists do, we're suddenly playing the oppression olympics--it was cool when you thought that using the third world as an appeal to emotionwould get you somewhere in the discussion, though... The r…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 03:20 PM
1

That's true but it's literally acceptable to be openly bigoted towards white males in today's society.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 01:27 PM
-4

Untrue in what way? Feminists refuse to discuss these things and attempt to dismiss them out of hand. One needs only look at at mainstream publications and the bilge they've been putting out recently now that we're forcing these issues to be heard. Worse--feminist organizations like NOW--the very face and mouth of feminism in power in fact do things like try to stop a shared 50/50 custody. How about some bogus advocacy research done for propaganda purposes? Yeah, that's been done. Feminist bigot…
/r/MensRights28/01/12 01:15 PM
-11

First world feminism is no longer about women's rights and hasn't been for at least as long I've been alive, having been born in the 80s. First world feminism is about spreading propaganda and opposing things like shared parenting and paternity testing. It is about the absolutely insane politics of hate inherent in feminist theory. Even in countries with significant feminist presence like India the same shit is peddled and uncritically accepted, just like a cult.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:03 AM
2

It's just shit that was made up. I can't name a first world country in which social mores DON'T say "you never EVER EVER EVER hit girls." You're right.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 05:54 AM
2

I haven't seen that quote before but that's definitely a top 5 craziest feminist quote.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 05:50 AM
2

If you apply feminist and sexual grievance industry definitions, just about everyone who's had much sex at all is a "rapist."
/r/MensRights28/01/12 05:36 AM
4

It's only tangentially related at best in dispelling feminist dogma about "objectification" and "male gaze." No idea why it was posted.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:09 PM
2

Most people here will agree that the laws are by and large bullshit. The main issue is the very unequal application of the law when it is an older male vs. an older female.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 07:36 PM
2

This is a pretty good point, in a way. A lot of people just don't remember their frame of mind when they were that age. I remember back then pretty clearly being weirded out by a few women who looked like they were at least around 30 years old making passes at me. Didn't have had a problem being comfortable with girls around my own age though. I could see being groomed by and used for sex by someone much older than you being mentally scarring.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 07:35 PM
5

You think this can be categorized as mere domestic violence? The guy was tortured and pretty much mutilated, repeatedly. The kind of sadists that do this kind of shit need to be thrown away for a very long time.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:00 AM
1

Not very well, but I'd still say Dawkins is probably the biggest name of atheism. He's a much more representative than anomymous PC drones on subreddit, I'd think.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 05:17 PM
1

Only bigots like you try to make things about race or some other PC shibboleth to try to derail arguments you cannot refute.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 08:21 AM
4

/r/atheism sure might be but I'm not sure you can say atheists in general are. Remember that elevator incident where Richard Dawkins called out the bullshit of some woman who made a big public stink about a guy approaching her in an elevator? Sure, Dawkins was operating on the premise that what he hears from our mainstream media about other countries is 100% factually correct in addressing her, but he sure didn't bow and scrape to the feminist garbage coming out of her mouth.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 07:05 AM
1

Of course the feminist definition is that it somehow benefits men. Which, well, it really doesn't. "Patriarchy" as feminists tend to use it as a sort of pejorative term certainly doesn't apply to this or any society I've heard of. Patriarchy has become a propagandized buzzword.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 08:00 AM
5

Compare the language, attitudes and of course sentences when the offender is male.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 07:51 AM
16

Unbelievable. This woman was able to break out the waterworks as if she had been the one raked over the coals by the corrupt family court. The man had to move out of a home that I'm sure he paid for in full and which she either got or forced the sale of and he is now forced to pay her (likely an additional on top of whatever other expenses the family court milked him of) $1000 a week so that she can get a job that is essentially as the man described it, a luxury.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 07:46 AM
3

There's far more rationalizing and excuse-making than that present.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:55 AM
5

Yes this is basically it. Women still demand men do all of the approaching and put themselves out there, and yet they paradoxically get offended when a man they aren't attracted to approaches as if men can read their minds. It reeks of entitlement, and the more extreme feminists would like to make this legally actionable. F. Roger Devlin wrote about this phenomenon at length in this article.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:12 AM
2

"Because of the nature of the crime, human trafficking is difficult to quantify. Estimates on the number of victims and offenders vary widely. It is important to remember that human trafficking has many hidden victims, and there is still much that is unknown about the crime. Sounds a lot like supposed underreporting of rape used to inflate rape statistics even further, where the "logic" is as follows: Rape is rampant even though few women report they've been raped. We know rape is rampant becaus…
/r/MensRights24/01/12 05:55 AM
1

TwoX isn't full of militant feminists, though. They're usually reasonable.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 05:47 AM
2

http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf This isn't evidence. This is using anecdotes and poorly attempting to link dubious statistics that have nothing to do with the subject to human trafficking. Doubly so, since you have the dishonesty of grouping of various things that aren't even rape under the umbrella of rape and then using that to try to conflate it with sex trafficking. It's the ultimate way to weasel in an appeal to emotion argument that no doubt if anyone were to …
/r/MensRights23/01/12 08:35 PM
1

You think the affected group is going to do something detrimental to them? I don't.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:27 PM
1

Potentially, aliens might abduct you. Just like supposedly all of those nasty men were showing up at the super bowl to participate in the sex trafficking thing, except they weren't. A real crass attempt at the aping the old domestic violence superbowl hoax decades earlier. Why is it that no one can find evidence of this epidemic of sex trafficking?
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:16 PM
2

Oh I wonder why it could be considered hysteria and mostly propaganda. I do wonder that. It might be that every time the promoters of this idea that sex trafficking is so widespread give authorities a place where this sex trafficking is supposed to take place (usually a sporting event because they double up on this by using existing prejudices against men) that the authorities, well, find nothing.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 02:34 PM
2

It is in fact very easy to dig all of this information up on google. Prisoners in private "for profit" prisons are forced to labor for less than 30 cents an hour and are thrown in solitary confinement if they refuse. Weapons manufacturers, electronics manufacturers, you name it. They're getting slave labor from these prisons. America has maybe ~5% of the world's total population but around a quarter of the world's total prison population. This has all been well known for about a decade. You can …
/r/MensRights23/01/12 07:11 AM
6

/r/bigotryshowcase Really it seems to have varied content but the low hanging fruit in SRS makes it easy the majority of submissions to be SRS content.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 06:13 AM
6

Isn't it amazing how all of these articles on the subject completely dance around the elephant in the room.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 06:12 AM
3

Oh it is but some people just don't really understand it at all and like to selectively quote or slam it when it's used for propaganda purposes that support or do not support their own politics. Evo psych, sociobiology or whatever you want to call it is the best existing work that uses actual scientific data to attempt to explain why we do what we do. The piece in question of course total junk though because it leaves out the female side of the equation: Female sexual selection. DNA analysis has…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 06:02 AM
4

Male sex drive is also at the root of all technological advances, scientific discovery and anything else which lets us at least pretend we're not still living in the metaphorical jungle. Yes, men have to compete for mates. This piece of feminist pop science prop of course leaves out the female sexual selection half of the picture. DNA analysis has proven that we're descended from twice as many women as men. Think on that.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:57 AM
4

Well that's what we want, yes--but then we hear bad rationalizations from self-declared feminists like the notion that giving men "financial abortions" somehow removes a woman's choice. How it does, they never say.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:47 AM
2

Of course the biggest thing he fails to mention is the growing slavery trade in privatized US prisons--pretty much all of these de-facto slaves are of course, men.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:45 AM
1

Well apparently a woman's right to her body trumps the male's right to not be an indentured servant if she so chooses.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 04:53 AM
5

Actually he has more downvotes than you which is pretty impressive considering what a bag of shit you are.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 04:38 AM
2

What exactly are the circumstances under which his mother met his father and the child were born, anyway. The guy sounds like a total shitbag with his spending habits on drugs and all but did he ever want to be a father to begin with?
/r/MensRights23/01/12 04:08 AM
4

It's a parody. It's a parody. It's a parody
/r/MensRights22/01/12 05:45 PM
2

You seem to read this subreddit enough. Idiot. Edit: User who deleted post was this worthless example of humanity's lowest- TheHumanTornado2
/r/MensRights22/01/12 01:42 AM
7

That you are considered a bitter extremist for standing up for your rights should tell you something very important about the mainstream media and whos interests it serves.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 05:34 AM
0

They're not obscure at all. In fact the user below me has demonstrated how our society is little different from that one.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 12:57 AM
3

Or that this is really a sort of battleground where there amount of feminist subscribers is easily the equal to the number of non-feminist subscribers and feminists are attempting to propagandize and downvote anything which doesn't uphold their orthodoxy of male denigration.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 08:45 PM
2

Clearly I hate women. Clearly. A master in debate you are, I see. Classic shaming attempt.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:47 PM
3

Pretty sure that Typhonblue is a woman and was telling you what those in other cultures have said they believe of our culture. Doesn't seem they have it right? How do you know you have the right about theirs. Is your media an infallible source of information on this subject? Or might you have fallen to some propaganda aimed at justifying the current war.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:43 PM
3

To be fair, getting married and having children is not nearly as risky as it once was. Besides, fewer and fewer women are choosing to get married or have children. (Fewer men are choosing this, too; playing breadwinner for an entire family doesn't suit everyone.) Right. But the fact is that the whole marriage and having children system was painted as oppressive when heterosexual women still want it today to the point where when men refuse due to the legal climate, we see floods of magazine artic…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:40 PM
3

Excellent emotional response and repartee. You've really shown me and everyone else how right you are.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:16 PM
3

What is this, Wikipedia? Citation needed. Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men by Dr. Roy F. Baumeister. Here is a condensed media release/speech from around the time of the book's release Now, why do you think this incontrovertible fact that the current human population is descended from twice as many women as men may be...? Citations needed. Plural and credible. You are the one who buys into a depiction of history that casts men as almost exclusively rapis…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:04 PM
4

They were also prominent for the overwhelming majority of women in recorded history. The expectation that women marry a man and have children was there, sure. It's still something they want to do today despite it no longer being an expectation, by the way, so I can't imagine it to be as horrible as, say, having to use unstable nitroglycerine to clear land to earn a living, hoping that you don't blow yourself up in the process. Women did the equally dangerous work of reproducing. Prior to modern …
/r/MensRights19/01/12 06:18 PM
4

You got the metaphor wrong with slave owner/slave, but very right with property owner/propety. How many people now and before valued their land or house to the point of being willing to die for it? How many people give the utmost respect and care to their car for instance, yet the car is still wholly there for their pleasure and benefit? I would wager not many would die for their land/house, or other property. Unless by this you mean people have died for these things, not necessarily the owners.…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:57 PM
9

What makes you think that at any time in recorded history that men's issues were being dealt with adequately? Many of the things that existed pre-feminism such as the expectation and enforcement of male servitude and disposability were prominent for the overwhelming majority of men in recorded history. How many women do you think did the dangerous work of clearing land and laying railroads for example? Essentially what we got in the last century was a movement that freed women from the burdens a…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:28 PM
2

Why? Where was I stating that this was so? Oh look, you're telling me what I think again. I suggest you read your own posts where you state this is "polarizing." I see that your posting history in other subs is the same kind of thing you're doing here though, so you probably won't admit it even when reading your own posts. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, as they say.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:03 PM
2

He has a fair point. The modern medical industry treats depression as if it's always some sort of result of a brain not functioning normally rather than the result of one's circumstances. I want to say this is a form of just world fallacy but never attribute to stupidity, etc. what you can attribute to greed with the pharmaceutical racket in prescribing pills like candy to anyone who claims to feel down in any way for any reason. I'm just not sure why socioeconomic class was brought to the foref…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:57 PM
2

TIL that trolling is daring to openly discuss feminist talking points with actual data rather than your posting history.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:35 PM
3

Considering you seem to be cherry-picking them, you can guess how much weight I'll give that statement. Cherry-picking by using the entire content of your non-committal concern trolling that dodges the issue at hand? Ok. If you say so. I'd have to see evidence to the contrary. Your entire posts consist of statements instead of suggestions/ questions (otherwise known as 'a discussion'). Up to you to show that I'm these things you say I am. You suspect because you haven't asked any questions, and …
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:22 PM
3

Your lackluster "arguments" lack substance. Try less hollow statements about how my opinions are "obviously" narrow and polarizing and show how and why they are, which I suspect you cannot as you bleat out weak rationalizations for upholding the status quo such as: Equality <> indentical - so insisting that men do not defer to women for rescue because of some percieved notion of equality in events like the above is, to me, extreme - both sexes are capable of doing anything the other can, but tha…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:53 PM
13

Good for her then, making the same kinds of choices men have to in order to earn the amount of money that creates the so-called "wage gap." She's walking the walk instead of endlessly wailing about how unfair it is that men who work more hours, work more dangerous jobs and work in more lucrative fields earn more than women who don't.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:46 PM
9

The differences being: Feminism was first out the gate and actually has substantial political clout, which it still uses to this very day to push anti-male propaganda and to, for example, deny men a default 50/50 child custody arrangement. Yes, the biggest feminist organization in America actually did this. LAST YEAR. Is there any parallel to this with the men's rights movement? No. Feminism claimed to be about equality and claimed to address men's issues as well, but never actually did. Early p…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:39 PM
2

Go on, tell me what I think some more. It's all in the other posts you've made here where you attack that he dare talk about this at all by very disingenuous means of accusing the video author of hijacking a tragedy for an agenda while completely dodging addressing a single thing he's said.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:32 PM
11

I always hear this strange idea about how old society was supposedly "male dominated" and "structured to benefit men" yet in all recorded old civilizations and societies, women have always been a protected class that men were expected to labor and die for. This of course is at odds with the feminist dogma of patriarchy theory and the claims that women were property or slaves. In what world can you imagine that the slave owner would value the life of the slave so much more than his own that he wo…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:25 PM
2

You could say that if the men's rights movement were the first out the gate and not largely in response to the tyranny in the system caused by sociopaths and those who stand to gain from an increased labor force who pushed through legislation and decades of propaganda without caring what it does to the other half of the population.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:21 PM
2

Because you are being intellectually dishonest, let's make it abundantly clear what is going on here: Men are being attacked for doing something which the only really unbiased and fair news article on this event had also said that the women were doing as well: Trying to make sure they survive, and even pushing past others to attempt to be off the ship as fast as possible make sure that they will. This time however, unlike on Titanic nearly 100 years ago, the men weren't forced at gunpoint into a…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:16 PM
3

Apparently you missed the various articles from traditionalists, feminists and white knights on this event that actually expect men to conform to archaic expectations that make value judgments about the value of human lives, that being that women are somehow inherently more valuable and worthy of surviving a shipwreck and that we should just accept this and die if we happen to be in such a situation and born the wrong sex. By the way, one of those articles is in fact linked from the youtube vide…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:04 PM
16

Sounds like your professor is a fan of The Amazing Atheist
/r/MensRights19/01/12 08:28 AM
6

Saw this earlier but I always listen barbarossaaaa's videos until the very end. I can't recommend subscribing to his youtube channel enough.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:02 AM
4

I'm not sure what makes you buy into the idea that any historically recorded society has ever been "patriarchal" rather than the natural result of trying to survive in a world where the natural order of things made just surviving a daunting undertaking. It is only fairly recently that we have the technology to by and large eliminate most of the burdens of survival and can navel gaze like this as a result of all of the extra time and effort we save, and danger we are spared. Modern technology, me…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:49 AM
0

Of course there's also this... Since a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, it is not right that a man should sacrifice himself for her. Which shows that there are traditionalists posing as MRAs because it is convenient for them to do so (i.e. enemy of my enemy is my friend). This commenter seems to be of the mind that were the old order still intact, he would still willingly offer his life up at the altar of biological determinism. Not me. Like women who have tasted the freedom to ear…
/r/MensRights18/01/12 07:58 AM
1

I don't see why rape wouldn't have been considered something bad back then, if you're going to go on purely evolutionary/instinctive reasoning that would likely have been a more prominent driving force in social interactions in more primitive times.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 07:19 AM
26

Things are a whole lot different when you get paid lots and lots of other people's money to make a stink about things, like well-funded feminist organizations are.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 01:02 AM
3

It's another damning piece of evidence for why you should never get married under the current system of all responsibility, no benefits.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 10:54 PM
6

Well when you can't refute the arguments of your opponents, lies and propaganda are all have to fall back on. Not surprising that a scumbag like Aerik would make such claims, failing to actually cite any evidence of those claims.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 10:47 PM
2

Men are still the initiators of the whole courtship/dating thing, yes. Women by and large refuse to step up to the plate there. If you are a man who is not stunningly physically attractive and do not make the first move then you are in for a very lonely existence.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 03:06 AM
8

Holding women to the same standards as men? Surely you jest.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 01:55 AM
3

Biology doesn't mandate child support.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 01:42 AM
5

Just because a man has sex with a woman doesn't mean he wants to commit to support her and any possible resulting child. You are making a non-argument based on the fact that men have no reproductive rights in our feminist legal system.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 01:09 AM
5

Why would that be ridiculous to assume a large percentage, possibly the majority of pregnancies are at least unplanned and likely unwanted by the man. Surely you've heard of "shotgun weddings" and men marrying women that claim it is their child because they've been indoctrinated to believe "it's the right thing to do."
/r/MensRights15/01/12 11:46 PM
4

If your country was being directly attacked by an enemy invader, and you didn't enlist while you didn't have any children or invalids to care for on the grounds "you're only responsible for yourself", I would call you a fucking coward. I think not. Not in today's environment where men are second-class citizens. I refuse to serve a country where my status due to being born a man is as it is. I owe such a country nothing. That is the bottom line.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 03:02 AM
5

Watch out. We've got a badass here.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:59 AM
4

Another simp trying to tell us what a "real man" is on a throwaway account, I see.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:48 AM
3

If Jr. High kids know this is all ridiculous why can't our lawmakers see it? The blood money needs to keep pouring in, of course.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 04:43 AM
3

Ah, the Duluth or "primary aggressor" model. Codified bigotry.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 01:48 AM
3

Here is an example: When feminist say they want equal pay to men in today's world after their wage gap myth has been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who looks into it knows why it's a lie, what they mean is that they want to be paid the same as men for less work. That is the essence of what they want. The status and goodies that the men at the top through hard work and some luck earn, but without earning it themselves through the same hard work. They want special treatment for being female AN…
/r/MensRights10/01/12 06:11 PM
11

As opposed to the complete lack of content produced by you and yours, who spend hours and hours of your lives making incredibly bad posts in this sub.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 03:57 AM
7

The typical feminist idiot who is apparently oblivious to their own hypocrisy and sheer projection uses "white male" as an epithet.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 03:42 AM
1

What Donkey_Schlong is describing is called a default judgment. It very much happens.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 12:21 AM
6

The law literally says this: It is irresponsible to trust a woman.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 12:19 AM
6

The cognitive dissonance you get from feminists is amazing.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:19 PM
6

The most offensive thing is really that news media puts slant on an allegation before a single scrap of evidence has been admitted at trial to make the man look guilty, and then when these high profile rape accusations turn out to be false accusations the news media invariably tries to silently drop the issue like a rock not making sure to clarify that the man or men they've been portraying as rapists are in fact innocent.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 05:57 PM
6

Maybe you should look at more than the window-dressing of modern feminism. Look at what feminists with political clout are actually doing. Opposing things like presumed shared parenting. Cooking up bogus studies and fake statistics, running bigoted campaigns that target all men for the actions of a tiny fraction of a percentage.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 05:29 AM
3

GMP was a feminist shill site from day one. I wonder if Tom Matlack, after recent events, has finally realized what the feminist establishment views as a "good man" (a disposable utility) and whether he'll grow a spine or crawl back and try to ingratiate himself to the establishment.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 10:34 PM
11

Bingo. It's another prime example of "rules for thee but not for me!" / "do as I say not as I do," / "oh, it's different when women do it."
/r/MensRights03/01/12 09:19 AM
1

If you made women work as many hours as men on average and in as many dangerous jobs then yes this would not only have some effect on average life expectancy, but would likely reveal a female pay premium to boot. It still wouldn't equalize life expectancy as men are still far more likely to be the victims of most all types of violence, and of course that men's healthcare is simply not as funded or really available at all as healthcare is to women, among other factors...
/r/MensRights03/01/12 09:14 AM
1

As obnoxious as their link spams are, those guys make entertaining videos which are getting a lot of views and are at the very least exposing feminist hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 09:39 AM
3

In Sept. 2002, for instance, California Governor Gray Davis vetoed the Paternity Justice Act under pressure from the National Organization for Women Feminists are for equality, guys. Honest.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 09:05 AM
3

Does anyone else find it curious how the accuser's past conduct cannot be dredged up but as we have seen in for example the DSK case, his history of womanizing which is tangentially related at best was harped on as if it were some sort of proof that he did it.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 08:51 AM
-1

You can't even justify your downvotes for this. I hold women to the same standard men are held, rather than the woman-as-child standard you hold.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:54 AM
7

He then goes on to prove TJ's opening statement correct, that he, a male feminist, believes that the solution is more feminism and that we can infact somehow magically fix men's rights issues by focusing on only women's issues. The whole video is self-contradictory. He still also believes in the wage gap myth in 2011. Unbelievable.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:45 AM
5

Well I don't see a problem with her being able to get rid of a child she never wanted. That's reproductive rights. At the same time though, we shouldn't force men to pay for children they never wanted, either.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:03 AM
0

See: The Fraud of Feminism, by Ernest Belfort Bax in 1913 (!)
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:00 AM
-1

The core beliefs of both are the same articles of faith including rubbish like "patriarchy" that can be-nothing but anti-male. So-called "radical" feminism is simply feminism taken to its logical conclusion.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 12:58 AM
0

She is 19 years old--not 5. If she paid any attention at all in school she knows where babies come from and she knows it's wrong to do what she was trying to do. You are a classic white knight trying to downplay the seriousness of both the situation and her actions, which are to be honest despicable.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 11:28 PM
1

Not to mention as shitty as it is to be accused of sexual assault here, there are some countries where women are killed for being raped or committing adultery. A very first world, through-the-lens-of-mainstream-feminist-media understanding of third world countries, I see. Here, they are transformed into a magical place where nothing bad ever happens to the common man. By the way, your false accusation could have just as easily ended up like this: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/05/more…
/r/MensRights29/12/11 10:45 PM
5

Because it's an article of faith to him. He can't quantify it. It is just-so make-believe like a religion, only it is provably wrong if you look at the statistics of who is homeless more, who is murdered more, who works the worst and most dangerous jobs, etc.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 07:17 PM
-5

There aren't parts of the world where I can be tied to a fence, beaten and left to die for being a man, Actually these places are called America, Canada, Sweden, the UK, among others... and all it takes is an allegation against you with no evidence to support it.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 05:18 PM
22

You have an 8 day old account that has negative karma and makes bad posts exclusively in this sub. If this sub is a joke, you are the laughingstock of it. This is how you spend your time.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 04:48 PM
1

It's Americans exporting their culture where mutilating male genitals is normalized.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 04:40 PM
1

Blind trust is for fools. Trust, but verify.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 04:00 PM
3

There's still stigma to being gay over there, it's just expressed differently. They find it to be humorous.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 01:18 AM
3

Always paternity test. Always.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 01:14 AM
1

http://www.youtube.com/user/barbarossaaaa Listen to ths guy's videos.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 09:38 PM
14

Vapid airhead who made a public stink about a guy's normal courtship behavior because she found him unattractive.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:11 PM
13

"Patriarchy" is nebulous catch-all buzzword and feminism's bogeyman, yes.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 04:25 AM
3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7MLg3bi-KY
/r/MensRights28/12/11 04:21 AM
2

You have to remember that just a few years ago there was very little action taking place at all. The movement has been growing and growing. I'm sure next year there will be even more. And all of this is without being a well-funded government beneficiary.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 05:39 AM
0

The "walk on eggshells in a society that hates you" approach, I see.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 05:23 AM
3

Is what I'm doing being a part of MGTOW? Yes. That is exactly what you're doing. MGTOW is basically coping with a broken system.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 05:14 AM
6

The idea that men are not affected by or not affected much by their physical appearance is purely an article of reality denying propaganda. Women are no less visually discriminating than men are, and are probably more so--Women rate a stunning 80% of men as below average.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 05:07 AM
3

You weren't wrong in observing a lot of what you did. You may be interested in this guy's videos.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:18 AM
0

What he means is that reddit is by and large an Internet cesspool of shallow me-too regurgitated attempts at humor.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:03 AM
3

Except you can't quantify that, so it isn't.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 12:02 AM
2

Of course, the male is criminalized but not the female. This is consistent with prostitution laws in many countries where the buyer is criminalized but not the seller. The arbitrary way in which statutory rape laws are enforced shows this as well. Clinical sperm donation is already a male-targeted eugenics project. I was wondering how they could make it even worse.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 01:46 AM
5

redditor for 3 hours Log on your real account and go home
/r/MensRights19/12/11 12:37 AM
0

The majority of men and women are essentially equal when you remove the physical differences and social programming The last 4-5 decades of our society's social engineering to give women the upper hand have proven this to be not so true I would think. Women have been given more opportunity than men but have still failed to produce the same kinds of results men do even though men are clearly being disadvantaged by the very system. However, as technology makes those genetic differences more and mo…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 07:54 PM
0

This makes no sense whatsoever. Your argument has now become "straight men find women attractive" as if this were a shocking revelation and somehow makes things geared towards men.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 07:36 PM
1

No, no, no. I'm not saying we can remove the physical differences, but that we can compensate for them. My next sentence reads: Compensate for them how. You cannot "compensate" for them without turning it into a zero-sum game where equality of outcome, not opportunity is enforced in order to give better outcomes to one group at the expense of the other. Equality under law and of opportunity (and equality of opportunity does not create equality of outcome) is as far as you can go without creating…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 07:22 PM
5

I'm reminded of a certain Iraqi Information Minister.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 07:14 PM
2

Because, as I've been saying, they are highly sexualized. Not attractive. Humungous breasts, skimpy armor, completely unrealistic clothing in regard to activity, etc. They are made to appeal to men. Yes, except they aren't in that genre aside from the weird "chainmail bikini" thing in the earliest of them, Everquest? You seem to think that ultra-ripped idealized male characters whos clothes or armor looks painted-on aren't the exact same thing, except to appeal to women and gay men. No one "rela…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 07:13 PM
2

but that doesn't change the fact that regardless of who is giving input on character creation, female characters are largely geared toward male players. How so. If you're going to say "because male players find them attractive" you can say the same of the male character models and straight women/gay men. It's called fantasy, and is often idealized.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:59 PM
0

If by "offputting to women" what you really mean is "offputting to insecure fat acceptance feminists" then sure. Otherwise it may be a good idea to actually look into the subject yourself. In the earlier days where hardware wasn't as powerful universal body types had to be used so the games would run at acceptable framerates on the hardware of the day, many of the female character models were actually designed by or with input from women. Games like Everquest or the still-popular World of Warcra…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:45 PM
1

Great. Now why don't you look into the genres to find that women are largely into massively multiplayer online games, where your "complaint" about available female characters to play as is moot.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:18 PM
1

Ah yes, because calling male demographics "dumbed down" is the essence of fine debate. /r/feminisms awaits your return.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:01 PM
1

I see. I'm dealing with a complete idiot who doesn't understand that no one is going to create an excess of products for a demographic that isn't large enough to generate a profit.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:57 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/nhb54/kotaku_article_about_male_privilege_and_gaming/c394fg8
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:52 PM
1

You certainly weren't, because the girls I know who were there sure as hell didn't try to inject feminist identity politics into it.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:50 PM
0

It's almost as if you're unable to understand marketing demographics. When I turn on the television, or receive junk-mail flyers, why are the vast majority of them trying to sell to women? Could it be that's because women do most of the discretionary spending.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:49 PM
1

Yes I agree, guys who look like the steroid-abusing bodybuilding competition freaks are entirely normal looking. You've nailed it. Since we're speaking in generalities here to appeal to the feminist brand of identity politics, that's about all that can be said on the subject. If you'd scratch deeper than the surface (you won't, because you were never part of this subculture) you can find plenty of examples of normal-looking, relatable characters of both sexes, but of course you won't. Group-thin…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:43 PM
1

Ah but you did. In your original post. You imply that because video games have been and are still largely male interests that there must be something wrong with the subculture and that it somehow "needs" to change for women. By the way, where did you get this idea that it's "white males", o' thinly-veiled racist? It isn't. It never was. It was primarily males in North America, Asia, and Europe. More recently, South America, too. Here's a hint: North America, Asia, and Europe are where video game…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:40 PM
5

It's almost as if you think the male characters in comics and video games aren't also portrayed as very unrealistic in a way that appeals to straight women and gay men. Get this: These things are typically referred to as "fantasy" for some valid reasons. This is one of them.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:18 PM
2

It's kind of cool how you use white male as some sort of slur and also see nothing wrong with demanding everyone else change everything to accommodate you.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:16 PM
6

Other than that your initial assessment was bullshit and you completely flipped the script in an attempt to backpedal, I guess nothing.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:25 AM
8

The public consciousness in the west on Islamic cultures has been subject to indoctrination by news media and feminist groups such that they believe only women are affected by these problems.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:37 AM
7

Or maybe we'd like to point out both the sophistry and hypocrisy of the harebrained feminist "sexual objectification" dogma using this as a prime example. Just saying.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:29 AM
4

I see; because it wasn't written by a "bitter man" it suddenly becomes "humorous". What a tangled web you weave. Or maybe what's really going on is that it's written by a little boy expressing his experiences.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 05:25 AM
3

No, you stepped onto reddit where most posts in every sub are horrible and devoid of meaningful content.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 03:57 AM
5

Short of fleeing the country, the only thing you can do is take her at her words and hope she doesn't actually try to nail you for child support. And if she does, make sure you get a paternity test as a sort of last ditch thing. If it comes to that and the paternity test confirms you're the father, then basically in the eyes of the system in Canada you're nothing but a walking wallet.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 09:45 PM
22

Fun fact: beatingwomen was created by a feminist troll who went by "Cliffor" among other names.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:57 AM
2

You are a prize idiot.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 06:46 AM
6

The comments are disgusting.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 04:37 AM
2

How exactly was my post "misogynistic". By your "logic": I think articles about how men want women to put their finger in the man's but w/out consent would be better evidence for your paper. This post quoted is misandry. Try to at least be internally consistent. Or just go make more bad posts in SRS?
/r/MensRights12/12/11 04:36 AM
1

Cool then I guess women's rape fantasies are the parallel to this shitty post you just made. See how that works? Idiot.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 11:41 PM
4

People see this story, assume that there's going to be unfair sentencing, and think "damn feminism again". Wherever do you think they could have gotten this idea? Could it be situations like the Mary Winkler case. Could it be the multiple studies on sentencing disparities conducted which all show vastly lesser sentencing received by women, especially in cases of murdering their spouse. Let me know what you think about this.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 03:05 AM
4

Nope. Which is why the thinking man has realized that "dating" has been outmoded by "hooking up" in the current cultural zeitgeist.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 06:26 PM
14

The concept of "real man" is simply a bald-faced manipulative rhetorical device to get men to do what you want them to do.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 05:39 PM
2

It is absolutely ok to list her there. It's a showcase example of feminist hypocrisy and corruption. If it were just some random woman hitting a man caught on film, then I'd say no. That would dilute the purple of it. But here you have someone who actually affects policy changes caught out. Someone who is a prominent member of the largest feminist organization in the US. The more people like Daddy Justice who film and document this kind of thing, the better.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 11:43 PM
2

It forces it in the financial at the very least. In every first world country I know of, you are on the hook.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 03:24 PM
1

In this legal climate? No.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 03:03 PM
7

Obviously because it would invalidate the clearly bogus rape culture propaganda and if an incredibly stretched feminist definition of rape is used would make the majority of the population "rapists" on the condition of recreational drugs or alcohol alone.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 02:55 PM
2

This isn't unique to large cities. "Dating" has simply become an outmoded concept and practice.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 10:35 PM
6

The pornography industry does indeed exploit male workers by paying them far less, but that's not the topic of the article written by the feminist who wrote a creepy book about young boys.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 08:41 AM
7

Slogans are cute and all but actions speak louder than empty slogans, and feminist actions have shown that they are in fact very much against men.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 06:01 PM
1

Not complaining. You're just not very effective at getting someone to agree/listen to you. If I were actually a feminist I wouldn't have finished reading your second post. Isn't the point of the MRM to convince people that your ideas are valid? You did a very poor job of not coming off as an asshole. Here is the thing. Guys like Factory and Paul Elam have driven the issues to the forefront where they are actually being heard and seen. Look at the circumcision thing going on this year. MRAs did t…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 11:48 PM
1

Well it's proof that, far from it being the norm for women to actually want to equally share responsibilities, the reality is that women want to "marry up" even more today than they did in the 1940s. That for women, things are still very much like "the olden days" as you said. The tradition arose because of a combination of religion and because men were the ones who took on the primary costs of marriage. This is still very much the case, as you can see. If you want to shock yourself even further…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 09:05 PM
2

That documentary was called Könskriget or "The Gender War" -- it's subtitled on youtube here.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 03:11 PM
1

Are they really...? The idea that women dislike being financially dependent on men is a myth, with more choosing to “marry up” now than did so in the 1940s, according to Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 02:45 PM
2

OWS already had plenty against it to begin with, what with its "progressive stack" nonsense.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 04:19 AM
1

Just now? They were rebels without a clue since day 1.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 04:15 AM
5

Why do men who you've spent decades hating not even want to fuck you anymore when your youth and beauty fades, leaving you with few if any redeeming qualities given your shining personality? A great mystery indeed.
/r/MensRights18/11/11 03:30 AM
1

here: "Normal body language" varies widely after a racial slur has been uttered, so yes, it's very likely that that would be interpreted as an act of aggression. The only way you could even attempt to spin this is if the person uttering the racial slur were the one doing it. They weren't.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 10:09 PM
7

Touching someone on the shoulder as part of normal body language during a conversation is assault? Only in the world of the most extreme ambulance chasing lawyers.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 07:20 PM
4

Don't make assertions based on experience and then bitch and moan when I demonstrate I have vastly more experience in the area than you do. You have demonstrated no such thing. Please reread this part and tell me what it means. It's the same kind of banal finger-pointing concern trolling this subreddit gets everyday. Hey, look! Woman hating! Misogyny! This is how you spend your time-- as another of the unremarkable clowns who does this kind of thing. There are pages and pages of this in your pos…
/r/MensRights17/11/11 07:09 PM
3

I've been a lawyer for about 15 years. Please tell me about your experience with the legal system and human nature. Let me guess; you are some college-aged kid? How many logical fallacies can you one cram into a single post, I wonder? This is a contender. I'm claiming misogyny? Where did I ever claim misogyny? You count your chickens before they hatch frequently, don't you. No wonder a lot of people mistake MRAs for woman haters. Maybe read what you type before you hit submit.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 07:01 PM
-1

Do you know what happened prior to filing the lawsuit? You must because you're characterizing anyone who makes educated guesses based on what has transpired so far as a "woman hater." Women don't lie about this kind of stuff, after all. /r/feminisms is thattaway.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:59 PM
4

Based on a deeper understanding of the legal system and human nature than you have, I'd wager. But you're not here to make any kind of serious posts. You're just here to point a finger and say look! look! misogyny!
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:54 PM
2

Yes, because this is what rational people who aren't lying do. They call off their lawsuit where they name famous, rich men boys (oops, he's a boy-- statutory rape) as the father of their child when those famous, rich boys demand a DNA test to prove that it is not their child.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:52 PM
2

And unlike the (clever in your mind I'm sure) trolling you constantly do in this subreddit, my guesses are what you'd call educated.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:49 PM
5

Bieber and his representatives were the ones who insisted on a DNA test. Not her. It's like you're being an incredulous troll on purpose here, as if you don't know that a man can and will be held liable for child support if he refuses a DNA test.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:40 PM
5

Ah yes, the original poster must be a woman hater because they characterize a woman as a dirtbag when she names an underaged boy as the father of her child in an effort to siphon money off of him and then decides to drop her lawsuit once she has her bluff called and likely receives a crash course in a little thing called DNA.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:39 PM
6

Nearly 5 decades of unchallenged societal feminist indoctrination.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 02:47 PM
2

By the way that was real and she never got any prison time for it despite the on-air radio confession.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 11:49 AM
3

This is some serious totalitarian governance.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 01:00 AM
0

I mean that women are not told to "keep their legs shut" and haven't been for decades. That's the whole point here: Men have no reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 06:07 PM
2

What else do you want me to say? Yes, it is unfair. So is life. Was your farther not around to teach you that? (Neither was mine, but whatever. Live and learn.) Non-argument. All I can say is you know where babies come from. Figure out what level of risk you are willing to take when having sex. I mentioned somewhere on here before: I insist on picking any two from this list: condoms, spermicide, withdrawal (as I am not on hormonal birth control). So far no guy has put on his pants and left. Wome…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:51 PM
11

Ah yes, everything is a man's fault.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:35 PM
4

All of those choices are easier than being forced under pain of prison to labor to support a child you never wanted simply because a woman chose to have it and is so entitled under our current system to make a man her indentured servant.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:31 PM
3

The point is this: In your example of your stepfather, all his son's mother had to do was go to the courts and he'd have been on the hook. He would have had to pay child support. Men do not get that legal option to give up their parental rights when they don't want a child. It is entirely at the discretion of the woman. Yes, he is held responsible for her choices. You will never, never, never find a situation where a woman is held to be responsible for a child she never wanted, because she has o…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 03:59 PM
2

When is the last time you heard a feminist clamor for equality with anything but CEOs and the like? You will never see feminists talking about how the vast majority of garbage collectors, sewage treatment workers and other such jobs are men. You will never see feminists address the fact that the vast majority of homeless are men. You will never see feminists talk about the inequality of social services available to the sexes. And when bringing these up you'll get some stock non-sequitur response…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 03:52 PM
3

Yes, you've nailed it. This is a circlejerk because we refuse to let you derail into some weird tangent about birth control when we're talking about men's total lack of legal reproductive rights. I adore the appeal to force at the end of this post you just made, by the way. Keep it classy.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 03:46 PM
5

The legal reality is that it doesn't apply to women. That's the point. Idiot.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 03:21 PM
2

We can wax empty platitudes about "trust" all day. You still aren't addressing the fact that women can opt out of these situations and men cannot. That men have zero reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 11:21 AM
3

Here is the essence of your drivel: Legislative rules binding men to certain conduct are fine, but not any binding women.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 11:11 AM
3

So being provided for by men who, say, died of blacklung from mining coal or working on raidroad construction made women "indentured servants"? What a warped perception of reality you have.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 08:34 AM
1

Throughout the last 2000 years, men have dominated women. Women weren't allowed to vote in this country until less than 100 years ago. Men weren't allowed to vote until a bit earlier than that and only got that right because they were forced into the role of cannon fodder. Women had no such responsibility to state and country as a precondition to their vote. Before that, it was only wealthy land-owners who got any say in government. If you know anything about history, you will see that society h…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 08:30 AM
8

Biology also doesn't force you to pony up child support. You are making the argument that it is irresponsible to trust women at all. Is that really something you want to say?
/r/MensRights16/11/11 08:18 AM
3

... or you know, killed.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 05:55 AM
3

No, I don't know anyone who has. If the following isn't true of you... Extremely physically attractive Taller than the world and national average for men Good academic credentials High count/active sperm Family history of really good health (I'm probably missing some) You will be turned away. This is all assuming that you have all of this but are still strapped enough for cash to need to jerk off into a cup to make some extra money. It's basically a eugenics program.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 05:00 PM
2

What do I mean by stretch the definition of rape? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geQyrBGS_60 (it's a video on the crazy feminist "you are a rape supporter" blog post) What do I think rape is? Generally, the legal definition. Not "Oops, I'm going to get caught cheating by my husband/boyfriend, better cry rape!" or "we were both drunk, that means he raped me!" or any other non-rape situations you can think of.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:05 AM
2

The dictionary definition of feminism and feminism in practice are two very different things. You think this man-hate garbage is the minority? I have news for you. It's textbook women's studies. These internet crazies who try to stretch the definition of rape just take it to its logical conclusion.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 06:47 AM
4

It's kind of amusing how he can put to use some critical thinking here but refuses to do so when it comes to feminist ideology, which uses the same kind of wholly unscientific garbage to "support" itself.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 06:34 AM
3

The sophistry of "objectification" is hardly radical feminist drivel. It's as stock feminist ideology as it gets.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 03:21 AM
1

Notice how boys beat girls 97 to 1 in math on the SAT, this is a cold hard fact that can’t be disputed. Now on the other hand girls tend to better in English class, a very subjective field. In English you must write so it appeals to the grader. 85% of teachers are women and I would venture to say that the way girls write probably appeals more to the female teachers who are the ones grading papers. So boys win where the rules can’t be tampered with and girls win when they have a huge advantage. R…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 03:04 AM
3

The feminist fantasy world where men's names somehow aren't permanently smeared at the mere allegation minus any kind of actual evidence.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 02:44 AM
2

Unplanned pregnancies in this day and age of readily available and highly reliable birth control for women? A lot more than a mere 1% of them.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 01:39 AM
1

Women's commitment is never called into question when they decide to end marriages for selfish, frivolous or greedy reasons. The better question; Why marry at all, in any form?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 01:50 AM
1

Yes, it's from daily mail. But it's not exactly new material. There's been literally dozens of articles with the same theme.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 01:15 AM
2

Ask yourself: What exactly is the difference between "regular" feminists and the over-the-top ones? Usually that the over-the-top ones endorse things like the SCUM manifesto. They all have the same core beliefs, which cannot be anything but bigoted and anti-male. They all believe in the highly unscientific dogma of "patriarchy" and all of its implications.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 11:18 PM
3

Yes. Divorce puts the higher earner at the mercy of the lower earner. In heterosexual relationships, this is almost always the man. Why? The idea that women dislike being financially dependent on men is a myth, with more choosing to “marry up” now than did so in the 1940s, according to Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics. Hypergamy.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 10:01 PM
3

Legally it is, depending on the location. Of course, it's a law that you can see isn't applied equally, like many laws nowadays really. The mere weight of the admission of guilt would have had a man thrown in jail immediately. If you're a man, it's a crime. If you're a woman, not so much.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:16 PM
3

Logical fallacies 101.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:11 PM
3

The short of it: Look at the user's posting history.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:07 PM
1

A well-known psychologist in the Netherlands whose work has been published widely in professional journals falsified data and made up entire experiments. One study he authored, published in 2009, claimed that people judged job applicants as more competent if they had a male voice. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=massive-fraud-uncovered-in-work
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:37 PM
3

How exactly do you think it hasn't been co-opted from the very beginning by feminists. "Progressive stack"-- Remember that? It's been rooted in feminist ideology from the beginning.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 10:33 AM
12

I'm afraid the irony and hypocrisy of this is lost on the columnist (and indeed, many feminists) who most sincerely believe that it's only sexist when men do it. They must or they'd catch these things while reading their own material over before they publish.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 03:14 AM
2

That's old Tom Leykis and probably craigslist material from last decade.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 01:02 AM
2

Why wouldn't someone who's 17-18 or so still live with their parents? That's why it's a dumb appeal to emotion argument. By the way, isn't it convenient how these risks from the legal system almost entirely apply solely to men? Look at the slaps on the wrist that female teachers who actually KNOW how old boys are get. I can't count the number of such stories posted in this subreddit. They're often spared prison AND the scarlet letter of the sex offender registry-- because the law isn't applied e…
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:45 AM
11

It says exactly what I said it does. That men earn more money by working far more time, but women are the ones who end up spending most of it. Really, men need to stop putting up with it and stop trying to live life with the expectations that were placed upon their fathers and grandfathers. This society has this droning dogmatic mantra of "equality" that seems to be in reality seldom practiced, and men are the ones paying the price for these thinly-veiled pretty lies.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:19 AM
2

Parent's house. Teenage boy's bedroom. Give me a break. Appeal to emotion argument. Give me a break. See how dismissive I can be? Also, since when is one's presence anywhere on the Internet a credible proof of age? So what metric should people who find themselves entrapped by those who would deceive about their age use, hm? You seem to be the expert here. Should they use psychic hotlines, should they be really weird stalkers who attempt to learn everything about others before they commit to doin…
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:14 AM
9

"Globally, women control nearly US$12 trillion of the overall US$18.4 trillion in consumer discretionary spending. In the next five years, women will control US$15 trillion. By 2028, they will control nearly 75% of consumer discretionary spending worldwide." -The Boston Consulting Group, 2009
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:09 AM
6

Or he could just citing the well-known fact that women control the vast majority of spending, despite the statistical reality that men are the ones who work far more hours and in more dangerous jobs, earning more money. Men make the money through working themselves to death, but women are the ones spending it and being awarded it by the court system. Isn't that something. Men would be wise to learn that this is where hard work can get them. No good deed goes unpunished and all.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:55 PM
13

Are you seriously trying to sweep all of the feminist literature that says these things and feminist activism via offensive adverts that has created these stereotypes under the rug. Real question here.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:48 PM
9

The problem with these kind of cases is that the man was tricked into believing that the boy was of legal age, which he had no reason to believe otherwise as the service is explicitly for those of legal age. It's much like the Rob Lowe case where he also had no reason to believe the girl was a minor because she was let into an establishment where only those of legal age are supposed to be allowed entry. So no, this is not "the exact kind of situation that statutory rapes laws are designed to pun…
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:41 PM
3

Government doesn't care as long as some man--any man--pays. The faster more men wake up to this being the dismal state of their rights on not just this issue but many others, the better.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 04:49 PM
10

The point of the article as this woman highlights is: We are always debating a woman’s right to her own body and her own destiny, but what about a man’s right to his body, and to his future? Men's complete lack of reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 04:33 PM
25

How exactly does asking that someone respect your sexual autonomy make you a "homophobe"? Are you seriously trying to say that you think it's okay to deceive someone in this way. There seems to be quite a few things that certain people have this attitude where they think it's perfectly acceptable to impose their choices upon men with an "ignorance is bliss" model. This for example is one. Paternity is another good example-- The attitude there is if he doesn't know it's not even his kid, no biggi…
/r/MensRights05/11/11 04:17 PM
2

And yet women demand this special treatment.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 01:15 AM
7

Men are privileged in many areas in our society, and we cannot ignore that. As a whole we gain more from the prejudices of society than we lose, Examples where we gain some tangible benefits, please. I hear this all of the time but no one who espouses this piece of feminist dogma can really qualify it. Usually it is attempted with a poorly conceived argument that men are overrepresented at the very top while not taking into account the fact that we are also overrepresented at the very bottom of …
/r/MensRights02/11/11 11:14 PM
2

Those nutjobs are SRS.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 11:16 PM
0

And how exactly does the system prevent this from turning into another he-said-she-said (but her word is more credible by default) situation as we have with so many other accusations? I bet it doesn't.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 05:50 PM
1

Remember, it's only sexist when men do it.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 05:38 PM
4

Just like every other case where a woman does something like this to a man. She cut off his dick? Oh, I wonder what he did to deserve that.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 05:26 PM
1

I would say in western countries, it's more like logic last. Take the case of duped men in most jurisdictions. The man is treated as a non-person workhorse who is victimized again, this time by the court system which makes him continue laboring for someone else's deception and fraud.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:57 PM
6

And how exactly does one distinguish the "good" from the "bad"? This is transparent white knighting. Are you going to call up Miss Cleo's psychic hotline to ask for that assistance or do you have some other divining method in mind? The fact of the matter is that the legal system itself is your enemy in these matters. The legal system itself aids and abets this predatory behavior. That is not opinion, that is not subjective, that is the reality of the state of the western family court system. By …
/r/MensRights30/10/11 09:40 PM
14

Here is how it used to work before no-fault divorce: The one who caused the breakup would be the one left with the bad end of the deal. That meant if either party were to leave for no good reason (usually because they secretly want to be with someone else) then that party would lose out. The man who wanted the younger, hotter model? Enjoy paying the ex-wife. The woman who left her husband for the guy she's been seeing on the sly? Got nothing from the ex-husband. If these laws were to be reinstat…
/r/MensRights30/10/11 09:32 PM
10

Now try to imagine buying that house and then losing it in court to a woman who deceived you into believing some other men's child(ren) are yours (while you still have to pay child support for your non-children)-- or, since you're a woman let's go with the zany and unrealistic scenario that you were secretly implanted with other women's fertilized embryos and did not know it. Or that someone married simply married you in order to get half of your stuff, and the insane legal system allows it. Tha…
/r/MensRights30/10/11 09:27 PM
2

.... or it could be because women have been indoctrinated from birth in our society with decades of feminist propaganda to have those feelings.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 07:15 PM
1

You should disabuse yourself of those old fashioned ideals. That sort of arrangement no longer exists. Even when the woman doesn't work because she married a high earner she'll still almost universally opt to use his money to pay for those services instead of doing them herself.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 07:12 PM
39

It was in order to challenge that convention that the Supreme Court changed the law back in August. Yet their decision will leave many women with nothing to show for their years of marriage. The gynocentric framing in that article blows my mind as does the fact that these women think they are owed money for having married someone. It really goes to dispel the myth that it's about "love" when you see things like this: In some cases, men who already own a home have been told by their fiancées that…
/r/MensRights30/10/11 05:50 PM
16

Yes, Wikipedia is run by feminist ideologues. They cite Jezebel as a reliable source on men's rights as if there isn't a conflict of interest at play there or as if it isn't just a glorified blog, and then remove links to actual sites about men's rights like A Voice for Men.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 05:35 PM
12

Probably because they're being told the reality of how the law is being practiced and applied and coming to their own conclusions? Go figure.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 10:14 PM
5

Sex charges: Jennifer Lynn Whiting, 33, has pleaded guilty to having an affair with the boy and sending him sexually explicit photos in Arizona Again, look at the language. "Affair." A man caught doing the same is a "pedophile," "sexual predator," etc.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 04:51 PM
2

A terrible situation SHE created. She did that. All to herself. She decided to create a terrible lie for attention. This is what we call "just desserts."
/r/MensRights28/10/11 03:09 PM
3

... but enough talk. Have at you!
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:51 PM
0

Yeah, no biggie. She just made a false allegation for attention that could have landed a man profiled by police for his ethnicity in prison for a few decades. She wasted--doubtlessly--tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on the investigation to boot. Let's be "nice" about this. She's not a victim of anything. Stop trying to portray her as such.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:46 PM
2

"Parenting fraud, when a parent dupes their partner into thinking their child is or is not biologically theirs, may be on the rise." How politically correct. The guy talking about it on the radio segment was trying to use gender-neutral terms, too.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:23 PM
1

Then you cannot reasonably say that they are "patriarchal" unless you have been conditioned to throw around the term as a feminist would at any kind of arrangement where women are not the sole beneficiaries. This is more a sort of "animalistic" arrangement as observed with primates where the top males and the females who play along with them get it all and the rest of the males (vast majority) are left with very little to nothing.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:04 PM
1

Let's be honest here--has civilization itself benefited men, or has it merely benefited the human race as a whole by making their lives easier? Even in terms of passing genes on, DNA analysis has proven that civilization didn't benefit very many men even in that way as the current human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Men have by and large, even in civilization, been relegated to the bottom-of-the-barrel roles like ditch digger, garbage collector, sewage worker, etc.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:27 AM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zau0zofkGoo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7N073o46po
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:19 AM
11

A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered. (“He that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” as St. Paul put it.) The men who have accomplished the greatest things for our civilization have not, by and large, resembled the heroes of women’s romance fiction; indeed, they have been disproportionately celibate. Once a man realizes what triggers female at…
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:04 AM
1

Basically. Pretty sure Bernard Chapin made a video about this article around the time of its release which mirrors what I thought about it as well.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 11:50 PM
3

A fine exhibit of hypergamy and the financial objectification of men, to be sure.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 11:44 PM
2

Yeah, this is 2 years old. We're only "frightening" to fascists who can't stand open discussion of the issues as it shines a light on them like cockroaches who then scatter.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 11:31 PM
2

Yes, that is what he is saying. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women. It shouldn't be for men, either.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 11:22 PM
5

Teachers shouldn't be having sex with their students at all. It's unprofessional and an unethical abuse of their position of power over their students.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 02:28 PM
3

Paul mirrored the original article which sparked this whole thing. It's in pdf form on one of his other articles on it, because the author deleted the original piece.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 02:26 PM
1

The only truth contained in the (wrong) assumption that men are "always ready for" or "always want" sex is in the specifics of reproduction. It's a well-known fact proven by DNA analysis that only half as many men as women throughout human history have managed to pass on their genes. Strictly speaking in the frame of evolutionary biology, this is likely why men on average desire sex more than women. If our male ancestors didn't take as many chances as they got, their genetic lines may have come …
/r/MensRights24/10/11 11:26 PM
12

The video quite clearly shows him yelling for them to stay down, likely before he strikes them as they try to get up although obviously you can't see behind the counter. Where do you think he learned this? Yes, it's a measure used by prison guards. The guy was in prison for quite some time.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 08:57 PM
2

Things like this just go to show you that, as a man, no political platform that exists is your ally.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 07:12 PM
2

Clearly a neutral point of view at play there.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 08:00 AM
2

They were slapped on the wrist. Actually, so was he, but less so than them.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:12 AM
2

Then the India Supreme Court has now ruled that: The accuser is now transmogrified into victim. That men are guilty until proven innocent.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:06 PM
5

Consent to sex is consent to the risks associated with sex, a reproductive act. Only in your world of warped Orwellian feminist jurisprudence where men do not have equal rights. In a world with real equal protection under the law, this would never be the case and should not be the case. A man can choose to have sex or not. If he doesn't want this risks associated with sex, he doesn't have to have it. A woman can choose to have sex or not. If she doesn't want the risks associated with sex, she do…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:41 PM
2

I see you only believe in the mantra of "Equality" when it suits you. A man will never have the physical costs of getting pregnant, having an abortion, delivering a baby, etc. ... and? This still has nothing to do with after a child is born. Stick to the topic instead of patting women on the back for performing biological functions. When a man has sex with a woman, he is agreeing to the associated risks involved. This is a non-argument, the very same posited by anti-abortionists. Here's the thin…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:38 PM
3

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. If it is true for women, it should be true for men as well. Financial obligation for a child a man never wanted to have is forced labor and therefore a violation of his bodily autonomy, not to mention indentured servitude.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:10 PM
2

This is a non-sequitur. How exactly is this relevant to what happens after a child is delivered, based on the unilateral choice a woman has.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:08 PM
3

They don't have a rationale. Read all of this poster's other posts here to see they believe men should simultaneously have no rights while shouldering all responsibilities for others choices after a child has been born because of the non-sequitur that men can't get pregnant--something that has nothing at all to do with what happens after a child has been born.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:05 PM
1

tl;dr of your endless parroting here: Women have all of the choices, men have none but must shoulder all of the responsibilities. Why? Logic isn't your forte I suppose.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 02:58 PM
3

Ah, the same "should have kept it in your pants/not spread your legs" argument that worked so well for anti-abortionists.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 02:57 PM
1

Congenital idiocy strikes again, I see. A man being able to opt out has nothing to do with a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 02:55 PM
7

No, I think it's fair game for them to list people like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte and this woman and exactly what they say. It goes to expose the mainstream norms of feminist thinking.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:33 AM
1

The problem is that women's prison are like a country club compared to men's prisons. That's why she has no problem staying "locked up"-- look at the ridiculous privileges she enjoys while being locked up for hiring a hitman to kill someone.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 11:01 PM
2

This "nothing" you seem to be so obsessed by that you spend hours upon hours of your--charmed, I'm sure-- life posting really shitty posts against sure must terrify you because it's spreading more and more as time goes on.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 10:56 PM
1

It's also in a way like how feminists and the sexual grievance industry that profits from doing so fudges up rape statistics. It isn't conclusively false? Well we'll just throw this one into the "actual rape" pile.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 10:40 PM
2

Btw, what happened to statutory rape??? It's really become a selectively applied law (like most laws nowadays really) that is applied almost exclusively to men.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 08:41 AM
11

I'm sure it was you, if anyone.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 02:18 AM
3

Lazy police interrogations are used as a way to fast track a case to the "closed" status so that certain individuals can enjoy career benefits. This is nothing new. This is more police corruption than anything else.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 02:16 AM
6

It doesn't. The same could be said for many male criminals as well but they aren't given leniency for nor do they have excuses made for them for those reasons.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 12:59 AM
2

'False Alligators' and fuzzy data: a new look at crime analysis - Charles P. McDowell (1990) False Rape Allegations - Eugene Kanin (1994) You will not be able to find much anything else in the way of legitimate research into the veracity of rape claims due to how politicized the subject of rape is and the chokehold that feminist ideology has over academia. Those are about as good as it gets. The only other kinds of studies you'll be able to find are bogus advocacy research cooked up by feminists…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 06:40 PM
0

Something like that. Ask any outspoken veteran about how many women they ever saw assigned to stick their necks out. The answer you'll get is that they almost never left base.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 10:49 PM
6

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 03:03 PM
1

You'd need even scarier shades of red if you did the male version.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 02:50 PM
0

Wikipedia administrators are feminist ideologues.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 10:45 AM
7

By "vandalize" the pages about Marcotte and Valenti, you mean add things they actually said and did and are relevant?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 10:16 AM
5

Even if it were the "right man" it should still end with her losing her job for such unprofessional conduct.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 07:22 PM
7

It's already been co-opted by them. See the "progressive stack" measure. I think "progressive" is one of the most humorous misnomers I've ever seen. There's nothing really progressive about them.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 05:59 PM
1

I see Blackstone's formulation means nothing to you.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 04:57 PM
12

Is the irony of the rich Roseanne Barr who is in fact probably rich enough to qualify as the very ruling class these people purport to be protesting against lost on them?
/r/MensRights16/10/11 04:54 PM
2

Collectivist identity politics are just dandy.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 09:26 PM
1

He was charged him with a crime on similar circumstances of having no evidence. According to the article, he was also expelled from his school. Evidence you say? Radical concept indeed, with men and boys routinely subject to being charged with crimes on the allegation alone and facing all sorts of social issues due to public broadcasting of those baseless allegations.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 02:03 PM
1

Why is it that those kinds of things are all we see of the prominent feminist organizations, academics, journalists and so on. They do these things. They speak out in support of these things. The indoctrination camps known as "women's studies" courses are the most telling. i.e. THEY are the visible feminists. They are 100% of the public face of feminism. Not you.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 09:11 AM
2

Why are feminists so determined to reinforce gender roles? Isn't that counterproductive? They're fine with them-- when they're imposed on men.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 03:57 AM
20

A lot of these 30-somethings who're desperate for kids could have settled down a lot earlier with a good bloke and said "no, I want Mr Perfect". Some of them could have, yes. They do have a point, that few men want to. However they aren't looking at the reason why. There's a rising consciousness among men, especially young men about what a bad deal it all is due to the legal realities of it all. Of course articles like this just point the finger at men and try to blame and shame with fanciful ex…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:36 PM
9

Ah, the "ignorance is bliss" argument. How classy to downvote because you disagree, by the way.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:28 PM
8

Here's the problem: You can use this same non-argument for someone not wanting to have sex with persons who are overweight, or who aren't stunningly physically attractive, or any other kind of reason really.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:07 PM
2

The basis of claims of "Patriarchy" are built on a stack of pseudo-science pop psychology that amounts to what can only be described as claims of reading the minds of men. It is then used as an argument by feminists or as a catch-all against any kind of dissenting voice.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:47 AM
2

In the claims that men as a group (referring to all men as CEOs, millionaires and the like) do things because of whatever spur-of-the-moment mind-reading divination the feminist who invokes "patriarchy" says we do.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:36 AM
2

Not only is the half-baked idea wrong, it itself is a strawman.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:11 AM
1

"The Patriarchy" is a strawman because the idea says that men (make no mistake, feminism's sworn enemy by the very basis of childish feminist hypothesis) are universally privileged and given legs up in our society. And the facts don't bear that out. Women are the ones who can expect a better outcome on average in our society with all sorts of codified advantages.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 11:42 PM
-2

Sure, why not. If these women are eschewing their hypergamous instinct and are marrying unemployable so-called "man children" whom they fully financially support, anyway. That is where the tradition came from, you know. Men had far more responsibilities to wife and children than did women in those old days.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 12:50 PM
5

Why not? It's a house of cards built on flimsy observations gathered by looking only at the very top of society. It's driven by the same childish myopic brand of thinking that brought us the wage gap myth, later debunked due to people who are not feminist ideologues actually looking at the factors rather than looking at the average earnings and screaming "wage gap" at the top of their lungs as if it were a valid debate tactics. For example, women earn an average of around 80% of what men do but …
/r/MensRights11/10/11 10:08 AM
4

You are much less likely to be cat called or assaulted as you walk down the street compared to a woman. Assaulted? Think again. Men make up the lion's share of the victims of stranger violence. I suppose having some boorish lout yell at you is some grave injustice in comparison, though. Real serious issues here.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 09:53 AM
5

"Patriarchy" hypothesis is the ultimate strawman.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:55 AM
3

Well if it would be if laws were applied equally but we all know that the male is considered guilty as things stand.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 03:21 AM
8

One of the most serious men's rights issues. The more men know about paternity testing and go ahead and use it as soon as possible, the better.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 08:24 PM
3

Maybe you should buy a dictionary.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 08:21 PM
5

Well, traditional directing of young men may have been fine in previous generations where you could presumably expect a favorable outcome for following the straight and narrow of social norms like "Get a good job, get a house, get married" etc. Not now, though. We're now directed into what has become a coercive racket where the only winning move is to not play. Things like marriage are no longer tenable for men and I'd think most guys grow up seeing this play out on either a friend's father, an …
/r/MensRights10/10/11 05:26 PM
4

There seems to be a whole lot of articles trying to cajole young men into doing what other people want them to do lately. I wonder if anyone will listen to the young men, or whether these people writing these articles and those like them will continue to deny the problems until it becomes like Japan where the majority of young men simply do not care about society and become nihilists or hedonists.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 04:18 PM
18

How about draft no one.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 01:58 AM
1

It's simple. You don't turn it into a monetized special interest group with livelihoods depending on spinning the most outrageous bullshit out there in the interest of rent-seeking. When you tangle that up with academia and several vested financial interests you have what feminism currently is. And yes, that means that once what feminism currently is has been thoroughly exposed and scourged from the system and we no longer have the kind of absolute insanity that exists in the treatment of men an…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 06:31 PM
5

Again, how so. Maybe you should figure out the submission criteria (hint: it requires some actual proof) before you get indignant about objectively horrible people being listed on an Internet website.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 09:23 AM
6

How so.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 06:51 AM
7

The male list doesn't really look any better, but you'll see a "startling" thing that goes against political correctness and conventional wisdom: Women largely have sex for the pleasure, and because they are physically attracted to the person. Just like PC and conventional wisdom says about men. This is of course common knowledge to anyone of younger generations. It kind makes arguments about men "sexually objectifying" women ridiculous, as women do the exact same thing to men.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 06:50 AM
2

Yes, it is. She shot him because she suspected he was fucking around on her, which she admitted to, and then her legal defense concocted all sorts of bs to try to get her off of the charges.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 06:19 PM
1

The "battered" defense is a one way street and is part and parcel of feminist jurisprudence. It is often played with zero supporting evidence with which to confirm any of the claims made to get the woman reduce sentence, or no sentence at all for all sorts of crimes against men. Famous cases include ones like the Mary Winkler case, and the Bobbit case where not only was the man still alive but feminist scumbag lawyers turned the court into a circus and somehow managed to get Lorena Bobbit out of…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 05:07 PM
3

Astounding back of the bus mentality at play here.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:51 PM
2

-or- It's only an issue when it affects me. How hypocritical of feminists, as usual.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:39 PM
1

haha yeah i bet they also think spending 8 hours a day posting "islam is the light" and similar catchphrases is the height of comedy
/r/MensRights07/10/11 03:55 AM
10

This is even worse than the Mary Winkler case.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 12:54 AM
1

And how exactly do you propose way for the legal system to deal with this problem when the claims are often subjective? It's become like sexual harassment where we've developed "zero tolerance" policies that cater to female whim. Men are fired for normal courtship behavior based on whether or not the woman finds him attractive. All of this, in a culture in which the sex which approaches is set in stone. Quite the conundrum for drunk sex because on one hand you have some legitimately raped people…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 12:51 AM
1

Isn't it great how when the topic of alcohol and consent comes up that the only way that a feminist can even attempt to field an argument is to jump to the far extreme example of passed out as if it were the rule?
/r/MensRights06/10/11 08:55 PM
2

Actually it's even worse than this. The poster acknowledges that a two tiered system exists in which it's a crime when it happens to women, but not the other way around. They have no problem with this.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 08:53 PM
2

Can we just admit that there's a two-tiered system at play here. One for men, and one for women. When a man is caught doing this, it's a minimum of X years in prison depending on jurisdiction. When a woman is caught doing this, they rarely if ever see any prison time unless they violate court orders and do it again.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 03:08 PM
10

"I don't know who you are, Sir. But I can tell you what you are worth. If your partner was to cut off your penis tonight, the world would laugh." -- Angry Harry
/r/MensRights06/10/11 12:24 PM
2

No one who does that sort of thing should ever be let out of prison.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 12:01 PM
5

The funniest part about it is how you're called a "misogynist" for pointing it out and attempting to detect it with DNA testing. This is the biggest part of why feminists hate evolutionary biology and science in general.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 12:00 PM
2

Yes. That is by and large why paternity lies happen and why the courts rule as they do. Men are seen as non-person workhorses to be exploited.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:21 PM
5

More accurately cuts like this threaten to cut the jobs of dead weight like NOW itself.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 09:02 AM
3

Are you seriously this dense. Did you even read the blog's title image. http://clarissasblog.com/2011/08/07/rape-victims-and-child-support/ Here are some gems from the blog author: OK, everybody, while I’ve been momentarily away from a computer because I was traveling, this thread was hijacked by a stupid, worthless and ugly MRA called Eric. Please do not waste your time and energy on it. This creature only exists for us, nor,al people, to poke vicious fun at it. All of these pseudo-arguments ar…
/r/MensRights04/10/11 08:18 AM
3

Strawmen arguments based largely on anonymous blog comments plucked by David "Man Boobz" (is this self-license? He is rather portly) Futrelle? Whew.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 11:25 PM
2

My view? Who cares. The kind of woman who would do this usually has the ulterior motive of trying to sucker you into commitment. I will never commit with the laws as they stand, so this form of attempted manipulation doesn't bother me. If a woman doesn't want to be honest and open and work with me to get me to do what she likes, that's not my problem and my response there is: Got mine, fuck you.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 10:13 PM
6

The blog's author is a very typical feminist trying (and failing miserably) to subvert the men's rights movement. The comment sections seem to have some actual anti-feminists and MRAs in them.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 10:07 PM
5

We don't base laws off of subjective feelings.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 05:30 PM
5

His "teachers" are feminist ideologues who created these concepts from whole cloth.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 03:43 PM
4

Just like a 5'7", 150 pound man is probably not going to be pass the requirements to be firefighter, either. Which is a thing lost in the morass of political correctness surrounding feminist gripes about physically demanding jobs. They exclude a lot of men by definition, as well. These are jobs that are jobs that must be worked by those who can handle the work due to lives being at stake. If an unusually strong woman can pass the same standards that are present for male firefighters, then that's…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 12:09 PM
1

The only way you could make feminism not bigoted and hateful towards males is to strip it down and make it issues based. To get rid of the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual garbage "theories" that make up feminist academia and trickle over into everything else because it has been lent false legitimacy, when it's really just third rate demagoguery masquerading as a discipline. Probably the worst thing that can ever happen to a social movement is for it to be made into some monetized soft sci…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 08:32 PM
1

Goons for the most part are politically as mainstream conformist as it gets. It's not even ironic, except for the fact they find some of the terminology ironically funny like "heteronormative" and make catchphrases out of them.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 06:05 PM
3

That would be fair too if she were allowed to legally sign the child over to the man without any responsibilities. It would certainly get rid of the kind of abuses you occasionally hear about with, say, surrogates when they renege on their contract.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 03:30 PM
5

Hakim is definitely an anti-feminist but she's no ally to men. In this book she's rehashing things that are old hat to Men's Rights and Evolutionary Biology/Psychology/HBD circles, but she does so with a call for women to exploit and manipulate men to "even the economic playing field" rather than simply telling women to, say, work as many hours as men do if they're really serious about competing with men. If you haven't read Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man," you really should. A frightening …
/r/MensRights02/10/11 07:49 AM
5

It's almost as "kool" as being forgettable white noise on a couple bad Internet subforums. One was about politics but was non-ironically as conformist, totalitarian and authoritarian as it gets and was so bad that the admins closed it. Even kooler that you came to reddit and found out that even on reddit, you're still bottom of the barrel material even here. I'm talking to you, goon.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 06:26 AM
4

That funny? Here's what someone's not laughing at: Your banal posting history.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 06:14 AM
2

I see, there were 2 marked 45. I'll edit it in. Thanks.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 05:59 AM
3

The Feminine Sexual Counter-revolution and its Limitations by F. Roger Devlin
/r/MensRights02/10/11 05:48 AM
2

When I find a specific topic I want to write about, sure. I'm mostly focused on the issues. Paternity fraud is one I have major interest in due to the unjust way the courts handle it in most jurisdictions and other the man, treating him as nothing but a resource to be milked after he was victimized by a deceitful woman. Not many men's rights blogs cover this topic as much as they really should. This is one of the big ones. If rape were even a quarter as common as the empirical data suggests pate…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 05:06 AM
2

About two and a half hours. A lot of it was fishing up reference links to non-advocacy research which invalidates the more egregious feminist myths that are repeated ad nauseum despite being debunked over and over.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 04:50 AM
2

What he meant to say is that there was already empirical data proving this before.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 04:08 AM
1

Incredibly awful religious zealots like John Harvey Kellogg (yes, Kellogg as in the the cereal brand.)
/r/MensRights02/10/11 04:01 AM
4

This idea of privilege is not a legitimate argumentative point in the feminist lexicon. It is intended (and used) as a way to try to shut down dissenters and claim that any concerns men may have are non-issues or that men cannot have legitimate concerns because of [claims of historical oppression founded in revisionist history]/[claims of male privilege such as male majority CEOs and the like], etc. Edit: Case in point - http://jezebel.com/5844838/campus-mens-rights-group-kicks-screams
/r/MensRights02/10/11 03:46 AM
1

Do you care about landing this particular job? If no, say you are male and answer yes to the minority question. When questioned about why you answered yes, say that women outnumber men and therefore men are a minority.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 02:57 AM
7

It's a weasel term. Love can also be a weasel term, as described by one of my favorite authors I view as a sort of men's movement forefather, F. Roger Devlin. Much as I hate to spoil the effect of the touching melodrama the author conjures up for us here, I believe some comments and questions are in order. First, loss of virginity is not something that simply “happens to” a woman. Both author and interviewee speak as if the man “took” his student’s virginity like a pickpocket depriving an unwitt…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 02:49 AM
5

Yes, my thoughts are that those are not privilege (they don't even fit the definition of the term) but rather the necessity of the state of affairs in less technologically advanced times. What you describe are for the most part some of the sexual preferences of men and women. What you are up against is sexual preferences, and anyone trying to frame them in terms of an oppressive class is dishonest. The much decried "gender roles" that existed weren't there because some mythical patriarchy conspi…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 02:23 AM
7

It's more reactionary teeth gnashing and baseless smear attempts than any kind of legitimate backlash.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 01:50 AM
7

History also contains a study of many of famous or powerful women, including female rulers of empires. For example Queen Isabella I who ordered the Spanish Inquisition. One of many women who dash the feminist claim that there would be no war or evil if women ruled straight into the rocks. These people aren't in the history books because of their sex, they were in the history books because of their fame and power. History is not a study of men.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 01:46 AM
7

http://jezebel.com/5844838/campus-mens-rights-group-kicks-screams How about the writer of this article who's only response to the many valid points these students bring up is to act appalled that they dared bring them up in the first place? What about the vast majority of your fellow commentators there that post things such as--without being called out for it by, well, anyone. Your analysis is sorely lacking. There are women's studies classes because until they were instituted, all classes were …
/r/MensRights02/10/11 01:21 AM
3

The thing is this: Why bother even getting married, then? Why not just co-habitate, which in most parts of the world will save men the issue of taking on any onerous obligations.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 01:05 AM
10

A complete refutation of the so-called "Male Privilege checklist" that sometimes accompanies the dismissive one-liner "check your privilege." The list refuted is almost as intellectually lazy as the line itself. This is a new blog and I'm sure I'll post more at a later date.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 11:51 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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